Why TWAIL must not Fail: Origins & Applications of Third World Approaches to International Law
Why TWAIL must not Fail:
Origins & Applications of Third World Approaches to International Law
Obituary: This research paper is dedicated to the Late Prof. Ram Prakash Anand, a pioneer TWAIL-er. Although I have never met him personally, his books and papers have enlightened me on several subjects of International Law.
Abstract: In this paper I have, rather simplistically, started with history and basics of TWAIL. Then focused on the connection of TWAIL with the recent scenarios such as the Iraq invasion. Lastly, I have tried to rid many misconceptions associated with TWAIL such as the promotion of legal nihilism. I have also expressed my original views on future aims and objectives of TWAIL and attempted to solve some of the problems and contradictions in connection with TWAIL as well as fill some blanks in the approach, which have, to my knowledge, not been discussed in detail. I would only like to add that his paper was written primarily so that even a layman would develop interest in TWAIL and not only for those who are already scholars of TWAIL.
“They (The Europeans) found themselves in the middle of a network of States and inter-State relations based on traditions which were more ancient than their own and in no way inferior to notions of European civilization.”
While international law originally adopted an attitude of indifference towards colonialism, it eventually ended up justifying and spreading it. In this manner, international law ensured the survival and promotion of colonialism. In simplest terms TWAIL as given by Mutua is “the broad dialectical of opposition to International Law”. TWAIL offers theories as well as methods and, as its name suggests, can be best described as an approach or rather as a spectrum consisting of several approaches. It is an approach drawn from the history of the encounter between international law and colonization.
As a distinctive way of thinking about international law, TWAIL is a historically aware approach that, through academic scholarship and discussion, makes innocent third worlds aware of an openly colonizing and dominating first world and works towards eliminating the disadvantages of an underdeveloped in the Third World. Gathii also agrees that “Third World positions exist in opposition to, and as a limit on, the triumphal universalism of the liberal/conservative consensus in international law.”
The study of international law’s universalism has been done through theoretical workouts. Consequently, the new international legal scholarship is able to accommodate novel movements and intellectuals. TWAIL is such a movement. It responds to international law as an imperial project and seeks internal transformation of the conditions in the Third World. Thus, it facilitates the understanding of the relation between international law and the shortcomings of the lesser developed regions.
History of TWAIL
As a phenomenon, TWAIL is not new, but as a scholarly network it formed grew in and around the 1990s. It is also to be noted that the term TWAIL has expanded to refer to all scholarships that have advocated a postcolonial approach to international law including those associated with NAIL, (New Approach to International Law) and the significant amount of scholarship that had occurred before the 1990s. In fact, it is believed that TWAIL emerged from NAIL. The ‘post’ in ‘postcolonial’ does not refer to ‘after period of colonialism’ or ‘triumphing over colonialism’. On the contrary, it refers to the ‘continuation of colonialism in the consciousness of formerly colonized peoples, and in institutions imposed in the process of colonization’.
The terms ‘Third World’, ‘the South’, ‘ less-developed’, ‘underdeveloped’ and even sometimes ‘developing’, all refer to those states where the people are socially backward and lag behind in terms of economic growth. The term Third World has also been criticized given the growing diversity amongst Third World states and the fracturing and reshaping of alliances between them. Some scholars believe that the notion of a Third World may disguise the differences between and within these nations. When reference is made to a Third World immediately, images of starving, unwashed and terminally ill people come to mind. These images stand in contrast to those we hold of the First World, characterized by prosperity, luxury, and liberty. However, international law is not meant to differentiate between the Third and First worlds or between prosperous and underdeveloped nations. Hardt and Negri notably declared that globalization had made the Third World obsolete as there is a First World in every Third World, and a Third in the First, and the Second almost nowhere at all. However, classifying states into inferior and superior has always facilitated in changing the legal system. In fact, when these groups refer to themselves as ‘Third world’, it makes it hard for states to ignore their constant exploitation and the subordination that they have come to represent in the minds of the people all around the sphere.
International law lays down rules that intentionally ignore the condition of uneven development in favour of prescribing uniform global standards. It has almost completely discarded the principal of special and differential treatment TWAIL scholars have had to negotiate these issues continually from the very early years of the movement. In reality though, the international law regime is not universal and impartial in relation to sovereign states. TWAIL scholars point to a two-tiered system of ‘international’ law that legitimates and supports the actions of First World nations while concurrently criminalizing the actions of their Third World counterparts
TWAIL in Present Time
The rapid increase in the number of books, articles, PhDs and papers written on TWAIL is evidence of it gaining prominence, especially among those in the legal profession. Many law schools have even offered courses on TWAIL. The surfacing of TWAIL is proof a step away from the dominant Western vision of the International regime. Leading books and scholars of international law are no longer based for the most part in Europe and North America but from all over the globe. In fact, North American based TWAIL-ers are only a small part of a larger tradition of third world scholarship in international law that dates back decades. They have addressed several issues related to society, politics, and economics with a primary dedication to democratic values.
