International law

International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted in relations
between nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and
organized international relations.[3] International law differs from state-based legal
systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather than to individual
citizens. National law may become international law when treaties permit national
jurisdiction to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights
or the International Criminal Court. Treaties such as the Geneva Conventions may
require national law to conform to respective parts.

International law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member may
choose to not abide by international law, and even to break its treaty.[4] This is an
issue of state sovereignty. International laws are consent-based. Violations of
customary international lawand peremptory norms (jus cogens) can lead to wars.

Contents
History
International relations Illustrated title page "Hugo the Great
Treaties
of the Truth of the Christian
Statehood and responsibility Worship." Along with the earlier
Territory and the sea works of Francisco de Vitoria and
International organisations Alberico Gentili, Hugo Grotius laid
Social and economic policy the foundations for international law,
Human rights based on natural law.
Labour law
Development and finance
Environmental law
Trade
Conflict and force
War and armed conflict
Humanitarian law
International criminal law
Courts and enforcement
Domestic enforcement
International bodies
International courts
East Africa Community The First Geneva Convention(1864) is
one of the earliest formulations of
Union of South American Nations
international law
Andean Community of Nations
International legal theory
Terminology
Criticisms
See also
Notes
References
 External links

History
The current order of international law, the equality of sovereignty between
nations, was formed through the conclusion of the "Peace of Westphalia" in
1648. Prior to 1648, on the basis of the purpose of war or the legitimacy of
war, it sought to distinguish whether the war was a "just war" or not. This
theory of power interruptions can also be found in the writings of the Roman
Cicero and the writings of St. Augustine. According to the theory of armistice,
the nation that caused unwarranted war could not enjoy the right to obtain or
conquer trophies that were legitimate at the time[6]

The 17th, 18th and 19th centuries saw the growth of the concept of the
sovereign "nation-state", which consisted of a nation controlled by a
centralised system of government. The concept of nationalism became
increasingly important as people began to see themselves as citizens of a
particular nation with a distinct national identity. Until the mid-19th century,
relations between nation-states were dictated by treaty, agreements to behave
in a certain way towards another state, unenforceable except by force, and not
binding except as matters of honor and faithfulness. But treaties alone became
Sir Alberico Gentili is regarded as the
increasingly toothless and wars became increasingly destructive, most
Father of international law.[5]
markedly towards civilians, who decried their horrors, leading to calls for
regulation of the acts of states, especially in times of war
.

The modern study of international law starts in the early 19th century, but its origins go back at least to the 16th century, and Alberico
Gentili, Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius, the "fathers of international law."[7] Several legal systems developed in Europe,
including the codified systems of continental European states and English common law, based on decisions by judges and not by
written codes. Other areas developed differing legal systems, with the Chinese legal tradition dating back more than four thousand
years, although at the end of the 19th century [8]
, there was still no written code for civil proceedings.

One of the first instruments of modern international law was theLieber Code, passed in 1863 by the Congress of the United States, to
govern the conduct of US forces during the United States Civil War and considered to be the first written recitation of the rules and
articles of war, adhered to by all civilised nations, the precursor of international law. This led to the first prosecution for war crimes—
in the case of United States prisoners of war held in cruel and depraved conditions at Andersonville, Georgia, in which the
Confederate commandant of that camp was tried and hanged, the only Confederate soldier to be punished by death in the aftermath of
the entire Civil War.

In the years that followed, other states subscribed to limitations of their conduct, and numerous other treaties and bodies were created
to regulate the conduct of states towards one another in terms of these treaties, including, but not limited to, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in 1899; the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the first of which was passed in 1864; the International Court of Justice in
1921; the Genocide Convention; and the International Criminal Court, in the late 1990s. Because international law is a relatively new
area of law its development and propriety in applicable areas are often subject to dispute.

International relations
Under article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law has three principal sources: international
treaties, custom, and general principles of law. In addition, judicial decisions and teachings may be applied as "subsidiary means for
the determination of rules of law",
International treaty law comprises obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties. Customary
international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the conviction of States that the
consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally
been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary
international law picked up momentum after the Second World War with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC),
under the aegis of the United Nations. Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by
agreement through treaty. For states not party to such treaties, the work of the ILC may still be accepted as custom applying to those
states. General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of
international law achieve the binding force ofperemptory norms (jus cogens) as to include all states with no permissible derogations.

