International laws

International Laws and their Evolution

International laws are predefined norms and regulations that govern how sovereign governments interact with one another. By enshrining the existing variety between domestic and global concerns, the laws comprise a significant part of international politics. The international laws have evolved since their beginnings.

Traditional International Law vs Modern International Law

Traditional international law regards war as a fundamental component of state sovereignty and considers it to be the rule of power. One significant difference between traditional and modern international law is their response to concerns of aggressive conflicts vs issues of international human rights protection. Human rights are central to modern international law, which is seen as a revolutionary concept. The traditional concepts of the internationals, however, are not in any way concerned with those rights. Currently, many states have accepted the belief that the core purpose of the laws is to regulate and protect the relationship between different states but not individuals. According to Davis (78), the international laws do not confer specific rights on individuals.

Jurisdiction and International Conflicts

The need by various states to exercise authority beyond their boundaries has continuously created controversies for a long time. Jurisdictional analysis has been developed in order to curb the political, technological, and economic quest by various nations. The art of guarding jurisdiction in fear of the challenges that could arise because of not doing so, can, however, not be compared with the traditional approach of the international jurisdiction provided by the laws. Although the principle of effects serves to expand the sovereign rights through restricting various states, it does not provide a framework through which the interests of the states can be protected when the power is expanded. In the efforts to reduce international conflicts, the US courts have resorted to the idea of balancing when handling issues to do with international jurisdiction. This approach ensures that the US courts not only weigh the interest that a specific command will create on the US citizens but also considers other people that will be affected by the expansion of the power (Davis 123). Adopting the balancing approach while implementing and developing commands serves as a way of coming up with a stable administrative network.

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and International Relationships

The assertion of the extraterritorial jurisdiction by various countries in the world, especially by the U.S., continues to create major international conflicts. The conflicts have made serious impacts on international relationships and cooperation amongst various states. While the traditional approach towards international laws accords various states with the sovereignty to develop their own laws through exercising either legislative or prescriptive jurisdiction, such powers when not implemented within the boundaries of the specific nation creates extraterritorial friction. The contemporary approach to the international laws asserts that various states are not permitted to enforce their rules outside their territory unless under specific circumstances. Such a circumstance includes that they must adhere to a specific virtue within the international customs that permit them to exercise such jurisdiction. The international laws under the contemporary approach have also enshrined the functional sovereignty which controls the activities of those states that own the coastlines (Epps 100). The commands control vices such as piracy and slave trade along the coastal lines. The jurisdiction thus guards the legitimate interest of the coastal states. It is therefore evident that the traditional approach towards the international laws try to create a system which the countries can exercise their power territorially and inter-territorially without necessarily considering the feelings of the other states. The contemporary approach, however, presents that jurisdiction is something that is controlled and the states must exercise some level of care when developing and implementing their command.

The Role of Custom in International Laws

The end of custom being relied upon in coming up with the international laws has over time become a subject of contention. The reason behind this is that both nature and relative importance of the elements that comprise the custom principles are contentious. Custom, however, continues to be a significant and an important source of laws that govern sensitive areas such as human rights. The rise of custom can be contributed to the academic inventions and the principles set by the International Court of Justice.

The Involvement of Various Players in International Laws

The international laws have witnessed drastic changes over the last decade as new players have come up. The international law-making and implementation have turned very comprehensive and involve various players that include individuals, multinational corporations, state agencies, and even the terrorist organizations. The regular involvement of the non-state agencies in the development of the international laws is a subject that continues to attract a lot of concerns from various bodies. The contemporary approach to the international laws shapes the perception that encourages enough consultation and engagements among the various stakeholders in order to ensure that the feeling of every group is considered while developing the laws. Currently, various nations through their organizations create forums that are aimed at solving and creating laws that touch on the inter-territorial concerns amongst many countries. While the traditional approach does not clearly outline the participants that are required for the adoption of international laws, the legal teams that develop such laws are in most cases subject to public participation.

The Drafting and Implementation of International Laws

The fact that the International laws do not have a parliament where they are drafted raises concerns on where they are really made. According to Epps (45), the jurisdiction of various players that are involved in the implementation of the international laws, such as the International Court of Justice, depends on the agreement between the various states. Epps (100) states that international laws are drafted through: state treaties, the customary laws applied internationally, and the judicial decisions. The customary international laws are laws that are not written but have been embraced by many countries of the world. Such laws can include granting immunity to the visiting head of state. The belief in a legal obligation can also be the source of many customary laws. Many countries believe that granting immunity to a visiting head of state is just a legal obligation and, as much as it is not enshrined in any law either locally or internationally, it is their role and duty to exercise the obligation. Treaties between states or international organizations also form the international laws. The treaties, once they are documented and signed, become binding to the parties. Although it might not be treated like the other legislation that has been documented and adopted as rules, going against the treaties is a breach of the laws. The customary laws that have been adopted by various states globally, enshrine that each and every state must respect and abide by their treaties.

The Importance of Treaties and Public International Laws

Epps (89) states that even though some treaties might not apply to all the nations, treaties that have been found to be in-line with the existing laws are adopted globally and will be a subject of reference whenever the International court is solving issues that relate to the international laws. According to Davis (239), the public international laws set the standard for various international engagements. The laws create a framework through which democratic engagements can be undertaken. Davis states that the determination by various states to develop treaties and heed to the customary laws are clear indications that they are committed to upholding the human rights. The international laws set the basic principles to be adhered to while conducting elections in various countries in order to promote democracy. The principles of jurisdiction, according to Davis (98), lie in the international court. The states have also developed their own mechanisms that are aimed at ensuring that various countries do not break the treaties or the customary laws. In order to ensure that the relationship amongst various countries is maintained, proper control mechanisms have been created in order to ensure that the adherence to the treaties is upheld. The case of US and Syria in which the former accused the later of breaking the treaties regarding the use of nuclear energy is an example of a case in which one country might choose to go against the treaty. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine has been also seen as a breach of the 1997 Treaty of Friendship (Davis 250). Besides the breach of the International Laws and agreements by various nations, the laws have proven to be very useful in holding the world together. Although the laws are not drafted and documented in one source, it is essential that all countries embrace them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, international laws serve a major role in establishing and controlling the relationship between different states. Although there is no specific authority that is tasked with legislating the international laws, the treaties between various states and customary laws are used as the basis for developing such laws. Adherence to the laws by all the nations promotes peaceful co-existence and cohesion amongst the states.

Works Cited

Davis, Alexa. "Record Year in Reach for Spinoffs Thanks to Activist Appetite, Sluggish Growth." Forbes,12 June 2014.

Epps, Valerie. "Secession, Stagnation and the State-Centered Version of International Law." ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L., 2015.