send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
CHAPTER 1
CONCEPT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
The expressions ‘International Law’ and ‘Law of Nations’ are synonymous and are equivalent terms. The former was introduced by Bentham in the year 1789. Prior to it, International Law was known by the name of ‘Law of Nations’.
Most of the classical jurists laid down that Intentional Law regulates the relations of States with one another, and they therefore have defined the term in this sense only.
According to Oppenheim, Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the body of customary and treaty rules which are considered legally binding by States in their intercourse with each other. The above definition contains three important elements.
The definition, however, is not adequate. It is subjected to many criticisms which are as follows:-
1. The definition takes into account of the relations of States with one another. But presently, States have formed organizations of themselves, and therefore, international organization and institutions are also regarded as subjects of International Law. They have been given rights and duties under International Law. But the definition does not take them into account.
2. International Law also provides certain rights and duties to individuals. It has been so, particularly, after the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. But the definition has excluded them altogether.
3. Certain activities of multinational corporations are also regulated by this branch of law but they are not covered under the above definition.
4. The definition lays down that the rules of International Law derive only from custom and treaties, but it is not correct. A number of rules of International Law derive from ‘the general principles of law recognized by the civilized nations also. Articles 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice has clearly stipulated that such principles shall be applied by the Court and consequently they are one of the sources of International Law.
General principles of law include laches, good faith, res-judicata and the impartiality of judges etc. International tribunals and courts rely on these principles when they cannot find an authority in other sources of International Law.
5. The expression ‘body of rules’ denotes that International Law is static. Its rules cannot be changed. But it is not so. In fact, International Law like the Constitutional Law of a country, is a dynamic and living law. Its rules have been changing with the passage of time out of experiences and necessities of situations.
Oppenheim’s Revised Definition:
The above definition was given by Oppenheim in the Eighth Edition of his book ‘International Law’ published in 1905. Since then drastic changes have occurred in International Law, and therefore, the definition has become too narrow. It does not stand correct at the present day International Law. In the Ninth Edition edited by Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, published in 1992, the term, ‘International Law’ has been defined differently after taking into account of the new developments. According to him:
“International law is the body of rules which are legally binding on States in their intercourse with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations of States, but States are not the only subjects of International Law. International organizations, and to some extent, also individuals may be subjects of rights conferred and duties imposed by International Law.”
The above definition is wider than the earlier definition in the sense that it states that international organisations and individuals are also the subjects of International Law.
2. Starke’s Definition:
Starke’s definition of International Law is similar to the revised definition of Oppenheim in scope.
The above definition is different from the traditional definitions of International Law. While the latter took into the account of States only, Starke has widened the scope by stating that along with States, International Law regulates the rights and duties of international institutions or organisations, individuals and other non-State entities. These entities have come within the ambit of International Law because of the radical developments that took place since the beginning of the present century, especially after the creation of the United Nations. But he concedes that primarily it regulates the rights and duties of States inter se.
In the strict sense, Starke has enumerated in his definition the names of different entities whose rights and duties are regulated by the rules of International Law. But if an entity not enumerated by Starke ever comes within the scope of International Law with the passage of time, and if its rights and duties are regulated by the rules of International Law, the definition would again be subjected to criticism. Thus, the definition does not stand correct for all the times to come. In future, if and when a new entity acquires international personality, the definition shall become inadequate.
Public International Law and Private International Law:
It is to be noted that the expression “International Law” is identical with the so called “Public International Law”. It is, as a system, applies to all States. Thus, a primary and essential characteristic of the public international law system is its universality. It applies everywhere including man’s activities in space and in respect of celestial bodies. It is the quality of universality that serves to distinguish it from private International Law which is a law of different States and which concerns mainly such matters between individuals as fall at the same time under the jurisdiction of two or more different States. Contracts of sale or service between persons in different countries is an instance which is governed by the rules of private International law. Such rules have evolved to avoid the conflicts which arise due to conflicting rules of municipal laws of different States.
Differences between Public International Law and Private International Law
Public and private International Law differ on many counts:
It is to be noted that presently distinction between public International Law and private International Law has been reduced because certain rules of private International Law have become the rules of International Law as well. What is now termed private International Law may also have the character of public International Law. It is done mainly by the conclusion of treaties. As long as they are not postulated by rules of customary law, treaties or general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, they remain the rules of municipal law.
