PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

by. • • 2 min read
0
Principles of International Law: Efficacy, Mechanisms, Role & Global Influence "In-depth research on international law: sources, principles, enforcement, case studies, practical steps for law students and practitioners."

Principles of International Law: Efficacy, Mechanisms, Role & Global Influence

Excerpt: “Understanding how international law functions is not merely academic — for practitioners and law students, it offers the tools to assess whether treaties, customs, or court judgments can be invoked in real disputes, how they influence domestic law, and where enforcement will actually work.”

1. Introduction: Why Principles of International Law Matter

International law is the framework through which states, international organisations, and individuals interrelate under rules. For law students and practitioners, the importance lies in being able to:

  • determine legal obligations across borders;
  • assess whether and how domestic legal systems admit international norms;
  • advise or litigate based on international treaties, customary international law, or general principles;
  • anticipate where non-compliance is likely and plan for remedial or advocacy strategies.

This post examines in depth:

  1. The doctrinal foundations (sources & core principles).
  2. Mechanisms of enforcement and compliance.
  3. Effectiveness: when and why international law works (or fails).
  4. Case studies from recent years.
  5. How international law interacts with domestic law (monism/dualisms, implementation).
  6. Practical “how-to” steps for advocacy, litigation and policy.

2. Doctrinal Foundations: Sources & Core Principles

2.1 Sources of International Law

The principal sources are codified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):

  1. Treaties / Conventions: explicit agreements between states that are binding on those that consent. Example: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).1
  2. Customary International Law: consistent state practice + opinio juris (states act because they believe they are legally bound).2
  3. General Principles of Law: principles common in national legal systems (e.g., good faith, fairness, equity) used where treaties or custom are silent.3
  4. Judicial Decisions & Scholarly Writings: not binding in all jurisdictions, but very persuasive; ICJ, ICC, regional courts and major treatises (Shaw, Brownlie, etc.).4

2.2 Core Principles & Norms

  • Sovereign equality of states: all states possess legal personality and equality under international law.
  • Pacta sunt servanda: treaties properly entered must be performed in good faith (Vienna Convention, Art. 26).1
  • Non-intervention and respect for sovereignty: prohibition on interference in internal affairs of states.
  • Prohibition on use of force: UN Charter, customary norms; jus ad bellum constraints.
  • Human rights norms: rights treaties, but also customary international human rights obligations and jus cogens norms – e.g. genocide, torture, slavery cannot be derogated from.5
  • Environmental obligations & sustainable development: emerging but more and more recognised as core obligations, particularly in context of climate change and state responsibility. Recent ICJ advisory opinion confirms states’ obligations in this field. 6

3. Mechanisms of Enforcement & Compliance

Unlike domestic law, international law generally lacks a central enforcement authority. Enforcement and compliance occur via multiple overlapping mechanisms:

3.1 Judicial & Adjudicative Mechanisms

  • ICJ: settles disputes between states; gives advisory opinions. Its judgments are binding on parties in contentious cases. But jurisdiction depends on consent. 7
  • ICC: prosecutes individuals for core international crimes (genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, aggression) under Rome Statute. Cooperation by states is crucial. 8
  • Regional courts: European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Inter-American Court, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, etc. They interpret treaties or charters and offer individual petition mechanisms. 9
  • Investment arbitration, WTO dispute settlement, trade tribunals: these forums offer binding decisions or authorized countermeasures (e.g. trade retaliation in WTO). 10

3.2 Non-Judicial Tools & Soft Enforcement

  • Sanctions & countermeasures: legal or political reprisals for wrongful acts (or failure to comply). Example: UN or domestic sanctions regimes.
  • Transparency, reporting, peer review: treaty monitoring bodies, UN human rights reporting, climate reporting (Paris Agreement / UNFCCC).6
  • Diplomatic pressure and reputational cost: states care about their international standing; non-compliance can lead to loss of diplomatic or economic cooperation.
  • Conditionality of aid, trade preferences: linking assistance or trade access to human rights, rule of law, environment standards.

3.3 Institutional & Treaty Regime Design

The design of treaties/institutions affects enforcement potential:

  • Clauses for dispute settlement (e.g., compulsory / optional jurisdiction).
  • Monitoring and reporting requirements.
  • Sanctions enforcement keys or trade-retaliation options.
  • Flexibility vs rigidity (to allow states to deviate under certain conditions vs ensuring clarity).11

4. Efficacy: When International Law Works & Why It Sometimes Fails

4.1 Conditions Favoring Effectiveness

  1. Clear obligations + consent in advance: Agreements with clear text, treaty obligations that are self-executing (or clearly implemented). If states consent in advance to jurisdiction, enforceability improves.
  2. Domestic incorporation: Monist states or dualist states with strong implementing legislation see better impact in courts and enforcement. 12
  3. Strong monitoring, transparency & accountability: frequent reporting, peer review, visibility. Violations become more costly reputationally. Recent climate advisory opinion by ICJ (2025) underscores this. 6
  4. Political will and resource capacity: absence of capacity or political resistance reduces impact even where legal tools exist.
  5. Favourable geopolitical environment: when key players support enforcement mechanisms (e.g., powerful states backing ICC or multilateral bodies), or public opinion / civil society pressure is strong.

