International Law Traditionally, International Law

International Law Traditionally, International Law was defined as "the body of law that governs the legal relations between or among states or nations." ("The Free Dictionary"). In this definition, the state or a nation is assumed to be sovereign, have its distinct territory, a population, and a government. Hence, if we strictly follow this definition, international law would only apply to relations and interactions between sovereign states.

In the current changing paradigm of increasing globalization, the proliferation of non-government organizations, and the growing activities of multinationals, the scope of international law has become much broader. The jurisdictional and protective reach of international law now extends far beyond traditional state-to-state interactions to international organizations as well as individuals. This paper looks at the background of the expanding scope of international law and at some of the challenges, benefits and trade-offs that such a growing reach of international law necessarily brings.

The Expanding Scope of International Law The birth of the modern nation-states, which followed the declining influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th century, gave rise to the need for international laws in order to avoid conflicts over issues of land, wealth, and trade rights. Initially, relations between nation-states were mostly governed through bilateral treaties. The concept of an international organization called the "League of Nations" was put forward by the U.S. after WWI, but the idea collapsed due to internal opposition within the U.S. government.

It was only after WWII that the concept was finally realized in the form of the United Nations -- an international organization that sponsors legally binding, multi-lateral agreements between its member countries. Several organizations within the umbrella of the UN were formed including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization (WTO), which promote international law, development, and trade between countries.

In recent times, improved communication technology and rapid globalization, has given rise to the need for extending the scope of international law beyond just sovereign nations to private businesses and even individuals. It is, however, not easy to implement international law effectively, let alone expand its scope beyond state-to-state interaction. (McWhinney, 5-10) Challenges International law is often perceived to encroach upon domestic sovereignty of nation-states.

Most governments are jealously protective of their sovereignty and consider any international law that conflict with their domestic laws as unwanted intrusion in their internal affairs. It is, however, noticeable that the most fervent opposition to a more widespread implementation of international law comes from coercive, dictatorial regimes such as China, Russia, and the military regime of Burma -- governments who do not like to adhere to civilized norms of behavior, particularly in the treatment of their own people.

Even a number of democratic countries, such as the United States are only supportive of international law as long as it serves their narrow national interest. Hence, the biggest challenge to extending the scope of international law beyond its traditional boundaries is to devise and implement it in such a way that it does not conflict with domestic laws and does not threaten sovereignty of nations. Another formidable challenge to expanding the jurisdictional and protective reach of international law is the absence of a sovereign power to enforce such law.

The closest thing to an international sovereign is the UN, but even the UN does not have the powers of enforcement and depends on its member states for implementation of its resolutions (Hathaway, 54). As a result international law is largely voluntary, which means that it is never going to be as effective as domestic law unless a satisfactory mechanism is devised to ensure its enforcement.

Benefits Since effective enforcement of international law is such a formidable challenge, it is pertinent to examine whether expanding the jurisdictional reach of such law is worthwhile to begin with? To my mind, just two cross-border issues, i.e., environmental degradation and international terrorism ought to be enough to convince even the most ardent skeptics that international law is so important.

Without a concerted global effort to control the rapid environmental degradation such as the one envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol or an international law against terrorism, we would be fighting a losing battle against forces that have the potential to destroy the world as we know it. Another example of the benefits of an expanding role of international law is the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICJ) in 2002, which has the powers to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

It has given a clear signal to unscrupulous tyrants and murderous dictators around the world that they have no place to hide. Earlier, they could escape prosecution for their crimes by brow-beating or manipulating the judicial system in their own country; the expanding reach of international law has now made it possible for them to be answerable for such universally unacceptable crimes (Kenneth Roth). The benefits of international law are also recognized by private business. For example the U.S.

Apparel Industry Partnership has voluntarily agreed to a standard code of conduct that prohibits forced labor, child labor, and workweeks exceeding 60 hours. This has had a significant effect on the operation of U.S. companies in poor countries and helped to prevent the cruel exploitation of cheap labor (Ratner 71). The signing of the "Sullivan Principles" by more than 100 U.S.

companies in 1977 that call for desegregation in the workplace, equal pay, and equal employment practices has had a similar effect (Ibid.) Trade-Offs Extending international law beyond its traditional boundaries also has its trade-offs. The most significant of these is the relative reduction in sovereignty of nation-states that the growing reach of international law necessitates. Although opponents of international law vehemently resent the encroachment of international law on state sovereignty, it does not seem to be such a bad trade-off on serious reflection.

Consider the fact that individuals living in a country voluntarily give up some of their sovereignty to the government as part of a 'social contract' for the collective good. The government, in turn, uses these powers to provide safety, and other necessary facilities for its citizens so that they may pursue their own individual development in a conducive environment; the alternative to such an arrangement, everyone agrees, would be chaos and anarchy.

The same principle applies on an international level: by trading a small part of 'state sovereignty' at the individual level, all countries can reap the benefits of international law at the collective level. Similarly, some people in the more powerful countries fear that the reach of international law beyond state-to-state relations would restrict their country's clout at the global level.

Influential people such as Henry Kissinger also oppose the application of international law in matters of criminal justice by advocating that the concept of universal jurisdiction risks replacing the tyranny of governments with the 'tyranny of judges.' (Kissinger) However, even if international law diminishes the powers of the more powerful states to some extent, it is not a bad trade-off. In most countries, a number of domestic laws are made to empower the poorer sections of.