The Foundation of International Law

Is International law, law at all?

Law is presumed to be a set of rules used to govern the citizens. International law is a body of law used to appropriately govern the legal relationship between or among sovereign states. However, there have been questions about whether it is a law or an international relation (d'Amato, 1984). For instance, within a country, the legislative branch of the government creates the rules, the judiciary interprets them, while the executive ensures they are enforced. In most cases, the police force the citizens to abide by the rules created (Thirlway, 2019).

On the contrary, international law does not have a legislative, judiciary, executive, and policy frameworks to enforce the law. However, the fact that there is no authority to ensure law compliance does not mean there is no law. Therefore, international law can still be considered law with special status (Roberts, 2017).

International law does not have a mechanism to enforce, thus, becoming one of its most significant challenges. Any law can only make sense; it is applied equally to everyone. The question is, what happens whenever a corporation, private individual, or a sovereign state violates the laws put in place? Mainly, domestic laws depend on the process of guilt or innocence determination, penalty assignment, and the penalty application. In international law, enforcement forms the major challenge (d'Amato, 1984).

Nonetheless, two measures exist to ensure enforcement of the law; the first one is through the use of international bodies like the International Criminal Court and the UN to enforce the law. Another one is through self-enforcement by the respective states. However, the judgment of international law is as well arguable (Roberts, 2017). Subsequently, the international exhibits many inconsistencies and weaknesses during law enforcement, resulting in doubts about whether or not international law should be considered law. Furthermore, most states are known to have obeyed the international law only in scenarios where such laws favor their interest. Some scholars also argue that international law is law because it influences international behavior (d'Amato, 1984).

On the other hand, the concept of international law is considered irrelevant by economic realists and structuralists. According to them, international law is an oppressive device used by powerful corporations and nations to manipulate the weak ones. Besides, international treaties, conventions, statutes, and declarations are considered international instruments, and many countries have adopted them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also famously known as the Rome Statute, is a case in point. Several states signed and adopted such declarations to become part of their laws; however, some powerful states like the United States of America have never adopted the Rome Statute, which outlines crimes against humanity—as a result, cementing the argument that superpower nations abuse international law to suit their self-interest (Guicherd, 1999).

Taking for Consideration a situation in 2003 where the Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming that Iraq had piled weapons of mass destruction and was aiding terror activities through Al Qaeda. America later defended their act of invasion, arguing it was in the interest of self-defense. At that time, most Americans welcomed the move because they believed it was intended to enhance their security. However, questions were raised about why America opted to invading Iraq instead of increasing security surveillance within their borders? Also, Iraq had not expressed any threat or intention to attack the United States (d'Amato, 1984).

Nevertheless, the most significant concern is the level of torture most Iraqi citizens, the majority being civilians, went through during such operations by the United States of America (d'Amato, 1984). According to international law and the Rome statute, it is a crime against humanity. Equally, no country is allowed to invade a sovereign state under international law. Therefore, the United States of America violated international law in this case, but nothing was done even after the case was reported to the United Nations. Law is not a physical object whose presence can be seen through an eye. The presence of law can only be felt through its impacts. A law that does not have any impact as international law can also be considered in existence (Guicherd, 1999).

As things currently play out, the obligation of states is detailed in customs and treaties; however, the enforcement depends on the empty threats and vague clauses found within international bodies or documents like the United Nations Security Council, where there is power bias, thus, granting significant influence to powerful nations. Consent is very critical; however, international law cannot rely on consent alone. As a result, international law depicts characteristics of international relations other than law. For instance, through consent, states choose their best interest; however, as soon as that State's priorities shift or the best alternatives appear, the consent is rescinded (d'Amato, 1984).