NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA, CUTTACK

A PROJECT WORK IN POLITICS

TOPIC: INTERNATIONAL LAW & GLOBAL POLITICS

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF:

Mr. Rao Saheb G Bawaskar

SUBMITTED BY: Nakshatra Gujrati (2021/BALLB/061) & Pratham

Mathe (2021/BALLB/068) B.A. L.L.B | Semester III
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ..................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
THE RELATION BETWEEN EUROPEAN STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ............................. 4
WHY ‘DISPUTE’? ....................................................................................................................... 4
Jeremy Bentham, International Relations & Global Politics ................................................. 5
West Philia System ................................................................................................................ 5
The 15th Century and Monarchist System In Europe ................................................................. 5
King’s Beaureucracy ....................................................................................................... 6
The army ........................................................................................................................... 6
Trade ................................................................................................................................. 6
Diplomacy ......................................................................................................................... 6
Finances & Taxation ........................................................................................................ 6
The Fall of Absolute Monarchy & Jurisprudence of International Law .................................... 6
Natural Law ............................................................................................................................... 7
Citizenship by birth in England ............................................................................................. 8
Positive Law............................................................................................................................... 8
Problems with Natural Law ....................................................................................................... 9
Problems with Positive Law .................................................................................................... 10
Why the Current International Law flourishes?....................................................................... 10
Best of both the worlds ........................................................................................................ 10
Geopolitical-legal Reasons .................................................................................................. 11
The Need for a Sovereign of the Sovereign ............................................................................. 11
Russia-Ukraine, a failure of International Law? ...................................................................... 12
Problems with the International Law ....................................................................................... 12
Case Study: Armenia, Azerbaijan Conflict & The US ............................................................ 12
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 14
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We feel highly elated to work on the topic “International Law & Global Politics”. No creation
in this world is a sole effort, nor is this work of mine.
The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. First of
all we want to thank ourselves to complete this project on time. Secondly, we owe to our poli-
tics professor Mr Rao Saheb Bawaskar for his invaluable suggestions and guidance. It would
have not been possible for us to frame this research paper of ours without his support. We
would like to extend our thanks towards Akshay Sir and Ashish Sir for their motivation.
Special thanks to LAWOGS for their grammatical additions to this paper. Last but not the least
our family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this project would not have
been a reality.
We take this opportunity to also thank the university and the Vice Chancellor for providing us
with extensive database resources in the library and through internet. Some typing errors might
have crept in, which are deeply regretted. We would be grateful to receive comments and sug-
gestions to further improve this project report.
Yours Truly,
Nakshatra Gujrati and Pratham Mathe
 INTRODUCTION

The term ‘international law’ has a history that date 400 years back in time. Scholars have
thrown light on many arrangements like existence of arbitration in ancient India and Egypt1.
But these arrangements aren’t sufficient to contribute into the development of international
law. Furthermore, there are some inputs regarding the contribution of Germany and Rome to-
wards development of international law2. Germany followed certain signals and customs for
its inviolable heralds during war, declaration of peace and international claims. Germany didn’t
consider international customs as binding, rather it only had a religious value. On contrary to
this, Romans considered international law as binding and had the system of fetiales3, a body of
20 priests to execute treaty of alliance or declare war. Though, the contribution of Germans
and Romans towards international law was considerable, but it wasn’t till 15th century when
the European states started to get divide and form small sovereign territories, international law
emerged from the European state system.

THE RELATION BETWEEN EUROPEAN STATE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

The European state system witnessed a change in 15th century by transition from feudal to
absolute monarchist. The absolute monarchist considered a state as a nation state with a strong
leader. Though, the system of international relations emerged in this period only but at the cost
of bloody war. It is very important to understand the dispute and contribution of state system
in development of international law. Moreover, the jurisprudence of natural law and positive
law played a vital role during 1600s to development of international law.

WHY ‘DISPUTE’?
Politics is a game of power, we have studied politics as “set of activities that are associated
with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals”4. We
know what politics is at an individual level. Politics is a way to resolve collective disputes that
arise because of imbalanced power structure in a society. At large, in world, the imbalanced
power structure was responsible for causing bloodshed and barbaric wars. To understand In-
ternational Law, we will need to understand the history of the word “International Relations.”

