International Law CANS The Nature of International Law Does International Law Exist? Anxieties about International Law: International Law is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC there is potential to force a country to act in a way its citizens – do not want International Law focuses on COUNTRIES, not INDIVIDUALS Country, or STATE, is a grouping/entity The idea of having international law trial vested in a STATE while the citizens have democratic rights to make law is a loaded one Lack of Enforcement International Law cannot, in the large scope of things, compel a state to do – anything it does not want International Law does not meet the same criteria of Domestic Law Because there is no enforcement, International Law is deprived of the Status of Law in the public conscience is NO COURT OF COMPULSORY JURISDICTION ICJ = International Court of Justice of Compulsory Jurisdiction is a PERMANENT court of jurisdiction for permanent members In International Law, JURISDICTION IS BASED ON CONSENT Courts only have jurisdiction States have consented to it States can pick and choose what they want to consent to Powerful States at times blatantly breach International Law There are few opportunities in International Law for individuals to bring claims International Law is based primarily on STATES Individuals cannot present their cases, only States The state can present/raise a case/complaint on of a citizen if the complaint BEHALF can be raised to a level of State vs. State International Law only creates obligations for States through CONSENT Unlike domestic law, where subjects do not have to consent to the laws Subjects in domestic law = Individuals/Citizens individuals are automatically to domestic – laws, regardless of consenting to them International Law is Anti-Democratic amongst States Each state is held to the same standard A state like Nauru or Liechtenstein will have the same vote as China potentially not – democratic in the sense of REPRESENTATIVE There is NO International police force If someone violates International Law and a complaint is brought against them to the ICJ, assuming they have CONSENTED to ICJ jurisdiction on the matter, and they lose at and refuse to comply with the ICJ mandate, the only recourse for the ICJ is to refer the issue to the UN Security Council ISSUE What if the country is one of the Great Powers (permanent 5) or important to – one of the P5? There is no International police force to monitor International Law or enforce it, and what enforcement measures do exist via the UN, they favour the powerful states Responses to Anxieties/Criticisms of International Law: Is National Law dependent on the State any less than International?
International Law CANS The Nature of International Law Does International Law Exist? Anxieties about International Law: International Law is ANTI-DEMOCRATIC – there is potential to force a country to act in a way its citizens do not want International Law focuses on COUNTRIES, not INDIVIDUALS Country, or STATE, is a grouping/entity The idea of having international law vested in a STATE while the citizens have democratic rights to make law is a loaded one Lack of Enforcement – International Law cannot, in the large scope of things, compel a state to do anything it does not want International Law does not meet the same criteria of Domestic Law Because there is no enforcement, International Law is deprived of the Status of Law in the public conscience is NO COURT OF COMPULSORY JURISDICTION ICJ = International Court of Justice of Compulsory Jurisdiction is a PERMANENT court of jurisdiction for permanent members In International Law, JURISDICTION IS BASED ON CONSENT Courts only have jurisdiction States have consented to it States can pick and choose what they want to consent to Powerful States at times blatantly breach International Law There are few opportunities in International Law for individuals to bring claims International Law is based primarily on STATES Individuals cannot present their cases, only States The state can present/raise a case/complaint on BEHALF of a citizen if the complaint can be raised to a level of State vs. State International Law only creates obligations for States through CONSENT Unlike domestic law, where subjects do not have to consent to the laws Subjects in domestic law = Individuals/Citizens – individuals are automatically to domestic laws, regardless of consenting to them International Law is Anti-Democratic amongst States Each state is held to the same standard A state like Nauru or Liechtenstein will have the same vote as China – potentially not democratic in the sense of REPRESENTATIVE There is NO International police force If someone violates International Law and a complaint is brought against them to the ICJ, assuming they have CONSENTED to ICJ jurisdiction on the matter, and they lose at trial and refuse to comply with the ICJ mandate, the only recourse for the ICJ is to refer the issue to the UN Security Council ISSUE – What if the country is one of the Great Powers (permanent 5) or important to one of the P5? There is no International police force to monitor International Law or enforce it, and what enforcement measures do exist via the UN, they favour the powerful states Responses to Anxieties/Criticisms of International Law: Is National Law dependent on the State any less than International?