
#REDIRECTInternational law
#REDIRECT Talk:International law
International law deals with the relationships between state, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law" and "private international law" (also called conflict of laws). When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law." Thus, public international law defined "is the system of law which regulates the activities of entities possessing international personality." This article will concentrate on this aspect. ==Historical basis for international law== Throughout recorded history, rulers of states, kingdoms, or other political entities have entered into treaties with each other for the purposes of ending or averting violent conflict. These treaties remained in force until they were superseded by subsequent events, which could take the form of violations of treaties that effectively rendered them void; new conflicts that made them irrelevant; or new treaties that established a new relationship. In addition, states adopted a number of spoken or unspoken conventions that dictated their interaction with each other. These range from rules of chivalry on the battlefield to diplomatic protocol. Finally, the introduction of the rule of law and attendant structures in states provided a common framework for resolving legal issues between and among states. The First Geneva Convention in 1864 convened European states to establish basic laws of war in Europe. The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 represented the first broad attempt at creating global, multilateral treaties, embodied in the formation of the League of Nations. The trend toward multilateral commitments has accelerated since then, and it is now meaningful to study international law as a means toward resolving conflicts among states. ==The scope of international law== The value and authority of international law is entirely dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. The formation of the United Nations created a means for the world community to enforce international law upon members that violate its charter. Traditionally, states were the sole subjects of international law. With the proliferation of international organizations over the last century, they have in some cases been recognized as relevant parties as well. Recent interpretations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international trade law (e.g. NAFTA Chapter 11 actions) have been inclusive of corporations, and even individuals. ==Fundamental conflicts within international law== As a philosophical, political, and constitutional matter, sovereign states derive their autonomy through inherent legitimacy rather than a decree by the international community. Though states may therefore choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, sometimes they will accept legislative process outside their own consent. It follows that they will follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments under international law. Some scholars and political leaders have recently argued that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states. There is a growing trend toward judging a state's domestic actions in light of international law and standards (see world government for trends and movements leading in this direction). A number of states, notably including the United States vehemently oppose this interpretation, maintaining that sovereignty is the dominant value. Similarly, a number of scholars now discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. Opponents to this point of view maintain that states only commit to international law with express consent and have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states. ==Sources of International Law== International law has three primary sources: international treaties, custom, and general principles of law (cf. Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice). International treaty law is comprised of obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaty. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by ''opinio juris'', i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the Second World War with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC). Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. For states not party to such treaties, the work of the ILC may still be accepted as custom applying to those states. General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms (''jus cogens'') as to include all states with no permissible derogations. Legal principles common to major legal systems may also be invoked to supplement international law when necessary. ==Interpretation of International Law== Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the law means. In international law as a whole, there are no courts which have the authority to do this. It is generally the responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves. Unsurprisingly, this means that there is rarely agreement in cases of dispute. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties writes on the topic of interpretation that: : "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." (article 31(1)) This is actually a compromise between three different theories of interpretation: * The textual approach is a restrictive interpretation which bases itself on the "ordinary meaning" of the text, the actual text has considerable weight. * A subjective approach considers the idea behind the treaty, treaties "in their context", what the writers intended when they wrote the text. * A third approach bases itself on interpretation "in the light of its object and purpose", i.e. the interpretation that best suits the goal of the treaty, also called "effective interpretation". These are general rules of interpretation; specific rules might exist in specific areas of international law. ==Enforcement by states== Apart from a state's natural inclination to uphold certain norms, the force of international law has always come from the pressure that states put upon one another to behave consistently and to honor their obligations. As with any system of law, many violations of international law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it is almost always purely through diplomacy and the consequences upon an offending state's reputation. Though violations may be common in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In some cases, domestic courts may render judgment against a foreign state (the realm of private international law) for an injury, though this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law. States have the right to employ force in self-defense against an offending state that has used force to attack its territory or political independence. States may also use force in collective self-defense, where force is used against another state. The state that force is used against must authorize the participation of third-states in its self-defense. This right is recognized in the United Nations Charter. ==Enforcement by international bodies== Violations of the UN Charter by members of the United Nations may be raised by the aggrieved state in the General Assembly for debate. The General Assembly cannot make binding resolutions, but under the "Uniting for Peace"-resolution (GA/RES/0377) it declared it could authorize the use of force if there had been Breaches of the Peace or Acts of Aggression, provided that the Security Council due to a negative vote of a permement member failed to act. It could call for other collective measures (such as economic sanctions) given a situation constituted the milder "threat to the Peace". The legal significance of such a resolution is unclear, as the General Assembly cannot issue binding resolutions. They can also be raised in the Security