Appendix to Chapter 6. Critical race theory and third world approaches to international law

• Pages: 143-153
• Author: Anthony Ghaly

143

Appendix to Chapter 6

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND THIRD

WORLD APPROACHES TO

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Anthony Ghaly

1

Soon after its founding, Third World Approaches to

International Law (TWAIL) scholars began engaging in questions

related to the role of race as a subordinating logic within the

international legal order and, inversely, the role of international law

in reproducing racial hierarchies in global and domestic contexts.

2

Although explicit invocations of Critical Race Theory (CRT) within

scholarship that self-identifies as operating within the TWAIL

framework seemed to have stalled for several years, engagement

between the two fields has recently enjoyed a revival.

3

Part I of this

Feature provides a brief history of the interactions between CRT and

TWAIL scholarship since the turn of the century and, in keeping with

the recent reappraisal, highlights how we might best understand the

two approaches as corollary critical traditions in legal scholarship.

Part II outlines key synergies between the two movements and

proffers several explanations as to why scholarship investigating

race and racialization in international law went missing. Part III

offers a final reflection on the relationship between CRT and TWAIL

in current and future work.

I. Corollary Critical Traditions

The origins of TWAIL proper, also known as TWAIL II,

4

are

commonly traced to a series of meetings at Harvard Law School in

1

Ph.D. Student, Jurisprudence & Social Policy, University of California,

Berkeley School of Law (J.D. 2023). My deepest appreciation to Khiara M. Bridges for

inviting me to contribute this piece to her primer. For thoughtful feedback and

suggestions, I am grateful to Justin Deystone, Idriss Fofana, Anna Katz, Daimeon

Shanks-Dumont, and Nicole Waddick.

2

See e.g., Ruth Gordon, Critical Race Theory and International Law:

Convergence and Divergence, 45 VILL. L. REV. 827 (2000).

3

See e.g., RACE, RACISM, A ND INTERNATIONAL LAW 8 ( Devon W. Carbado et al.

eds., 2025).

4

Although its accuracy has been contested by some scholars, the distinction

between TWAIL I and TWAIL II was first introduced in Antony Anghie & B. S.

Chimni, Third World Approaches to International Law and Individual Responsibility

in Internal Conflict, 2 CHINESE J. INT’L L. 77 (2003). I follow Arnulf Becker Lorca’s

recent article in describing TW AIL II as TWAIL “proper.” Arnulf Becker Lorca, After