Nature, Origin and Basis of International Law.

International law reflects the establishment and subsequent modification of a world system
founded almost exclusively on the notion that independent sovereign states are the only relevant
actors in the international system. The essential structure of international law was mapped out
during the European Renaissance, though its origins lay deep in history and can be traced to
cooperative agreements between peoples in the ancient Middle East. Among the earliest of these
agreements were a treaty between the rulers of Lagash and Umma (in the area of Mesopotamia)
in approximately 2100 BCE and an agreement between the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses II and
Hattusilis III, the king of the Hittites, concluded in 1258 BCE. A number of pacts were
subsequently negotiated by various Middle Eastern empires. The long and rich cultural traditions
of ancient Israel, the Indian subcontinent, and China were also vital in the development of
international law. In addition, basic notions of governance, of political relations, and of
interaction of independent units provided by ancient Greek political philosophy and the relations
between Greek city-states constituted important sources for evolution of the international legal
system.

Many of the concepts that today underpin the international legal order were established during
the Roman Empire. The jus gentium (Latin: “law of nations”), for example, was invented by the
Romans to govern the status of foreigners and the relations between foreigners and Roman
citizens. In accord with the Greek concept of natural law, which they adopted, the Romans
conceived of the jus gentium as having universal application. In the Middle Ages, the concept of
natural law, infused with religious principles through the writings of the Jewish philosopher
Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) and the theologian St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–1274),
became the intellectual foundation of the new discipline of the law of nations, regarded as that
part of natural law that applied to the relations between sovereign states.

After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century CE, Europe suffered from
frequent warring for nearly 500 years. Eventually, a group of nation-states emerged, and a
number of supranational sets of rules were developed to govern interstate relations, including
canon law, the law merchant (which governed trade), and various codes of maritime law—e.g.,
the 12th-century Rolls of Oléron, named for an island off the west coast of France, and the Laws
of Wisby (Visby), the seat of the Hanseatic League until 1361. In the 15th century the arrival of
Greek scholars in Europe from the collapsing Byzantine Empire and the introduction of the
printing press spurred the development of scientific, humanistic, and individualist thought, while
the expansion of ocean navigation by European explorers spread European norms throughout the
world and broadened the intellectual and geographic horizons of Western Europe. The
subsequent consolidation of European states with increasing wealth and ambitions, coupled with

1
the growth in trade, necessitated the establishment of a set of rules to regulate their relations. In
the 16th century the concept of sovereignty provided a basis for the entrenchment of power in the
person of the king and was later transformed into a principle of collective sovereignty as the
divine right of kings gave way constitutionally to parliamentary or representative forms of
government. Sovereignty also acquired an external meaning, referring to independence within a
system of competing nation-states.

Nature and Scope

International law includes both the customary rules and usages to which states have given
express or tacit assent and the provisions of ratified treaties and conventions. International law is
directly and strongly influenced, although not made, by the writings of jurists and publicists, by
instructions to diplomatic agents, by important conventions even when they are not ratified, and
by arbitral awards. The decisions of the International Court of Justice and of certain national
courts, such as prize courts, are considered by some theorists to be a part of international law. In
many modern states, international law is by custom or statute regarded as part of national (or, as
it is usually called, municipal) law. In addition, municipal courts will, if possible, interpret
municipal law so as to give effect to international law.

Because there is no sovereign super national body to enforce international law, some older
theorists, including Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, and John Austin have denied that it is
true law. Nevertheless, international law is recognized as law in practice, and the sanctions for
failing to comply, although often less direct, are similar to those of municipal law; they include
the force of public opinion, self-help, intervention by third-party states, the sanctions of
international organizations such as the United Nations, and, in the last resort, war.

National states are fundamentally the entities with which international law is concerned,
although in certain cases municipal law may impose international duties upon private persons,
e.g, the obligation to desist from piracy. New rights and duties have been imposed on individuals
within the framework of international law by the decisions in the war crimes trials as well as the
treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (see war crimes), by the genocide
convention, and by the Declaration of Human Rights (see Economic and Social Council).

