International Law - Law or Not?

Question

International law has no soveign, no compulsary judiciary, no legislature and no police force.

Does this mean it is not really law?

Answer 1

According to the President of the International Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins, international law is a normative system "harnessed to the achievement of common values —values that speak to us all, whether we are rich or poor, black or white, of any religion or none, or come from countries that are industrialized or developing".

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. The 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.

So I believe yes, international law is "LAW"

Answer 2

Law enforcement is not always the same as having the law in the first place. A law may not be effective if not enforced, but it still can be the law. And there are international courts for adjudicating the laws, even if there is no real international law enforcement body.

However, most of international law is made up of treaties between nations, and those treaties can be enforced in the courts of the member nations. So, if for example Spain violates a treaty, they can be sued in Spanish courts for that violation, under whatever procedural rules apply.

The biggest enforcement is the economic trade and sanctions that can be imposed if a country violates its treaties.

Answer 3

All law, international or domestic, is based on custom and agreement. The only difference between international & domestic law is that the former has no "sovereign" who has a legitimate right of enforcement. Historically, major military powers, and since about 1815, multilateral treaties -- of which the UN is the latest & greatest -- have provided limited means of enforcement. Nevertheless, international law is generally recognized and enforced on their own citizens by all civilized countries. For instance the US Constitution expressly states that treaties ratified by Congress are the "supreme law of the land." (Art. VI, pgh 2.) and gives Congress the power to "punish . . .offenses against the law of nations." (Art I, Sec 8, pgh 10).

Answer 4

You're absolutely right. Although there are courts, the world is organized along the lines of sovereign nation-states. And because they are sovereign it means they are above every law buth their own. Nations only abide by international law when they feel it is in their best interests to do so, or when they believe the political (not legal) consequences are greater than they wish to shoulder.

Great Question.

Answer 5

There is the World Court, International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice, administerd by the UN. The US only accepts decisions of the International Court on a case-by-case basis.

Answer 6

According to the President of the International Court of Justice, Rosalyn Higgins, international law is a normative system "harnessed to the achievement of common values —values that speak to us all, whether we are rich or poor, black or white, of any religion or none, or come from countries that are industrialized or developing".

Answer 7

I think International Law is less like law, more like a... "law" like... suggestion... =/ which most countries involved feel somewhat compelled to follow due to the political strings attached, most countries that is except the US who hold all the strings so can do whatever it wants no matter how wrong it is. Cause we're American! So distasteful, the bitterness is strong in my mouth!

Answer 8

The $64,000 question. But the U.S. will support it as long as it serves its purpose(s). When you start talking about an international criminal court, many would put Henry Kissinger in the que for war criminals. The U.S. won't allow that.

Answer 9

International Law, is nowt but a damp squib!