International Law Essay Research Paper International LawInternational

International Law Essay, Research Paper

International LawInternational law is the body of legal rules that apply between sovereignstates and such other entities as have been granted internationalpersonality (status acknowledged by the international community). Therules of international law are of a normative character, that is, theyprescribe towards conduct, and are potentially designed for authoritativeinterpretation by an international judicial authority and by being capableof enforcement by the application of external sanctions. The InternationalCourt of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations,which succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice after WorldWar II. Article 92 of the charter of the United Nations states: The International Court of justice shall be the principal judicialorgan of the United nations. It shall function in accordance withthe annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanentcourt of International Justice and forms an integral part of the presentCharter. The commands of international law must be those that the statesimpose upon themselves, as states must give consent to the commands thatthey will follow. It is a direct expression of raison d’etat, the”interests of the state”, and aims to serve the state, as well as protectthe state by giving its rights and duties. This is done through treatiesand other consensual engagements which are legally binding. The case-law of the ICJ is an important aspect of the UN’scontribution to the development of international law. It’s judgements andadvisory opinions permeates into the international legal community not onlythrough its decisions as such but through the wider implications of itsmethodology and reasoning. The successful resolution of the border dispute between BurkinaFaso and Mali in the 1986 Frontier Dispute case illustrates the utility ofjudicial decision as a means of settlement in territorial disputes. Thecase was submitted to a Chamber of the ICJ pursuant to a special agreementconcluded by the parties in 1983. In December 1985, while writtensubmissions were being prepared, hostilities broke out in the disputedarea. A cease-fire was agreed, and the Chamber directed the continuedobservance of the cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops within twenty days,and the avoidance of actions tending to aggravate the dispute or prejudiceits eventual resolution. Both Presidents publicly welcomed the judgementand indicated their intention to comply with it. In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (United Kingdom v. Iceland ,1974) the ICJ contributed to the firm establishment in law of the idea thatmankind needs to conserve the living resources of the sea and must respectthese resources. The Court observed: It is one of the advances in maritime international law, resultingfrom the intensification of fishing, that the former laissez-fairetreatment ofthe living resources of the sea in the high seas has beenreplaced by a recognition of a duty to have due regard of the rights ofother States and the needs of conservation for the benefit of all. Consequently, both parties have the obligation to keep inder review thefishery resources in the disputed waters and to examine together, in thelight of scientific and other available information, the measuresrequired for the conservation and development, and equitable exploitation,of these resources, taking into account any international agreement inforce between them, such as the North-East Atlantic FisheriesConvention of 24 January 1959, as well as such other agreements asmay be reached in the matter in the course of further negotiation. The Court also held that the concept of preferential rights infisheries is not static. This is not to say that the preferential rights of a coastal Statein a special situation are a static concept, in the sense that thedegree of the coastal State’s preference is to be considered as forever at some given moment. On the contrary, the preferential rights area function of the exceptional dependence of such a coastal State on thefisheries in adjacent waters and may, therefore, vary as the extent ofthat dependence changes. The Court’s judgement on this case contributes to the development of thelaw of the sea by recognizing the concept of the preferential rights of acoastal state in the fisheries of the adjacent waters, particularly if thatstate is in a special situation with its population dependent on thosefisheries. Moreover, the Court proceeds further to recognise that the lawpertaining to fisheries must accept the primacy of the requirement ofconservation based on scientific data. The exercise of preferential rightsof the coastal state, as well as the hisoric rights of other statesdependent on the same fishing grounds, have to be subject to the overridingconsideration of proper conservation of the fishery resources for thebenefit of all concerned. Some cases in which sanctions are threatened, however, see noactual implementation. The United States, for example, did not imposemeasures on those Latin American states that nationalized privately ownedAmerican property, despite legislation that authorizes the President to

discontinue aid in the absence of adequate compensation. Enforcement measures are not the sole means of UN sanction. Skeptics of the coercive theory of international law note that forcefulsanctions through the United Nations are limited to situations involvingthreats to the peace, breaches of p