Does International Law Matter in Relation between States Essay

Does International Law Matter in Relation between States - Essay Example International law, is the body of law that 'regulates the activities of entities possessing international personality'. Traditionally, that meant the conduct and relationships of states. However, it is now well established that International Law also 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, human rights, trade and even crime. This is because the interpretation and application of international law makes it so fluid, that it can be molded 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 independent states" (68). But if it is so slippery, how can it ever achieve this objective It must 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 principle 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 court are not so much about whether the actions were permissible or impermissible under international law, but about what international law really 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 ensure global stability Overall, 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 Salem Qayyum Ansari to India from Portugal and in the banning of landmines. Question of War and Peace It is an accepted premise that war is waged either in retaliation or in self-defense to an aggressor's 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 international framework so that the world 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 attack" 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 today's adversaries." It contends that "[t]he greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking