Should transnational bodies have the authority to dictate laws and political

decisions to sovereign states?

Types of transnational bodies:

Economic: World Bank, IMF, Int. Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes,

Regional: EU, AU, NATO

(Others: UN, ILO, WTO, ICJ, ICC)

Globalization of international law:

“Exchanges in commerce, migration, technology, and culture have increased the
interdependence of states” [academic.oup]

(Below are the pro-arguments i.e. why states do or should comply with
international law. These arguments are derived collectively from all my sources)

1. In many cases the decisions or actions in international law are in the

interest of the state involved, with or without the transnational body
imposing it. Examples would be economic laws imposed by the World
Bank on many developing African countries with economies they haven’t
been able to stabilize on their own. (The counter-argument to this would
be how some policies like structural adjustment programs had actually
been detrimental.)

2. Liberals argue that it is the responsibility of any state calling itself a

liberal democracy, to allow foreign bodies to help shape its national
policies. Academics supporting this view include Robert Keohane and
James Morrow whose arguments I can analyze.

3. Similar to the previous point is that many treaties fall under customary
international law, which are created out of ideas which states are morally
obligated to follow with or without the treaty.

4. International law is followed for powerful states to uphold their status

and all states to maintain legitimacy. This is why countries like DPRK will
also to some degree try to comply and remain a part of the UN and other
bodies, for their own protection and legitimacy.