INTERNATIONAL LAW

NATURE AND DEFINITION

The laws which regulate the dealings of the states with another are international
laws. It is a law which governs the conduct of the states. It is a law among nations.
International law is the most important factor to preserve order and to prevent abuse of
power in international area. Among the controls of interstate relations, the more general
and continuous one is international law. As Robert A. Tatt observes, peace in this world
is impossible.
Today international law is given great importance and its regarded as the law in the
true sense of the term. But during 19th century, John Austin said that international law is
not true but only positive international morality. According to Austin every law must be
backed by authority of the state and if the element is lacking it cannot be called law. In
that sense there is no political authority over and above the states of the world to
implement international law in the true sense. Another jurist Holland calls international
law as law only by courtesy. Kelson is also of the view that the so called international law
cannot be classed law in the same sense as state law, because it is not supported by
coercive authority of the state.
The international law was coined by Bentham in 1780. International law has been
defined in different ways by different writers.
Oppenheim defines International Law as the body of customary and conventional
rules which are considered legally binding by civilized states in their intercourse with
each other.
Lawrence defines International Law as the rules which determine the conduct of
the general body of civilized states in their mutual dealings.
Brierley defines it as the body and principles of action which are binding upon
civilized states in their relations with one another.
International Law can refer to three distinct legal disciplines:
a. Public international law which governs the relationship between states and
international entities. It includes these legal fields: treaty law, law of sea, international
criminal law, the laws of war or international humanitarian law and international
human rights law.
b. Private international law or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of (1)
which jurisdiction may hear a case, and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction
applies to the issues in the case.
c. Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns
regional agreements where the laws of nation states may be held inapplicable when

conflicting with a supranational legal system when that nation has a treaty obligation
to a supranational collective.
The two traditional branches of the field are:
a. jus gentium law of nations
b. jus inter gentes agreements between nations

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Roman Law
Roman law formed a complete and general code of dealings the
jusgentium. The jusgentium was applied to the dealings of citizens belonging to
different nations. From this general code most of the continental countries in
Europe derived their legal principles. Roman law provided a positive basis for
international law in two ways.
a. By the ide4a of the law of nations
b. By contributing the nation of equality of citizens before the law. This
notion got extended to the equality of sovereign states in international
law.
2. Customs
This is also another source of international law. As a matter of fact,
international law is customary. Certain customs and conventions which particular
states adopted have been accepted and followed so generally that they have come
to constitute a definite body of rules. Customs may be defined as the rules
evolved after a long historical process which in due course fine place in their
recognition by international community. Many rules of international law relating to
maritime warfare the right of aliens freedom of the seas etc. have been greatly
determined by international customs.
3. Decisions of League of Nations and UNO
League of Nations and UNO have been very important institutions of 20 th
century. The UNO lays stress on direct legislation, Mediation, Arbitration and
International Court of Justice at Hague. Decisions of the court at Hague and
resolutions passed by UNO proved very fruitful in the growth and development of
International Law.
4. Opinions of Diplomats and Statesman
The written opinions of statesman and lawyers and diplomatic
correspondence have helped much in growth and development of international law.
These opinions are often confidential but in democracy there is greater tendency
to publish them. The important portions of these opinions are published in England
and USA. States also issue instructions for the guidance of their Foreign Service
representatives and commanders of armed forces. These play a great role in the
growth and development of international law.

5. Works of Eminent Jurists

The views of great jurists are taken into considerations while deciding
international cases. For example Hugo Grotius famous book On the Law of War
and Peace published in 1625 is regarded as the Chief source of international law.
Kent, Wheaton, Manning, Woosley, Westlake, Lawrence and Hall are known as
modern authorities on international law.
6. Treatise and Alliances
Treatise, alliances and conventions for commercial of for political purpose are
important sources of international law. When most of the states become parties to
such a treaty, convention or alliance they tend to create an international law.
7. States Laws
Municipal law or state law also is a source of international law. For example
the rules and regulations of citizenship, nationalization etc. are some of the rules
and regulations which have international bearings. These rules and regulations
have helped a lot in the development of international law.
LIMITATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Limitations of International Law International law operates in the international
society based upon non-state system consisting of sovereign states. It is a law among
the states and not over them. International law has the following limitations and short
comings.
1. No legislative machinery:
International law is not the product of any sovereign international
legislative, where as
state laws are the product of a sovereign
legislature.
2. No Executive Machinery:
International society has no central
enforcement of
international law.

