It was therefore necessary to consider what those „principles of international law proper”, which were supposed to represent a possible normative response to the phenomenon of fragmentation, could really mean, given the importance attached to them by the Commission`s Study Group. In this context, it is useful to return briefly to the concept of general principles in international law. However, the Study Group reiterated that at least the „principles of international law proper” do not in themselves constitute a sub-categorization of the general principles of law provided for in Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute. Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, available at www.icty.org, Article 3: „The International Criminal Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who violate the laws of war or custom. These offences include, among others, .. and article 5 (i): „The International Criminal Court has the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes committed in armed conflicts of international or national origin and directed against a civilian population: (i) other inhumane acts”. International law differs from state legal systems in that it applies primarily, but not exclusively, to countries rather than individuals, and operates largely by consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to impose it on sovereign states. Therefore, states can choose not to respect international law and even violate a treaty. [5] However, such violations, particularly of customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens), can be countered by coercive measures ranging from military interventions to diplomatic and economic pressure. Since international law does not have a compulsory judicial system to settle disputes or a system of coercive sanctions, it is not as simple as dealing with violations within the framework of a national legal system.

However, there are ways to bring violations to the attention of the international community and to remedy them. For example, in international law, in some areas, such as trade and human rights, there are judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. The establishment of the United Nations, for example, created a means for the international community to enforce international law against members that violate its Charter through the Security Council. Sources of international law include international practice (general State practice accepted as law), treaties and general principles of law recognized by most national legal systems. International law may also be reflected in the international comity, practices and customs adopted by States for the maintenance of good relations and mutual recognition, such as: the salutation of the flag of a foreign ship or the enforcement of a judgment of a foreign court. The principal judicial organ of the United Nations is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This principal organ of the United Nations settles disputes submitted to it by States in accordance with international law. It also advises on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations bodies and specialized agencies. The United Nations has played a leading role in efforts to promote international humanitarian law. The Council is increasingly committed to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the promotion of human rights and the protection of children in times of war. For the perspective of an international jurist, see, for example, Amerasinghe, „International Law and the Concept of Law: Why International Law is Law”, in J. Makarczyk (ed.), Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski (1996), p.

83. While in domestic politics the struggle for power is determined and limited by law, in international politics the law is governed and limited by the struggle for power. (This is why) international politics is called power politics. War is the only means by which States can ultimately defend vital interests. The causes of war are inherent in power politics. Perhaps more importantly, what the Study Group emphasized only to a limited extent, if at all, was the normative weight to be given to the classification of a particular norm as belonging to the corpus of general international law. It is precisely this omission that makes the (analytical) difference here. For example, at the jurisdiction stage in the Nicaragua case, it was stated that the term „treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in writing and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments, and whatever its particular designation. [28] Unlike national or national law, international law is not contained in any of the Parliament`s approval of the legislation.

Even multilateral treaties do not apply to all States, but only to those that have agreed to be bound by signature and ratification or accession to them. As a result, the exact rules of international law are often more difficult to identify than national laws and can be found in a variety of sources. Hans Morgenthau regarded international law as the weakest and most primitive system of law enforcement; He compared its decentralized nature to the law that prevails in preformed tribal societies. The monopoly on the use of force makes domestic law enforceable; But there are several competing sources of power between nations. The confusion created by treaty laws, which resemble private contracts between individuals, is mitigated only by the relatively small number of States. [60] For example, it is not clear whether the Nuremberg trials created a new law or applied the existing Kellogg Briand Pact law. In other words, in the Nicaragua case, „general international law” as a normative concept in itself produced legal consequences in the course of international judicial proceedings by extending the applicable law available to disputed claims outside the scope of the respective international law (i.e. treaties). Thus, the rules themselves that form part of general international law (in the case of Nicaragua, the prohibition of force and the principle of non-interference) have been classified as falling within the jurisdiction of the Court and can therefore be taken into account to produce their own legal consequences (in other words, they are otherwise applicable). Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc v.

Mexico, Award and Separate Opinion of 21 November 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05, IIC 329(2007), paragraph 119. For countermeasures under international law, see L-A. Sicilianos, Decentralized Reactions to the Illicit: From Countermeasures to Self-Defence (1990); L. Boisson de Chazournes, Les contre-mesures dans les relations internationales économiques (1992). Despite the absence of a primary authority to enforce these rules, international law is considered binding on them by States, and it is this fact that gives these rules the status of law. Thus, for example, if a State wishes to avoid a particular rule, it will not argue that international law does not exist, but only that States have not agreed that such a rule should bind them, or that the rule is not applicable to particular circumstances.