Akbar Rasulov’s provocative discussion of the ‘The Curious Case of the International Law of Democracy and the Politics of International Legal Scholarship’ makes two remarkable assertions: i) that the critics of the democratic entitlement thesis won a decisive victory in the contest to influence ‘the conventional wisdom’ within international legal scholarship; and ii) that the critiques objectively served ‘a fundamentally reactionary political agenda’. Beyond overstating both the critiques’ harshness and their impact, Rasulov is too quick to associate their methodological orthodoxy with ‘right-wing’ outcomes, neglecting to appreciate that their authors’ primary objective was to resist neo-colonialist tendencies. Whereas departures from standard source doctrines may in an earlier era have been directed towards redress of power imbalances inherited from colonialism, the ‘pro-democratic’ departures of the post-Cold War era tended to license impositions on the self-government of the poorer and weaker states. The democratic entitlement’s critics sought precisely to conserve gains that had earlier been won by sectors of the international community resistant to neo-colonialism.

中文翻译：

---

国际法律学术中民主权利论文的轨迹：对阿克巴尔·拉苏洛夫的回应

阿克巴尔·拉苏洛夫对“国际民主法和国际法律学术政治的奇特案例”的挑衅性讨论提出了两个显着的断言：i) 民主权利论点的批评者在影响“国际社会”的竞争中取得了决定性的胜利。国际法律学术中的传统智慧；ii) 这些批评客观地服务于“一个根本上反动的政治议程”。除了夸大批评的严厉性和影响之外，拉苏洛夫还太快将他们的方法论正统与“右翼”结果联系起来，而忽略了他们的作者的主要目标是抵制新殖民主义倾向。尽管在较早的时代背离标准渊源学说可能是为了纠正从殖民主义继承下来的权力不平衡，但冷战后时代的“亲民主”背离倾向于允许对穷人和穷人的自治施加压力。较弱的国家。民主权利的批评者正是试图保护国际社会抵制新殖民主义的部门早先赢得的成果。