International law and diplomatic immunity

International Law

The concept of international law became an issue of passionate public discussion in the aftermath of the Holocaust. This tragedy seemed to bring to light the fact that something known as 'crimes against humanity' could exist, namely that some crimes were so horrible that no national borders could protect the nations that committed or allowed such acts. However, the fact that genocide has continued to occur in the face of government inaction seems to belie the idea that international law 'works.'

International law works when nations band together and 'want' it to work. When nations accept a certain tacit need to maintain good relations, as in the cast of maritime disputes (the current docket lists on the International Court of Justice Homepage lists disputes between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and Nicaragua and Honduras in such matters) or even extradition treaties where nations have a self-interest in maintaining good relations with the nation they are in contention with, the court can be an effective arbiter. However, in the case of renegade states that have little concern for maintaining an image of international respectability, as in the case of the Sudan, or renegade states who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the international community like Iran, then quite often the pressures of international law have little effect, given that economic or public relations do not seem to affect the decision-making capabilities of the leaders of these nations to a great degree.

Question