The Problem of International Law: Why Are Some More Obeyed Than Others?
There are various economic, ideological and religious reasons behind violation or compliance with international law. Breaching some laws, such as diplomatic inviolability, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and human rights, might seem beyond the pale, because they are essential for global peace and order. Violation of these laws would destabilize the world, as they are the pillars of the international relations. Realism suggests that states are always struggling for power, with some prioritising power maximization for survival and violating international laws if the power gained outweighs the costs, while others focus on security maximization and maintenance of the stability. In contrast, liberalism believes in cooperation between states, global trade, and democracy as the key factors promoting global peace based on shared interests.
As states typically pursue their self-interest, they usually obey only the international laws that are more beneficial for them. France and Germany showed their reluctance to choose morality over financial gain when they continued economic relations with Russia after its attack on Ukraine in 2022. Another reason to obey international law, despite economic gain, is a desire to seek cooperative relations with other states. Liberalists believe that is the only way to foster democracy and mutual development. Ideology and religion can be compelling reasons to break international law as well. In the globalised international community, all countries are involved with each other on different levels, and, as few remain ostracised, conflicts arise. Edith Brown, an American lawyer, pointed out, that ‘national borders are breaking down because of international trade, culture flows, economic policies, the rise of global communities and global civil society’.
The problem of the East-West dichotomy is highly relevant, especially with China's growing influence on the global stage. According to Thorsten, the East constitutes an entirely different type of humanity, with different cultures, values, and ways of thinking compared with the West. Some Asian and African states might have a ‘different’ perspective, including on morality, law, and human rights, from the ‘Western world’. The interpretation of international laws is influenced by religious, ideology, culture and history. All these aspects significantly shape the perception of ethical boundaries and moral principles, directly influencing the understanding of what constitutes right and wrong. The occurrence of armed conflicts on religious ground is also quite high.
Some time ago, Israel breached international law in the face of the Geneva Convention, one of the most crucial violations was the attacks on civilians. Based on the Geneva Convention IV/1949 and Additional Protocol I/1977, civil society is a party that must receive protection and must not be attacked. From a realist point of view, Israel may be acting logically, as they attack to maximise their security or power, and liberalists might put the blame on the clash of a democracy, Israel, and a non-democracy, Palestine. The Democratic Peace Theory suggests that non-democracies can engage in wars between each other, as well as democracies with non-democracies, while democracies rarely got to war against each other.
An important factor is who shapes international law, as the West and East often hold differing views on the desired structure of the international order. When laws are crafted primarily from a Western perspective, they may appear inappropriate to Eastern nations. This disparity can lead to tensions and selective compliance, as different regions may view the legitimacy and relevance of international laws through distinct cultural and ideological frameworks. Violations of laws is a typical occurrence, even with the potential for condemnation, sanctions, and exclusion from trade. Russia is experiencing all of these after violating the principle of inviolability of Ukrainian borders, and non-interference in the internal affairs of a foreign country. The Helsinki Final Act requires the participating states to recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for which is an essential factor for peace, justice, and the well-being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation. All these agreements Russia has violated.
The possession of power can additionally stimulate countries like the US to follow only their self-interest without fearing the consequences of violating laws. Quite often, states that possess greater political, economic or military power can exert more influence and are better equipped to satisfy their goals in the international arena. Having close ties with the US can also benefit some states by getting away unpunished while breaking international laws. breaking international law by itself is making it even easier. In Nicaragua, the US showed how greater political and economic power can dictate the interpretation of international laws. When the International Court of Justice declared that the customary principle of non-use of force has been breached by the US through direct military attacks in Nicaragua, as well as breaching the non-intervention principle, while the taken actions were unnecessary and could not be considered as self-defense, the US refused to pay reparations to Nicaragua.
According to the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention, intervention and interference in the internal affairs of states, and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States of the UN General Assembly reemphasize that no state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another state. If international law is controlled by institutions directly under the influence of powerful countries, such as the Security Council, violations of these laws will persist. Powerful countries can be expected to bypass rules, leading to a pattern of non-compliance and the creation of a cycle of disregard for established legal norms.
Diplomatic immunity is one of the examples of international law which few states venture to disobey. The protection of unhampered and free exercise of diplomatic function is recognized as one of the fundamental purposes of the international law of diplomatic immunity in the Havana Convention of 1928, and in the Draft Convention of the Harvard Research Committee, 1932. From a realist perspective, this law benefits all states, as protecting diplomats fosters reciprocal treatment and stable relations. States prioritize this because it aligns with their interests in security and strategic advantage. Liberalism, on the other hand, views the international law as a tool for cooperation.
By following international laws on borders and sovereignty, nations build cooperation on the principals of trust and non-violence. Although sometimes violated, these laws create a framework that encourages peaceful interactions and collective interests. Traditional international law was founded on a shared understanding of sovereign, independent, and equal states that agreed to abide by rules governing their interactions. International law typically discourages and prohibits interventions in the internal affairs of other nations, as these actions violate essential principles like sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Exceptions exist, such as humanitarian interventions or UN-sanctioned actions, but they are carefully limited to balance respect for state sovereignty with broader security and human rights concerns. Henkin claimed state possesses full control within its borders, including authority over individuals, actions, and objects within its territory, and other states are prohibited from occupying, intruding upon, or exerting influence within its territory without their permission.
The issue of human rights frequently arises as they are often violated. International and national laws address human rights violations in regards with their domestic institutions and the state’s structure. The unique nature of human rights law violations stands out due to cultural, religious, and ideological diversity shaping perspectives. With no universally agreed definition of humanity, exacerbated by advancing robotization, some nations use this vagueness to target certain groups they consider lesser or non-human. Violations of human rights law occur more frequently compared to other international laws.
There are numerous infringements of human rights in Israel which would be unjustifiable in countries with a different security situation, but which are considered by some to be justified here. China is another example of a state committing cultural violence through the oppression of Muslims. The Uyghur community perceives a threat to their cultural survival from Chinese authorities, because Beijing's plans to ‘redevelop’ Kashgar, restrictions on the use of the Uyghur language in schools, and discouragement of Muslim state officials to follow Ramadan, which they see as governmental oppression and a method of erasing Muslim culture.
It is also important to note how domestic law can affect the definition of international law in general. Domestic law, which is created based on national beliefs, has a certain influence on the definition and implementation of international law. As was proposed by Moravcsik, governments are assumed to act purposively in the international arena on the basis of goals that are defined domestically. The competition and cooperation among various groups and interests within a state shape its foreign policy decisions and interactions with other states. Globalisation and cultural diversity complicate adherence to international law, as powerful states, like the U.S., often interpret these laws to their advantage. Human rights laws are frequently breached, with enforcement challenges arising from cultural and ideological differences, particularly between Western and Eastern perspectives.
Image courtesy of The Forge via Google Images, ©2023. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