Note that private international law is also referred to as the CONFLICT OF LAWS.
General International Law and Particular International Law
International Law has been divided by some jurists into two kinds: general International Law and particular International Law.
General International Law is that which is binding upon a great many States. General International Law, such as provisions of certain treaties which are widely, but not universally, binding and which establish rules appropriate for universal application, has a tendency to become universal International Law. However, no law has acquired the character of universality as yet. Particular International Law is that which is binding on two or a few States only.
One of the most controversial issues that has long been debated and discussed and on which the opinions of the jurists are sharply divided since the beginning of the science of law of nations concerns, is the status of International Law. Although, rules regulating the relations of States are referred to as International Law in practice consistently since last more than 200 years, a number of jurists including those who use the expression ’international law’ have expressed doubts on the question: Is International Law really law? One view is that International law is not a true law. It is a code of rules of conduct of moral force only. In short, it is like a moral code of conduct.
Another view is that International Law is a true law, and is to be regarded as law in the same way as that of ordinary laws of a State which are binding upon the individuals. The reality is that the answer of the above questions depends, in a large measure upon as to what is the definition of the term ‘law’. It alone would decide whether International Law is a true law or not.
Austin’s view- the school of positivism:
Before Austin, Hobbes, Bentham and Pufendorf are of the view that International Law is not legally binding on States. In the nineteenth century, a number of prominent jurists took the similar view. The most prominent amongst them is the British jurist, Austin, and later his followers.
According to Austin, law is the command of the sovereign attended by sanction in case of violation of the command. In other words, law should be limited to rules of conduct enacted by a determinate legislative authority and enforced by physical sanction. The superior, according to him is the real sovereign.
The definition contains two important elements.
Austin states that commands are ‘orders backed by threats’.
The existence of these two elements is essential in order to call a rule as a “proper” law.
(a) “laws by analogy” i.e., rules of conduct imposed by the general opinion of an indeterminate body, such as the laws of fashion and of honour, for example, Khap Panchyat in India, and
(b) laws by metaphor, e.g., such scientific uniformities as the law of gravity and also the laws of a game and the law of art. According to Austin “law by analogy” and “law by metaphor” are not “properly” called “law”.
A rule is a rule of morality, if by common consent of the community it applies to ‘conscience only’ meaning enforceable by conscience only. Such rules are different from rules of law wherein by common consent of the community it is eventually enforced by external power. Since in International law, which is a body of rules governing the relations of sovereign States inter se, there is no sovereign political authority of State inter se, and there is neither any supreme executive government to enforce these laws nor there exists any judicial organization with compulsory jurisdiction, International Law cannot be accepted as a legal system.
Question: Why Austin describes International Law as positive morality?
Criticism of Austin’s view
Austin’s definition of law commonly known as command theory has been vehemently criticized by the jurists belonging to sociological, legal realism and historical school on different grounds. Exponent of historical school have criticized the definition mainly on two grounds.
Oppenheim’s view
A number of jurists have defined the term law in a different way. Oppenheim says that law is a body of rules for human conduct within a community which by common consent of this community shall be enforced by external power.
According to this definition, essential conditions for the existence of law are threefold.
From the above two different views, it may be concluded that the answer of the question – whether International Law is a law in the true sense, depends primarily upon another question, that is, which of the above two definitions of law is accepted. If the imperative definition of Austin and his followers is accepted, legal character to the rules of International Law may be denied, and if a broader definition as given by Oppenheim is accepted, taking into account the historical development of municipal laws, International Law may be termed as law in the true sense.
When would Oppenheim definition hold true?
However, definition given by Oppenheim will be regarded correct only when it is proved that there exists an international society or community.
What is a community?
A community is a social group who share a common characteristic or interest and live in a specific area.
If the answer is given in the affirmative in the context of a community at the international level, International Law may be regarded as law because every society necessarily has a system of law. And if the existence of international society or community itself is denied, International Law as a law in true sense would become questionable. But again the term ‘society’ is so vague in its ordinary meaning that it is difficult to define. One can give it any twist one pleases.
