This article is written by Monika during her internship with Le Droit India.

INTRODUCTION 

The question of whether international law constitutes a “true law” has been a topic of ongoing discussion among experts, legal scholars, and political theorists. Some believe that international law does not embody the core attributes of law, due to its lack of a centralized enforcement authority, which is present in domestic legal systems. Conversely, others argue that international law represents a valid and obligatory legal framework that regulates the behavior of states and other international entities. This article examines the characteristics, origins, effectiveness, and enforcement mechanisms of international law to determine if it meets the criteria of “law in the true sense.”

DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 

A collection of guidelines and precepts known as international law regulates interactions between nations, international organizations, and occasionally private citizens.  It is based on scholarly works, general concepts, conventions, treaties, and court rulings.  Maintaining order, advancing justice, and regulating interactions on the worldwide scene are the major goals of international law. 

The term “ International law “ can refer to three distinct legal disciplines :

1. Public International law : which regulates interactions between states and foreign organizations.  It encompasses the following areas of law: international criminal law, treaty law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and the laws of war.
2. Private international law:  which deals with the concerns of 

(1) which jurisdiction has the authority to hear a case and 

(2) which jurisdiction’s laws apply to the case’s issues.  

3.  Supranational Law: This refers to regional accords in which a nation’s treaty obligations to a supranational collective may render its laws inapplicable when they clash with a supranational legal system.

Various scholars on International Law

Numerous distinguished academics, international jurists, and subject matter experts provided their own interpretations on what international law is.  The following are the most well-liked among them:  

1. According to Professor L. Oppenheim, “Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by the civilized states in their intercourse with each other.”

 2. According to Torsten Gihl, “The term International Law means the body of rules of law, which apply within the International Community or society of States.” 

3. According to J.L. Brierly, “The Law of Nations or International Law may be defined as the body of rules and principles of action, which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another.”

4. According to Gray, “International law or the Law of Nations is the name of a body of rules which according to their usual definitions regulate the conduct of states in their intercourse with each other.”

 5. Lord Coleridge, C.J., introduced the definition of international law in Queen v. Keyn (1876): “The law of nations is that collection of usages which civilized States have agreed to observe in their dealings with one another.”

IS INTERNATIONAL LAW IS A TRUE LAW 

International law is a complicated and multifaceted body of rules and principles that governs international relations between countries, international organizations, and individuals.  It addresses a variety of subjects, such as trade, diplomacy, human rights, and environmental preservation.  The basic query, though, is still: Is international law a “true law,” and how does it vary from state legal systems? 

Understanding the key distinctions between national and international legal systems is crucial to comprehending the discussion of international law.  The government enforces laws that control the lives of its citizens within a domestic legal framework.  The legislative creates these laws, the courts interpret them, and the executive branch upholds them—often with the help of the police to guarantee adherence.  However, under the framework of international law, this structure does not exist.  The absence of a single legislature, judiciary, executive branch, or police force in the International Community calls into question whether international law is a “true law.”

Austin’s Perspective

A perspective that questions the validity of international law is founded on the theories of legal scholar John Austin from the 19th century.  The core of law, in Austin’s opinion, is the authority of a sovereign, with consequences for transgressions.  According to him, laws are just standards of behavior that are passed by a specific legislative body and upheld by tangible penalties.  In this situation, the actual supreme authority is the sovereign.

  According to Austin, the absence of a single sovereign authority over the global society proves that international law is not a legal concept.  Although states agree to create international agreements and conventions, they do not have the same centralized enforcement mechanisms as domestic legal systems.  This point of view holds that international law is simply a moral code with no actual legal basis.

Oppenheim’s Perspective 

However, there is another perspective that is backed by legal expert Lassa Oppenheim and provides a broader concept of law.  According to Oppenheim, a law is a set of standards that govern how people behave in a community. These standards are upheld by outside authorities with the permission of the community as a whole.  According to Oppenheim, a legal system cannot be considered genuine unless it has several necessary elements.  Even though these regulations aren’t always made by a particular legislative body, the first prerequisite is the existence of a community, which is basically the collection of countries and governments that comprise the International Community. Finally, the community as a whole must agree that outside authorities should enforce these regulations.  This point of view considers the peculiarities of international law, which lacks a universal court to uphold its principles and a centralized legislative body.  Rather, it acknowledges that governments can create the idea of law without a conventional legislative framework by voluntarily accepting international norms.

Merits and Demerits On International Law 

Merits : 

• State’s Interest Protection : Without a question, international laws have safeguarded states’ interests, particularly those of those that lack the authority to defend their own.  For instance, the United Nations’ World Food Programme, which is governed by international law, is a sizable humanitarian organization that combats world hunger and provides food aid in times of need.
• Human Being welfare : It has been extremely important to human well-being.  For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of several international treaties that promote equality, justice, and fundamental human rights.
• Unity and Strength : Since no state may be isolated from another, this law has drawn nations and states together.  Each state is now dependent on the others.  Take the issue of global warming, for instance.  Every nation releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which exacerbates global warming and has an effect on all nations.  Therefore, no nation can stop global warming on its own; worldwide legislation and collaboration are required to do it.

Demerits :

• No Apparent authority : The law cannot be enforced since there is no authority.  There is just the International Court of Justice, yet it is unable to resolve some disputes.  Furthermore, once it makes a decision, no authority or power can make it enforceable.
• No Legislative Machinery : States interpret international laws in accordance with their own interests because they are founded on treaties and conventions.
• Lack of Effective Sanction : Laws are regularly broken by the states because there is no fear of punishment.
• Inability to Intervene : Article 2(7) of the UNO Charter says that the organization is not allowed to meddle in a state’s internal affairs.  It has been observed that international laws are weak and ineffectual under certain circumstances.  International law is a body of regulations that nations must abide by in order to maintain security and harmony between  The goal of international law is to maintain peace and security among nations by establishing a set of legally binding regulations.  Under international law, a person may also be the subject of a question in addition to a nation or state .Furthermore, it has developed from a variety of sources that are enshrined in Article 38 of the ICJ statute, which states that general principles, treaties, and conventions are the origins of international law.  International law serves to uphold world peace and order, resolve conflicts between various states and people, and protect fundamental rights.  Nonetheless, there are still a number of issues that are negatively impacting international relations.

Conclusion 

The question of whether international law is a real law is still a complicated and nuanced one.  Some jurists, like Lassa Oppenheim, offer a more inclusive definition that recognizes the distinctive nature of international law, while others, like John Austin, contend that it lacks the qualities of a true legal system because it lacks a single sovereign authority and a centralized enforcement mechanism.  The issue of whether international law is “true law” may ultimately depend more on interpretation and point of view than on a firm decision.  It is evident that international law has a function in regulating states’ conduct in the international arena, despite the fact that it does not readily fit into the traditional framework of domestic legal systems.The ongoing controversy emphasizes how important it is to keep talking about and investigating how international law is changing in the modern world.