Council. The Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend "Pacific Resolution of Disputes." Such resolutions are not binding under international law, though they usually are expressive of the council's convictions. In rare cases, the Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter related to "threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression," and these are legally binding under international law, and can be followed up with economic sanctions, military action, and similar uses of force through the auspices of the United Nations. It has been argued that resolutions passed outside of Chapter VII can also be binding; the legal basis for that is the Council's broad powers under Article 24(2), which states that "in discharging these duties (exercise of primary responsibility in international peace and security), it shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". The mandatory nature of such resolutions was upheld by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Namibia. The binding nature of such resolutions can be deduced from an interpretation of their language and intent. States can also, upon mutual consent, submit disputes for arbitration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands. The judgments given by the Court in these cases are binding, although it possesses no means to enforce its rulings. The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request. Some of the advisory cases brought before the court have been controversial with respect to the courts competence and jurisdiction. Often enormously complicated matters, ICJ cases (of which there have been less than 150 since the court was created from the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1945) can stretch on for years and generally involve thousands of pages of pleadings, evidence, and the world's leading specialist public international lawyers. As of 2005, there are twelve cases pending at the ICJ. Decisions made through other means of arbitration may be binding or non-binding depending on the nature of the arbitration agreement, whereas decisions resulting from contentious cases argued before the ICJ are always binding on the involved states. Though states (or increasingly, international organizations) are usually the only ones with standing to address a violation of international law, some treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have an optional protocol that allows individuals who have had their rights violated by member states to petition the international Human Rights Committee. ==History== Through the ages a code developed for the relations and conduct between nations. Even when nations were at war, envoys were often considered immune to violence. The first formal attempts in this direction, which over time have developed into the current international law, stem from the era of the Renaissance in Europe. In the Middle Ages it had been considered the obligation of the Church to mediate in international disputes. During Council of Constance (1414) - Pawel Wlodkowic - rector of Jagiellonian University (Cracow,Poland), theologist, lawyer and diplomat presented the theory that all, including pagan, nations have right to self-govern and to live in peace and possess their land. In the 16th century and 17th century centuries the Church gradually lost its direct influence in international affairs, as Catholic and Protestant powers emerged and struggled for dominance and survival. At the beginning of the 17th century, several generalizations could be made about the political situation: # Self-governing, autonomous states existed. # Almost all of them were governed by monarchs. ## England and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had constitutional monarchies. ## Not all monarchs were hereditary: the Holy Roman Emperor and the ruler of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected. ## Switzerland, the Netherlands, and many Italian city-states were republics. # After the Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Peace of Westphalia, there was relative stability in Europe for 130 years (until the 1789 French Revolution). ##The Peace of Wesphalia is often cited as being the birth of the modern nation-states, establishing states as sovereigns answering to no-one within its own borders. # Land, wealth, trading rights, and monopolizing the new lands were the topics of war. Some people assert that international law developed to deal with the new states arising, others claim that the lack of influence of the Pope and the Catholic church gave rise to the need for new generally-accepted codes. The Dominican Order professor Francisco de Vitoria (in Latin ''Franciscus de Victoria'') of theology at the University of Salamanca lectured on the rights of the natives. He did so while Spain was at the height of its power, after the violent Spanish conquest of Peru in 1536. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, protested against the friar, but in 1542 new laws put the natives under protection of the Spanish The Crown. Vitoria is generally recognized as the founder of modern international law. (''See also School of Salamanca''.) The France monk Emeric Cruce (1590-1648) came up with the idea of having representatives of all countries meeting in one place to discuss their conflicts so as to avoid war and create more peace. He suggested this in his ''The New Cyneas'' (1623), choosing Venice to be the selected city for all of the representatives to meet, and suggested that the Pope should preside over the meeting. Of course, during the Thirty Years' War (1618 - 1648), this was not acceptable to the Protestant nations. He also said that armies should be abolished and called for a world court. Though his call to abolish army was not taken seriously, Emeric Cruce does deserve his place in history through his foresight that international organizations are crucial to solve international disputes. Hugo Grotius (or Huig de Groot) (1583-1645) was a Dutch humanism and jurist considered central to the development of international law. He became a lawyer when he was 15 years old and got sentenced to life in prison after going against Maurice of Nassau, son of William I of Orange in a trial, but he escaped and fled to Paris. In France, he developed his ideas on international law with his ''Mare Liberum'' (Latin for "Free seas"), in which he challenged the claims and attempts of England, Spain, and Portugal to rule portions of the oceans and seas. He gained new international fame in 1625 with his book ''De Jure Belli ac Pacis'' (The Law of War and Peace), as it became the first definitive text on international law. It was published only two years after ''The New Cyneas''. Much of Grotius's content drew from the Bible and from classical history (just war theory of Augustine_of_Hippo). In his work he did not condemn war as only a political tool, considering cases in which war is appropriate. He further developed the just war theory. A ''just war'' fits certain criteria: # It can be to repel an invasion. # It can be to punish an insult to God. # There has to be a just cause (one of the two mentioned above). # It has to be declared by the proper authorities. # It must possess moral intention. # It must have a chance of success. # It must abstain from brutal practices. # Its end result must be proportional to the means used. The statesmen of the time believed no nation could escape war, so they prepared for it. King Henry IV's Chief Minister, the Maximilien de Bethune, duc de Sully, proposed the founding of an alliance of the European nations that was to meet to arbitrate issues and wage war not between themselves but collectively on the Ottoman Turks, and he called it the Grand Design, but was never established. After World War I, the nations of the