What Are the Different Sources of International Law

In the early stages of the development of international law, rules were often derived from domestic law. In the 19th century, jurists rejected the idea that international law could come from any source that did not imply the will or consent of the state, but were prepared to allow the application of general principles of law, provided that they were somehow accepted by states as part of the legal order. For example, Article 38(1)(c) refers to general principles that are « recognized » by States. One area that shows the adoption of municipal approaches is the law applied to the relationship between international civil servants and their employers` organizations,[24] although the principles are now considered established international law. According to Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the « teachings of the most qualified publicists of various nations » are also part of the « tools for determining the norms of law. » The scientific works of eminent jurists are not sources of international law, but essential for the development of the rules contained in treaties, customs and general principles of law. This is an accepted practice in the interpretation of international law and applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Paquete Habana (175 US (1900) 677 at 700-1). However, the principles of forfeiture and fairness in the international context do not retain all the connotations they have at common law. The reference to principles as « general » means that if rules were to be adopted from domestic law, they would have to be of a sufficient degree of universality to encompass similar rules that exist in many municipal systems. The principles of local law should be seen as sources of inspiration rather than as sources of rules of direct application. [29] Generally, an arbitration clause in the contract specifies the arbitrator or the manner in which the arbitrator is selected. To this end, many organizations conduct international arbitration, including the American Arbitration Association, the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

Arbitrators do not need to be judges or lawyers; These are usually businessmen, lawyers or judges who have experience in global business transactions. The arbitration clause is therefore essentially a jurisdiction clause and generally includes a choice of law that the arbitrator or arbitral tribunal should follow. Even after signing a treaty or convention, a nation is always free to unilaterally reject all regional or international bodies or to refuse to obey the dictates of the United Nations or, more generally and ambiguously, of the « community of nations ». The U.S. could reject NAFTA, withdraw from the UN, and signal to the WTO that it would no longer abide by the post-war free trade rules enshrined in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The United States, as sovereigns, would have the right to do so, as it owes no allegiance to any global or international sovereign. But why doesn`t he? Why is the US so involved in the « entangled alliances » that George warned Washington against? Simply put, nations will give up some of their sovereignty if they think it is in their own interest to do so. For example, when Latvia joins the European Union (EU), it renounces its right to its own currency, but thinks it will gain more. Seminar on International and Comparative Protection of Intellectual Property: Spring 1990. Unlike treaty law, customary international law is limited in that it is not codified in a clear and accessible form and the rules are generally less precise than those set out in a treaty. Some treaties are the result of the codification of existing customary law, such as the laws governing the global commons and ius ad bellum.

Although the objective is to establish a code of general application, its effectiveness depends on the number of States ratifying or acceding to the Convention. Relatively few of these instruments have a sufficient number of parts to be considered as separate international law. The most obvious example is the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims of 1949. There are many international tribunals, including the European Court of Justice, the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. As a general rule, however, disputes between companies or individuals crossing national borders must be resolved through national judicial systems or arbitration. In other words, there is no international civil court and international law is very complex because national judicial systems often have to choose between different sources of law and use different legal traditions to settle international disputes. For example, a court in one country may have difficulty accepting the judgment of the judicial system of a foreign country, as we see in Koster v. Automark (see section 52.5.2 « Due Process in the Enforcement of Judgments »). There is no central international body that creates international law; It is created by several sources.