1. 2. Describe the origin of the International Legal Order and its nature.

Introduction
The idea of developing international law through the restatement of existing rules or through the formulation of new rules is not of recent origin. In the last quarter of the eighteenth century Jeremy Bentham proposed a codification of the whole of international law, though in a [1] utopian spirit. Since his time, numerous attempts at codification have been made by private individuals, by learned societies and by Governments. Enthusiasm for the codification movement the name sometimes given to such attempts generally stems from the belief that written international law would remove the uncertainties of customary international law by filling existing gaps in the law, as well as by giving precision to abstract general principles whose practical application is not settled. While it is true that only concrete texts accepted by Governments can directly constitute a body of written international law, private codification efforts, that is, the research and proposals put forward by various societies, institutions and individual writers, have also had a considerable effect on the development of international law. Particularly noteworthy are the various draft codes and proposals prepared by the Institut de Droit International, the International Law Association (both founded in 1873) and the Harvard Research in International Law (established in 1927), which have facilitated the work of various diplomatic conferences convened to adopt general multilateral conventions [2] of a law-making nature.

The history of public international law examines the evolution and development of public international law in both state practice and conceptual understanding. Modern international law developed out of Renaissance Europe and is strongly entwined with the development of western political organisation at that time. The development of European notions of sovereignty and nation states would necessitate the development of methods for interstate relations and standards of behaviour, and these would lay the foundations of what would become international law. However, while the origins of the modern system of international law can be traced back 400 years, the development of the concepts and practises that would underpin that system can be traced back to ancient historical politics and relationships thousands of years old. Important concepts are derived from the practice between Greek city-states and the Roman law concept of ius gentium (which regulated contacts between Roman citizens and non-Roman people). These principles were not universal however. In East Asia, political theory was based not on the equality of states, but rather the cosmological supremacy of the Emperor of China.

Early history
Basic concepts of international law such as treaties can be traced back thousands of years. Early examples of treaties include around 2100BC an agreement between the rulers of the city-states of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia, inscribed on a stone block, setting a proscribed boundary between [2] their two states. Around 1000BC, an agreement was signed between Ramses II of Egypt and the king of the Hittites establishing "eternal peace and brotherhood" between their two nations: dealing with respect [2] for each others territory and establishing a form of defensive alliance. The ancient Greeks before Alexander the Great formed many small states that constantly interacted. In peace and in war, an inter-state culture evolved that prescribed certain rules for how these states would interact. These rules did not apply to interactions with non-Greek states, but among themselves the Greek inter-state community resembled in some respects the modern international community. The Roman Empire did not develop an international law, as it acted without regard to any external rules in its dealings with those territories that were not already part of the empire. The Romans did, however, form municipal laws governing the interactions between private Roman citizens and foreigners. These laws, called the jus gentium (as opposed to the jus civile governing interactions between citizens) codified some ideas of basic fairness, and attributed some rules to an objective, independent "natural law." These jus gentium ideas of fairness and natural law have survived and are reflected in modern international law.
[1]

The League of Nations

Main article: League of Nations Following World War I, as after the Thirty Years' War, there was an outcry for rules of warfare to protect civilian populations, as well as a desire to curb invasions. The League of Nations, established after the war, attempted to curb invasions by enacting a treaty agreement providing for economic and military sanctions against member states that used "external aggression" to invade or conquer other member states. An international court was established, the Permanent Court of International Justice, to arbitrate disputes between nations without resorting to war. Meanwhile, many nations signed treaties agreeing to use international arbitration rather than warfare to settle differences. International crises, however, demonstrated that nations were not yet committed to the idea of giving external authorities a say in how nations conducted their affairs. Aggression on the part of Germany, Italy and Japan went unchecked by international law, and it took a Second World War to end it.

Modern customary international law

An important development in modern international law is the concept of "consent." Before World War II, a nation would not have been considered to be bound by a rule unless it had formally agreed to be bound by it, or it was already customarily abiding by that rule. Now, however, merely consenting to an international practice is sufficient to be bound by it, without signing a treaty. An evolution of the positivist approach of Grotius, the concept of consent is an element of customary international law. Customary international law is essentially what states actually do, plus the opinio juris of what states believe international law requires them to do. Customary international law applies to every country, regardless of whether they have formally agreed to it. At the same time, all countries take part in forming customary international law by their practices and decisions. As new rules arise, countries accept, reject or modify them. When most countries are following a rule, everyone else will be held to it. Therefore, doing nothing is the same as consenting. Nations that did not take action may find themselves bound by an international law that is not to their advantage. Customary international law can be overruled, however, by a treaty. For this reason, much customary international law has been agreed to formally by treaties between nations. [edit]Modern

treaty law

Treaties are essentially contracts between countries. They are agreements by which the parties intend to be bound. If treaties are broken, their effectiveness is weakened because there is no guarantee that future promises will be kept. So there is a strong incentive for nations to take treaties very seriously. Modern nations engage in a two-step procedure for entering into treaties. The first step is signing the treaty. Being a signatory to a treaty means that a country intends to enter into the agreement. The second step is ratifying the treaty. A country that has ratified a treaty has gone beyond merely intending to enter into the agreement, and is now bound by it. This is a critical distinction, and sometimes a point of confusion. A nation may be a signatory to a treaty for many years without ever having ratified it. Each country ratifies treaties its own way. The United States requires the two-thirds support of the Senate, the upper body of its legislature, for a treaty to be ratified; both the executive and the legislature

must agree. In Canada, on the other hand, ratification is strictly an executive action, and no parliamentary approval is required before the nation is bound. Modern treaties are interpreted according to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This convention is so widely accepted that even nations that are not parties to the convention follow it. The convention's most important and sensible rule is that a treaty should be interpreted according to the plain meaning of its language, in the context of its purpose, and in good faith. This prevents much squabbling and unnecessary nit-picking. It also makes treaty authors spell out what they are trying to accomplish, to make interpretation easier, in a non-binding "preamble." In the modern world, international law is more important than ever. Even the most powerful countries rely on it, and seek to comply with itand suffer consequences if they ignore it.