world decided to form an international body. United States President Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of a "League of Nations". However, due to political wrangling in the United States Congress, the United States did not join the League of Nations, which was one of the causes of its demise. When World War II broke out, the League of Nations was finished. Yet at the same time, the United Nations was being formed. On January 1, 1942, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the "Declaration by United Nations" on behalf of 26 nations who had pledged to fight against the Axis powers. Even before the end of the war, representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco to draw up the charter for an international body to replace the League of Nations. On October 24,1945, the United Nations officially came into existence, setting a basis for much international law to follow. ==See also== International law/New version (a work in progress) *International Court of Justice *International Criminal Court *International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia *International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda *International Labour Organization *UNIDROIT *United Nations ''Related topics'': international community, world government, nationality, terrorism, environmental agreements, international auxiliary language, state, territorial integrity. International lawInternational relationsInternational tradeLabor
The information has been very useful for me indeed. Thank you very much. Weak on international criminal law. Expand. Mention ICC, Nuremburg, &c., &c.? --User:Daniel C. Boyer ---- Someone's uploaded a lot of historical information at International Law -- needs integrating in here and other relevant places. -- User:Tzartzam : (User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy notes: edits of 09:36, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam) ---- ---- From Talk:International Law (User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy notes: the two following two 'graphs came to this page in edit of 22:21, 2003 Sep 17 . . Ap (merging with Talk:International law) ): This needs to be integrated into international law, and perhaps other places. Also, where's it from? -- User:Tzartzam I AM THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS MATERIAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO THIS SITE IN OVER A YEAR. THE MATERIAL IS MY OWN, BUT BASED ON LECTURES. IF IT IS THE STYLE THAT IS UNWANTED, THEN DELETE THEM, BUT IF IT IS ONLY FEAR OVER INFRINGEMENTE, THEN DO NOT WORRY, KEEP THEM. User:12.223.87.232 ---- per history of Talk:International Law (now a redirect), :the first of the two 'graphs above is from the edit there of 09:37, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam and :the second is from the edit there whose history entry is "13:20, 2003 Sep 12 . . MyRedDice (from VfD/copyvio)" --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC) ---- ---- I only scanned, but i know at least that the string "forbear..." is missing from International law; IIRC, an important aspect of IL is that its force over states does not arise from sovereignty over them (as sovereignty rests only in the various states) but in large part from the precedents implicitly set by the practices and "forbearances" of states. This may be important to bring in. (Logically -- which may of course be irrelevant -- this extends even to treaty obligations: who gets to says that treaties are ''binding'', rather than being merely rhetorical devices that sovereigns and sovereign states use to reassure 3rd parties about the immediate future? They can do that; they are sovereign, after all! Oops, is that original research?) --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC) == Cleanup needed == There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, but the article is a) poorly structured, in that it leaps from the general (basis for international law) to the specific (grievances brought to the General Assembly, which has no authority to deal with international law); commingling great specificity in history with generalities elsewhere; etc. Somebody needs to rewrite the article to show the background for, structure of, practical workings of, and issues related to international law. --User:Leifern 02:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC) :I reverted your edits as they are not correct. You confuse "non-binding" with "irrelevant" with regards to GA resolutions, highly relevant to this specific issue is the "Uniting for Peace"-resolutions. While the legal value of GA resolutions might be contested, saying they are irrelevant is wrong, especially when there are no consensus on such a matter. Im not sure if this link will work for you, but it is from an article commenting the Uniting for Peace resolution [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28195101%2945%3A1%3C129%3AT%22FPRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1] ::That argument illustrates perfectly my point: GA resolutions are absolutely irrelevant legally; the are highly relevant politically, but that is precisely the thing - the need to differentiate between politics and law - something you obviously are incapable of doing. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :As for Chapter VI resolutions, this is also a contentious issue. I did check this up; it is not an established fact that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. :::Well, all you have to do is read the UN Charter. It's not that hard and not the least bit contentious. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :Your edits on the ICJ and advisory opinions are also wrong; its right to give advisory opinions is not controversial; arguments against specific cases should be kept outside this article. --User:Cybbe 19:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) :::The relevant statute gives the court the right to issue an advisory opinion on any matter referred to it by a party that is authorized to do so. But the court itself has refused to hear cases under certain circumstances; and it's by no means clear what the purpose of such opinions should be, unless it is to provide guidance for decisions reached by the referring party. I'm assuming that you're referring to the referral by the GA to the ICJ on "legal consequences of contstruction of the wall [sic] in the occupied [sic] Palestinian [sic] territories," though I didn't. The EU, US, and other states issued briefs to the court questioning its jurisdiction. If that doesn't question the premise of "any legal question," I don't know what does. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) ::As far as I can tell, Leifern's edits are all correct. I'm restoring his version. