International Law

International Law is essential for maintaining proper international relations. It refers to a set of rules that regulate the conduct of nation-states, which feel obligated to follow them. When conflicts or disputes arise between countries, International Law is considered for resolution, and states are expected to adhere to the rules it sets forth. These rules are enforced to promote peace, harmony, and to protect national interests. When nations act against International Law, it harms their credibility among other states and diminishes the system's value in the eyes of citizens.

The fundamental principles of International Law date back thousands of years. Treaties and agreements were created to settle disputes peacefully and avoid conflicts between territories. For example, around 2100 B.C., a treaty was formed in the Mesopotamian region between the rulers of Lagash and Umma. Another early example is the treaty between Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II and Hattusilis III around 1258 B.C. Similar agreements were made in the Middle East, India, China, and Greece.

Greece played a significant role in the development of International Law. Greek city-states established rules and regulations to minimize conflicts and maintain peace, offering a glimpse of what modern International Law would become. However, these rules applied only to interactions among Greek states, not with non-Greek entities. Conversely, the Roman Empire did not see the need to develop International Law for foreign relations, though they enacted municipal laws, known as jus gentium, to govern interactions between Roman citizens and foreigners. These laws were based on Natural Law principles and have influenced modern International Law.

During the Middle Ages, the authority of the Church dominated Europe. Since Europe largely shared one religion, the Church's commands were binding across different tribes and regions. The era saw the rise of ecclesiastical law and the authority of the Holy Roman Empire. At the same time, commercial and maritime laws were developed, and mercantile courts were established to resolve trade disputes. These laws, applicable throughout Europe, laid the groundwork for International Trade Law and contributed to the evolution of International Law.

Early theories of International Law were rooted in Natural Law, often referred to as the law of God or divine law. Over time, two schools of thought emerged: the Naturalist School, represented by Samuel Pufendorf, which argued that International Law was based on Natural Law, and the Positivist School, which viewed International Law as distinct from Natural Law, grounded in empirical methods similar to those of the Renaissance.

The 19th century was characterized by practical positivism. The Industrial Revolution transformed Europe, creating economic divides and spreading Western influence globally. The rise of democratic ideals also had a significant political impact, making war a matter of public concern. This period saw the emergence of various public and private international institutions, contributing to the growth of International Law.

After World War II, International Law gained even greater importance. A major step in this direction was the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations in 1945, leading to the establishment of the International Court of Justice. The UN took stronger actions against offenders compared to the League of Nations. The creation of institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Trade Organization aimed to create universally binding rules and foster a global community. These organizations were established to address economic challenges, promote international investment, and govern global trade.

In the past, the term “Law of Nations” was commonly used instead of "International Law." The term "International Law" was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham in 1780. Over time, various scholars like Oppenheim, Brierly, Hackworth, Fenwick, and Schwarzenberger have defined International Law, each focusing on different aspects. As a result, there isn’t a single, universally accepted definition. Here are a few key definitions:

• Oppenheim described International Law as a body of customary and conventional rules considered legally binding by civilized states in their interactions with one another.
• Brierly defined it as the set of rules and principles that bind civilized states in their mutual dealings, whether in times of peace or conflict.
• Hackworth stated that International Law consists of rules governing relations between states, evolving largely from the experiences and necessities arising over time.
• Fenwick saw it as a body of general principles and specific rules binding on members of the international community in their mutual relations.

In the early stages, international law was largely rooted in municipal law and was often seen as part of the law of nature. The debate over its nature intensified in the 19th century, especially with the rise of positivism. This led to the question: Is international law truly "law"? The answer varies depending on how different jurists define the concept of law.

Two distinct perspectives emerged from this debate. Positivists argue that international law is not true law but rather a set of rules based on positive morality. They contend that there can be no international law because there is no international legislature to create it, no international executive to enforce it, and no effective international judiciary to interpret or resolve disputes related to it. They believe that without a superior authority to enforce the law, states do not feel compelled to respect it, and they follow it only when it aligns with their own interests.