Basis of International Law

The roots of international law go deep into history and evidence of treaties, immunities of
ambassadors, usages of war, etc. can be found in ancient Egypt, India, the Greek and Roman
empires. The present day international law owes its origin to the great jurist Grotius whose work
De jure Belli ac Paces (1625) lent legal basis to many areas of international relations. His main

2
idea is that there are certain eternal, unchangeable and independent rules of law which have roots
in human reason. This law of reason is called by him as Natural Law.
In the Grotian theory, there are three basis of international law: Laws of reason, Customs, and
Treaties. Emanating from his conception are two theories as to true basis of international law:
a. Naturalist theory (Pufendorf): There exists a system of law which emanates from God or
reason or morals. Law of nations is only a part of law of nature. Hart explains that a minimum
content of law flowing from the immutable nature of man is that which is necessary for survival
of mankind. International peace and security being necessary for survival of human kind, all laws
relating to it are thus parts of law of nature. The theory is criticized on the ground that it is too
vague.
b. Positivist theory (Bynkershook): Only those principles may be deemed as law which have
been adopted with the consent of the States. Law is that which exists in fact. It is that law which
is enacted or followed by States (i.e. emanate from their own free will) and is hence binding
upon States. Customs and treaties come into existence from express or tacit consent of States.
The theory is criticized as all rules of international law are not derived from customs and treaties.
Further, a treaty may be binding on third States as well, and, States in some cases are bound by
general international law even against their will.

c. Eclectic theory: The views taken by the naturalists and positivists are extreme views. A theory
giving equal importance to both the views appears to be correct. As to the true basis of
international law, contemporary sociological theories tend to support Naturalism because they
argue that international law is based on social interdependence and aims at bringing about
international social justice. Thus, natural law underlies even at the positive law (customs and
treaties) which is only an expression of this social interdependence.

3
\

The Emergence of International Law,

Basic concepts of international law such as treaties can be traced back thousands of years. Early
examples of treaties include around 2100 BC an agreement between the rulers of the city-states
of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia, inscribed on a stone block, setting a prescribed boundary
between their two states. Around 1000 BC, an agreement was signed between Ramses II of
Egypt and the king of the Hittites establishing "eternal peace and brotherhood" between their two
nations: dealing with respect for each other's territory and establishing a form of defensive
alliance. The ancient Greeks before Alexander the Great formed many small states that
constantly interacted. In peace and in war, an inter-state culture evolved that prescribed certain
rules for how these states would interact. These rules did not apply to interactions with non-
Greek states, but among themselves the Greek inter-state community resembled in some respects
the modern international community.

The Roman Empire did not develop an international law, as it acted without regard to any
external rules in its dealings with those territories that were not already part of the empire. The
Romans did, however, form municipal laws governing the interactions between private Roman
citizens and foreigners. These laws, called the jus gentium (as opposed to the jus civil governing
interactions between citizens) codified some ideas of basic fairness, and attributed some rules to
an objective, independent "natural law." These jus gentium ideas of fairness and natural law have
survived and are reflected in modern international law.

Early Islamic law's principles concerning military conduct and the treatment of prisoners of war
under the early Caliphate are considered precursors to international humanitarian law. The many
requirements on how prisoners of war should be treated included, for example, providing shelter,
food and clothing, respecting their cultures, and preventing any acts of execution, rape or
revenge. Some of these principles were not codified in Western international law until modern
times. Islamic law under the early Caliphate institutionalized humanitarian limitations on
military conduct, including attempts to limit the severity of war, guidelines for ceasing
hostilities, distinguishing between civilians and combatants, preventing unnecessary destruction,
and caring for the sick and wounded.

4
Early European Authors,

Early writers who dealt with questions of governance and relations between nations included the
Italian lawyers Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1313/14–1357), regarded as the founder of the modern
study of private international law, and Baldo degli Ubaldi (1327–1400), a famed teacher, papal
adviser, and authority on Roman and feudal law. The essence of the new approach, however, can
be more directly traced to the philosophers of the Spanish Golden Age of the 16th and 17th
centuries. Both Francisco de Vitoria (1486–1546), who was particularly concerned with the
treatment of the indigenous peoples of South America by the conquering Spanish forces, and
Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) emphasized that international law was founded upon the law of
nature. In 1598 Italian jurist Alberico Gentili (1552–1608), considered the originator of the
secular school of thought in international law, published De jure belli libri tres (1598; Three
Books on the Law of War), which contained a comprehensive discussion of the laws of war and
treaties. Gentili’s work initiated a transformation of the law of nature from a theological concept
to a concept of secular philosophy founded on reason. The Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius (1583–
1645) has influenced the development of the field to an extent unequaled by any other theorist,
though his reputation as the father of international law has perhaps been exaggerated. Grotius
excised theology from international law and organized it into a comprehensive system, especially
in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625; On the Law of War and Peace). Grotius emphasized the freedom
of the high seas, a notion that rapidly gained acceptance among the northern European powers
that were embarking upon extensive missions of exploration and colonization around the world.
Hugo Grotius, detail of a portrait by Michiel Janszoon van Mierevelt; in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