1
Vishwanatha, “International Law in Ancient India” (1925) in A. Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of
Nations (1954).
2
L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. I — Peace, 92.
3
Alfred Verdross and Heribert Franz Koeck, “Natural Law: The Tradition of Universal Reason and Authority”,
in R.St.J. Macdonald and D.M. Johnston (Eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law, 41.
4
Ibid.
 JEREMY BENTHAM, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS & GLOBAL POLITICS
The word International Relations was coined by Bentham and marked a significant shift that
the territoriality based political units were coming to have a clearer national character and were
trying to become more international5 by commenting and interfering in each other’s matters.
But this dates back to 19th century and can be considered as a latest development. To reach to
this position let us discuss the West philia system6.

WEST PHILIA SYSTEM

The European state emerged in midst of struggle and strife after a thirty-year war from 1618 to
1648. It was the bloodiest and most protracted war of the era. The war was to decide ‘which
state will have dominance over Europe’, also the war was between two religious ideologies
namely Catholics and Protestants.

The combatants were Catholics and Protestants7. In this war Germany lost its third population
and therefore it became a gross concern for all the countries to end the war. The war continued
for 30 years from 1618 to 1648. With the end to this war, international politics was born. In-
ternational Politics was a system of mutual relations between states. The political units weren’t
given any recognition. The state meant sovereign and it was a system with equal power &
sovereignty that led to anarchy as there was no over-arching power that can command others
to maintain peace.

It was in this time when various practices like diplomacy and giving financial aid developed.
This led to interference in affairs of each other.

THE 15TH CENTURY AND MONARCHIST SYSTEM IN EUROPE

During the beginning of 15th century, feudal system8 witnessed downfall and the strong mon-
archist state with individual leaders replaced them. The monarchists claimed that they were
appointed by the god. The features of absolute monarchist state are as follows –

5
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, 31
6
In his Principles of International Law (written in the period 1786–89), Jeremy Bentham envisaged that an inter-
national code, which should be based ‘on a detailed application of his principle of utility to the relations between
nations, would not fail to provide a scheme for an everlasting peace. However, he made little effort to base his
plans for such a code upon the existing law of nations
7
Supra, note 1.
8
Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol. 1, 133–34.
KING’S BEAUREUCRACY
King was considered to be the top in hierarchy, both in theory and practice. He ruled through
council & officers of the state, but in 16th century the council9 became instrument of absolute
government. At local level, the local authorities exercised real powers and the sale of royal
offices was common at that time and corruption become rampant.

THE ARMY
The feudal lords maintained a standing army, but the monarchists not only introduced merce-
naries to the army but also local fighters. They introduced the concept of sovereign and only
the sovereign can maintain an army. Moreover, the relation between army and sovereign was
mutual, the army strengthened the sovereign.

TRADE
It required the intervention of political state in workings of economy and called for suppression
of barriers in trade and thus create a unified domestic market. This unified market and removal
of barriers in trade was one of the main factors in development of international law. The re-
moval of barriers brought in many disputes that required attention to maintain the stability of
the trade.

DIPLOMACY
The monarchies understood that there was no use of wasting resources in war as they weakened
them and made them prone to internal instabilities. Therefore, to avoid wars the system of
diplomacy emerged. Diplomacy was also crucial to maintain good trade relations with the other
states.

FINANCES & TAXATION

Money was needed to maintain the army, the luxurious life of monarch, diplomacy wanted
luxurious gifts to be presented. To do this, there ought to be a robust financial system, therefore,
the revenue sources were – charging rents from the chief of feudal hierarchy, custom duties
and tax were levied on various commodities. Borrowing from the market and selling royal
offices was also included.

THE FALL OF ABSOLUTE MONARCHY & JURISPRUDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW
The reign of absolute monarchists was marred with corruption due to sale of royal offices. The
revenue and tax system were laying burden on feudal and commoners. The feudal though
weren’t recognized with the sovereign, but became rabble rousers because of their financial

9
Gurdip Singh, International Law (EBC Publication, 2021).
power. Moreover, Charles I10 led England from 1625 to 164911 and wanted absolute power, the
turf led to English Civil war between Charles and the Parliament. In this period, the theory of
Naturalism started gaining grounds. Hugo Grotius12, a Dutch lawyer whose work got published
in 1613 on a law that was independent of positive law and cannot be neglected by any state.
This law was called as natural law. Grotius distinguished between jus gentium (customary law
of nations) which he called jus voluntarium (voluntary law) and jus naturae (natural law).

