international law?

international law?

In what respect, if any, can treaties be regarded as the most important source of international law?

A treaty is a consensual international agreement established between independent states or countries, and in other instances with international organizations, in writing and administered by International Law. A contract will only become a treaty if the parties involved intentionally and freely agree that the document’s written provisions become legally binding at international law, by signing and ratifying it.  A treaty is identified in article 38 of the statute of the ICJ as one of the five sources of international law. It can either be bilateral, involving only two countries or multilateral, involving three or more states (Greenwood, 2008). Treaties are also known as protocols, statutes, conventions, charters, agreements, or exchange of notes. They are only obligatory on countries that have signed and ratified them. The decision of whether or not to become part of a treaty entirely depends on the state itself (Schreuer, 2000) as there is no mandatory obligation to become a signatory for a treaty.

Treaty law has its foundation in the rule of customary international rule, ‘pacta sunt servanda,’ which means that all members of a treaty must honor and adhere to the provisions of the convention. Several treaties are regarded as reliable accounts of customary law (Greenwood, 2008), which, when liberally negotiated between many countries, codifies former or existing unwritten guidelines of customary law..

Treaties can be regarded as the most significant basis of international law when a matter is of global nature or involves treaty member states. Since there is no global government to make rules, the International Court of Justice enforces international laws made by law-making treaties. Also, issues involving members of a convention are resolved using provisions within the agreement (Schreuer, 2000), provided that the matter is related to the treaty itself.

Is there a legal basis for military intervention in cases of humanitarian intervention? 

Humanitarian intervention is the threat to use or actual employment of military power by a country or state against another sovereign country or group of nations. This intervention is done to avert or end frequent and severe breaches of essential human rights of persons who are not its people (Linter, 2005), without obtaining the consent of the country in whose borders the force is utilized.

The Secretary-General of the UN instituted a High‐level body on challenges, hazards, and change to deliberate on how the twenty-first-century challenges can be met by shared security. This panel widely viewed security but specifically looked at the situations where military force should be employed. It also recognized that the security council has a responsibility to guard, only authorizing military intervention as the last choice in instances where there is a genocide or mass killing, ethnic purging, or severe infringements of humanitarian law. In this case, the governments must have been unable to or are not willing to prevent (Linter, 2005). The body deliberated that, when deciding whether to sanction or approve the employment of military force, they should at least consider five fundamental principles of legitimacy.

First, the threat to a country or the safety of the people should be severe enough to validate prima facie the usage of military force. For instance, a threat to internal security would include mass killings, genocides, purges, or life-threatening violations of universal humanitarian laws. Second, the primary reason for the use of the military is to stop or prevent the danger in question. Third, military involvement should be the last option, having explored and determined that all other non-military actions cannot be successful. Fourth, the time and force of the military operation are as minimal as necessary and proportional to handle the danger. Lastly, there must be a real possibility that military intervention will succeed, and the implication of this action should not cause more damage than those of inaction (Linter, 2005). Once these criteria are met, military intervention in cases of humanitarian intervention is considered legal.

References

Schreuer, C. (2000). Sources of international law: Scope and application (No. 28). Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research.

Greenwood, C. (2008). Sources of international law: an introduction. United Nations Treaty Collection.

Linter, J. E. (2005). Humanitarian Intervention: Legitimising the Illegal?. Defense Studies, 5(2), 271-294.