The scholars who followed Grotius can be grouped into two schools, the naturalists and the
positivists. The former camp included the German jurist Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–94), who
stressed the supremacy of the law of nature. In contrast, positivist writers, such as Richard
Zouche (1590–1661) in England and Cornelis van Bynkershoek (1673–1743) in the Netherlands,
emphasized the actual practice of contemporary states over concepts derived from biblical
sources, Greek thought, or Roman law. These new writings also focused greater attention on the
law of peace and the conduct of interstate relations than on the law of war, as the focus of
international law shifted away from the conditions necessary to justify the resort to force in order
to deal with increasingly sophisticated interstate relations in areas such as the law of the sea and
commercial treaties. The positivist school made use of the new scientific method and was in that
respect consistent with the empiricist and inductive approach to philosophy that was then gaining
acceptance in Europe. Elements of both positivism and natural law appear in the works of the
German philosopher Christian Wolff (1679–1754) and the Swiss jurist Emerich de Vattel (1714–
67), both of whom attempted to develop an approach that avoided the extremes of each school.
During the 18th century, the naturalist school was gradually eclipsed by the positivist tradition,
5
though, at the same time, the concept of natural rights—which played a prominent role in the
American and French revolutions—was becoming a vital element in international politics. In
international law, however, the concept of natural rights had only marginal significance until the
20th century.
The Nation-State System,

1. State System
It is a pattern of political life in which people are separately organized into sovereign states that
interact with one another.

Nation-state System
A nation denotes a common ethnic and cultural identity shared by a single people, while a state is
a political unit with a governance system controlling a territory and its inhabitants. The nation
promotes emotional relationship amongst its members, while states provide political and legal
foundation for the identity of its citizens. The term nation-state has been used by social scientists
to denote the gradual fusion of cultural and political boundaries after a long control of political
authority by a central government. The nation-state plays a dominant role in international
relations.
While governments come and go, a state has more permanence. Students and scholars of
international relations can depend upon the continued existence of a state as a viable political
entity.
State: Group of people those occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one
government.

2. History
The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 created the modern nation-state. The treaty established the
principle of internal sovereignty (preeminence of rulers from other claimants to power) and
external sovereignty (independence from outside powers).
England, Spain and France obtained independence from dominance by the Holy Roman Empire.
It is often said that the Peace of Westphalia initiated the modern fashion of diplomacy as it
marked the beginning of the modern system of nation states. Subsequent wars were not about
issues of religion, but rather revolved around issues of state. This allowed Catholic and
Protestant Powers to ally, leading to a number of major realignments.
Another important result of the treaty was it laid rest to the idea of the Holy Roman Empire
having secular dominion over the entire Christian world. The nation-state would be the highest
level of government, subservient to no others.
6
Scholars like Machiavelli, Bodin and Grotius defended the authority of the state and provided
justification for the secular state independent from the authority of the Pope. There are three
approaches to studying the social-cultural, political and economic forces at work within different
nation-states.
Approaches
i. Objective (Attributive) Approach: identifies nationalism and the nation-state in terms of
observable and quantifiable attributes, including linguistic, racial and religious factors.

ii. Subjective (Emotional) Approach: views nationalism and the nation-state as a set of
emotional, ideological and patriotic feelings binding people regardless of their ethnic
backgrounds.

iii. Eclectic (Synthetic) Approach: A more subjective than objective approach, seeking to
supplement notions of nationalism and patriotism with interethnic interaction and education
processes to explain creation of a common identity.

3. Features
1. Sovereignty: Sovereignty can be understood to be “the legal theory that gives the state unique
and virtually unlimited authority in all domestic matters and in its relations with other states”

2. Nationalism: Nationalism is taken to refer to that psychological or spiritual quality which,

unites the people of a state and gives them the will to champion what they regard as their
national interests.

