International Law: Definitions, Nature And Basis

The term International Law or Law of Nations has been used in contradistinction to
the National Law or Municipal Law which means the law of country. International Law is,
generally, above and outside, the national laws of the various States and to some extent operates
on the territories of all the States.
.
Today the scope of international law has extended from the preservation of peace to regulate the
various activities of international life, like space expeditions, ocean floor explorations, protection
of human rights and global environment, management of international financial system, etc. All
these factors and developments emphasize the need for an international law in the modem
scenario.

Definition of International Law

A law, howsoever important and crucial, is not of much use if it is not properly defined and
codified. There is no single universally accepted definition of international law, though some
good attempts have been made in that direction.

The words international law was used for the first time by eminent British jurist, Bentham in
1780. Since then, these words have been used to denote the body of roles which regulate the
relations among States. Though international law can be traced to ancient Greece, Rome and
India, it cannot be denied that the public international law which we know today has come to us
through Europe. It is determined by the modem European system.

Oppenheim's definition
Professor Oppenheim has defined international law in the following words:
Law of Nations or international law is the name for the body of customary and conventional
rules which are considered legally binding by civilized States in their intercourse with each
other.
The definition given by Oppenheim in 1905 has become obsolete and inadequate.

The definition has been subject to the following criticism:

i. The definition takes into account of the relations of States' only. But, presently,
international organisations and institutions are also regarded as subjects of international
law. They have been given rights and duties under international law, even though they
may not have all the rights and duties that States have. Certain activities of multinational
corporations are also regulated by this branch of law.

ii. International Law also provides certain rights and duties to individuals. It has been so,
particularly, after the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenants of Human Rights further
 confirm that the individuals have become not only the subjects of international law but
can also directly claim rights and remedies provided under international law. Above all,
the Charter of the U.N. begins with the words we the people of the United Nations.

Thus, the present international law cannot be regarded as the law governing the relations
between States, but must be regarded as the common law of mankind in an early stage of
its development (Jenks). At present, it also governs relations between States and
international organisations, between States and private persons, and between international
organisations and private persons (Judge Jessup has therefore suggested an alternative
name Trans-national law to include all law which regulates actions or events that
transcend national frontiers)

iii. The use of the term civilized States by Oppenheim is also severely criticised. In not too
distant past, the Western States regarded only the Christian States' as civilized States. At
present there are many members of the U.N. which include Christian as well as non-
Christian States. The term civilized States' was thus deleted in the later editions of
Oppenheim's book.

iv. The words legally binding' (in the Oppenheim's definition) connote positive character
which is diffused and diluted by the subsequent words by civilized States. Oppenheim
does not say that these rules are legally binding', but that they are considered so. His
definition, though broad, is a qualified one.

In the ninth edition of Oppenheim's book (1992) the term international law' has been
defined differently after taking into account of the new developments:

International Law is the body of rules which are legally binding on States in their intercourse
with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations of States, but States
are not the only subjects of international law. International organisations and, to some extent,
also individuals may be subjects of rights conferred and duties imposed by international law.

This new definition of international law is nearly similar to that given by Starke and Fenwick.
However, it is still deficient in one respect viz. its silence regarding general principles of law'
recognized by civilized nations.

Other Classic definitions

Brierly
The law of nations or international law may be defined as the body of rules and principles of
action which are binding upon civilized States in their relations with one another.
Hackworth similarly defines: International Law consists of a body of rules governing the
relations between States.

Queen v. Keyn, (2 Ex. D. 63 (1876)). Lord Coleridge, C.J. defined international law as: The
law of nations is the collection of usages which civilized States have agreed to observe in their
dealings with one another.

Gray: International Law or the law of nations is the name of a body of rules which according to
the usual definitions regulate the conduct of States in their intercourse with each other.
Kelsen has also given a similar definition.

Modern definitions

Fenwick:
International law may be defined in broad terms as the body of general principles and specific
rules which are binding upon the members of the international community in their mutual
relations. The definition takes into account the changes that have taken place after the Second
World War. The words members of the international community' include States, international
institutions, individuals and non-State entities. The term general principles' is also incorporated
in the definition.

Starke:
International law may be defined as that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the
principles and rules of conduct which States feel themselves bound to observe, and, therefore, do
commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which includes also:

a. the rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions/organisations, their

relations with each other, and their relations with State and individuals; and
b. certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-State entities so far as the rights and
duties of such individuals and non-State entities are the concern of the international
community.