executive

machinery

for

3. No effective Judicial machinery

International law and international judicial system lack compulsory
jurisdiction.
International Court of Justice has no compelling
jurisdiction over the states and the
states are not obliged, to submit
their disputes to the court.
4. Uncertainty of International law:
The main instrument through which international law is created are
international
treaties. They are so vague and uncertain that they
can be interpreted by the states in
the School of Distance Education
International Politics manner they like to suit their
interest. The UN
charter itself is vague and uncertain. For example the word self

defense can be defined differently in different circumstances and each stat

is its own
judge in the matter.
5. Domestic affairs outside the jurisdiction of international law.
Domestic affairs of a state lie outside the jurisdiction of international
law. UNO cannot
interfere in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction are brought
under the purview of international
law, it would fail in performing its effective

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

International
international arena.

Politics

emphasizes

power

and

constant

maneuver

in

the

International organization lays greater emphasis on legal and ethical

considerations, and its institutions are conducive to orderly and cooperative methods of
affecting international change.
International law, like all laws, rests upon moral and practical foundations. It
requires the presence of a responsible and orderly society which is firmly dedicated to
the sharing of minimal common values.
All threeinternational law, organization and politicsoperate within the context
of power and in a constantly changing environment all help to explain the external
conduct of nation-states. Power as a comprehensive concept is a great deal more than
simple naked force applied by national state to nation state.
In international law and international politics are clearly related to each other
because international politics presumably operates within the framework of international
law. In comparison with the expediency of international politics, international law is
viewed by some as firmer, more traditional, and more stabilizing factor in world
community.
International law in order to keep in pace with international politics is obliged to
maintain flexibility in form and substance. International law and international obligation
have been described as opposite sides of a coin. The development of a world
environment hospitable to a world community advances both international law and
international organization. International law, no less than international organization, is a
goal oriented and value conscious. Both interest continually and effectively upon the
decisional process. Both provide means for the integration and achievement of
international policies and actions.

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
I.

SYSTEMIC APPROACH
A. THE CONCEPT OF SYSTEM

In studies of international politics, the conception of system has been

used mainly in two ways, International systems, and World System.
(1)International System is a concept for analysis or description of
international politics or relations, but therein lays a sense of prescription
for diplomatic or military actions too. Used as an analytical term, it is
predicated upon a definite notion of system. But it is not necessarily so
when it is used to describe situations of international relations at a given
time.
(2)World System is a concept with which to analyze or describe mainly
politico- economic global situations, while its implications for political
actions are derived but not indirectly.
International system came to be accepted as an academic term in the late
1950s, soon becoming fashionable, but more or less obsolete in the late 1990s.
World system(s) began to be discussed in the 1970s, still maintaining
popularity in the academia. Terms such as international regimes and global
governance seem to have taken the place of international system as an
academic key word in the 1990s, although the latter still holds validity. The new
terms are more normative and descriptive than analytic, having explicit
implications for promoting international cooperation.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines system to be (a) a set or assemblage of
things connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity,
or (b) a whole composed of parts in orderly arrangement according to some
scheme or plan.
B. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND SOCIETY
The argument developed by Hedley Bull in elaborating on the distinction
between international system and society. As to the former, he defines: a
system of states (or international system) is formed when two or more states
have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one
anothers decisions, to cause them to behaveat least in some measureas
parts of a whole. This corresponds very well to the first definition of system
noted in the above. Turning to international society, he defines: a society of
states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of
certain common interests and common values, form a society, in the sense that
they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their
relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.
Thus he notes that an international society in this sense presupposes an
international system, but an international system may exist that is not an
international society. This usage is quite similar to the second definition of

