Submitted By:
Malak Eid Hammad I.D. : 22130381
International law is a group of rules for how states and other actors should behave with
each other in the world. These rules try to keep world order, reduce violence and also
protect people from war, abuse and injustice. Without such common rules, every state
would only follow its own power and interest, and this would make conflict much more
likely.
Definition and sources
Public international law is the law that controls relations between states, international
organizations and, in some cases, individuals. It covers many topics such as peace and
security, treaties, human rights, the law of the sea, the environment, diplomatic and
consular relations and international trade. Because international society is growing
and changing, the scope of this law keeps expanding to new areas like air and outer
space activities and global communications.
There are several main sources of public international law. Treaties are written
agreements between states that are governed by international law, for example the
United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions or the Convention on the Law of the
Sea. Customary international law comes from usual and repeated practice of states,
followed from a feeling that this practice is legally required, such as rules on diplomatic
immunity or freedom of the high seas.
Another source is the general principles of law recognized by nations, like good faith,
equality before the law and the idea that rights should not be abused. Judicial
decisions of international courts and tribunals, and the writings of well-known legal
scholars, are not primary sources but are used as subsidiary means to identify and
explain the rules. In modern practice, some binding decisions of international
organizations, especially UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII, are also
treated as important contemporary sources of law because member states must
follow them.
How international law helps peace and cooperation
One main aim of public international law is to create order so that states know what
they can and cannot do in their relations with each other. For example, rules on
borders, diplomatic relations and treaty-making reduce misunderstanding and make
it easier to solve disagreements through negotiation, arbitration or court decisions
instead of force. If states trust that others will respect these rules, they feel safer and
are less likely to start conflicts.
International law also tries to bring justice by giving rights and protections to peoples
and individuals, not only to governments. Human rights treaties and international
humanitarian law set limits on how states may treat people in peace and in war, which
helps to protect civilians, prisoners of war and minorities from the worst abuses. In this
way, the law supports not only negative peace (absence of war) but also a more
positive and fair international order.
Because of these legal rules, states can cooperate more easily on many common
problems. They sign economic and environmental agreements that organize trade,
development aid, climate action and protection of the seas, so they can work together
instead of always competing. Organizations like the United Nations give a permanent
place where states meet, discuss, vote and sometimes use peaceful tools such as
sanctions, observers or peacekeeping missions. All this reduces the chance of
misunderstandings and helps build habits of cooperation.
Example: the Iraq war in 2003
The 2003 war in Iraq is a famous example where international law largely failed to stop
conflict, even though rules were in place. After the 1991 Gulf War, the Security Council
adopted many resolutions ordering Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction
and to accept UN inspections. In 2002, a new resolution again demanded that Iraq
cooperate with inspectors, and inspections returned to the country. At the same time,
the United States and some allies believed Iraq was still hiding dangerous weapons
and posed a serious threat.
Under the UN Charter, states must not use force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of another state, except in self-defence against an armed
attack or when the Security Council clearly authorizes force to keep or restore peace. In
early 2003, the United States, the United Kingdom and a “coalition of the willing”
invaded Iraq without a fresh Security Council resolution that openly allowed the use of
force. Many UN members argued that earlier resolutions did not give automatic
permission for war and that diplomatic inspections were still working, so there was no
urgent need to attack.
Because of this, a large number of governments, experts and civil society groups said
the invasion broke international law, especially the rules on the use of force in the UN
Charter. Later, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated that, from the point of view of
the Charter, the war was not in conformity with international law. The conflict caused
many deaths, great destruction and long-term instability in Iraq and the region,
showing very clearly what can happen when the legal limits on war are ignored.
The Iraq case teaches two important lessons about the role of international law in
world order. First, even strong legal rules and institutions cannot always prevent a
powerful group of states from using force when they decide to act without broad
international support. Second, the big debate after the war—in the UN, in national
parliaments and in academic writing—made more people aware of the need to
respect international law and to strengthen control over decisions about war and
peace. So the Iraq war is a clear example where international law failed to stop a
conflict, but the controversy also pushed discussion and maybe some slow
improvement of the system for the future.