The definition of Starke takes into account the changing character of international law and truly
reflects the present position of international law. However, if an entity not enumerated by Starke
ever comes within the scope of international law with the passage of time; the definition would
again be subjected to criticism. Thus, the definition does not stand correct for all times to come.

Schwarzenberger:
International law is the body of legal rules which apply between sovereign States and such other
entities as have been granted international personality.

Development Of International Law (Scope of International Law)

International law is a dynamic law. It has been changing since its inception. It is constantly
developing, sometimes it does not keep up with developments, other times it anticipates them
and gives an early warning of tendencies in the development of international relations. It is a
developing philosophy of values. For example, in June 1989, the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) with a view to warn the people of the increase in earth's temperature due to
green-house effect, gave the slogan of Global Warming'. Similarly, the Rio Conference in 1992
highlighted the need to protect and preserve earth from environmental pollution. At crucial or
important turns of history, there are qualitative changes in international law. The recent breaking
of the Soviet Union is a glaring example of this.

New International Law

The term new international law indicates the norms and values that have been evolved since the
Second World War. The traditional, juridical and individualistic character of international law
(i.e. law governing the relations of sovereign States with each other) is being replaced by the law
of social interdependence (i.e. interdependence of the nations or international community). At
the present time, there is hardly a State which in the interests of the international community has
not accepted restrictions on its liberty of action.

The shift has been from the more or less formal regulation of diplomatic relations between
States to an international law of welfare (Friedmann). Interdependence among nations, today,
has become inevitable in view of the expanding horizons of science, technology, trade,
commerce, etc. In fact, the growth and development of international law is parallel to the growth
and development of international relations in the field of science and technology, trade and
commerce, etc.

Crisis in International Law

As compared to municipal law, international law is confronted with many difficulties and
problems to keep pace with the rapidly changing times and circumstances. One of the main
defects of international law, according to Brierly, has been that it has aimed to stabilize rather
than to provide for the growth of international society, and to maintain existing values rather than
to create new ones. In the absence of a world legislative body, treaty making is the counter part
of the legislative process in the domestic field of the States. But treaty process is a cumbersome
process for it obviously depends upon the consent of States with different ideologies, traditions
and interests. Above all, the greatest problem is the concept of sovereignty. International law
operates in a decentralised system. The rapid changes in different fields have brought a sense
of crisis in international law.

The factors responsible for this crisis include - rapid technological progress, the rise of new
ideologies and systems of public order, including militant communism, the appearance of many
new States of widely different cultural backgrounds and levels of development, the fear of war
and growing reluctance of the more advanced States to protect their interests by coercive means,
and the increase in the number and functions of international organizations.

Thus, in the dynamic world of today, international law finds itself confronted with many
challenges viz. communism, emergence of a large number of new States on the world scene,
nuclear weapons, scientific and technological revolution, environmental pollution, AIDS, etc.

International law must be continuously developed by revision in content, expansion of scope,

and improvement of the means of securing compliance, so that it is keep in accord with the
changing needs of the international community {Edward Collins). Indeed the future of mankind
rests on the capability of international law to develop and adapt itself to the changing times and
circumstances. International law must become universal in order to serve the interests of all
States properly, equitably and effectively.

India's position
Like other new States, India has also sought to reject or modify some of the rules and principles
of the traditional international law. India has neither accepted the whole nor has rejected the
entire fabric of the traditional international law. India, like many other new nations, has
expressed dissatisfaction with some of the rules of international law as developed in the West.
Since her emergence as new State after the attainment of independence, India has made her own
contribution for the progressive development of international law. Her contribution has been
particularly significant in the fields of codification of international law, colonial issue, peaceful
coexistence, non-alignment, and, environmental protection.

Is International Law true Law?

One of the most controversial issues that has long been debated and on which the opinions of the
jurists are sharply divided concerns the status of international law. The debatable question is: Is
international law really law? One view is that international law is not a true law. It is a code of
rules of conduct of moral force only. Another view is that international law is a true law, and it is
to be regarded as law in the same way as that of ordinary laws of a State which are binding upon
the individuals. The controversy whether international law is a law or not revolves on the
divergent definitions of the word law' given by the jurists.