Westlake asserts with certainty that an international society or community exists. According to him there is a society of States sufficiently like society of men, and a law of the society of States exists like the State or municipal Law.
In support of the above view he lays down three points.
Firstly, there is a general opinion of States which approves certain rules.
Secondly, the conduct directed by these rules is in fact generally observed by States, and
Thirdly, such observance so greatly promotes the tranquility of the world that a duty of observance, co-relevant to the benefit enjoyed, is laid in conscience of States, at least in ordinary cases. These things being so, “States live together in the civilized World substantially as men live together in a State, the difference being one of machinery, and we are entitled to say that there is a society of States and a law of that society….”
It has been rightly observed that the States of the World do together constitute a body bound together through common interests which create extensive intercourse between them, and differences, in culture, economic structure, or political system, do not affect as such the existence of an international community as one of the basic factors of International Law.
It is to be noted that the society of men and the society of States is not comparable to each other because of their different complexions and because of their factual background and therefore the binding nature of the law regulating the relations of individuals and the relations of States also differ. However, as long as argument runs in favour of the existence of international society, it can be said that its existence at least makes certain conduct obligatory on the States.
Conclusion: International Law is a True Law
It may be concluded that, at present. World is, in reality, regarded as an international community, and it is difficult to see how any community of nations can exist, save on the basis of the law ubi societas, ibi jus. A set of rules in the form of custom and treaties exist for regulating the conduct of the members of that community. Members of the community recognize and observe these rules and affirm that there is a set of rules for regulating their conduct. They are practiced in the foreign offices, national courts and other governmental organs of States as well as in international organizations, such as the United Nations. They accept that they are legally bound by the rules of International Law. Further, States do not claim that they are above the law or that International Law does not bind them. The argument that International Law is breached very often by the States, and therefore general observance of it is not high than that really is, does not appear to be convincing. Thousands of treaties have been concluded by the States, but the instances of their violations are very few. Rules regarding immunities provided to diplomatic agents are generally observed. Other rules of International Law including the laws of warfare are also observed by them in most of the cases. No doubt, rules in a few cases are breached by them, but that may be taken as an exception to the general observations. Even the State which violates a particular rule of law will not agree that International Law as a whole does not exist. At the most, it will seek to justify its action by giving a different interpretation or by denying the existence of the particular rule as part of International Law. The truth is that when a breach occurs, that acquires undue prominence, may be because of political considerations, and also because that it immediately spread to all over the World. That gives a feeling that International Law not generally observed by the States, there would have been total chaos in the World community.
The fact is that the legally binding force of International Law has been asserted by a number of States in various international forums from time to time. They also recognize it by requiring their officials, courts and nationals Law. Further, many States have incorporated International Law as part of the law of the land in their constitutions. For instance, the U.S. Constitution under Article VI, Para 2 lays down that treaties are the supreme law of the land. In several decisions, the highest court of many States have repeatedly recognized the validity of International Law. Justice Grey of the U.S. Supreme Court made a remark in the Paquete Habana case by stating that “International Law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the Courts of Justice of appropriate jurisdiction….” Statute of the International Court of Justice annexed to the Charter has clearly stated under Article 38 that it shall decide disputes in accordance with International Law. The use of the term “International Law” in the U.N. Constitution of other international organizations suggests that International Law is a law in the true sense.
Rebuttal of Austinanian definition:
International Law is a true law is evidence even if Austin’s definition is accepted. Austin regarded International Law as a ‘positive morality’ in the nineteenth century, when international community lacked legislation, a court, sanctioning powers and enforcement machinery. And in view of all these if he concluded that International Law is not a true law, perhaps he was not wrong. But substantial development has taken place since the definition was given.
Presently, International legislation has come into existence as a result of multinational treaties and conventions. These include the recognition that certain rules have the character of jus cogens, which reduces the area for the operation of purely consensual rules, and establishes that within the general body of rules of the International Law there exists superior legal rules, with which rules of a lower order must be compatible. In this sense, the jus cogens in a sense, take the semblance of Constitutional rules at the International level.
Practice of States suggests that they consider themselves bound by each rules. If rules are violated by a State, sanctions may be applied against it not only by the aggrieved State itself but collectively by the United Nations Organization as well. Further, presently, international community has a Court – International Court of Justice, whose decisions are binding upon the parties to a case.
