According to one view, international law is not law in its very essence, which calls into question its effectiveness. They make this assertion on the grounds that for a law to exist, there must be a political authority over it, which has the legal right to enforce its will, even if done by coercion. The theoretical literature on respect for international law suggests that non-compliance in some areas makes it difficult to apply other norms of international law. Working on rational decisions, for example, postulates that states partially comply with international law in order to protect their reputations. When States as a whole tend to expect them not to play by the rules, the cost of concluding treaties or developing norms of customary international law becomes higher for all States. A fundamental reputation of non-compliance between states generally undermines intergovernmental cooperation because it means that states must do more in a treaty agreement to generate trustworthy commitments (such as monitoring non-compliance), and because some agreements are not worth the time or effort. Admittedly, these effects depend on states with a reputation for compliance that is not entirely topic-specific or compartmentalized, a plausible hypothesis for the reasons explained here (pages 103-06). International human rights law has changed international law. The two main sources of international legal obligations – treaties and custom – have become broader and more flexible in order to introduce more human rights standards into the field of international law, despite widespread non-compliance with these standards. In some respects, the success of these efforts is evident: international law now regulates a wide range of human rights-related conduct. Whether enlargement is an effective means of promoting human rights is widely debated. If international law has a problem in this sense, one solution is to apply international human rights law more effectively: this would benefit not only human rights, but international law as a whole. Nevertheless, the creation of a truly effective international system to uphold human rights seems unlikely.
A more complicated option is to find ways to promote and protect human rights that do not depend on binding norms of international law, including regional human rights courts and tribunals, national laws and constitutions, capacity-building and iterative interactions with review bodies. the application of flexible commitments, etc. Thanks to the successes of the international human rights movement, there are a variety of instruments that improve global human rights practice. While we have not yet seen whether these mechanisms will work if decoupled from binding international legal obligations, it is clear that we should understand international human rights law as part of a broader international legal system. The debate on international law and human rights should be reshaped to take into account not only the potential benefits to human rights, but also the potential costs to international law as a whole. Currently, states` obligations are outlined in treaties and tariffs, but enforcement relies on vague clauses and empty threats found in documents or in international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), where power asymmetries give significant influence to the most powerful states. Consent is very important, but the status of international law as «law» cannot be based solely on consent. As rational and unitary actors, States make decisions that are in their best interest and, in most cases, acceptance of various conventions and treaties is in the interest of a State, but such consent can be revoked as soon as the State`s priorities change or a better option emerges.
An examination of the sources of international law reveals that the general principles generally change and are too vague to form the basis of an international legal system; Customary law was based on State practice and opinio juris, which could be wrongly attributed to a State that merely performed an act because it was favourable at the moment; And contracts are enforceable only as long as one party or group of parties is strong enough to impose compliance on another party. Examples of the latter can be found in the decades when Cold War rivalries held the UN Security Council hostage. At times like these, the system looks like political racketeering rather than an international legal regime. The ICJ has settled disputes between states on several occasions. There have been courts and tribunals that have dealt effectively with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Under Chapter VII, Article 13(b) of the Charter, the UN Security Council can even refer certain cases involving internationally recognized crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and others to the International Criminal Court (ICC). One body that has always played an important role in ensuring the effectiveness of international law is the United Nations and its subsidiary organs. However, before making suggestions, it is important to know what work the United Nations has done so far in implementing international law. It may be easy for the privileged in countries with a majority interest in the ICC to dismiss such accusations as anti-Western tirades by corrupt regimes and oppressive states, but this kind of thinking is hardly very international. And if, unlike national law, you can`t sue the offending party through an impartial arbitrator, that doesn`t look much like the «law» either.
Position or power is not a mandate to treat others, your citizens, as you see fit – as nightmarish as it may be to unravel human rights from a cultural perspective, there must be universal ground rules. But why should we be so arrogant as to believe that these can only come from the loudest powers in the United Nations? Is this not the imperialism that these states imposed on the rest of the world not so long ago? The internationalism with which we are debating is admirable: respect for human rights, cooperation and understanding between peoples, universal equality for all. This is something that everyone in the world, whether Muslim, Christian, atheist, regardless of nationality, can sympathize. But we will not get them by supporting a flawed system. Many norms of international law, in particular international human rights law, are widely violated. The international legal system as a whole may suffer. Much-vaunted treaties like the Koyoto Protocol are not synonymous with creating a national «law» – by living in our society, we agree to abide by its rules, but it would not be acceptable to withdraw from our «agreement», for example not to steal someone else`s car, on the assumption that it would harm our economy. hold on to our own applauded Ford. But since it is quite difficult to apply international law, it is easy to make vague promises that only come out a few years later. It is often argued that international law began in the West. While it is debatable whether it is possible (or useful) to situate the cradle of international law as opposed to its development, few would argue that international law faces major challenges in developing countries compared to developed countries.
In developing countries, the first problem of international law is the lack of popularity. This stems from a combination of most law students` lack of awareness of the benefits and relevance of international law to their societies. Second, the commercialization of international institutions and materials has an almost Western orientation: international institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Bank are all located in the West. Most books on international law report on predominantly Western cases and jurisdictions, as if cases and tribunals in developing countries did not contribute to the development of international law. The creation of NATO is another example. While the North American Treaty Organization plays an important role in collective security and humanitarian efforts, the main justification for its continued global importance is its central role in international politics. Its main objective is to create a community of nations sharing shared values, nations that value liberal and democratic governments and the protection and enforcement of human rights. While their main concern was communism, NATO`s leading member states came together collectively around a common goal. Unfortunately, in the case of international law, its supremacy and identity are challenged. Moreover, it is hardly considered by international actors as a law in its true essence.