International Law, probably one of the most highly politicized and disputed areas within legal studies, is significantly different from domestic national laws in one important way.
Whereas all states have courts, jails, etc. as methods of enforcing legal statutes, there is no such comparable structure between nations at the international level.
Some precursors do exist, such as the ICC and the ICJ, but such courts do not have universal jurisdiction and cannot enforce judgements on any unwilling party. Other bodies, such as the UN, are notorious for having resolutions consistently ignored by influential states exerting their own national interests above and beyond that of the international community.
Even more contentious are challenges of pre-emptive strikes or regime changes, as advocated by the current American regime following previous recommendations found in the report by the Project for the New American Century.
Jurists therefore struggle with the notion of an illegal war that cannot be legally prevented.
Critics easily assert that if all nations were to behave in this manner it would result in mass chaos. While technically correct, the reality is that there are few players that can unilaterally behave in this manner in the current political landscape.
For all of these reasons, there are some who suggest that international law does not operate in the same manner as that of other areas of law. Quincy Wright has stated that international law,
…as understood by traditionalists it appears to be obsolete, and as understood by the modernists it appears to be premature.
However, advocates demonstrate that there are countless examples of domestic laws that are not followed or enforced, and that this criterion should not be used to exclude international law from the field of legal studies. Furthermore, the development of globalization has resulted in enormous growth of international trade law, which is typically adhered to more strictly.
Canada struggles with its own cases of international trade, as with the softwood lumber dispute. Law students examining these conflicts will no doubt be similarly frustrated by the lack of enforcement, but there is little argument that the solution to these problems continues to be a legal one.
While I would agree with what is written here, there is still a powerful influence on countries to comply with the findings of international law through the pressure of public scrutiny and reputation on the international scene (which still means for a lot).
I would agree most strongly that international law is premature, but the potential is large.
My own case is a human rights issue, I don’t know, if I can fail to mention to you, & on which anyone, who wants to see me as a changed man, is absolutely welcome to re-ceive any of my further, my most adecuate info, e.g. about, why I’m A Morallist, so that I can of course tell you & e.g. try to become a man, as optimistical as possible e.g. about, what common sense means to whom.
Greetings, Ifoundittout@yahoo.com.
Is international law a legal system?
international law is constantly ignored and abused in order to justify western imperial gains.
A perfect example of international law being non-existent is the Israeli attack on the Aid Floatilla in international water murdering 9 unarmned innocent people bringing food, and non-military supplies to the suffering people of Gaza who have been cut off from food, water, toys, and medical supplies for the past 3 years after a free and fair election in which they chose Hamas to run their country against the wishes of Israels current administration and the United States.
After murdering these innocent aid workers absolutely nothing will happen to the perpetrators of this brutal crime.
The United nations is powerless and useless. The United States and their politicians are completely bought off and on the take from the pro-Israel lobby to the point where it is political suicide to speak out against the attrocities of Israel in any forum in the US media. US politicians cower to the pro-Israel lobby, therefore israel can murder at will without consequences.
There is no international law.
The only form of international law which i can confidently say that it exists is the laws of global neo imperalism which is headquartered in New york and London.This story of international public law is the handiwork of masked bloodsuckers or wolves in the skin of goats.
How can what they can international law make the world cry and leave the five big smilling.
there is no international law and this world will never have one untill the soul of man parches on a tree.
is it possible to ignore international pressures altogether? What about the role of reputation for countries?
Pls i will need a very good point to confuse me that international Law does not exist.
I think this debate gets too academic. I think its best to look at real world comparisons.
For example, I choose which laws to follow and which ones to break. For example, I could choose to murder someone or not. But either way, I do NOT choose weather or not the law will be applied to me. Society chooses to apply the law to me. That is a subtle but extremely important distinction.
In the case of, “international law” as far as UN resolutions, international criminal courts and the UN itself are concerned the “rules” only apply to members if those members choose to be involved. Choosing to break international law is not the issue. The issue is that weather or not the rules even apply is voluntary. AT that point it’s not really law it’s merrily a guideline or a suggestion.