If a party fails to perform its obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, Security Council of the United Nations is empowered to take measures to enforce the decisions of the Court, if the aggrieved party seeks the help of the Council. Existence of international legislation, a Court, sanctioning authority and the enforcement machinery are the developments of the present century. In the light of these developments, perhaps one would not hesitate, perhaps one would not hesitate to call International Law as a true law even if Austin’s definition of law is accepted.
International Law is a Weak Law
International Law is a law in the true sense of the term. State practice as well as the practices of the international judicial institutions affirm the legal character of International Law. It is observed by almost all nations and almost all the times because it is crucial for peaceful relations and cooperation. However, it has to be conceded that it is a weak law. Its rules are not as effective as rules of municipal law are. It is so because of many reasons which are as follows:
(1) Rules of International Law which exist as a result of international treaties and customs are not comparable in efficacy to State Legislative machinery. Rules expressed in treaties as well as customs are sometimes formulated in such a way so as to give wide options to the States parties.
(2) There is no court in the true sense which could decide the legal disputes of all the States. Although, International Court of Justice which is commonly known by the name of ‘World Court’ exists, it does not have jurisdiction to decide the disputes of all the States since the Court acts with the consent of the States only.
(3) Enforcement measures which are available under the system are not effective. In Municipal Law it is assumed that the law will be enforced. If a person commits a crime he shall be given punishment in accordance with law. In International Law this may not be the case.
In a number of occasions, no enforcement measures are taken even if the action is regarded as illegal. For instance, no action was taken against the United States after its illegal invasion of Grenada and Iraq in 2003 and NATO was not condemned for its action against Serbia. Further, the Court does not have any real power to enforce its decisions. Its decisions are enforced by the Security Council of the United Nations which is a political body. Its decisions on many occasions are found to be politically motivated.
(4) Rules of International Law are frequently violated by States, especially during war and the claimant of the rights takes the law into his own hands. Although the Charter of the United Nations has reduced the area of self-help, International Law is far behind from being quite effective.
(5) Effectiveness of the municipal law lies in the fact that its units are quite weak. The result is that the sanctions against breaches of the law are normally effective and easy to maintain. International community is one wherein units are small and weak but at the same time some of them are very strong and enormous. To compel the latter for the observance of the rules of International Law becomes difficult on a number of occasions. As long as international community itself does not become stronger than the units, rules framed by the former would be observed as per the convenience of the units.
While it is conceded that International Law is a weak law, it should not be understood that a weak law is no law at all. It remains primarily a law for States and will continue to play its role as long as the world is divided into States. As far as its weaknesses are concerned, it is so because of its peculiarities and due to certain reasons. Development over the past half century, in particular, indicate considerable progress towards their amelioration. However, must has to be done. In future, it may acquire the status similar to that of municipal laws of a State when these weaknesses are removed.
In order to make International Law strong what is required is that it needs to develop formal institutions responsible for law creation and enforcement. A set of rules that seeks to control States in their action needs a stronger enforcement mechanism if it is to achieve its goals. States are required to cooperate fully to make International Law more effective as it is based on common self-interest and necessity. International Law is needed to ensure a stable and orderly international society. Powerful States should take lead in this direction. Role of the small and less powerful States is equally important in the sense that dependence on International Law and international organizations is likely to bring security to them, and therefore they need International Law more than the powerful States. They are therefore required to express the desire for a strong World order which indeed would make International Law stronger and more effective.
International Law is the Vanishing point of Jurisprudence
In the light of above discussions, the analytical jurist, Holland’s remark that International Law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence is not tenable. By using the words ‘vanishing point’ in relation to International Law and jurisprudence, he meant that International Law and jurisprudence are parallel to each other, and they therefore, are distinct and separate, though it might be appearing that they are one and the same at vanishing point – a point at which parallel line sin the same plane appear to meet. Thus, International Law cannot be kept in the category of law mainly because there is neither any sovereign authority nor there exists sanctions if its rules are violated. He has given reasons for holding the above view. According to him:
It (international Law) is the vanishing point of jurisprudence, since it lacks any arbiter of disputed questions, save public opinion, beyond and above the disputed parties themselves, and since in proportion as it tends to become assimilated to true law by the aggregation of States into a larger society, it ceases to be itself, and is transmuted into the public law of a federal government.
