Evolution of discourse on fragmentation of international law

In this article the authors examine the development of modern international law in terms of the discourse on fragmentation, and set the following goals: 1) determine the phenomenon of “fragmentation” and systematize the reasons for the emergence of discourse on fragmentation; 2) trace the evolution of scientific views upon fragmentation as a phenomenon; 3) considering the currently prevalent views upon the mechanism of development of international law, as well as prevention and settlement of conflicts of norms within international law, repeatedly assess some traditional examples of “fragmentation” as the logical processes or processes posing a threat to the integrity of international law. As the examples, the article analyzes such classical disputes as the Decision of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the. Former Yugoslavia in the case of Dusko Tadic, as well as decision of the UN International Court on Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), series of cases regarding MOX plant, CME and Lauder v. Czech Republic, and others. It took almost a quarter of century for the science of international law – since the beginning of discussion of fragmentation until the “farewell” with fragmentation – to accept itself as an integral, but flexible legal system over again. The conclusion is made that the discourse on fragmentation and utilization of the term “fragmentation” had a so-called therapeutic effect for the theory of international law, allowing it to shift the focus, reassess and reconsider itself as a system that existed in all diversity and multiplicity of actors engaged in the process of its creation and application.