International law is body of rules that consists of the rules and principles of general application

dealing with the conduct of States and of international organizations in their international

relations with one another and with private individuals, minority groups and transnational

companies. International law can also be defined as a term commonly used for referring to the

system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together nation-states in adherence to

recognized values and standards, differing from other legal systems in that it concerns mostly

nations rather than private citizens.

State behavior is the action or reaction of a state in response to external or internal

stimuli/factors, it’s a way state conducts itself. It’s the way or manner a state conducts itself thus

includes the states’ policies, principles, rules and regulations.

Historically, international law has been derided or disregarded by many of the world’s foremost

jurists and legal commentators. They have questioned, first, the existence of any set of rules

governing inter-state relations. Second its entitlement to be called ‘law’; and, third, its

effectiveness in controlling states and other international actors in ‘real life’ situations.

The ‘decade of international law ‘has come and gone and the inter-national community has

entered the 21st century. At the start of the 1990s, the end of the ‘cold war’ brought uncertainty

but actually heralded a new era of cooperation. The nature of international law and the

international system among the five permanent members of the Security Council and a

consequential increase in the influence of the United Nations.

In simple terms, international law comprises a system of rules and principles that govern the

international relations between sovereign states and other institutional subjects of international

law such as the United Nations and the African Union (formerly the OAU).

The international law is said to have no pronounced effect on state behavior, the following are

few reasons that support this statement:

International law lacks enforcement forces such as police, courts and others. In the absence of

collective force which is mightier than the armed force of individual states, and which can be

brought into act whenever the slightest contravention of international law occurs, thus

international law cannot be enforced by any physical force and hence do not have any sanctions

in case of its breach. Law without enforcement and compliance may still be law, but perhaps it is

not the kind anyone cares much about in the real world. Embracing this view, some political

scientists and legal scholars express doubt that international law imposes serious constraints on

state behavior, and therefore dismiss international law as functionally irrelevant. Example the

violation of the UN charter, NATO’s bombing of Kosovo and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, not to

mention hundreds of other violations of the Charter, bear out his view. To the extent

international law does not reflect power politics; realists believe that much of its apparent

influence can be explained as nations doing what they would have done anyhow, in the absence

of law. Lastly, the absence of a compulsory court structure means that some disputes may persist

for decades to the detriment of all concerned, as with Argentina and the UK over the Falkland

Islands, and India and Pakistan over Jammu-Kashmir.

International law is decentralized, mostly this law is made out of treaties and convections

hence it’s made from any state thus making it not to have any pronounced effect on state

behavior of any nation. International law, unlike domestic legal systems, is “decentralized” in

that it has no central legislator creating its rules. This general lack of central legislator in

international law has major consequences such like, by concluding a treaty, states can contract

out of or deviates from general international law. A good example is the Swordfish Dispute was

about a potential confrontation between jurisdiction of the ITLOS and jurisdiction of the WTO

Dispute Settlement Body. In April 2000, the EU brought Chile before the WTO Dispute

Settlement Body claiming that a Chilean statute, which prevents a ship from docking in Chilean

ports when its catches exceed what is allowed under Chilean law, is discriminatory. In

December 2000, Chile brought the EU before the ITLOS claiming that the EU breached the

UNCLOS. The confrontation was avoided when Chile and the EU reached a settlement in

January 2001 and both hearings were subsequently cancelled. Thus due to lack of a central

implementing force which could have solved this. Another example is the Chernobyl incident,

are only made worse by the lack of clear rules defining the ambit of state responsibility for

apparently lawful acts.

International law’s institutions are not referred as part of legal system of a state, such

international law institutions are like UNESCO, UNDP and UNHCR. These are agents of

international law which also regulates the relationship between states. But such agents do not

have any legal power in the state since they are not recognized as legal systems. Example, the

principle of non-recoupment, a is obliged to accept the refugees from other countries seeking

asylum but allowed to proceed to determine its status.

International law is the law consent, thus state choses whether to abide with it or not. States

may choose to implement the international law or not. Thus in case of any conflict within a state,

a state is allowed to accept or not accept any military help from another nation(s). According to

the second school of thought of the matter whether international is a true law, one of the

ingredients of international states that international law is consent of the community for

enforcement of those rules by external power. Thus the international court of justice (ICJ) deals

with prosecution of the breach of international but only if a state is subjected to it. Example is the

discussion of the resolutions on nuclear weapons in the Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons

(1996) where it was only for the States which choose to become party to it. International law

fails in cases such as , the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon and the Israeli violation of

Argentinian sovereignty in seizing the war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, in 1960. Yet, this is not to

say that international law is irrelevant in times of crises.

Every state has its own laws and policies, since each state makes and implements its own laws

thus making international law to have no any pronounced effect on the states behavior. The states

are sovereign and hence they exercise great liberties. According to the dualism theory regarding

relationship between municipal and international law states that, in case the international law and

municipal law contradicts in solving a certain conflict, the dualists maintain that under such

circumstances the municipal law (state) should prevail over the international law since municipal

law is the source of sovereignty. Example, perhaps the reason why more determined action was

not taken in the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the early stages of the dispute. Since every

state tends to have its own rules of solving disputes.

CONCLUSION

The most cogent argument for the existence of international law as a system of law is that

members of the international community recognize that there exists a body of rules binding upon

them as law. States believe international law exists. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, or

earlier when Tanzania invaded Uganda in 1978/79.

It is a fact of the utmost significance that states – still the most important of the subjects of

international law – do not claim that they are above the law or that international law does not

bind them. When Iraq invaded Kuwait it did not claim that the law prohibiting armed force did

not apply to it or was irrelevant.

REFERRENCE

UNESCO summer seminar on education for international understanding, 1947

Sources of international law by Professor Christopher Greenwood

Introduction to international law by Robert Beckman & Dagmar Butte

Decentralized proliferation of international judicial bodies.

Harvard law review-2009 by the Harvard law review association.

The role of public international law in the WTO: how far can we go? By Joost Pauwelyn

TABLE OF CONTENT

INTRODUCTION definition of international law

Definition of state behavior

Short summary on international trade

MAIN BODY Reasons supporting that international law has no pronounced effect

on state behavior.

CONCLUSION

SOLUTION