Austin's view
According to Austin, law is a command of the sovereign attended by sanction in case of violation
of the command. In other words, law should be limited to rules of conduct enacted by a
determinate legislative authority and enforced by physical sanction. The superior, according to
him, is the real sovereign.

The definition contains two important elements:

1. Firstly, law is a command enacted by the sovereign legislative authority, and

2. secondly, it must be enforced by the sovereign authority.

Austin said that international law cannot be called law proper in the true sense, because it has
neither sovereign legislative authority to enact law nor there is an adequate sanction behind it.
Moreover, there is no enforcement agency which can enforce it as a body of rules. The rules
commonly called international law are in fact the rules of positive morality; the rules are
analogous to the rules binding a club or society. International law is a code of conduct with
moral force and nothing more. It consists of opinions or sentiments current among nations
generally'. A rule is a rule of morality, if by common consent of the community it applies
to conscience and to conscience only.
Such rules are different from rules of law wherein by common consent of the community it is
eventually enforced by external/superior power. International law is a body of rules governing
the relations of sovereign States inter se, but there is no sovereign power over and above a
sovereign State which could enforce the rules of international law. It is also argued that there is
no such executive power in international law as may enforce the decisions of the International
Court of Justice and ensure the observance of the provisions of the treaties. International law
lacks a potent judiciary. That is why, some writers call international law a quasi-law (Lathan
Brown), Other noted jurists holding similar opinion are Bejitham, Holland, Hobbes, Pufendorf,
etc.

Criticism of Austin's view

The above view which denies the legal character of international law has been severely criticised
by a large number of jurists. According to Oppenheim, law is a body of rules for general conduct
within a community which by common consent of this community shall be enforced by external
power.

According to this definition:

1. firstly, there must be community

2. secondly, there must be a body of rules for human conduct within that community (all the
communities submit to the rule of law because they wish to afford due respect and
protection to the dignity of men and nations); and
3. thirdly, there must be common consent of that community that these rules shall be
enforced by external powers.

It means that it is not necessary that rules should be enacted through a law-making authority or
there should exist a law administering court within the community concerned. Oppenheim said
that the three requirements of this definite on are satisfied by international law, to a greater or
lesser extent.

However, definition given by Oppenheim will be regarded correct only when it is proved that
there exists an international society or community. Oppenheim is of the opinion that the States of
the world do together constitute a body bound together through common interests which create
extensive intercourse between them, and differences in culture, economic structure, or political
system, do not affect as such the existence of an international community as one of the basic
factors of international law.

According to Sir Frederic Pollock:

the only essential conditions for the existence of law are the existence of a political community
and the recognition by its members of settled rules binding upon them in that capacity,
international law seem on the whole to satisfy these conditions.

According to Louis Henkin:

what matter is not whether the international law has legislative, judicial or executive branches
corresponding to those we have become accustomed to seek in a domestic society; what matter is
whether international law is reflected in the policies of nations and in relations between nations.

Oppenheim regards international law as law because of the following two reasons: firstly,
international law is constantly recognized as law in practice, the Government of different States
feel that they are legally as well as morally bound to follow it; secondly, while breaking it, States
never deny its legal existence, rather they recognise its existence and try to interpret international
law as justifying their conduct.

According to Brierly:
the best evidence for the existence of international law is that every State recognizes that it does
exist and that it is itself under obligation to observe it. States may often violate international law,
just as individuals often violate municipal law; but no more than individuals do, States defend
their violations by claiming that they are above the law.

As pointed out by Edward Collins: International law is created and is deemed to be legally
binding by authoritative national and international decision makers because they understand that
generally agreed upon rules and principles of action serve the indispensable function of
providing a basis for the orderly management of international relations.

According to Starke, international law is really law.

He has put forward four main arguments:

1. firstly, in many primitive communities, a system of law existed without there being a
formal legislative authority;
2. secondly, international legislation in the form of law-making treaties and conventions has
come into existence today;
3. thirdly, the authoritative agencies responsible for the maintenance of international
intercourse do not regard international law as merely a moral code;
4. lastly, the United Nations is based on the true legality of international law.

