How International Law Shapes and Constrains State Behavior

Introduction: The Challenge of International Law Compliance

International law has been established to create civil relations between countries. However, the International Court of Justice has no power to enforce either its laws or its judgements on states that violate them, and states can obey or disobey ICJ decisions as they see fit. Usually, states that break international law interpret its provisions in ways that benefit them and justify their actions. There is much controversy regarding international law and the effect it has on individual states, especially given that numerous cultures are traditionally accustomed to practices that conflict with the legislation imposed by the international legal system.

Whereas in the past it was relatively difficult for states to comply with the requirements accompanying the implementation of international law, conditions have gradually changed and more nations have expressed support for it. This support notwithstanding, numerous states remain unwilling to commit to all regulations set by international law, usually because they believe that compliance would contradict their cultural values, security interests, 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 compliance would severely alter their customs. According to Francis Anthony Boyle, states in 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 combined to make it increasingly difficult for international law to function properly. Although states may philosophically agree with the goals of international law and may even intend to comply, the reality is that compliance often becomes too difficult or inconvenient in light of these obstacles.

Background: Strong States, Weak States, and Legal Obligations

In order to understand the relationships between states and international law, it is necessary to first define the terms strong state and weak state, and to describe what it means when a country breaks international law. As Rotberg (2003) argues, 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 of these goods is human security — the job of the state is to protect citizens from foreign invasions and domestic threats, as well as from crime. He posits that states can only deliver other political goods (such as open political processes, freedom of speech, and infrastructure) once security has been established (Rotberg, 2003).

Therefore, weaker states will encounter particular challenges in complying with international law if they cannot keep their citizens secure and their 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 state behavior. It aims to contribute to the academic debate by arguing that both strong and weak countries tend to break or circumvent international law, because 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.

Case Study: The Eichmann Affair and Cultural Justification

A striking example of a state breaking international law in pursuit of cultural and political goals is the kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina by Israeli Mossad agents. The Israeli government's goal was to capture Eichmann — a Nazi war crimes suspect — in order to bring him to justice for human rights abuses committed during the Holocaust. The authorities in Israel considered it more important to apprehend Eichmann than to respect international law. Israel had presumably weighed the costs and benefits of breaking international law and concluded that the mission would ultimately 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 under special circumstances (Posner, 2003).

The Eichmann case represents a rationalization of the violation of international norms based on the perceived need to uphold cultural values. At a time when Israel was seeking to establish itself as a state and gain the confidence of its citizens — as well as the sympathy and support of the global public — Eichmann's due process was considered less important than national vindication.

Israel's decision to break international law was likely shaped by the difficulty of capturing and extraditing an individual responsible for war crimes through lawful channels. A functioning international criminal court might have played a key role in such a situation, allowing Eichmann to be judged for his crimes without requiring any state to resort to illegal means. The Israeli authorities did not want to risk Eichmann being set free or being in a position he could exploit (Posner, 2003). Although this state of affairs may be difficult to justify in the abstract, the United States' general resistance to international criminal jurisdiction helps clarify why states remain protective of their unilateral authority in such matters.

Conclusion

All things considered, international law is essentially meant to guarantee the well-being of people around the world. However, by accepting legislation proposed by this regulatory system, some countries risk losing a series of advantages. In trying to determine what is best for their state, leaders face ethical dilemmas, since accepting international law can mean eliminating certain privileges from their citizens.

Many countries, although strongly supporting the values and rules of international law in principle, often break or circumvent those rules in order to achieve their cultural or economic goals. Some countries do so only after weighing a large number of variables; others break these rules out of political impulse. What the cases examined in this paper demonstrate is that compliance with international law is shaped by a complex interplay of security concerns, cultural identity, economic sovereignty, and political calculation — and that no category of state, whether strong or weak, is immune to the temptation to prioritize national interest over international obligation.