Foundations Of International Law - A Jurisprudential Perspective
Author: LawSphereX
Category: International Law
Published:
Updated:
FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: A
JURISPRUDENTIAL PERSPECTIVE
Pankhudi Singh, North Eastern Hill University
1 INTRODUCTION
International law, also referred to as the law of nations, governs the legal relationships between sovereign states, international organizations, and, in limited contexts, individuals. It establishes the framework within which nations interact, negotiate, and resolve disputes, and it addresses global concerns such as human rights, environmental protection, disarmament, international trade, and armed conflict. Unlike domestic legal systems that derive authority from a centralized legislature or sovereign authority, international law functions within a decentralized system lacking a supreme enforcement body. This fundamental distinction has long fueled the jurisprudential debate about the very nature and basis of international law.
The foundation of international law lies primarily in the consent of states, expressed through treaties, customary practices, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and, to a lesser extent, judicial decisions and scholarly writings. The existence and legitimacy of international law as "true law" has long been a subject of jurisprudential debate. Unlike domestic legal systems, international law operates in a decentralized global order—lacking a sovereign legislature, executive authority, and an effective enforcement mechanism. These structural gaps have led classical legal theorists, such as John Austin, to dismiss international law as mere morality or a set of ethical guidelines between sovereign states. However, the evolution of international relations, state practice, and the development of international institutions have progressively challenged this narrow view.
Modern jurists argue that the binding nature, widespread observance, and institutional recognition of international legal norms affirm its status as law. The jurisprudence surrounding this debate draws from both natural law and positivist traditions—each offering distinct justifications for its existence. This paper seeks to explore the legal status of international law, critically assess the views of leading scholars, and examine the theoretical foundations that support its recognition as a legitimate system of law governing the conduct of states.
2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
2.1 Concept
International law occupies a unique and complex position in the legal world. Unlike domestic law, which derives its authority from a centralized legislative and executive system, international law functions in a decentralized global framework where sovereign states and international organizations are primary actors.
2.2 Meaning and Definition of International Law
The term international law refers to a body of rules and principles that governs relations between sovereign states and other international actors. According to Oppenheim, international law is “the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized states in their intercourse with each other.” This definition highlights the dual nature of sources—custom and treaty—and emphasizes the legal obligations among states. International law is also referred to as public international law to distinguish it from private international law, which deals with conflict of laws and jurisdictional issues between individuals of different countries.
2.3 Features of International Law
a) Decentralization One of the most distinguishing features of international law is its decentralized nature. Unlike national legal systems, there is no single legislative body, executive authority, or judiciary to enforce international rules universally. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international tribunals do exist, but their jurisdiction is often consensual and limited in scope. b) Sovereign Equality The principle of sovereign equality underpins international law. Each state, irrespective of its size, power, or economic strength, is considered equal in the eyes of international law. This ensures that no state can impose its will unilaterally upon another without legal consequences. c) Voluntary Consent Obligations in international law often arise through treaties and agreements, which are based on the voluntary consent of states.
This consent-based system makes the law both flexible and fragile—states can choose whether or not to participate in particular agreements or institutions. d) Binding and Non-binding Norms International law comprises both hard law (legally binding treaties and customary norms) and soft law (declarations, resolutions, and guidelines that may not be binding but carry persuasive authority). While hard law is enforceable through international mechanisms, soft law influences the development of future legal norms.
2.4 Sources of International Law
As laid down in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the primary sources of international law include: • International Treaties and Conventions - Legally binding agreements between states that create enforceable rights and duties. • International Custom- Practices that are consistently followed by states out of a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). • General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations- Fundamental legal concepts shared by major legal systems. • Judicial Decisions and Juristic Writings- Subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. These sources collectively provide the substantive content of international law, even though their interpretation may vary across different legal cultures and institutions.
