2. Enforcement:

International law has no international police force to oversee obedience to the international legal standards to which States agree or that develop as international standards of behavior. Similarly, there is no compulsory enforcement mechanism for the settlement of disputes. However, there are an increasing number of specialized courts, tribunals and treaty monitoring bodies as well as an International Court of Justice. National laws and courts are often an important means through which international law is implemented in practice. In some instances, the Security Council can authorize the use of coercive economic sanctions or even armed force. For example, in 1990-1991 when Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait the international community used armed force to enforce international law (resolutions of the Security Council). Subsequent controversy about the use of armed force against Iraq highlights how difficult it can be to obtain the necessary authorization from the Security Council under the United Nations Charter. In international law, that is the only legitimate way that collective armed force can be used. In general, international law is enforced through methods such as national implementation, diplomatic negotiation or public pressure, mediation, conciliation, arbitration (a process of resolving disputes other than by agreement), judicial settlement (including specialized tribunals).

WHY DO STATES OBEY INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Even though international law does not have the coercive enforcement processes available to domestic law, it is in the interests of most States to ensure stability and predictability in their relations with other States. By complying with their obligations, they help to ensure that other States comply with theirs. Aside from this mutual benefit, it is in every State’s interests to abide by the rule of law applying to areas such as use of the sea and ocean resources and environmental protection.

In a field like human rights, States may uphold international law principles, even where there is no direct national interest, because they recognize the need to protect common and universal human values.

HOW DO INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW INTERACT?

It is important to understand how international law principles become part of domestic law, and to explain what happens if the rules conflict. The theories of monism and dualism are the two main theories that explain the relationship between international and domestic law.

Monism

In this theory, all law is part of a universal legal order and regulates the conduct of the individual State. The difference in the international sphere is that the consequences are generally attributed to the State. Since all law is part of the same legal order, international law is automatically incorporated into the domestic legal order. Some monist theorists consider that international law prevails over domestic law if they are in conflict.

Dualism

This theory holds that international law and domestic law are separate bodies of law, operating independently of each other. Under dualism, rules and principles of international law cannot operate directly in domestic law, and must be transformed or incorporated into domestic law before they can affect individual rights and obligations. The main differences between international and domestic law are thought to be the sources of law, its subjects, and subject matter. International law derives from the collective will of States, its subjects are the States themselves, and its subject matter is the relations between States. Domestic law derives from the will of the sovereign or the State, its subjects are the individuals within the State, and its subject matter is the relations of individuals with each other and with government.

Harmonization

Neither monism nor dualism can adequately explain the relationship between international and domestic law, and alternative theories have developed which regard international law as having a harmonization role. If there is a conflict, domestic law is applied within the domestic legal system, leaving the State responsible at the international level for any breach of its international law

obligations.

PART II