Is International Law a True Law?

Introduction

As we delve into International Trade and diplomacy, the concept of International Law acts as a pivotal element which bridges the diverse interests and legal systems of nations across the world. But a recurring question that still arises, Is International Law a True Law? The debate over whether International Law qualifies as a true law has been a longstanding point of contention among the legal jurists and practitioners. On the one hand, some contend that International Law is just a code of moral conduct without the inherent binding force that characterizes local legal systems. On the other hand, some contend that International Law should be recognized as a real law, just like the laws that apply to citizens of sovereign states. In this article we will dive deep into the main arguments and challenges surrounding this debate while looking at the particular difficulties associated with establishing law within the International Community.??

Defining International Law

International law does not have a single, widely recognized definition, although many attempts have been made to define it by eminent jurists. According to Oppenheim International Law is “Law of Nation or International Law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized states in their relation with each other.”

Is International Law a True Law?

International relationships between nations, international organisations, and individuals are governed by a complex and multidimensional set of rules and concepts known as international law. It covers a wide range of topics, including environmental protection, human rights, trade and diplomacy. However, the fundamental question still remains: Is international law really a "true law," and how is it different from state legal frameworks??

To understand the debate surrounding International Law, it is essential to recognize the fundamental differences between domestic legal systems and international legal frameworks. Within a domestic legal framework, the government imposes regulations that govern the lives of its citizens. These rules are established by the legislature, interpreted by the judiciary, and enforced by the executive branch, often with the assistance of the police to ensure compliance. However, this structure does not exist in the context of International Law. The fact that the International Community is not governed by a single legislature, judiciary, executive branch, or police force raises a doubt about the nature of International Law as a “true law.”

• Austin’s Perspective

A viewpoint that challenges the legitimacy of International Law is based on the ideas of John Austin, a 19th century legal scholar. According to Austin, the essence of law is command of a sovereign authority, with repercussions for violations. In his opinion, only rules of conduct enacted by a determinate legislative authority and enforced by physical sanctions can be considered law. In this context, the real sovereign is the ultimate authority.?

As per Austin’s view, the lack of a single sovereign power over the worldwide community indicates that International Law does not fall under the notion of law. International agreements and conventions are created through the consent of states, but they lack the centralized enforcement mechanisms found in domestic legal systems. According to this viewpoint, international law is essentially a moral code that has no real legal force behind it.

• Oppenheim’s Perspective

On the other hand, there is an alternative viewpoint that offers a more inclusive definition of law and is supported by legal scholar Lassa Oppenheim. According to Oppenheim, law is a set of norms that regulate human conduct within the community and these rules are enforced by external powers based on common consent within that community. From Oppenheim’s point of view, a legal system cannot be deemed legitimate unless it possesses a number of essential components.??

The first requirement is the existence of a community, which is essentially the group of nations and states that make up the International Community, even if these rules are not necessarily created by a specific legislative authority. Lastly, there must be common consent within the community that these rules should be enforced by external powers. This viewpoint takes into account the unique nature of International Law, where there is no centralized law-making authority or a universal court to enforce these rules. Instead, it recognizes the voluntary acceptance of international norms by states, which can give rise to the concept of law without a traditional legislative structure.

Conclusion

The debate over whether International Law qualifies as a true law remains a complex and multifaceted issue. While some jurists, following John Austin's perspective, argue that it lacks the characteristics of a genuine legal system due to the absence of a single sovereign authority and a centralized enforcement mechanism, others like Lassa Oppenheim, propose a more inclusive definition that acknowledges the unique nature of International Law.

Ultimately, the question of whether International Law is “true law” may come down to interpretation and viewpoint more than a definitive conclusion. Even though International Law does not easily fit into the conventional framework of domestic legal systems, it is clear that it plays a role in regulating states’ actions in the International Arena. The ongoing debate highlights the need for continued discussion and exploration of the evolving concept of International Law in the contemporary world.?