system cited from the OED in the above. His distinction between the two is
more persuasive in the light of the change in international relations since the
end of the Cold War (1989).
The term international system in Bulls sense was very popular among the
academics of all nations during the Cold War period. But it has increasingly lost
popularity in the 1990s, the role of which is beginning to be taken over by such
terms as international regimes or global governance, reflective of formative
changes in international society. We see international schemes or plans more
activated in the post-Cold War world than ever before. If we borrow Bulls
concepts, international relations have been rapidly changing from international
system to international society. However, we should not forget that the notion
international system still holds some validity, regardless of changes in real
politics and academic fashions, because inter-state relations compose an
integral part of the current international relations. So, to analyze or depict them,
we need both the terms of international system and international society in
Bulls sense.

II.

ANALYTICAL TERM
A. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO MORTON KAPLAN
Morton Kaplan has developed the most elaborate discussion on international
system. In his argument, he does not define international systems in particular,
but describes the state of an international system or of its subsystems,
assigning values to the following variables: the essential rules of the system,
the

transformation

rules,

the

actor

classificatory

variables,

capabilities

variables, and the information variables.

Utilizing the five variables, he specifies six international systems:
(1) The balance of power system
(2) The loose bipolar system
(3) The tight bipolar system
(4) The universal system
(5) The hierarchical system in its directive and non-directive forms, and
(6) The unit veto system.

While the first two have historical counterparts (the modern Western world
politics, and the Cold War), the rest are heuristic models, having no foundation
in history. However, we may be able to understand that the third corresponds to
the most extreme case of direct confrontation between the East and the West in
the Cold War, without any non-aligned countries allowed. The fourth system is
judged to be the would-be world confederation of the states, and the fifth the
assumed world state, authoritarian or democratic, with concentration of all the
authorities in the center. The sixth international system is a hypothetical case
when all nations have gone nuclear.
B. INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM ACCORDING TO KENNETH WALTZ
Another remarkable systemic work is done by Kenneth N. Waltz. First, he
sorts out causes of international conflicts at three levels, the human nature,
the features of states, and the structure of international politics. He
notes that international conflict is basically derived from the anarchic nature of
international politics. Second, addressing to systemic treatment of international
politics, he therein emphasizes a structural factor. In this regard he is rather
critical of Kaplans argument on system, saying that he has no concept of the
systems structure acting as an organizational constraint on the actors.
Waltz on his part defines system as composed of a structure and of
interacting units and a structure by the arrangement of its parts. Related to the
interrelationship between a structure and units (or parts), his argument starts in
a modest way, as expressed in the statement that structure operates as a
cause, but it is not the only cause in play. But his very systemic argument ends
in a sort of structural determinism, when applied to international politics.
He contends that the units are sovereign states in international politics. And
it is structure that defines the arrangement, or the ordering, of the parts of a
system. Thus the structure of international politics is an ordering principle to
position or arrange sovereign states in their interactions. Describing the nature
of the structure, he notes that international systems are decentralized and
anarchic, and stresses that states are to seek to ensure their survival.
That is because the close juxtaposition of states promotes their sameness
through the disadvantages that arise from failure to conform to successful
practices. This argument is a testimony to his inclination toward structural