2.5 Binding Nature of International Law
A frequently debated question is whether international law truly qualifies as “law” in the classical sense. Critics, such as John Austin, argue that international law is merely "positive morality" due to its lack of a centralized enforcement mechanism. However, modern jurisprudence supports the view that international law is binding because: • States regularly follow international obligations. • Violations result in consequences like sanctions, diplomatic fallout, or loss of credibility. • Courts and tribunals do impose penalties in certain circumstances. • Non-compliance can result in reputational and economic loss. Thus, even in the absence of a coercive sovereign, international law maintains a level of effectiveness based on mutual interest, reciprocity, and collective enforcement.
3. BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS TRUE LAW
Contemporary jurists largely affirm the legitimacy of International Law as genuine law. With respect to the presence of sanctions, it is often argued that while a sanction may traditionally be considered an essential component of law, its absence does not invalidate the legal nature of International Law. Where sanctions are considered indispensable, one can still identify them within the international framework. For instance, the Common Law system in England incorporates International Law as part of its domestic law. Similarly, the Constitution of the United States acknowledges the binding nature of International Law. Furthermore, the Charter of the United Nations also provides an institutional basis, thereby reinforcing the legal enforceability of international norms.
Professor Starke has been particularly critical of Austin’s rigid definition of law, advocating instead for the recognition of International Law as a valid legal system. He supports this position with several arguments:
1. Historical jurisprudence demonstrates that even in societies lacking formal legislative
bodies, established legal systems governed community behavior. These systems functioned effectively and authoritatively, much like laws enforced by modern states.
2. Although Austin’s position may have been relevant in the 19th century, it fails to
address the current legal landscape where customary international norms are increasingly being supplanted by codified treaties and conventions. These instruments now serve as legislative equivalents in the global legal order.
3. The mechanisms responsible for managing international relations and diplomacy do not
regard International Law merely as a moral code, but as binding and operative legal obligations.
4. The establishment of the United Nations itself is predicated on the assumption that
International Law constitutes true legal obligations for states. In support of this stance, Professor Oppenheim maintains that International Law should be recognized as law for two principal reasons. First, in practical terms, state behavior often reflects legal compliance, with governments treating international norms as both morally and legally binding. Second, when states violate these norms, they do not reject the existence of International Law; rather, they seek to justify their actions within its framework, thereby affirming its legal status. Frequent breaches of International Law do not negate its existence. Municipal legal systems also experience violations, yet their legitimacy remains undisputed. Similarly, when international norms are transgressed, states often invoke legal reasoning to justify their conduct, reflecting an acknowledgment of the law’s authority. H. L. A.
Hart captures this dynamic well, noting that many rules of International Law are consistently observed despite potential sacrifices. States refer to these norms when asserting rights, and violations typically provoke widespread criticism and demands for redress—key indicators of a functioning legal system.
3.1 Supporting Arguments for the Legal Status of International Law
1. Sir Henry Maine illustrates that legal systems existed in early communities without
central authority, yet they effectively regulated behavior.
2. Austin’s model is inadequate today; if it were strictly applied, foundational systems like
the English Common Law would fail the test of legality due to the lack of a sovereign law-giver.
3. The development of International Law through binding treaties (e.g., the Hague and
Geneva Conventions) shows that international norms are now largely codified, and their authority does not stem from a single sovereign but from collective agreement.
4. In international practice, states rarely deny the existence of International Law; instead,
they offer legal arguments to justify their conduct within its parameters.
5. Some national jurisdictions, notably the UK and the USA, consider International Law
an integral part of their domestic legal systems. In Paquete Habana, the U.S. Supreme Court held that International Law is part of U.S. law and must be recognized by courts.
6. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjudicates disputes based on international
norms, as mandated by its statute.
7. International conventions and diplomatic conferences treat international legal rules as
binding.
8. The UN’s foundational legal structure is itself based on the legitimacy of International
Law.
9. Sanctions under the UN framework—such as economic penalties and military action—
demonstrate the existence of enforcement mechanisms, even if limited.
10. Violations indicate not the absence of law but the lack of robust enforcement
infrastructure.
11. ICJ rulings are binding on the parties to a dispute. Article 94 of the UN Charter obliges
members to comply with its judgments and provides recourse to the Security Council for enforcement.
