ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks and gratitude to

my teacher Professor Dr. Shephali Yadav who gave me
this golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on
the topic 'Is International Law Is A Law?' which also
helped me in doing a lot of research and also enhanced
my knowledge

Saurabh Pandey
Is International Law Is A ‘Law’?

 Arguments against international law as a law

(i) International Law is not the Command of a
Sovereign:

Since International Law is not the command of any

political sovereign, it cannot be accepted as a law. There is
no legislature to make it and there is no sovereign to
promulgate it.

(ii) It lacks the Sanction of Force:

There is no sanction behind International Law. It is
accepted voluntarily by the states as a code of
honour or morality and not as a binding and
authoritative law. International Law lacks the
sanction of force. There is no force to compel the
obedience of rules of International Law.
(iii) No Agency to make and implement
International Law:

There is no determinant authority to issue the

commands of International Law. If the command of
determinate authority is to be made applicable to all
states, then the sovereignty of every state would
disappear. The disappearance of sovereignty would
mean disappearance of states as international
personalities. Hence, International Law cannot be
accepted as law.
(iv) No Court Interprets and Applies Rules of
International Law:

There is no court to interpret and apply

International Law. States sometimes refer matters of
their disputes to special tribunals for decision. But
even then no state is bound by their decisions.
International Law to be a real law, it is maintained,
requires one international organ to enforce it. Since
there is no such agency, International Law can be
easily disobeyed or violated.
(v) International Law is frequently Violated

International Law is frequently violated. States stop

obeying it the moment they find it acting as a
hindrance in the way of their attempts at the
securing of national interests. It is frequently twisted
for making it a useful instrument for securing the
desired ends. The violations of International Law
almost always go unpunished.
Thus, the Hobbisian-Austinian school holds that
International Law is not a law. “It is positive
international morality consisting of opinions or
sentiments current among nations generally.” “Such
rules as are voluntarily, though habitually, observed
by every state in its dealings with the rest can be
called law only by courtesy.”
Similarly Lord Salisbury holds, “International Law
cannot be enforced by any tribunal and therefore to
apply to it the phrase ‘law’ is to some extent
misleading.”
Arguments in support of the view that
International Law is a Law:

(a) International Law needs no Sovereign:

Since International Law is a law among the states it does

not require the existence of a political sovereign

(b) Law is not always a command of the Sovereign:

Law is not always and necessarily a command of the

sovereign. Usages, customs, conventions are also sources
of law International Law is mainly a customary law.

(c) Force is not the only Sanction behind Law:

It is wrong to say that force alone is the sanction behind

law. Public opinion, social utility and morality are also
sanctions behind law. People do not obey laws merely for
fear of punishment. International Law is also backed by
International public opinion, morality, utility and common
consent of the states.
(d) Increasing use of International Legislation:
Presently, the rules of International Law are being made
through international legislation by the U.N. General
Assembly and other international conventions,
conferences, treaties and agencies. Goods progress
towards the codification of International Law has been an
accepted fact of our times and it has made International
Law a body of definite rules.

(e)  U.N.O. as the enforcing Agency:

No doubt, there exists no enforcement agency responsible

for the enforcement of International Law in international
relations, yet it cannot be denied that U.N.O. has been
trying to act as an enforcement agency. It has how means
at its disposal to coerce an offending state by applying
political or economic or even military sanctions.
(f) I.C.J. interprets International Law:

It is also untrue to say that there are no courts to interpret

and apply International Law. Settlement of disputes
through arbitration and even through adjudication by the
International Court of Justice has been quite popular
means.
International Court of Justice has the responsibility to
interpret and apply rules of International Law. One of the
purposes of the United Nations is to promote the system of
settlement of international disputes in conformity with the
principles of Justice and International Law.

 Conclusion
On the basis of these arguments, modern scholars
advocate the view that International Law is a law. It is
neither the vanishing point of jurisprudence nor a law by
courtesy, and nor even half-law, half-morality. It is a law
in the proper sense of the term. It possesses all the
characteristics of a law and it does not lack the binding
force. Its nature is, however, different from the nature of
Municipal Law because it is a law among states and not
over the states.
That individuals are also subjects of International Law
stands reaffirmed by Genocide Convention adopted by the
United Nations in 1948. Similarly, several non-state
entities also stand accepted as subjects of International
Law.
Thus, International Law is the law that regulates the
conduct of states and to an extent of individuals and
several non-state entities like international agencies,
protectorates, mandates, national minorities, colonies,
insurgent groups and non-state actors.
International Law
International law, also known as public international law
and law of nations, is the set of rules, norms, and
standards generally accepted in relations between
nations.It establishes normative guidelines and a
common conceptual framework to guide states across a
broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, trade,
and human rights. International law thus provides a
means for states to practice more stable, consistent, and
organized international relations.

