Contestations and affirmations of international law in the narratives of the Philippine communist insurgency

Abstract

This study examines the complex traffic between international law and literature in civil war narratives from the Philippine communist insurgency. It contends that these civil war narratives reveal ways of interrogating the limitations of international law, which is envisioned as a shield against lawless violence and as an alternative recourse to rebellion against tyranny. The narratives make international law legible in the representations of peoples’ experience of violence in the civil war and question human rights’ loss of constituent power, children’s rights’ paternalistic utopia, humanitarian law’s tragic ambivalence to the category of spies, and the indigenous peoples’ tamed right to self-determination. Moreover, the civil war narratives suggest a reclamation of constituent power through the exercise of non-juridical rights while affirming international human rights law’s protection of the integrity of human bodies. They also affirm the taming of indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination even as the narratives represent a utopia that stands opposed to international law’s own utopian vision. The study concludes that the civil war narratives from the Philippine communist insurgency reveal a complex engagement between literature and international law that include narrative contestations and affirmations of international legal visions, while expressing a consistent hope to overcome the limits of international law.