Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … international law affect state behavior?
How does international
Law affect state behavior?
International law has been established in order to create civil relations between countries. However, the International Court of Justice has no power to enforce either laws or judgements on the states that violate those laws, and States can obey or disobey the ICJ decisions as they see fit. Usually the states breaking international laws interpret them in a way that benefits them and justifies their actions. (International Law) There is much controversy regarding international law and the effect it has on individual states, especially considering that there are numerous cultures that are traditionally accustomed to performing tasks that act in disagreement with the legislation imposed by the international law system. Whereas in the past it was relatively difficult for states to comply with the necessary requirements accompanying the implementation of international law, conditions have gradually changed and more and more nations have expressed their support for international law. This support notwithstanding, there still are numerous states unwilling to commit to all regulations set by international law, usually because they believe that this commitment would contradict their cultural values, security, or economic growth.
Some of the most powerful states in the world have expressed reluctance to act in accordance with international law, rationalizing their position by claiming that they would severely alter their customs by complying with regulations associated with compliance. According to Francis Anthony Boyle, states in the contemporary society are impeded by several "political, economic, cultural, demographic, and scientific factors," in trying to conform to international law. "Such factors include dissolution of the classical balance of power, worldwide revolutionary insurgency, infinitely destructive nuclear weapons systems, the relentless power of nationalistic fervor, division of the world into hostile ideological camps, uncurbed exponential population growth, and unremitting technological and industrial innovation" (Boyle, 1985). These elements have collaborated to make it increasingly impossible for international law to function properly. Although states may philosophically agree with the goals of international law, and may even have the intention of complying, in the context of the above-mentioned obstacles, the reality is that compliance becomes too difficult...
According to Harvard Public Policy professor, Robert Rotberg,
States succeed or fail […] according to the levels of their effective delivery of the most crucial political goods: strong states may be distinguished from weak ones depending on how efficiently and effectively they deliver these goods. The most important and valuable of these goods is human security. The job of the state is to protect citizens from foreign invasions and domestic threats, as well as crime.
He posits that states can only deliver other political goods (e.g. open political processes, freedom of speech, infrastructure, etc.), when security has been established. (Rotberg, 2003) Therefore, weaker states will encounter challenges in complying with international law if they cannot keep their citizens secure and infrastructure intact. But what about stronger states that have excellent security and infrastructure -- why do these states sometimes break international law? One possibility is that the laws themselves are flawed.
This paper examines the effects that international law has on states' behavior. It aims to contribute to the academic debate by trying to prove that strong and weak countries have a tendency to break or circumvent international law, as a global system of regulations often hinders their national interests.
When states are faced with international regulations that challenge their security or cultural values, they may choose to cross the line of ethical behavior. For example, in the case of Adolf Eichmann's kidnap from Argentina by Israeli Mossad agents, the Israeli government's goal was to get Eichmann, a Nazi war crime suspect, in order to bring him to justice for committing human rights abuses during the holocaust. The authorities in Israel considered it more important to apprehend Eichmann than to respect international law. Israel had probably studied the costs and the benefits related to breaking international law and concluded that the mission would eventually be rewarding for the nation as a whole. States like Israel are to a certain degree supportive of international law regulations, but are likely to break them in special circumstances (Posner, 2003). The Eichmann case represents a rationalization…
By maintaining sovereignty, governments have the advantage of choosing the types of transactions they conduct. Authorities in some countries prefer to have control over the money that enters and leaves their territories and hence want to have the right to intervene "to conserve foreign exchange in whatever ways they consider appropriate" (Simmons, 2000). The IMF mainly intends to prevent such activities from taking place, as it acknowledges the fact that they directly hinder the expansion of free foreign-exchange markets (Simmons, 2000).
All things considered, international law is essentially meant to guarantee the well-being of people from around the world. However, by accepting legislation proposed by this regulation system, some countries risk losing a series of advantages. In trying to realize what is best for their state, leaders come across ethical dilemmas, since they potentially eliminate several privileges from their citizens when they accept international law.
Many countries although supporting strongly the values and rules of international law, often break or circumvent these rules in order to reach their cultural or economic goals. Some countries do so only after taking a large number of variables into consideration, and some break these rules out of a political impulse that often does
After several analyses of the topics proposed, the conclusion is that the research methods that the thesis will use are multiple and interconnections between them are crucial for the positive delivery of the research questions. By using the historical method, the context of various international law breaking episodes is better understood as this has a huge value for the decision of a certain country. In a different historical context, the
The case involving Milosevic was has different sub-plots, as he would claim that the actions he took were to prevent the country from being overrun by terrorists. Yet, at the same time, as some of these atrocities were being committed, NATO would attack Serbia in an effort to halt these violations. In this aspect, one could argue that the actions taken by NATO were in violation of international law. As
The judges of the Court of Appeal consequently ruled that this Convention applied to the transportation between Paris and Dublin. This overrode the airline's terms and conditions including those limiting its liability. Appeal Courts can review findings of fact, but more importantly business people responsible for shipments must understand their contracts and the implications of the various Conventions. This must be backed up by appropriate goods-in-transit insurance. The result is
Because there are costs of transaction during the negation process, the international laws will influence the bargain. In changing the agenda and focus of nations and also other actors in handling conflicts and the transitions that results from the conflicts, international law might have lifted expectations to be so high that. The law has succeeded in situations where moral idealism, economics and politics have failed to provide solutions to the
For example, Shu-Acquaye (2007) cites the basic differences in the legal systems in various parts of the world as contributing to the different approaches to corporate governance. Likewise, Shu-Acquaye cites these differences and adds, "The American corporate governance system adheres to the idea of shareholder primacy. Because the United Kingdom, Austria, and Canada share a legal system based on English common law and equity principles, they are similar to
International Relations: Answers to Questions There are two types of actors in international relations -- state and non-state actors. States are the more important actors of the two; however, their activities are influenced to a significant extent by non-state actors. The term 'non-state actors' collectively refers to those individuals, organizations, groups or movements that have substantial influence over a country's international activities although they are not regarded as state institutions[footnoteRef:1]. They