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 23:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :All his edits are original research without a single reference given. He clearly has no idea what international law is about when he claims that GA resolutions are _irrelevant_. That is his opinion, not what international law is.. They are not binding, thats another issue. Im reverting back, and will continue to do so untill any proof of his claims are given (none so far). I could agree to a rephrasing where SC decisions outside of Chapter VII are also included as binding. On the ICJ issue, you are using _one_ case to question the entire basis for the Courts right to take on advisory opinions, but generalising out of one example is wrong. Read some ICJ-cases, the parties nearly always contend that the Court doesnt have jurisdiction for different reasons. Of course I knew which case you had in mind, but thats irrelevant, you're still using arguments against one single case to question the entire basis of advisory opinions. Article 65(1) is quite clear on this issue. Here are a few sources on GA resolutions and SC resolutions outside of Chapter VII. :"Second, in relation to the rules of international law which govern the conduct of Member States outside the United Nations, it has been pointed out that decisions of the General Assembly which settle legal disputes have legal significance independent of any formal lawmaking power given by the Charter." (The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions, Samuel A. Bleicher The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul., 1969), pp. 444-478.) :On decisions outside chapter VII: :" Although I maintain that the Council can make binding decisions outside Chapter VII, this essay does not enter the debate over the precise legal effect of various Security Council actions.3 " (Image and Reality in the UN’s Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Steven R. Ratner) :" UN practice has shown that the Security Council can adopt binding decisions outside Chapter VII, and which are not Chapter VI (non/binding) resolutions. " (Vera Gowlland-Debbas Professor of Public International Law) --User:Cybbe 11:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::Cybbe, aside from the ad hominem attacks, I have to thank you for doing the research for me. The quotes you mention make a disputable argument - for example, Gowlland-Debbas's quote pretty much confirms what I said, though you don't include what non-Chapter VI and VII basis they have for establishing international law. Ratner (in this article) begs off on the issue. If you had used this in a paper written for a college class, you would have flunked. ::You will not that my wording in this article about the ICJ does not examine what the various grounds are for disputing the validity of ICJ advisory opinions; merely that it's "controversial." In fact, the ICJ bases its entire existence on voluntary, binding arbitration; it is not the "judicial" arm of the UN, as some moron has written somewhere (the UN is not a government and doesn't have checks, balances, etc.) ::The most egregious misunderstanding about international law is that it can a) be determined by professors, scholars, etc., and b) that it somehow supersedes national sovereignty. The UN charter and every other treaty, etc., starts with the premise that national sovereignty trumps anything else, and the law of treaties that you think is the magna carta of international law starts with the basis that all treaties are entered into voluntarily. ::We can either keep reverting edits or try to improve upon what is written. Every time you revert to the parisology that preceded my edits, I will simply revert back. Feel free to make the statements more precise, but the previous version simply obfuscated the matter of international law, which I think is your purpose. --User:Leifern 12:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :::As you should have seen, i contested the Chapter VI passage on the grounds that not only Chapter VII resolutions are binding, this is in conformity with my sources, I stated this explictly earlier. I did a few changes, and before you revert them, examine them and try to find a compromise. I wont accept a sgolution where GA resolutions are "irrelevant", they are not binding which i have made clear in this version, but claiming they are irrelevant is wrong. I have also never stated that professors "create" international law, but legal scholars are the best sources we have for _interpretation_ of treaties and soruces of international law. On advisory opinions, I've changed it so it doenst create confusion about the right of the Court to give these opinions. My purpose is not to obfuscate, but where there are different interpretation, I dont think we should choose one of them and discard the other(s). International law is not that clear cut, and your view on it is not the only one existing. --User:Cybbe 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm glad that, as seems to be your practice, when pushed you grudgingly admit International law is not as clear-cut as you initially pretend it to be. Why not start from that premise in the future? Oh, and here's an idea Cybbe; why not use the Talk: page to propose new wordings, rather than arguing the case? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:40, 28 Mar ,2005 (UTC) :::::Why don't you argue against the arguments put forward, and why dont you use the same norms on Leiferns edits? If you'd like everything to be bashed out in talk, you should've reverted back to the first version, not Leiferns. I've given sources for my edits, that's a lot more than you or Leifern have. If there is anyone here with Originial Research, there has to be the two of you, as you fail to bring any sources whenever asked for. All my edits are based on sources given here, all your edits are based on nothing but you own thoughts (or so it seems). So please, use argument and show where they're from, and use to same norm of labeling something original research on arguments you happen to like. The double standard is obvious. On the GA resolutions, Ive made clear that the legal significance is unclear, although saying its irrelevant is going too far. On SC decisions outside chapter VII I've given sources for this. And its funny to see you find a direct cite of the ICJ-statutes original research. Where are your sources Jayjg? --User:Cybbe 16:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) == General Cleanup == I am interested in cleaning up this article signficantly. Particularly on issues that are relatively uncontroversial such as the Sources of International Law - specifically jus cogens, treaties, customary law, state practice, etc... and propose to detail the signficance of each in detailed fashion under bullets. This would probably involve the deletion of the existing structure and I was wondering if that is acceptable under existing Wikipedia norms? :What is often done in these cases if you believe the changes might be seen as controversial, or if they will leave the page in a messed up state for some while, is to create a subpage of the article (e.g. International law/New version), do the work there, get input and agreement on putting it in place of this article, and then make the move. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :O.K., I see you started editing in the middle of the existing article. Wikipedia is, ideally, an encyclopedia, so it's probably best not to have work-in-progress drafts in the middle of articles. I've moved everything to International law/New version, where you can work on it until it's in encyclopedic form. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
==See also== * :Category:International relations Law
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with International_law:
International_Law
International_Law
International_law
International_law
International_law
International_law/New_version
International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict
International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict
International_Law_Commission
International_Law_Enforcement_Officers'_Square_Club
International_law_enforcement_organisations
International_law_on_child_labour
International Law
#REDIRECTInternational law
International Law
#REDIRECT Talk:International law
International law
