NATURE AND SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

International law includes both the customary rules and usages to which states have given express or
tacit assent and the provisions of ratified treaties and conventions. International law is directly and
strongly influenced, although not made, by the writings of jurists and publicists, by instructions to
diplomatic agents, by important conventions even when they are not ratified, and by arbitral awards.
The decisions of the International Court of Justice and of certain national courts, such as prize courts,
are considered by some theorists to be a part of international law. In many modern states, international
law is by custom or statute regarded as part of national (or, as it is usually called, municipal) law. In
addition, municipal courts will, if possible, interpret municipal law so as to give effect to international
law.

Because there is no sovereign supernational body to enforce international law, some older theorists,
including Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, and John Austin have denied that it is true law.
Nevertheless, international law is recognized as law in practice, and the sanctions for failing to comply,
although often less direct, are similar to those of municipal law; they include the force of public opinion,
self-help, intervention by third-party states, the sanctions of international organizations such as the
United Nations, and, in the last resort, war.

National states are fundamentally the entities with which international law is concerned, although in
certain cases municipal law may impose international duties upon private persons, e.g, the obligation to
desist from piracy. New rights and duties have been imposed on individuals within the framework of
international law by the decisions in the war crimes trials as well as the treaty establishing the
International Criminal Court , by the genocide convention, and by the Declaration of Human Rights
(see Economic and Social Council).

INTERNATIONAL LAW IS THE VANISHING

POINT OF JURISPRUDENCE
International Law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence-illustrate & explain

Jurisprudence:

Jurisprudence is the science or philosophy of law. Jurisprudence is mainly divided into three
branches: analytical, sociological, and theoretical. The analytical branch formulates axioms, defines
terms, and prescribes the methods that enable the legal order to be implemented as a consistent
logical system. The sociological branch examines the actual effects of the law within society and the
influence of social cultures and rules on different branches and aspects of law. The theoretical
branch evaluates and criticizes law in terms of the morals or goals that were set to be achieved.

Jurisprudence provides a forum for scholarly writing on the philosophy of law. At the same time, it
demands the proper intellectual honesty, clarity and strictness. The editorial policy of jurisprudence
is very open-minded in relation to philosophical approach. A main purpose of the journal is to
encourage scholarship which explores and transcends the categories and assumptions on which
contemporary jurisprudential debates are conducted, and to stimulate reflection upon traditional
questions concerning the nature of law, politics and society. The journal’s unique reviews section will
provide in-depth discussion and analysis of major developments in the field.

Aims of Jurisprudence:

Jurisprudence tries to encourage research exploring the relation between questions in the
philosophy of law and debates in related branches of philosophy. Jurisprudence includes political
philosophy, moral philosophy, the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of mind to analyze the
legal theories.

Jurisprudence aims at supporting the study of the intellectual history of the philosophy of law, It tries
to enlighten people on contemporary jurisprudential questions and increase the knowledge of legal
philosophy.

Jurisprudence focuses on encouraging careful research on the relations between jurisprudential

questions and theoretical debates in anthropology, sociology, cultural and literary studies. It tries to
clarify the misunderstandings and articulate a combined outlook of legal philosophy.

The word jurisprudence is derived from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means “the study,
knowledge, or science of law.” In the United States jurisprudence commonly means the philosophy
of law. Legal philosophy has many aspects, but four of them are the most common.

The first and the most widespread form of jurisprudence seek to analyze, explain, classify, and
criticize entire factors of law. Law school textbooks and legal encyclopedias represent this type of
scholarship.

The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such
as literature, economics, religion, humanitarian studies and social sciences.

The third type of jurisprudence focuses on the analysis of the historical, moral, and cultural basis of a
particular legal concept and theory.

The fourth body of jurisprudence focuses on finding the answer to such abstract questions on the
definitions and implementations of law, decision making of the judges, right of the legal authorities
etc.

International law:

International law defines the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their
treatment of individuals within State boundaries. Traditionally, international law consisted of rules
and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, though recently, the
scope of international law has been redefined to include relations between states and individuals,
and relations between international organizations.
Public international law, concerns itself only with questions of rights between several nations or
nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In contrast, Private international law deals with
controversies between private persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having significant
relationship to more than one nation. In recent years the line between public and private international
law have became increasingly uncertain. Issues of private international law may also implicate
issues of public international law, and many matters of private international law have substantial
significance for the international community of nations.

DOMAINS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

International Law includes the basic, classic concepts of law in national legal systems — status,
property and obligation. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies.
International Law is rooted in acceptance by the nation states which constitute the system. The
following are major substantive fields of international law:

More than 500 multilateral treaties have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United
Nations. Many other treaties are deposited with governments or other entities.

The General Assembly is the main deliberative body of the United Nations. Many multilateral treaties
are adopted by it and subsequently opened for signature and ratification by member States of the
United Nation.

There are three main legal principles recognized in much of international law, which are not required,
but are based chiefly on courtesy and respect:

Principle of Comity – in the instance where two nations share common public policy ideas, one of
them submits to the laws and judicial decrees of the other.

Act of State Doctrine – respects that a nation is sovereign in its own territory and its official
domestic actions may not be questioned by the judicial bodies of another country. It dissuades
courts from deciding cases that would interfere with a country’s foreign policy.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity – deals with actions brought in the court of one nation against
another foreign nation and prevents the sovereign state from being tried in court without its consent.