4.2 Barriers to Efficacy

  • Consent & jurisdiction limits: Many states reserve parts of treaties, decline optional jurisdictions. E.g. ICJ cases rejected on jurisdiction grounds. 7
  • Implementation gaps: Even where treaties are ratified, domestic law may fail to realise obligations due to lack of legislative action, administrative weakness, or ambiguous treaty language.
  • Enforcement is often weak: ICJ lacks a global enforcement police; even judgments must rely on states to comply voluntarily or via pressure. 2
  • Power politics: Strong states may ignore rulings, shielded by others, or use veto powers (UNSC), or block funding. 7
  • Evolving norms / ambiguous obligations: Especially emerging fields (climate change, cyber-law) where norms are still being negotiated; lack of clarity reduces predictability and enforceability.
  • Resource inequalities: poorer states may lack legal infrastructure, or civil society capacity, to bring cases or monitor compliance.

5. Recent Case Studies (2023-2025)

5.1 ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change (2025)

In Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, ICJ issued an advisory opinion (July 23, 2025) confirming that states have legal obligations under international law to protect current and future generations from climate harm. It emphasized that failure to act could violate international human rights law and treaties. 6

Lesson: even advisory opinions (not binding) can substantially influence treaty interpretation, state practice, and domestic litigation.

5.2 Sudan v. UAE — ICJ Jurisdictional Limitations (Darfur Genocide Allegations)

In May 2025, ICJ dismissed Sudan’s case against the UAE because it concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention (due to a reservation by UAE). 7

Lesson: treaty reservations and jurisdiction clauses are critical. Even seemingly serious allegations (genocide) can be blocked without jurisdiction. Must anticipate and examine treaty text, reservations, declarations.

5.3 Mali Drone Case vs Algeria (2025)

Mali’s claim that Algeria shot down a Malian military drone alleged breach of international law. The ICJ held that Algeria had not accepted jurisdiction ex ante; so the case was delayed. 7

Lesson: state consent and acceptance of jurisdiction are real gates. Without them, even factual violations of international norms may not be heard.

5.4 WTO Dispute Settlement (Recent Trends)

The WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism remains one of the most effective systems for trade rule enforcement via binding decisions and retaliation. However, recent political and procedural blockages (e.g., Appellate Body composition issues) have weakened its speed and decisiveness. 10

Lesson: strong institutional design matters, but political backlashes or state capture (or procedural gridlock) can degrade the effectiveness over time.

5.5 ICC Efficacy: Limits & Successes

Studies (e.g. “The International Criminal Court: Analyzing Its Efficacy in Combating International Crimes in the 21st Century”) show that while ICC has had accomplishments in bringing indictments and helping with deterrence in some situations, major limitations persist: non-cooperation by States, low number of convictions, political pressures, lack of universality (some large states are not parties). 9

6. Monism vs Dualism & Domestic Incorporation

The relationship between international law and domestic law is crucial for practitioners. Two theories dominate:

6.1 Theories Defined

  • Monism: International law becomes part of domestic law automatically upon ratification or recognition; treaties/customary law can have direct effect. See Germany, Netherlands, many civil law jurisdictions. 12
  • Dualism: International law and domestic law are separate systems; treaty obligations must be transformed via domestic legislation to be enforceable. UK is a classic example. 12

6.2 Hybrid Practices and Practical Realities</

Many states in practice have hybrid systems: some treaties are self-executing; others require enabling legislation. Also, constitutional provisions (supremacy clauses, constitutional status of treaties) matter heavily. Courts in dualist countries have sometimes used domestic law to "fill gaps" or rely on general principles.

6.3 Examples & Impacts

  • In dualist systems, delayed or non-existent implementing legislation undermines rights of individuals and remedial access.
  • In monist systems, direct invocation allows speedier remedies, but constitutional conflicts can arise (e.g. where treaty obligations clash with constitutional norms).

7. Practical How-To: Applying International Law in Research, Litigation & Policy

7.1 How to Identify Applicable International Law

  1. Define the legal issue/factual matrix (subject matter: human rights, environment, trade, use of force, etc.).
  2. Search for relevant treaties and conventions: use UN Treaty Collection, regional human rights instruments, treaties specific to the issue.
  3. Investigate custom: collect state practice (legislation, official behaviour, diplomatic notes) + evidence of opinio juris (statements, UN resolutions etc.).
  4. Check if law in question is jus cogens (non-derogable) – because that changes how violations are viewed and what defences are possible.
  5. Identify general principles of law recognised in many national systems (e.g. good faith, fairness, equity) to see if legal gaps exist in custom or treaty.

