Third World Approaches to International Law

TWAIL was inspired by the decolonization movements that occurred after World War II[7] in Latin America, Africa and Asia.[8] Symbolically, the conference held in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955 [9] is seen as the birthplace of TWAIL, as it was the first attempt by African and Asian states to create a coalition to address the issues specific to the Third World. TWAIL came about to address the material and ethical concerns as well as hardships of the Third World.[10]

The study of TWAIL and its organization originated from a group of Harvard Law School graduate students in 1996.[11] Subsequent to a conference regarding post-colonialism, critical race theory and law and development studies held at Harvard Law School in December 1995, graduate students held a meeting to analyze the viability of creating third world approaches to international law. TWAIL scholars have subsequently held conferences at various universities:

• Harvard Law School, 1997
• Osgoode Hall Law School, 2001
• Albany Law School, 2007[12]
• University of British Columbia, 2008[13]
• Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2010[14]
• University of Oregon Law School, 2011[15]
• American University in Cairo, 2015[16]
• Faculty of Law, University of Colombo, 2017 [17]
• Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, 2018 [18]
• UCLA School of Law, 2019[19]

The Third World according to TWAIL-ers, is a group of states, which are politically, economically and culturally diverse, but are simultaneously united in their common history of colonialism.[27][28] TWAIL emphasizes that even after the end of the Cold War, the Third World is still a political reality.[29] Some TWAIL-ers believe this distinction to be even more alive today, due to the aggregation of diversification of states based on economic development.[30] They underline that the maintenance of the unity of the Third World is crucial in combating the continuing domination of the First World and that the term has no pejorative connotation.[31] The First World is considered to be the group of states engaged in imperial practices and which continue to dominate global politics and economics.

TWAIL reconsiders the history and development of international law and highlights the colonial legacy inherent in it.[32][33][34] TWAIL reevaluates the power relationships of the current world order to eradicate the racial hierarchy and oppression present in international law.[35][36][37] Although the goal is common, the methods employed to effect those changes vary. Hence, TWAIL is a diverse and ‘coalitionary movement’[38][39] - its scholars use different methodologies like Marxism, feminism and critical race theory. Therefore there is no elaborate common TWAIL doctrine,[40][41] but all TWAIL-ers are nevertheless united in their struggle for the greater involvement of Third World peoples in international law.

TWAIL-ers underline that international law was created during the colonial era and that it was used to legitimize the global processes of marginalization and domination of the colonized people by Western powers.[42] They refuse to accept the universal character of the international legal system, as it emerged solely from the European and Christian tradition.[43][44][45][46] In contrast, Third World countries were assimilated by force into the international legal system, which does not reflect their diverse heritage. TWAIL-ers reject the idea that after the end of the World War II international law has moved on from its imperialistic origins. Although the system appears to be legitimized by recognizing human rights and the right to self-determination, TWAIL-ers believe that international law is still a tool of oppression and that decolonization processes were merely illusory.[47][48] Amongst the modern forms of domination, TWAIL-ers include:

• the limitation of the Third World states’ sovereignty through transferring their autonomous powers to international institutions controlled by the First World,
• the arbitrary application of the humanitarian intervention and
• the internationalization of proprietary rights .

TWAIL-ers also emphasize the inability of Third World leaders to secure the interests of their people and their failed opposition to the First World hegemony, which further hinders the struggle for liberation of Third World peoples . However, TWAIL highlights that some concepts in international law simultaneously serve as both an instrument of oppression and emancipation – like the international human rights regime, which not only justifies the internationalization of property rights but also the protection peoples’ freedoms . Hence TWAIL-ers recognize that some elements of the system need to be preserved.

• R.P. Anand
• Upendra Baxi
• Mohammed Bedjaoui
• Keba M’baye
• Christopher Weeramantry

• Antony Anghie
• Balakrishnan Rajagopal
• Basil Ugochukwu
• Bhupinder Chimni
• Celestine Nyamu
• Usha Natarajan
• James Thuo Gathii
• Joel Ngugi
• Makau Wa Mutua
• Mohsen Al Attar
• Obiora Chinedu Okafor
• Sylvia Tamale
• Vasuki Nesiah
• E. Tendayi Achiume
• Khaled Al-Kassimi
• Jelena Aparac

• Guy Ankerl; Global Communication without Universal Civilization. V.I: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INUPRESS, Geneva, 2000, 501 p. ISBN 2-88155-004-5.
• A. Anghie; B.S. Chimni (2003) “Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflicts”, Chinese Journal of International Law 2(1): pp. 77–103.
• B.S. Chimni (2006) “Third World Approaches to international Law: Manifesto”, International Community Law Review 8: pp. 3–27.
• B.S. Chimni (ed.) (2011) Third World Approaches to International Law, 3:1 Trade, Law and Development.
• D.P. Fidler, (2003) “Revolt Against or From Within the West? TWAIL, the Developing World, and the Future Direction of International Law”, 2(1) Chinese Journal of International Law 29.
• H. Richardson III, (2003) “U.S. Hegemony, Race and Oil in Deciding United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on Iraq”, 17 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 27.
• J. Alvarez, (2003) “Hegemonic International Law Revisited”, 97 AM. J. INT’L L. 881 Hereinafter: Alvarez Hegemonic IL.
• J. Alvarez, (2010) “My Summer Vacation Part II: Revisiting TWAIL in Paris”.
• J. T. Gathii (2011) “TWAIL: A Brief History of its Origins, its Decentralized Network and a Tentative Bibliography”, Trade, Law and Development, 3 (1): pp. 26–48.
• K. Mickelson, (2008) “Taking Stock of TWAIL Histories”, 10 INT. COMMUNITY L. REV. 355.
• L. Eslava, and S. Pahuja, (2011). “Between Resistance and Reform: TWAIL and the Universality of International Law”, Trade, Law and Development 3(1).
• M. Mutua, (2000) “What is TWAIL?”, Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law: pp. 31–40.
• M.W. Janis, (1983) “Towards a New International Order by Mohammed Bedjaoui”, 6 B.C. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 355.
• O. Okafor, (2005). “Newness, Imperialism, and International Legal Reform in Our Time: A TWAIL Perspective”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 43(1 & 2).
• M. Fakhri, (2012). "Questioning TWAIL's Agenda", 14:1 Oregon Review of International Law 1.