There was another reason why Monarchy fell, the older legal systems of nations were incom-
petent. The legal system under monarchs was not as smooth in conduct as we see it today. They
were very harsh, arbitrary and contradictory to one another. The judgements were not very
uniform. Similar was the case of International Law. The pacts that were signed after war were
never signed on humanitarian grounds at all. They usually favored one nation overwhelmingly
over the other, thus they did not even stand for long and very soon the countries used to engage
in wars again, completely dishonoring the pacts signed between them.

Modern nations under current system of international law do not engage in gross human rights
violations (at-least as much as they used to pre-world war era). The pacts singed between na-
tions are honored with a lot more intention to honor them when compared to the earlier times.
So how did the international law evolve this much? It’s a very interesting question and to an-
swer it first we need to understand the theories of Laws by various legal scholars, the problems
in them and finally what theory does the international law of the current times follows.

NATURAL LAW
Natural law’s principles say that every human intrinsically knows what is right and what isn’t.
Thus, there is no need for any other authority to intervene in the law-making process as every-
one is already aware of these laws. Thus, any law which is not a natural law will not stand as
it would create imbalance that the natural law brings with it and thus would make another party
stand at an advantageous point.

The propagators of Natural law believe that there is no such thing as positive law when it comes
to the international law. According to them all laws stem out of the law of nature. They believe
only nature law is capable of existing in international dynamics as it emanates from universal

10
L. Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, Vol. I — Peace, 22–23.
11
Editor, Rule of Charles I, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparlia-
ment/parliamentaryauthority/civilwar/overview/personal-rule/ > last accessed on Sep 21, 2022.
12
Supra, note 3.
reasoning and logic. All other laws could exist but they will not have any real application. As
they would not get accepted by the other nations.

CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN ENGLAND

“The jus soli principle finds its historical roots in the feudal system of medieval England, in
which “ligeance” and “true and faithful obedience” to the sovereign were owed by a subject
from birth: “for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his
Sovereign.”3 In the landmark Calvin’s Case, decided in 1608, Lord Coke13 employed the con-
cept of ligeance to explain the unmediated relationship that is created for life between the mon-
arch and all subjects born within the monarch’s dominion. According to Coke, this relationship
between king and subject was defined by reciprocal duties of allegiance and protection and part
of an immutable hierarchical natural order.”

POSITIVE LAW
Positive law is the law which is enacted by a proper statutory authority. Unlike Natural law
which talks about inherent rights which are already “built in” they are either enacted by con-
stitution or passed by any statues. Positive law is the law that finds its roots in the decade old
customs and international treaties. The school of positive law operates on the assumption that
human reasoning alone is insufficient to derive norms14 to which will later be used to govern
states and international treaties. Thus, positive law is an answer and should be the solid basis
for developing both international and legal Jurisprudence. The logic being that as one can see,
positive laws have been in existence since centuries, so it is easy to operate on these laws.

When humans make laws, they are destined to be flawed. Humans have a set of biases in them
which no matter how hard they try, they can’t separate from their decision making. Thus when
laws will be developed, they will favour one side more than the other. The sides can be gov-
ernment and citizens, majority and minority or in the present case one nation against another
nation.

Thus, a law that would be acceptable by both the sides has to fulfil one important litmus test,
that is, being a tried15 and tested positive law. All other laws would just be nothing but exper-
iments that are bound to fail.

13
Supra, note 2.
14
Michael Akehurst, “Custom as a Source of International Law” (1974–75) 56 British Yearbook of International
Law; (1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 515.
15
Louis Henkin, Richard C. Pugh, Oscar Schachter and Hans Smit, International Law: Cases and Materials (1980)
10.
 PROBLEMS WITH NATURAL LAW
The fundamental problem with natural law is that different people interpret nature differently.
If this is true then how can the basic assumption of Natural Law that people inherently know
what is morally correct and what comes under deviant behavior be actually true? How will
people draw a line between moral and immoral behavior which would be agreed upon by eve-
ryone? This question highlights a major flaw in natural law. That propagators of natural law
are incorrect to assume the fact that people inherently know what is right and what isn’t.

