|
International Law is the body of legal rules that apply between sovereign states, and such other bodies, which are regarded/acknowledged highly, by the international community. We know that International Law exists, as there are three main sources. These are; Treaties, Customs, and Reasons and Authority. International Law is unlike the American constitution, as it cannot be stored as one single document. It is like the British constitution, as it is very adaptable and flexible, which means it is open to change. Unlike the British constitution, International Law does not possess a legislature. This would probably make it weaker than the Britain's constitution. But the question of whether or not International Law exists, is not really a problem. The main argument is the willingness to observe and enforce it that is questioned. States give great importance to International Law. They employ, at great expense, a body of international lawyers/barristers, who work within the Foreign Commonwealth Office. Their job is to check foreign policy, and ensure that it falls in line with International Law. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), actions in Kosovo was argued to be within International Law, as they were upholding resolutions by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). So if states do not take International Law seriously, then why would they spend so much money and effort on it?
|
Quick Reply
