The question as whether an international act is legally right or wrong? Is the focus of this analysis. This is premised on the fact that states are living in a well ordered world under the aegis of established codes of international law. Hugo Grotius, the father of international law through his classic “on the law of war and peace” is a major motivator of this school.
Most legality are traceable to the Killog –Briand Act 1929 which out lawed war as an instrument of national policy except in self –defence; the general convention of 1949 where nation states are
expected to play active parts in the protection of war victims, the Hague convention of 1954 for neutral states to participate in the protection of cultural property; and the 1961, Vienna convention on diplomatic intercourse and immunities. The task in this or approach is for analysts to look at the legality of a state vis-à-vis these conventions.
The contemporary view of international politics requires not only attention of the nature of a state but also a revaluation of the meaning of international law. The code of conduct for the nation-states has not prevented civil wars coups d’ etat, intervention, invasion, violation of treaties, seizure of territories , disappearance of sovereign states from the political map, or two world war within a generation.
It is obvious that international law is not law in conventional sense of an enforceable command issued by a superior on interior. No court may force a state to submit to litigation against its will or enforce a section without prior agreement of the parties to a suit . The lack of hard-and –task, enforceable rules permits states to exploit wide latitude or behavioural options in executing their foreign policies.
Related Posts: HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION (H.I.R), POLITICAL SCIENCE
Be the first to comment