Does International Law Matter in Relation between States Essay

Does International Law Matter in Relation between States - sample ExampleInternational law of nature, is the body of law that regulates the activities of entities possessing multinational personality. Traditionally, that meant the conduct and relationships of states. However, it is now well established that International Law in any case concerns the structure and conduct of international organizations, and, to a degree, that of multinational corporations and individuals (Wikipedia). International law, as it exists today, makes one question as to whether it has any real influence in impacting issues between states, related to war/peace, benevolent rights, trade and even crime. This is because the interpretation and application of international law makes it so fluid, that it thunder mug be postageed by any nation to suit its stand. The stronger the nation, the easier it gets to mold the so-called law. Damrosch et al state that international law governs relations between independ ent states (68). But if it is so slippery, how can it ever achieve this objective It mustiness be noted, that customary international law is based on what states consistently practice out of a sense of legal obligation. So, customary international law keeps changing based on acceptance or rejection of specific acts practiced by states. The weakness inherent in international law is further examined from a legal perspective.International law as a law appears to be a paradox. As noted by Glennon when a given question can be argued either way, a state is presumed to be free to act. Indeed, it could hardly be otherwise in any legal system. It is, as Kelsen wrote, a fundamental formula that what is not legally forbidden to the subjects of the law is legally permitted to them.84(63). There is so much uncertainty surrounding international law that the arguments in a speak to are not so much about whether the actions were permissible or impermissible under international law, but about wha t international law in reality specifies. ... ance consider the environment protection law on banning tuna caught in the nets that kill dolphins, if accepted, then it has a discriminatory effect on trade. So international law, as interpreted by the WTO, becomes the friend of business and bugaboo of environmentalists (Ratner). If the interpretation of international law is going to increase conflicts, how can it ever warrant global stabilityOverall, international law has too many gaps or overlaps, which only increase tensions between states. It has seen limited success for example in the extradition of Abu capital of Oregon Qayyum Ansari to India from Portugal and in the banning of landmines. Question of War and PeaceIt is an accepted premise that war is waged either in retaliation or in self-defense to an aggressors move. This has also been an accepted stance in the international framework. US, too supported this stance and normally argued that nations need to work within the inter national framework so that the founding order does not break down. However, it was quick to exempt itself from this rationale, when it planned the Iraq invasion. Bush administration argued on the basis of the pre-emptive principle claiming that Iraq was a potential threat. US rejected traditional international law, claiming that it was not suited to manage the contemporary situation. Arend notes Traditional international law required there to be an imminent danger of round out before preemption would be permissible, the Bush administration argues in its 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS) that the United States must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of todays adversaries. It contends that the greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking