PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Topic: International Law Not a True Law

Submitted by:
Speakers: Legal Researchers:
Amor, Joven C. Briones, Maria Alexandra E.
Carillo, Mark Vincent V. Baggay, Jaypee D.
Herradura, Lois Lane G. Collantes, Paul TJ C.
Tanganco, Clariz Mei P. Legacion, Marie Vianney
Sebastian, Fermin Antonio Miguel III, C. Muyco, Kristine
Sambo, Jayvee R.
Power Point Maker: Sarandi, Sabrina Mae A.
Chan, Paul Carlo N Wee, Dustinmico S.
Tocmo, Nizza Mae R.

Compiler/Documentation:
Valdez, Teddilyne M.

Submitted to:
PROF. DR. IRENE D. VALONES, DPA, MPM(UP), LLM
(UK, London), Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) ©, aCIArb, Professor of Law

Section 52; Saturday 1-4 p.m.

 INTERNATIONAL LAW NOT A “TRUE LAW”

Introduction:
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. The question whether it can be called
a superior law remains in doubt despite the growing acceptance and respect for
international law among the member-States. International Law deals with States as legal
and political entities and it applies to all the States equally without any regard to their
size and power. However, the powerful States have a peculiar tendency to interpret the
principles of international law in such a manner as to suit their interest and convenience.

International law addresses the behavior of governments and international

organizations, their relationships with one another, and some of their relationships with
individuals, whether they be judicial or natural. International law was first created solely
to regulate relations between nations. Modern International Law began with the birth of
nation-states in the Medieval Period where the governing principles were derived from
natural law.

At present world is regarded as an international community. A set of rules in the

form of custom and treaties exist for regulating the conduct of the members. Members
recognize and observe these rules and accept that there is a set of rules regulating their
conduct. These rules are practiced in national courts and other governmental organs of
the state, foreign offices as well as in international organization such as the United
Nations. They accept that they are legally bound by the rules of International Law. There
are two major reasons on which it is debated that international law is not a law: first,
there are no basic legislative, executive or judicial institutions; second, there is no
international community whose values and interest are sufficiently shared to allow us to
speak of one international legal system.

DEFINITION:
Law
⮚ is generally defined as a rule of conduct which is just and obligatory promulgated
by legitimate authority and for the common observance and benefit.
 ⮚ the important elements and requisites of law; first, it is a rule of conduct, second,
it is just, third, it is obligatory, fourth, it is promulgated by legitimate authority,
and fifth, it is for the common observance and benefit.

Definition of “True Law”

Natural law perspective

True law is based on universal moral principles or inherent human reason. It

reflects what is just, fair, and true to human nature.

Characteristics:

• Universally applicable and eternal.

• Independent of human-created institutions.
• A standard by which positive (man-made) laws are evaluated.

Legal Positivist Perspective

True law is a set of rules formally enacted or recognized by a legitimate

authority within a specific legal system.

Characteristics:

• The validity of law is determined by the proper procedures used to create it, not
its moral content.
• "True law" refers to what a legal system enforces or makes enforceable.

Sociological Perspective

True law is a social construct that promotes order, settles disagreements, and
reflects societal values.

Characteristics:

• The role of the law in society is emphasized over its moral or procedural
legitimacy.
• "True" law is one that effectively serves its social purpose.

Realist Perspective

True law is what is practically enforceable and applies to actual behavior,

regardless of formalities.

Characteristics:

• Instead of focusing on the theoretical basis of laws, this section emphasizes

their practical application.
• A law is "true" if it has real-world consequences and is recognized by people or
institutions as binding.

Components of True Law:

Authority: Established or recognized by a legitimate source.

Obligation: Imposes duties or restrictions on behavior.

Universality: Applies broadly to relevant subjects (e.g., citizens, states).

Enforceability: Can be upheld through mechanisms of compliance.

Moral Legitimacy (optional): Aligns with moral or ethical principles (in natural law
traditions).

