Have been trying to do some independent research over the past few
months to make sure whatever I learned in four years of university isn't
quickly forgotten and here's the one thing I realized, hardly anyone
cares about international law.
One of the sources of international law is what is known as "customary practice". In non legal terms this mean that what states normally do can be considered a source of law even though its not written down anywhere. Increasingly, the customary practice of states has been to violate the very laws that have been so painstakingly agreed upon by the international community.
Whether it is the Geneva Protocols or the UN charter, it seems they're only there to be applied when its in favor of the powerful international law flouting countries. Otherwise these laws are just there as documents that international law students should study and memorize and quote in hypothetical examples.
The customary practice of states suggests that its no big deal to carry out extrajudicial killings during war, to subject of prisoners of war to inhumane treatment, or to wage illegal wars themselves, or to give repeated threats of use of force or to negate the doctrine of sovereign equality of all states. All of these things though illegal under international law, are rampant in the practice of states.
So it begs the questions, is international law no longer relevant? Has it been rendered obsolete by the utter disregard of it by most states of the international community? And by extension does the customary practice of states (that you can disregard international law whenever it is convenient) the new default?
One of the sources of international law is what is known as "customary practice". In non legal terms this mean that what states normally do can be considered a source of law even though its not written down anywhere. Increasingly, the customary practice of states has been to violate the very laws that have been so painstakingly agreed upon by the international community.
Whether it is the Geneva Protocols or the UN charter, it seems they're only there to be applied when its in favor of the powerful international law flouting countries. Otherwise these laws are just there as documents that international law students should study and memorize and quote in hypothetical examples.
The customary practice of states suggests that its no big deal to carry out extrajudicial killings during war, to subject of prisoners of war to inhumane treatment, or to wage illegal wars themselves, or to give repeated threats of use of force or to negate the doctrine of sovereign equality of all states. All of these things though illegal under international law, are rampant in the practice of states.
So it begs the questions, is international law no longer relevant? Has it been rendered obsolete by the utter disregard of it by most states of the international community? And by extension does the customary practice of states (that you can disregard international law whenever it is convenient) the new default?
No comments:
Post a Comment