7.2 How to Use International Law in Domestic Litigation or Advocacy

  1. Determine whether your jurisdiction is monist, dualist, or hybrid; check constitution and legal precedents.
  2. If dualist, find or push for implementing legislation; if not existing, consider constitutional or human rights arguments to compel domestic recognition.
  3. Gather all sources: treaty text, relevant case law (ICJ, regional courts, national courts), scholarly commentary to support interpretations.
  4. Invoke jurisprudence: identify precedents where domestic courts have applied or referred to international law (custom, treaty, general principles).
  5. Consider alternative forums: international or regional courts, arbitration, UN treaty bodies etc., if domestic law avenues are blocked.

7.3 How to Assess Likelihood of Compliance or Enforcement

  1. Review state’s treaty commitments and declarations / reservations that may limit obligations.
  2. Check whether state has in past complied with similar rulings or obligations (historical track record).
  3. Evaluate whether there are political incentives for compliance (economic cost of non-compliance, public or diplomatic pressure, trade relations).
  4. Inspect the institutional framework (reporting, monitoring mechanisms, dispute settlement mechanisms etc.) in the treaty or custom.
  5. Consider resource constraints, capacity, civil society and media freedom — all these affect whether non-compliance can be challenged and remedied.

8. Famous Quotes & Analogies

“International law is law, but it is not all law that compels obedience.”
— Adapted from Hersch Lauterpacht / general international law doctrine
“Pacta sunt servanda” — Agreements must be kept (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 26).1

Analogy: Think of international law like a web: many threads (treaties, custom, courts, norms), each weak on its own, but together holding up a structure. If one thread breaks (no jurisdiction, no implementation), others may still hold some weight (reputation, soft law, advocacy).

9. Footnotes

  1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Art. 26: “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”
  2. ICJ Statute, Art. 38; see also case law on customary international law and opinio juris.
  3. General principles of law derived from common legal systems, see Shaw, Malcolm, International Law, Chapters on sources.
  4. See Brownlie, Ian & Crawford, James: Principles of Public International Law, and many regional court decisions.
  5. Jus cogens norms: see Vienna Convention, and ICJ (e.g. Nicaragua Case) precedent that prohibits treaty override by jus cogens.
  6. ICJ Advisory Opinion, Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, 2025. (General Assembly Req. Opinion) ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 2025.
  7. Recent ICJ news: Sudan vs UAE jurisdiction decision (2025); Mali vs Algeria drone case (2025). Reuters reporting. (see “Sudan fails …” and “Mali drone case” in news) 7a 7b
  8. Rome Statute of the ICC, case docket and state cooperation literature.
  9. Stone Sweet, Alec; Sandholtz, Wayne, *The Law and Politics of International Human Rights Courts: The Dilemma of Effectiveness*, Oxford University Press, 2024. Also “Global courts & effect on domestic rights” articles. 9a
  10. WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU): procedural and enforcement aspects. WTO official site and commentary.
  11. Treaty regime design: inclusion of compulsory jurisdiction, monitoring, reporting – academic literature on treaty design & effectiveness (e.g. studies in environmental law & trade law). 11a
  12. Monism vs dualism theory: see Garg, Shrome, “Monist vs Dualist Theory of International Law”, IJLSI 2023. 12a

10. Bibliography & Key References

  • International Court of Justice, *Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change* (Advisory Opinion, July 23, 2025).
  • ICJ, *Sudan v. United Arab Emirates* (Jurisdiction Decision, 2025).
  • ICJ, *Mali v. Algeria* (Drone Incident Case, jurisdiction issue, 2025).
  • Kalu, B. O. & Miebaka, N., “The International Criminal Court: Analyzing Its Efficacy in Combating International Crimes in the 21st Century”, *Advances in Law, Pedagogy and Multidisciplinary Humanities*, Vol. 2 No. 1, 2024. (peer-reviewed article) 9
  • Agarwal, Reyaa, “The International Court of Justice: Evaluating Its Efficacy in Administering International Law and Justice”, Issue Brief, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, October 2024. 7
  • Stone Sweet, Alec; Sandholtz, Wayne. *The Law and Politics of International Human Rights Courts: The Dilemma of Effectiveness*. Oxford University Press, 2024. 9a
  • Garg, Shrome. “Monist vs Dualist Theory of International Law”, International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation (IJLSI), Vol. 5, No. 3, 2023. 12a
  • Ngobeni, Tinyiko L., “The International Court System: A Solution to the Crisis in Investor-State Arbitration?”, *Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal*, Volume 27, 2024. 3
  • WTO, official Dispute Settlement Understanding text and commentary.
  • Shaw, Malcolm. *International Law*. Cambridge University Press (latest edition).
  • Brownlie, Ian; Crawford, James. *Principles of Public International Law*. Oxford University Press.
4.94 / 169 rates

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post