This thesis examines important aspects of Canada and Britain’s participation in the Korean War of 1950-53 and the Afghanistan Conflict of 2001-present with a view to better understanding how international law influenced this participation, and whether key leaders and officials understood said law as a binding and distinct phenomenon. It draws on constructivist International Relations (IR) theory and “interactional” International Law (IL) theory, and employs a method of historical reconstruction and process tracing. I argue that, contrary to what realism might predict, international law helped define and shape each state’s possible course of action in the wars, and the justifications that could be made for their behaviour. More specifically, Canada and Britain’s involvement in the conflicts suggests that, when states use force, international law can play four broad roles: 1) it helps constitute the identities of the actors at issue; 2) it helps regulate the political and military practice of the actors at issue; 3) it permits and legitimates certain political and military practices that otherwise might not be permitted; and 4) it helps structure the process by which agents seek to develop and promote new legal rules and legitimate practice. However, I also contend that, contrary to what IL scholars might predict, the discourse and actions of Canadian and British leaders and officials during the Korean War and Afghanistan Conflict offer mixed support for the hypothesis that, when states use force, policy-makers understand international law as a binding and distinct set of legal rules, and the legal status of these rules impacts their decision-making. In sum, my findings suggest that international law can play important roles in world politics and the use of force by states, but it is unclear whether these effects are attributable to an obligatory quality in law.

[pt] Esta tese analisa o processo de contestação iniciado pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no Tribunal Penal Internacional. A promulgação por esses Estados de práticas de contestação representou um momento sem precedentes na prática do direito penal internacional. Não apenas os Estados se engajaram com o Tribunal por meio de uma vasta gama de práticas, mas também essa participação gerou um nível alto de escrutínio de estudiosos e profissionais do direito internacional. Ao longo da resposta ao envolvimento africano com o TPI, esteve constantemente presente a conhecida mobilização da fronteira entre direito e política. Uma posição frequente nas reações dos praticantes foi a de que a política não deveria ocorrer no ambiente do Tribunal e a prática do direito internacional deve ser capaz de transcendê-la. A análise desta tese centra-se nestes dois elementos: as práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos e as respostas dadas pelo Tribunal. Nesta tese, questiono se a forma como o Tribunal deu sentido a essas práticas por meio da divisão do trabalho entre direito e política afetou a capacidade desses Estados contestadores de provocar mudanças no direito internacional. Por meio dessa pergunta, procuro capturar os aspectos mais significativos que estão velados não apenas nas práticas de contestação, mas na atribuição de significados em resposta a elas. Esse esforço requer um exame dos padrões de significado subjacentes a essas práticas e narrativas, pois apontam para as condições que permitem que certos atores questionem a autoridade. Argumento que a criação de uma fronteira entre o que pertence à esfera do direito e à esfera da política é em si uma postura política que tem consequências na forma como o direito internacional é praticado. A forma como o direito e a política são mobilizados nas práticas argumentativas do direito internacional criam um conjunto de barreiras para que certas práticas de contestação realizadas pelos Estados africanos em relação ao Caso Al Bashir no TPI, quando enquadradas como política, não tenham chance de provocar a mudança em primeiro lugar. / [en] This thesis works through the process of contestation embarked by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the International Criminal Court. The enactment by these States of practices of contestation represented an unprecedented moment in the practice of international criminal law. Not only were States engaging with the Court through a vast array of practices, but also this participation generated an enormous level of scrutiny from scholars and practitioners of international law. Throughout the response to the African engagement with the ICC was the familiar mobilization of the frontier between law and politics. A frequent position in the practitioners reactions was that politics should not take place in the environment of the Court, and the practice of international law should be able to transcend it. The analysis of this thesis focuses on these two features: the practices of contestation performed by African States and the responses it engendered from the Court. In this thesis, I question whether the way the Court made sense of these practices through the division of labour between law and politics affected the ability of these contesting States of engendering change in international law. Through this question, I seek to grasp the more significant aspects that are veiled not only in the practices of contestation but in the attribution of meanings in response to them. This endeavour requires an examination of the patterns of meaning underlying these practices and narratives, as they point to the conditions that allow certain actors to question authority. I argue that the creation of a boundary between what belongs to the realm of law and the sphere of politics is itself a political stance that has consequences on the way international law is enacted. The way law and politics are mobilized in the argumentative practices of international law creates a set of barriers so that certain practices of contestation being performed by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the ICC, when framed as politics, do not stand a chance to provoke change in the first place.