Colombia v Perú [1950] ICJ 6, recognising custom as a source of international law, but a practice of giving asylum
was not part of it.
Belgium v Spain [1970] ICJ 1, only the state where a corporation is incorporated (not where its major shareholders
reside) has standing to bring an action for damages for economic loss.
International law is sourced from decision makers and researchers looking to verify the substantive legal rule governing a legal
dispute or academic discourse. The sources of international law applied by the community of nations to find the content of
international law are listed under Article 38.1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: Treaties, customs, and general
principles are stated as the three primary sources; and judicial decisions and scholarly writings are expressly designated as the
subsidiary sources of international law. Many scholars agree that the fact that the sources are arranged sequentially in the Article 38
of the ICJ Statute suggests an implicit hierarchy of sources.[9] However, there is no concrete evidence, in the decisions of the
international courts and tribunals, to support such strict hierarchy, at least when it is about choosing international customs and
treaties. In addition, unlike the Article 21 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which clearly defines hierarchy of
applicable law (or sources of international law), the language of the Article 38 do not explicitly support hierarchy of sources.

The sources have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories. During the 20th century, it was recognized by legal
positivists that a sovereign state could limit its authority to act by consenting to an agreement according to the principle pacta sunt
servanda. This consensual view of international law was reflected in the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice,
which was succeeded by the United Nations Charter and is preserved in the United Nations Article 7 of the 1946 Statute of the
International Court of Justice.[10]

Treaties
Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what
the law means. In international law interpretation is within the domain of the protagonists, but may also be conferred on judicial
bodies such as the International Court of Justice, by the terms of the treaties or by consent of the parties. It is generally the
responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves, but the processes of diplomacy and availability of supra-national judicial
organs operate routinely to provide assistance to that end. Insofar as treaties are concerned, the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties writes on the topic of interpretation that:

"A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be
given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose."
(article 31(1))

This is actually a compromise between three different theories of interpretation:

The textual approach, a restrictive interpretation, which bases itself on the "ordinary meaning" of the text; that
approach assigns considerable weight to the actual text.
The subjective approach, which takes into consideration i. the idea behind the treaty , ii. treaties "in their context", and
iii. what the writers intended when they wrote the text.
A third approach, which bases itself on interpretation "in the light of its object and purpose", i.e. the interpretation that
best suits the goal of the treaty, also called "effective interpretation".
These are general rules of interpretation; specific rules might exist in specific areas of international law
.
 Greece v United Kingdom[1952] ICJ 1, ICJ had no jurisdiction to hear a dispute between the UK government and a
private Greek businessman under the terms of a treaty .
United Kingdom v Iran [1952] ICJ 2, the ICJ did not have jurisdiction for a dispute over theAnglo-Iranian Oil Co.
being nationalised.
Oil Platforms case (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) [2003] ICJ 4, rejected dispute over damage
to ships which hit a mine.

Statehood and responsibility

International law establishes the framework and the criteria for identifying states as the principal actors in the international legal
system. As the existence of a state presupposes control and jurisdiction over territory, international law deals with the acquisition of
territory, state immunity and the legal responsibility of states in their conduct with each other
. International law is similarly concerned
with the treatment of individuals within state boundaries. There is thus a comprehensive regime dealing with group rights, the
treatment of aliens, the rights of refugees, international crimes, nationality problems, and human rights generally. It further includes
the important functions of the maintenance of international peace and security, arms control, the pacific settlement of disputes and the
regulation of the use of force in international relations. Even when the law is not able to stop the outbreak of war, it has developed
principles to govern the conduct of hostilities and the treatment ofprisoners. International law is also used to govern issues relating to
the global environment, the global commons such asinternational waters and outer space, global communications, andworld trade.

In theory all states are sovereign and equal. As a result of the notion of sovereignty, the value and authority of international law is
dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be
exceptions, it is thought by many international academics that most states enter into legal commitments with other states out of
enlightened self-interestrather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. As D. W. Greig notes, "international law
international relations".[11]
cannot exist in isolation from the political factors operating in the sphere of

Traditionally, sovereign states and the Holy See were the sole subjects of international law. With the proliferation of international
organizations over the last century, they have in some cases been recognized as relevant parties as well. Recent interpretations of
international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international trade law (e.g., North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 11 actions) have been inclusive of corporations, and even of certain individuals.

