In 1648 the Treaty of Westphalia asserted the equality of sovereign states, thus giving birth to international law. The ultimate goal for the creation of universal law emerged from the anarchic world we live in. Unlike domestic law, international law has no global government enforcing the rules. Since rules provide order and help mitigate conflict, an effort emerged to properly deal with conflict among states. International law is created through international agreements and treaties between states as well as normative customary practices and principles common to states interests. Although many states agree on having a universal law that does not mean that there will be no conflict, let alone no war between nations. The United Nations Charter
…show more content…
International law faces the question of whether in fact it is a law at all. The lack of government to enforce the law as there is in a domestic government leaves a foggy area with a number of possible outcomes, either war or peace between sovereign states. It is alleged that only powerful states have a say in implementing the law and that less fortunate states have to comply. Despite this, international law is most of the time followed. It is derived from customary practices that all is beneficial to the states interest to preserve life, resources, economy, and trade, which ultimately makes everyone better off. The number of different variables that affect state behavior can be traced back to key theories such as the rational and liberal persuasive explanations. While the rational perspective aligns closer to the explanation of compliance, there is no single theory that is able to fully explain why states are compelled to follow legal rules and norms. The most acceptable explanations can be produced by an ongoing process that considers all variables such as the increasing interaction between states through globalization and trade, asymmetry factors, self-interest, regime type, and the international framework. These all come together to construct an argument of how states behave with one
International law faces the question of whether in fact it is a law at all. The lack of government to enforce the law as there is in a domestic government leaves a foggy area with a number of possible outcomes, either war or peace between sovereign states. It is alleged that only powerful states have a say in implementing the law and that less fortunate states have to comply. Despite this, international law is most of the time followed. It is derived from customary practices that all is beneficial to the states interest to preserve life, resources, economy, and trade, which ultimately makes everyone better off. The number of different variables that affect state behavior can be traced back to key theories such as the rational and liberal persuasive explanations. While the rational perspective aligns closer to the explanation of compliance, there is no single theory that is able to fully explain why states are compelled to follow legal rules and norms. The most acceptable explanations can be produced by an ongoing process that considers all variables such as the increasing interaction between states through globalization and trade, asymmetry factors, self-interest, regime type, and the international framework. These all come together to construct an argument of how states behave with one