Q: You work for John Keating MP. who is due to give a talk at a Community Centre in his constituency. The talk has been necessitated by calls by another local MP. Bronwyn Bishop. demanding that the UK should concentrate on domestic issues and play a lesser function in international personal businesss. In a address in the House of Commons. Ms Bishoph as supported her demand with the statement that international jurisprudence is uneffective. and can barely be described as jurisprudence. Mr Keating has asked you to fix a Brief on the nature of international jurisprudence for his talk. In peculiar. he wants you to explicate the legal character of international jurisprudence. how and why it is in fact effectual ( utilizing illustrations from existent life ) . and why it is necessary for the UK to obey international jurisprudence and to go on playing a outstanding function in international personal businesss.

It has frequently been said that international jurisprudence ought to be classified as a subdivision of moralss instead than of jurisprudence. The inquiry is partially one of words. because its solution will clearly depend on the definition of jurisprudence which we choose to follow ; in any instance it does non impact the value of the capable one manner or the other. though those who deny the legal character of international jurisprudence frequently speak as though ‘ethical’ were a depreciating name. But in fact it is both practically inconvenient and besides contrary to the best jural idea to deny its legal character. It is inconvenient because if international jurisprudence is nil but international morality. it is surely non the whole of international morality. and it is hard to see how we are to separate it from those other true moral criterions which we apply in organizing our opinions on the behavior of provinces. Ordinary use surely uses two trials in judging the ‘rightness’ of a state’s act. a moral trial and one which is someway felt to be independent of morality.

Every province habitually commits Acts of the Apostless of selfishness which are frequently soberly deleterious to other provinces. and yet are non contrary to international jurisprudence ; but we do non on that history needfully judge them to hold been ‘right’ . It is confounding and academic to state that both these trials are moral. Furthermore. it is the pedantry of the theoretician and non of the practical adult male ; for inquiries of international jurisprudence are constantly treated as legal inquiries by the foreign offices which conduct our international concern. and in the tribunals. national or international. before which they are brought ; legal signifiers and methods are used in diplomatic contentions and in judicial and arbitrational proceedings. and governments and case in points are cited in statement as a affair of class. It is important excessively that when a breach of international jurisprudence is alleged by one party to a contention. the act impugned is practically ne’er defended by claiming the right of private opinion. which would be the natural defense mechanism if the issue concerned the morality of the act. but ever by trying to turn out that no regulation has been violated. This was true of the defense mechanisms put frontward even for such tangible breaches of international jurisprudence as the invasion of Belgium in 1940 or the barrage of Corfu in 1923.

But if international jurisprudence is non the same thing as international morality. and if in some of import respects at least it surely resembles jurisprudence. why should we waver to accept its definitely legal character? The expostulation comes in the chief from the followings of authors such as Thomas Hobbes and John Austin. who regard nil as jurisprudence which is non the will of a political higher-up. But this is a deceptive and unequal analysis even of the jurisprudence of a modern province ; it can non. for case. unless we distort the facts so as to suit them into the definition. history for the being of the English Common Law. In any instance. even if such an analysis gave an equal account of jurisprudence in the modern province. it would necessitate us to presume that that jurisprudence is the merely true jurisprudence. and non simply jurisprudence at a peculiar phase of growing or one species of a wider genus. Such an premise is historically unsound.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Most of the features which differentiate international jurisprudence from the jurisprudence of the province and are frequently thought to throw uncertainty on its legal character. such. for case. as its footing in usage. the fact that the entry of parties to the legal power of tribunals is voluntary. the absence of regular procedures either for making or implementing it. are familiar characteristics of early legal systems ; and it is merely in rather modern times. when we have come to see it as natural that the province should be invariably doing new Torahs and implementing bing 1s. that to place jurisprudence with the will of the province has become even a plausible theory. If. as Sir Frederick Pollock writes. and as likely most competent legal experts would hold today. “The lone indispensable conditions for the being of jurisprudence are the being of a political community. and the acknowledgment by its members of settled regulations adhering upon them in that capacity” . International jurisprudence seems on the whole to fulfill these conditions.

As we now know that international jurisprudence exists. as there are three chief beginnings. These are ; pacts. imposts. and grounds and authorization. International jurisprudence is unlike the Malayan fundamental law. as it can non be stored as a individual papers. It is more like the British fundamental law. as it is really adaptable and flexible. Unlike the British fundamental law though. international jurisprudence does non possess a legislative assembly. This would likely do it weaker than Britain’s fundamental law. But the inquiry of whether or non international jurisprudence exists. is non truly a job.

