Thomas Hobbes Acceptance Of International Law

TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.

International law is not law in the true sense of the term- Hobbes and Austin

The weakness of international law becomes evident when we compare it with municipal law. The greatest shortcoming of international law is that it is not enforceable and it lacks effective legislative machinery. International court of justice lacks compulsory jurisdiction. The sanctions and the enforcement machinery of the international law are so weak. International law cannot be invoked to settle a dispute which is essentially a domestic matter of that state. The question is whether a matter is essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a state or not has to be decided by the Security Council which is controlled by the five permanent members of the United Nations. The availability of the veto power in the hands of the permanent members of the Security Council is a major obstacle in solving international problems. There is no certainty for international law. The international law has failed to maintain order and peace in the world for many

This view is far from truth in view of the developed and changed character of international law today. It is incorrect to say that international legal system is without a court to decide international disputes. The establishment of the permanent court of international justice has rightly been reckoned as a landmark for the development of international law because though in international legal system was provided with judicial organ to resolve international disputes on the basis of judicial decisions. The greatest proof of its utility and importance is the fact that its successor, the international court of justice is based on the statute of the permanent court of international justice. It is true that the decision of international court of justice is not equivalent to that the municipal courts. Nevertheless the decisions of the court posses binding force and can be enforced under certain circumstances. They are binding upon the parties to the dispute and only in respect of that dispute. The provision to this effect is contained in article 59 of the statue of the international court of justice. Besides this article 94 of the U.N charter provides that each member of the U.N undertakes to comply with the decision of the