International law Essay

external practice of integrity can be divided into cardinal main branches public global practice of faithfulness and clannish foreign law. harmonise to Corel University Law School, Legal Information Institute public foreignist law, oersees matters of rights between nations and citizens or subjects of other nations whereas, the latter deals with conflicts between private individuals arising out of deal of key importance to more than one nation. Over time the postulatement between private and public world(prenominal) laws has been growing thinner with issues of private supranationalistic law now linking with those of public international law.This is because the international community finds m whatever matters of private international law of significance to them. In a nutshell, international law governs human actions and interactions at the global heights. For a bulky time since its inception in the 16th Century, international law consisted of policies and regulation s presidency interactions between nations until recently when the law was redefined to incorporate relations between states and individuals as well as relation between international institutions. human beings(prenominal) law has received its sh atomic number 18 of criticism with the emergence of a school of suasion holding that it was mechanism designed by developed countries mappingfully for colonization in the advanced(a) mankind. In his book Imperialism, Sovereignty and the making of International Law Anghie argues that the colonial confrontation was central to the formation of international law and, in particular, its founding concept, reign. He goes ahead to argue that international law is a modern way of governing non-European people, that economic exploitations and cultural erosion that resulted from the same were strategically important for the discipline. Contrary to Anghies thinking, international law would otherwise be a benevolent undertaking had it non been de monized by powerful states to achieve 21st century colonialism. The concept of international law obviously conflicts with the fundamentals of sovereignty which also means independence.This is to offer that a sovereign state should be free to run its domestic affairs free from hindrances by outdoors authority. The proponents of international law whitethorn have worked on the assumptions that the sovereignty of a state is not sole(prenominal) founded on the self-governing allow for of its sovereign, but also on its arrange in relationship to several other states. This implies that if a certain state comes up with policies which are likely to affect its neighbors or other countries and so its sovereignty can be subject to violation when international law intervenes.Nonetheless, the general belief is that a state should be able to do whatever it pleases within its territories. It is important to mention that sovereignty of a state means it is free to use its resources for its ow n prosperity without interference from outside powers. However, developed states have in umpteen occasions medd lead in the economic affairs of trey world states. It is by right that a tertiaryly base world states control all that is within their territories without interference from developed countries.International law, through international business law paves way for exploitation of terzetto world countries by their developed counterparts. Interdependence is a word strategically coined by developed states to cover up for their deeply buried conspiracy aimed at reaping resources from developed countries under the cover of globalisation. Hopefully, out of their own efforts, thirdly world states whitethorn eventually grow to the level of being powerful. In the contrary, world super powers are not stupid to let third world countries grow to be as powerful as them.Because of this insecurity, they comprise laws and lie to third world states that it is for the good of the world when the underpinning motive is to amplify dependence by development countries on the world powers. Even if these countries develop, they entrust be under control of developed states. A good standard is the claim by developed countries in elevate of their investors on foreign territories. The claim by capital-exporting countries is intended to limit a countrys sovereignty to impose limitations on foreign investors (Sornarajah 136).This may sound as a generous thought to open up equal compete grounds for signatories of international law. However, consider the fact that capital-exporting countries are the world superpowers hosting legion(predicate) billionaire investors just looking for places to multiply their billions. Some of these multibillion businesses are state own corporations. With this kind of law, the world powers give establish multibillion corporations in third world territories in the pretext of privately owned investments.They volition offer handicraft opport unities, good health facilities, education, housing, infrastructure to millions of domestics of third world states. Because most third world authoritiess are unable to offer basic needs for their populace, these international corporations bequeath win the hearts of many in third world states. Although political rule will be retained by the hosting governments, such multibillion corporations will have unprecedented control not except over citizens whom they will have won their trust, but also over government policy decisions.By that time, third world states will be literally foreign territories of developed states. Of course a few rich individuals from developing countries will have benefited from this law and established businesses in developed countries. However, because their native governments will be lacking both economic and political powers, their activities will be highly controlled by the host governments keeping them from making any giftthroughs. This treaty might als o limit a states ability to use domestic legal facilities on foreign investors who break the law since they will be under protection of international law.This is base on the belief that any grievance against an investor operating under international law is an injury to his native country. International law therefore was only formed with the excuse of interdependence between signatory states with the hidden purpose to reintroduce a modern style of Colonialism being witnessed today. In the modern world, economic sovereignty is paramount to any form of sovereignty. Political sovereignty in the 21st century is worthless without economic independence. It is because of this that developed countries cover to come up with selfish policies with the excuse of interdependence.For this reason most third world countries brag of political independence but when they cannot provide for their citizens, they anticipate shelter from the economic giants who do not offer anything without conditions. Developed countries will always do this through economic sanctions such as halt donor aid which when implemented cripples the operations of third world states. Nye states that although the authorisation for benefits in interdependence exist, the potential for tragedy exists as well (179).Nye goes to the complete to refer to the negative results of interdependence not merely as losses, which would be the opposite of benefits, but tragedy. Tragedy can also be a disaster, catastrophe or misfortune. The after effects of a disaster are usually devastating and repairing the mess requires extraordinary measures usually taking a longer period of time. The shocking thing is that whereas developing countries are obeying international law, developed countries can violate it and get away with it. Israel has been in the headlines for many years over Gaza strip conflict with Palestines.The attacks have led to serious violation of human rights and international law. Atrocities committed along Gaza slick are worrying and one would wonder why Israel is being excuse from contend crimes trials. Up to date, the international judges still seem to be wondering if Israel has committed enough crimes to be subjected to trials. On the other hand, the joined States of America reciprocated against Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks on Americas soil and many innocent lives were lost. Most worrying is human rights violations by US soldiers against fight prisoners and terrorist suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.In 2001, hundreds of Taliban prisoners of war were suffocated to death after they were imprisoned inside metal containers by US military in the Afghan town of Kunduz. Instead of being supercharged with human rights violations, the world superpower hold offed Saddam Hussein and had him hanged to death for war crime charges during his regime. Meanwhile the international law is in full motor in developing countries. International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a example of arrest against Sudans re-elected leader Omar alBshir over war crime think charges.Currently, the ICC is also investigating human rights violations during the 2007 post election chaos in Kenya and is expected to take in suspects by September 2010. Efforts by the ICC to arrest perpetrators of violence are all in good faith, but how to the highest degree the rich countries which commit the same crimes? Whereas it will be extremely toilsome for a country which has cut off itself from the rest of the world, international law deprives nations from exercising their sovereignty within their territories with respect to the locally prevailing circumstances.The international law in large part works in favor of the developed countries and does not result in the desired interdependence which will empower weak nations. Nations should be empowered to be able to singly and decisively handle their economic, political and legal activities without interference from outside for ces which may not understand the prevailing circumstances. It is only when they are empowered that they will be able to have the bargaining power which is critical for interdependence at the international level.