Stanford Humanities Center
Stephen Sharp Queener is a senior studying international relations and minoring in German studies. A member of the international relations honors program, Stephen's studies focus around analyzing the relationships between political interests and international law, international organizations, and the pursuit of international justice. He currently works with Professor David Cohen, investigating the UN response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, focusing on effects of the international law on international legitimacy and justification, and has previous research experience in genocide studies, working under Stanford History Professor Norman Naimark and as a visiting student fellow at the Institute for Diaspora and Genocide Studies in Bochum, Germany. Originally from Santa Barbara, CA, Stephen’s interests outside of the classroom include skateboarding, playing guitar, and reading German philosophy. Post-graduation, he hopes to travel to Germany to pursue a master’s degree in human rights at the Friedrich Alexander University in Nuremberg.
SHC Project
The Limits Of Permissiveness: International Law, the UN, and the War in Ukraine
Advisor: David Cohen
What is the focus of your current research?
My research focuses on understanding the effects that international law has on international legitimacy and justification, specifically within the bounds of the UN’s response to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. By drawing upon new theories of international power to justify state behavior, my work tries to understand why states worked within the UN to legally condemn and contest Russia’s position, and the effects that legal contestation has for upholding international rule of law and empowering constraints on violatory states.
What drew you to this topic?
I fell in love with studying international law during my sophomore summer while taking a class with Professor Cohen. For my final paper, I investigated the drafting and interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the first major international human rights covenants, and was intrigued by how vagueness and poor wordings in international treaties were often the direct result of high levels of political contestation. After a long process of trying to come to terms with this political underbelly of international law, I settled on trying to apply my background to the UN’s response to Ukraine to understand the extent to which these self-interested uses of law can still lead to constraints and limits on harmful behavior.
How are you conducting your research?
My research primarily consists of my in depth qualitative research into the resolutions and meeting records of the 11th Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly, convened in response to the Russian invasion. I have read through all the resolutions and meeting records currently available, and for the first six meetings and their associated resolution, have categorized every type of legal justification provided by each speaking member state (over 120!). Using the data collected from my read-through, I am working to draw trends and make theoretical and empirical conclusions on the ubiquitousness and utility that states draw from international law.
What would people be surprised to learn about the topic you are working on?
I think that people would be shocked to know the amount of similarity made in statements across the world when talking about the Russian invasion, with the vast majority of all states using it as an opportunity to reiterate their support for international law. From just conversations that I have had in the last few months, there are a lot of misconceptions about what non-Western states feel about the war in Ukraine, and the extent to which they support any given side. From my research it's clear that even for sub-saharan African and pacific island states, there is value in demonstrating one's adherence and disapproval of violations of international law, and as such support for Ukraine in the conflict comes from a wide range of countries.
In your view, why is it valuable to study this topic?
Trying to understand the use of international law for justificatory purposes allows for an understanding of the role that law plays in international relations which accepts its political undercurrent. As I dug through literature on the power of international law over the summer, especially regarding the jus ad bellum, the law that governs use of force, I was confronted consistently with pessimistic perspectives which saw the political use of law as a betrayal n of its core concepts, yet it seems that these political invocations of law constitute its primary use case. As such, trying to understand what limits can still be found, and what utility there is in drawing upon them, allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the power of international law in modern international relations.
How is your honors thesis impacting you academically and/or personally?
Balancing everything that Stanford throws at you is no easy task. Fitting a thesis on top of it is an active practice in time-commitment. While this fall has been a crunch so far, as I finish the rest of my graduation requirements, my honors thesis has already been crucial in helping me think more about what it was that I want to do with my career and academic interests going forward, and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so as I begin to dedicate more and more time to it in the months to come.
How do you anticipate the fellowship will be able to support your research?
Being a part of the fellowship will be a major boost to my research process. Access to the humanities center will give my research a physical home to develop and grow within. Additionally, being a part of a cohort of similarly driven and deeply passionate students will be a constant source of encouragement and inspiration as the work continues.
