International law in international relations

The international arena composes of many actors. State and non-state actors are the two important actors that operate within the boundaries of the Western-oriented international system.

According to Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2008) there are two kinds of international law. One is referred to as private international law and the other one is public international law.

Also referred to as conflict law by Shaw (2009), private is concerned with the resolution of international disputes between individuals and companies. According to Shaw (ibid), “if two Englishmen make a contract in France to sell goods situated in Paris, an English court would apply French laws as regards the validity of that contract”.

Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2008) define public international law as laws that govern relations between states like claims for territory, use of the sea, arms control and human rights. Shaw (2009) also adds that public international law regulates the operations of the many international institutions.

The Oxford Dictionary of Politics (2003, p. 268) defines international law as; “a set of rules generally recognize by civilized nations as governing their conduct towards each other and towards each other’s citizens”.

This generalize definition of international law is interesting because the authors mentioned the word ‘civilized’. Maybe the authors mean that nations-states were once barbaric but have evolved over time to a stage where they are now civilized. Being civilized means having a greater degree of understanding which makes it easy to co-exist with each other in a peaceful manner.

Goldstein (2005) gives one a deeper understanding with his statement that international law is different from national (municipal) law. He said national laws are made by the legislative branch of any government or dictators in authoritarian regimes. International law is derived from traditions and agreements (bilateral or multilateral) signed by states.

In regards to enforcement, Goldstein (2005) said national law is enforced by the police force and other mandated government bodies. For international law, enforcement is difficult because there is no global police force to enforce the law. Moreover, the international arena is anarchic in nature meaning there is no central authority regulating the behaviour of states. States depend on reciprocity, collective actions, and international norms.

PNG has the potential to lay territorial claims on West Papua based on culture and geography. To avoid such claims and potential threat of war the Indonesian and Papua New Guinea government have both signed a bilateral treaty in 1986 promising to respect each other’s sovereignty and not interfere in the others internal affairs.

The Treaty of Mutual Respect, Friendship and Co-operation embed the notion of reciprocity. Indonesia will only attack if PNG decide to attack. Also Indonesia will respect the treaty if PNG respects the treaty. There is no higher authority to make sure that PNG and Indonesia respect the bilateral treaty guiding their relations but with the notion of reciprocity both will be scared of taking a radical approach ensuring peace and order.

The fight against terrorism involves collective action. The coalition fighting against terrorism is indirectly telling other radical groups around the world that most countries around the world do not condone such practices. The intention of collective action in this case is to deter radical groups from harming innocent civilians.

In the case of international norms, democracy is one fascinating norm. According to Goldstein (2005, p. 551) democracies do not go to war with other democracies but fight against authoritarian regimes. The democratic peace theory will in one way or another influence the behaviour of states operating in the international system.

Shaw (2009, p. 13) said that the foundations of international law (or law of nations) is built on Western culture and political organizations. Especially the notion of sovereignty and the right to political self-determination (independence) both of which were pivotal principles outlined in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

However, Shaw (ibid.) said the law of nations dates back to 2100 BC when a solemn treaty was signed between the rulers of Lagash and Umma, the city-states situated in the area known to historians as Mesopotamia. The law was written on a stone outlining a defined boundary to be respected by both parties to avoid alienating a number of Sumerian gods (Nussbaum, as cited in Shaw, 2009).

Another example was an important binding international treaty concluded 1000 years later between Rameses II of Egypt and the king of the Hittites for the establishment of eternal peace and brotherhood (ibid.). Nussbaum (as cited in Shaw, 2009) said the treaty talked about territorial integrity, termination of a state of aggression and formation of defensive alliance.

Shaw’s (2009) book discusses the origins of international law in detail, from the earliest evidence of the use of international law to the Roman period with the usage of jus gentium governing the relations between Roman citizens and foreigners, to the Renaissance.

References

Goldstein, J. (2005). International relations (6^th ed.). Beijing: Peking University Press.

Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. C. (2008). International relations the key concepts (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Shaw, M. N. (2009). International Law (6th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.