What Does The Persistent Objector Rule Tell Us About The Nature Of Sovereignty And Customary International Law?

Implementation of international human rights law can happen on either a local, a territorial or a global level. States that endorse human rights arrangements confer themselves to regarding those rights and guaranteeing

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

The traditional establishment of the ad hoc tribunals formed as a permanent “Court of Arbitration”, this organ so formed was under the League of Nations which was later replaced by The International Court of Justice after the World War II [1].

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members – above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

On the present case being addressed to the International Court of Justice in dealing with the matter of sovereignty over the Island of Manca, the issue of legality belonging to which side of the parties at dispute is put forward. The problem however, lies in, the period at which the dispute took place, for International law has not evolved at that time unlike in this day and age.

However, this argument uncovers the issue of whether international law could actually constrain the U.S. if, perhaps, ISIS was a legal sovereign. The idea that international law essentially cannot exist is supported by objections presented by H.L.A Hart.

It reasoned that there is a 'fundamental distinction between the existence of the Court's jurisdiction over a dispute, and the compatibility with international law of the particular acts which are the subject of the dispute'. State consent remains the determining factor when it comes to jurisdiction of an international court, even when it comes to rights and obligations erga omnes or jus cogens. In a dissenting opinion, the question was raised whether the fact that the prohibition on genocide is a jus cogens norm implies that a reservation to the court's jurisdiction would be incompatible with the Genocide convention. Accepting this assumption would have far reaching implications for the idea of state sovereignty as it would limit States

The standard of the popular sovereignty implies, that the authority of a state is to govern itself or another state. Further, under our constitution, those who wield the executive power of the Government are responsible to the legislatures and through them, to the people.

Freedom of speech is granted unambiguous protection in international law by a number of United Nations treaties. Such as International covenant in Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention on the Rights of the child and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant workers and members of their Families. As free speech has part of customary international law, and customary law is constantly growing as more norms achieve international consensus, while common law shrinks with the enactment of each new statute. The attractiveness of an argument based on customary international law is that a customary norm binds all governments, including those that have

The issue and lawsuit raised by State Y, which is representing not just itself, but all of the parties to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, is that State X although not a party to the Outer Space Treaty, is still subject to it as a result of article 1 and article 2 of the treaty being deemed Jus Cogens or

A similar analysis is dealing with the question whether the content of various human rights conventions and the costs associated with their ratification will influence state's decision to join the treaty in the first place (Cole, 2005, p. 472) .On the one hand, associated costs are the costs occurring with harmonizing policies and practices with the treaty provisions. On the other hand, there are the reputation costs occurring in the case the terms of the treaty are violated

Norms are expectations of behaviour and a vital part of the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 887). In the anarchic system of international politics, norms can provide stability and unity due to certain expectations, as well as implement change when norm shifts restructure the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 894). Therefore, the process that enables a norm to be accepted internationally is an important one to analyze and understand. In order for a norm to become international, the most important factors are shared moral assessment and hegemonic acceptance of the norm.

“Sovereignty is far more problematic than recognized in the classical model, that important elements of hierarchy exist in the global system, and that both our theories and practice of international politics would be improved by explicitly incorporating variations in hierarchy.”

Three theories on this matter: 1. The Naturalist – under this theory, there is a natural and universal principle of right and wrong, independent of any mutual intercource or compact, which is supposed to be discovered and recognized by every individual through the use of his reason and his conscience. 2. The Positivist – under this theory, the binding force of international law is derived from the agreement of sovereign states to be bound by it. It is not a law of subordination but of coordination. 3. The Eclectics or Groatians – this theory offers both the law of nature and the consent of states as the basis of international law. It contends that the system of international law is based on the “dictate of right

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.