An argument for the validity of International Law as a governing body between nations.

Essay by kimnads790University, Bachelor'sA+, April 2003

download word file, 5 pages 3.0

Downloaded 231 times

Webster's Dictionary defines Law as:

1.A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.


a.The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.

b.The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.

3.A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.

4.A piece of enacted legislation.

In this paper I will attempt to shed some light on this matter as to whether or not International Law is congruent with the definition by examining portions of our International Law study that either match or contrast this definition.

Since it inception there have been a number of schools and theories of International Law including Positivism, Monism, Eclecticism, as well as a bevy of others.

However, at the base of International Law there are a number of agreements between Sovereigns in the form of conventions, acts, agreements and treaties which hold jurisdiction over disputes between countries as well as creates means of resolutions. In our course of study we have come across a number of such entities the first of which is the United Nations (herein UN), which currently has 191 member nations and concisely serves a body that facilitates international relations. According to the Charter , the UN has four purposes:

to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations. The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means...