But the reason why the most people are still not aware of it is because TWAIL has till now not been a well structured group with formal membership. Till December, 2011, mainly five TWAIL conferences were held. These conferences are sometimes referred to as TWAIL I, II, III, IV and V but are not to be confused with the different generations of TWAIL. TWAIL is a spread-out network of scholars, with common ideologies, but no structure of authority. It has operated as a loose network. Okafor says that TWAIL-ers are “solidly united by a shared ethical commitment to the intellectual and practical struggle to expose, reform, or even retrench those features of the international legal system that help create or maintain the generally unequal, unfair, or unjust global order.” Also, students of international law refer to books which may promote the interests of a particular country or support the current world order. Not researching both sides of the argument and not critiquing what one reads is harmful for progressive scholars. In many institutions in the First World countries TWAIL is thought as a ‘conspiracy theory’, giving the first world countries a posture of innocence because very few professors are TWAIL-ers themselves.
For decades, TWAIL scholars have challenged the existing international legal system. It has risen even more in the last decade with the work of academicians such as Prof. B.S. Chimni, Prof. R.P.Anand, Antony Anghie, Karen Mickelson, Prof. J. T. Gathii, and Prof. O. Okafor,
However, TWAIL scholars do not share the same political, economical or ideological views. Antony Anghie and Bhupinder Chimni have distinguished, what may be referred to as, the old and new schools of thinking into TWAIL I and TWAIL II scholarships. Three main characteristics of TWAIL I are:-
(1) condemnation of “colonial international law for legitimizing the subjugation and oppression of Third World peoples”;
(2) Focus on “sovereign equality of states” and the doctrine of “non intervention” as protection from renewed imperial interference;
(3) Stress on the fact that “Third World states were not strangers to the idea of international law”; 
Another characteristic of TWAIL I is contributionism. TWAIL I overemphasizes on contributions by varied communities in the creation of international customs and norms. TWAIL II does not condemn contributionism but focuses on examination of scenarios, selection of approaches and concepts and equality which transcends the size of a community.
Some TWAIL scholar’s after critically analyzing TWAIL I, labeled it as a weak form of scholarship. In fact, TWAIL I scholarship is believed to be not only weaker than TWAIL II but also counter-productive as it does not, speaking broadly, challenge the status quo but allows and strengthens injustices in the prevailing system.
TWAIL II has concentrated on international institutions and the impact of globalization. It is posited that the TWAIL discourse is in the process of entering into a new phase post 9/11. This phase can be understood as one in which TWAIL scholarship must respond to a series of new challenges in a world where terrorism is a serious concern. David Kennedy describes it as arising “among a generation of scholars in rebellion. Against the tradition of third world engagement with the international legal order associated with decolonization, the UN, and the politics of the nineteen sixties and seventies”. TWAIL II is generally considered as the stronger of the two trends because it gave more consideration to Third World people than the Third World states. Several TWAIL I scholars from the third world countries showed traces of an anti-western sentiment, which is not what TWAIL aims at.
There is also “TWAIL III” scholarship which is awaiting recognition. TWAIL III implies “a linear conception of the history of third World scholarship on international law, a gradual progression towards some glorious enlightened future.”
Matua states that TWAIL is driven by three basic, interrelated and purposeful objectives. The first is to understand, deconstruct, and unpack the uses of international law as a medium for the creation and perpetuation of a racialized hierarchy of international norms and institutions that subordinate non-Europeans to Europeans. Second, it seeks to construct and present an alternative legal edifice for international governance. Finally, TWAIL seeks through scholarship, policy, and politics to eradicate the conditions of underdevelopment in the diverse geographies.
Anghie believes that the concept of ‘sovereignty’ was made in the ‘colonial encounter’, and this has backed international law ever since. He sums up in his book “International lawyers over the centuries maintained this basic dichotomy between the civilized and the uncivilized, even while refining and elaborating their understanding of each of these terms. Having established this dichotomy, furthermore, jurists continually developed techniques for overcoming it by formulating legal doctrines directed towards civilizing the uncivilized world. I use the term ‘dynamic of difference’ to denote, broadly, the endless process of creating a gap between two cultures, demarcating one as ‘universal’ and civilized and the other as ‘particular’ and uncivilized, and seeking to bridge the gap by developing techniques to normalize the aberrant society.”
