Explaining power and authority in international courts

Abstract It has recently been suggested that the study of international legal life should take an ‘empirical turn’: a turn which often focused on how patterns authority emerge and operate in relation to courts. In what follows it is argued this empiricism fails distinguish (for purposes sociological inquiry) from various other concepts such as power or consensus law This because method focuses only overt signs, observable action statements intention, at level sign these are not obviously distinguishable. However, one solution problem, collapse socially significant distinct categories into broad category ‘power’, requires adoption implausible inconsistent view agency explanations authority. By contrast, line with long-standing interpretivist tradition method, we claim order interpret signs compliance rules principles indicative authority, consensus, power, necessary interpolate account reasons give rise observe. This, turn, explains why doctrine, axiological structure, gives behaviour its addressees, state officials.