3. National Power: National power on the other hand is the might of a state, providing the
capabilities for getting done what the state wants accomplished

4. Further Evolution of State System

1. Rise of representative government
2. The industrial revolution
3. Population explosion

7
4. Independence of developing countries
5. Economic growth
6. Multilateral Organizations.

The Enforcement of International Law,

Looking at the events taking place across the globe today it is clear that a large number of states
are repeatedly violating their international obligations. In the absence of a global police, states at
times act as if they are above the law. However, international law does set out clear
consequences for when the law is broken, and these consequences are on both the collective and
individual level.

In addition to setting out prohibitions, such as torture or targeting civilians in an armed conflict,
international law also outlines the legal ramifications for states when such acts occur.
Under international law, legal consequences can be broadly divided between state responsibility
and individual responsibility.

a. State responsibility
Enforcement of international law can be divided into what the violating state must do itself and
what others, namely states, must do.

The norms on state responsibility can be broken into two categories:

-Firstly the rules relating to all violations of international law;

-Secondly, the elevated level of rules especially directed towards third states when dealing with
particularly serious or grave violations of international law.

i. General Rules on State Responsibility

8
Before the consequences of violations are discussed it is important to remember that obligations
must be respected. Without respect, rules becomes meaningless. The notion of respect for
international obligations finds expression in the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (1969).
The notion of respect extends beyond the basic obligation to refrain from illegal conduct. Many
international treaties include obligations to ensure respect for the law.

1. What are the general responsibilities of a state violating international law?

The basic principle of “state responsibility” in international law provides that any state that
violates its international obligations must be held accountable for its acts. More concretely, the
notion of state responsibility means that states that do not respect their international duties are
obliged to immediately stop their illegal actions and make reparations to the injured.

b. Individual responsibility
Legal consequences of violations of international law are not limited to those under the purview
of state responsibility. Certain violations of international law can entail individual criminal
responsibility. Persons who aid, abet, order, supervise and jointly perpetrate international crimes
can be held individually responsible.

International crimes are divided in three groups:

• War Crimes (serious violations of IHL)

• Crimes against Humanity

• Genocide

9
The Effectiveness of International Law,

International law can be defined as, the universal system of principles and policies concerning
the relations between states and international organisations. The overall identity of international
law is the United Nations, and they govern international law through legal documents known as
treaties. International law is enforced by the United Nations Security Council and the
International Court of Criminal Justice. Effectiveness of International Law in Resolving Disputes
International law is expanding over the years as many countries are now relying on it to solve
their disputes.
Most countries are part of regional organisations, such as the African Union and European
Union, which follow the practice of international law. As more countries are getting involved in
international organisations, the fairness and reliability of international law can be observed.
International law is not forced upon countries. Countries participate in international organisations
to ensure stability and predictability in their relationship with other countries. This voluntary
participation ensures that laws and agreements made will be fair and unbiased to all participating
countries.

Countries are not coerced into agreeing to international law. The laws made within an
international organisation are derived after much debate and consensus from participating
countries. After the agreements are made, these laws are put into place as treaties. This shows
that international law allows for fair and unbiased resolutions as the laws will be clearly stated.
Another positive element of international law in resolving disputes is, international law does not
conflict with domestic laws most of the time.
Domestic laws focus on the prosperity of the country while international laws focuses on the
prosperity of all countries. Therefore, when it comes to resolving international disputes, most
countries will accept the decisions made by the international tribunals and the International Court
of Justice. International laws also adapt to the changes in society. These changes are reflected on
the amendments of treaties. The United Nations ensures that all laws made are fair and unbiased.
It also ensures that disputes between countries are dealt in the same manner.

This is the reason as to why the International Court of Justice is a separate entity. When countries
that are having conflicts approach the United Nations for dispute resolution, they are referred to
the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice examines all given evidence

10
and they may also start their own investigations when it is required. The diversity amongst the
panel of judges within the International Court of Justice reflects fairness and unbiasedness when
resolving disputes.
The International Court of Justice also allows for countries involved in the dispute to nominate a
judge of their choosing, an Ad hoc judge, to seat on the panel of judges. Case Study of the
Effectiveness of International Law The conflict between Singapore and Malaysia over the
sovereignty of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks is a good example of international law being
effective. This case gives a clear example of how the International Court of Justice deals and
resolves disputes effectively. The dispute started in 1980’s when Malaysia published a map
stating that Pedra Branca belonged to her.
Singapore disputed this, and both countries agreed to submit the dispute to the International
Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice started their own investigation and the
official hearing took place in 2007 under the name ‘Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore)’. After a thorough study of all
geographical evidence, ancient title documents and colonisation letters from the United
Kingdom, in 2008, the International Court of Justice ruled that Pedra Branca belonged to
Singapore and the Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia.