If we just look at something from the perspective of human behavior, that “behavior in ac-
cordance with human nature is morally right and behavior not in accordance with human na-
ture is morally wrong.”16 Then a lot of inhuman actions that arise out of human nature for
example, murder for vengeance would be judged to be correct by natural law’s propagators. If
they argue that “murder is inherently grievous act” then, they are contradicting their own the-
ory.

Aquinas used to claim that the compass of morals which arise out of natural law exists because
“god had put it in us”. This could not be true as decade by decade, culture by culture, people’s
idea of what is moral and what is not changes rapidly. Thus, if there exists a universal compass,
then it needs to be updated and modified for different cultures17 and time periods. Evolution is
not this quick in adaptation, biology does not change this quick. If this moral compass is some-
thing biological, then it wouldn’t be able to keep up with the society’s standards because the
laws of nature does not allow it to do so. Thus, Natural Law theory is flawed.

Natural Law theory only takes into account the anthropological reasons in explaining morality.
It keeps silent on the sociological ones. The debate on whether human nature is shaped by their
anthropology or whether it is shaped by social environment has not been settled yet, thus any
good theory which talks about human nature has to consider not just biology but sociology as
well. Since natural law stays silent on sociological reasons, it cannot be considered to be a very
reliable theory.

The two main propagators of Natural Law theory Aquinas18 and Aristotle themselves give dif-
ferent variations of the theory. One talks about god’s role while the other stays takes the support

16
Supra, note 9.
17
Supra, note 5.
18
Supra, note 12.
of evolutionary theory. This really confuses the issue as to what actually is the natural theory.
Thus, the contradiction in the theory itself makes it flawed.

PROBLEMS WITH POSITIVE LAW

The camp of Legal positivism is in itself split into two camps, exclusive and inclusive Legal
positivists. Positive law does not only find its origins in statues but also some customs which
do not have legal backing but were being followed since long and are now considered valid
legal norms. These laws19 are vouched for by the camp of inclusive legal positivists. Exclusive
legal positivists vouch for the fact that laws should be based on only authoritative sources.
Thus, the two camps of the theory contradict the main theory itself.

In the Inclusive Positive Law, there are certain rules like rules of recognition which tests laws
on societal norms and morality. If a law seems to be grossly unjust, it is declared void ab initio.
One must understand that by including the questions of morality, the line of difference between
Natural Law and Positive Law becomes very thin. Practically, positive law and natural law
would seem to be same.

The fixation of Exclusive positive20 law with the fact that what is good and what is bad is very
subjective and thus completely negating the questions around morality of law seems to be the
theory given by a dictator. The definition of exclusive positive law actually suggests that even
if no matter how much a law is immoral, unjust or gross, if it has been passed by following all
the standard legal procedures then it would stand. Had the legal systems been followed the way
the theory suggests, then even genocides would be justified if they had a good legal backing.
Thus, ignoring moral questions is a major flaw in positive law.

WHY THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LAW FLOURISHES?

BEST OF BOTH THE WORLDS
Current International Law is an amalgamation of both the theories i.e Natural Law and Positive
law. It is a system of customary laws (which would by definition fall under the inclusive posi-
tive law). The customs which have become legal obligations are now codified like in the Vi-
enna Convention (for the law on treaties), these customs have been tested for the moral ques-
tions such as human rights thus having elements from both the theories. By following the cus-
tomary laws and answering the moral questions, current international law provides a best of
both the worlds situation.

19
Hugo Grotius, On Positive Law (Bloomsbury, 2014).
20
Ibid.
Just like the law of Contracts in India, these laws are followed as if they were contractual
obligations. But the only key difference is that in case of International Law, an absolute sover-
eign authority is absent from the picture. Thus these ‘contracts’ between the two countries are
honoured till the countries wish to do so. There are certain penalties and punitive measures for
violating treaties like economic sanctions but these work only in case of smaller and econom-
ically weaker countries. If a country is big enough, it would practically be indifferent to these
punitive measures. Thus, one could argue that even today these treaties and pacts are one sided,
sure one party is at an advantageous position over the other but not in the magnitude as it was
during the pre-world war era.