3.2 Limitations and Criticisms of International Law
Despite these affirmations, International Law has notable weaknesses. Its legislative and executive structures are not as developed as those of domestic systems. The ICJ, while authoritative, lacks compulsory jurisdiction over states unless they consent. Consequently, enforcement often depends on political will rather than legal obligation. As Cobbett noted, International Law lacks the explicitness and coercive authority characteristic of domestic law.
Paton echoes this, stating that the institutional framework of International Law is frail—there is no central legislature, and judicial enforcement depends on party consent. While peace is generally preserved, crises often expose the system's fragility. There is no global parliament or executive authority capable of compelling nations to abide by international judgments. Sovereignty and nationalism continue to constrain the development of a supranational legal order. The law’s efficacy is deeply tied to institutional capacity, which International Law currently lacks in full measure. The UN Charter does authorize enforcement against aggressor states, including economic and military responses. However, such actions require Security Council approval, where veto powers of the permanent members often obstruct consensus, especially against powerful nations. Lord Coleridge in R. v.
Keyn (The Franconia) observed that International Law lacks a definitive lawgiver and enforceable tribunal, rendering it more a body of consensual norms than authoritative legislation. Brierly identifies another key limitation: International Law cannot intrude into matters within a state’s domestic jurisdiction. This significantly narrows its applicability and influence, especially in economic affairs such as tariffs, subsidies, and market access—all of which fuel international tensions but remain outside binding legal frameworks. Due to the lack of a centralized law-making institution, International Law often suffers from ambiguity and inconsistency in its application. The evolving nature of international norms means legal certainty is frequently compromised.
However, as John Norton Moore suggests, the international legal system does operate through a 'constitutive process' involving treatymaking, institutional interaction, and customary state practice—functions akin to legislative activity in a domestic context. This diffuse process, though lacking formal structure, still generates binding norms.
4. THE
BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: NATURAL LAW AND POSITIVISM After affirming that international law is indeed “law” in the true sense, it becomes essential to examine the underlying basis of this body of law. Broadly, two principal theories attempt to explain this foundation: Natural Law Theory and Positivism.
4.1. Natural Law Theory
4.1.1. Concept and Development
Natural law theorists assert that international law is derived from the broader concept of the Law of Nature, a higher legal order that governs the conduct of states. Starke explains that under this perspective, “States submitted to international law because their relations were regulated by a higher law—the law of nature—of which international law was but a part”1 . Originally rooted in religious thought, natural law was seen as divine and immutable. However, jurists of the 16th and 17th centuries, notably Hugo Grotius, secularised this concept. Grotius defined natural law as the dictate of right reason, founded on the rational and moral nature of human beings. His ideas laid the groundwork for later theorists such as Pufendorf, Vattel, and Christian Thomasius, who all emphasised natural law as the philosophical foundation for international legal obligations.
4.1.2. Criticism
Despite its moral appeal, natural law theory faces significant criticisms: • Vagueness and Subjectivity: The concept lacks uniform interpretation. Different theorists define it in terms of justice, reason, utility, or the interests of the international community, making it imprecise and metaphorical. • Disconnection from State Practice: The theory is often detached from the realities of state conduct and international relations.
4.1.3. Influence
Nevertheless, the influence of natural law theory on the evolution of international law is profound. Even today, "traces of natural law survive, albeit in a much less dogmatic form”2. The idealistic nature of this theory has significantly shaped the norms of human rights and jus cogens rules in contemporary international law.
1 JG Starke, Introduction to International Law (10th edn, Butterworths 1989) 22.
2 JG Starke, An Introduction to International Law (8th edn, Butterworths 1977) 24.
4.2. Positivism
4.2.2. Core Premise
In contrast, positivist theory grounds international law in the actual practice and consent of states. It emphasizes law as it is (lex lata), rather than law as it ought to be (lex ferenda). Positivists argue that law derives its authority from state consent, particularly through treaties and customary practices. As Brierly notes, international law comprises “a system of rules depending for their validity only on the fact that states have consented to them”3. One of the most prominent positivist jurists, Dionisio Anzilotti, posited that the binding nature of international law arises from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, i.e., agreements must be kept. The theory finds roots in the philosophies of Hegel and thinkers like Bynkershoek, who stressed the voluntary nature of legal obligations.