Limitations of International law:

There is a continuing debate amongst jurists and legal theorists about whether the international law
is a law or not. The analytical school of jurists led by John Austin and his followers says that
international law is not a law due to the following limitations:

1. International Law is not the command of a Determinate Human Superior to an Inferior:

Every law is a command of a superior to inferior. The superior should be a sovereign authority.
There is no such superior authority to command international law.

2. International Law does not enjoy the sanction of any coercive authority:
Every law has a punishment attached to it. The violators of the law should be punished according
the law. State law is backed by its coercive authority. The international law on the other hand has no
such authority to sanction it and so does not involve any legal punishment. So the following the rules
of the international law depends on the will of the nations.

3. There are no competent courts to interpret International Law:

The state law is interpreted by and enforced by courts. But there is no such court in international
field. There are many analysis of international law and there is no clearance of what particular issue
is being pointed by the international law.

4. International Law comes in conflict with the sovereignty of State:

International law completely contradicts the sovereignty of the State. Every state is internally
sovereign with absolute and unlimited authority. A sovereign state does not really need to obey
international law as it does not comply with any superiority in international arena.

Austin and his followers point out that recognition of international law as law would involve a
limitation on the external sovereignty of the state and question the sovereignty of a state. It is a
contradiction to the theory of the state because sovereignty of the state is recognized to be a must
for any state to be considered as a state.

There is yet another modern school of thought known as the historical school of jurists who contend
that international law is law in the real sense of the word. International law is law in the same sense
in which municipal law is law.

Topic Analysis:

According to Holland International law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence. Holland used the
words “vanishing point” in relation to international law and jurisprudence, to clarify that international
law and jurisprudence are parallel to each other. Jurisprudence and international law are completely
different and separated from each other, but they may seem same at the vanishing point.

Now, we need to know what a vanishing point is. Vanishing point is the meeting point or the point of
intersection of two parallel lines. The parallel lines should be on the same plain. Law theorists say
that international law cannot be kept in the category of law mainly because it is not enforced by a
sovereign authority. No sanction exists for this kind of law. So the rules of international law can be
violated easily without any punishment or legal actions. So, on the basis of these controversies, as
an analytical jurist, Holland remarks that international law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence. He
has clarified his Premark with suitable reasons.

Holland strongly believes that international law can indeed be described as law only by courtesy. It
can not be described on legal terms as the rights can be easily violated and the concerns of
international law is not always taken into account and also can not be implemented worldwide. It is
also said that Holland’s view on international law may be was correct in the past but at present the
same is subjected to severe criticism as character of International law has changed a great deal in
recent times due to the obligation of nations to oblige many social, environmental and humanitarian
characteristics of international law.
So we can conclude that such rules as are voluntarily, though habitually, observed by every state in
its dealings with the rest can be called law only by courtesy. International Law generally differs from
ordinary law as it is not enforced by a State and differs from ordinary morality as it is a rule for States
and not for individuals. According to him the law of nations is but private law

‘writ large’. We can say that international Law as the vanishing point of jurisprudence, since it lacks
any arbiter of disputed questions nor it saves any public opinion. It goes beyond the disputant parties
and in such proportion that it often becomes assimilated to true law by the aggregation of States in a
large society, it ceases to be itself, and is transformed into the public law of a Federal government.

There are violations of principles of International Law often by stronger nations of the world. The
international legislative machinery is not so efficient as a State legislative machinery. In the strict
sense, International Law has no legislature and no executive. Its judiciary as represented by the
International Court of compelling jurisdiction; its decisions are not conclusive so as to finally settle
legal disputes between States. International Law is not the product of an international legislature, it
being the collection of usages which the civilized states have agreed to observe in their dealings with
one another.

According to Paton, International Law is very weak on the institutional side there is no legislature,
and, while a Court exists, it can act only with the consent of the parties and has no real power to
enforce its decisions. It is true that the international law of peace is seldom broken, but once grave
issues arise we see flagrant disregard of accepted rules. The public opinion of the world may be a
factor not lightly to be ignored, but it is harder to deal with a nation that is a law-breaker than to expel
a primitive man from his community hence while primitive and International Law both lack
institutional machinery, the sanctions of the former are really more effective since they are brought to
bear on the individual and not on the nation”

Jurisprudence assists with a definite theory of the implementation of international law. One can not
implement the international law against a person of any country even though his country has agreed
into any international law agreement. The person can only be trialed under the laws of his or her own
state. He or she is only subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the country, not by any international
law as the international law is not enforced by a sovereign authority.

International law can indeed be described as law only by courtesy. It can not be described on legal
terms as the rights can be easily violated and the concerns of international law is not always taken
into account and also can not be implemented worldwide. It is also said that Holland’s view on
international law may be was correct in the past but at present the same is subjected to severe
criticism as character of International law has changed a great deal in recent times due to the
obligation of nations to oblige many social, environmental and humanitarian characteristics of
international law.

Although, previously it was believed that international law is the vanishing point of jurisdiction, these
days this thinking has changed a lot. These days international law is more advanced. International
law is followed correctly in many countries all over the world. This law is enforced during the export
and import of goods, foreign exchange and global businesses. There is international court to ensure
these rules are not violated. So, these days, jurisprudence and international law is not that parallel