The arguments of the jurists who regard international law as really law, may be summed up as
follows:

i. The term law cannot be limited to rules of conduct enacted by a sovereign authority.
Customary rules of law do exist viz. common law of England. The rules laid down by
treaties are binding although they do not emanate from a sovereign political authority.
The procedure for formulating international rules is well settled by means of treaties, etc.

ii. When international questions arise, States do not rely upon moral arguments but rely
upon treaties, precedents and opinions of specialists. Thus, States do not deny the
existence of international law. In some States (e.g. USA and UK), international law is
 treated as part of their own law (Paquete v. Habanna (1900) 175 US 677), As aptly
remarked by Prof. Hart, international law is law because States regard it as law. Nothing
need be further proved.

iii. International conferences and conventions also treat international law as law in its true
sense. The United Nations is based on the true legality of international law. As per statute
of the International Court of Justice, the Court to decide disputes as are submitted to it in
accordance with international law. The Court's decisions are binding upon the parties to a
dispute, and under certain conditions its decisions can be enforced. Besides this there are
a variety of International Tribunals such as International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

iv. So far as sanction in law is concerned, international law does not completely lack it.

v. International law is not very frequently violated.

Thousands of treaties have been concluded by the States, but the instances of their violation are
very few. Rules regarding immunities provided to diplomatic agents are generally observed.
Other rules of international law including the laws of warfare are also observed usually. Every
State or municipal law is violated. Frequent violations of law indicate the weakness of
enforcement machinery and have nothing to do with the legality of the rules.

Oppenheim observed that:

while the frequency of the violations of international law may strain its legal force to breaking
point, the formal (though often cynical) affirmation of its binding nature is not without
significance.

Basis of International Law

The roots of international law go deep into history and evidence of treaties, immunities of
ambassadors, usages of war, etc. can be found in ancient Egypt, India, the Greek and Roman
empires. The present day international law owes its origin to the great jurist Grotius whose work
De jure Belli ac Paces (1625) lent legal basis to many areas of international relations. His main
idea is that there are certain eternal, unchangeable and independent rules of law which have roots
in human reason. This law of reason is called by him as Natural Law.

In the Grotian theory, there are three basis of international law: Laws of reason, Customs,
and Treaties. Emanating from his conception are two theories as to true basis of
international law:

a. Naturalist theory (Pufendrof): There exists a system of law which emanates from God
or reason or morals. Law of nations is only a part of law of nature. Hart explains that a
minimum content of law flowing from the immutable nature of man is that which is
necessary for survival of mankind. International peace and security being necessary for
survival of human kind, all laws relating to it are thus parts of law of nature. The theory is
 criticised on the ground that it is too vague.

b. Positivist theory (Bynkershook): Only those principles may be deemed as law which
have been adopted with the consent of the States. Law is that which exists in fact. It is
that law which is enacted or followed by States (i.e. emanate from their own free will)
and is hence binding upon States. Customs and treaties come into existence from express
or tacit consent of States. The theory is criticised as all rules of international law are not
derived from customs and treaties. Further, a treaty may be binding on third States as
well, and, States in some cases are bound by general international law even against their
will.

c. Eclectic theory: The views taken by the naturalists and positivists are extreme views. A
theory giving equal importance to both the views appears to be correct. As to the true
basis of international law, contemporary sociological theories tend to support Naturalism
because they argue that international law is based on social interdependence and aims at
bringing about international social justice. Thus, natural law underlies even at the positive
law (customs and treaties) which is only an expression of this social interdependence.

International Law Is Weak Law

Starke has expressed the view that international law is a weak law. Existing international
legislative machinery, operating mainly through lawmaking conventions, is not comparable in
efficiency to State legislative machinery.

Some other weaknesses of international law are as follows:

i. There is no effective executive authority to enforce the rules of international law.

ii. The International Court of Justice lacks compulsory jurisdiction in the true sense of the
term. The court does not have jurisdiction to decide the disputes of all the States since the
court acts with the consent of the States only. Further, the court does not have any real
power to enforce its decisions.

iii. As compared to rules of State law, the rules of international law suffer from greater
uncertainty. Further, rules expressed in treaties, etc. are sometimes formulated in such a
way so as to give wide options to the State parties.

iv. Due to lack of effective sanctions, rules of international law are frequently violated.
Further, to compel the strong' States for the observance of the rules of international law
becomes difficult on a number of occasions.

v. International law has, in many cases, failed to maintain order and peace in the world.