International Law
⮚ are set of rules, agreements and treaties that are binding between countries.
Countries come together to make binding rules that they believe will benefit the
citizens. It is an independent system of law existing outside the legal framework
of a particular state.
⮚ is a set of rules, principles, and norms that govern interactions among sovereign
states, international organizations, and, in some cases, individuals and non-state
actors. It establishes a framework for managing interactions involving peace,
security, trade, human rights, environmental protection, and dispute resolution.
⮚ the essential elements of international law are the building blocks that define and
sustain its structure and function. These elements enable international law to
govern relations between states, international organizations, individuals, and
other global actors.
The following are the key elements:
a. Subjects of international law
b. Sovereignty and state equality
c. Consent to bind themselves
d. Recognized origins of international legal norms and rules
e. Fundamental principles guiding its framework
f. Enforceability
g. Universality and flexibility
h. Cooperation and reciprocity
i. Dispute resolution
j. Institutions and framework

AIM OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

The existence of international law is the result of increased interstate
engagement. It mainly aims to maintain international peace and security among different
states. It also helps in:
 1. promotion of friendly relations among the member states (members of the
International community, for example - United Nations);
2. providing for basic humanitarian rights;
3. to solve International problems through international cooperation;
4. to refrain the state from using threat or force over the territory of any other state
to provide for the right to self-determination to people; and
5. to use peaceful methods to settle international disputes are few of its functions.

IS INTERNATIONAL LAW REALLY A LAW?

It is one of the most controversial questions that has been debated on, where
jurists’ opinions hugely differ. One view considers International law not a true law, but
rather, a code of rule of conduct backed by morality. On the other hand, International
law is considered to be a true law and is regarded as a law, similar to that of ordinary
laws of a state, binding upon the citizens.
The basic challenge to international law as law is the claim that there can be no law
binding sovereign states. Moreover, there exists no international legislative body. There
is, of course, the General Assembly of the United Nations, but its resolutions are
generally not binding on anybody. There is no international executive. The Security
Council was intended to be that entity, but it is often effectively hamstrung by the veto
power. Neither is there a central authority that can make judgments binding on states.
The International Court of Justice can bind states only when states consent to be bound.

Moreover, national officials tend to find justification for whatever they do.
Psychologically too, the allegiance to one’s sovereign state can be very strong to the
point of defying reason. When the chips are down, national policy or interest is often
preferred over international law. Enforcement of international law is a real problem for
several reasons. Frequently, there is no assured procedure for identifying violations.
Even the powers of the UN have reference largely to lawbreaking that takes the form of
an act of aggression or threat to peace. But there are many violations of international
law that are not of this nature. Most of the time, all the UN can do is censure. For these
reasons, it is said that what is called international law is not law because it is commonly
disregarded.

International Law is a Weak Law:

The rules of international law are not as effective as municipal law, hence
International Law is weak law. The following are some reasons for such conclusion.
 ● International Law is a contradictory and vague mass of agreements and norms
that offers few clear guidelines. Sometimes they are formulated in such a way as
to give wide options to the State parties. They are not comparable in efficacy to
State legislative machinery. Hans Morgenthau explains what frequently happens
when negotiating international agreements: “In order to find a common basis on
which all those different national interests can meet in harmony, rules of
international law embodied in general treaties must often be vague and
ambiguous, allowing all the signatories to read the recognition of their own
national interests into the legal text agreed upon.”
● Even if we could specify the contents of international law, the absence of an
effective legal system severely limits its impact. Nations rarely alter their
behaviour to conform to international law. It is more likely that nations will twist
international law so that it conforms to their behaviour.
● Domestic legal systems usually enjoy compulsory jurisdiction, whereas
international legal bodies do not. While there is the International Court of Justice,
it does not have jurisdiction to decide the disputes of all the States since the Court
acts with consent of the States only.
● The enforcement measures available under the system are not effective. If there
is a dispute between two states and one of the states approaches the International
Court of Justice and wishes to summon the opposing state, the other state has to
accept jurisdiction of the Court for the dispute. Similarly, the Court has no power
to enforce its decisions.
● Law is a command of sovereignty enforced by superior political authority, which
means that international law is just a positive international morality.
International law lacks in effective legislative, executive, and judicial machinery,
as well as the sanctioning power in the world internationally.
● Oftentimes, specially during war, the rules of International Law are frequently
violated.

