Soru

Read the passage below and match each individual or perspective with the phrase that best describes their overall tone or attitude regarding Customary International Law (CIL).

In recent decades, international legal scholarship has been fractured by a contentious debate regarding the democratic legitimacy and binding authority of Customary International Law (CIL). Traditionally understood as unwritten rules derived from consistent state practice and *opinio juris* (the belief that such practice is legally mandated), CIL has increasingly been invoked to override domestic legislation.

Professor Elena Alvez represents the vanguard of those who welcome this development. In her seminal treatise, Alvez exhibits an unyielding enthusiasm for CIL's expansion, arguing that it serves as an indispensable bulwark against the parochial and occasionally regressive tendencies of populist domestic legislatures. She frames CIL not merely as a useful tool for dispute resolution, but as a transcendent moral imperative that must rightfully constrain state sovereignty, dismissing any concerns about democratic deficit as procedural pedantry.

In stark contrast, Dr. Robert Vance approaches the burgeoning reliance on CIL with a pronounced pragmatic reservation. While Vance acknowledges that CIL provides a necessary lingua franca for resolving complex transnational disputes—particularly in maritime and environmental arbitration—he remains deeply troubled by its lack of democratic accountability. He does not seek to dismantle the framework of CIL, but he persistently cautions against its uncritical application, advocating for a constrained role wherein CIL fills interpretive gaps rather than superseding explicit domestic statutes.

Meanwhile, Judge Kwame Koroma articulates a far more caustic critique. Koroma categorically rejects the very premise of CIL as a universally applicable standard, characterizing it instead as a neo-colonial fiction designed to perpetuate the hegemony of historically dominant Western powers. In his view, the supposedly "universal" state practice that forms the basis of CIL is merely the codified historical practice of imperial nations, imposed retroactively upon developing states. He advocates for the complete abandonment of CIL in favor of explicit, negotiated bilateral treaties.

Ultimately, while the anxieties surrounding CIL's democratic deficit are not unfounded, they need not lead to the system's total repudiation. If tethered more strictly to explicit and contemporary demonstrations of state consent, CIL can be salvaged and refined, offering a flexible yet accountable mechanism for addressing unprecedented global challenges.