The conflict between international law and national sovereignty is subject to vigorous debate and dispute in academia, diplomacy,
and politics. Certainly, there is a growing trend toward judging a state's domestic actions in the light of international law and
standards. Numerous people now view the nation-state as the primary unit of international affairs, and believe that only states may
choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, and that they have the right to follow their own counsel when it
comes to interpretation of their commitments. Certain scholars and political leaders feel that these modern developments endanger
nation states by taking power away from state governments and ceding it to international bodies such as the U.N. and the World
Bank, argue that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states, and discern a
legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. This especially occurs when
states violate or deviate from the expected standards of conduct adhered to by all civilized nations.

A number of states place emphasis on the principle of territorial sovereignty, thus seeing states as having free rein over their internal
affairs. Other states oppose this view. One group of opponents of this point of view, including many European nations, maintain that
all civilized nations have certain norms of conduct expected of them, including the prohibition of genocide, slavery and the slave
trade, wars of aggression, torture, and piracy, and that violation of these universal norms represents a crime, not only against the
individual victims, but against humanity as a whole. States and individuals who subscribe to this view opine that, in the case of the
individual responsible for violation of international law, he "is become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani
generis, an enemy of all mankind",[12] and thus subject to prosecution in a fair trial before any fundamentally just tribunal, through
the exercise of universal jurisdiction.

Though the European democracies tend to support broad, universalistic interpretations of international law, many other democracies
have differing views on international law. Several democracies, including India, Israel and the United States, take a flexible, eclectic
approach, recognizing aspects of international law such as territorial rights as universal, regarding other aspects as arising from treaty
or custom, and viewing certain aspects as not being subjects of international law at all. Democracies in the developing world, due to
their past colonial histories, often insist on non-interference in their internal affairs, particularly regarding human rights standards or
their peculiar institutions, but often strongly support international law at the bilateral and multilateral levels, such as in the United
Nations, and especially regarding the use of force, disarmament obligations, and the terms of the UN Charter
.

Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in ehran

T [1980] ICJ 1
Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium[2002] ICJ 1

Territory and the sea

Territorial dispute
Libya v Chad [1994] ICJ 1
United Kingdom v Norway[1951] ICJ 3, the Fisheries case, concerning the limits of Norway's jurisdiction over
neighbouring waters
Peru v Chile (2014) dispute over international waters.
Bakassi case [2002] ICJ 2, between Nigeria and Cameroon
Burkina Faso-Niger frontier dispute case(2013)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Corfu Channel Case [1949] ICJ 1, UK sues Albania for damage to ships in international waters. First ICJ decision.
France v United Kingdom[1953] ICJ 3
Germany v Denmark and the Netherlands[1969] ICJ 1, successful claim for a greater share of the North Sea
continental shelf by Germany. The ICJ held that the matter ought to be settled, not according to strict legal rules, but
through applying equitable principles.
Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) [2009] ICJ 3

International organisations
United Nations
World Trade Organization
International Labour Organization
NATO
European Union
G7 and G20
OPEC
Organisation of Islamic Conference

Social and economic policy

Netherlands v Sweden[1958] ICJ 8, Sweden had jurisdiction over its guardianship policy, meaning that its laws
overrode a conflicting guardianship order of the Netherlands.
Liechtenstein v Guatemala[1955] ICJ 1, the recognition of Mr Nottebohm's nationality
, connected to diplomatic
protection.
Italy v France, United Kingdom and United States[1954] ICJ 2

Human rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Croatia–Serbia genocide case(2014) ongoing claims over genocide.
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro[2007] ICJ 2
Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd [1970] ICJ 1

Labour law
 International Labour Organization
ILO Conventions
Declaration of Philadelphiaof 1944
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 1998
United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant W
orkers and Members of Their Families
the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination1965[13]
omen 1981);[14]
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against W
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities2008[15]

Development and finance

Bretton Woods Conference
World Bank
International Monetary Fund

Environmental law
Kyoto Protocol

Trade
World Trade Organization

Conflict and force

War and armed conflict

Nicaragua v. United States [1986] ICJ 1
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear eapons
W

Humanitarian law
First Geneva Conventionof 1949, Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the
Field, (first adopted in 1864)
Second Geneva Conventionof 1949, Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of
Armed Forces at Sea (first adopted in 1906)
Third Geneva Conventionof 1949, Treatment of Prisoners of War, adopted in 1929, following from theHague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
Fourth Geneva Conventionof 1949, Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

International criminal law

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Courts and enforcement

It is probably the case that almost all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their
obligations almost all the time.

