Introduction: the paradox of international law Order and institutions The modern institution of international law From international to supranational law? The law of war Theoretical approaches to international law Conclusion
International law International society International Order International institutions International Organizations
International law is a core international institution, a set of norms, rule and practices created by stated and other actors to facilitate diverse social goals, from order and coexistence to justice and human development.
International institutions are commonly defined as complex of norms, rules, and practices that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity and shape expectation. International Organizations, Like United Nations are play physical entities that have staff, head offices and letterheads.
International institutions VS International Organizations. International institutions are commonly defined as complex of norms, rules, and practices that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity and shape expectation. International Organizations, Like United Nations are play physical entities that have staff, head offices and letterheads.
Levels of international institutions : Constitutional institutions Fundamental institutions Issue-specific institution or regimes. However, there have provided the basic framework for international cooperation and the pursuit of order.
Is a historical artefact. A product of the revolutions in thought and practice that transformed the governance of European states after the French Revolution (1789). Feature of the modern institution of international law: Multilateral legislation Consent and legal obligation Language and practice of justification The discourse of institutional autonomy
The rules, norms, and principle of international law are no longer confined to maintaining international order.
Traditional of war divided into these governing when the use of force is legitimate: Jus ad bellum: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.
Jus in Bello: states must use minimal, or proportionate, force and weapony. Thus it is not justifiable to completely destroy the enemys forces if you can use enough force to merely defeat them. For example, a state should not use a nuclear weapon when a conventional one might do.
Since 2001 both jus ad bellum and jus in bello have come under challenge as the Bush administration sought to conduct the war on terror without the constraints of established principles of international law, a practice that the Obama administration has sought to reverse.
Realism: Argue that international law is only important when it serves the interests of powerful states. Neo-liberal institutionalism: how self-interested states come to construct dense networks of international legal regimes. Constructivism: treat international law as part of the normative structures that condition state and non-state agency in international relation. Like other social norms and also they emphasize the way in which law constitutes actors identities, interests and strategies.
The new liberalism emphasize the domestic origins of state preferences, in turn, Within international law they stress the need to disaggregate the state to understand transnational legal integration and interaction, and they prioritize international humanitarian law. Critical legal studies: concentrates on the way in which the inherent liberalism of international law seriously curtails its radical potential.
The Principle of objective of international law was the maintenance of peace and stability based on mutual respect for each states territorial integrity and domestic jurisdiction, issues of distributive justice and the protection of basic human rights lay outside its brief.