GEOPOLITICAL-LEGAL REASONS
If one were to believe in geo-political experts, there are certain geopolitical reasons to the suc-
cess of International Law. It is because of the hegemony of a single superpower, the U.S.A.
The US is like a super sovereign for the sovereign nations. To understand how US maintains
global peace by being sole international super power, one needs to understand a very important
condition for maintaining Rule of Law.

Rule of Law- The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as "the mechanism,
process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law,
secures a non-arbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of
power.”21 The rule of law says that everyone is subject to laws equally and it is law that would
rule upon people, that rule of law is always more preferable than rule of any one person. But
there are certain conditions that need to be met for ensuring rule of law. One of them being the
existence of an authority above everyone else that can ensure rule of law.

THE NEED FOR A SOVEREIGN OF THE SOVEREIGN

Now why this authority is needed? This authority will deter the subjects from going against the
rule of law. According to the principles of rule of law, these laws should be equally applicable
on these authorities as well. In a world where every nation is equal in strength and there is no
one body to govern these nations, every nation will look for their best interest. In doing so these
nations will encroach upon the interests of other nations. Thus the nations will be in a constant
state of war. Even if they sing some pact or treaty for peace, no authority will be present who
actually sees through whether these nations are honoring these pacts. So, continuance of peace
actually depends upon will of the nation’s not will of the sovereign. Rule of Law cannot be

21
Britannica, Rule of Law < https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law >
ensured by standing among these nations as an equal. Thus, an authority which is above these
nations is absolutely needed. This authority will ensure that obligations are honoured by indi-
vidual nations. This is where the super power comes into the picture. The US ensures whether
all other smaller nations are following the international law or not.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE, A FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

In the case of Russia- Ukraine conflict, the USA imposed CATSA on Russia for attacking the
smaller nation. It pressured various countries into not buying Russian oil and various other
Russian commodities. This caused heavy losses to Russia. Now one might argue and rightfully
so that even this did not deter Russia from being continuously engaged with Ukraine but that
happens in every Judicial system. Criminals exist, crimes are being still committed even if
there is death sentence for the same, but that does not mean the legal system is failing. Simi-
larly, Russia attacking Ukraine does not mean international law is a joke. For sure it is the
failure of international law that it was not able to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine, but these
failures exist in all the legal systems of the world. One can even say the backlash that Russia
faced from the international community, the sanctions, seizing of Russian citizens properties,
shunning of the nation seems to show the strength that the International Law of today’s date
possesses.

PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

It would be incorrect to say that everything is hunky-dory in the International Law, the same
fact which ensures International Law’s supremacy is also the one that causes unfairness and
biases. The USA uses its hegemony for its own advantages rather than for ensuring fairness in
the international environment. There have been not one or two but quite a number of incidents
where the USA has dishonored various international treaties and given half-baked justifica-
tions. The problem is there is no other country strong enough to raise its voice against American
might.