SCHOLARS WHO VIEW THAT INTERNATIONAL LAW NOT A TRUE LAW

John Austin
British jurist John Austin was of the view that international law is not law because
it is not legally binding on States. According to Austin, laws consist of commands
originating from a sovereign and backed up by the threats of sanctions if disobeyed. In
this regard, International Law is not a law because it does not come from the
command of sovereign. This theory is generally disregarded as nations see
International Law not as commands but as principles. For a rule to be called as a
“proper law”, it must be a command enacted by a sovereign legislative authority
and that command must be enforced by sovereign authority.

By Austin’s broadest definition, law is “a rule laid down for the guidance of an
intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him.” Laws, as they are
usually conceived, are “established by political superiors” and imposed on those over
whom the superior has the authority to enforce them. In these situations, the superior
creates a command through his/her willingness to harm a violator in the case of
noncompliance. Without this credible threat, a law is not a command, but merely an
articulation of a wish or desire. Since state actors are all independent, equal players on
the international stage without any higher power governing their actions, there exists no
political superiority to posit or enforce international law.

As this is the case, international law falls into the category of law not established
by political superiors that Austin describes as “mere opinion” rather than law. These
constitute the combined opinions of how those in the international community would like
to see the world governed. Documents like the Declaration of Human Rights and
organizations such as the International Criminal Court are highly aspirational and
idealistic but are subject to state consent and are flouted quite frequently. These
examples represent a desire, “but where there is not a purpose of enforcing compliance
with the desire, the expression of a desire is not a command” and as such cannot be
considered law. These “imperfect laws,” lacking enforcement and obligation, serve more
as counsel and guidelines than as binding law. He chose to call International Law as
‘positive international morality’ since it lacked common and determinate sovereign
issuing orders backed by threats.

Hobbes And Pufendorff

There is no positive law of nations properly invested with true legal force and
binding as the command of a superior.

Holland
Observed that International Law differed from ordinary law and not supported by
the authority of a state. According to him, the law of nations is but private law ‘writ large’.
In this view of the matter, he called “International Law as the vanishing point of
Jurisprudence”. According to him, rules of International Law cannot be kept into the
category of law because it lacks sanction, which is an essential element of municipal
law.

Hart
The absence of centrally organized sanctions from the international system as a
cause for doubt regarding the general legal status of international law is an issue that
H.L.A. Hart has given deliberation to. Hart argues that to view international law as not
binding because of its lack of organized sanctions is tacitly to accept Austin's theory of
law and obligation This theory derives obligation from the notion that to do otherwise
would be met with punishment.

For Hart, however, this theory does injustice to all legal thought, not only that of
international law. He argues that the concepts of obligation and duty are distorted. For
Hart, there exists an external predictive notion of obligation which indeed does prescribe
punishment for failure to obey, but this must be distinguished from the 'internal
normative statement 'I have an obligation to act thus' which assesses a particular
person's situation from the point of view of rules accepted as guiding standards
of behavior. For Hart, this distinction is key, as it calls into question the necessity of
limiting the normative idea of obligation to rules supported by organized sanctions. Thus,
he establishes the existence of alternative sources of obligation to obey law other
than threatened sanctions. Again, making a comparison between domestic law and
international law, one can find another source for the belief that the lack of a sanction
system leads to a weaker legal status. This relates to primary rules of obligation. A good
example of such is the prohibition of violence in our municipal system. The necessity
of such rules in a domestic legal system derives from the need to protect those who
have voluntarily submitted themselves to the law from those 'too wicked, too stupid, or
too weak to obey the law.' It seems logical that this would also be needed by the
international legal system. However, due to the characteristics of a society of individuals
it is far more likely that a system of sanctions may successfully be implemented with
relatively small risk and high expectation of success in domestic law. The same cannot
be said of the international arena. Although it may be desirable to implement a system
of sanctions, the characteristics of the international order do not provide the same
assurance of low risk and high efficacy if sanctions were to be used. Firstly, there is no
guarantee that violence between states in the international order will remain solely
between the aggressor and the victim, as would be the case with a murder in domestic
law, for example. Secondly, due to the inequality amongst states, there can be no
assurance that those in favor of order will have the strength to defeat those professing
aggression. 'Hence, the organization and use of sanctions may involve fearful risks and
the threat of them add little to the natural deterrents.

