Conclusion to the Symposium on Art, Aesthetics and International Justice: The New Geometries of International Justice

[Marina Aksenova is an Associate Professor of International and Comparative Criminal Law at IE University]

In this concluding post, I would like to offer a few observations on the themes raised by the participants of the symposium. Above all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the contributors for taking time to reflect on my book and offer their brilliant and innovative insights as well as to Kevin Heller and Opinio Juris team for generously hosting the symposium. The points I raise are not exhaustive but rather tentative and suggestive of further discussion. There are three groups of comments that I want to address. Firstly, Tianying refers to the need for more research into the non-visual fields of perception and how they relate to international justice. Along similar lines, Elizabeth discusses the power of justice to move, speak and sing in some African traditions. Secondly, Jed and Sofia mention the often-held assumption that art belongs to the domain of the elites or, in the language of marketing, is a ‘nice to have’ and not an essential in rebuilding the system of international justice. Finally, Emiliano and Katerina note that the book does not sufficiently engage with art’s immense potential to reinforce or conceal existing inequalities. Katerina calls for more engagement with the notion of counter-aesthetics beautifully developed by Christine Schwöbel-Patel and Robert Knox.

I fully accept Tianying’s invitation to further explore the senses beyond the visual, namely hearing, smelling, tasting and touching/feeling. It is true that in the modern world we are primed for the visual above all senses and this bias then travelled into my writing. I was reminded of the wonderful recent edited collection by Mark Drumbl and Caroline Fournet on the sensibilities of atrocity prosecutions, where some authors helpfully explore the sounds and felt-sense impressions of international justice. There is still work to be done to cover the scent(s) of international justice. My intuition in writing the book was find the basis for perception that is prior to the expressed five senses, namely develop a philosophical foundation for a more embodied engagement with justice as opposed to conceptualizing it purely with the mind. What happens when directing attention to the specific object of perception, be it music, thought or visuals (or all of them)? Some forms of art, such as theater discussed in detail by Abinavagupta, blend different elements together. Abinavagupta contends that art – in its multiple forms – evokes certain emotional flavors, including wonder, fear and disgust, to be enjoyed by the experiencer. The emphasis is not on the specific sense-carrier but rather on the overall affective response in the viewer or listener. I find this conception of art helpful in refining the forms of expression in international justice.

Secondly, the contention of art being a luxury is important to address. Just to be clear, neither Jed nor Sofia suggest this to be the case but rather they both point to the possibility of such view. There are two ways to approach this. First, there is lack of terminological consensus as to what constitutes art. John Dewey convincingly argues that art traditionally accompanied daily rituals and was organically integrated in them. While he recognizes the essential role of museums as educational tools, he rejects the view that art must be resigned to specific designated areas. I concur with this view. Art can be seen as a passage to a more nuanced multisensory perception of reality. It is not reserved to galleries and opera houses but rather it is a way of being and engaging with materiality. For instance, some indigenous traditions use singing for healing and intuitive insight. The belief is that the wisdom of ancestors and local plants is encoded in the vibrational tones used in the melody and how it is transmitted through the voice. The aesthetic dimension – in the meaning of art merely pleasing the senses – then takes a backseat in this process of learning and discovery. I therefore posit that what is revealed through enhanced interrogation of our perceptual faculties is fundamental to all humans and cannot be seen as optional in any authentic conversation about the future of international justice. 

Another way to look at art being essential in the field of international justice is to observe growing legal recognition of the role of culture (and its expression through art) as a crucial vehicle for intergenerational justice. Being able to maintain cultural identity is increasingly seen as fundamental for enforcing other human rights. In 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) found Australia’s failure to protect indigenous islanders against the adverse impacts of climate change to have violated their right to culture and enjoyment of their private life under Articles 17 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In para. 8.14 of the decision, the HRC stressed the utmost importance for the islanders to maintain their way of life and transmit their culture to children and future generations. This process of transmitting culture and the way of life is thus fundamental for survival. One can suggest that minority rights serve as a doorway to enhancing the recognition of the role culture plays in society as a whole. Along similar lines, the current UN Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights Alexandra Xanthaki notes in her recent report (para. 24) that cultural heritage is important not only by itself but also in relation to its human dimension and its role for the development of individuals and communities.

Finally, there is a powerful call by Katerina and Emiliano to engage with counter-aesthetics and the political dimension of art as reinforcing or concealing collective distortions. I am being reminded of Christine Schwöbel-Patel’s depiction of global justice as a spectacle subject to commodification and marketing forces. In the words of Randle de Falco (p. 190), ‘[t]he spectacle is easy, while nuance is hard.’ While I strongly resonate with the core message of counter-aesthetics and learn a lot from this conceptualization, my entry point to the field of art and international justice is somewhat distinct. My focus is on convincing the reader to engage with aesthetic inquiry in legal and academic work as a way of complementing conceptual understandings of international law. The purpose of the book is then to loosen the grip of the ordinary appearances of legal terms. One can call it the ‘pre-critical’ stage of engagement with aesthetics. My other entry point is at a later stage of ‘(re)-construction’ – engaging with play and imagination to break free from some conceptual gatekeeping. 

I do not skip entirely over the difficult intermediary question about the construction of the dominant – and often oppressive – frames of reference but I try to balance the destructive and the generative potential of art. For instance, I touch upon assumptions in the chapter dedicated to the forms of expression and the last chapter where I wonder why international law treats nationality as a positive value – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights pronouncing everyone’s right to a nationality in Article 15. In this regard, I found the piece on the construction of the ‘grateful refugee’ by Christine Schwöbel-Patel and Deger Ozkaramanli (p. 89) to be speaking to the same anxiety, namely our inherent inability to address global (citizenship) inequality through the existing international law instruments. I believe aesthetic inquiry sharpens our capacity to shift attention to structural causes of injustice and inequality even if specific aesthetic representations are part of the underlying issue. 

My overall desire is to create a foundation of universality for international justice 2.0. This project is grounded in shared human ability to perceive. Perception is then a glue that binds us together and can be described as ‘beautiful’ in the broadest possible meaning of the term. The object of perception, however, differs vastly – beauty and ugliness are inherently subjective and context dependent, despite some powerful intuitions we hold as a collective. The implication of this view is that I do not reject or resist the existence of the hierarchies but rather integrate them in the vision of universality I propose. The invitation is then to develop discernment of perception that enables more (moral) clarity to dismantle the structures appearing unjust and create new ones as a replacement. The method of creative inquiry is designed to do exactly this. While I understand that this vision may not be fully intellectually satisfying given the ample evidence of our collective failures to tackle current problems, I believe that embracing what unites us is a powerful path forward in building a renewed sense of global justice.

**List of posts in this symposium**

Introduction to the Symposium on Art, Aesthetics and International Justice: The New Geometries of International Justice by Marina Aksenova

Justice in Motion – Aesthetics, Complexity, and the Plural Grammar of Legitimacy by Elizabeth S. Maloba

Primed for Unity and Complexity – International Justice Through Aesthetic Lens by SONG Tianying

Themis’ Blindfold Removed by Katerina Borrelli

Honouring the Samians? Aesthetic Strategies of International Legitimacy in Three Athenian Decrees (IG II2 1) by Emiliano J. Buis

For the Love of Art (and Justice) by Sofia Stolk

The Power of Perception – Aesthetic Theory and International Justice by Jed Odermatt

Conclusion to the Symposium on Art, Aesthetics and International Justice: The New Geometries of International Justice by Marina Aksenova