CASE STUDY: ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT & THE US

The following passage has been extracted from TIME Magazine –

“Few would be surprised to hear that the United States is involved in supporting a dem-
ocratic nation that was recently invaded by its authoritarian neighbor. But many Amer-
icans are likely unaware that their country is doing so for two such post-Soviet nations:
not just Ukraine, but also Armenia, which has been suffering from Azerbaijan’s invasion
for almost three weeks now. The two situations are not unrelated. A key factor behind
the ongoing U.S. engagement in Armenia is Russia’s visible absence in a region that the
latter considers its backyard. But the U.S. isn’t simply trying to push Russia out from the
 post-Soviet South Caucasus. Rather, Washington seems to have realized just how serious
the threat is—not just for Armenia, but for the world. In the early minutes of Sept. 13, as
families across eastern Armenia slept, Azerbaijan launched the unprovoked shelling of
three dozen Armenian towns with heavy artillery and unmanned combat drones. The two
countries have been locked in off-and-on hostilities for decades over the disputed Na-
gorno-Karabakh republic, but Azerbaijan’s regime now seems to take advantage of its
rival’s military unpreparedness and global, especially Russian, distraction. Azerbaijan
attempted to deny having attacked within Armenia’s borders, but the onslaught was so
intense that NASA’s fire-management satellites detected massive thermal anomalies. In
just two days, Azerbaijan’s forces killed over 200 Armenians, primarily soldiers, accord-
ing to official government counts. Videos spread by the invaders appeared to show them
giggling while mutilating fallen Armenian women, and executing Armenian soldiers who
had surrendered. It was not until U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Armenia
the weekend of Sept. 17, in support of Armenian security and democracy against Azer-
baijan’s “illegal and deadly attacks,” that it became fully clear that the U.S., in a dra-
matic transformation, is fully engaged, albeit probably only diplomatically, in preventing
existential threats against Armenia. Jackie Speier, one of the two Armenian-American
Congresswomen to accompany Speaker Pelosi, recalled at a large Armenian-American
gathering in Los Angeles on Sept. 25 that in Armenia she told their dinner host, the Prime
Minister, that she didn’t want another girl to feel the way she did growing up: reluctant
to identify as Armenian because her homeland, then part of the USSR, did not appear on
a world’s map. As the Congresswoman announced at the gathering, she is introducing a
resolution in condemnation of and accountability for Azerbaijan’s war crimes and ag-
gression, following a similar motion by prominent House Democrat Adam Schiff, and a
bipartisan Senate resolution introduced by key Senators Bob Menendez and Marco Ru-
bio. But this is not about internal electoral politics. More significantly—especially as
Congress has been historically attentive to Armenian American constituency concerns—
the White House has now transformed its traditionally both-sidist rhetoric on the conflict.
It was the U.S., not the regional hegemon Russia, that played the key role in halting
Azerbaijan’s Sept. 13-14 aggression. Since then, the Biden Administration has initiated
numerous meetings for and with Armenian and Azerbaijani officials, both in person and
on the phone, despite threats by Azerbaijan’s authoritarian president—who has made
Armenophobia his power-consolidation formula since inheriting the presidency in
2003—that no one and nothing can stop us.”22
U.S. “engagement may also come as a surprise given that Armenia is formally part of CSTO
(Collective Security Treaty Organization), Russia’s failed mini-version of NATO. Preoccupied
with its failing invasion of Ukraine and forced mobilization of troops, Russia is both unable
and unwilling to defend its treaty ally Armenia today. But in 2020 and 2021, during previous
rounds of aggression by Azerbaijan, Russia likewise chose not to do more to defend its ally,
despite having had the military might to do so. On paper, Russia is democratic Armenia’s se-
curity guarantor. In reality, Russia and Azerbaijan, two fossil fuel-rich authoritarian states, are
much closer; the unwavering support for the latter by Turkey, which has become an ever-more

22
Simon Maghakayan, “The U.S. Might Be the Surprising Determining Factor in the Future of Armenia” (TIME,
23 Sep 2022) < https://time.com/6219263/armenia-azerbaijan-us-involvement/ >.
important partner for Russia given western sanctions, complicates Russia’s support for Arme-
nia even more. The U.S.’s recent involvement in the Caucasus is unprecedented. For the very
first time since the Cold War, it’s the actions of a country other than Russia that matter most
right now in the region. Will Washington succeed in preventing a full-scale invasion of demo-
cratic Armenia? Is it willing to make sacrifices to meet that goal, such as selling defense wea-
ponry to Armenia and sanctioning Azerbaijan, despite intense Turkish pressure and European
energy needs? The only public American sacrifice over the last three weeks in defense of Ar-
menian existence appears to have come from the outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Armenia. On
Sept. 28, Lynne Tracy risked her safety to travel to Syunik, Armenia’s southmost region, de-
spite her own embassy’s travel warning against visiting the entire region.”

The interference of US in Armenian and Azerbaijan conflict is a great example of intervention

politics and law. The war continued to rage on like fire between both the countries. This inter-
vention will lead to framing of policies for Armenia to whom America is extending support.
The international law regime is marred with cut throat and shrewd politics, the diplomatic
standards have witnessed spurt after international law flourished.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article was to trace the development of international law which is no doubt
a product of international politics. We tend to devise laws and mechanisms for resolution of
disputes and disputes ensue when there is interaction. In ancient period there were violent in-
teractions among the different states. With the West philia war, the concept of diplomacy
emerged and at the same time, leading jurists were developing theories like natural law and
positive law which led to a distinct field of law, today known as international law. With this
being said, international law has led to shrewd and power seeking politics as is evident from
case study of Armenian & Azerbaijan conflict.