PIL_outline - PIL outline, 1 Public International Law...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PIL outline, 1 Public International Law Outline of sessions Part 1: Structure of international law and organization 1. Introductory session 2. Meaning and history of international law and organization A. What is IL? Why is it I? How is it L? IL is a normative system (system of standards) that applies to states. It applies to more than just states – also organizations, individuals (rights and duties) Manages relationships between different actors Private international law: conflicts between legal systems of States Book Definition: system of rule that are created in order to structure and organize societies and relationships. It is the legal principles from interactions between States, actions by States and certain actions by individuals, cops, int organizations and other int actors [pg1] i. Who makes the law? Treaties, agreements between countries, UN (binding decisions of security counsel) ii. Who are the lawmakers of the international laws? Countries, states, there is no precedent, there are no judges Legal order, different legal space iii. Why is IL international? b/c it operates in the international area, and it can apply to individuals in different states iv. Should there be law on the international system at all in relation to states? Should states be bound by legal principles or be free to act in any way that they choose (deals with sovereignty) v. Consent is important, do you give consent to follow the laws? Should there be constraints on the international system? Should a state be constrained in domestic affairs? o Acheson, p2book: A rejects IL b/c constraints will prevent a country from protecting itself. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Intl law isn’t good b/c it prevents a state from doing what is necessary to ensure its own survival ALSO Individual judgment should decide an important decision, and not judgments. Ach has it wrong b/c states do have a right to ensure their survival Another view: A is wrong b/c it doesn’t really matter, b/c there isn’t constraint. (Enforcement issue) o Intl law has binding effect, but when in a crunch, states will do whatever they want. There aren’t constraints. There is no system of compulsion to enforce intl law. 2 aspects of binding decisions o Existence of a dispute settlement mechanism: depends on the other state agreeing to the dispute being heard. No compulsory dispute settlement. o Trade law through WTO. The compulsory dispute settlement existed. Henkin excerpt: o intl law is a constraint—states do obey it most of the time. It is in the state’s best self- interest to follow everyone else. Reciprocity is key. o Fundamental intl interests: How does he explain the violations of fundamental interests? He says there have been violations, but says to think about what has been prevented
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 382G taught by Professor Engle during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 31

PIL_outline - PIL outline, 1 Public International Law...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online