Micheal Fakhri attempts to use the theories of Polanyi and Foucalt to understand TWAIL. Polanyi states that it was not only the economic system that ruined the lives of the third world; but in fact, it was the speed of the institutional changes brought upon them by the first world. Foucalt examines constituting affect of power, which is central to his theory of change. Polanyi’s theory for its rich framework of law, social change, and creation of links based on interest and Foucault’s theory which studies the relationship between power and knowledge which further provides a way of further understanding the market’s influence on the international regime. Both Foucault and Polanyi considered the conflict and power between ever-shifting social actors to shape and be shaped by ideas and institutions.
Quest for Global Order
At the heart of TWAIL is, however, unity in "opposition to the unjust global order”. The Third World has contributed and is capable of continuing to contribute to a system of global order. The hunt for a post-hegemonic global order began after World War II and during the period of decolonization. Once the deconstruction of the “use of international law for creating and perpetuating Western hegemony” will be over, the new generation of TWAIL scholarship sets out, ultimately, to “construct the basis for a post-hegemonic global order.”
The problem facing the TWAIL-ers in their attempt to achieve global order arises when it becomes difficult to distinguish between the interest of the states and the interest of the individual which, particularly when it comes to humanitarian intervention and human rights law in general. It is impossible to completely separate the interests of both. Questions like ‘Is external intervention which violates international law justifiable when the state does not act in accordance to popular sovereignty?’ are not those that can be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Some TWAIL scholars place importance on local and international social movements as engines of reform for the Third World and international law.Scholars who have studied the Third World's connection to international law believe that the current global scenario suffers from narrow-mindedness that badly affects humanity.
Despite the quick spread of the spirit of democracy to even the most remote areas, the structure of the United Nation Organization suffers from a serious democratic defect. That is that the General Assembly, which consists of all the members of the UNO, only has the power to make recommendations to the Security Council. Whereas the Security Council consists of only fifteen members of which five members are permanent.
Tolerance vs. Intolerance
Some confusion about the TWAIL quest for a post-hegemonic global order comes from the tension created by the plea for non-dependence against the demand for assistance from the West, which creates a paradox in TWAIL. The cry for legal pluralism is a sign of dislike of the Third World for what Friedman called the "golden straitjacket". Some TWAIL-ers support the substantive tolerance view whereas some support the substantive intolerance view. Fidler argues that in the context of international law, solidarism is connected with intolerance and pluralism with tolerance. Tolerance requires the solidarism between states that pluralism is an indispensible attitude of inter-state relations and international law. Hence, Fidler stresses and muses on the paradox that tolerance emerges out of intolerance.
In pluralistic society, the scope of international society among states is restricted because the common aims and objectives of different states do not make a place in the domestic affairs. The pluralist conception of international society "highlights the procedural and institutional features of the international system . . . , such as the exchange and treatment of diplomats, treaty law, the requirement of reciprocity, and the principle of non-intervention.”
TWAIL and the Iraq invasions
TWAIL has helped tremendously in understanding the legality of the Iraq invasions and the Iraq invasions have in turned help TWAIL scholars test the strength and weaknesses of TWAIL. TWAIL scholars have argued that theoretical views that take root from colonialism and imperialism are essential for the understanding of the practicality of international law. Colonialization itself was initially justified as a ‘civilizing mission’ and that it was the duty of the more developed Western states to civilize the Third world states. The narrative of the civilizing mission has shaped the way both the historical and modern discipline has engaged with cultural difference. The central arguments indicate toward a faith that the West has a duty to civilize the failed state, the rogue state and the terrorist, so as to rescue the Third World from its backwardness as well as prevent this backwardness from threatening civilized regions.
Since destroying a nation and attempting to recreate it in accordance to the destroyer’s image was a central characteristic of colonialism, the Iraq invasion has raised many questions regarding the nature of TWAIL and international lawyers. Hilary Charlesworth muses that “for a short glamorous moment, international lawyers could feel relevant. We are used to being either ignored or pushed to margins of debates about world affairs, and suddenly everyone was interested in our views.”
