International Law Consists of Customs,

International Law consists of customs, principles and rules legally binding upon sovereign states and other participating international entities (Joyner 2002). It derives from treaties and international conventions, customs and customary use, and generally accepted principles of law and equity as the three main sources. Judicial decisions made by international tribunals and domestic courts form part of the law-making process. Examples of these are resolutions of international organizations, such as the United Nations. The current rules of international law are premised on state sovereignty, so that each State has the option to participate in international negotiations, sign or ratify any international treaty. Every member-State of an international agency, such as the United Nations, can freely opt to ratify a convention adopted by the agency (Joyner).

The rules of modern international law largely developed out of negotiations in which American diplomats played a vital role (Joyner 2002). In turn, operations of American foreign policy have been largely dependent on international law. Historical experience has led to its use of international law as an instrument. The vast and diverse natural resources of the United States have made it the leading economic power in the world. These riches have allowed it to develop internally and without external intrusions. History relates that throughout the first half of the 20tn century, America has remained on the background. As a consequence, it made negligible contribution to the expansion and modernization of the rules of international law. it, however, transformed into a global power after World War II. It achieved even greater world prominence at the start of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. In particular, it gained a commanding position in providing and shaping the direction of international law (Joyner).

In his Farewell Address in 1796, George Washington advised the American people to avoid permanent alliance with any foreign entity (Joyner 2002). This avoidance of foreign involvement was reinforced by its physical security from threats of foreign attacks. Although it created a less combative attitude towards the destructive consequences of the American Civil War, both attitudes produced an isolationist impulse and relative indifference to international concerns. Among the major isolationist foreign policy decisions, which influenced the principles of international law were the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the U.S. senate's refusal to join the League of Nations, the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the neutrality laws of the 30s, and its refusal to send American troops to foreign countries or the so-called Vietnam syndrome (Joyner).

A municipality is a term in international law, which refers to a city, town or district, usually possessing its own local government (Random House Unabridged Dictionary 2006). Municipal law refers to the national, domestic or internal law of a sovereign state. It includes or spans national, state, provincial, territorial, regional and local laws (Random House). Conflicts between international law and municipal law occur. The two aspects of international law are public and private (Mitchell 2005). Public international law, otherwise called the law of nations, regulates political dealings among nations, such as concerns on rights. Private international law, also called conflict of laws, regulates respect or courtesy shown by states in affecting the municipal laws of another state in relation to private persons, their rights within the territory through public or private acts performed within the dominion of another person. This is founded on the general principle that one country should respect and extend care towards the effects on the laws of another country and in the best interests of both sides. Private international law is more valued in the United States than anywhere else in the world. Its member-States are united under the same sovereign authority and laws under the U.S. Federal Constitution. The country views private international law as applied in the same way on affected foreign countries. It treats most questions of private international law on foreign countries with the same rules applying to cases between two states of the Union (Mitchell).

US foreign relations depend on some legal order of advantage (Joyner 2002). These function within a legal framework and need legal principles and concepts that influence policy and limit choices, based on the country's interests. International law tends to limit the actions of all governments. International legal rules observe common standards, which States view as desirable and predictable in their relations. International law is most effective to American foreign policy in regulating functional relations between the U.S. And foreign countries or entities. It provides the rules and formal ways and means for informing U.S. policymakers about the international consensus on questions and issues. The U.S. thus uses international law in its foreign policy and also contributes to its formation and development. This is why it formally recognizes and respects fundamental rules and principles as guide to its foreign policy (Joyner).

However, American foreign policy has not focused very much on international law (Rivkin and Casey 2000). Since the end of the Cold War, many international organization have struggled to modify the traditional law of nations governing the relationships between States into an international regulatory code. This intended and new international law would also govern the relationship between citizens and their government. It would regulate primary domestic issues, such as environmental protection and the rights of children. It would also virtually eradicate the use of military force, avoid all civilian casualties during combat, promote the equitable criminal prosecution of individual state leaders or officials by the courts of other countries or States and by international tribunals. It would also allow or even require international intervention in internal affairs. When appropriately amended, international law would be a real and immediate threat to American national interests (Rivkin and Casey).

This trend is viewed as the act of both the friends and enemies of the U.S. who want an efficient means of checking or at least reduce American power in the world (Rivkin and Casey 2000). It is clear that the major problem confronted by international affairs after the Cold War is the unchallenged military, diplomatic, economic and cultural leadership of the United States. The U.S. administration has generally shown support for the new international law but it has not received proper focus because of huge problems it brings to the U.S. One is that the new international law will open the U.S.' principle of sovereignty to attack and shake the very foundation of its democracy. American leaders view any such limitation on sovereignty as an organizing principle in international law as tantamount to an abdication of the rights of U.S. citizens to be governed only by their Constitution and their leaders. If this limitation is allowed, the actions of the U.S. will cease to be lawful. The ultimate authority will cease to lie in the hands of the American people and shift to international institutions. Despite its humanitarian and democratic slant, the new international law is considered undemocratic from its very foundation. An international system would govern a community of undemocratic nations (Rivkin and Casey).