Limitations in International Law: There are certain limitations which affects the effectiveness
of international law. Firstly, not every country is a member of international law making
organisations. International law making bodies will not be able to make laws and resolve
disputes fairly if not all countries are part of this process. Secondly, the International Court of
Justice takes too long to make a decision. A key factor in dispute resolutions, is timely
resolutions. If disputes are not resolved fast, the effectiveness of international law will be
questioned.

Lastly, the decision of the International Court of Justice cannot be appealed. Not all decisions are
fair to affected countries. There may be instances whereby unjust decisions cannot be appealed..
Case Study of Limitations the territorial dispute between India and Pakistan is a good example of
limitations of international law. This case is a good example of countries that do not actively
participate in International dispute resolution. Both countries have claimed ownership of
Kashmir since they became independent.

However, they did not seek dispute resolution and over the years that tension increased into an
armed conflict whereby many innocent lives were lost. The ongoing problem has worsened as
Kashmir is now filled with terrorist organisations. In 2008, the United States of America stepped
in and insisted that both countries resolve the dispute. The United Nations did not step in as they
were not called upon by either country. Conclusion International law is an effective tool for

11
international dispute resolution as it ensures that laws are made, and disputes are resolved in a
fair and unbiased manner.

As there are many regional organisations, there are numerous avenues to resolve international
disputes. However, the limitations to international law affects its effectiveness. International
organisations should take a more active role and emphasize that all countries actively take part in
international law to increase its effectiveness.
The Weakness of International Law,

International Law Is Weak Law

Starke has expressed the view that international law is a weak law. Existing international
legislative machinery, operating mainly through lawmaking conventions, is not comparable in
efficiency to State legislative machinery.

Some other weaknesses of international law are as follows:

-There is no effective executive authority to enforce the rules of international law.

-The International Court of Justice lacks compulsory jurisdiction in the true sense of the term.
The court does not have jurisdiction to decide the disputes of all the States since the court acts
with the consent of the States only. Further, the court does not have any real power to enforce its
decisions.

-As compared to rules of State law, the rules of international law suffer from greater uncertainty.
Further, rules expressed in treaties, etc. are sometimes formulated in such a way so as to give
wide options to the State parties.

-Due to lack of effective sanctions, rules of international law are frequently violated. Further, to
compel the strong' States for the observance of the rules of international law becomes difficult on
a number of occasions.

-International law has, in many cases, failed to maintain order and peace in the world. A great
limitation of international law is that it cannot intervene in the matters which are within the

12
domestic jurisdiction of States. Thus, international law is a weak law in comparison to the
municipal law. However, it must be noted that, unlike municipal law, international law operates
in a purely decentralized system. All States consider themselves independent and sovereign.
International law must be understood and appreciated in the peculiar system in which it operates.
It is as good and effective as it can be under the circumstances and peculiar system under which
it operates. It is really creditable that rules of international law are considered binding upon the
States because either through treaties or otherwise States have consented to surrender a part of
their sovereignties.

Suggestions for improving international law:

-The machinery to enforce the rules of international law should be strengthened. The United
Nations Charter should be amended so as to authorize the U.N. to intervene in such matters
within the domestic jurisdiction of the States as are of international concern.

-The International Court of Justice should be given compulsory jurisdiction in the true sense of
the term, over all international disputes. Further, an International Criminal Court should be
established to adjudicate cases relating to international crimes.

-In order to make international law changeable and adaptable in accordance with the changing
times and circumstances, powers and scope of the activities of the International Law
Commission should be expanded.

-The doctrine of judicial precedents should be applied in the field of international law. This will
help to strengthen it. In order to strengthen the rule of law in international relations, the General
Assembly of U.N. in 1989 declared the period 1990-99 as the United Nations Decade of
International Law. The assembly stated by adopting a resolution that the main purposes of the
Decade should be, inter alia

(a) To promote acceptance of and respect for the principles of international law

(b) To promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States,
including resort to and full respect of the international court of justice

13
(c) To encourage the progressive development and codification of international law

(d) To encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider appreciation of international law.

