Public International Law is a body of rules that legally binds States together in their interactions with other states as well as with individuals and different organizations. International law covers a range of activities such as the conducts of war, trade, human rights, the sharing of oceanic resources, and diplomatic relations. Although the structure of international law is based around sovereign equality, the system itself has been put into question of whether or not it’s been built in favor of the stronger states over the weak. This paper will provide three examples as to how the system of international law is biased toward the stronger sovereignties of the world against the weaker ones.
When it comes to powerful states, it seems rather difficult to constrain them to international law without the elements of community interests or the balance of power. It is therefore believed that international law itself is instrumental to, and shaped by, power. International law often reflects as a tool used by the most powerful states to exert their influence and dominance onto the less powerful states. For example, powerful states can, in some areas, use international law as a means to regulate or stabilize their dominance while in other areas, they can withdraw from it by pursuing other means such as replacing it with domestic laws, making it easier for the dominating states to establish hierarchies and to directly govern other states. When a stronger state decides not to comply
foreign policy goals often fail when we put our equities above other state’s interests and believe that our perceived authority around the world obviates the need for any give-and-take. The notion of uncompromising demands is not as prevalent today. Foreign officials are perfecting the art of diplomacy and states are able to leverage their foreign policy tools (e.g., trade, energy, natural resources, access) to achieve compromising results.
These are some examples of the power States governments
91). Postmodern critics consider international law as an institution of domination that is turned to the advantage of the elite; used by powerful for the powerful. They point to the ambiguity of legal language and its potentialities for abuse: “Indeed, it seems that international law serves no purpose but its abuse for the ideological purposes of the strong, that is, in Marxian terms, as Überbau (superstructure) of the interests of the powerful” (Paulus, 2001, p. 727). Often compared with the early Realist tradition of international relations, postmodern critics argue that international law is not law at all, if not international morality, then just a type of international politics. Where the first wave of critical theorists sought to deconstruct the law and expose its deficiencies, the second wave of critical theorists was interested in making changes to law after deconstruction believing it might, in fact, be capable of doing
The laws are meant to govern each of the countries with the intention of maintaining order. Under the said constitution, each of the countries operate under a common law. There is that law which cuts across all arms of governments in both cases. Aside from that, each country has a supreme court, which is the main body in enforcing law.
He says the existence of a dominant power always exercise hegemonial authority thereby creating a norms under which independent states interact with each other. This conceptual framework of states existing under certain prescribes norms finds relevant in the contemporary IR more likely after the Treaty of Westphalia. This hegemonic world order needs to be explained from an approach which best predicts events and affairs in the international system. Looking at the larger factors concerning
It is heavily influenced from the Groation tradition. According to this perspective, regimes are much more pervasive and exist in all areas of international relations. Contrary to the conventional structure and modified structural, this viewpoint moves away from realist thinking as it is “too limited to explain an increasingly complex, interdependent, and complex world.” This approach rejects the assumption that the international system is comprised of states and the balance of power is solely due to force. Rather, it argues that elites are the principal actors and that they have national and transnational ties.
To govern oneself as one wished is an attribute of independence. A sovereign state may not be disturbed by another state unless it has given the right to intervene. When a state attaches legal consequences to conduct in another state, it exercises control over that conduct, and when such control affects essential interests in the foreign state, it may constitute an interference with the sovereign rights of that foreign
In International Relations, various theoretical perspectives are employed to provide a clear framework for the analysis of complex international relationships. One key concept that scholars have strived to fully analyze is “anarchy” and its significance within the International System. Anarchy, as defined by many IR scholars, is the lack of an overarching authority that helps govern the international system. (Class Notes, January 29). Its importance and power to dictate actions between states is often debated and various theories have been used to describe its significance.
Introduction According to Bledsoe and Bozcek in their book, the International Law Dictionary, state jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law. It is derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature. In other words Jurisdiction is the authority state has over individuals, property and actions which happen within its sovereign territorial area (whether it is its land, its national airspace, its internal and territorial water, or even its national vessels) therefore giving state the right to stipulate laws, impose them and to adjudge the proceeding of it. Jurisdiction (or state Jurisdiction) is a quite versatile term in International Law, as there are actually three types of jurisdiction held by state.
Introduction In this article, Eric Poser has elaborated several reasons which made human rights a failure in international legal regime. The most highlighted issues are hypocrite policies of US and EU which has directly questioned credibility and integrity of their law and justice. The second reason is role played by Russia and China, the two major economic powers who in order to sustain their power, are involved in human rights violations. The third most important reason is standardized model of Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is ideal but not practical in various countries.
International laws are, by definition “A body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another” (www.oxforddictionaries.com). International law is a very significant topic because it affects everyone globally. In this research report, I would like to explore the advantages and disadvantages of international laws and consider if they should be enforced in all countries. The modern system we use today was developed in the 17th century in Europe and is still used worldwide (Stratton, 2009). After the Second World War, international unity became very popular (Neff).
It believes that all individuals are born with an increasing desire to own power hardwired inside them. In these circumstances dominant states should do direct high power over their rivals. In the other hand, structural realism does not define the quest for power, instead it is focused on the structure of the international
Focus can also be drawn towards the growing advocacy of courts in handling political conflicts and restructuring economies. In recent years, legal scholars, political scientists and social scientists in Western countries have explored the trend of ‘judicial internationalization’, meaning the increased interaction between judges from different jurisdictions around the world . It has been suggested that courts, in particular the
Globalization has indeed impacted human rights worldwide; however as to whether the impact is negative or positive depends on which part of the world one finds him/herself. “Human Right” by definition “is the right which is believed to belong to every person”. The central idea of globalization is for businesses to develop international influence and operate on an international scale. Globalization has given people the right to information. Thanks to globalization technology has travelled all over the world to help people have easy access to information.
The question is whether a matter is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state or not has to be decided by the Security Council which is controlled by the five permanent members of the United Nations. The availability of the veto power in the hands of the permanent members of the Security Council is a major obstacle in solving international problems. There is no certainty for international law. The international law has failed to maintain order and peace in the world for many