Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

INTERNATIONAL LAW: A VANISHING POINT OF

JURISPRUDENCE

Aishwarya Singh, KIIT School of Law

ABSTRACT

We can speak of law wherever and whenever we speak of obligations.

Though it certainly has other meanings, ‘law’ can be used to refer to any
criteria of right judgement in matters of practice (conduct, action), any
standard for of Jurisprudence, a term used to describe a certain sort of legal
research, an examination of an abstract, broad, and theoretical nature that
aims to expose the fundamental ideas underlying law and legal systems. It is
a subject that is unique from the other subjects on the legal curriculum in
terms of nature. It simply refers to the clarification of the fundamental ideas
that form the basis of legal regulations. The word ‘jurisprudence’ has been
derived from a Latin word jurisprudential which means ‘knowledge of law’.
Thus, it signifies knowledge of law and its application. The three primary
subfields of jurisprudence are analytical, social, and theoretical. The laws
and concepts guiding the interactions between nations and other international
players are the subject of international law, an important and complicated
area of jurisprudence. It is a corpus of law that regulates contacts between
sovereign nations, international organizations, and, to a certain extent,
between private citizens and non-state enterprises. This article focuses on the
aspect that whether international law is actually a vanishing point of
jurisprudence or not.

Keywords: Jurisprudence, International, Law, Fundamental, Nations,

organizations.

Page: 1
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

INTERNATIONAL LAW:

Bentham's historic interpretation of international law asserts that It is a set of rules that govern
interstate interactions. The reality that this uncut interpretation disbars “people and
international organizations”— two of the utmost significant and active aspects of modern
international law — is proof of how distant the study of international law has come. Positive
theory, which acknowledges that international law and municipal law are two separate and
independent systems, holds that international law only functions at the international level and
not inside national legal systems. On the other hand, proponents of natural law, whose
viewpoint is frequently referred to as monism, assert that state and international law comprise
one legal system. According to monists, such a structure might evolve from either a formalistic,
hierarchical approach that assumes there is a single basic standard that underpins both
international law and local law, or from a unified ethical approach that emphasises universal
human rights.

International law regulates the legal responsibilities of nations about how to engage with one
another and treat individuals inside their boundaries. The definition of international law used
to be limited to the rules and regulations that controlled how nations interacted with one
another, but in more recent times, it has come to include interactions among governments,
individuals, and international organizations.

Issues concerning rights allied several governments or nations and their residents or subjects
are the only ones that fall under the purview of public international law. Private international
law, on the other hand, deals with disputes between natural or legal persons brought on by
situations that have a significant relationship to more than one country. The contrast between
public and private international law has lately become dubious. Many private international law
issues are very significant to the worldwide community of states, and they may have an
influence on public international law matters as well.

“Status, property, and responsibility are the fundamental, traditional notions of law found in
national legal systems. It also encompasses procedural law, substantive law, process, and
remedies”. The adoption of it by the states that constitute the arrangement is the base of
international law. These are the principal substantive areas of international law:

• International economic law,

Page: 2
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

• International security law,

• International criminal law

• International environmental law,

• Diplomatic law,

• International humanitarian law or law of war

• International human rights law

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

Treaties, custom, and general principles are the three sources of international law listed in
Article 38 (1) of the ICJ's constitution.

• TREATIES:

Other names for treaties include conventions, agreements, pacts, general acts, charters, and
covenants. All of them make reference to formal agreements that participants—typically, but
not always, states—make to be bound by the agreed terms. When a contract is subject to local
law (as in commercial agreements between states and multinational corporations), international
law is not applicable. Casual, revocable political pronouncements or comments are not
permitted in treaties. It might be multilateral or bilateral. Treaties involving numerous alliances
are more likely to be of global significance, but many of the most important treaties have been
bilateral in character (such as those that came from the “Strategic Arms Limitation Talks”).
“There are more than 150 parties to a number of modern treaties, including the Geneva
Conventions (1949) and the Law of the Sea treaty (1982; officially the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, reflecting both their significance and the treaty's
development as a means of general international law.”

