The future of international law

The 'decade of international law' (GA Res 45/90) has come and gone and the inter­national community has entered the 21st century. At the start of the 1990s, the end of the 'cold war' brought uncertainty but actually heralded a new era of cooperation

The nature of international law and the international system

among the five permanent members of the Security Council and a consequential increase in the influence of the United Nations. The present decade is unlikely to witness such a fundamental realignment, but the challenges facing international law are no less pressing.

The next few years will see the wider exercise of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court and, no doubt, a widening of the scope of international law to embrace in even more detail non-state entities such as individuals, organisations and corporations. This is nothing new, but perhaps the pace of this development will gather speed. Likewise, to give but a few examples, there will be significant advances in international environmental law, in the law of international commu­nications and more treaty codification of customary law. In the United Nations itself, calls for the abolition of the 'veto' and/or an increase in the number of per­manent members of the Security Council are becoming louder and more persistent. In contrast, many international lawyers believe that 'regionalisation' will replace 'universality' as the most effective template for managing the international com­munity. So, perhaps, there will be different rules of international law for Europe, and Africa or North America. Certainly, regional organisations seem more prepared to take on the task of regulating the conduct of its members rather than submit to 'outside' regulation. There is uncertainty, but the world is changing and inter­national law must change with it.

All this will have an impact on a system of law that was conceived originally as a set of rules to govern sovereign states in their international relations. Of course, it remains true that the majority of concrete rules of international law are created by states for states and that conceptions of 'sovereignty' and independence are deeply rooted in the fabric of international society. Nevertheless, it seems that the institu­tions of international law are changing, and will have to change further, to accom­modate the slow but steady move to rules aimed at controlling states (even in their dealings with their own nationals inside their own territory) instead of rules which simply facilitate their interaction. Much will depend on how international law copes with the issue of effective enforcement. A set of rules that facilitates inter­action between states without over-prescribing a particular course of action can sur­vive with little or weak enforcement machinery. A set of rules that seeks to control states in their actions needs a stronger enforcement mechanism if it is to achieve its goals. Is this likely, or will the attempt fail and bring the whole edifice of inter­national law into disrepute?

Date: 2014-12-21; view: 1360