The issue raised was whether preventive defense was justified in such a scenario. In reality, Iraq invasion was not a case of a western country like U.S. seeking to dominate and control against Third World states. It is interesting to note that many of the usual allies of the U.S. spoke sturdily against the invasion, and several Third World countries sided with the U.S. Falk has warned that the recent “post-9/11” terrorist threat does not justify most of the other measures that the Bush administration has taken seemingly in response to the 9/11 attacks, in particular, its invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is also worth noting that most of those in the United States who initially opposed the invasion of Iraq have, now lost much political ground to those who supported and executed it.
In the case of Iraq, the US justified its actions on the basis of Iraq’s human rights violations, attacks on its neighbors and non-cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. The state of lawlessness in Iraq was believed to be a threat not only to the US but other nations as well. The preventive invasion of Iraq to abolish future threats indicated that the US believed, and probably still do, that the laws of self-defense are not to be applied when a nation like Iraq forfeits the privileges of the rule of law by their very state of lawlessness.
Concepts which have common goals but varied interpretations and trends are a necessary and inevitable part of approaches like TWAIL that think about broad patterns of dominance and resistance. Whether it be TWAIL I or TWAIL II, both generation of scholars believe that there is a good reason to participate in disciplinary critique. Eliminating any paradoxes is an effort which should involve discussions and debates among scholars and a clear understanding of the common good. It is also necessary that the scholars have an open mind to new theoretical interpretations, ideas and concepts such as Fakhri’s understanding of TWAIL through Polanyi and Foucalt.
The proposed plan of action for TWAIL includes adopting a policy of seeking legitimacy through defiance in the area of customary international law in a bid to internally transform the discipline of international law without losing sight of the broader objective of fundamentally transforming its very basis. What remains to be seen is whether TWAIL can actually provide the proverbial twist in the tale of international law by freeing it once and for all from the shackles of colonialism.
Nevertheless, we must protect ourselves from the horror of legal nihilism, which TWAIL is many times wrongly associated with. Although, TWAIL scholars have pointed to the bias at the very foundation of international law, it does not mean that we must show disregard towards international law. International law must not be criticized completely but must be appreciated for its virtues as well. It needs to be recognized that the existing international regime also offers a somewhat regulatory shield, however delicate, to the under developed countries. While proper plan of action is essential for progress of the international legal system, it is also to be acknowledged that mere planning and discussion of theory is useless without practical implementation.
The luxuries and privileges that come along with living and working in the West many a times “creates blind spots in the vision” of those scholars of International law and TWAIL who live and work outside the Third World. In such cases, if international law reform must continue on a reasonable, ethical and ultimately maintainable basis, TWAIL should be understood better and deeply researched by the authors of international law reform and action. Development through structural adjustment programs and neo-liberal policies that need to be indicted should be given higher priority than the pursuit a life of extravagance.
The success of TWAIL is highly desirable but in no way easy. B.S. Chimni had in the Paris Conference of TWAIL stressed that the TWAIL movement must always be a non-violent one. The challenges facing TWAIL in its endeavors are internal disintegration, the problem of cooperative action among the third world states and the obstacles that developed nations may produce. NGOs that support TWAIL must be organized and voice their opinions clearly. TWAIL’s support by local and international NGOs and their social movements may stand for acceptance of a chief substantive characteristic of a globalized and liberal civilization.
International law must promote democracy not just at the national but transnational level as well, which will lead to an increase transparency and accountability in the system. Secondly, it is also seen in many states that unemployment increases among the native people because foreigners (generally from less developed countries) migrate there and work for lesser wages. Migration of laborers is another important aspect which the current international law has failed to regulate. Also, people’s understanding of the concept of sovereignty is often blurred when international law is referred to. The international organizations and agreements must clearly explain its action plan, its basic principles and what it hopes to achieve in the long run. Lastly and most importantly international law must, in the simplest of terms, focus on the effects of any policy on the individual’s life instead of only the relationship of the states.
 RP Anand , Asian States and the Development of International Law (1972); CH Alexandrowicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (16th, 17th, 18th Centuries) (1967) 224:
 Makau Wa Mutua, What Is TWAIL?, 94 AM. SOC’Y INT’L L. PROC. 31 (2000)
 O. C. Okafor / International Community Law Review 10 (2008) 371–37
 James Thuo Gathii, “Alternative and Critical: The Contribution of Research and Scholarship on Developing Countries to International Legal Theory” 41 Harvard International Law Journal 263 (Spring 2000), at 273
 James Gathii, Imperialism, Colonialism, and International Law, 54 BUFF. Law REView, 1013 (2007).
