Globalization and the need for an orderly harmonious world has seen the development of international laws. Conventions such as the Geneva Convention as well as treaties have brought together various nations who have signed to adhere to certain set rules. However over time there has been a growing concern whether international laws are really law or whether they are simply nice moral standards for nations to reference to. In my essay I will argue that indeed international law is really not law as it lacks the credibility that most laws have.
Law requires a proper interpretation and enforcement standards. In many municipal or national laws, there are police forces that determine offence, court systems that interpret the law and penitentiaries and cells that enforce the law and confer punishments when the law is broken. However, international law lacks such clear structures of enforcement. This lack of a coherent and workable framework of instituting punishment makes it easy for certain signatories to break the law and move scot free. Interpretation of the international law is also difficult and in most cases biased especially in matters of wars where various nations side with the understanding that favor them, causing tension on how it is interpreted.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another challenge with international law is that the few available sanction structures affect the people who are innocent of the offence. When trade sanctions are placed on nations that break the law, the leaders are the ones responsible for making wrong decisions, however, it is the poor citizens of those nations that feel the pinch of destabilized economies as opposed to the gulity leaders. This means that the law is ineffective in punishing and correcting those that deserve to.
When critically analyzed, international law is more of an international morality standard as opposed to legal standards that dictate legal provisions.