ANALYSIS:
Based on the above definition of law, international law, and the various critics of
scholars, we came to analyze the following demerits of international law:

● No Apparent Authority
There is no authority for the enforcement of the law. There is no single
international court with jurisdiction over all states. Courts like the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) require state consent to jurisdiction, limiting their authority. Moreover, once
a decision is given by it, there is no such power or authority which can get it enforced.

A real law should have a recognized authority or institution to enact those laws,
but in the case of international law, there is no universally accepted authority or
institution vested with the power of enacting international laws and this does not make
international law a real law. The absence of a legislature creates a vacuum in the
process of making international law as it becomes unclear where international laws are
coming from and whether those who enact international laws have the full mandate and
authority of all states to enact such laws as compared to domestic laws where there are
full consent and authority vested in a recognized legislative body to enact the laws.

There no universal policeman or institution at the international level that ensures

compliance and enforces international law. Compliance with international law is a
mutual consensus among member states and to a large extent, the willingness to abide
by such laws is as a result of the fact that, international law is believed to serve a good
purpose for all. It lacks the coercive power that is backed by a real law. International law
is not able to enforce and compel compliance as a domestic law does.

● No Legislative Machinery
As the international laws are based on treaties and conventions, they are
interpreted by states according to their self-serving interests. International Law lacks a
more centralized authority, such as police power, or a judiciary with powers to enforce
the rules and sanctions consistently. Compliance often depends on voluntary
adherence, or political will rather than coercion. For instance, powerful states can evade
or ignore the rulings of international bodies such as the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
 Enforcement is inconsistent, with major powers often avoiding accountability
while smaller states face sanctions or military interventions. For example, the
International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes leaders from weaker nations
disproportionately compared to those from powerful states. States prioritize their
sovereignty and national interests, often overriding international obligations when they
conflict with domestic goals.

Many aspects of international law, such as customary law or declarations (e.g.,

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), are not legally binding. International law is
frequently broken, as evidenced by violations of territorial sovereignty, human rights
abuses, and ongoing conflicts despite legal prohibitions.

In Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705 (2003), the principle of

sovereign equality was highlighted, showing that states cannot be compelled to act
against their will under international law. Additionally, the non-binding nature of certain
international instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was
noted in Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-7995 (1957), where the court ruled that such
instruments are mere recommendations. In the latter case, unlike domestic law,
international law lacks a centralized legislative body to create binding rules.

● Lack of Uniform Enforcement Mechanisms

If international law were truly a construct to promote order and resolve disputes,
it would have more effective enforcement mechanisms. The reliance on state consent
and voluntary compliance undermines its ability to consistently achieve these
goals. International law is fragmented into various treaties, conventions, and customs,
leading to inconsistencies and lack of uniformity.

International law often lacks a centralized enforcement authority, unlike domestic

law, which is enforced by the state. For instance, in Ichong v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-
7995 (1957), the Supreme Court noted that the United Nations Charter and the
Declaration of Human Rights impose no strict or legal obligations but are merely
recommendations or standards. This highlights the absence of binding enforcement
mechanisms in many aspects of international law.
 International law lacks a universal enforcement mechanism, relying instead on
state cooperation or international tribunals, which may not have jurisdiction over all
states (Bayan Muna v. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 159618 (2011)).

● Lack of Legislative Power

International Law is not enacted by the state legislature of Parliament. They are
based on international treaties and conventions. Therefore, they are interpreted by
states according to their self-interest.

● Equal Standing with Domestic Law

Under the doctrine of incorporation, international law is given equal standing with
domestic law but is not superior to it. As stated in Might Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo
Winery, G.R. No. 154342 (2004), international law is incorporated into domestic law but
does not override national legislative enactments. This subordination to domestic law
questions its status as "true law."

