Evaluating the Status of International Law as 'True Law'

This essay explores the ongoing debate on whether international law qualifies as 'true law', referencing international conventions, treaties, and statutes. It examines the views of scholars like Oppenheim, Lawrence, and Starke, who argue that international laws are binding, and John Austin, who contends they are merely moral principles due to lack of enforcement. The essay discusses various sources of international law, including treaties and international customs, and contrasting approaches like naturalism and positivism. It further analyzes the relationship between international and national law through dualist and monist theories, concluding that despite enforceability challenges, international law is indeed 'true law' aimed at addressing global issues and establishing worldwide peace. Desklib provides this essay and other study resources for students.

Bullet Summaries
 Scholars are divided on the fact whether international law is considered as true law
or not.
 Oppenheim, Lawrence and Starke provided in their definitions that international
laws are binding on states and they are considered as true law.
 John Austin provided a separate view by provided that international laws are not
binding since they are not enforced by superior authorities and there are no
appropriate mechanisms available to enforce these laws. States are not punished if
they did not comply with these policies; thus, they are moral and ethical principles
which guide the actions of States rather than laws.
 Different sources of international law include treaties, decisions given by national
and lower courts, principles and laws recognised by citizens and international
customs.
 Different approaches of international law include naturalism and positivism.
 Naturalism provides that international law complies with natural laws based on
which it is a true law. On the other hand, positivism provides that these laws are not
implemented by sovereign authorities and they are not enforceable which did not
make them true law.
 The relationship between international and national law is identified through two
key theories which include dualist and monist theory. The dualistic theory provides
that both these are separate legal system and national law prevails over
international law. On the contrary, monist theory provides that both of them are a
part of the legal system and international law is supreme.
 Based on the evaluation of different approaches and theories, it is concluded that
international law is true law.
 Even national laws are not appropriately enforceable, and people violate them, but
they continue to remain laws; similarly, international laws are legitimate despite the
fact that they are not enforceable and they are often breached by states.
 The objective of these laws is to address global issues and establish peace
worldwide.