THEORIES AS TO THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Much theoretical controversy has been waged over the nature and basis of international law. In the coming sections the various aspects of the theories trying to give satisfactory structure of the concerned law. Does International posses law quality ? One theory which has enjoyed wide acceptance is that international law is not true law, but a code of rules of conduct of moral force only. The English writer on jurisprudence, John Austin (1790-1859), must be regarded as foremost among the protagonists of this theory.
According to this school of thought, International Relations is an arena where different sovereign states acts as a rational unit and sets aside morals and values for their own political and economic advancement and the thought also mentioned that the only way of achieving international security is to balance the power among the powerful states within the arena, which results in states continuously enacting and creating International Laws and Policies to even the scales. The different needs and desires of man potentially brings out the rational capabilities of the state to think for itself and its own. As to my opinion on the matter I consider International Laws and Policies as a result of a cause and effect, it can be the cause as well as the effect per se. It is a cause in a sense that man continuously create and enact International Laws and Policies to succeed or improve the previous law, and an effect in a sense that it is the results of man’s desire to promote and advance his own welfare and property, Which ultimately leads to these kinds of laws and policies. The effect of international law is additive, not absolute.
International Law assumes a society of nations and it governs the relationship of the members of this society. A system composed solely of legal rules and principles binding upon civilized nations only in their mutual relations. Professor Oppenheim has defined international law in the following words: “Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized States in their intercourse with each other.” In the ninth edition of Oppenheim 's book the term 'international law ' has been defined as: “International law is the body of rules which are legally binding on States in their intercourse with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern
The assumption of the realist in this matter is correct in my opinion. States will prioritize its national interest first more than anything, and by anything it includes international law. Hence, even if the international law did exist, major states could merely dismiss it, as they will presumably get no harm. A shame for the law exists to serve on one purpose: Justice, and by that sense international law exists to serve justice in the world, to be able to create peace. Well, seeing these (in gaming term) many ‘glitches’ in the international laws though, peace is still far away from
Without precedent in past centuries, international law has prospered at a pace. It has been established that the state is the principal and significant subject of international law to which the international order accords personality. Personality is the quality of being a person. The state, in the international perspective bears the most extensive form of legal personality wherein it must possess certain attributes such as having a permanent population, a definite territory, a government, and sovereignty or independence or the capacity to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. As consequences of having a legal personality are the various rights, duties, powers and obligations that each state has to follow as imposed by international law.
The fact is that there is no state that can fulfill its needs by only depending on the resources within the state but instead a state’s needs might be available in other states. Thus, a state has to enter a relations with other states to fulfill its needs either it is a bilateral or multilateral relations, or even regional cooperation. The relations among states are not always ideal and having no problems yet it often times turns in to conflicts. Hence, to maintain states in the right track to minimalize the conflict there must be some sets of regulations to rule the states which is known as international law. Simply said,
Hobbes equates preservation of nature with preservation of life. He argues that since nature is always right, it follows that life is always right. Thus, humanity’s most fundamental telos is to live. In the context of passions, he elaborates, “The passions that induce men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by the industry to obtain them” (78). Notably, man is induced to peace through appetite (desire and hope) and aversion (fear), which suggests a particularly strong motivation to act for self-preservation.
Q1. Hobbes’ state of nature is a dreadful place with no way to enforce social rules. It is an unpleasant place revealing that everybody essentially needs the same basic resources to survive (equality of need) and that these basic resources are scarce and difficult to produce (fundamental scarcity). Hence we will have to compete for them (equality of power). And since human beings are naturally selfish and egoistic, nobody will look after the needs of others (limited altruism) (Rachels, 2011, p. 83).
States negotiate, adopt, sign, ratify, and then implement international conventions, treaties, protocols, and agreements. Moreover, state behavior undertaken out of a sense of legal obligation creates customary international law. Insofar as international treaties and custom are the most important sources of international environmental law, states remain the most important actor in international environmental law. Paradoxically, just as states are the most important actors formulating international environmental law, states also can serve as the most important source of international environmental problems. States create the problems that, in turn, they seek, or are called upon, to rectify through
International relations are an inherently normative subject. The concept of international relation and the public good includes a traditional concern of national and international security. States have organized their foreign relations around certain key and shared principles that leads both international security and advanced common interests. States has war policy, sustainable relationship, common interests. Most of the state done this without noticing any international governance.