(CHP 11) International Law and Norms
Lecture 11/5
What is International Law?
International Law: A body of rules which binds states and other agents in world politics in their relations with one another and is considered to have the status of law
Contrast with international norms, which are principles of standards of behavior, but are not legally binding
They may be internally binding because they are so deeply internalized
International Humanitarian Law: A body of rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict, protect noncombatants, and restricts means and methods of warfare for humanitarian reasons
Tensions between two key principles: sovereignty and human rights
Norms & Norm Diffusion in International Politics
Norm Emergence: Actors promote a new idea or behavior as the standard
The role of norm entrepreneurs
Norm Socialization: States face social pressures, peer influence, or incentives to adopt the norm
Norm Acceptance: Actors adopt the norm not only to gain legitimacy or avoid sanctions but because they start to believe it is “the right thing to do”
Norm Internalization: The norm becomes part of the actor’s identity and standard operating procedure
Nuclear Weapons Taboo
Nuclear Restraint: A global norm discourages the use of nuclear weapons
Moral Pressure: Taboo shaped by public opinion, political discourse, and international expectations
Behavior Effect: No nuclear weapons have been used in war since 1945
Key Terms in International Law
International law is NOT uniform: different treaties and norms vary in how strongly they bind states, how clearly they are written, and who enforces them
Obligation: The degree to which states are legally bound by a rule or commitment, which can range from binding treaties to non-binding declarations
High obligation → States must comply; non-compliance is a legal violation [UN Charter, Geneva Conventions]
Low obligation → Norms are more flexible or voluntary (soft law) [UN General Assembly resolutions]
Precision: The clarity and specificity of the rules or standards set out in international law
High precision → Rules are clear, detailed, and leave little room for interpretation [WTO Agreements]
Low precision → Broad or vague language, allowing states discretion [Paris Climate Change Agreements]
Delegation: The extent to which authority is given to a third party (like a court or organization) to interpret, monitor, or enforce international rules
High delegation → Independent bodies can make binding judgment or resolve disputes (ICJ)
Low delegation → States self-monitor or resolve issues diplomatically [ad hoc negotiations; UNSC diplomacy]
The Making of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted in 1948 by the UNGA
Articulates fundamental human rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled, regardless of nationality, race, gender, religion, or status
Not legally binding, but serves as the basis for many treaties and customary international law
48 out of 58 UN members (at the time) signed
Eight abstentions, two absent
Six from the Soviet bloc: They had proposed amendments to what became Articles 19 and 20 stating that fascists and Nazis did not have human rights to freedom of expression and association. When those amendments were rejected, the Communists, rather than abstaining, which was their custom, voted against these articles
Saudi Arabia: Objected to the wording of Article 16 on equal marriage rights and because of objects to the clause in Article 18 which states that everyone has the right to change his religion or belief
South Africa: Knew the United States would use to condemn South African practices of apartheid and racial discrimination. Officially claimed that the UNDHR “went far beyond the rights and freedoms contemplated in the Charter” and “social, cultural, and economic rights had never been intended to be included in the draft declaration:
Honduras and Yemen (who had just joined) were absent from the session
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Unlike the UDHR, this convention is hard human rights law, meaning it is an enforceable treaty
How to translate the UDHR into enforceable treaties?
International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Protects fundamental civil and political liberties, including freedom of expression, fair trial rights, privacy, and participation in public life. It obligates States to respect and ensure these rights immediately
International Convenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Guarantees rights related to work, education, health, social security, and an adequate standard of living. It requires States to progressively realize these rights using available resources
Non-derogable rights: Rights that cannot be limited, suspended or withdrawn by a State under any circumstances, including during public emergencies or national crises. These typically include protections such as the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, and recognition as a person before the law
Why do states sign human rights treaties?
Intrinsic preferences and moral or philosophical motivations
Empathy
Connection of domestic to international
Socialization processes (norm diffusion)
Strategic considerations:
Democratizing states that sincerely seek to shed their autocratic and possibly abusive pasts sign human rights agreements in an attempt to lock in their new institutions and improved practices
States are persuaded to do so by contingent rewards (e.g., financial assistance) provided by others—a form of issue linkage
States also ratify international human rights treaties not to bind themselves but to constrain the human rights practices of others. They accept international oversight of their own affairs to secure their ability to scrutinize other nations
Does International Law Work?
Why it may work:
Compliance Theory: Most states obey international law most of the time because it serves their interests
Reputation and Reciprocity: States comply to maintain credibility, attract cooperation, and avoid retaliation
Institutional Effectiveness: International organizations like the WTO, UN, and ICJ increase transparency, dispute resolution, and norm enforcement
Norm Internationalization: Over time, legal norms shape state behavior and identity
Why it may not work:
Power Politics: Realist scholars argue compliance depends on state interest and power, not law
Lack of Enforcement: No global “police force” so compliance is voluntary and often selective
Inequality and Bias: Critics from the Global South and Critical Legal Studies argue that international law can reflect Western or imperial interests
Symbolic Compliance: States sometimes appear to comply while avoiding real change (e.g., environmental or human rights treaties)
Policing Human Rights is Costly
Naming and shaming: Angers the target, risks future cooperation, gives up future bargaining leverage
Economic sanctions: Costly to the imposer state as well
Military intervention: Costly in money/blood, also sets precedent about sovereignty violations
So when do states do it?
Domestic pressure
Often spurred on by transnational activist networks (TANs) that discover and publicize abuses
When it serves their geopolitical interests
When the violator is a geopolitical adversary
New(er) Developments in International Human Rights Law
The individual petition: Individuals in all member states of the Council of Europe have possessed the right to petition the court directly if they believe a state has violated their rights as specified in the European Court of Human Rights
The International Criminal Court (ICC):
Established by the Rome Statute
Has jurisdiction when states are “unable or unwilling” to prosecute violations themselves domestically
Has no police force itself and so cannot directly enforce warrants
ICC member countries are required to detain those with an active warrant when they are on their soil