Legal Office

Province of International Laws Determined

TABLE OF CONTENTS:- 

The international laws in the current aspects as viewed by most of the jurists round the globe are the laws that govern the relations of the nations with each other and the control over the individualism and freedom of these democratic as well as otherwise nations. the international laws are thought to be the governing machineries of the contemporary scenario in which the accountability of the nations for the most inhumane crimes being done by them are brought to the court. in the various books that talk of “taking the state to court” and the “mobilization” standards of the present F1 generations are being expressly interviewed. These scholar works tend to connote that the international laws are the tools that can limit the future dangers of the international insecurity and other problems of colonization etc.  faced by most of the nations of the world. These nations are threatened by the superpowers for being forced to remove their ruling strategy. The United Nations has done several peacekeeping operations and has set various organizations that intend to store the peace and spirit of coordination and cooperation in the world. The theories of the international laws that are found to be dealing with the origin and the gradual development of the international laws have been asked a lot of questions as the race for hegemony is on the peak. Growing problems of racism and international terrorism are the new challenges being faced by the international laws today. This article presents various such aspects and put the suggestions for their solutions under one umbrella. The first question before everyone is this that “what are the international laws and what purpose do they serve for humanity and international peace?” This is the most critical question that corresponds to the enforcement of international and the limits of the international courts of justice being determined. We know that the function of the national laws is to regulate the behavior of the individuals but when we intend to talk of the international laws, the shoes of individuals are wore by the states. What if the international laws are the vanishing point of the world? It is well known to the students of the international laws that the primary function of the international law is to regulate the conduct of the states while on the other hand the national laws intend to regulate the conduct of the individuals. If we examine the contours on which the body of international law is explained we could easily derive the conclusion that most of the allegations that are imposed upon the rule of international laws are concerning their applicability or jurisdiction in one way or the other. Thus the international laws are to be made more binding and the forces that provide sanctioning power to such laws are to be extending to ensure the desired obedience. The identity of the international laws another such aspect that is necessary to limit the province of international laws. The state and non-sate actors are also the key aspects that correspond to the applicability of the international laws. We here mean the kinds of acts performed by the international superpowers and other small newly independent states. In various cases of hegemonic expansion and colonialism, it could be traced that the war-crimes and crimes against humanity are recorded.

02. TAKING THE STATE TO THE COURT

:-

In the contemporary growth of the international law, the growing awareness among the people of the various countries has led to the introduction of the concept of public interest litigation which has increased and widened the opportunities that even the states could be brought under the jurisdiction of the courts. In a study by the German philosopher “Hans Dembowski”, it has been concluded that the growing political unfairness and other political reasoning have led to the introduction of Judicial Activism which has led to the growth of the power and abilities accompanied with the authoritativeness of the judiciary. International laws deal with the sociology of governance and in this respect connote to the division of power between the administrative and judicial branches of the government and their interaction with society as a whole in the particular cases that have been studied. The ongoing, excited media debate about the public interest litigation and judicial activism makes this evident. This function has typical stand point in certain countries of the world. The international arena on which various countries are brought on the same standard in the international court are is seemingly an attempt to ensure fairness and security in the international contour. Let us have a look over the two important aspects that have been the focus of study in the international society.

[A]. State Sovereignty

Sovereignty, for the past several centuries, has been the foundation of interstate relations and the world order. The concept- defined as the independent and unfettered power of a state in its jurisdiction-lies at the heart of the customary international law and the UN charter. It remains both an essential component of the maintenance of international peace and security and a defense for weak states against the strong. At the same time, the concept has never been as inviolable, either in law or in practice, as a formal legal definition might imply. In his 1992 An agenda for peace, UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali pronounced that the theory of sovereignty never matched the reality. In exploring why the westphalian sovereignty is continuously ignored or violated, Stephen Kraser has noted straightforwardly that “organized hypocrisy is the normal state of affairs. Sovereignty has routinely been violated by the powerful. In today’s globalizing world, it is generally recognized that cultural, economic influences neither respect borders nor require entry visas in both powerful and the powerless countries. The concept of state sovereignty is well envisaged in the legal and the political discourse, but territorial boundaries have come under the stress. Not only technology but also communications have made the boundaries permeable, but the political dimensions of the internal disorder and suffering often can result in wider international disorder. The initial purpose of this discussion is to set out the scope and significance of state sovereignty as a foundation on which to explore the contemporary debates about intervention. The literature on this subject is vast and contentious. As one legal analyst accurately summarizes:

Few subjects in the international law and international relations are as sensitive as the notion of sovereignty. Steinberger refers to it in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law as “the most glittering and controversial notion in the history, doctrine and the practice of the international law.” On the other hand, Henkin seeks to banish it from our vocabulary and others call it ” a word that has emotive quality lacking meaningful specific content”. There is little neutral ground when it comes to sovereignty.

State sovereignty denotes the competence, independence and legal equality of the states. The concept is normally used to encompass all matters in which each state is permitted by international law to decide and act without intrusions from the other sovereign states. The scope of freedom of choice in these matters is not unlimited; it depends upon developments in international law and in international relations. The current foundations of the international law with regard to sovereignty were shaped by the agreements concluded by the European states as part of the treaties of Westphalia in 1648. the 1993 Montevideo Convention On Rights and Duties of States spells out the following main essentials: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the ability to enter into relations with the other states. The Montevideo definition includes both empirical (population and effective government) and juridical (borders and independence) components. There is a controversy regarding the accurate sovereignty of the states in Africa which has been the problem in the enforcement of the principles of the convention. These states are sovereign de jure but not de facto. As a hallmark of statehood, the territorial sovereignty is a must in the international system. An act of aggression is unlawful for two reasons: it undermines the international order, and states have exercised their sovereignty to outlaw war in the UN charter. The failure or the weakening of the state capacity brings tragedies and international insecurity. In sum, sovereignty is the key constitutional safeguard of the contemporary international order. Despite the pluralisation of the international relations resulting from the proliferation of the non-state actors which is evidenced by globalization, democratizationand privatization worldwide- the sate remains the fundamental guarantor of human rights locally as well as building block of international society.

Critical Issues

Instead of the heavy recommendations on the maintenance and enforcement of sovereignty among the states, this constitutional aspect of every nation is subject to limitation in the statements of the United Nations which have dealt heavily upon the matters concerning the world peace and a definite civil order in the international community. These limitations are as described under:-

Firstly, the charter of the United Nations contains collective international obligations for the maintenance of international peace and security. According to Chapter VII, sovereignty is not a barrier to Security Council action in response to ” a threat to peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression.”

Secondly, sovereignty may be limited by customary international law