INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A LAW

(For the Motion)

I would like to start today’s discussion with a quote stated by the American Professor Richard A. Falk, The
so-called international law is ultimately a set of norms and principles that states choose to adhere to
when it suits their interests.

What is International Law?

International law is a set of rules and principles that govern the relations and interactions between
sovereign states and other international entities. It is a framework that guides the behaviour of states,
international organizations, and other actors on the global stage. International law encompasses a wide
range of issues, including diplomacy, trade, human rights, armed conflict, environmental protection, and
more.

The assertion that "international law is not a law" is a debated topic that challenges the traditional
understanding of law as being confined to domestic legal systems. While many argue that international
law possesses key characteristics of law, there are legitimate reasons to consider it as distinct from
traditional domestic legal systems. Here are some points that elaborate on the notion that international
law may not be considered a law in the same sense as domestic law:

1. Lack of Centralized Authority: One of the defining features of law is the presence of a
centralized authority, such as a legislature or a judiciary, that enacts, interprets, and enforces
legal norms. In the case of international law, there is no single central authority with the power
to create and enforce laws on a global scale. International law is formed through agreements
and treaties among sovereign states, and compliance relies largely on voluntary adherence.
2. Lack of Coercive Enforcement: Traditional legal systems have mechanisms for coercive
enforcement, such as police forces and courts, to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
International law lacks a comprehensive enforcement mechanism. While there are international
organizations like the United Nations and regional bodies, their enforcement capabilities are
limited, often relying on diplomatic or economic pressures rather than direct coercion.
3. Consent-Based Nature: International law is rooted in the principle of consent. States voluntarily
enter into treaties and agreements, and their willingness to abide by these commitments is a
crucial element. Unlike domestic law, which is often imposed upon individuals or entities within
a jurisdiction, international law is fundamentally contingent on the consent of sovereign states.
4. Lack of Uniform Interpretation: Domestic legal systems often have established courts or bodies
responsible for interpreting the law and resolving disputes. In contrast, international law lacks a
single, authoritative body for interpreting and applying its norms. Divergent interpretations
among states can lead to inconsistent enforcement and application of international norms.
5. Limited Jurisdiction: Domestic legal systems typically have jurisdiction over all individuals and
entities within their territory. International law, on the other hand, may only apply to states and
other international entities, leaving gaps in coverage and enforcement when it comes to
individuals and non-state actors.
6. Absence of Direct Rights and Obligations for Individuals: While domestic law grants individuals
certain rights and imposes obligations directly on them, international law primarily addresses
the rights and responsibilities of states. Individuals' rights under international law often depend
on their state's recognition and implementation of those rights at the domestic level.
 INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A LAW
(For the Motion)

In conclusion, the assertion that "international law is not a law" reflects the unique characteristics and
challenges of governing a global community of sovereign states. While international law shares some
attributes with traditional legal systems, its decentralized, consent-based nature, lack of centralized
authority, and absence of comprehensive enforcement mechanisms contribute to the ongoing debate
about whether it can be considered a true "law" in the same sense as domestic legal systems.