International law deals with the relationships between state, or between persons or entities in different states. It sub-divides into "public international law" and "private international law" (also called conflict of laws). When used without an adjective, "international law" generally refers to "public international law." Thus, public international law defined "is the system of law which regulates the activities of entities possessing international personality." This article will concentrate on this aspect. ==Historical basis for international law== Throughout recorded history, rulers of states, kingdoms, or other political entities have entered into treaties with each other for the purposes of ending or averting violent conflict. These treaties remained in force until they were superseded by subsequent events, which could take the form of violations of treaties that effectively rendered them void; new conflicts that made them irrelevant; or new treaties that established a new relationship. In addition, states adopted a number of spoken or unspoken conventions that dictated their interaction with each other. These range from rules of chivalry on the battlefield to diplomatic protocol. Finally, the introduction of the rule of law and attendant structures in states provided a common framework for resolving legal issues between and among states. The First Geneva Convention in 1864 convened European states to establish basic laws of war in Europe. The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 represented the first broad attempt at creating global, multilateral treaties, embodied in the formation of the League of Nations. The trend toward multilateral commitments has accelerated since then, and it is now meaningful to study international law as a means toward resolving conflicts among states. ==The scope of international law== The value and authority of international law is entirely dependent upon the voluntary participation of states in its formulation, observance, and enforcement. Although there may be exceptions, most states enter into legal commitments to other states out of enlightened self-interest rather than adherence to a body of law that is higher than their own. The formation of the United Nations created a means for the world community to enforce international law upon members that violate its charter. Traditionally, states were the sole subjects of international law. With the proliferation of international organizations over the last century, they have in some cases been recognized as relevant parties as well. Recent interpretations of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international trade law (e.g. NAFTA Chapter 11 actions) have been inclusive of corporations, and even individuals. ==Fundamental conflicts within international law== As a philosophical, political, and constitutional matter, sovereign states derive their autonomy through inherent legitimacy rather than a decree by the international community. Though states may therefore choose to voluntarily enter into commitments under international law, sometimes they will accept legislative process outside their own consent. It follows that they will follow their own counsel when it comes to interpretation of their commitments under international law. Some scholars and political leaders have recently argued that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states. There is a growing trend toward judging a state's domestic actions in light of international law and standards (see world government for trends and movements leading in this direction). A number of states, notably including the United States vehemently oppose this interpretation, maintaining that sovereignty is the dominant value. Similarly, a number of scholars now discern a legislative and judicial process to international law that parallels such processes within domestic law. Opponents to this point of view maintain that states only commit to international law with express consent and have the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning; and that international courts only function with the consent of states. ==Sources of International Law== International law has three primary sources: international treaties, custom, and general principles of law (cf. Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice). International treaty law is comprised of obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaty. Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by ''opinio juris'', i.e. the conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the Second World War with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC). Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. For states not party to such treaties, the work of the ILC may still be accepted as custom applying to those states. General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms (''jus cogens'') as to include all states with no permissible derogations. Legal principles common to major legal systems may also be invoked to supplement international law when necessary. ==Interpretation of International Law== Where there are disputes about the exact meaning and application of national laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide what the law means. In international law as a whole, there are no courts which have the authority to do this. It is generally the responsibility of states to interpret the law for themselves. Unsurprisingly, this means that there is rarely agreement in cases of dispute. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties writes on the topic of interpretation that: : "A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose." (article 31(1)) This is actually a compromise between three different theories of interpretation: * The textual approach is a restrictive interpretation which bases itself on the "ordinary meaning" of the text, the actual text has considerable weight. * A subjective approach considers the idea behind the treaty, treaties "in their context", what the writers intended when they wrote the text. * A third approach bases itself on interpretation "in the light of its object and purpose", i.e. the interpretation that best suits the goal of the treaty, also called "effective interpretation". These are general rules of interpretation; specific rules might exist in specific areas of international law. ==Enforcement by states== Apart from a state's natural inclination to uphold certain norms, the force of international law has always come from the pressure that states put upon one another to behave consistently and to honor their obligations. As with any system of law, many violations of international law obligations are overlooked. If addressed, it is almost always purely through diplomacy and the consequences upon an offending state's reputation. Though violations may be common in fact, states try to avoid the appearance of having disregarded international obligations. States may also unilaterally adopt sanctions against one another such as the severance of economic or diplomatic ties, or through reciprocal action. In some cases, domestic courts may render judgment against a foreign state (the realm of private international law) for an injury, though this is a complicated area of law where international law intersects with domestic law. States have the right to employ force in self-defense against an offending state that has used force to attack its territory or political independence. States may also use force in collective self-defense, where force is used against another state. The state that force is used against must authorize the participation of third-states in its self-defense. This right is recognized in the United Nations Charter. ==Enforcement by international bodies== Violations of the UN Charter by members of the United Nations may be raised by the aggrieved state in the General Assembly for debate. The General Assembly cannot make binding resolutions, but under the "Uniting for Peace"-resolution (GA/RES/0377) it declared it could authorize the use of force if there had been Breaches of the Peace or Acts of Aggression, provided that the Security Council due to a negative vote of a permement member failed