4.2.3. Criticism
Despite its practical orientation, positivism is not without criticism:
1 Metaphorical State Will
The concept of “state will” is abstract and metaphorical rather than empirical.
2 Overemphasis on Consent
The idea that all international law is based on express or implied consent is inaccurate. Customary international law binds even new states without any prior consent.
3 Impractical Consent Requirement
The requirement that states must consent to every international rule is unrealistic in a global system with over 190 states.
4 Universal Application
Some legal norms apply even to non-consenting states, as reflected in Article 2(6) of the UN Charter.
5 Obsolescence of Pacta Sunt Servanda
Not all international obligations arise from treaties; many stem from customs and general principles 4.
3 Starke (n 68) 23.
4 HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (Clarendon Press 1961) 228.
6 Legal Nature of Consent
Even declarations of consent require a legal framework to have binding force.
7 Narrow Source Recognition
Positivists limit sources of international law to treaties and customs, ignoring broader sources like general principles of law, as recognised in Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
4.2.4 Influence
Despite the above-mentioned defects and criticism, a great merit of this theory is that it is based on the actual practice of the States. It emphasises that only those rules are the rules of international law which have been adopted by the States and are observed in practice. Yet another special feature of this theory is that it has encouraged realistic outlock in international law. In several cases concerning the customary rules of international law, the International Court of Justice has adopted the positivist attitude. The Asylum case5, the Anglo-Norweglan Fisheries6 case and the Rights of the U. P. Nationals in Morocco cases7," deserve special mention in this connection.
In the Asylum case, the International Court of Justice observed: "The party which relies on a custom of this kind must prove that this custom is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other party. The Colombian Government must prove that this rule invoked by it is in accordance with a constant and uniform usage practised by States in question, and that the usage is the expression of a right appertaining to the States granting asylum and a duty incumbent on territorial States
4.3 The Composite View
Towards a Realistic Foundation In the contemporary international order, no state can isolate itself from global affairs. Technological advancement and global interdependence have rendered international legal cooperation essential. As Oppenheim observes, the real foundation of international law lies in the existence of an international community and the common consent of its members to be governed by shared legal norms. However no specific theory is capable of explaining the true basis of international law8. Indeed no single theory has received general agreement and
5 Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) (Judgment) [1950] ICJ Rep 266.
6 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (UK v Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116.
7 Nottebohm Case (Second Phase) (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Judgment) [1955] ICJ Rep 4
8 JG Starke, An Introduction to International Law (8th edn, Butterworths 1977) 34–35.
sanctions. It appears as though there are as many theories as there are scholars9. According to Sir Cecil Hurst, “international law is binding on states because they are states.” States follow international law not merely out of obligation but because order is preferable to chaos in international relations. The concept of consensus—now central to multilateral decision-making in institutions like the UN—has replaced the rigid notion of state consent and enabled the development of international law despite diverging national interests.
5. OTHER THEORIES REGARDING THE BASIS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Apart from the dominant theories of international law, several other approaches have emerged that attempt to explain its basis. These include:
1. Theory of Consent
2. Auto-limitation Theory
3. Pacta Sunt Servanda
4. Theory of Fundamental Rights
While the first three theories arise from positivism, the fourth is rooted in natural law theory. Each is discussed as follow:
5.1. Theory of Consent
This theory posits that state consent is the basis of international law. States adhere to international legal rules because they have agreed—explicitly or implicitly—to be bound by them. This view has been supported by positivist jurists like Anzilotti, Triepel, and Oppenheim. However, it has been subjected to significant criticism: • Starke argued that proving a state's express or implied consent is not necessary for customary international law to apply. • Prof. Smith stated that all states are bound by international law, regardless of their 9 Oscar Schachter, ‘Towards a Theory of International Obligation’ (1968) 8 Yearbook of International Legal Studies 300, 300–305. consent. • Kelsen noted that new states are subject to rights and obligations under international law immediately upon statehood, without prior consent.