[16]
 — Louis Henkin[16]

Since international law has no established compulsory judicial system for the settlement of disputes or a coercive penal system, it is
not as straightforward as managing breaches within a domestic legal system. However, there are means by which breaches are
brought to the attention of the international community and some means for resolution. For example, there are judicial or quasi-
judicial tribunals in international law in certain areas such as trade and human rights. The formation of the United Nations, for
example, created a means for the world community to enforce international law upon members that violate its charter through the
Security Council.

Since international law exists in a legal environment without an overarching "sovereign" (i.e., an external power able and willing to
compel compliance with international norms), "enforcement" of international law is very different from in the domestic context. In
many cases, enforcement takes on Coasian characteristics, where the norm is self-enforcing. In other cases, defection from the norm
can pose a real risk, particularly if the international environment is changing. When this happens, and if enough states (or enough
powerful states) continually ignore a particular aspect of international law, the norm may actually change according to concepts of
customary international law. For example, prior to World War I, unrestricted submarine warfare was considered a violation of
international law and ostensibly the casus belli for the United States' declaration of war against Germany. By World War II, however,
the practice was so widespread that during the Nuremberg trials, the charges against German Admiral Karl Dönitz for ordering
unrestricted submarine warfare were dropped, notwithstanding that the activity constituted a clear violation of the Second London
Naval Treaty of 1936.

Domestic enforcement
Apart from a state's natural inclination to uphold certain norms, the force of international law comes from the pressure that states put
upon one another to behave consistently and to honor their obligations. As with any system of law, many violations of international
law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it may be through diplomacy and the consequences upon an offending state's reputation,
submission to international judicial determination,[17][18] arbitration,[19] sanctions[20] or force including war.[21] Though violations
may be common in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also
unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In
some cases, domestic courts may render judgment against a foreign state (the realm of private international law) for an injury, though
this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law
.

It is implicit in the Westphalian system of nation-states, and explicitly recognized under Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, that all states have the inherent right to individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against them. Article
51 of the UN Charter guarantees the right of states to defend themselves until (and unless) the Security Council takes measures to
keep the peace.

International bodies
As a "deliberative, policymaking and representative organ", the United Nations General Assembly "is empowered to make
recommendations"; it can neither codify international law nor make binding resolutions.[22][23] Merely internal resolutions, such as
budgetary matters, may be binding on the operation of the General Assembly itself. Violations of the UN Charter by members of the
United Nations may be raised by the aggrieved state in the General Assembly for debate.

General Assembly resolutions are generally non-binding towards member states, but through its adoption of the "Uniting for Peace"
resolution (A/RES/377 A), of 3 November 1950, the Assembly declared that it had the power to authorize the use of force, under the
terms of the UN Charter, in cases of breaches of the peace or acts of aggression, provided that the Security Council, owing to the
negative vote of a permanent member, fails to act to address the situation. The Assembly also declared, by its adoption of resolution
377 A, that it could call for other collective measures—such as economic and diplomatic sanctions—in situations constituting the
milder "threat to the Peace".
The Uniting for Peace resolution was initiated by the United States in 1950, shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, as a means
of circumventing possible future Soviet vetoes in theSecurity Council. The legal role of the resolution is clear, given that the General
Assembly can neither issue binding resolutions nor codify law. It was never argued by the "Joint Seven-Powers" that put forward the
draft resolution,[24] during the corresponding discussions, that it in any way afforded the Assembly new powers. Instead, they argued
that the resolution simply declared what the Assembly's powers already were, according to the UN Charter, in the case of a dead-
locked Security Council.[25][26][27][28] The Soviet Union was the only permanent member of the Security Council to vote against the
Charter interpretations that were made recommendation by the Assembly's adoption of resolution 377 A.

Alleged violations of the Charter can also be raised by states in the Security Council. The Security Council could subsequently pass
resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend the "Pacific Resolution of Disputes." Such resolutions are not binding
under international law, though they usually are expressive of the Council's convictions. In rare cases, the Security Council can adopt
resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, related to "threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression," which
are legally binding under international law,and can be followed up with economic sanctions, military action, and similar uses of force
through the auspices of the United Nations.

It has been argued that resolutions passed outside of Chapter VII can also be binding; the legal basis for that is the Council's broad
powers under Article 24(2), which states that "in discharging these duties (exercise of primary responsibility in international peace
and security), it shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". The mandatory nature of such
resolutions was upheld by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its advisory opinion on Namibia. The binding nature of such
resolutions can be deduced from an interpretation of their language and intent.

