The conference was organized against the backdrop of growing concerns about democratic backsliding and the decline of the liberal international order amid the rise of autocratic regimes. It marked the launch of a collaborative research project that explores the role of autocratic regimes in global governance and their impact on international law.
While the shifting political landscape is drawing increasing attention from scholars, policymakers, and civil society, how autocracies shape international law remains understudied. In addition, much of the scholarship done on autocracies and authoritarian international law remains within disciplinary boundaries of political science and law. This workshop fostered valuable dialogue among experts studying autocracies in international relations, international law, comparative politics, and comparative law. It offered the participants the unique opportunity to engage with one another’s work and findings to advance a more nuanced understanding of the role of autocracies as international lawmakers.
Opening panel at the Norwegian Nobel Institute
A public panel discussion hosted by the Norwegian Nobel Institute marked the official start of the workshop. The opening debate titled “Between Power and Disillusion: Autocracies, Authoritarianism, and the Future of the Liberal World Order” attracted considerable interest and effectively framed the discussions that followed over the next two days.
Whilst the panelists agreed in expressing deep concern over the rise of authoritarianism and the threats facing the liberal international order, they resisted alarmist narratives. Despite this, they highlighted a range of challenges and developments linked to the global rise of authoritarianism. These included alternative legal interpretations within regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – where, for example, separatism is treated as a criminal offence – shifts in power toward authoritarian regimes, the retreat from established norms in criminal justice, the overall fragmentation of international law, and persistent difficulties in the field of gender equality and anti-discrimination. Each of these points contributed to a deeper understanding of the multifaceted implications of autocratic governance.
Nonetheless, several panelists also offered cautiously optimistic perspectives. It was noted that developments such as the International Criminal Court’s engagement with Netanyahu or Putin – cases beyond the African continent – signal a potential movement toward a more extensive application of international law and universal justice. Others also emphasized that, ultimately, transnational dialogue is shaped by individuals rather than states, and that meaningful connections – grounded in shared human experience – can emerge regardless of whether participants represent democratic or authoritarian regimes.
Research papers: autocracies in the international order
The next two days revolved around discussing research papers by the 22 participating academics from around the world. They were arranged thematically into seven different panels that addressed a wide range of issues concerning the role of autocracies in the international order:
- Autocracies as International Lawmakers: Shaping or Resisting International Law
- Authoritarian Narratives: End of liberal legitimacy?
- Authoritarian Strategies: Reshaping international institutions?
- Autocracies and Democracies: Conceptually different, practically similar?
- Autocracies in International Courts: Instrumentalizing or Disengaging?
- Liberal actors: Resisting, reclaiming or reconfiguring?
- Future international order: Authoritarian, Liberal, Other?
The result was a rich and engaging discourse, fuelled by the interdisciplinary curiosity of the participants. The discussions started off by laying the groundwork: How can we define an autocracy and what distinguishes it from a democracy? Political scientists cautioned against against treating all autocracies the same, and quoted Tolstoy’s famous line: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Whilst many democracies share similar features, each autocracy has unique features that need to be accounted for.
Meaningful, interdisciplinary discussions
Particularly thought-provoking discussions emerged when the participants explored how autocratic regimes strategically capitalize on widespread dissatisfaction – such as frustration with sanctions regimes – to legitimise their governance both domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the participants discussed to what extent contemporary autocracies employ different – potentially more nuanced, network-based, and internationally embedded – strategies compared to autocracies of the past. The conceptual and practical boundaries between autocracies and democracies were questioned, considering whether traditional typologies remain analytically useful. As for the role of autocracies in international courts, the participants debated whether such regimes tend to turn their backs on legal institutions – or, conversely, use them to serve their political agendas. This question arises from the current development of states selectively invoking aspects of international law that they see as fitting to their interests, thereby contributing to the decentralization of international law and undermining its normative qualification.
Each manuscript was assigned to two discussants – one from the field of law and one from political science – that provided initial commentary. Afterwards, the group of participants offered feedback. This process ensured that all authors received multifaceted commentary that allows them to make progress on their research and benefit from the insight offered by experts in other disciplines. The benefits of the interdisciplinary workshop include that the participants enhance and inform their own work from a new perspective, challenge long-held assumptions and open up new lines of inquiry.
Concluding the workshop
As a UiO:Democracy initiative, this workshop was dedicated to conducting interdisciplinary research about how democracies can be undermined and what can maintain and strengthen them. Overall, the workshop successfully collected threads of research about authoritarian developments in politics, international relations and law and wove them into a meaningful discourse about the influence of autocracies in international law.
Maria Debre and Nina Reiners concluded the workshop by thanking all participants for their insightful contributions, and are looking forward to continuing the dialogue around autocracies as international lawmakers.