A great limitation of international law is that it cannot intervene in the matters which are within
the domestic jurisdiction of States. Thus, international law is a weak law in comparison to the
municipal law. However, it must be noted that, unlike municipal law, international law operates
in a purely decentralised system. All States consider themselves independent and sovereign.
International law must be understood and appreciated in the peculiar system in which it operates.

It is as good and effective as it can be under the circumstances and peculiar system under which
it operates. It is really creditable that rules of international law are considered binding upon the
States because either through treaties or otherwise States have consented to surrender a part of
their sovereignties.

Suggestions for improving international law:

i. The machinery to enforce the rules of international law should be strengthened. The
United Nations Charter should be amended so as to authorise the U.N. to intervene in
such matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the States as are of international concern.

ii. The International Court of Justice should be given compulsory jurisdiction in the true
sense of the term, over all international disputes. Further, an International Criminal Court
should be established to adjudicate cases relating to international crimes.

iii. In order to make international law changeable and adaptable in accordance with the
changing times and circumstances, powers and scope of the activities of the International
Law Commission should be expanded.

iv. The doctrine of judicial precedents should be applied in the field of international law.
This will help to strengthen it. In order to strengthen the rule of law in international
relations, the General Assembly of U.N. in 1989 declared the period 1990-99 as
the United Nations Decade of International Law. The assembly stated by adopting a
resolution that the main purposes of the Decade should be, inter alia
(a) to promote acceptance of and respect for the principles of international law
(b) to promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States,
including resort to and full respect of the international court of justice
(c) to encourage the progressive development and codification of international law
(d) to encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider appreciation of
international law.

These activities are likely to play a positive role in removing the weaknesses of international law.
It is felt that the weaknesses generally pointed out are not the weaknesses of the rules of
international law.

In fact, they reveal and bring to the fore the lack of feeling on the part of the States as to its
imperative character. International law is very much a law, but its observance, progress and
development will depend upon the attitude of nations. In order to strengthen international law, it
should be clearly recognized by all States that the observance of the rules of international law is
in their own interest and hence they should ensure that there are no breaches of the rules of
international law.
Sanctions in International law
A sanction is a penalty imposed in order to enforce obedience to a rule of law. Sanctions in
international law include measures, procedures and expedients for exerting pressures upon a
State to comply with its international legal obligations. A question arises as to what sanctions
international law provides to those States which violate the rules. Sanctions in the modem
international law are quite different from those which existed in the classical international law.

The latter provided the sanction generally in the form of war and reprisals. However, at present,
these measures in most of the cases have become unlawful. Sanctions applied by the aggrieved
States are required to be lawful and they must conform to the provisions of U.N. Charter.

Sanctions may be applied by the States individually or collectively by international

organisations:

a. Sanctions by States: A State may apply sanction by means of self-help. The action taken
in self-help is required to be in strict compliance with the provisions of the Charter.
Under Art. 2(4) of the Charter, the members of U.N. have undertaken that they shall
respect the territorial integrity and political independence of each other and shall not use
force against each other. Use of armed forces in self-help in response to international
wrongful acts not involving armed attack is forbidden.

b. Collective sanctions: International organisations which States themselves have

established have been empowered to take collective sanction against State. Under
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, if there is a threat to the international peace
and security or an aggression has taken place, the Security Council can take necessary
action to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The Charter postulates economic, financial and military sanctions. The economic and
financial sanctions include the complete or partial severance of economic relations
against a State or the application of embargo. Military sanctions may include
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea or land forces of the members
of U.N. Political sanctions (not expressly mentioned in the Charter) include appeal to a
State to do or not to do certain acts, suspension of an exercise of the rights and privileges
of the membership of U.N., and expulsion from the U.N. membership. Besides the U.N.,
specialised agencies of it such as ILO, WHO, IPO and ITO have also been authorised to
take action against State.

For instance, constitution of the International Labour Organization lays down a procedure
for dealing with complaints regarding a failure by a member State to secure the effective
observance of an International Labour Convention binding it. The decisions of the
International Court of Justice are binding upon the parties to the dispute. Article 94 of the
U.N. also provides that if a party to the dispute does not follow the Court's decision, the
other party may approach the Security Council which can take necessary measures to
 ensure the implementation of the decision.

c. Public opinion: Public opinion is the ultimate sanction behind international law and for
that matter any law. Public opinion becomes adverse with the application of U.N.
sanctions against a State. It was the world public opinion which forced the United
Kingdom and France to pull out their troops from the Suez Canal in 1956.