States can also, upon mutual consent, submit disputes for arbitration by the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague,
Netherlands. The judgments given by the Court in these cases are binding, although it possesses no means to enforce its rulings. The
Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request. Some of the advisory cases brought before the court have been
controversial with respect to the court's competence and jurisdiction.

Often enormously complicated matters, ICJ cases (of which there have been less than 150 since the court was created from the
Permanent Court of International Justice in 1945) can stretch on for years and generally involve thousands of pages of pleadings,
evidence, and the world's leading specialist international lawyers. As of June 2009, there are 15 cases pending at the ICJ. Decisions
made through other means of arbitration may be binding or non-binding depending on the nature of the arbitration agreement,
whereas decisions resulting from contentious cases ar
gued before the ICJ are always binding on the involved states.

Though states (or increasingly, international organizations) are usually the only ones with standing to address a violation of
international law, some treaties, such as theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have an optional protocol that allows
individuals who have had their rights violated by member states to petition the international Human Rights Committee. Investment
treaties commonly and routinely provide for enforcement by individuals or investing entities.[29] and commercial agreements of
[30]
foreigners with sovereign governments may be enforced on the international plane.

International courts
There are numerous international bodies created by treaties adjudicating on legal issues where they may have jurisdiction. The only
one claiming universal jurisdiction is the United Nations Security Council. Others are: the United Nations International Court of
Justice, and the International Criminal Court(when national systems have totally failed and the Treaty of Rome is applicable) and the
Court of Arbitration for Sport.

East Africa Community

There were ambitions to make the East African Community
, consisting of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, a political
federation with its own form of binding supranational law
, but this effort has not materialized.
Union of South American Nations
The Union of South American Nations serves the South American continent. It intends to establish a framework akin to the European
Union by the end of 2019. It is envisaged to have its own passport and currency
, and limit barriers to trade.

Andean Community of Nations

The Andean Community of Nations is the first attempt to integrate the countries of the Andes Mountains in South America. It started
with the Cartagena Agreement of 26 May 1969, and consists of four countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The Andean
Community follows supranational laws, called Agreements, which are mandatory for these countries.

International legal theory

International legal theory comprises a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches used to explain and analyse the content,
formation and effectiveness of international law and institutions and to suggest improvements. Some approaches center on the
question of compliance: why states follow international norms in the absence of a coercitive power that ensures compliance. Other
approaches focus on the problem of the formation of international rules: why states voluntarily adopt international law norms, that
limit their freedom of action, in the absence of a world legislature; while other perspectives are policy oriented: they elaborate
theoretical frameworks and instruments to criticize the existing norms and to make suggestions on how to improve them. Some of
these approaches are based on domestic legal theory, some are interdisciplinary, and others have been developed expressly to analyse
international law. Classical approaches to International legal theory are the Natural law, the Eclectic and the Legal positivism schools
of thought.

The natural law approach argues that international norms should be based on axiomatic truths. 16th-century natural law writer,
Francisco de Vitoria, a professor of theology at the University of Salamanca, examined the questions of the just war, the Spanish
authority in the Americas, and the rights of the Native American peoples.

In 1625 Hugo Grotius argued that nations as well as persons ought to be governed by universal principle based on morality and
divine justice while the relations among polities ought to be governed by the law of peoples, the jus gentium, established by the
consent of the community of nations on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, that is, on the basis of the observance of
commitments. On his part,Emmerich de Vattel argued instead for the equality of states as articulated by 18th-century natural law and
suggested that the law of nations was composed of custom and law on the one hand, and natural law on the other. During the 17th
century, the basic tenets of the Grotian or eclectic school, especially the doctrines of legal equality, territorial sovereignty, and
independence of states, became the fundamental principles of the European political and legal system and were enshrined in the 1648
Peace of Westphalia.

The early positivist school emphasized the importance of custom and treaties as sources of international law. 16th-century Alberico
Gentili used historical examples to posit that positive law (jus voluntarium) was determined by general consent. Cornelius van
Bynkershoek asserted that the bases of international law were customs and treaties commonly consented to by various states, while
John Jacob Moser emphasized the importance of state practice in international law. The positivism school narrowed the range of
international practice that might qualify as law, favouring rationality over morality and ethics. The 1815 Congress of Vienna marked
the formal recognition of the political and international legal system based on the conditions of Europe.

