pdf (Español (España))
FLIP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Abstract
This article critically examines the limitations of Public International Law (PIL) when confronted with the existential challenges of the twenty-first century. It argues that PIL, as currently structured, is unable to provide effective responses to global threats such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, artificial intelligence, and disruptive biotechnologies. The analysis highlights two central weaknesses: the absence of coercive mechanisms capable of restraining hegemonic powers, and the persistence of an institutional architecture shaped by geopolitical interests, which excludes non-state actors and affected communities from meaningful participation. Against this background, the article raises a central question: can PIL, in its current form, guarantee minimum standards of global justice? The conclusion reached is negative. Far from constituting a functional legal order, PIL operates as a fragile and selective regime. To address these
deficiencies, the article calls for its reconfiguration around emerging normative frameworks—including intersystemic constitutionalism, constitutional pluralism, and legal decolonization—that could enable the creation of a binding, democratic, and inclusive system of global governance, better equipped to confront the complex risks of our time.
References
Aceves, Carlos Alberto & Jorge García González. “La solución pacífica de controversias como norma imperativa del derecho internacional ante la crisis de paz mundial”. MSC Métodos de Solución de Conflictos 4, núm. 7 (2024): 119-132. https://doi.org/10.29105/msc4.7-93
Benavides Casals, María Angélica & Jorge Ulloa Plaza. “Moralidad, guerra y derecho internacional. Tres cuerdas para un mismo trompo: la humanidad”. Novum Jus 17, núm. 1 (2023): 259-282.
https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.1.11.
Bostrom, Nick. “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority”. Global Policy 4, núm. 1 (2013): 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12002.
Casanovas, Oriol & Álvaro J. Rodrigo. Compendio de Derecho Internacional Público. 12ª ed. Madrid: Tecnos, 2024.
Cassese, Antonio. International Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Druzin, Bryan H., Anatole Boute & Michael Ramsden. “Confronting Catastrophic Risk: The International Obligation to Regulate Artificial Intelligence”. Michigan Journal of International Law 46, núm. 2 (2025): 123-156. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4799195.
Grotius, Hugo. De iure belli ac pacis (On the Law of War and Peace). Editado por Richard Tuck. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006.
Horna, Ana Violeta. “Justicia y seguridad en las Naciones Unidas: entre política y derecho internacional”. Revista Peruana de Derecho Internacional 74, núm. 177 (2024): 195-236. https://doi.org/10.38180/rpdi.v74i177.639.
Kennedy, David. The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.
Koskenniemi, Martti. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Kumm, Mattias. “The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship Between Constitutionalism in and Beyond the State”. En Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance, editado por Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Joel P. Trachtman, 258-325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627088.011.
López Zamora, Luis Arturo. “La constitución del derecho internacional, su extinción y reconstrucción”. Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho 34 (2018): 333-373. https://doi.org/10.53054/afd.vi34.2338.
Martínez-Fraga, Pedro J. & C. Ryan Reetz. Public Purpose in International Law: Rethinking Regulatory Sovereignty in the Global Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
Martinón, Rodrigo. “La legitimidad normativa de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos como tribunal internacional”. Andamios 17, núm. 42 (2020): 121-145. https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v17i42.737.
McKinnon, Catriona. “Endangering Humanity: An International Crime?”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47, núms. 2-3 (2017): 395-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2017.1280381.
Menezes, Wilson & Hugo Marcos. “El derecho internacional y la pandemia: reflexiones sistémico-deontológicas”. Cuadernos de Derecho Público 8 (2020): 133-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.22529/cdp.2020(8)08.
Morgenthau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1949.
Moxley, Charles J. Nuclear Weapons and International Law: Existential Risks of Nuclear War and Deterrence through a Legal Lens. 2 vols. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2024.
Ord, Toby. The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. New York: Hachette Books, 2020.
Popovski, Vesselin. Una Segunda Carta de las Naciones Unidas. Global Governance Forum, 2024.
Portela, Clara & Marta Vlaskamp. “Introducción: los otros efectos de las sanciones internacionales”. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals 125 (septiembre de 2020): 7-12. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2020.125.2.7.
Ramos Borges, Osnarci Rafael. “25 años del Estatuto de Roma: desafíos paradigmáticos en su implementación y vigencia”. Revista Relaciones Internacionales 109 (2024): 1-20.
https://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/ri/article/view/20971.
Reagan, Ronald. “President Reagan | Three Famous Alien Threat Speeches”. YouTube. Video, 20 de octubre de 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA
Ruiz Guzmán, Laura. “Ineficacia del Estatuto de Roma e inoperancia de la Corte Penal Internacional: el caso del conflicto Rusia–Ucrania”. Anuario Mexicano de Asuntos Globales (2023). https://doi.org/10.59673/amag.v1i1.30.
Russell, Stuart. Human Compatible: AI and the Problem of Control. Londres: Penguin UK, 2019.
Scharre, Paul. Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. New York: W. W. Norton & Company,
Schmitt, Carl. El nomos de la tierra: el derecho de gentes del “jus publicum europaeum”. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Struhart, 2005.
Schwartz, Germano, Leonel Severo Rocha & Bernardo Leandro Carvalho Costa. “Constitucionalismo intersistémico, constitución y derechos fundamentales: entre teoría constitucional y sociología jurídica”. Novum Jus 17, núm. 3 (2023): 93-131. https://doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.3.4.
Vöneky, Silja. Human Rights and Legitimate Governance of Existential and Global Catastrophic Risks. En Human Rights, Democracy, and Legitimacy in a World of Disorder, editado por Matthias Koenig y Andreas Føllesdal, 139-162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Walker, Neil. “Late Sovereignty in the European Union”. En Sovereignty in Transition, editado por Neil Walker, 3–32. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472562883.ch-00
