Why States obey International Law?

It is a questionable attempt to try to define how many states follow and follow not the international law yet this law is at the centre of gravity that binds may laws.  Hart on his book How Nations Behave state clearly that:

   ‘Obedience to international rules as conforming or complying but never obeying’.

He also adds that, almost all nations observe principals and obligations almost all the time .Hence this  whole conception wrestles scholars on the view of theoretical versus practical approach . Hence it’s an impassive idea that most state truly follow these laws among exceptional cases where the state obedience is betrayed.

Primarily, the first reason is on state consent feature. The Latin clause Pacta sunt servanda and Opinio juris sive necessiatis poses that ‘treaties shall be complied with’ and ‘practice must be followed’ brings about the full idea of obedience to treaty based relations by which states enter into binding contracts which leads them to state responsibility to respect, follow and have coherenence to the general principles and rules thus giving out their potion of sovereignty. Some notable examples include the International criminal Courts (2002), World Trade Organizations (1995) for economic benefits and in the East African Region the Anti Terrorism Agreement on human rights. All this must meet the compliance by states.

Secondly, the obedience by way of a joint merger between realism, liberalism and constructivism  in the complete obedience to International relations. This ideology gives birth to key dynamics to the question on obedience of international law.

The focal contention of the realist is that national interests play a vital role hence states are obliged to obey. Liberals append  on their idea of realist by introducing the concept of mutual corporations other than self dependency, hereby states become the first class drivers in the road to guarantee interactions hence they are subjected to obey.

Constuctisim  brings about the idea of common history, ideas ,values cultures among ideological bonds. It is through such International relations theory is generates the basis why state’s obey International laws today.

other reason is consistency, by this I mean the steadfast adherence without deviation to the same principals, thus majority of this rules are followed to the latter. There are incidents where such laws are observed or rather obeyed and the later is opposite of dissimilar instances. Time and time again, there are reports of law breaking and the failures of international law such as invasion of the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon in pursuit of the hands of the Iraqis. Hence for this exceptional case, the functions and operations of International Law run smoothly. The watchdog is even in circumstances where the state overlooks at its treaty where it’s a party too are just but a few cases because the law is followed. State responsibilities, the law of Diplomatic Immunity and the law of treaties.

Another focal point why most state obey such laws have rapidly evolved over a period of 400 years .The extent to which international responsibilities are followed is no doubt to the question of success development. Over the periodical years the treaty of Westphalia (1648) marked the progress of 30 years of war and the United Nation Charter (1945) which blossomed the International integration framework which acts of sovereignty and non-intervention by Wesllsely. To draw my conclusion on this point, is that states are obliged to obey International law  to maintain a peace and order to progress  and to prevent of an outcry of another war.

Another reason is the principle of fairness, the basic principal of reciprocate that is in simple terms doing good to others so that it may be reversed back, hence states honour their obligations because they expect other state to honour theirs. Herein mutual reliance is relevant. Thomas M Franck in his book Fairness in International Institution, positions that ‘the main reason of state of reliance is the benefits of compelling exceeds the cost’ hence states will obey deep reason why cause obedience is is a result of discourse, reasoning and negotiations.

Finally, states  equals sovereign equals. However much, states are not compatible to same in terms of capacity, wealth, power and fame. This can cause frictions of which states will act differently against a common treaty For example, In Ottawa, Canada a total of 161 states have ratified a treaty against land mining, however Russia, U S and China have polluted this agreement by releasing omissions. Yet they are not partly to the treaty yet it affects them compared to other states. The question of Justice and Fairness has risen as just but exceptional cases.

In summary as stated earlier by Hart that state may conform but not obey is just a theoretical versus practical approach, however still the obedience to International Law carries the weight of the mass. One main point to add is that when states obey there is a solid reason to believe that they have solidarity, communitalisim and above most they feel as if they belong to members of a club.

International law is also known as the law of the nations. As stated by Jeremy Bentham,  it is a collection of rules governing relations among the state .International relations.  International Relations is concerned with relations across boundaries of nation-states. It addresses international political economy, global governance, intercultural relations, national and ethnic identities, foreign policy analysis, development studies, environment, international security, diplomacy, terrorism, media, social movements and more. There are more than three theories that explain international relations this are Liberalism, realism, constitutionalism, Marxism, critical theory among many more.

We live in a international system characterised by liberal world. This idea was  built after the second world war (1939-1945) Liberals exist in the whole idea of anarchy meaning it based on existence of democracy and under this international law it focal points are the economic networks and how institution behaviours and economic connectors connect and to construct institutions that protect individual freedom by limiting and checking on political powers.

International law and agreements based on Daniel Dewdney on liberals ;that such agreements are backed up by international organizations who take a major role in order to create a working system, example the UN gives a voice to the international community both friends and allies and provides a channel of diplomacy.

Secondly International corporations formed by liberal states have which exposes the ‘economic regional communities’ free trade area which makes space for the rise of the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, International economic system (NAFTA). Such a situation ensures mutual reliance and coexistence .This builds up economic benefits and reduces state conflict and overshadows war to be at the back of our heads thus peaceful relations and Democratic peace and economic status.

A drawback in this theory is that it does not explain to the extent why it’s difficult to reach agreement on certain important issues such as free trade, environment, and usage of arms. A good example is the US government pulling out from the Paris agreement. The other main difference between this theory and realism theory in international Law is that recognition of states as rational actors and the latter is recognition as just rationales. This brings the whole idea of choice.

The liberals respect international norms which play a big percentage in nation relations among other key aspect such as rule of law, human rights and democracy subject to inconsistency will lead to immediate or direct trouble. Examples would be EU sale of arms to China which led to undue protests in 1989 and the UN move on Iraq. However it shares with constructivism on the question of norms. 

Finally, democratic peace and stability.  Kant states that liberals, that’s such states are less more likely to go into war with each other, he calls this kind of peace as Pacific Peace, Perpetual Peace and Institutional Peace.