States give great importance to International Law. They employ. at great disbursal. a organic structure of international attorneies. who work within the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Their occupation is to look into foreign policy. and guarantee that it falls in line with international jurisprudence. For illustration. the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ( NATO ) . actions in Kosovo was argued to be within international jurisprudence. as they were continuing declarations by the United Nations Security Council ( UNSC ) . So if provinces do non take international jurisprudence earnestly. so why would they pass so much money and attempt on it?

International jurisprudence can besides take to international prestigiousness and trust. if it is upheld by a province. An illustration of this is the American President. George W. Bush and Britain’s Tony Blair. have tried to maintain within international jurisprudence over their onslaught on Iraq during Saddam Hussein’s reign. Traveling against international jurisprudence could likely do a province to lose its prestigiousness. trust and. most significantly. Alliess. For case. when Iraq invaded Kuwait. they broke international sovereignty. As a effect Iraq lost their support from Russia.

As a consequence. province behavior on the international degree is constrained by international Torahs even if they are non obliged to. in order to guarantee that they receive the benefits of mutuality. This is because these benefits are facilitated by international jurisprudence because it creates norms and regulations that lead to predictable dealingss between provinces. Another effect of the benefits provinces accrue from mutuality is the fact that they are less likely to acquire into struggle with other provinces in the international system. This is because international jurisprudence creates processs through which provinces can decide differences.

Therefore following with international jurisprudence is frequently in a state’s best involvements and when these Torahs are no longer good to the province they must go on to follow to accrue the benefits from the other international Torahs to which they are party to or the whole system of international jurisprudence will fall in. with a damaging impact on provinces. International jurisprudence is most effectual in restraining provinces behaviour in the international system when it is non imposed upon but initiated by provinces. Chayes and Franck suggest. “…that voluntary obeisance. non coerced conformity. must be the preferable enforcement mechanism” ( Barker. pg. 89 ) to guarantee provinces obey the regulations of international jurisprudence. Besides if provinces initiate Torahs making regulations and processs for their behavior in the international system these processs become portion of a provinces natural behavior.

The processs that states comply to under international jurisprudence become enshrined in the provinces behaviour due to repeated engagement and as a consequence provinces will ever follow these processs when interacting with other provinces. International jurisprudence moves “from the external to the internal. erstwhile stewing conformity with an external norm to habitual internalized obedience” ( Barker. pg. 91 ) . Consequentially. international jurisprudence constrains state’s behavior in the international system because it becomes portion of a state’s domestic behavior and hence provinces ever follow the norms of the jurisprudence because it is portion of their natural behavior to make so.

In decision. international jurisprudence does curtail provinces behaviour in the international system. The statements proposed by realists that international jurisprudence will non restrain provinces because is non lawfully adhering. deficiencies coercive enforcement mechanisms and is non in the provinces involvements are invalid. International jurisprudence does conform to the demands of jurisprudence and it is really in a states involvement to obey international jurisprudence due to the fact that international jurisprudence installations increased mutuality betweens provinces. As a consequence states behavior is constrained by international jurisprudence because it creates a model in which provinces involvements can be pursued and creates a more stable international system. This is due to the fact that provinces know other provinces are obligated by international jurisprudence and international jurisprudence helps through its norms and processs prevent struggle by leting provinces to settle their differences without fall backing to armed force.


1 ) The Law of Nations by J. L. Brierly
2 ) I Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law ( OUP
2008 )
3 ) hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lexisnexis. com/community/internationalforeignlaw/ ( accessed at 12:34p. m on 26/11/12 ) 4 ) Muharemovic. Mahir. The Character of International Law:
A Realistic Approach ( June 21. 2012 )
5 ) Simpson. G. ( ed. ) . The Nature of International Law
6 ) Fitzmaurice. G. . ‘The Foundations of the Authority of
International Law and the Problem of Enforcement’ .
( 1956 ) 19 MLR 1.
7 ) hypertext transfer protocol: //eng. hi138. com/ ?
onal_law ( accessed at 1:43 autopsy on 26/11/12 )
8 ) Koh. Harold Hongju. “Why Do Nations Obey International
Law? ” ( 1997 ) . Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 2101.
hypertext transfer protocol: //digitalcommons. jurisprudence. Yale University. edu/fss_papers/2101


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out