to act. It could call for other collective measures (such as economic sanctions) given a situation constituted the milder "threat to the Peace". The legal significance of such a resolution is unclear, as the General Assembly cannot issue binding resolutions. They can also be raised in the Security Council. The Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VI of the UN Charter to recommend "Pacific Resolution of Disputes." Such resolutions are not binding under international law, though they usually are expressive of the council's convictions. In rare cases, the Security Council can pass resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter related to "threats to Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression," and these are legally binding under international law, and can be followed up with economic sanctions, military action, and similar uses of force through the auspices of the United Nations. It has been argued that resolutions passed outside of Chapter VII can also be binding; the legal basis for that is the Council's broad powers under Article 24(2), which states that "in discharging these duties (exercise of primary responsibility in international peace and security), it shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations". The mandatory nature of such resolutions was upheld by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Namibia. The binding nature of such resolutions can be deduced from an interpretation of their language and intent. States can also, upon mutual consent, submit disputes for arbitration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands. The judgments given by the Court in these cases are binding, although it possesses no means to enforce its rulings. The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request. Some of the advisory cases brought before the court have been controversial with respect to the courts competence and jurisdiction. Often enormously complicated matters, ICJ cases (of which there have been less than 150 since the court was created from the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1945) can stretch on for years and generally involve thousands of pages of pleadings, evidence, and the world's leading specialist public international lawyers. As of 2005, there are twelve cases pending at the ICJ. Decisions made through other means of arbitration may be binding or non-binding depending on the nature of the arbitration agreement, whereas decisions resulting from contentious cases argued before the ICJ are always binding on the involved states. Though states (or increasingly, international organizations) are usually the only ones with standing to address a violation of international law, some treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have an optional protocol that allows individuals who have had their rights violated by member states to petition the international Human Rights Committee. ==History== Through the ages a code developed for the relations and conduct between nations. Even when nations were at war, envoys were often considered immune to violence. The first formal attempts in this direction, which over time have developed into the current international law, stem from the era of the Renaissance in Europe. In the Middle Ages it had been considered the obligation of the Church to mediate in international disputes. During Council of Constance (1414) - Pawel Wlodkowic - rector of Jagiellonian University (Cracow,Poland), theologist, lawyer and diplomat presented the theory that all, including pagan, nations have right to self-govern and to live in peace and possess their land. In the 16th century and 17th century centuries the Church gradually lost its direct influence in international affairs, as Catholic and Protestant powers emerged and struggled for dominance and survival. At the beginning of the 17th century, several generalizations could be made about the political situation: # Self-governing, autonomous states existed. # Almost all of them were governed by monarchs. ## England and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had constitutional monarchies. ## Not all monarchs were hereditary: the Holy Roman Emperor and the ruler of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were elected. ## Switzerland, the Netherlands, and many Italian city-states were republics. # After the Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Peace of Westphalia, there was relative stability in Europe for 130 years (until the 1789 French Revolution). ##The Peace of Wesphalia is often cited as being the birth of the modern nation-states, establishing states as sovereigns answering to no-one within its own borders. # Land, wealth, trading rights, and monopolizing the new lands were the topics of war. Some people assert that international law developed to deal with the new states arising, others claim that the lack of influence of the Pope and the Catholic church gave rise to the need for new generally-accepted codes. The Dominican Order professor Francisco de Vitoria (in Latin ''Franciscus de Victoria'') of theology at the University of Salamanca lectured on the rights of the natives. He did so while Spain was at the height of its power, after the violent Spanish conquest of Peru in 1536. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, protested against the friar, but in 1542 new laws put the natives under protection of the Spanish The Crown. Vitoria is generally recognized as the founder of modern international law. (''See also School of Salamanca''.) The France monk Emeric Cruce (1590-1648) came up with the idea of having representatives of all countries meeting in one place to discuss their conflicts so as to avoid war and create more peace. He suggested this in his ''The New Cyneas'' (1623), choosing Venice to be the selected city for all of the representatives to meet, and suggested that the Pope should preside over the meeting. Of course, during the Thirty Years' War (1618 - 1648), this was not acceptable to the Protestant nations. He also said that armies should be abolished and called for a world court. Though his call to abolish army was not taken seriously, Emeric Cruce does deserve his place in history through his foresight that international organizations are crucial to solve international disputes. Hugo Grotius (or Huig de Groot) (1583-1645) was a Dutch humanism and jurist considered central to the development of international law. He became a lawyer when he was 15 years old and got sentenced to life in prison after going against Maurice of Nassau, son of William I of Orange in a trial, but he escaped and fled to Paris. In France, he developed his ideas on international law with his ''Mare Liberum'' (Latin for "Free seas"), in which he challenged the claims and attempts of England, Spain, and Portugal to rule portions of the oceans and seas. He gained new international fame in 1625 with his book ''De Jure Belli ac Pacis'' (The Law of War and Peace), as it became the first definitive text on international law. It was published only two years after ''The New Cyneas''. Much of Grotius's content drew from the Bible and from classical history (just war theory of Augustine_of_Hippo). In his work he did not condemn war as only a political tool, considering cases in which war is appropriate. He further developed the just war theory. A ''just war'' fits certain criteria: # It can be to repel an invasion. # It can be to punish an insult to God. # There has to be a just cause (one of the two mentioned above). # It has to be declared by the proper authorities. # It must possess moral intention. # It must have a chance of success. # It must abstain from brutal practices. # Its end result must be proportional to the means used. The statesmen of the time believed no nation