Important Case Laws

1. Iran-US Claims Tribunal Cases - The Iran-US Claims Tribunal was established to settle claims
between the United States and Iran following the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis
at the US Embassy in Tehran. While many claims were settled through this tribunal, there were
instances where one party did not fully comply with the tribunal's rulings. For example, Iran has
been criticized for not fully implementing certain decisions related to property disputes and
financial claims.
2. Nicaragua v. United States (1986) - In this case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
Nicaragua alleged that the United States had engaged in military and paramilitary activities in
Nicaragua. The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and awarded reparations. However, the United
States refused to participate in the reparations phase of the proceedings and did not comply
with the ICJ's judgment.
3. Argentina v. Ghana (The ARA Libertad Case) - In this case, Argentina's naval training ship ARA
Libertad was detained by Ghana in 2012 following a claim by a US-based hedge fund that sought
to enforce a debt judgment against Argentina. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
ordered Ghana to release the ship, but the ship remained detained for several weeks, and the
judgment was not immediately followed.
4. Russia's Annexation of Crimea (Ukraine v. Russia) - While this case is not a direct ruling by a
court, it involves Russia's annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine has sought legal remedies and filed cases against Russia in various international forums,
including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Russia's actions
have been widely criticized and deemed to violate international law, but it continues to maintain
control over Crimea.
5. Australia v. Japan (Whaling in the Antarctic Case) - In this case before the International Court of
Justice, Australia challenged Japan's whaling practices in the Antarctic as being in violation of its
international obligations. The ICJ ruled in favor of Australia in 2014, finding that Japan's whaling
program lacked scientific merit. Japan subsequently revised its whaling program, but it
continued to engage in whaling activities under the banner of scientific research, which has been
met with criticism and concerns about compliance with the judgment.
6. India vs Pakistan ( Kalbhushan jadav case) - Kulbhushan Jadhav is an Indian national who was
arrested by Pakistani authorities in March 2016 and accused of espionage and terrorism-related
activities. India and Pakistan have been in a diplomatic battle over the case. Jadhav was
sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court, but India contended that the trial was unfair
and lacked transparency. India took the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which
ruled in Favor of India on several key issues and ordered Pakistan to review the conviction and
sentence. Despite the victory of India still there is no clarity on what will happen ahead and
Pakistan has not provided Kulbhushan Jadav despite the judgment of international court of
justice
 INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A LAW
(For the Motion)

7. South China Sea Dispute: China has been accused of infiltrating its position in the South China
Sea many times. In 2013, China began to construct artificial islands in the South China Sea, which
it claims as its territory. These islands have been built on reefs and shoals that are also claimed
by other countries, such as Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. China has also been accused
of militarizing the South China Sea. It has deployed warships, aircraft, and missiles to the region,
and it has conducted military exercises near the artificial islands. This has raised concerns that
China is seeking to control the South China Sea and to assert its dominance in the region. In
2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruled that China's claims to the South China Sea
are invalid. The PCA also ruled that China has violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) by building artificial islands and by militarizing the region. However, China has refused
to accept the PCA's ruling. China's actions in the South China Sea have been met with criticism
from the United States and other countries. The United States has conducted freedom of
navigation operations in the South China Sea, and it has warned China against militarizing the
region. The United States has also expressed support for the PCA's ruling.

These cases highlight instances where an international court or tribunal issued a judgment in favor of
one country, but the country against which the ruling was made did not fully implement or comply with
the judgment. Such situations underscore the challenges of enforcing international law when states may
prioritize their own interests or interpret their obligations differently.

Prominent Jurist View

John Austin's command theory of law, also known as legal positivism, asserts that the validity of a law is
determined by the command of a sovereign backed by the threat of a sanction. According to Austin, a
law is a command issued by a recognized political authority and is enforceable through coercion.

When it comes to international law, Austin's command theory presents some challenges. International
law lacks a central sovereign authority with the power to enforce its commands in the same way a
domestic legal system does. This divergence from the traditional command theory has led some legal
scholars to argue that Austin's theory may not be directly applicable to international law.

Austin's command theory primarily focuses on laws within a sovereign state where there is a clear
authority structure and a mechanism for enforcement. However, in the realm of international law, there
is no single sovereign authority, and enforcement often relies on diplomatic, economic, or political
pressures rather than direct coercion.
 INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A LAW
(For the Motion)

Conclusion
I would like to conclude today's discussion with a focus on one of the most devastating conflicts in
history: World War II, which began in 1939 and continued until September 2, 1945. During this period,
Adolf Hitler systematically invaded neighbouring countries, progressively extending his control. Despite
having ideological differences with the Soviet Union, Hitler entered into a pact with its leader, Joseph
Stalin, on August 23, 1939. This agreement aimed to ensure non-aggression between the two nations.
However, the pact's integrity was shattered when Hitler launched an invasion of the Soviet Union on
June 22, 1941.

This historical event raises questions about the efficacy of international law. While international law
often relies on treaties and agreements to govern interactions between nations, the case of the Hitler-
Stalin pact serves as a poignant example of how these commitments can be disregarded. The events
surrounding World War II underscore the reality that adherence to international agreements depends
largely on the willingness of countries to honor them. Instances like these prompt us to critically consider
the extent to which international law functions as a binding legal framework, and they highlight the
complexities inherent in enforcing and upholding such agreements.