ABSTRACT
“Reimagining” international law needs to be approached with care, lest it weaken the law. This may be particularly so when the exercise disregards the basis and structure of international law that has been built up over centuries. Change is not necessarily for the better; it can sometimes be destructive. We may learn from examples of past developments (such as the introduction of freedom of the high seas or the prohibition of the use of force), and of change that was envisaged but did not come about (such as the universal jurisdiction of a general international court). Imagined change that goes with the grain of the existing international legal system may come about; that which does not or is artificial is likely to go nowhere.
In this contribution, I first give a few examples from the past of ideas that have not been taken up into international law, ideas that have not gained traction (to use another “fashionable” word), at least not yet. These may remind us of some ways that international law could have developed, of roads not taken. Second, I then point briefly to some ideas that have indeed prospered, that remind us that the law can and does change for better (or for worse). Third, I then look at several current ideas for new or different international law, followed by some conclusions.