 James Thuo Gathii, Rejoinder: Twailing International Law, 98 Michigan LR (2000), 2067
 Singh Prabhakar, Why Weild Constitutions to Arrest International Law? (October 3 2011)
 (I would like to express my gratitude to Monica Mishra, a fellow admirer of international law and classmate of mine. I am indebted to her for bringing this point as well as several other basic points to my notice, which have helped me in this research and am sure will be useful in many future projects)
 Sundhya Pahuja, ‘The Postcoloniality of International Law’ (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 459, 469.
 Karin Mickelson, ‘Rhetoric and Rage: Third World Voices in International Legal Discourse’ (1998) 16 Wisconsin International Law Journal 353-356.
 Nigel Harris, The End of the Third World (1987); Mark T Berger, ‘The End of the Third World’ (1994) 15 Third World Quarterly 257 and ‘The End of the Third World? History, Destiny and the Fate of Third Worldism’ (2004) 25 Third World Quarterly 9; Also see James H. Mittleman & Mustapha Kamal Pasha, Out from Underdevelopment Revisited: Changing Global Structures and the Remaking of the Third World (New York: St. Martins Press, 1997) at 23.
 Balakrishnan Rajagopal, ‘Locating the Third World in Cultural Geography’ (1998-9) Third World Legal Studies 1, 2.
 James Thuo Gathii, TWAIL: A Brief History of its Origins, its Decentralized Network, and a Tentative Bibliography 3(1) Trade Law & Development 26 (2011)
 Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Newness, Imperialism, and International Legal Reform in our Time: A TWAIL Perspective, 43 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 171, 176 (2005)
 Anghie and Chimni, above n 31, 79, divide scholarship into TWAIL I and TWAIL II. James Thuo Gathii, in ‘International Law and Eurocentricity’ (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 184, 191, identifies strong and weak strains of TWAIL. Makau Mutua, in ‘What is TWAIL?’ (2000) 94 ASIL Proceedings 31, 32, also writes about two trends in TWAIL; that of the affirmative reconstructionists and the minimalist assimilationists
 A. Anghie & B.S. Chimni, “Third World Approaches To International Law And Individual Responsibility In Internal Conflicts” (2003) 2 Chinese J. Int’l. L. 77, At 79.;
Ardi Imseis, ‘Third World Approaches To International Law And The Persistence Of The Question Of Palestine’, Palestine Yearbook Of International Law, Vol. XV (2008)
 Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Newness, Imperialism, and International Legal Reform in our Time: A TWAIL Perspective, 43 OSGOODE HALL L.J. 179 (2005)
 James Thuo Gathii, ‘International Law and Eurocentricity’ (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 184, 191, Gathii considers TWAIL I as weak because it fails to challenge the existing conditions and attempts to re-establish a Western regime rather than engage with it for reform. See also Antony Anghie and BS Chimni, ‘Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility in Internal Conflicts’ (2003) 2 Chinese Journal of International Law 77; Makau
Mutua, ‘What is TWAIL?’ (2000) 94 American Society of International Law Proceedings 31,
 Madhav Khoslsa, The TWAIL Discourse: ‘The Emergence Of A New Phase International Community Law Review’, Volume 9, Number 3, October 2007
 David Kennedy, “The TWAIL Conference: Keynote Address”, 9 International Community Law Review (2007) pp. 333–344, 335.
; Dipesh Chakrabarty, ‘Modernityand Ethnicity in India’, , Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity (1996), See also Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism (1993) 17. See also Dipesh Chakrabarty, Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies (2002) xxi
 Karin Mickelson, Taking Stock Of TWAIL Histories, International Community Law Review 10 (2008) 355–36; Ibid.
 Makau wa Mutua, (2000) What is TWAIL?', Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 31 at p.31
 Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University Press, (2004), pp. 5, 32, 11
 Michel Foucault, Th e History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, (1978) pp. 92–96; Michel Foucault, “Intellectuals and Power”, in Sylvère Lotringer, Foucault Live (Interviews, 1961–1984) (1996) pp. 70–82and Michel Foucault, “Truth and Power”, in Colin Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (1980) pp. 109–133.
 Karl Polanyi’s, The Great Transformation: Th e Political and Economic Origin of Our Time (1944)
 Law as the Interplay of Ideas, Institutions, and Interests: Using Polanyi (and Foucault) to Ask TWAIL Questions, 10(4) International Community Law Review, 455 (2008).
