International Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words - 1

International Law - Essay Example International law is based on expediency between nations and contracts, as in treaties or trade agreements that operate formally on an international level between countries and their citizens mutually. In addition to these types of expedient agreements, there exists also a corpus of idealistic international law that is best represented by international organizations and their membership charters, as well as the declarations of human rights and other specific rights of women, children, and minorities that these constituencies have produced. When asking whether or not international law is really law, the question revolves around the actual legitimacy of the process through which these agreements were created, via legislature or counsel of a minority of representatives from a select group of nations, but more specifically, as to whether any legitimate structures exist that can comply adherence to the standards of international law through enforcement measures. In summary, the main aspec t of the question goes to the heart of enforceability in international law, and whether the sovereignty of the nation-state as it relates to domestic autonomy can ever be overcome by organizations like the UN. As M.W. Janis wrote in Introduction to International Law, â€Å"There is a root problem faced by those who practice international law. The problem is so fundamental that it is often assumed rather than analyzed. It stems from the fact that the world is broken up into tens of independent nation-states, each purporting to provide certain essential human services - e.g. defense-education, law, more or less exclusively to the people living within that state's boundaries. Insofar as a nation-state is thought to alone provide such services, we think of it as sovereign. The nation-state political system and the notion of sovereignty impact on most every aspect of human activity. Look at their effect on the idea of law. Taken to an absolute point, the notion of sovereignty might impl y that the only extant laws were those of nation-states.†1 In simplest terms, the violation of the borders of one nation-state by another is considered an act of war. International law governs the legality of invasions and self-defence among nations based in agreement such as the Geneva Conventions and other treaties on the use of weapons. It is regarded as paradoxical to apply law to war, even in the conduct of armies, as technically war is a state emergency and a fight for survival where both sides may be expected to do anything to win militarily. As history recognizes that the victor will determine the way the terms of the battle are recorded for posterity, it also acknowledges that the winning side in war will dictate the terms of the peace to the defeated. Furthermore, political regimes change domestically, and international law is as full of broken treaties as civil law is of broken contracts. Yet, people rarely ask if contract law really exists in the same manner that t hey question international law. For the most part, this is due to the fact that civil courts are recognized authorities in society, and their ability to enforce contract law is taken for granted, or understood within an expectation of risk management. The lack of supra-national authority with the powers of