● Power Dynamics and Inequities

International law may be seen as reflecting the interests of powerful states rather
than universal societal values. Historical practices, like colonialism, were often justified
using legal frameworks that favored dominant powers. There are many powerful and
weak member states of UNO. It is not possible to compel the powerful member states
to obey International Law.

● Failure to Prevent Major Conflicts

Despite its aims, international law has not consistently prevented wars,
genocides, or other global challenges. Examples like the Rwandan Genocide and
ongoing conflicts show its limitations.

● Dependence on State Consent

Since States must consent to be bound by international law, it is less of a social
construct and more of a series of ad hoc agreements tailored to specific interests.
International law operates largely on the principle of state consent. States are bound
only by treaties or agreements they voluntarily enter into. This is evident in Bayan Muna
v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618 (2011), where the Court upheld the validity of the Non-
Surrender Agreement, emphasizing that international agreements must align with state
consent and domestic law. This reliance on consent undermines the universality and
obligatory nature of international law.
 States voluntarily agree to treaties and conventions, which means they are not
inherently bound unless they consent. This voluntary nature contrasts with the
mandatory application of domestic law. States compliance is often based on reciprocity
or political considerations rather than legal obligation (Republic of Indonesia, et al. v.
Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705 (2003)).

● Limited Applicability to Individuals

International law primarily governs state behavior, not individuals, except in
specific cases like war crimes or crimes against humanity under Republic Act No.
9851 (2009).

● Cultural and Normative Relativity

Societal values differ significantly across cultures, and that international law often
imposes Western-centric norms under the guise of universal principles.

● Customary International Law Requires State Practice and Opinio Juris

Customary international law, a primary source of international law, requires

widespread state practice and a belief in its legal obligation (opinio juris). This dual
requirement, as explained in Pangilinan v. Cayetano, G.R. No. 238875 (2021), makes
it less rigid and more dependent on state behavior, unlike domestic laws that are binding
regardless of individual compliance.

● Lack of Effective Sanctions

There is no fear of sanctions, which has resulted in laws being violated frequently
by the states. International law though there are documents available, they are not
completely accepted, drafted or agreed by the states so, it is uncertain people are not
very sure and that is why is considered as vague. Their reason to be vague is the lack
of sanctioning power. They have failed in maintaining order and peace by the time and
they are not as powerful as municipal law that is why they are considered as vague and
uncertain.

● Insufficient Authority of International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice which is situated in Hague (Netherlands) is not
authorized to take cases of all states. Moreover, the cases can be filed here only if there
is mutual consent of the concerned parties. Therefore, the International Court of Justice
lack authority, or jurisdiction over the subject in these instances.
 ● Inability to Intervene
According to Article 2(7) of UNO Charter, UNO cannot interfere in the domestic
matters of the States. Hence, in several cases, International Law appears to be
ineffective and meaningless.

International Law is a set of rules which are binding between countries and aims
to ensure security and peace among various nations. The subject of a question under
International Law isn’t only the Nation/ State, but can be an individual also. Moreover, it
has emerged through a number of sources which are codified in Article 38 of the ICJ
Statute, according to which, customs, treaties and general principles are
considered to be the source of International Law. International Law is there to
maintain world order and peace, settle various disputes among different nations/ states
and individuals to provide fundamental rights. However, there are still various
shortcomings due to which international relations are suffering.

APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL EVENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTION THAT

INTERNATIONAL LAW IS NOT A TRUE LAW

A. The Russia-Ukraine war involves several principles of international law,

primarily derived from the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian
law (IHL), and customary international law The key principles applicable
include:

1. Prohibition of the Use of Force (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter)

Principle: States must not use force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of another state.
The Russia-Ukraine war involves several principles of international law, primarily
derived from the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law (IHL), and
customary international law.

2. Right to Self-Defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter)

Principle: A state has the right to defend itself if it is subjected to an armed attack.
Application: Ukraine has the legal right to defend itself against Russian aggression,
including receiving military aid from other countries to resist the invasion.

3. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity

 Principle: Every state has the right to control its own territory without outside
interference.
Application: Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its claims over other
Ukrainian territories violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty under
international law.

4. Non-Intervention in Internal Affairs

Principle: No state should interfere in the internal matters of another state, including
through military invasion or political manipulation.
Application: Russia's support for separatist regions in Donetsk and Luhansk, and its
military actions in Ukraine, violate this principle.

5. International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War – Geneva Conventions)

Principle: Armed conflicts must be conducted in a way that minimizes harm to
civilians, and prohibits war crimes such as targeting civilians, torture, and use of
prohibited weapons.
Application: Reports of Russian forces attacking civilian areas, hospitals, and critical
infrastructure may constitute war crimes under the Geneva Conventions.

6. Accountability for War Crimes (Rome Statute of the ICC)

Principle: Individuals, including military and political leaders, can be prosecuted for
war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Application: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has opened investigations into
alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Russia-
Ukraine war.

7. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

Principle: The international community has a duty to intervene if a state is
committing mass atrocities against its people.
Application: If Russia’s actions are deemed to constitute genocide or ethnic
cleansing, international organizations may have a responsibility to act.

8. Economic Sanctions and Countermeasures

Principle: States can impose sanctions against another state that violates
international law, as long as the sanctions are legal and proportionate.
 Application: Many countries and organizations (e.g., the EU, US, and UN) have
imposed economic and trade sanctions on Russia to pressure it to withdraw from
Ukraine.

9. Diplomatic and Peaceful Resolution (Article 33 of the UN Charter)

Principle: States must attempt to resolve disputes through peaceful means,
including negotiations and mediation.
Application: Peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, facilitated by international
organizations or neutral states, are consistent with this principle.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates multiple principles of international law,

particularly the prohibition of the use of force, Ukraine’s right to self-defense, and
international humanitarian law. The war has triggered legal responses, including war
crimes investigations, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts for resolution. International
courts and organizations continue to assess legal actions against individuals and
entities responsible for violations.

B. ISRAEL GAZA WAR – applying the Public International Law, Israel has clearly
violated the Geneva Conventions of 1949 Protocol I, specifically the Fundamental
Rules of International Humanitarian Law:

1. Persons hors de combat and those who do not take direct part in hostilities are
entitled to respect for their lives and moral and physical integrity.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict
which has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel,
establishments, transports and equipment.
3. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and
combatants in order to spare civilian population and property.

PRINCIPLE OF DISTINCTION
In the conduct of war, distinction must be made between combatants and non-
combatants. As such, those engaged in war cannot simply attack and destroy all they
come across indiscriminately.

Vulker Turk, the UN High Commissioner for human rights directly responded to
the claim by Israel and the United States that hospitals in Gaza are used by Hamas.
 Turk said that Israel has not provided sufficient information to substantiate many of these
claims which are often vague and broad. In some cases, they appear to be contradicted
by publicly available information. Turk told the council even if armed group were hiding
in hospitals the fundamental principles of Distinction proportionality and precaution still
apply. Military operations must always distinguish between military targets and civilians.
The use of heavy weapons against hospitals is difficult to reconcile with that principle.
Most council members agreed. There is no justification under any circumstances for
harming civilians and medical personnel to the claim that Hamas and the other groups
have misused the facility simply does not lessen the burden of Israel to observe its legal
obligation under IHL. It was evident at the security Council that the International
Community has growing concerns about the dangerous precedent being set by Israel’s
continued bombardment of hospitals, places that are supposed to help the sick and
wounded but increasingly becoming targets themselves.

C. Duterte’s War on Drugs Can’t Escape International Law. The ICC says it will
continue to study the complaints filed against Duterte in spite of his dismissal of
the institution.

