IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v55y2001i03p759-760_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Response to Finnemore and Toope

Author

Listed:
  • Goldstein, Judith
  • Kahler, Miles
  • Keohane, Robert O.
  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie

Abstract

Mark Twain has been quoted as saying, “It is admirable to do good. It is also admirable to tell others to do good—and a lot less trouble.†Twain's perhaps apocryphal aphorism could be adapted to contemporary social science scholarship: It is admirable to articulate and seek to apply new concepts. It is also admirable to tell others what is wrong with their concepts—and a lot less trouble.Martha Finnemore and Stephen Toope, in their comment on our summer 2000 special issue of IO, “Legalization and World Politics,†seem to be following this adaptation of Twain's advice. They think that our definition of legalization focuses too much on formalized constraints, that it does not relate closely to broader concepts of law, that we are too committed to a rational-strategic approach to politics, and that we do not have a theory of what generates obligation. They do not attempt, in their critique, to produce an alternative conceptualization that attains the breadth they seek without sacrificing conceptual and theoretical coherence. We thought that our own argument was both “dynamic†and “process-oriented,†so we look forward with interest to their attempt to improve on our work. We particularly look forward to a carefully designed research program that will evaluate fairly the many empirical claims that they advance.

Suggested Citation

  • Goldstein, Judith & Kahler, Miles & Keohane, Robert O. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, 2001. "Response to Finnemore and Toope," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 759-760, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:55:y:2001:i:03:p:759-760_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818301441488/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hamanaka, Shintaro, 2017. "Legalization of international economic relations: is Asia unique?," IDE Discussion Papers 681, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization(JETRO).
    2. Hartlapp, Miriam, 2005. "Two Variations on a Theme: Different Logics of Implementation Management in the EU and the ILO," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 9, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:55:y:2001:i:03:p:759-760_44. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ino .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.