Bibliographic Essay 601Joel P. Trachtman (eds.), Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and
Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Jan Klabbers, Anne Peters,
and Geir Ulfstein, Th e Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford University
Press, 2009); Christian Tomuschat, “Obligations Arising for States without or against
Th eir Will,” 241 RdC 195– 384 (1993); Nicholas Tsagourias (ed.), Transnational Consti-
tutionalism: International and Eu ro pe an Perspectives (Cambridge University Press,
2010); and D. M. Johnston (ed.), Towards World Constitutionalism: Issues in the Legal
Ordering of the World Community (Martinus Nijhoff , 2005).
Closely related to constitutionalism is international (or global) administrative law.
For the most notable exposition of this approach, see Benedict Kingsbury, Nico
Krisch, and Richard B. Stewart, “Th e Emergence of Global Administrative Law,” 68
(2 and 3) L and Cont. Prob. 15– 61 (2005). For a more succinct pre sen ta tion, see Bene-
dict Kingsbury, “Th e Administrative Law Frontier in Global Governance,” 99 ASIL
Procs. 143– 53 (2005). See also Benedict Kingsbury and Nico Krisch, “Introduction:
Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order,”
17 EJIL 1– 13 (2006).
Th e most prominent exposition of the feminist approach to international law is Hil-
ary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, Th e Boundaries of International Law: A
Feminist Analysis (Manchester University Press, 2000). In addition, see Hilary Charles-
worth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright, “Feminist Approaches to International
Law,” 85 AJIL 613– 45 (1991); and Hilary Charlesworth, “Feminist Methods in Interna-
tional Law,” 93 AJIL 379– 94 (1999). On Chinkin’s work, see Nijman, Concept, 428– 44.
On the various international criminal tribunals, see Gary Jonathan Bass, Stay the
Hand of Vengeance: Th e Politics of War Crimes Tribunals (Prince ton University Press,
2000). On the prosecution of heads of government for atrocities, see Ellen L. Lutz and
Caitlin Reiger (eds.), Prosecuting Heads of State (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
For robust objections to the use (or overuse) of universal jurisdiction, see Henry A.
Kissinger, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21st Cen-
tury (Free Press, 2001), 273– 82. On the opposition in the African Union to universal
jurisdiction, see Charles Chernor Jalloh, “Universal Jurisdiction, Universal Prescrip-
tion? A Preliminary Assessment of the African Union Perspective on Universal Juris-
diction,” 21 Crim. L. F. 1– 65 (2010).
For a vigorous exposition of the shortcomings and defects of current international
law, in a variety of subject areas, see Matthew Parish, Mirages of International Justice:
Th e Elusive Pursuit of a Transnational Legal Order (Edward Elgar, 2011). A classic at-
tack on international lawyers is Dean Acheson, “Th e Arrogance of International
Lawyers,” 2 International Lawyer 591– 99 (1968). For a more recent, and extended,
work in that vein, see Eric Posner, Th e Perils of Legal Globalism (University of Chi-
cago Press, 2009). Jack L. Goldsmith and Eric A. Posner, Th e Limits of International
Law (Oxford University Press, 2005) puts the case that the pursuit of rational self-
interest by states is the true driving force behind international law. For a valiant