Follow ― Work with us

Why Are International Laws Important

Since international law has not established a mandatory judicial system to settle disputes or a coercive penal system, it is not as simple as dealing with violations within a national legal system. However, there are ways to bring violations to the attention of the international community and some ways to resolve them. For example, there are judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals in international law in certain areas such as trade and human rights. The establishment of the United Nations, for example, has created a means for the international community to apply international law against members who violate its Charter through the Security Council. As the 2008 elections loom, it is time to challenge this dangerous vision and reaffirm and rebuild America`s historic commitment to international law. Critics of the Bush administration can no longer simply show where it was wrong. They must articulate a vision of international law and its place in U.S. foreign policy based on our common interests and values. In exposing this vision, it should not be emphasized that a renewed commitment to international law will help us regain the respect of the rest of the world (although it does) or even that the United States, as the most powerful country in the world, has a special responsibility to support international legal institutions (although it does).

On the contrary, the argument for international law as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy should begin with a more fundamental message: only through a firm commitment to international law can the United States advance its national interests in the modern, globalized world. “Treaty” means an international agreement concluded in writing between States and governed by international law, whether incorporated into a single instrument or into two or more interconnected instruments and whatever its particular designation”[28] The extent to which the meaning of sovereignty has changed can be seen, for example, in the principle of a shared “responsibility to protect” (R2P). According to this principle, States are obliged to prevent gross violations of human rights not only at home but also abroad, if necessary through vigorous United Nations measures. The protection of individuals from serious atrocities has therefore become a matter of national, regional and international interest. This means that States can no longer claim that gross violations of human rights are internal affairs and that they are protected by their sovereignty. Since most international law derives from treaties that are binding only on those parties that ratify or accede to it, modern legal positivists view international law as a unified system of rules based on the will of States. International law, as it stands, is an “objective” reality that must be distinguished from law “as it should be”. Classical positivism requires rigorous tests of legal validity and considers all extra-legal arguments irrelevant. [56] It is likely that almost all nations almost always abide by almost all the principles of international law and almost all of their obligations. International human rights law establishes obligations that States are required to respect.

By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations under international law and obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. The obligation of respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or restricting the enjoyment of human rights. The duty of protection obliges States to protect individuals and groups from human rights violations. Commitment to compliance means that States must take positive measures to facilitate the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. In the event of disputes over the exact meaning and application of national legislation, it is for the courts to decide on the meaning of the law. Under international law, interpretation falls within the competence of the States concerned, but may also be entrusted to judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice, by the provisions of treaties or by the consent of the parties. Thus, while it is generally incumbent on States to interpret the law on their own, diplomatic processes and the availability of supranational judicial bodies regularly provide support for this purpose. Hans Morgenthau regarded international law as the weakest and most primitive system of prosecution; He compared its decentralized nature to the law that prevails in preformed tribal societies. The monopoly on the use of force is what makes national law enforceable; But between nations, there are several competing sources of power. The confusion created by treaty laws that resemble private contracts between individuals is mitigated only by the relatively small number of States. [60] For example, it is not clear whether the Nuremberg trials created a new law or applied the existing Kellogg-Briand Pact law.

Tackling these basic international legal systems is essential, but on its own, it is not enough to assert America`s place as a robust and modern world power. The greatest benefits of international law come from institutions that demand more from us and therefore give more in return. The World Trade Organization, for example, provides profitable access to U.S. exports to markets in much of the world. However, we cannot use this access without granting access back. And we cannot get others to follow the rules of fair play in the market unless we are willing to do it ourselves. America has also developed an important regional justice system. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in the 1970s and functioned primarily as an advisory body; she has never heard of a case. At times it has been criticized as a tool for the United States to exert influence over its neighbors. However, it has also proven to be an important moral voice in the region, especially as Latin American countries grapple with political transitions. Many of the fundamental principles of international law related to conflict prevention have been incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations. International law differs from the legal systems of States in that it is primarily — but not exclusively — applicable to countries and not to individuals and operates largely by consent, since there is no universally recognized authority to impose it on sovereign States.

Therefore, States may choose not to respect international law and even break a treaty. [5] However, such violations, in particular of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens), can be countered by coercive measures ranging from military intervention to diplomatic and economic pressure. Sources of international law include international practices (general state practice accepted as law), treaties and general principles of law recognized by most national legal systems. International law can also be reflected in the international community, the practices and customs of states to maintain good relations and mutual recognition, such as.B. patronage under the flag of a foreign ship or the enforcement of a decision of a foreign court. But international law does not merely establish the basic rules or improve the conditions of competition in international trade. It can also help us solve many of the most difficult problems we face. Simply put, global problems require global solutions.

There are many problems that we cannot solve alone, no matter how powerful our nation is or how committed our leaders are. The most obvious example is global warming. Every country emits greenhouse gases, and every country will eventually feel the effects of global warming. But no country can fight the problem alone. .

Contact Us