Argument: International Law is not a law because there exists no legislative body to

enforce it.

The basic challenge to international as law is the claim that there can be no law binding
sovereign states. Moverover, there exists no international legislative body. There is of
course, the General Assemble of the United Nations; but its resolutions are generally
not binding on anybody. There is no international executive. The Security Council was
intended to be that entity but it is often effectively harmstrung by the veto power.
Neitehr is there central authority that can make judgmene binding on the states. When
chips are down, national policy or interest is often preferred over international law.
Enforcement is a real problem for several reasons.1

As it stands now, states’ obligations are outlined in treaties and customs, but
enforcement relies on vague clauses and empty threats found within the documents, or
in international bodies like the UN Security Council (UNSC) where power asymmetries
grant the more powerful states significant influence. Consent is very important, but
international law’s status as “law” cannot rest on consent alone. As rational, unitary
actors, states make decisions that are in their best interests, and more often than not,
consenting to various conventions and treaties is in a state’s interest, but that consent
can be rescinded as soon as the state’s priorities change or a better option appears.

When considering the sources of international law, one finds that general principles are
usually shifting and too vague to form the basis of an international legal system;
customary law is based on state practice and opinio juris which can be mistakenly
ascribed to a state merely taking a course of action because it is convenient for the
time being; and treaties are only enforceable so long as one party or group of parties is
strong enough to impose compliance on another. Examples of the latter can be found
during the decades when Cold War rivalries held the UNSC hostage. It is at times like
these when the system more closely resembles a political protection racket than an
international legal regime.2

The enforcement mechanism most in the news in recent years is the United Nations
Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Under the provisions of
that Chapter, the Security Council may determine the existence of any threat to the

1
BERNAS - INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
2
INTERNATIONAL LAW RECONSIDERED: IS INTERNATIONAL LAW ACTUALLY A LAW?,
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/715/international-law-reconsidered-is-international-law-actually-law
peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and may impose mandatory sanctions
to try to rectify the situation. The sanctions may be economic (such as a trade embargo
against a country threatening the peace), diplomatic (such as severance of diplomatic
relations) or military (the use of armed force to maintain or restore international peace
and security).3

3
https://www.justia.com/international-law/#:~:text=How%20is%20international%20law
%20enforced,international%20organization%20enforces%20international%20law