International Law Theory

Words: 997
Pages: 4

International Law is defined by the United Nations to be the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. There has been significant discussion by all theories of jurisprudence as regards the character of international law, and whether or not it is consider to be true law. Most positivist theory were confined by the principle of sovereignty for their interpretation of international law however Hart provides two key points of analysis into international law. Firstly Hart’s critique of Austin’s command theory, to which law has to be understood as a set of rules issued by a sovereign. Hart rejects both Austin's theory of rules as well as his theory of sovereignty.
Hart rejects Austin’s theory in two ways firstly, as regards his theory of rules, Hart argues that not all legal rules can be understood as coercive orders, as not all laws establish duties. He sights the example of power-conferring rules which rather than establish duties confer public power on judicial, legislative and administrative officers. And emphasizes that customary law cannot be defined as an order by the sovereign thus refuting Austin’s theory of rules. Secondly, Hart rejects Austin’s theory of sovereignty, by highlighting that when a “sovereign” changes Austin’s theory cannot explain the new sovereign's lawmaking power; If the law
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter introduced into national introduces into international law anything which can be equated with the sanction of municipal law. Which would suggest that International Law would have some applicable sanctions for violation, however as this right can be vetoed it essentially only exists on paper. However Hart suggests that to argue international law is not binding because it lacks organized sanction is to accept the analysis of obligation contained in the theory that law is essentially a matter of orders backed by threats. Thus we need to question if International Law is not enforceable by sanctions why is it still complied