3.How Treaty Obligations are ended? Explain.

A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign statesand international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant,convention or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally [1] considered treaties and the rules are the same. Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

Modern usage
A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves. A treaty is that official document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships. [edit]Modern
[2]

form

Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble describing the contracting parties and their joint objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any underlying events (such as a war). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a verb (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on). The contracting parties' full names or sovereign titles are often included in the preamble, along with the full names and titles of their representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers (i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective states) and found them in good or proper form. The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is often signaled by the words "have agreed as follows."

After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings. Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved. The end of a treaty is often signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in faith whereof," the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE at," then the site(s) of the treaty's execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is always written in its most formal, longest possible form. For example, the Charter of the United Nations was "DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in multiple copies in different languages, that fact is always noted, and is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally authentic. The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

Ending treaty obligations

See also: Denunciation [edit]Withdrawal Treaties are not necessarily permanently binding upon the signatory parties. As obligations in international law are traditionally viewed as arising only from the consent of states, many treaties expressly allow a state to withdraw as long as it follows certain procedures of notification. Many treaties expressly forbid withdrawal. Other treaties are silent on the issue, and so if a state attempts withdrawal through its own unilateral denunciation of the treaty, a determination must be made regarding whether permitting withdrawal is contrary to the original intent of the parties or to the nature of the treaty. Human rights treaties, for example, are generally interpreted to exclude the possibility of withdrawal, because of [citation needed] the importance and permanence of the obligations. If a state party's withdrawal is successful, its obligations under that treaty are considered terminated, and withdrawal by one party from a bilateral treaty of course terminates the treaty. When a state withdraws from a multi-lateral treaty, that treaty will still otherwise remain in force among the other parties, unless, of course, otherwise should or could be interpreted as agreed upon between the remaining states parties to [citation needed] the treaty. [edit]Suspension

and termination

If a party has materially violated or breached its treaty obligations, the other parties may invoke this breach as grounds for temporarily suspending their obligations to that party under the treaty. A material [citation needed] breach may also be invoked as grounds for permanently terminating the treaty itself.

A treaty breach does not automatically suspend or terminate treaty relations, however. The issue must be presented to an international tribunal or arbiter (usually specified in the treaty itself) to legally establish that a sufficiently serious breach has in fact occurred. Otherwise, a party that prematurely and perhaps wrongfully suspends or terminates its own obligations due to an alleged breach itself runs the risk of being held liable for breach. Additionally, parties may choose to overlook treaty breaches while still [citation needed] maintaining their own obligations towards the party in breach. Treaties sometimes include provisions for self-termination, meaning that the treaty is automatically terminated if certain defined conditions are met. Some treaties are intended by the parties to be only temporarily binding and are set to expire on a given date. Other treaties may self-terminate if the treaty is [citation needed] meant to exist only under certain conditions. A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the essential basis of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that [citation needed] established or redrew political boundaries.

International criminal law is a body of international law designed to prohibit certain categories of conduct commonly viewed as serious atrocities and to make perpetrators of such conduct criminally accountable for their perpetration. Principally, it deals with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity as well as the War of aggression. This article also discusses crimes against international law, which may not be part of the body of international criminal law. "Classical" international law governs the relationships, rights, and responsibilities of states. Criminal law generally deals with prohibitions addressed to individuals, and penal sanctions for violation of those prohibition imposed by individual states. International criminal law comprises elements of both in that although its sources are those of international law, its consequences are penal sanctions imposed on individuals.
International criminal law is a subset of international law. As such, its sources are the same as those that comprise international law. The classical enumeration of those sources is in Article 38(1) of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice and comprise: treaties, customary international law, general principles of law(and as a subsidiary measure judicial decisions and the most highly qualified juristic writings.) The ICC statute contains an analogous, though not identical, set of sources that the ICC may rely on.

[edit]

The prosecution of severe international crimesincluding as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimesis a necessary to enforce international criminal law and deliver justice to victims. This is an important component of transitional justice, or the process of transforming societies into rights-respecting democracies and addressing past human rights violations. Investigations and trials of leaders who have committed crimes and caused mass political or military atrocities is a key demand of victims of human rights abuses. Prosecution of such criminals can play a key role in restoring dignity to victims, and restoring trusting relationships in society.[1] The International Criminal Court, as described below, can play an important role in prosecuting international crimes in cases where domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so.
[edit]

Today, the most important institution is the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as several ad hoc tribunals:

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Apart from these institutions, some 'hybrid' courts and tribunals existjudicial bodies with both international and national judges. They are:

Special Court for Sierra Leone, (investigating the crimes committed the Sierra Leone Civil War) Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, (investigating the crimes of the Red Khmer era) Special Tribunal for Lebanon, (investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri) The War Crimes Court at Kosovo.[citation needed]

[edit] International Criminal Court

Main article: International Criminal Court The International Criminal Court (French: Cour Pnale Internationale; commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt)[2] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity,war crimes, and the crime of

aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression).[3][4] The court's creation perhaps constitutes the most significant reform of international law since 1945. It gives authority to the two bodies of international law that deal with treatment of individuals: human rights and humanitarian law. The court can generally exercise jurisdiction only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the court by theUnited Nations Security Council.[19] It is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[20][21] Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[22] To date, the