Modern legal positivists consider international law as a unified system of rules that emanates from the states' will. International law,
as it is, is an "objective" reality that needs to be distinguished from law "as it should be." Classic positivism demands rigorous tests
for legal validity and it deems irrelevant all extralegal arguments.[31]

Terminology
The term "international law" is sometimes divided into "public" and "private" international law, particularly by civil law scholars,
who seek to follow a Roman tradition.[32] Roman lawyers would have further distinguished jus gentium, the law of nations, and jus
inter gentes – agreements between nations. On this view, "public" international law is said to cover relations between nation-states,
and includes fields such as treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law, the laws of war or international humanitarian law,
international human rights law, and refugee law. By contrast "private" international law, which is more commonly termed "conflict of
laws", concerns whether courts within countries claim jurisdiction over cases with a foreign element, and which country's law
applies.[33] A further concept, more recently developing, is of "supranational law", on the law of supranational organizations. This
concerns regional agreements where the laws of nation states may be held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal
system when that nation has a treaty obligation to a supranational collective.[34] Systems of "supranational law" arise when nations
explicitly cede their right to make certain judicial decisions to a common tribunal.[35] The decisions of the common tribunal are
directly effective in each party nation, and have priority over decisions taken by national courts.[36] The European Union is an
example of an international treaty organization which implements a supranational legal framework, with the European Court of
Justice having supremacy over all member-nation courts in matter of European Union law. A further frequently used term is
[37]
"transnational law", which refers to a body of rules that transcend the nation state.

Criticisms
Nation-states observe the principle of par in parem non habet imperium, 'Between equals there is no sovereign power'. John Austin
therefore asserted that 'so-called' international law, lacking a sovereign power and so unenforceable, was not really law at all, but
[38]
'positive morality', consisting of 'opinions and sentiments...more ethical than legal in nature.'

Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter confirms this Sovereignty of Nations; no state is in subjection to any other state.

Also, since the bulk of international law is treaty law

, binding only on signatories, then;

'If legislation is the making of laws by a person or assembly binding on the whole community, there is no such thing
as international law. For treaties bind only those who sign them.'

Since states are few in number, diverse and atypical in character, unindictable, lacking a centralised sovereign power, and their
agreements unpoliced and decentralised,[39] then, says Wight, 'international society is not a society at all. The condition of
international relations is best described as international anarchy;

'While in domestic politics the struggle for power is governed and circumscribed by law, in international politics, law
is governed and circumscribed by the struggle for power. (This is why) international politics is called power politics...
War is the only means by which states can in the last resort defend vital interests...the causes of war are inherent in
power politics.'

On the subject of treaty law, Charles de Gaulle said this; 'Treaties are like pretty girls, or roses; they last only as long as they last.' [40]

For Hans Morgenthau, international law is the weakest and most primitive system of law enforcement. Its decentralised nature makes
it similar to the law that prevails in preliterate tribal societies.[41] A Monopoly on violence is what makes domestic law enforceable;
but between nations, there are multiple competing sources of force.[42] The confusion created by treaty laws, which resemble private
contracts between persons, is mitigated only by the relatively small number of states.[43] On the vital subject of war, it is unclear
whether the Nuremberg trials created new law, or applied the existing law of theKellogg-Briand pact.

Morgenthau asserts that no state may be compelled to submit a dispute to an international tribunal, making laws unenforceable and
voluntary.[44] International law is also unpoliced, lacking agencies for enforcement.[45] He cites a 1947 US opinion poll in which
75% of respondents wanted 'an international police to maintain world peace'; but only 13% wanted that force to exceed the US armed
[46]
forces. Later surveys have produced similar contradictory results.

See also
List of International Court of Justice cases
 List of international public law topics
List of treaties
Consular law
Anarchy (international relations)
Aviation law and Space law
Chapeau
Centre for International Law (CIL)
Commissions of the Danube River
Comparative law
Conference of the parties
Diplomatic law and Diplomatic recognition
Environmental agreements
Global administrative law
Global policeman
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
International Law Commission
International litigation
International community
International constitutional law
International Law Commission
Internationalization of the Danube River
INTERPOL
Legal status of the Holy See
Martens Clause
Personal jurisdiction over international defendants in the United States
Prize law
Speaking truth to power
Third World Approaches to International Law(TWAIL)
UNIDROIT
United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee (Legal)
University for Peace
The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
Pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be kept)
Roerich Pact
Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project (RULAC)

