Q Certain countries indeed in practice expressly treat international law as possessing the same force as possessing the same force as the ordinary law binding their citizen. Please discuss this preposition in the perspective of present day status of international law.
Q The duties and rights of states are only the duties and rights of the men who compose them, kelson, discuss.
International law, as we know it today, is that indispensable body of rules regulating for the most part the relations between state, it is composed of rules and principles of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other. In other other words it is primarily a system regulating the rights and duties of states inter se. It is infact an expression of the necessity of their mutual relationship. In the absence of some system of international law, the international society of states could not enjoy the benefits of trade and commerce, of exchange of ideas, and of normal routine communication.
The present century has witnessed a great impetus to the development of international law than at any previous stage of its history. This was a natural result of the growing interdependence of states, and of the vastly increased intercourse between them due to all kinds of inventions that overcame the difficulties of time, space and intellectual communication. And that the line between municipal and international law also started to dust away as their relation.
Certain countries indeed in practice expressly treat international law as possessing the same force as the ordinary law binding their citizens. the constitution of the united states of America stipulates that treaties are the supreme law of the land (article VI para 2). The subject of its acceptance is the manner in which the united states through municipal action avail itself of the rights and ensures the fulfillment of the obligation which are conferred or imposed upon it by international law. Judges of the United States supreme court-the highest court of the land have repeatedly recognized the constitutional validity of international law.
Examples set-out in America:
In one case Marshall CJ declared that an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains.
In another case, Gray J. made the following remarks: International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of rights depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.
In the American courts, the doctrine that the law of nations in the law of the united states, and must be applied in appropriate cases. It has been recognised from the earliest times.
A principle recognized both in international case law (e.g., the Alabamaclaims case between the United States and the United Kingdom following the American Civil War) and in treaties (e.g., Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) is that no municipal rule may be relied upon as a justification for violating international law.
All-states obligation:
Morever the legally binding force of international law has been ascerted again and again by the nations of the world in international conference. To take one illustration, the charter creating the united national organization, drawn up at San Francisco in 1945, is both explicitly and implicitly based on the true legality of international law. This is also clearly expressed in terms of the statute of the international court of justice, annexed to the charter, where the courts function is stated as being to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it under article 38 of ICJ. One of the latest such multipartite manifestations supportive of the legality of international law was the Helsinki Declaration of 1st august 1975, where by over 30 European states, the Holy sea, the United states of America, and Canada subscribed to the following pledges: The participating states will fulfill in good faith their obligations under international law including those obligations arising from the generally recognized principles and rules of international law…. in exercising their sovereign rights, including the right to determine their laws and regulations, they will confirm with their legal
Obligations under international law
Sometimes non observance of a rule of international law may give rise to a claim by one state against another for some kind of satisfaction, whether it be diplomatic in character or whether it takes the concrete form of indemnity or reparation. International law is the law between states, and if one state has a grievance against another state, it seeks redress by diplomatic methods, and not in municipal courts