 David P. Fidler, “Revolt Against Or From Within The West? TWAIL, The Developing. World, And The Future Direction Of International Law”, Chinese Journal Of International Law, (2003)
 See generally RP Anand , Asian States and the Development of International Law (1972); CH Alexandrowicz, An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (16th, 17th, 18th Centuries) (1967) 224:’ See also Christopher Weeramantry, Islamic Jurisprudence: An International Perspective (1988); SP Sinha, Legal Polycentricity and International Law, 1996; Yasuaki Onuma, ‘When was the Law of International Society Born? An Inquiry of the History of International Law from an Intercivilisational Perspective’ (2000) 2 Journal of the History of International Law 1. For a more recent example, see Christopher Weeramantry, Universalising International Law (2004).
 R. P. Anand, New States and International Law (1972), 46; See generally, Nagendra Singh, India and International Law: Ancient and Mediaeval (1973); James Gathii, ‘International Law and Eurocentricty’ (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 184; S P Sinha, New Nations and the Law of Nations (1967); J J G Syatauw, Some Newly Established Asian States and the Development of International Law (1961)
 Ibid. 6 at 31
 Philip Cunliffe, The Responsibility to Protect: A Critique, prepared for ECPR Standing Group on International Relations Conference, September 2007, 17-19.
 Balakrishnan Rajagopal, From Resistance to Renewal: The Third World, Social Movements, and the Expansion of International Institutions, 41 Harvard ILJ (2000)
 Upendra Baxi, Some Remarks on Eurocentrism and the Law of Nations, in: R. P. Anand (ed.), Asian States and the Develoment of Universal International Law (1972); 3. See also, Antony Anghie, Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law, 40 Harvard ILJ (1999), 1. See also, F. E. Snyder and S. Sathirathia (eds.), Third World Attitudes Toward International Law (1987), 3
 ] Article 9(1), 10-14 and 23 of the UN Charter (October 24, 1945
 Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization (2000), 101-111 (discussing his concept of the "Golden Straitjacket" of the rules of the free market in today's global economy).
 David P. Fidler, “Revolt Against Or From Within The West? TWAIL, The Developing. World, And The Future Direction Of International Law”, Chinese Journal Of International Law, (2003), 63
 Ibid.n 63-75
 David P. Fidler and Jennifer M. Welsh, Introduction, in: Empire and Community, 52.
 See genera James Thuo Gathii, ‘Imperialism, Colonialism, and International Law’ (2007) 54 Buffalo Law Review 1014. See also Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2004) 11.
 J. Gathii, Good Governance as a Counter-Insurgency Agenda to Oppositional and Transformative Social Projects in International Law, 5 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 107–177; See also, A. Anghie, Universality and the Concept of Governance in International Law, in E.K.Quashigah and O.C.Okafor (Eds.), Legitimate Governance in Africa 21– 40, at 25 (1999) ;
 Usha Natarajan, The 2003 Iraq Invasion and the Nature of International Law: Third World Approaches to the Legal Debate, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University
 Hilary Charlesworth, ‘What’s Law Got to Do with the War?’ in Raimond Gaita (ed), Why the War was Wrong (2003) 35, 35.
 Richard A. Falk, The Great Terror War (New York: Olive Branch Press, 2003); See also Richard A. Falk, “Rediscovering International Law after September 11th” (2002) 16 Temp. Int’l & Comp. L.J. 363
 Obiora Chinedu Okafo, Newness, Imperialism, Andinternational Legal Reform Inour Time: A Twail Perspective
 See Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2005) 296.
 Sundhya Pahuja, ‘The Postcoloniality of International Law’ (2005) 46 Harvard International Law Journal 459, 460.
 Philip Darby, ‘Pursuing the Political: A Postcolonial Rethinking of Relations International’ (2004) 33 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 1, 25; See also, VS Naipaul, in Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey (1981),
 Craig Calhoun, “Social Science and the Crisis of Internationalism: A Reflection on How We Work After the War in Iraq,” online: Social Science Research Council <http://www.ssrc.org/president_office/crisis_of_internationalism.page>
 Obiora Chinedu Okafo, Newness, Imperialism, Andinternational Legal Reform Inour Time: A Twail Perspective
 B.S.Chimni, Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto, International Community Law Review 8:3–27, 2006.
 B.S. Chimni, International Law and World Order: A Critique of Contemporary Approaches (1993), 142; Chimni argues that "It is not unusual to see a Third World scholar speaking of rejecting rules which are prejudicial to the interests of developing countries [yet] embracing a theory of international law and world order which seeks to justify and protect the status quo and has little to say on the situation of the developing world. This eventually leads him to assume positions which strengthen that which he had set out to fight."