Why Is It The Interest Of United Law?

According to ICRC, International human rights law is the body of international law intended to advance human rights on social, provincial, and residential levels. As a type of worldwide law, global human rights law is fundamentally comprised of arrangements, understandings between sovereign states to have restricting lawful impact between the gatherings that have consented to them; and standard universal law, guidelines of law got from the predictable direct of states carrying on of the conviction that had the law obliged them to act that way. Other worldwide human rights instruments while not lawfully restricting add to the usage, comprehension and improvement of universal human rights law and have been perceived as a wellspring of political obligation.

Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.

George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members – above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

IGOs are voluntary associations of sovereign states established to pursue many objectives for which states want to cooperate through sort of formal structure and to which states are unable to realize by themselves (Miller, 1994). There are hundreds of IGOs in today's world which are significant in their respective fields. They are created by treaties and negotiations which mainly reflect preferences of stronger states. Especially stronger states create IGOs because they need them to protect their interests. By and large, decisions made by IGOs are the product of negotiations among the governmental representatives assigned to them. In general, it is not idealism, but the need of states which tend them to cooperate with other states in the context of IGOs. Therefore, they are part of the Westphalia state system in which IGOs are instruments of nation-states (Miller, 1994: 67). Regarding to the function and the purpose of IGOs, the influence of state as an actor in international relation still remains strong but in a different way, IGOs replace the original ideas of individual states but to identify states which have the same normative behavior and same ambitions to form a cooperate with each other so as to achieve the same goal. Even said so, powerful states are less constrained by the principle of IGOs than those who are relatively weak (Ataman, 2000: 152-167). This suggests that state is the key element in

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.

Customs in international law can generally be defined as rules developed by the practice of states, which rules the states concerned follow because they believe there is a rule of law requiring them to behave as such. Rebecca Wallace (1997) defines it as “a practice followed by those concerned because they feel legally obliged to behave in such a way” (p. 172). Thus, for there to exist a rule of customary international law, there must be a practice that is followed by the generality of states in the belief that there is a rule of law requiring such practice. It is important to distinguish custom from other rules that states may follow not out of any feeling of a legal obligation, such as behavior undertaken out of courtesy, friendship or convenience. The difference between customs and these other norms is the fact that custom is derived from two elements: (a) a material element (state practice) and (b) a psychological element (opinio juris). The material element is derived from the practice and behavior of states whereas the psychological element is the subjective conviction held by states that the behavior is question is necessitated by a rule of law and not discretionary (Villiger, 1985).

It is important to note the capacities associated with the legal personality of states. These includes the capacity to make international agreements, capacity to bring international claims in cases giving rise to state responsibility or breach of international law or in engaging in privileges and immunities with respect to national jurisdiction.