could escape war, so they prepared for it. King Henry IV's Chief Minister, the Maximilien de Bethune, duc de Sully, proposed the founding of an alliance of the European nations that was to meet to arbitrate issues and wage war not between themselves but collectively on the Ottoman Turks, and he called it the Grand Design, but was never established. After World War I, the nations of the world decided to form an international body. United States President Woodrow Wilson came up with the idea of a "League of Nations". However, due to political wrangling in the United States Congress, the United States did not join the League of Nations, which was one of the causes of its demise. When World War II broke out, the League of Nations was finished. Yet at the same time, the United Nations was being formed. On January 1, 1942, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the "Declaration by United Nations" on behalf of 26 nations who had pledged to fight against the Axis powers. Even before the end of the war, representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco to draw up the charter for an international body to replace the League of Nations. On October 24,1945, the United Nations officially came into existence, setting a basis for much international law to follow. ==See also== International law/New version (a work in progress) *International Court of Justice *International Criminal Court *International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia *International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda *International Labour Organization *UNIDROIT *United Nations ''Related topics'': international community, world government, nationality, terrorism, environmental agreements, international auxiliary language, state, territorial integrity. International lawInternational relationsInternational tradeLabor
International law
The information has been very useful for me indeed. Thank you very much. Weak on international criminal law. Expand. Mention ICC, Nuremburg, &c., &c.? --User:Daniel C. Boyer ---- Someone's uploaded a lot of historical information at International Law -- needs integrating in here and other relevant places. -- User:Tzartzam : (User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy notes: edits of 09:36, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam) ---- ---- From Talk:International Law (User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy notes: the two following two 'graphs came to this page in edit of 22:21, 2003 Sep 17 . . Ap (merging with Talk:International law) ): This needs to be integrated into international law, and perhaps other places. Also, where's it from? -- User:Tzartzam I AM THE ONE WHO WROTE THIS MATERIAL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE RETURNED TO THIS SITE IN OVER A YEAR. THE MATERIAL IS MY OWN, BUT BASED ON LECTURES. IF IT IS THE STYLE THAT IS UNWANTED, THEN DELETE THEM, BUT IF IT IS ONLY FEAR OVER INFRINGEMENTE, THEN DO NOT WORRY, KEEP THEM. User:12.223.87.232 ---- per history of Talk:International Law (now a redirect), :the first of the two 'graphs above is from the edit there of 09:37, 2002 Nov 6 . . Tzartzam and :the second is from the edit there whose history entry is "13:20, 2003 Sep 12 . . MyRedDice (from VfD/copyvio)" --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC) ---- ---- I only scanned, but i know at least that the string "forbear..." is missing from International law; IIRC, an important aspect of IL is that its force over states does not arise from sovereignty over them (as sovereignty rests only in the various states) but in large part from the precedents implicitly set by the practices and "forbearances" of states. This may be important to bring in. (Logically -- which may of course be irrelevant -- this extends even to treaty obligations: who gets to says that treaties are ''binding'', rather than being merely rhetorical devices that sovereigns and sovereign states use to reassure 3rd parties about the immediate future? They can do that; they are sovereign, after all! Oops, is that original research?) --User:JerzyUser talk:Jerzy 17:19, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC) == Cleanup needed == There's a lot of interesting stuff in here, but the article is a) poorly structured, in that it leaps from the general (basis for international law) to the specific (grievances brought to the General Assembly, which has no authority to deal with international law); commingling great specificity in history with generalities elsewhere; etc. Somebody needs to rewrite the article to show the background for, structure of, practical workings of, and issues related to international law. --User:Leifern 02:56, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC) :I reverted your edits as they are not correct. You confuse "non-binding" with "irrelevant" with regards to GA resolutions, highly relevant to this specific issue is the "Uniting for Peace"-resolutions. While the legal value of GA resolutions might be contested, saying they are irrelevant is wrong, especially when there are no consensus on such a matter. Im not sure if this link will work for you, but it is from an article commenting the Uniting for Peace resolution [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300%28195101%2945%3A1%3C129%3AT%22FPRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1] ::That argument illustrates perfectly my point: GA resolutions are absolutely irrelevant legally; the are highly relevant politically, but that is precisely the thing - the need to differentiate between politics and law - something you obviously are incapable of doing. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :As for Chapter VI resolutions, this is also a contentious issue. I did check this up; it is not an established fact that only Chapter VII resolutions are binding. :::Well, all you have to do is read the UN Charter. It's not that hard and not the least bit contentious. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :Your edits on the ICJ and advisory opinions are also wrong; its right to give advisory opinions is not controversial; arguments against specific cases should be kept outside this article. --User:Cybbe 19:02, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) :::The relevant statute gives the court the right to issue an advisory opinion on any matter referred to it by a party that is authorized to do so. But the court itself has refused to hear cases under certain circumstances; and it's by no means clear what the purpose of such opinions should be, unless it is to provide guidance for decisions reached by the referring party. I'm assuming that you're referring to the referral by the GA to the ICJ on "legal consequences of contstruction of the wall [sic] in the occupied [sic] Palestinian [sic] territories," though I didn't. The EU, US, and other states issued briefs to the court questioning its jurisdiction. If that doesn't question the premise of "any legal question," I don't know what does. --User:Leifern 00:08, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) ::As far as I can tell, Leifern's edits are all correct. I'm restoring his version. