Public International Law

The main sources of international law are treaty law, international customary law and
general principles of law.
Customary international law is comprised of all the written or unwritten rules that form
part of the general international concept of justice. Customary law is binding upon all states,
regardless of whether they have ratified a treaty and is confirmed through the behavior of states,
manifested through their official statements and actions. There are four forms of state conduct: in
compliance with existing law, at variance with existing law but not intended to create law,
conduct in breach of old law, but not intended to create new law, and conduct in breach of old
law but intended to create new law.
Treaties are agreements governed by international law and concluded primarily between
states. An international treaty is an agreement between two or more states or other competent
parties of international law, establishing  their  respective  rights  and  obligations  in  political, 
economic or  other  relations. International  treaties  constitute  the  major  source  of 
international law. Internationaltreaties may be bilateral or multilateral, depending on the number 
of parties to the treaty. An international treaty concluded by contracting states is as a rule subject 
to ratification or  confirmation. 
The relationship between treaty and customary international law can be explained
according to Nicaragua case. So, on the basis of the Nicaragua case when there is the same rule
of law in customary law and treaty law there is coexistence - the main conclusion from this case
is that the two sources of law can continue to co-exist. Just because a norm also exists in treaty
law, does not mean that the source from customary law is not extinguished. Also Treaty activity
can constitute state practice for the formation of a customary norm. Custom can be restated in a
treaty format. When a treaty codifies customary international law, the treaty is restating
customary international law. A treaty can be used to contract out of customary international law.
The Court examined the relationship in two contexts to demonstrate that customary and treaty
law co-exist: where the customary law principles were identical to treaty provisions and where
there were different rights or obligations under customary and treaty law in respect of the same
subject matter. In situations where customary law principles were identical to treaty provisions,
the Court held that even if principles of customary international law were subsequently codified
into treaties, they continue to exist side by side. For parties to treaties, both customary and treaty
law apply. If, for some reason, the treaty ceases to apply between treaty parties, the identical
customary law provision continues to apply between them. The Court also showed that a treaty
itself can recognise the existence of customary international law with respect to the same subject
matter. Rules containing the same content could also be treated differently in customary
international law and in treaty law. For example, treaty law may contain institutions or
mechanisms to ensure the effective implementation of its provisions, including provisions that
reflect existing customary law. The Court also discussed situations where customary
international law and treaty law provisions were not identical. For example, the Court stated that
concepts such as necessity and proportionality. The Court concluded that customary international
law continues to exist alongside treaty law and that the areas governed by the two sources of law
do not always overlap and the rules do not always have the same content. The Court
concluded that principles such as those of the non-use of force, non-intervention, respect for the
independence and territorial integrity of States, right of collective self defense and the freedom
of navigation, continue to be binding as part of customary international law.

2.  
A State is the primary legal subject in International Law. For an entity to be a State, it
should be free from political control of another State and be free to enter into relations with other
States. The state as a subject of international law should have the following characteristics: a
permanent population; a defined territory; government and capacity to enter into relations with
other states. Independence, sovereignty, self-determination and recognition are other
requirements of statehood used either as separate criteria or in association with the above
requirements. 
The principle of self determination explains that countries have the right to freely
determine their international politics status and sovereignty without outside or external
interference. The principle of territorial integrity on the other hand explains that countries should
avoid promoting border changes or secessionist movements in other countries. Such movements
or changes are viewed as acts of aggression. The principles of territorial integrity and self
determination define the relationships which a country should have with others especially
regarding global politics. The principle of territorial integrity states that countries should avoid
promoting border changes or secessionist movements in other countries.
One benefit of the territorial integrity principle is that it seeks to protect states from acts
of aggression by other states. The territorial integrity protects the borders of states from external
aggression acts by other states. This principle also upholds the sovereign nature of states and
prevents interference from external parties or states.
There are various weaknesses of the principle of territorial integrity. One weakness of
this principle is that it is seen to prevent the evolution of states, states are dynamic. The principle
of territorial integrity ignores this view and it pushes for a fixed position on the territories of
states. As a result, many states go into war when their territories are invaded instead of seeking
mutual solutions to problems which face them.
One benefit of the self determination principle is that it seeks to promote democracy. This
principle advocates for the implementation of the will of the people without interference from
external actors, and this is consistent with modern democracy. This principle is beneficial for
modern states which aim at implementing democracy and implementing the will of people
There is a conflict between the principles of territorial integrity and self determination.
The self determination principle which advocates for countries to freely determine their
international politics status and sovereignty without outside interference challenges the territorial
integrity principle. This is because states are made legitimate by people, which means that people
should be given freedom to choose territorial boundaries and states as they wish. Self
determination therefore conflicts which territorial integrity which advocates for fixed territories
among states which should be respected by the rest of the world to avoid acts of aggression. The
self determination principle empowers states to determine their future through internal decision
making as opposed to external interference. This is a principle which is consistent with
democracy which supports decision making by the majority in order to determine the future of a
country. The territorial integrity principle is weaker since it defines territories as a means of
determining sovereignty as opposed to the will of the people. The self determination principle
can be seen to be one of the roots of democracy in the modern world.