There is no set standard or process that must be followed while drafting or signing a treaty.
These could be discussed between presidents or between departments of government. The most
crucial element in the conclusion of a treaty is the signalling of the state's acceptance, which
can be performed by signing, exchanging papers, ratifying, or accession. Ratification is

Page: 3
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

normally employed to convey agreement, unless it's a low-level agreement in which case a
signature is usually sufficient. Depending on the country's constitutional system, the
ratification procedure differs.

A treaty may be revoked or put on hold in line with one of its terms (if there are any) or with
the parties' agreement. If neither applies, additional regulations can come into play. In the event
of a serious breach of a bilateral agreement, the guiltless party may utilize such breach as
justification to call for the termination or suspension of the agreement.

• CUSTOMS:

As a second basis of international law, the ICJ's statute mentions "international custom, as
evidence of a common practise acknowledged as law." Custom contains two key components:
the actual behaviour of nations and the adoption by states of that behaviour as law. Its
significance reflects the decentralised nature of the international system. The length, constancy,
recurrence, and generality of a certain conduct by states are only a few instances of the several
elements that make up the genuine praxis of states, also known as the "material fact." Whether
a behaviour is recognised as a binding international custom depends on all of these
considerations. In order for a practise to be regarded as binding, the ICJ states that it must either
be "extensive and substantially uniform" or constitute a "constant and uniform usage."

All nations in the international community are bound by a practise once it becomes custom,
whether or not individual states have formally embraced it, with the exception of cases when a
state actively opposed the custom from the beginning, a tough test to show. When a particular
practise is restricted to a small number of states (for instance, the states in Latin America), the
standard for acceptance as a custom is often relatively high. There may be both multilateral
treaty provisions and binding customary law on the same subject (such as the right to self-
defence) as a result of a generalizable treaty provision.

• GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW:

The ICJ's statute lists a third source of international law as the general legal standards upheld
by civilised nations. These rules effectively provide a way to address international issues that
were not previously addressed by either treaty provisions or legally enforceable customary
norms. Such basic concepts can be derived from both domestic and international law, and many

Page: 4
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

of them are really procedural, evidentiary, or judicial process-related principles—e.g., “the rule
that was created in Chorzow Factory (1927–1928) that when an engagement is broken,
restitution is required. As a result, Poland was required to compensate Germany for the illegal
takeover of a factory in the Chorzow Factory case.”

Possibly the most important component of international law is good faith. It governs the
creation and execution of legal commitments and is the cornerstone of treaty law. Equity is a
fundamental overarching concept that provides some flexibility in the application and
enforcement of international law. For example, the Law of the Sea Treaty required that
exclusive economic zones and continental shelves be defined equally for states with
competitive or adjoining coasts.

VANISHING POINT OF JURISPRUDENCE:

The definition of "vanishing point" in the dictionary is "a point of disappearance, termination,
or extinction." Holland argued that international law did not belong in the same category as
municipal law, thus the former was seen as disappearing. A vanishing point is often a precise
spot where two parallel lines that are on the same plain intersect. International law, according
to legal theorists, cannot be classified as a kind of law since a sovereign authority does not have
the power to implement it. There is no penalty for this sort of law. As a result, breaking the
laws of international law is simple and rarely met with penalties or legal action. Holland, an
analytical jurist, claims that international law is the end of jurisprudence based on these
conflicts. He made his Premark clear and provided good justifications. The following four
justifications were given as evidence for his results, among many more:

1. No sovereign authority to command;

2. There exist no sanctions if the rules are violated;

3. An absence of a judge or arbiter to decide international disputes;

4. International Law only followed as a moral courtesy by States.1

1
Dr. AK Jain, Public International Law (Law of Peace) & Human Rights, Ascent Publications, 2017.

Page: 5
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

He believed that international law standards shouldn't be considered laws because they are
upheld out of respect. A sovereign King does not enact international law. Additionally, it does
not include fines for enforcement, a vital element of municipal law. Holland continues by
asserting that international law heralds the end of jurisprudence because, in his view, there is
no judge or arbitrator to resolve international disputes beyond and above the disputed parties
themselves, save for public opinion, and that States abide by its rules out of politeness.

