Why has international law been as effective as it has?

Question

How come it's effective when states still have domestic laws, don't the national interests clash?

Answer 1

Good question.

Most often international law does not in fact conflict with domestic law. After all, treaties (which incorporate or codify much -- but far from all -- international law) are ratified and (in some countries, like Britain, that are "dualist" countries and where this is necessary) specifically made the object of an implementing law.

(The USA is a "monist" country where only ratification by the Senate is necessary. But for political reasons most major treaties are today legislated into effect.)

Some examples of non-legislated, non-treaty rules universally accepted:

(1) whether a person is a national (citizen) of a country is solely a matter for that other country to say. (There have been very few exceptions to this, chiefly involving the Nuremberg laws taking away German citizenship from Jews in the 1930s; and a couple of cases involving decolonization.)

(2) national territory includes the sky above a country, but not outer space. And the sea, out to a limit of X miles (where X has historically varied; and economic and fisheries zones have been created in recent decades).

(3) no state should meddle in the internal affairs of another (here, of course, the problem is defining "internal").

Often states do ignore, or repudiate, international law as accepted by most other states. And many states are hypocritical about international law. One good example is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on US invasion of Nicaragua. The USA walked out of the court, in an act that has forever shamed it. Another US embarrassment (and conflict) is between the ICJ ruling on the rights of arrested persons and prisoners to contact a consular officer of their country. The ICJ ordered a stay of execution where the US violated this rule (actually a treaty right) and the US Supreme Court permitted such executions to take place.

Sometimes international law is observed only by reason of political and diplomatic convenience -- or embarrassment: http://www.uniset.ca/other/news/wp_ronaldanderson.html (US military deserter seized in Canada and forced back to the USA by US immigration officers; later released by order of Secretary of State Kissinger)

As international law changes over time -- human rights law is a good example, and it's not understood the same way everywhere, Muslim countries being an example: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/islam.html -- there is often disagreement as to what it is. International law requires consensus, and comes from long usage and acceptance, from treaties, UN and ICJ decisions, and even from consistent findings of domestic courts in many countries, and from regional courts such as the European Court of Human Rights.

Be that as it may, few countries want to be seen as violating international law, at least consistently violating it, or being anarchic. That's why there are "show trials" in dictatorships, and elections too where the incumbent typically wins 99.9% of the vote. And why such countries holler so loudly about the sanctity and inviolability of their sovereignty, and about alleged "meddling" in their internal affairs.

On the latter point, the right and duty of other countries to intervene where there is genocide in process, and other severe violations of human rights, is new. And as we see in Darfur and saw in Rwanda and Bosnia, selective.

Answer 2

Is International Law Effective

Answer 3

International law is effective when involving conflicts between states because it is accepted among the countries under traditions and agreements between states. A domestic law is not acceptable because it is self-serving on the state upholding it.

Answer 4

No because human right law prevails, when it needs to...