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 23:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) :All his edits are original research without a single reference given. He clearly has no idea what international law is about when he claims that GA resolutions are _irrelevant_. That is his opinion, not what international law is.. They are not binding, thats another issue. Im reverting back, and will continue to do so untill any proof of his claims are given (none so far). I could agree to a rephrasing where SC decisions outside of Chapter VII are also included as binding. On the ICJ issue, you are using _one_ case to question the entire basis for the Courts right to take on advisory opinions, but generalising out of one example is wrong. Read some ICJ-cases, the parties nearly always contend that the Court doesnt have jurisdiction for different reasons. Of course I knew which case you had in mind, but thats irrelevant, you're still using arguments against one single case to question the entire basis of advisory opinions. Article 65(1) is quite clear on this issue. Here are a few sources on GA resolutions and SC resolutions outside of Chapter VII. :"Second, in relation to the rules of international law which govern the conduct of Member States outside the United Nations, it has been pointed out that decisions of the General Assembly which settle legal disputes have legal significance independent of any formal lawmaking power given by the Charter." (The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions, Samuel A. Bleicher The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 63, No. 3. (Jul., 1969), pp. 444-478.) :On decisions outside chapter VII: :" Although I maintain that the Council can make binding decisions outside Chapter VII, this essay does not enter the debate over the precise legal effect of various Security Council actions.3 " (Image and Reality in the UN’s Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Steven R. Ratner) :" UN practice has shown that the Security Council can adopt binding decisions outside Chapter VII, and which are not Chapter VI (non/binding) resolutions. " (Vera Gowlland-Debbas Professor of Public International Law) --User:Cybbe 11:43, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::Cybbe, aside from the ad hominem attacks, I have to thank you for doing the research for me. The quotes you mention make a disputable argument - for example, Gowlland-Debbas's quote pretty much confirms what I said, though you don't include what non-Chapter VI and VII basis they have for establishing international law. Ratner (in this article) begs off on the issue. If you had used this in a paper written for a college class, you would have flunked. ::You will not that my wording in this article about the ICJ does not examine what the various grounds are for disputing the validity of ICJ advisory opinions; merely that it's "controversial." In fact, the ICJ bases its entire existence on voluntary, binding arbitration; it is not the "judicial" arm of the UN, as some moron has written somewhere (the UN is not a government and doesn't have checks, balances, etc.) ::The most egregious misunderstanding about international law is that it can a) be determined by professors, scholars, etc., and b) that it somehow supersedes national sovereignty. The UN charter and every other treaty, etc., starts with the premise that national sovereignty trumps anything else, and the law of treaties that you think is the magna carta of international law starts with the basis that all treaties are entered into voluntarily. ::We can either keep reverting edits or try to improve upon what is written. Every time you revert to the parisology that preceded my edits, I will simply revert back. Feel free to make the statements more precise, but the previous version simply obfuscated the matter of international law, which I think is your purpose. --User:Leifern 12:28, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) :::As you should have seen, i contested the Chapter VI passage on the grounds that not only Chapter VII resolutions are binding, this is in conformity with my sources, I stated this explictly earlier. I did a few changes, and before you revert them, examine them and try to find a compromise. I wont accept a sgolution where GA resolutions are "irrelevant", they are not binding which i have made clear in this version, but claiming they are irrelevant is wrong. I have also never stated that professors "create" international law, but legal scholars are the best sources we have for _interpretation_ of treaties and soruces of international law. On advisory opinions, I've changed it so it doenst create confusion about the right of the Court to give these opinions. My purpose is not to obfuscate, but where there are different interpretation, I dont think we should choose one of them and discard the other(s). International law is not that clear cut, and your view on it is not the only one existing. --User:Cybbe 13:16, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm glad that, as seems to be your practice, when pushed you grudgingly admit International law is not as clear-cut as you initially pretend it to be. Why not start from that premise in the future? Oh, and here's an idea Cybbe; why not use the Talk: page to propose new wordings, rather than arguing the case? User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 15:40, 28 Mar ,2005 (UTC) :::::Why don't you argue against the arguments put forward, and why dont you use the same norms on Leiferns edits? If you'd like everything to be bashed out in talk, you should've reverted back to the first version, not Leiferns. I've given sources for my edits, that's a lot more than you or Leifern have. If there is anyone here with Originial Research, there has to be the two of you, as you fail to bring any sources whenever asked for. All my edits are based on sources given here, all your edits are based on nothing but you own thoughts (or so it seems). So please, use argument and show where they're from, and use to same norm of labeling something original research on arguments you happen to like. The double standard is obvious. On the GA resolutions, Ive made clear that the legal significance is unclear, although saying its irrelevant is going too far. On SC decisions outside chapter VII I've given sources for this. And its funny to see you find a direct cite of the ICJ-statutes original research. Where are your sources Jayjg? --User:Cybbe 16:54, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) == General Cleanup == I am interested in cleaning up this article signficantly. Particularly on issues that are relatively uncontroversial such as the Sources of International Law - specifically jus cogens, treaties, customary law, state practice, etc... and propose to detail the signficance of each in detailed fashion under bullets. This would probably involve the deletion of the existing structure and I was wondering if that is acceptable under existing Wikipedia norms? :What is often done in these cases if you believe the changes might be seen as controversial, or if they will leave the page in a messed up state for some while, is to create a subpage of the article (e.g. International law/New version), do the work there, get input and agreement on putting it in place of this article, and then make the move. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :O.K., I see you started editing in the middle of the existing article. Wikipedia is, ideally, an encyclopedia, so it's probably best not to have work-in-progress drafts in the middle of articles. I've moved everything to International law/New version, where you can work on it until it's in encyclopedic form. User:JayjgUser_talk:Jayjg 18:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
International law
==See also== * :Category:International relations Law
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with International_law:
International_Law
International_Law
International_law
International_law
International_law
International_law/New_version
International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict
International_law_and_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict
International_Law_Commission
International_Law_Enforcement_Officers'_Square_Club
International_law_enforcement_organisations
International_law_on_child_labour
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
