In the history of international relation, there has been huge discussion about nature of international law and capability to enforce against malefactors. It should also be emphasized that, this controversial issue indicates itself in the theoretical approaches which attempt to explain and determine nature of international law. According to positivist theory, law comprises order which is enforced by a sanction and issued by sovereign, in contrast to this, scholars of realist theory argue that, international law was set up by powerful states in order to reach their future goals. The purpose of this essay is to highlight violation of international law by powerful states, and realist scholars’ view to international relation and law. It would be a mistake to emphasize that, principles of international law is followed by states in all case. In other words, international law could be characterized as a weak legal system because of lacking enforcement institutions and compulsory jurisdiction. It is an undeniable fact that, after the Second World War, development of international law has been witnessed and establishing of UN and other international organization had given universal frame to legal system. However, these organizations don’t have a capability to constrain powerful states from pursing theirs plans and maintain international peace and security. These states are play dominant role in international relation and have an ability to represent economically and politically influence on global scale. Moreover, emerging of new powerful states make international relations more complicated. According to realist theory international system is characterized as anarchy and based on self- help relations. These relations between states are determined and regulated by objective law that takes its origin from human nature. “Human nature was interpreted as egocentric, self-reliant and seeking more power by Thomas Hobbes”.1 Thus, lacking of powerful centralized...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document