The Juridical Basis of International law,

The United Nations defines international law as “the legal responsibilities of States in their
conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries.”
International law is established in four primary ways: treaties, judicial decisions, some Security
Council actions and custom.
The most familiar of these ways is treaties. Most international law is established by States
agreeing that a certain principle, norm or procedure is indeed international law. Treaties are
formal, legally-binding documents that establish these agreements by States. They are drafted
and signed by States, which have a legal obligation to obey the terms of a treaty they have
signed. While the majority of treaties in the world are bilateral (between two States), the most
commonly referenced treaties in Model UN are multilateral treaties that include many States.

International courts can also establish international law. Courts are given the power to create
binding decisions by treaties signed by States. All opinions by the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in contentious cases brought by two States before the court are legally-binding and
constitute international law but do not create precedents for future cases. Advisory opinions, on
the other hand, are not binding. The ICJ derives its authority from a particularly important treaty:
the United Nations Charter. Other treaties have established other courts that make legally-
binding decisions as well, such as the International Criminal Court, and the International
Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

Some Security Council actions establish legally-binding obligations under international law. Any
action taken by the Security Council under Article VII related to securing international peace
(such as through peacekeeping or sanctions) is legally-binding on all Member States.
Additionally, the Security Council can establish ad hoc tribunals that can make legal decisions.
Two former examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY).

14
Finally, customary international law can be binding upon States. The Statute of the International
Court of Justice defines customary international law as “evidence of a general practice accepted
as law.” Customary international law is defined by the general practice of States and by
acceptance as law by States. In practice, customary international law is complicated. States can
(and do) regularly redefine customary international law simply by changing their practices.
There are many other UN documents that appear to be legally binding but are not. Declarations,
Agreements, and Ministerial Statements are not legally binding documents. They do not carry
the weight of international law.
The Future of International law and Material Sources of International Law.
AUGUST 27TH 2014
With the 10th European Society of International Law (ESIL) Anniversary Conference just
around the corner some key thinkers share their thoughts on what they think the future of
international law looks like.
“International law traditionally flourishes with liberal hegemony, shared interests, or balance-of-
powers parity. The first condition is visibly waning. The second and third conditions support
regional and functional islands of multilateralism. While those islands may sometimes be shaky,
they will continue to provide work for international lawyers. Beyond that, in the rough waters of
war, peace, and even justice, the language of international law will also continue to pervade
international relations. But it increasingly risks being perceived as an imprudent distraction. That
is unless civil societies can unsettle the present monopolies that shape the terms of international
legal discourse.” — Ingo Venzke, Research Fellow and Lecturer, Amsterdam Center for
International Law, University of Amsterdam, author of How Interpretation Makes
International Law: On Semantic Change and Normative Twists, and co-author of In
Whose Name? A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication

“The future of international law will be somewhat as with its present: we will witness the
continued expansion of international law’s reach into new and emerging areas of common
concern, wrought by climate change, technology, and continued processes of international and
regional integration that are changing the nature of State-to-State relations. I do hope, however,
that there will be continued and sustained critical reflection in scholarship on the impact of law
on the international space—on who it empowers and excludes, on the nature of legalization and
its purposes—for it is only through heightened scrutiny, and not unquestioned application, that
international law may serve as a progressive force.” — Gleider I. Hernandez, Lecturer in
Law, Durham University, author of The International Court of Justice and the Judicial
Function

“In my opinion, the international law of the future will be less influenced by the ‘Westphalian
model’, for at least two reasons: the increasing role played by non-state actors, in particular

15
armed groups and multinational corporations, which challenges existing state-centered rules of
international law, and the emergence of cyberspace as a separate domain, that will entail a
rethinking of traditional concepts like territory, sovereignty, and jurisdiction. With regard to the
future of international institutions, it remains to be seen whether the United Nations will be able
to survive in its outdated structure.” — Marco Roscini, Reader in International Law,
University of Westminster, author of Cyber operations and the use of force in international
law