He has stated therefore that International Law “can indeed be described as law only by courtesy, since the rights with which it is concerned cannot properly be described as legal.” It is submitted that while his view was perhaps correct at his time but at present the same is subjected to severe criticism and therefore, it is not tenable in the changed character of International Law.
The phrase "International Law is the Vanishing Point of Jurisprudence" floated by Holland implies that when we explore the complexities of international law, we reach the outermost limit or the ultimate frontier of legal thought and theory. In his view, Holland says that International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence because there is no judge or arbiter to decide international disputes. He believes that the rules of International Law are followed by States by courtesy.
Sir Thomas Erskine Holland, a notable British jurist and International Law theorist, put forth the intriguing notion that the law governing the international community finds itself at a perplexing juncture in the realm of jurisprudence. According to Holland, these two realms, jurisprudence and international law, exist on divergent paths that seem destined to remain forever apart. In his view, they occupy opposite ends of a spectrum, rendering their convergence an elusive and enigmatic prospect.
Explanation of the term vanishing point of jurisprudence
Let's break down this concept in simpler terms:
Understanding Jurisprudence:
Jurisprudence is like the philosophy of law - it's the study of the nature of law, its principles, and how it shapes societies. When we talk about jurisprudence, we usually focus on the laws within a single country - the rules and principles that govern our behaviour and interactions within that nation.
Enter International Law:
Now, imagine zooming out from the laws of one country to consider laws that apply to the entire world. That's where international law comes into play. It deals with legal issues that go beyond borders and affect the global community. So, when we say "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence," we mean that international law pushes the boundaries of what we usually think about when studying laws within a country.
1. Diverse Legal Systems:
In a single country, we have a legal system that everyone follows. But internationally, we're dealing with a bunch of different legal systems - each country has its own way of doing things. This makes international law really complicated. For example, what might be considered a fair trial in one country might not be the same in another. So, understanding and reconciling all these different legal traditions becomes a big challenge.
Think about human rights. Every country has its own ideas about what rights people should have. But when we talk about international human rights law, we're trying to set universal standards that should apply everywhere. This is tricky because different cultures may have different views on what constitutes a basic human right. So, international law challenges us to find common ground among diverse legal systems.
2. Fragmentation and Pluralism:
Imagine trying to juggle multiple balls at once. That's a bit like how international law works - it's fragmented and pluralistic. Instead of having one clear set of laws, we have lots of treaties, agreements, and customs that countries follow. This makes it hard to have a neat and tidy legal system like we might have in our own country.
Take climate change agreements as an example. Many countries come together to make agreements on reducing carbon emissions. Each country has its own commitments, and there's no single world government enforcing these rules. So, international law involves a lot of negotiation and cooperation among different nations.
3. Limited Enforcement Mechanisms:
In a country, there's usually a police force or some authority that ensures people follow the laws. But internationally, it's not as straightforward. There are no world police making sure everyone plays by the rules. Instead, countries have to agree to cooperate and follow the laws voluntarily.
We have the International Criminal Court (ICC), which deals with serious crimes like genocide and war crimes. However, its power is limited because not all countries agree to be bound by its decisions. Some powerful countries aren't part of the ICC, which shows the challenge of enforcement on a global scale.
4. Sovereignty and Global Governance:
Sovereignty is like a country's independence - it's the idea that each nation governs itself. But international law challenges this concept because it encourages global cooperation and governance. Issues like human rights, environmental protection, and international crimes make us question how much control a country should have over its own affairs.
Look at global health regulations. When there's a pandemic, countries need to work together to control the spread of diseases. This involves sharing information and resources, which challenges the traditional idea of absolute sovereignty.
5. Emerging Legal Concepts:
International law introduces new ideas that might not exist in our own legal system. It's like exploring uncharted territory. For instance, there's something called transnational law, which goes beyond individual countries. This could involve legal issues related to the internet, outer space, or global trade - areas where traditional legal theories might struggle to keep up.
Think about cyber law, which deals with crimes and issues that happen in the digital world. Traditional legal theories might not have anticipated the need for laws about hacking, online privacy, or digital property. International law challenges us to create new legal concepts for these emerging issues.