International law differs from state-based legal systems

in that it is primarily—though not exclusively—applicable
to countries, rather than to individuals, and operates
largely through consent, since there is no universally
accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states.
Sources of International Law
Since there is no world government, there is no world
Congress or parliament to make international law the
way domestic legislatures create laws for one country. As
such, there can be significant difficulty in establishing
exactly what is international law. Various sources,
however—principally treaties between states—are
considered authoritative statements of international law.
Treaties are the strongest and most binding type because
they represent consensual agreements between the
countries who sign them. At the same time, as stated in
the statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
rules of international law can be found in customary
state practice, general principles of law common to many
countries, domestic judicial decisions, and the legal
scholarship.
 Treaties
Treaties are similar to contracts between
countries; promises between States are exchanged,
finalized in writing, and signed. States may debate
the interpretation or implementation of a treaty, but
the written provisions of a treaty are binding.
Treaties can address any number of fields, such as
trade relations, such as the North American Free
Trade Agreement, or control of nuclear weapons,
such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They
can be either bilateral (between two countries) or
multilateral (between many countries). They can
have their own rules for enforcement, such as
arbitration, or refer enforcement concerns to
another agency, such as the International Court of
Justice. The rules concerning how to decide disputes
relating to treaties are even found in a treaty
themselves—the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (United Nations, 1969)
 Custom
Customary international law (CIL) is more difficult to
ascertain than the provisions of a written treaty. CIL
is created by the actual actions of states (called
“state practice”) when they demonstrate that those
states believe that acting otherwise would be illegal.
Even if the rule of CIL is not written down, it still
binds states, requiring them to follow it (Dinstein,
2004).
For example, for thousands of years, countries have
given protection to ambassadors. As far back as
ancient Greece and Rome, ambassadors from
another country were not harmed while on their
diplomatic missions, even if they represented a
country at war with the country they were located
in. Throughout history, many countries have publicly
stated that they believe that ambassadors should be
given this protection. Therefore, today, if a country
harmed an ambassador it would be violating
customary international law.
 General Principles of Law
The third source of international law is based on the
theory of “natural law,” which argues that laws are a
reflection of the instinctual belief that some acts are right
while other acts are wrong. “The general principles of law
recognized by civilized nations” are certain legal beliefs
and practices that are common to all developed legal
systems (United Nations, 1945).
For instance, most legal systems value “good faith,” that is,
the concept that everyone intends to comply with
agreements they make. Courts in many countries will
examine whether the parties to a case acted in good faith,
and take this issue into consideration when deciding a
matter. The very fact that many different countries take
good faith into consideration in their domestic judicial
systems indicates that “good faith” may be considered a
standard of international law. General principles are most
useful as sources of law when no treaty or CIL has
conclusively addressed an issue.
 Judicial Decisions and Legal Scholarship
The last two sources of international law are considered
“subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
While these sources are not by themselves international
law, when coupled with evidence of international custom
or general principles of law, they may help to prove the
existence of a particular rule of international law.
Especially influential are judicial decisions, both of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) and of national courts.
The ICJ, as the principal legal body of the United Nations, is
considered an authoritative expounder of law, and when
the national courts of many countries begin accepting a
certain principle as legal justification, this may signal a
developing acceptance of that principle on a wide basis
such that it may be considered part of international law.
Legal scholarship, on the other hand, is not really
authoritative in itself, but may describe rules of law that
are widely followed around the world. Thus, articles and
books by law professors can be consulted to find out what
international law is.
 Bibliography

Websites
 www.legalservices.com
 www.globalization.org

Books

 Studies in Jurisprudence&legal theory by

NV Paranjape
Bibliography

Websites
 www.legalservices.com
 www.globalization.101.org

Books

 Introduction to The Constitution Of India

Durga Das Basu