• Fenwick criticized the theory as incompatible with the historical development of international legal obligations. • The theory also fails to explain the recognition of a new state, which involves the actions of other states rather than the consent of the recognized state itself. • Brierly rejected the theory for being logically inconsistent and unable to explain the true foundation of international legal obligation. As Sir Cecil Hurst observed: “International law is, in fact, binding on States because they are States. ” Thus, consent can never be the ultimate force of legal obligation. However, the notion of common consent—that there exists an international community agreeing on a legal framework—can be viewed as the foundation of the international legal system. This is not consent to individual rules but to the overall legal system of international law.
5.2. Auto-limitation Theory
According to this theory, international law binds states because they voluntarily limit their sovereignty—a process termed auto-limitation. This positivist view, supported by Jellinek, emphasizes the independence and sovereignty of states, suggesting that states restrict their own powers and thus become bound by international law. Criticism: • The theory assumes the existence of a distinct "state will", which is misleading, as the will of the state is essentially the will of its people. • Critics argue that auto-limitation is no limitation at all. A self-imposed restriction can be removed at will, undermining the binding nature of international law.
Prof. H.L.A. Hart criticised the theory’s incoherence, especially regarding the obligations of newly formed states, or states undergoing legal transformations (e.g., territorial changes), who are still bound by rules they had no part in creating or accepting.
5.3. Pacta Sunt Servanda
This Latin maxim, meaning “agreements must be kept”, forms a core principle of international law. Anzilotti considered it the supreme norm underlying the binding nature of treaties. This principle is codified in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which mandates that every treaty in force is binding and must be performed in good faith. Criticism: While pacta sunt servanda is an essential pillar of treaty law, it does not sufficiently account for the binding nature of customary international law, which arises independently of any formal agreement. As noted: “The realization that international customary law does not rest on agreements and that the tenet pacta sunt servanda is itself a rule of customary law led to new formulations of the basic norm.
” Kelsen reframed the foundation of international law to encompass customary usage, stating: “States ought to behave as they have customarily behaved. ”
5.4. Theory of Fundamental Rights
Rooted in natural law, this theory asserts that just as individuals in the state of nature possessed inherent rights (e.g., self-preservation, equality, independence), so too do states. It holds that these fundamental rights exist even in the absence of a higher world authority. Criticism (as per J.L. Brierly):
1. These “inherent” rights are legally meaningless unless conferred by a functioning legal
system.
2. The theory focuses excessively on state freedom, neglecting the importance of
cooperation and interdependence in the international community.
3. It wrongly treats rights like independence and equality as natural, when in reality, they
are products of historical evolution.
6. NEW TRENDS REGARDING BASIS OF OBLIGATION IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW Historically, consent has been the cornerstone of international legal obligations. Positivists even extended this concept to customary law by invoking the idea of tacit agreements. The principle of unanimity once dominated treaty negotiations, where only consenting parties were bound. However, significant changes have occurred with the advent of international organisations, especially the United Nations. The General Assembly (GA)—once a forum for deliberation— has gradually assumed a quasi-legislative role by adopting resolutions that are widely considered legally relevant or even binding. As Fawcett observed: “We must wait on the future to see whether the requirement of consent of states in international law-making can ever become independent of the treaty process.” This marks a shift from sovereignty-oriented consent to community-oriented consensus.
6.1 Examples of this shift
Resolution 1962 (XVII) on outer space law, which influenced the drafting of treaties. • Resolution 2749 (XXV) on the seabed beyond national jurisdiction, which helped develop customary law. • Prof. Jenks remarked that such declarations are “more than mere custom” but somewhat less than treaties. • McNair also acknowledged that these resolutions might well establish obligations, stating they are “much more than a programme of desirable objectives.”