On the other hand, modern jurists take a different stance. They argue that international law is not merely a set of moral guidelines but a legal system just like any other municipal legal system. International law is recognized as law by the international community and by those engaged in international relations. Even when a state seeks to evade an inconvenient rule of international law, it does not deny the existence of international law. Instead, it might challenge the specific rule's applicability, invoke another relevant rule, or argue for the modification of the rule to suit new circumstances.

These differing views on the nature of international law stem from varying interpretations of what constitutes "law."

It is inaccurate to claim that International Law is not true law. While it may be less imperative and less explicit than domestic law, it is still law. It is enforced partly because people believe it is just and partly due to the subtle pressures that make it difficult for individuals or nations to act against the strongly held views of those they interact with. The element of compulsion alone does not define a rule as law; rather, law is upheld by considerations of justice along with the force. What matters most is that international law is reflected in treaties between nations and in their own policies.

Austin described international law as positive morality. A rule of morality is one that applies to conscience and cannot be enforced by external power, while a rule of law can be enforced by external authority. International morality, or ethics, can be understood as standards for right behavior based on personal judgment. Although widely shared moral attitudes influence the development of international law, there is no recognized legal obligation to obey moral norms until they are accepted by authoritative decision-makers as international law. Today, nations have mutually agreed to follow international law, thereby giving it a binding nature that is absent in mere morality. Agencies responsible for maintaining international law do not view it as merely a moral code but recognize that questions arising from international law are legal in nature.

Many nations recognize that international law holds binding force over their citizens, similar to municipal law. Courts have repeatedly acknowledged the relationship between international law and morality. In the 1966 Continental Shelf Case, the Court observed that, regardless of the reasoning, the Court of Justice must act justly. Thus, it cannot be said that international law is merely positive morality. International law has been repeatedly affirmed at various international conferences as having legally binding force, proving that it is indeed real law and not just positive morality.

There are primarily two theories regarding the foundation of international law, reflecting differing views on where its binding authority comes from:

• Naturalist Theory: Jurists from the 16th and 17th centuries largely believed that all law, including international law, is rooted in natural law. They saw natural law as the foundation of legal obligations, making international law inherently binding on states. Initially, natural law was seen as Divine Law tied to religion, but this evolved into the idea of an ideal law dictating what is right and wrong behavior for humanity. Therefore, states, as members of a universal community, are expected to act according to principles that prioritize the common good of mankind over individual interests. This school of thought considered international law binding because it was based on natural law.
• Positivist Theory: Dominant in the 19th century, this theory held that people are bound to obey laws created by a legitimate legislative authority or sovereign, regardless of whether the laws are reasonable. According to positivists, law should be analyzed empirically, focusing on its existence rather than its ethical aspects. They viewed law as the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions. Positivists argued that both international law and municipal law are binding because they stem from the will of the state, which provides their validity. Therefore, according to this theory, the binding nature of international law comes from the will of the state.

These two theories represent extreme views, and the true basis of international law likely lies somewhere between them. It is neither solely derived from natural law nor entirely dependent on the will or consent of states. Instead, a combination of factors influences why states adhere to international law. International law is integral to the concept of statehood, defining the rights and duties of states within the global community.

The role and significance of International Law and International Organizations have evolved over time. In the past, there was no universal law binding on all nations, but today, countries are required to adhere to these laws. Initially, the law was confined to specific regions, but gradually it expanded to include provisions aimed at maintaining peace beyond one's borders.

The creation and enforcement of International Law have always been crucial, and they will continue to be so, provided that amendments are made to reflect the changing global landscape. For instance, in the past, few would have foreseen the need to regulate nuclear power, but now, it's clear that without such restrictions, nations might not hesitate to engage in nuclear warfare.

International Law has consistently promoted peace and security. The establishment of the International Court of Justice, for example, has helped resolve numerous disputes between nations. Without International Law, conflicts might escalate to wars over even minor issues. Therefore, International Law has been and will remain vital for global stability, ensuring that the world doesn't descend into chaos.