INTELAW REFLECTION PAPER

As I first browsed the article written by Sir Robert Y. Jennings, I got

quite overwhelmed not only because of the quantity of its pages, but
to the terms and the topics being dealt with. International law was
completely new to me, as I have never encountered it before.
However, some were pretty familiar, as we have already tackled them
in our previous law subjects.
To be honest I actually have no idea on what the author is trying to
achieve on his article, because most ideas, if not all, appeared to be
contradicting and obscure. An example was when he stated that
customary laws are easily identified, given that they have already been
norms, and then contradicted it then again stating that due to societal
changes, identifying these has now become immensely complex. I am
not certain if I just put a wrong interpretation on the essence of some
ideas he presented or if they just really are vague. Whats more is that,
he kept on introducing concepts without giving at least a background
of it, nor explained further. I am on the opinion that in writing
commentaries such as this, it is significant that you are able to
communicate with your readers effectively, by providing them a clear
grasp of what you are trying to say, and not leaving an empty space or
skipping from one thought to another.
Moving on from my critique on the article, this time Id like to
commend it for being so informative. It has given me a brief but
concise apprehension of International law. Through this article, I have
learned more about treaties and customary laws and how they differ
from each other. A treaty is like a contract; state parties sign them to
indicate their submission under its governing rules. Meanwhile,
customary laws are rules that have already become an intrinsic part of

a tradition or culture due to its interminable existence. Confusion shall

have no place here since not all rules under treaties are customary
laws, and vice versa. Those state parties under a treaty are bound by
the rules and laws set forth by the treaty they signed to and to
customary

laws,

which

are

still

deemed

relevant

up

to

now.

Concurrently, those who are not parties to a treaty are only under the
control of customary laws.
Another point raised by the author was the essence of codifying laws. I
agree with the author on this one because I have seen the importance
of explicitly laying down laws to a tangible form. Written laws possess
more authority as compared to those that were just made through
word of mouth, for the reason that the written form will serve as a
basis that a particular law really exist, thus shall be made enforceable
to anyone who takes the risk to transgress. With this I have seen the
essence of having a treaty. It makes the state parties liable in case
they violate the laws , which they had formally concluded and agreed
to.
Lastly, I have also caught sight of the complexity of International law,
most especially on issues of implementation. The mere fact that it
governs several countries already makes it acomplicated with the
presence of diversity in each nation. As a result, difficulties in
enforcement have caused many to question whether international law
is really law.