Public International Law Essay

1 Under his definition, he explains how laws are made regardless of any moral obligations. A state’s laws are given proper legitimacy from the sovereign. Comparing the principles of international law with those of Austin’s positivist view, a conflict of ideas arises. The most influential basic principle for international law was developed under the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 (135),2 which outlines state sovereignty over the laws of its jurisdiction. No outside influence takes any gravity in a state’s decisions; thus, all states are equal in terms of their ability in international law. And building from these shared norms in society, states are able to achieve cooperation to the extent of forming international law (33). 4 The Westphalian model does not possess a hierarchical system where one can rule over the other, therefore treaties in international law must be applied in good faith, under a principle called Pacta Sunt Servanda (620).

5 This general principle, developed under the Vienna Convention 1969, “prescribes as to the validity and continuance in force of a treaty… and should be binding upon parties” (621). 6 A shared understanding among all states, that treaties agreed upon in good faith, are not to be broken in international law. Pacta Sunt Servanda is a key principle and example of how international law can be effective and based on consent, without the need for an overarching ruler using coercive measures to ensure compliance. " It mainly highlights the political sectors and not maintaining order, resolving disputes and protecting the liberties and rights of the public. Laws of command Any law provided in an international platform should always have command, this is the ability to give authority or order (45)9.

Any favorable laws should have this, and in case superpowers country disobey any given law it means that the law does not have command. To Austin, not all laws should not be expressed by command. The legal system has some law empower that makes people achieve some specific results. Countries such as the United have always been interfering with the peace in Iraq. However, the United Nations have not been able to use sanctions to the United States as they are regarded as threatening peace in the country. However, they have imposed sanctions on North Korea due to the Nuclear tests. They have also sanctioned Lebanon after the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. The suspected killers connected to the death have received sanction from the UN security council.

There should be full right and power of any governing body over itself without any interference. For any country to claim that they are superpowers and they cannot follow any provide law internationally I still believe that the international law as argued by Austin not to be true law. It will be awful for powerful countries not forced to the company on specific law merely because they are superpowers. According to a case by a judge in the United states Hilton v. Guyot, he said that “International law, in its widest and most comprehensive sense, - including not only questions of right between nations, governed by what has been appropriate called the "law of nations but also questions arising under what is duly called "private international law," or the "conduct of laws," and concerning the rights of people within the territory and domino of one nation, by one of acts, private or public, done within the dominions of another nation, - is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice as of as such questions are presented in litigation behave man and man, duly submitted to their determination13” From this point, one will see the argument of the judge saying that the law should always complement and not to contradict each other.

The statute provides that during any negotiations there should be a creation of a comprehensive regime or the criminal law that should always be respected. Using this law, the superpowers countries should be forced against their will to accept the international law no matter the powers they have. Criticism of Austin theory Despite its application in countries following and abiding by the provide law no matter their powers, Austin law has had some criticism as some aspects are not addressed. Some people have termed his argument as primitive since some of the rules that exist before the existence of the political states are not considered as laws. Lord Bryte also states that law cannot always be used in every state since it can descend the law in a community exist before there was any state (239-268)18.

Due to the power the United States has, it has always ignored the international law due to the ability it has globally. However, an international organization such as the United Nations should be involved in ensuring countries like the United States have followed all the laws provided by international law. Russia has suffered through sanctions imposed on them for ignoring the international law. Others such as China and some of the examples provided above have also been sanctioned meaning that no countries are immune to abide by the international law as provided. Bibliography Cases Hilton v. J. Murray, 1863. Chomsky, Noam. "Who Rules the World? America is No Longer the Obvious Answer. " The Guardian, 14 July 2017, www. "Does Medellin Matter. " Fordham L. Rev.