6.2. Role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
The ICJ has reinforced this shift in its jurisprudence. In Gulf of Maine (Canada/US), the Court held: “Certain provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention... were adopted without objection and may be regarded as consonant with general international law.” Similarly, in Libya v. Malta, the Court observed, “Though conventions record and define rules derived from custom, it is necessary to assess to what extent any provisions of the 1982 Convention reflect binding customary international law.”
7 CONCLUSION
The basis of international law has long been a subject of juristic debate, with multiple theories offering distinct perspectives on why states are bound by its rules. The Theory of Consent, historically rooted in positivism, argues that states are bound by international law only because they have consented to it—either expressly or implicitly. However, this theory has significant shortcomings, particularly in explaining the applicability of customary law to new or dissenting states. The Auto-limitation Theory extends positivist reasoning by positing that sovereign states self-impose limitations on their will. Although this theory attempts to reconcile sovereignty with legal obligation, it suffers from conceptual ambiguity and fails to account for binding rules that arise independent of state will.
Similarly, while Pacta Sunt Servanda the principle that agreements must be kept is undeniably fundamental to treaty law, it cannot adequately explain the binding nature of non-treaty norms or the origin of this principle itself, which arises from customary practice. In contrast, the Theory of Fundamental Rights, rooted in natural law, sees states as inheriting rights and obligations by virtue of their existence, much like individuals in a pre-political natural order. However, this theory has been criticized for its abstract and historically unsubstantiated assumptions. The rise of international organizations, particularly the United Nations, has significantly altered the landscape of international law-making. The shift from sovereignty-oriented consent to community-oriented consensus is a remarkable evolution, driven by global interdependence and the need for collective action.
Resolutions of the UN General Assembly, declarations, and widespread state practices now play an influential role in shaping customary international law. Judicial recognition of these trends by bodies such as the International Court of Justice signals the growing legitimacy of consensus as a foundational element in international legal obligation. In conclusion, while traditional theories like consent and pacta sunt servanda retain relevance in specific contexts, they are insufficient in explaining the full complexity and binding nature of modern international law. The growing importance of consensus and institutional mechanisms calls for a more dynamic, pluralistic theory one that accommodates both the realities of state sovereignty and the aspirations of an increasingly integrated international community.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED Abbreviation Full Form Rep Reports ICJ International Court of Justice UN United Nations G. A.
General Assembly (of the United Nations)
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IMF International Monetary Fund OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OPEC
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
BIBLIOGRAPHY
List of Cases i. Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) (Judgment) [1950] ICJ Rep 266. ii. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 116. iii. Certain Questions Relating to the Settlers of German Origin in the Territory of Morocco (France v Germany) (Judgment) [1939] PCIJ Series A/B No 76. Books Referred: i. Agarwal, H O, International Law and Human Rights (23rd edn, Central Law Publications 2022) ii. Kapoor, S K, International Law and Human Rights (22nd edn, Central Law Agency 2021) iii. Starke, J G, An Introduction to International Law (10th edn, Butterworths 1989) iv. Shaw, Malcolm N, International Law (8th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017) v. Jain, P C, Public International Law (LexisNexis 2017) Website Accessed: i.
The Indian Lawyer, ‘Human Rights Violations & the Impact on Human Rights’ (The Indian Lawyer, 12 February 2022) https://theindianlawyer. in/human-rights-violationsthe-impact-on-human-rights/ accessed 3 June 2025. ii. PWOnlyIAS, ‘Human Rights Abuse in India’ (PWOnlyIAS, 2023) https://pwonlyias. com/current-affairs/human-rights-abuse-in-india/ accessed 3 June 2025. iii. iPleaders, ‘Human Rights Violations’ (iPleaders Blog, 10 October 2020) https://blog. ipleaders. in/human-rights-violations/#Types_of_human_rights_violation s accessed 3 June 2025. iv. Redalyc, ‘Human Rights Violations: Concept, Types, and Implications’ (Redalyc,
2021) https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5431/543168982007/ accessed 3 June 2025.