Skip to main content

A Law, or not?

That International Law was created to bind civilized states is now an acceptable principle, for the realm it covers is the conduct of states with respect to each other in their interrelations. But what is a state? When is an entity fit to be considered a state? Is it necessary for other states to recognize a state for it to be one? How many recognizing states are enough to make an entity a state?
These questions strike at the very root of international law. It doesn’t help that divergent practices tend to colour our minds – while on the one hand, Andorra, Lichtenstein and Monaco are all deemed states, while Kosovo, Palestine and Scotland are not considered thus. It is hard to answer this – especially because of the role of vested interests and politics, two factors that obliterate the notion of anarchy and level-playing-fields in international relations.
International Law has often been brought into question – especially as to whether it is a law or not. No matter what arguments maybe advanced in an attempt to punch holes in its existence, the fact is that international law exists: whether in its observations in obedience or in its observations in breach, whether in that states try to justify their conduct in keeping with the law or its interpretation, rather than questioning its existence. That new ‘legal provisions’ under international law are a product of breaches of old ones, is not an acceptable basis to denounce its status as law. After all, human rights laws have evolved by breaching early practices that encouraged the violations of basic human rights, best examples being slavery and torture.  


One may argue that a body of legal rules can come into existence only when it is legislated by a legislative body, executed by an executive body and studied and interpreted by a judicial body from time to time. These elements are not entirely absent in international law. The UN makes for a fairly close attempt. The General Assembly is akin to a legislature. The Security Council, the executive wing, and the International Court of Justice forms the judiciary. In addition to this system are several other international organizations that handle different aspects of state conduct and streamlines them through a legal document (or more) of its own.
It may appear like International Law is a prerogative of those in power – there are states that participate in creating the legal order, but subvert it themselves. Though it may appear like this knocks the wind out of the sails of its status as a law, in truth, it remains to be a law – quite like how legislators aren’t necessarily obedient to the laws they make.

Comments

Popular

Use Of Human Shield In Kashmir – A Legal Analysis

A lot has been debated and written about the ‘human shield’ incident that happened on April 9, 2017, in Kashmir’s Budgam district. Farooq Ahmed Dar, a 26-year-old shawl weaver of Chil village in Beerwah sub-district was tied in front of an Army Jeep and allegedly paraded through several villages for nearly five hours.[1] The media, lawyers, politicians and even army officers have stark differences of opinion on the legality of the said incident.[2] Major Leetul Gogoi, who tied the victim on the army jeep was awarded chief of army staff’s Commendation Card for sustained efforts in counter-insurgency operations.[3] This award was given pending proceedings before the court of inquiry into the said incident. On the other hand, the victim, Farooq Ahmed Dar approached the State Human Rights Commission against the reward given to Major Gogoi by the Army and separate petitions were filed before the National Human Rights Commission against the felicitation.[4] It is alleged that the actions of…

Qatar invokes ICJ Jurisdiction against UAE- Alleges Racial Discrimination

The State of Qatar on the 11th of July, instituted proceedings against the United Arab Emirates at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with regard to alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,1965 (hereinafter the “CERD”), to which both States are parties. Qatar invoked the ICJ's jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article 22 of the CERD. Qatar contended that the UAE has enacted and implemented a series of discriminatory measures directed at Qataris based expressly on their national origin [that] remain in effect to this day, resulting in alleged human rights violations. According to Qatar, on and following 5 June 2017, the UAE expelled all Qataris within its borders; prohibited them from entering or passing through the UAE; closed UAE airspace and seaports to Qatar and Qataris; interfered with the rights of Qataris who own property in the UAE; limited the rights of Qatar…

The Battle of the Oil Titans: Qatar drags UAE to the ICJ alleging violations of the CERD

In what can be said as a fresh face-off in already hostile relations between The State of Qatar and Gulf countries, the former acting under parens patraie doctrine has initiated proceedings at the International Court of Justice against United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 11th June invoking Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965 (hereinafter CERD). The proceedings come a year after Qatar was accused of funding terrorism in the region keeping in view its proximity with Iran and consequently, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE and Saudi Arabia severed its diplomatic and trade ties with it. Qatar (Applicant) in its application to the Court contends that “[t]he UAE has enacted and implemented a series of discriminatory measures directed at Qataris based expressly on their national origin [that] remain in effect to this day, resulting in alleged human rights violations.”
According to Qatar…