Effectiveness of Sanctions
International law is not without sanctions although these sanctions are not generally for the
enforcement of international law. These sanctions are to maintain or restore international peace
and security which is only a part of international law. Further, even these sanctions are not quite
effective. Briefly has remarked that sanctions which it possesses are not systematic or centrally
directed, and that accordingly they are precarious in their operation.

The greatest shortcoming of international law is the absence of effective machinery to carry out
sanctions. Despite this, whatever sanctions there are behind international law make impact upon
the States and in practice States generally follow international law.

As remarked by Dias:
The principal reasons why States obey international law appear to be fear and self-interest. Fear
operates through war, reprisals, pacific blockade, etc.

However, Rahmatullah Khan has observed:

Nations obey international law not because of the fear of some brooding omnipresence in the sky
threatening retribution to the recalcitrant but because they feel obliged (for various reasons) to do
so. And the consent of the constituent entities is continually decisive (I.J.I.L. Vol. 15 (1975)).

This is equivalent to saying that law itself has an in-built element of respect and sanction behind
it and wise human beings in their own interests need not search for authority to obey law as all
laws are ordained to be obeyed (Manu).

The position of international law is somewhat like Manu's concept in this respect that there is no
ostensible sanction or world authority... however, respect flowing from inherent utility is so
embedded in the very concept of that branch of law that it compels obedience to the precepts and
tenets of international law (Dr. Nagendra Singh, I.J.I.L., Vol. 24 (1984)).

As pointed out in Ninth Edition of Oppenheim's International Law:

An emerging system of sanctions for the enforcement of international law is discernible...., there
are also certain other indications of a growing maturity in international order, viz. there is
increasing acceptance that the rules of international law are the foundation upon which the rights
of States rest, and no longer merely limitation upon States' rights which are unlimited.
Whether International Law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence?
Holland regards international law as the vanishing point of jurisprudence because it cannot be
kept in the category of law as there is neither any sovereign authority nor there exists sanctions if
its rules are violated. There is no judge or arbiter to decide international disputes and he rules of
international law are followed by States by courtesy.

It is submitted that while his view was perhaps correct at his time but at present the same is
subjected to severe criticism and therefore, it is not tenable in the changed character of
international law. It is wrong to say that there are no sanctions at all in international law.

It is incorrect to say that international legal system is without a Court to decide international
disputes. If a State violates rules of international law, it can be enforced by an external power. In
numerous treaties, States have not only accepted it to be binding but also confirm the fact that it
is a law between them. Thus, it is incorrect to say that international law is the vanishing point of
jurisprudence.

Differences between Public and Private International Law

It is to be noted that the expression International Law is identical with the so called Public
International Law. It is different from Private International Law which is a law of different
States and which concerns mainly such matters between individuals as fall at the same time
under the jurisdiction of two or more different States. Rules of private international law have
evolved to avoid the conflicts which arise due to conflicting rules of municipal or State laws of
different countries. Public and private international law differ on many counts.

Firstly, while public law deals primarily with the States and to some extent with the individuals,
private law deals primarily with the individuals of two States (e.g. contracts of sale or service
between persons in different countries).

Secondly, while rules of private law are part of the internal law of the State concerned, it is not
so in the case of public law.

Thirdly, while public law is applied uniformly to all the States, private law differs from State to
State.

Fourthly, while private law is enacted mainly through legislation enacted by the legislatures of
different States, public law evolves largely through the consent of the States by means of
customs and treaties. Private international law deals entirely with the relations of persons living
under different legal systems. Occasions for the application of it arise when justice requires that
law of some outside jurisdiction - not necessarily a foreign State - be applied in a particular case.

For example, to cite a famous English situation, when couples left England to be married in
Scotland where the marriage laws were less stringent, and question arose whether the validity of
marriage should be determined by English Law or by Scottish Law. The English Courts held that
the laws of Scotland should apply. In some exceptional cases, rules of private international law
may become rules of public international law when they are incorporated in the international
treaties.

Conclusion
On the basis of the above definitions one may conclude that International law is constantly
evolving body of norms that are commonly observed by the members of international
community in their relation with one another. These norms confer rights and impose obligations
upon States and, to a lesser extent, upon international organizations and individuals'. The above
view takes into account both the new and classic definitions of international law.