International Laws
Questions One:
International laws in order of priority in line with their importance to international politics, in this paper’s view, are as follows: public international law, conflict of laws, international criminal law, international humanitarian law, international law of war, international arms control, international environmental law and international trade law, the law of the sea and international financial law.
Public international law concerns itself with the state responsibilities as among states and other international personalities. Conflict of laws deals with issues of jurisdiction where international parties of different jurisdictions are involved. International criminal law concerns itself with cross boundaries crimes. Humanitarian law concerns itself with humanitarian issues of aid and reliefs especially in conflict prone areas. International law of war defines the modus operandi in wars of an international character. Arms control relates to the control of cross border transactions in arms. On the other hand, environmental law relates to the protection of the planet earth and aims at the maintenance of the biodiversity. Trade law considers the matters of international trade. The law of the sea defines relations in the high seas while financial law defines the manner of relations in international financial matters.
The paper’s order is informed by the effect each has on international politics. It is equally imperative to note that public international law informs the premise and foundation of international relations and engagements.
Question two:
International laws remain relevant in the international plane for purposes of securing world peace and stability and ensuring a state of certainty and order. In that context, nations would be eager to make such laws despite the challenges of implementation.
Some laws are easier at enforcing while others are not. The enforceability depends on the interests at hand. In fact, it depends on the relative strength of the nation pushing for enforcement. For instance, a law opposed by the permanent five members of the Security Council including America, Britain, Russia, China and France would likely fail because of the veto wielding power of the said states. A good example is the Nicaragua case against the United States of America in which the latter was on the offence. The decision at the International Court of Justice in favor of Nicaragua was as good as the piece of paper it was written on.