Notes
1. "international law" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/international+law). Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved
13 September 2011.
2. The term was first used byJeremy Bentham in his "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" in 1780.
See Bentham, Jeremy (1789), An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation(http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/121
48/bpt6k93974k/f40.image.r=.langEN), London: T. Payne, p. 6, retrieved 2012-12-05
3. Slomanson, William (2011).Fundamental Perspectives on International Law
. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. pp. 4–5.
4. Slomanson, William (2011).Fundamental Perspectives on International Law
. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. p. 4.
5. Woods, Thomas E. (Jr.) (2005). How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, DC: Regnery
Publishing. ISBN 978-0-89526-038-3.
6. Randall Lesaffer, “Too Much History: from War as Sanction to the Sanctioning of War”, in Marc Weller (ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p.37-38
7. Thomas Woods Jr. (18 September 2012).How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=jYvmAgAAQBAJ). Regnery Publishing, Incorporated, An Eagle Publishing Company . pp. 5, 141–142.
ISBN 978-1-59698-328-1.
8. China and Her People, Charles Denby, L. C. Page, Boston 1906 page 203
 9. Slomanson, William (2011).Fundamental Perspectives on International Law
. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. pp. 26–27.
10. Charter of the United Nations(https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml), United Nations, 24 October
1945, 1 UNTS, XVI
11. Greig, D. W., International Law, 2nd edn (Butterworths: London, 1976)
12. Janis, M. and Noyes, J. International Law": Cases and Commentary (3rd ed.), Prosecutor. Furundžija,
v Page 148
(2006)
13. "OHCHR" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080530072459/http://www .unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm). 30 May
2008. Archived from the original on May 30, 2008
. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
14. "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against W
omen" (https://www.un.org/womenwatch/da
w/cedaw/index.html). United Nations. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
15. "Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"(https://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.sht
ml). United Nations. 30 March 2007. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
16. Henkin, Louis (1968). How Nations Behave. p. 47.
17. "Home – International Court of Justice"(http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php). Retrieved 17 August 2015.
18. "Contentious Cases – International Court of Justice"(http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=cd&case
=1). Retrieved 17 August 2015.
19. "Arbitral Opinion Relative to the Gold of the National Bank of Albania".The American Journal of International Law.
49 (3): 403–405. 1 January 1955.doi:10.2307/2194880 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2194880). JSTOR 2194880 (http
s://www.jstor.org/stable/2194880).
20. "Syria Sanctions" (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx)
. Treasury.gov.
Retrieved 17 August 2015.
21. "The Falklands Conflict"(http://www.falklandswar.org.uk). Falkslandswar.org.uk. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
22. "Functions and powers of the General Assembly"(http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/background.shtml). un.org. United
Nations. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
23. "International Law and Justice"(http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/international-law-and-justice/index.html).
un.org. United Nations. 2016-08-30. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
24. United States, United Kingdom, France, Canada, T
urkey, Philippines and Uruguay
25. United Nations General AssemblySession 5 Proces Verbal A/PV.299 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sy
mbol=A/PV.299) 1 November 1950. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
26. United Nations General AssemblySession 5 Proces Verbal A/PV.300 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sy
mbol=A/PV.300) 2 November 1950. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
27. United Nations General AssemblySession 5 Proces Verbal A/PV.301 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sy
mbol=A/PV.301) 2 November 1950. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
28. United Nations General AssemblySession 5 Proces Verbal A/PV.302 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?sy
mbol=A/PV.302) 3 November 1950. Retrieved 2008-04-13.
29. "Australia Indonesia Treaties" (https://archive.is/20120712220742/http://finlayson.id.au/index.php/practising-law/austr
alia-indonesia-agreements/).
30. "The Sandline Affair Illegality And International Law* - International Law – Australia"(http://www.mondaq.com/austral
ia/article.asp?articleid=12836). Mondaq.com. Retrieved 27 December 2017.
31. Bruno Simma and Andreas L.Paulus "Symposium on method in International Law: The Responsibility of Individuals
for Human Rights Abuses in Internal Conflicts: A Positivist iVew" 93 American Journal of International Law 302
(April, 1999)
32. There is an ongoing debate on the relationship between different branches of international law. Koskenniemi, Marti
(September 2002). "Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties"(http://journals.cambridge.org/article
_S0922156502000262). Leiden Journal of International Law. 15 (3): 553–579. doi:10.1017/S0922156502000262(htt
ps://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0922156502000262) . Retrieved 30 January 2015. Yun, Seira (2014). "Breaking Imaginary
Barriers: Obligations of Armed Non-State Actors Under General Human Rights Law – The Case of the Optional
Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child".Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
. 5 (1–2):
213–257. SSRN 2556825 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2556825).
33. "Private International Law"(http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/private_international_law.asp). Oas.org. August 2009.
Retrieved 27 December 2017.
34. Kolcak, Hakan. "The Sovereignty of the European Court of Justice and the EU's Supranational Legal System" (http://
www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/883/the-sovereignty-of-the-european-court-of-justice-and-the-eus-supranational-le
gal-system). Inquiriesjournal.com. Retrieved 27 December 2017.
35. Degan, Vladimir Đuro (1997-05-21).Sources of International Law(https://books.google.com/books?id=K0pTp1qCc9
UC&pg=PA126). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 9789041104212. Retrieved 5 December 2015.
36. Blanpain, Roger (2010).Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations in Industrialized Market Economies
(http
s://books.google.com/books?id=ahaoKRbqPdMC&pg=P A410). Kluwer Law International. pp. 410 n.61.
ISBN 9789041133489. Retrieved 5 December 2015.
37. Cotterrell, Roger (2012-03-01). "What Is Transnational Law?". Law & Social Inquiry. 37 (2): 500–524.
doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2012.01306.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-4469.2012.01306.x) . ISSN 1747-4469 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/issn/1747-4469).
38. James B Scott, "The legal nature of international law",Columbia Law Review, vol 5 no 2, Feb 1905, p 128-30
39. Wight, power politics, p 109
40. speech, 2/7/1963; Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, OUP 1999, p. 255
41. Morgenthau, Politics among nations, fifth edition, Knopf, 1976, p273
42. ibid, p273-4
43. ibid, p 275
44. ibid, p281
45. ibid, p 289
46. ibid, p 324