6. Global Interconnectedness:
We live in a world where everything is connected. The internet, trade, and communication link us together. International law deals with issues arising from this interconnectedness. It's like navigating a vast network of legal relationships that go beyond what we typically think about in our own country.
Consider international trade. Goods and services move across borders, and countries need to have agreements on how to regulate this. International trade law involves creating rules for fair and smooth trade relations, requiring us to think beyond our national borders.
Counterview: CRITICISM OF HOLLAND VIEW
It is now widely accepted that International Law is indeed a form of law. It is important to acknowledge that International Law does not originate from a sovereign entity and lacks a mechanism for enforcement. Nonetheless, it can be argued that International Law is relatively weak in comparison to municipal laws. Many International lawyers do not support this perspective, asserting that the absence of strong sanctions in International Law does not imply a complete lack of enforcement measures.
There are some jurists who do not view international law as the ultimate focus of jurisprudence. According to them, there exists a distinction between state law and international law. They argue that the state cannot simply pass legislation regarding international law, but there is still a mechanism in place for its enforcement. "International Law is obeyed and complied with by the states themselves because it is in the interests of states." They provide the subsequent reasoning for this particular item.
The verdicts issued by the International Court of Justice carry legal weight and must be adhered to by nations.
In the event that a state fails to uphold the order or judgment issued by the International Court of Justice, it is within the purview of the Security Council to provide its recommendation against the said state, potentially leading to further action.
The States have willingly and mandatorily acknowledged the judicial authority of the International Court of Justice. The verdict of the International Court of Justice has been adhered to up until the present moment.
The development of the system of enforcement, consisting of sanctions and fear, has taken place.
If there happens to be any sort of danger or potential harm to the tranquillity and stability of the global community, the Security Council, in accordance with chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, has the authority to undertake essential measures in order to uphold or reinstate harmony and welfare on an international scale. Apart from this, it is important to note that the determinations made by the International Court of Justice carry immense significance as they are deemed conclusive and obligatory for all parties involved in a particular disagreement.
Criticism:
The phrase "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence" has faced criticism due to its potential oversimplification of the breadth and relevance of jurisprudence. One notable critique is that the statement tends to disregard the critical role played by domestic legal systems and their influence on individuals' daily lives.
Traditionally, jurisprudence revolves around comprehending the essence of law within the framework of individual nations, delving into matters of justice, rights, and governance at a local scale. Neglecting the significance of domestic laws might result in an incomplete grasp of the intricacies of legal philosophy since local legal systems hold immense power in shaping societal norms and individual rights.
Furthermore, there are critics who claim that the phrase may exaggerate the worldwide aspect of law while underemphasizing the significance of having multiple legal systems. Instead of acknowledging the existence of different legal orders such as national, regional, and international laws, the phrase suggests a hierarchical relationship where international law is given more importance.
However, in reality, having multiple legal systems coexisting is recognized by legal pluralism. Each system contributes to the overall legal landscape. Failing to consider this complexity could diminish the depth of discussions about jurisprudence that go beyond just the global scope.
Moreover, the excessive importance placed on international law as the ultimate focal point may pose a risk of disregarding and devaluing other crucial legal domains that exist within the confines of our own nation. Jurisprudence encompasses an extensive array of legal theories, encompassing constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law, each possessing its own unique set of philosophical debates and principles.
A narrow-minded fixation on international law has the potential to overshadow and diminish the intricate inquiries into jurisprudential matters within these distinct legal arenas, thereby potentially constraining and restricting our comprehensive comprehension of legal philosophy in relation to various facets of society. Essentially, the exclusive concentration on international law within this phrase might culminate in an incomplete depiction of the wider panorama that constitutes juridical studies.
Conclusion:
The saying "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence" conveys the idea that delving into international law poses a challenge to traditional legal thinking. It delves into the boundaries of familiar legal concepts within a nation and brings forth complexities such as diversity, fragmentation, and limited enforcement on a global scale.
Maneuvering through this vast international legal landscape pushes the limits of conventional legal thought, causing traditional theories to seem less relevant or even confrontational in light of the intricate issues arising from global cooperation and the coexistence of different legal systems.
By: Pritam Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses