Oppenheim's definition

Professor Oppenheim has defined international law in the following words:

Law of Nations or international law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules
which are considered legally binding by civilized States in their intercourse with each other
The definition given by Oppenheim in 1905 has become obsolete and inadequate.

The definition has been subject to the following criticism:

i. The definition takes into account of the relations of States' only. But, presently,
international organisations and institutions are also regarded as subjects of international
law. They have been given rights and duties under international law, even though they
may not have all the rights and duties that States have. Certain activities of multinational
corporations are also regulated by this branch of law.

ii. International Law also provides certain rights and duties to individuals. It has been so,
particularly, after the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenants of Human Rights further
confirm that the individuals have become not only the subjects of international law but
can also directly claim rights and remedies provided under international law. Above all,
the Charter of the U.N. begins with the words we the people of the United Nations.

Thus, the present international law cannot be regarded as the law governing the relations
between States, but must be regarded as the common law of mankind in an early stage
of its development (Jenks). At present, it also governs relations between States and
international organisations, between States and private persons, and between
international organisations and private persons (Judge Jessup has therefore suggested
an alternative name Trans-national law to include all law which regulates actions or
events that transcend national frontiers)

iii. The use of the term civilized States by Oppenheim is also severely criticised. In not too
distant past, the Western States regarded only the Christian States' as civilized States.
At present there are many members of the U.N. which include Christian as well as non-
Christian States. The term civilized States' was thus deleted in the later editions of
Oppenheim's book.

In the ninth edition of Oppenheim's book (1992) the term international law' has been
defined differently after taking into account of the new developments:
International Law is the body of rules which are legally binding on States in their intercourse with
each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations of States, but States are
not the only subjects of international law. International organisations and, to some extent, also
individuals may be subjects of rights conferred and duties imposed by international law.

Other Classic definitions

Brierly
The law of nations or international law may be defined as the body of rules and principles of
action which are binding upon civilized States in their relations with one another.
Hackworth similarly defines: International Law consists of a body of rules governing the relations
between States.

Queen v. Keyn, (2 Ex. D. 63 (1876)). Lord Coleridge, C.J. defined international law as: The law
of nations is the collection of usages which civilized States have agreed to observe in their
dealings with one another.

Gray: International Law or the law of nations is the name of a body of rules which according to
the usual definitions regulate the conduct of States in their intercourse with each other.
Kelsen has also given a similar definition.

Cobbett:
International Law may be described as the sum of the rules accepted by civilized States as
determining their conduct towards each other, and towards each other's subjects.
The above definitions can also be criticised in the same way as Oppenheim's definition has been
criticised. The definitions are inadequate to represent modem international law.

Modern definitions

Fenwick:
International law may be defined in broad terms as the body of general principles and specific
rules which are binding upon the members of the international community in their mutual
relations. The definition takes into account the changes that have taken place after the Second
World War. The words members of the international community' include States, international
institutions, individuals and non-State entities. The term general principles' is also incorporated in
the definition.

Whiteman:
International law is the standard of conduct, at a given time, for States and other entities subject
thereto. A brief but adequate definition; the words other entities subject thereto' may include
international organisations, individuals and non-State entities. Whiteman has also emphasised
dynamic aspect of international law: International Law is, more or less, in a continual state of
change and development.

Starke:
International law may be defined as that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the
principles and rules of conduct which States feel themselves bound to observe, and, therefore,
do commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which includes also:

a. the rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions/organisations, their

relations with each other, and their relations with State and individuals; and
b. certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-State entities so far as the rights and
duties of such individuals and non-State entities are the concern of the international
community.

The definition of Starke takes into account the changing character of international law and truly
reflects the present position of international law. However, if an entity not enumerated by Starke
ever comes within the scope of international law with the passage of time; the definition would
again be subjected to criticism. Thus, the definition does not stand correct for all times to come.

Schwarzenberger:
International law is the body of legal rules which apply between sovereign States and such other
entities as have been granted international personality.

Thus, unlike Starke, Schwarzenberger very rightly preferred not to name the entities whose rights
and duties are regulated by international law. According to him, international law, if and when
grants international personality to any entity, or when international law would be capable of
regulating rights and duties of any entity, its rules shall apply to them. It is immaterial if only
certain miles regulating the rights and duties are framed for them.