Coercion or Consent? Returning to Consensus in International Law

Ex consensu advenit vinculum. A state's consent to an international treaty has long been seen as the key precondition for its obligation to uphold that treaty (pacta sunt servanda). However, this logical link is increasingly being called into question. The active role of numerous international institutions, reinforced by their effective communication and interconnected operations, seeks to imbue many international treaties with new meanings that are not always grounded in the direct or even implicit consent of states. Moreover, the principle of consensus, with its inherent pursuit of balance in international relations, is often displaced by legal forms of coercion imposed by some states on others. Traditional mechanisms of intergovernmental negotiation are frequently supplanted by blunt methods of pseudo-legal pressure, sometimes even extending to the criminalization of political opponents. How successful have efforts to undermine the consensual nature of international law been from a historical perspective? Can the current crisis in international relations be overcome by returning to a world order based on the consensus of sovereign states as the primary subjects of international law? And what impact would a return to consensus in international law have on the work of international institutions and the fate of regional and global projects?