Every legal requirement carries a penalty. Criminals ought to be dealt with according to the
law. governmental law is supported by governmental coercive authority. International law, on
the other hand, does not impose any legal punishments since it lacks the authority to do so. As
a result, a deciding element is how eager a state is to follow international law. State law may
be interpreted and applied by courts. However, there isn't a court like that in the international
sphere. There have been many assessments of international law, but it is not obvious what
particular problem the law is highlighting. National sovereignty and international law are
incompatible. Every state has unfettered internal sovereignty that is absolute. A sovereign state
is not actually compelled to follow international law since it does not acknowledge any
superiority in the international realm. Austin and his backers argue that accepting international
law as authoritative would limit a state's external sovereignty and cast doubt on that state's
sovereignty. This circumstance contradicts the idea of the state because state sovereignty is a
precondition for any state to be considered as a state. The historical school of jurists, another
current school of thinking, maintains that international law is law in the true meaning of the
word. In the same way that municipal law is law, international law is also law.

Holland is certain that international law is only referred to as law by courtesy. It cannot be
characterized in legal terms since rights may be readily infringed, international law issues aren't
always taken into consideration, and it also cannot be applied globally. It is also claimed that
although Holland's interpretation of international law may have been accurate in the past, it is
now the target of harsh criticism because of the obligation that nations now have to uphold
many of the social, environmental, and humanitarian aspects of international law.

HOLLAND’S VIEW IN TODAY’S SCENARIO:

In a world where a sickness has spread to every nation and area, it is reasonable to assert that
contemporary times are more international than ever. International law now has a much
different look and feel than it had in the past. The significance of international organizations,

Page: 6
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

treaties, conventions, and penalties in the modern world cannot be overstated. The Kulbhushan
Jadhav trial at the ICJ is a relatively recent illustration of how international law has been
maintained and how sovereign states now respect one another. Consequently, it is appropriate
to state that equating modern international law with that of the Golden Age of Holland is
absurd.

The author and others claim that because it is founded on social interdependence, the so-called
"New International Law" varies from the formal guidelines of diplomatic relations during the
time of Holland. Holland was right that it was fading, but he was wrong to compartmentalize
a subject that had shown amazing room for development. No man is an island, and social,
economic, cultural, and humanitarian values bind the contemporary world together, therefore
Holland's claim that international law is a "vanishing point" of jurisprudence is wrong.

The expansion of regional and global organizations demonstrates how globalization has altered
the concept of state sovereignty. International organizations have progressively inherited some
of the sovereign powers once held by governments. In addition to highlighting regional and
global interdependence, large trading bloc development has also spawned and institutionalized
rivalry between various blocs.

CONCLUSION:

The fact that international law has existed for a very long time. It is true that there is no
organisation responsible for upholding international law, and no sovereign has the authority to
do so. The law is weak, that much is evident. Even while the majority of international lawyers
hold the view that there are no sanctions underlying international law, this position is
significantly weaker than that of their colleagues in municipal law, and it is thus impossible to
successfully argue that there are no penalties underlying international law at all. There are
differences between state law and international law, according to jurists who do not view
international law as the vanishing point of jurisprudence. Although the state cannot enact
international law, there is an organization responsible for its enforcement.

According to Dias, “International Law is obeyed and complied with by the states because it is
in the interests of states themselves.” For this object they give the following arguments: -

1. The judgements of International court of Justice are binding on States.

Page: 7
Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law Volume III Issue V | ISSN: 2583-0538

2. If any state does not honor the order/judgement of International court of justice, the Security
Council may give its recommendation against that state for action.

3. The judicial powers of International Court of justice (Voluntarily and compulsory) have been
accepted by the States.

4. The judgement of International court of Justice has been followed till date.

5. The system of enforcement i.e. sanctions and fear, has been developed.

For example: According to chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the security council may take
appropriate measures to preserve or restore international peace and security if there is a threat
to such conditions. In addition, the judgements of the International Court of Justice are final
and enforceable against the disputing parties.

Page: 8