1st Lecture
1st Lecture
Delivered by
Mr BOUZEBBOUDJA Abdelhakim
Associate Professor
University of Oran 2 – Faculty of law
Fist lecture
- National society is made up of people who live in the same country and have a common interest
or passion, where the municipal law governs the interaction between individuals and individuals and
the state. Such law is derived from a legal superior who has both the authority and the practical
competence to make and enforce it
- International society , however , is a phrase used in geopolitics, international relations and
international law to refer to a broad group of states and other actors with a set of global institutions
functioning as the United Nations, in which 193 States hold formal participative membership and
where International law is applicable
Thus , every society, irrespective of its population, makes a legal framework (law) under which it
functions and develops in application of the well-known principle “ ubis jus ubis societas “
The main differences between international and municipal law are thought to be the sources of
law, its subjects, and subject matter : International law derives from the collective will of States, its
subjects are the States themselves, and its subject matter is the relations between States. Domestic
law derives from the will of the State, its subjects are the individuals within the State, and its subject
matter is the relations of individuals with each other and with government .
However , It should be noted that International law - a set of binding rules including treaties ,
costumes and general principle of laws besides other sources- faces several obstacles, particularly
sovereignty issues, complexity (heterogeneity) of the legal system , ideological differences
unbalanced world power, diversity of socio-economic and political attitudes and difficulty in law
enforcement.
2- Various appellations of the term : International society
- Some authors said that the term is ‘ mechanic ‘ artificially formed for the purpose of realizing its
members’ interests and does not reflect any solidarity attachment
- Others argued that such term refers specially to "the interests of the most powerful states" and
does not involve a global, close-knit community with shared values and common purposes.
- Others stated that it is a term conveniently used by the unipolar power to try to shape the destiny of
every country on earth in its own image, and to punish those who do not conform .
- Many scholars sustained that the term does not include the developing countries and ignore the
proven historical truth that it is to the credit of these countries that the concept of the international
community has acquired the significance it has today. Given their diversity and commitment to the
international process, they brought the necessary universality to UN membership and common
purpose not only to the UN, which is the single most universal organization of its kind, but also to the
growing number of international institutions.
Some argue that what ‘is lacking is a “community sentiment”, the idea that each member state is a
component of a common whole and a pivotal and inseparable part .
Owing to the fact that international society is tremendously changing in its structures and
challenges , other scholars are trying to adapt these changes to the new situation and looking for the
possibility of forming a unitary terminology in the size and strength of an International Community,
moving from the ancient concept of ‘ family of nations ‘ to a large community tasked with resolving
global commons issues through the participation of all the actors of the international sphere , and
ensuring that such issues should become the fundamental axes of international law , not because of
colliding interests but as matters of solidarity and corporation
Thus , some of them are using new terms such ‘world society ‘, ‘global society ‘ , ‘global
world ,‘ ‘global international society’, ” comity of nations” , arguing that what ‘is lacking is a
“community sentiment”, the idea that each member state is a part of a common whole.
And through all these labels , several prominent legal figures and authors prefer the term
‘International community as a whole’ - including all the states and the other actors of the
international sphere - as an organic ‘ concept aimed at uniting the heterogeneous international
society which is badly in need for a genuine solidary among states . This term represents to their
believes a way of hope and an ambitious notion for all mankind to live together regardless of their
national, ethnic, and socio-cultural diversities, and where humanism has to be unconditionally
identified wither internationalism. For them the acid test of the reality of a community is that
common standards of conduct should be held with a conviction strong enough to induce members to
take common action, even at the cost of sacrifices to themselves, in defense of the law.