NAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL LAW
WHY do nations observe international law? This writer posits that it is due to cost-benefit analysis, fuelling scepticism regarding the nature of international law and its impact on national policy.
Interplay between law and politics
From the United Nations Charter to the Geneva Conventions, proponents of the legalist perspective argue that international law regulates the behaviour of countries by establishing the norms and principles that govern everything from diplomatic relations to the use of force, and serving as the bedrock of international order.
International tribunals offer avenues for adjudicating disputes and holding states and individuals accountable for violations of international law.
However, critics of the legalist perspective argue that international law is political in nature, reflecting the power dynamics and interests of dominant states.
State sovereignty provides states with a shield behind which they can act with impunity.
The selective application of international law by powerful states further underscores its political underpinnings, with compromise and consensus building driven by political considerations rather than legal principles.
The United Nations Security Council, with five permanent members wielding veto power, exemplifies the political realities that influence the enforcement of international law.
Economic consequences and business considerations
International law provides a framework for regulating economic interactions among states.
From World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements to bilateral investment treaties, international law establishes the rights and obligations of states in the economic sphere, providing certainty and predictability for businesses and investors.
The enforcement of international economic law has economic consequences, influencing the behaviour of states and allocation of resources in the global economy.
Trade disputes adjudicated by the WTO can result in the imposition of tariffs or trade sanctions, disrupting supply chains and impacting the competitiveness of industries.
The politics of international economic law thus determine not only the rules of the game, but also the winners and losers in the global economic order.
At the national level, the interaction between international law, politics, and economics is equally pronounced.
Compliance with international trade rules, for example, may require countries to liberalise their economies, reduce trade barriers, and harmonise regulatory standards, impacting domestic industries and employment patterns.
Conversely, efforts to protect domestic industries or promote industrial policy goals may run afoul of international trade rules, leading to trade disputes and legal challenges.
The asymmetrical power dynamics in global governance institutions often disadvantage developing countries, and trade agreements negotiated between unequal partners may perpetuate asymmetrical trade relations, which exacerbate dependency and hinder the economic autonomy of weaker states.
Absence of a judicial leviathan
While international tribunals provide a forum for adjudicating disputes, their jurisdiction is limited and their authority subject to the consent of states.
In other words, in the absence of a judicial leviathan to mete out punishment, nations often find themselves entangled in the web of legal consequences.
The repercussions of legal transgressions can cast a pall over international relations, tarnishing reputations and straining diplomatic ties.
In the national interest
I argue that nations decide to obey or flout legal obligations based on considerations of national policy not directly linked to legal mandates.
Nations typically comply with international law not out of respect for the law, but rather concern for the consequences of noncompliance.
Individuals and nations alike may face conflicting interests, balancing immediate gains against long-term benefits associated with law observance.
Law, as such, serves as a deterrent, shaping behaviour and reinforcing societal norms.
Despite the absence of a centralised authority, nations observe law not only out of fear of punishment but also due to extralegal consequences such as social stigma and damage to international relations.
The influence of law extends beyond coercion, playing an educative role that shapes attitudes and behaviours.
Anarchy in the international system?
While violations of international law occur, they do not invalidate the legal framework or diminish the effectiveness of the system despite its shortcomings.
The emergence of international human rights law, environmental law and humanitarian law attests to the evolving nature of global governance and the growing recognition of the importance of legal norms in addressing pressing global challenges.
In the annals of history, the tapestry of international law weaves a tale of triumphs and tribulations.
While violations may mar its surface, the fabric remains resilient, guided by the hands of statesmen and diplomats.
In conclusion, the politics of international law shape economic dynamics at both the global and national levels.
The intersection of law, politics, and economics in international relations determines the rules of the game, the distribution of power, and the winners and losers in the global economy.
Understanding the factors at play is essential for navigating the complexities of the contemporary economic landscape and advancing the goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.