“The future of international law is likely to be as its past: a vital, though often misunderstood,
medium through which social actors at various levels and in various forms can structure and
order their interactions, reflect their desires and manifest their concerns. It is neither static nor
predictable. Following a period in which there have been high expectations of what international
law can achieve, the next few years may be times of challenge as it struggles to deliver solutions
which have become expected of it. But this is merely part of the endless re-calibration necessary
to reflect the tasks to which it is being put and the realities which need to be faced. If
international law does not disappoint from time to time it will cease to be a source of aspiration –
and that would make for a far bleaker future.” — Malcolm Evans, Professor of Public
International Law, University of Bristol, author of International Law and Blackstone’s
International Law Documents

“International law has undergone dramatic change in the past fifty years, with issues from human
rights to the environment to trade now the subjects of a wide range of hard and soft law
instruments. Yet, many of the principles encapsulated within these documents remain unrealized
due to the inability of international law to influence domestic law and national political priorities.
Oftentimes, international law seems to remain distinct from domestic systems, treated with
suspicion by national institutions. “In the twenty first century, the national and international
cannot be so easily separated. In areas such as refugee flows, arms proliferation, environmental
degradation and combatting impunity, domestic initiatives and capability hold the key to
international security. Agreement on and adherence to international standards is essential if
global threats with national origins are to be managed effectively. International law must become
not only the standard setter but the enabler and enhancer of domestic capacity. One of the key
challenges will be to alter perceptions of international law itself. Rather than being viewed as
something to be resisted or resented, side-stepped or paid lip service to, international legal
standards must become part of domestic legislative and political agendas. The challenge is
enormous, but essential, because, in the words of Anne-Marie Slaughter, the future of
international law is domestic.” — Alison Bisset, Lecturer of Law, University of Reading,
author of Blackstone’s International Human Rights Documents

16
“In the security regime, the future of international law looks increasingly dim. Attributability is a
prerequisite for accountability, and powerful governments are discovering new ways to mask
innovative forms of coercion behind a veil of anonymity. “Little green men” with no visible
identification, untraceable drone strikes, “NATO” bombings that conceal belligerents’ identities,
cyber-attacks masked by false flags—these sorts of intrusions all erode the rule of law by making
it difficult if not impossible to impute responsibility. Should this trend continue, the security
regime could look increasingly like Ferguson, Missouri—a juridical black hole where lawless
police hide their badges?”— Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law, The
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, author of National Security and
Double Government
“International law is always both forward and backward looking. It seeks to redress injustices
and provide a framework for cooperation and coordination amongst international actors.
Probably its greatest challenge in the contemporary world is regulating non-State actors, and the
relations of States to them. Situations such as the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 and
the actions of ISIS in Iraq show that non-State entities are capable of engaging in conduct that
has huge international impact. Furthermore, States, rather like in the cold war with its proxy
wars, often operate through such entities to maintain (more or less) plausible deniability for
activities that they support. The future of international law is necessarily bound up with the
extent to which it develops to counter such challenges. It is the responsibility of both States and
scholars to find ways forward for international law in this area.” — Robert Cryer, Professor of
International and Criminal Law, University of Birmingham, editor of Journal of Conflict
and Security Law

“In my opinion, the future of international law in the coming decades will continue to be shaped
by the continued tensions between sovereignty and other interests of the international
community, such as the protection of the environment, the development of the Responsibility to
Protect and more broadly human rights.

“On the one hand, states will obviously have to continue to accept that the traditional
Westphalian model of international law is facing challenges and that things cannot be as they
were in the past.

“But on the other hand, activists in various fields need to accept that the world is not changing as
fast as they would like everyone to believe and that sovereignty remains a key feature of the
international legal order. To a certain extent, as a feature of any given community, sovereignty is
in fact conceptually unavoidable in one shape or another, whether at the domestic or the

17
international level. Testimony to this is the continued relevance in international affairs of
nationalistic claims which find their legal crystallization in concepts such as statehood, self-
determination and the prohibition of the use of force in international law.

“Accepting this reality is key in shaping realistic, effective and intellectually sound policies that
not merely focus on individual rights, however important they are, but also take into account the
collective dimensions and interests of any human society.” — Dov Jacobs, Associate Professor
in International Law at the Grotious Centre, Leiden University, contributor to “targeting
the State in Jus post Bellum: Towards a theory of Integrated Sovereignties” in Jus Post
Bellum: Mapping the Normative Foundations

18