Running Head: International Law

International Law
Nathaniel Coakley Troy University
IR 5552
Dr. James F. Rinehart
April 29, 2011

6407 FLATROCK RD #4
COLUMBUS, GA 31907

According to Slomanson, International Law is defined as the body rules that which nations consider binding in their mutual relations. It is assumed that all nations or states mentioned in this definition are a sovereign state. International Law has become much broader in scope with the increase of non-government organizations, the increase globalization, and the rising behavior of multinationals. This paper will describe what is International Law and its purpose. It will answer two important questions. The first being, is International Law a fundamental requirement of a modern, increasingly independent global system of states and non-states actors? The second question, does international law prevent from pursing its self-interest.
Before we can really look at International we must compare it to Domestic Law and identify the differences between the two. The first difference is that Domestic Laws operate within the borders of a single state. Whereas, International Law operates on much broader scope than Domestic Law does. The second difference, there is no definite body in International Law. However, Domestic Law can be referred as the guidelines that summarize the union between the government and the citizens. The third difference between Domestic and International Law is in International Law a treaty must be ratified by a state before it can be bound to it. In Domestic Law there is no ratification process. To further explain the difference between the two types of aforementioned laws. International is voluntary whereas domestic is involuntary. Domestic law is governed by the three bodies of government; judiciary, legislative and executive. International law has no governing body. Not having a governing body can be viewed as weakness. For all intensive purpose, International Law is not law and it has no well-built mechanism in place for application. The primary influence of International Law is political considerations compared to the objective approach taken by Domestic Law.
The nature of International Laws is normative. They are especially inclined towards morality and have a revolutionary point of view. International Law is a merging of a varied amount of treaties and protocols that has minimized the discount for the civil liberties of a State.
International Law can be broken down into three disciplines; Public international law, private international law, and supranational law. Private international law addresses which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard and the laws concerning which jurisdiction apply to the issues in the case. Public international law, involves the United Nations, Geneva conventions, international criminal law, and maritime law. International law “consist of rules and principles of general application dealings with the conduct of states and of intergovernmental organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with person, whether natural or juridical” (McKeever, 2003).
There are many challenges to International Law. The biggest challenge to extending the range International Law is to develop and employ it in a manner that does not clash with domestic laws and does not threaten sovereignty of nations. Another challenge to extending the authority and defense of International Law is the nonexistence of a sovereign authority to impose such law. The closest thing to an international sovereign is the United Nations, but even the United Nations does not have the powers of enforcement and depends on its member states for implementation of its resolutions (Hathaway, 2003). International law will never be as effective as domestic law; the only way it possibly can be is by creating a mechanism to make certain it is enforced. Democratic countries, such as Great Britain and the United States are only accommodating of International Law as long as it caters to their national interest. The nations that oppose to the implementation of international are states that use coercive power or is one the dictatorial regimes such Russia, North Korea, and China. These governments do not like to adhere to cultured norms of behavior, for the most part in the treatment of their own people.
One example of how International Law work is the Island of Palmas Case of 1928. In this case both the United States and the Netherlands claimed that they held the title to this small island that had no economic or strategic value to either nation. Spain ceded the island to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898). Neither Spain nor the United States ever occupied the island. In 1906, the United States discovered that the Dutch had claimed sovereignty over the island. Both States agreed to submit to binding arbitration. The arbitrator that handled the case was Max Huber. Huber had to resolve the question of whether the Island of Palmas was the territory of the Netherlands or was it the territory of the United States. From International Law standpoint; the existing issue is does the territory belongs to the United States who gained the island in Treaty of Paris (1928) from Spain or does it belong to the Netherlands who actually exercise sovereign by occupying the island.
In making his decision Huber addressed three areas; right by discovery, contiguity, and continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty. With rights by the discovery the United States argued that it held the island because it received the actual title from Spain through lawful treaties. Huber concluded that the title held by Spain was an “inchoate title” when Palmas was discovered by Spain. He went on to say “that the discoverer had to actually exercise authority, even if it were as simple as planting a flag on the beach. The exercise of authority by Spain never took place. The second argument of the United States was that Palmas was located closer to the United States than Indonesia which at the time was held by the Netherlands East Indies. Huber stated “that there was no positive International Law which favored the United State’s approach of terra firma.
The Netherlands primary claim was that title to the island belonged to them

Is international Law a fundamental requirement of a modern, increasingly independent, global system of states and non-state actors? The answer to this question is yes, with the absence of international relations the economic health of the state would collapse and the world would be in a disorganized state. States follow laws because they trust that other states will obey the same laws. This allows them to function with recognized organization of norms. Customary laws allow individuals to agree to an assured range in which to function. Law, Myers S. McDougal states that it is ”the reciprocal tolerance of the external decision-makers which create the expectations of patterns and uniformity in decision, of practice in accord with rule, commonly regarded as law (Damrosch, et al).” Without International Laws, travelling to foreign countries and starting businesses would be impossible as there would be no protection. International trade between the states would be obsolete. International Law enables individuals to take measures when citizen’s of its states has been violated. International economic and political relations are executed without fear as a result of these laws.
The action of the United States in 2003 in Iraq is a good example of the United States disregarding international coalition action and pursued its own plan with regard to military participation in Iraq. Even though the international community was not on board, the United States proceeded independently. The United States being a sovereign state felt threatened by the actions of Iraq, and took military action. At no time did the subject of sovereignty depart the minds of the international political community. If the United States wanted to take this action, the international community could not stop it.
When it is all said and done International Law is not enforceable. Smaller states unite with larger states, in the attempt to gain some power transference based on the relationship, and they attempt through a combination of countries to push international lawmaking action and concern through the governments of superior, more independent states. But, there has been no legitimate way to push these countries to “sign on the dotted line”. (Janis & Noyes, 1997) However, that trend is in the process of change, and it is only a matter of time before actual change will be seen throughout the world, and it will be support by international law.

Unlike Domestic Law which is absolute. International Law is only legitimized through state ratifications. What does that mean? It means that individual states have to ratify, or agree to, the laws before they can be held accountable for violating any law(s) that were agreed to follow. When a state ratifies a treaty they are expressing their consent to be held to specific laws within the international systems.
The goal of International Law and institutions that support it is to provide international norms and standards that are upheld lawfully and which can resolve conflict without the use of force or arms. Additionally, there are a variety of other multi-lateral and bi-lateral treaties in place to support these laws. These legal efforts”… play a key role in creating a more secure and stable international environment” (Learn about International Law and creating a more secure world).