Book Reviews Brus, Marcel M. T. A., Third Party Dispute Settlement in an Interdependent World: Developing an International Framework. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995; Pp vi, 255. Index. $ 100. In this ambitious study, Marcel Brus investigates the influence of the changing international environment on the perspectives of third party dispute settlement. In his view, the `interdependent world society' is in a state of transition, marked by internationalization, denationalization and `participatory pluriformity', with the result that the traditional state-centred international system is being substituted by the increasing participation of NGOs, individual actors and international organizations representing `community interests'. Accordingly, the international system needs a new balance between the individual interests of states and the interests of the international community as a whole. Brus seeks to understand this development by using systems approaches and theories of legitimacy. Drawing on a distinction that Dworkin has applied to the domestic legal order, Brus's main thesis is that the international legal community is developing from a `rulebook community' towards a `community of principle'. The former is characterized by the voluntarism of classical international law, the latter by `integrity', namely the coherent application of justice and fairness in accordance with other fundamental community principles. As for Dworkin, principles, along with participation and procedures, constitute for Brus the central element for the legitimacy of the legal order of a true community. He sees evidence for the emergence of substantive principles in international law in the development of the concepts of jus cogens and obligations erga omnes and the universal acceptance of fundamental principles without the consent of all states. But, as Brus must acknowledge, if one maintains - in line with the majority of international lawyers - the traditional voluntarist law-making procedures, there seems to be no satisfactory legal explanation for that development. Nevertheless he accepts the recognition of these principles as `fact'. In line with his claim of the increasing role of principles, Brus demands the development of appropriate procedures. His analysis of law-making, supervisory mechanisms and dispute settlement - which was supposed to be the main focus of the book - remains however largely conventional. Having described the dispute settlement procedures in the Law of the Sea Convention, the WTO and UNCED in a cursory fashion, Brus concludes that the use of binding third party dispute settlement in specific regimes has to be increased, but that the international community is not ready for a global dispute settlement regime of a binding nature. This raises doubts, however, about whether a transition of the international legal system towards that of an international community of principles is indeed taking place. If there is one international community, but a panoply of dispute settlement regimes, how is a coherent interpretation of broad and therefore contested principles possible? Brus's insights are impressive. But he has not fully succeeded in demonstrating the connection between his first project - the analysis of the dispute settlement provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention - and his second - a description of the influence that the transformation of the international community has had on international law. The relevance of systems approaches and the social sciences in general for the analysis of dispute settlement are not made evident. When Brus tries to live up to his own challenge, doubts remain: Where he considers, for instance, the international law theories of the 1960s as evidence for the development of an international `welfare community', one wonders whether he has not perceived the looming doubts on the viability of the welfare state - and even more so of its international counterparts - in the 1990s. Neither does Brus seem to have considered objections raised by the writings of `critical' scholars. If Professor David Kennedy's observation is correct, namely that the Law of the Sea Convention is essentially devoid of substantive content, what is the perspective for its dispute settlement regime which Brus endorses so whole-heartedly? If one considers the transformation of the international society to a community of broad principles rather than to one of concrete rules as progress, how does the lack of clarity of the `new' law influence the judicial task? These shortcomings, however, should not conceal the achievements of this innovative study. With this volume, Brus has made a considerable contribution to the efforts to come to terms with the increasing discrepancy between the widespread perceptions of a sea-change in the international system and the apparent conservatism of international law. Andreas L. Paulus Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
	© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster This site is part of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European Law at the European University Institute. This file was last modified: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:42PM