References
I Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law(7th edn Oxford University Press2008) ISBN 0-19-926071-0
Dominique Carreau, Droit international, Pedone, 10e édition, 2009ISBN 9782233005618.
P.-M. Dupuy & Y. Kerbrat, "Droit international public" (10th ed., Paris, Dalloz, 2010)ISBN 9782247088935
E. Lawson, and ML Bertucci,Encyclopedia of human rights(2nd edn Taylor & Francis 1996)
E. Osmanczyk, The encyclopedia of the United Nations and international relations(Taylor & Francis 1990)
M. N. Shaw, International Law (5th edn Cambridge University Press2003)
Rafael Domingo Osle, The New Global Law (Cambridge University Press 2010)

World Encyclopedia of Law, with International Legal Research and a Law dictionary
David L. Sloss, Michael D. Ramsey, William S. Dodge, International Law in theU.S. Supreme Court, 0521119561,
978-0-521-11956-6 Cambridge University Press 2011
Anaya, S.J. (2004). Indigenous Peoples in International Law. Oxford University Press.ISBN 978-0-19-517350-5.
Klabbers, J. (2013). International Law. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-0-521-19487-7.
Shaw, M.N. (2014). International Law. Cambridge University Press.ISBN 978-1-316-06127-5.

External links
United Nations Rule of Law, the United Nations' centralised website on therule of law
UNOG Library Legal Research Guide
Centre for International Law (CIL), Singapore
International law overview
Department of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
Primary Legal Documents Critical to an Understanding of the Development of Public International Law
Public International Law as a Form of Private Ordering
The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
Public International Law – Resources
A Brief Primer on International LawWith cases and commentary. Nathaniel Burney, 2007.
American Society of International Law – 100 W ays International Law Shapes Our Lives
Department of Public International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
 American Society of International Law – Resource Guide (Introduction)
International Law Details
International Law Observer – Blog dedicated to reports and commentary on International Law
Official United Nations website
Official UN website on International Law
Official website of the International Court of Justice
Opinio Juris – Blog on International Law and International Relations
United Nations Treaty Collection
UN – Audiovisual Library of International Law
The European Institute for International Law and International Relations
Public International Law as a Form of Private Ordering
Public International Law, Research Guide, Peace Palace Library
UNOG Library – Legal Research Guide

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_law&oldid=883398387

"

This page was last edited on 15 February 2019, at 04:59(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.