Understanding the Basics of International Law
External Links:
| PART ONE | PART TWO | PART THREE |
(a) Why are the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Congress of Vienna (1815), and the Treaty of Versailles (1919) major turning points in the history of international law?
The
individual components that
were introduced to the system of international law by the three
aforementioned events have provided the essential tools for implementating
the treatise and laws of today's International Law system. These tools
consists of the creation and distinction of sovereign states; the
establishment of channels through which alliances or treatise may be
derived between these sovereign states; and finally the creation of a
formal international body whose duty it is to govern over the enforcement
of any international treatise or laws that are formalized by the
international community.
Modern
Europe emerged from the convulsions of the 30 Years war in 1648 with the
signing of the "Peace of 
Westphalia."
The principles of international order that emerged in Europe after the
conclusion of this peace treaty have become the foundation of the modern
international system. Through the Peace of Westphalia we have seen the
creation of the modern sovereign state. The modern international system is
based upon the principles of state sovereignty and international law. The
key actor in this international system is the sovereign state. The role of
this entity within the international system is to provide a jurisdiction
under which the ratified international treatise may be implemented.
The Peace treaty established some principles of international law which
later would form the basis for the future development of this field.
National sovereignty became a recognized part of international law,
because in the treaty, the state, not supranational institutions, like the
ones the Emperor or the Pope led, were declared to be the highest
authority on national and international law.
This declaration allowed for the individual states to enact and
engage in international relations in regards to their own concerns as
opposed to the prior system in which there was a single governing head for
a vast stretch of nations.
Another characteristic of today's international law system that
finds it's origins in this treaty is the notion that states have an equal
worth, so that the smallest state is regarded as equal to the largest. The
effects of this characteristic can be viewed today in the workings of the
United Nations, which will be addressed in a later section.
Furthermore, it was stressed, for the first time in an official
state-to-state treaty, that cooperation among independent states, not
supranational force, should be the foundation for international law.
From
the Peace of Westphalia, the next step that would be taken in the creation
of a more structured international system would occur in 1815 at the
Congress of Vienna. Following the defeat of Napoleon at 
Waterloo,
the Congress of Vienna set forth to redefined the conquered nations of
Europe, which were under Napoleonic rule, into sovereign states. The
provisions of international law that had been introduced by the Peace of
Westphalia, though ignored during the Napoleonic period, were reinstated
by the Congress of Vienna. The Congress of Vienna reestablished and added
much in regard to the international system of law, particularly in respect
to international rivers and the classification and treatment of diplomatic
agents within the international system.
The creation of the diplomatic agent, within this treaty, paved the
way for the manner in which international matters are handled today by the
various nations that make up the international community.
The representative characteristic introduced by the Congress of
Vienna can be witnessed today in the day-to-day business of many
international organizations, in which representatives of the many nations
that comprise the organization provide the voice for their respective
countries in international matters.
Now that the players and the rules had been established, the only thing
missing for the completion of the international system was a platform or
board on which this system could come to life.
This platform was provided by Woodrow Wilson in his 14 Points
Address in 1918 in which he pushed for the creation of the League of
Nations (which would later be renamed the United Nations).
This League of Nations was meant to be formed by all nations and
would be a forum for all nati
ons
to settle their disputes so that a war of the magnitude of WWI would not
happen again. Due to the lack support from Senate the League of Nations
was not ratified by the United States Senate due to the country's
isolationist views at the time. Many believe that the lack of United
States support caused the League of Nations to fail and eventually led to
World War II. A new spin was put on the League of Nations after World War
II. Franklin Delano Roosevelt came up with a United Nations which came
into existence in 1945. The United Nations is so far one of the most
successful international organizations. It helps countries deal with
international problems, finds solutions, and gives all countries a voice
in the international community. The creation of the United Nations
provided the mechanism through which international law is enacted and
enforced today.
(b) Now, focusing much more narrowly on the period since 1970, explain why has treaty making become the dominant form of law-making in the international community? What roles in this process are played by the United Nations and related organizations?
The domination of treatise in international law since the 1970's can be attributed to the strong environmental movement that began at this time and which led to such international conferences as the Stockholm conference in 1972. The development of international environmental law is indebted to the two world conferences, held
in Stockholm in 1972 and in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The conferences opened up a platform for questioning and dealing with international environmental concerns. The Stockholm treaty primarily established the fact that man is responsible for environmental problems. This reality created a wave of concerns as to the well being of the earth as a whole as opposed to each individual nation. The conference urged for policies that would begin to protect environmental concerns. The need for sustainable development became apparent with the conference and led the UN and many other international organizations to urge nations to develop in a clean manner. The Rio Conference was more of a continuation of the Stockholm Conference, but affirmed global cooperation in the fight against environmental problems. Since nations are naturally not equal it was imperative that developed nations lend a helping hand to their developing neighbors so that all parties could reach their environmentally safe goals. From these two conferences has come the basic features of many environmental policies. Even Climate Change considers sustainable development and global cooperation and compliance in its negotiations.
(c) Identify the major reasons why states (meaning sovereign states) comply with the many international environmental agreements that have been negotiated since 1970. Why is pressure exerted by non-state actors important in understanding compliance?
The system of international law that exists today is one in which provides the mechanisms through which international laws are derived, but that lacks any tangible mechanism through which these laws are to be enforced. There are many arguments as to why sovereign states comply with these international
agreements even though there seems to be no actual system for their enforcement. The most prominent arguments for the compliance of sovereign states within the international system of law state that: (1) states comply out of a sense of moral force, (2) another would be that the compliance of states stems from the phenomenon known as "free-riding".
The
first point of view argues that states comply out of an attempt to
maintain a sense of legitimacy among its international peers.
This belief holds that international laws are in fact not law at
all (in the same sense as, for example, United States criminal law)
because they are unenforceable. Due to this lack of enforceability,
sovereign states are inclined to comply out of moral force and an
establishment of maxims that create a fear of violating international
norms, which in turn leads states into compliance.
The fear of punishment that is experienced by these states is
minute compared to the fear of losing their legitimacy within the
international community and or their domestic support.
Out of the three aforementioned theories for the compliance of
states, this seems to be the most legitimate in that it finds its basis in
the reality of politics.
The second theory states that sovereign states that do not need to
make major behavioral changes are also more likely to comply.
For example, if a sovereign state already meets pollution
standards, they face no behavioral change, so if there were an
international law that addressed this issue this state would be more
willing to comply since it will experience limited, if any, changes.
States also are known to comply if the terms of the treaty are vague.
The lack of formal court interpretation of the treaty, the state is
allowed to interpret the treaty as they choose
as long as their behavior is in compliance with the general
guidelines of the treaty. Other
times states comply because the changes addressed in the treaty
coincidentally go along with changes that the state would have made in the
future, a concept called free-riding. Also, the state may have wanted to
make the change, but could not because of popular opinion.
One other theory for the compliance of states addresses the
pressures felt by the state
due to the 
non-state
actors.Non-state actors such as corporations, environmental groups and
scientists also influence international politics by defining state
interests. These entities
provide a lot of the research that eventually leads to the entrance of the
state into specific international treatise.
These groups monitor the activities of the states, increase public
concern, call attention to non-compliance and pressure the governments to
take action against non-compliance. These groups also have their own
interests and put pressure on states to comply or to not comply in
accordance with their own agendas.
