International Law Vs Realism

1011 Words 5 Pages
International law is a broad body that operates within an anarchic system. It contains two sections of law as well as a multitude of organizations that work within the laws. These laws also are enforced, or attempted to be enforced, by international courts in which states hold each other accountable for their actions.
International law contains two types, public and private. Public international law is legal norms such as treaties that apply to interactions between states or states and other actors. Public international law also covers a wide variety of topics, ranging from human rights, criminal activities, and territorial claims. Private international law deals with multi-national corporations such as Google versus Baidu, that are not in
…show more content…
Realists would say that states comply with international law because not doing so could result in a loss of power; the strong states set up the rules to their advantage, so weaker states would need to comply. In the anarchic system, there is no higher authority to enforce laws, so the powerful make the rules and oftentimes will appear to be following the rules, but cheat in secret. Liberalists on the other hand would say that states comply with international law because cooperation will result in absolute gains for everyone. Some states will still be more powerful than others, but every state will gain at least something. So while there is no higher authority, states can still make and follow rules to cooperate and abide by. Constructivists would say that in the anarchic system, norms exist, so international law is simply a signature on something states already believe in. For example, for a human rights treaty to pass, states would have already believed in protecting human rights …show more content…
Since the airline was shot down by a small group of pro-Russian individuals in the Ukraine, the case should be treated as an action that violates the Geneva Conventions that was performed by non-state actors. The only drawback to using the ICC is that the individuals have to be given up to court by the state which they are in. So if the individuals escaped to Russia, they would most likely not be given up to court to be tried. However, I still believe that the ICC could be a more direct approach to trying the actual perpetrators rather than involving states since there were many involved in this situation (the Netherlands, the Ukraine, Malaysia, and potentially Russia). Since the individuals were protesting against the Ukrainian government, it could be possible that the government would give them up to the ICC before they escaped to

Related Documents