| dc.description.abstract |
Although scholars have made considerable progress on a number of important research questions by relaxing assumptions commonly used to divide political science into subfields, rigid boundaries remain in some contexts. In this essay, we suggest that the assumption that international politics is characterized by anarchy whereas domestic politics is characterized by hierarchy continues to divide research on the conditions under which governments are constrained by courts, international or domestic. We contend that we will learn more about this process, and do so more quickly, if we relax the assumption and recognize the substantial similarities between domestic and international research on this question. In making this argument, we review four recent books that highlight contemporary theories of the extent to which domestic and international law binds states are bound by law, and discuss whether a rigid boundary between international and domestic scholarship can be sustained on either theoretical or empirical grounds. |
