Why Is State Consent Important In International Law

International law can be seen as basic principles of morality that unite nations of diverse backgrounds. In order for these principles to be abided as law, it is important that each state retains its individual sovereignty. If, and only if state consent is taken into consideration when finding a common ground for international approaches, can a fair agreement be reached. In this paper I will argue that Andrew Guzman is correct when he claims that state consent is a fundamental principle in international law that creates legal obligations for states. Hence, in this paper I will discuss how treaties such as NATO and the persistent objector rule in customary law prove that Guzman’s claims are right. Consensual law has served as a neutral pathway to solving the pressing issues faced in our world today. In today's world international law relies heavily on state

Those that oppose consent argue that international law is not founded on state consent but rather on fear of repercussions, believing that “If a country feels that a proposed change to international law does not serve its interests, it can avoid that change by withholding its agreement” is false and misleading. In other words, they will claim that the only reason why states follow international norms is to avoid sanctions from being imposed on them. However, this argument has flaws, as some states do not worried about sanctions being inflicted on them. For example, Pakistan has declined to eliminate terrorist from its territory even after economic sanctions for not doing so were imposed on them. It thus, cannot be stated that international law is only founded on the fear of being sanctioned. For the majority of the time sanctions fail as they are hardly granted and when they are granted they tend to burden a states’ citizens more than the heads of the