determinism. Of course he admits that states, being as functionally alike, have

distinct capabilities. But he claims that the distribution of capabilities is not a
unit attribute, but rather a system-wide concept. So he goes on to argue that
the concentration of capabilities ensures the systemic stability, hence a bipolar
system is more favorable than a multi-polar one.
This is the essence of his argument on international political system, which is
generally called neo-realism (see Realism). According to Barry Buzan, Waltz is at
fault in this area for constructing an unbalanced systems theory by developing
a highly elaborate definition of structure, while leaving the unit level as in
differentiated mass. In policy recommendations, Waltz supported American
nuclear deterrence strategy as a countervailing force against the Soviet Union.
This is a contrast to a classical realist, Hans J. Morgenthau, who was skeptical
about the utility of nuclear deterrence. But Waltz was more concerned with
striking a nuclear balance with the Soviet Union than unnecessary military
campaigns in Vietnam. Notwithstanding his structural orientation in theory
formation, he seems to allow each nation to pursue its own line of policy for
itself. He is not such a staunch structural determinist as his argument suggests
or as often claimed to be.
C. THE BALANCE OF POWER SYSTEM
At the core of the balance of power theory is the idea that national security is
enhanced when military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is
strong enough to dominate all others.[1] If one state gains inordinate power, the
theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker
neighbors thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a
defensive coalition. Some realists maintain that this would be more stable as
aggression would appear unattractive and would be averted if there was
equilibrium of power between the rival coalitions
III. HISTORICAL
The Peace of Westphalia (1648)
In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War between
Catholic states and Protestant states in western and central Europe, established
our modern international system. It declared that the sovereign leader of each
nation-state could do as she or he wished within its borders and established the

state as the main actor in global politics. From that point forward, the international
system has consisted primarily of relations among nation-states.

Shifting Balances of Power (16001800)

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the nation-state emerged as
the dominant political unit of the international system. A series of powerful states
dominated Europe, with the great powers rising and falling. Weaker states often
banded together to prevent the dominant power from becoming too strong, a
practice known as preserving the balance of power. Frequent wars and economic
competition marked this era. Some nationsnotably France and Englandwere
powerful through most of the modern age, but somesuch as Spain and the
Ottoman Empireshrank in power over time.

Emergence of Nationalism (18001945)

The nineteenth century brought two major changes to the international system:
1. Nationalism emerged as a strong force, allowing nation-states to grow even more
powerful.
2. Italy and Germany became unified countries, which altered the balance of military
and economic power in Europe.
The problems raised by the unification of Germany contributed to World War I
(19141918). In the aftermath of the war, the international system changed
dramatically again. The major powers of Europe had suffered greatly, whereas the
United States began to come out of its isolation and transform into a global power.
At the same time, the end of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires created a
series of new nations, and the rise of communism in Russia presented problems for
other nations. These factors contributed to the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of
Nazism and communism, and World War II (19391945).

New World Orders (1945Present)

The end of World War II marked a decisive shift in the global system. After the war,
only two great world powers remained: the United States and the Soviet Union.
Although some other important states existed, almost all states were understood
within the context of their relations with the two superpowers. This global system
was called bipolar because the system centered on two great powers.
Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the nature of the
world has changed again. Only one superpower remains, leading some scholars to
label the new international system unipolar. Others point to the increasing
economic power of some European and Asian states and label the new system
multipolar. To some extent, both terms are accurate. The United States has the
worlds most powerful military, which supports the unipolar view, but the U.S.
economy is not as powerful, relative to the rest of the world, lending credence to
the multipolar view.

CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS

Number of
System

Nations with

Nations with Power

Dates

Power

Unipol
ar

One

Bipolar

Two

Multipolar

Several

United States
United States and the
Soviet Union
United States, United
Kingdom, France, Russia,
Germany, Italy, Japan
United States, European
Union, China, India

Post1989
1945
1989
Pre
World
War I
Post1989

A Plethora of Politics
Political scientists usually use the terms international politics and global politics
synonymously, but technically the terms have different meanings. International
politics, strictly speaking, refers to relationships between states. Global politics,
in contrast, refers to relationships among states and other interest groups, such as
global institutions, corporations, and political activists. Comparative politics

seeks to understand how states work by comparing them to one another. While
international relations studies how states relate to one another, comparative
politics compare the internal workings of a state, its political institutions, its
political culture, and the political behavior of its citizens.

New Era University

No. 6 Central Ave., Quezon City
College of Arts and Sciences
AB- Political Science

Written Report in International Relations

Submitted to
Prof. Bernardo Santiago
Submitted by the group of
Marla Arenas,
Nia Nesah Balgos,
Rena Liezel Gattu,
Jovie Horca,
Claudine Uanan