Earlier this month, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it would
continue examining complaints against Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's
controversial war on drugs, despite his refusal to recognize the ICC's legitimacy. This
policy, launched in mid-2016, has resulted in at least 5,000 deaths, though human rights
groups estimate the toll to be closer to 20,000, including extrajudicial killings. Duterte's
remarks, including admitting extrajudicial killings as his "only sin," have fueled calls for
ICC action from organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Duterte attempted to evade ICC jurisdiction by withdrawing the Philippines from

the Rome Statute, but this does not exempt him from accountability for crimes
committed before the withdrawal. The ICC's preliminary examination continues, though
it remains unclear whether a full investigation will proceed. Duterte's political future is
uncertain, but international legal scrutiny remains a persistent threat to his legacy and
leadership.

The application of this news which relates to international law falls under the
topics on lack of universality and consent, selective enforcement of the law, absence of
coercive authority, questionable jurisdiction, and political motivations. For lack of
universality, International law, including the ICC's jurisdiction, is often criticized for being
 imposed without universal consent. Duterte's refusal to recognize the ICC's legitimacy,
along with the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute, is an example that
international law lacks the binding force of true law, which requires the consent of the
governed. Unlike domestic law, international law does not derive its authority from a
single sovereign authority. For selective enforcement, we argue that international law is
applied selectively, targeting specific countries or leaders while ignoring others. The
ICC's focus on Pres. Duterte, despite similar or worse human rights abuses in other
countries shows why there is selective enforcement of the law. This selective
enforcement undermines the legitimacy of international law and supports the notion that
it is more of a political tool than a genuine legal framework. For the absence of coercive
authority, unlike domestic law, international law often lacks effective enforcement
mechanisms. The ICC's inability to compel Duterte to submit to its jurisdiction, even as
it continues its preliminary examination, shows the limitations of international law as a
system. This highlights that compliance is often voluntary or dependent on external
political pressure rather than the rule of law and cannot be enforced at once. For
questionable jurisdiction the ICC’s attempt to pursue cases against non-signatory states
or leaders who explicitly reject its authority raises questions about the court's legitimacy.
Duterte’s argument that the ICC has no jurisdiction over him, given the Philippines'
withdrawal from the Rome Statute, challenges the claim that international law operates
as a legitimate legal system. For the political motivation the ICC's actions are often seen
as influenced by political agendas rather than objective legal principles. Duterte's case
could be interpreted as an example of international law being used as a tool for political
pressure rather than a neutral pursuit of justice, further fueling criticisms about the
authenticity of international law.

In conclusion Pres. Duterte's defiance of the ICC highlights fundamental flaws in

international law, reinforcing the argument that it is not "true law." Lacking universal
consent, dependent on voluntary compliance, and frequently criticized for political bias
and selective enforcement, international law differs significantly from the binding and
impartial nature of domestic legal systems.

D. West Philippine Sea Conflict

In 2016, the Philippines gained a favorable arbitration ruling on the issue of who
has the authority over this territory. While this win for the Philippines was heralded by
the international community, we have seen and heard time and time again the attacks
of Chinese Coast Guard to any Filipinos who go near these areas. There have been
 numerous reports on how the Chinese exert their efforts over our lowly fisherfolks, and
even to our Philippine Coast Guards, hitting them with water cannons.

It is also published on the United Nations website that China is one of the five
permanent members of the UN’s Security Council, together with France, Russia, the
United Kingdom and the United States.

If we are against one of the five permanent states in the UN Security Council,
who can enforce on China to follow the Arbitrary rule with regard to the West
Philippine Sea.

E. Syrian Civil War

The Syrian Civil War began in March 2011 with the discontent of certain actors -
both from the government and non-state actors - with the Assad Regime that had been
in power since 1971. Following the Arab Spring that began at around the same time, the
Syrian Civil War was far from being primarily a domestic issue within the sovereignty of
the nation of Syria. Rather, various rebel forces received military aid from the U.S.A.
and their NATO allies as well as other states from various Gulf States while the Assad
Regime was primarily backed by Russia and Iran. This civil war raises questions of
legality within international law as the involvement of such actors outside the domestic
sphere of Syria may have led to the escalation of hostilities between the numerous
combatants of the war. Moreover, these interventions were made not with humanitarian
causes - as the U.N. is sanctioned to do - but with the preservation of interests - as with
Russia and Iran - or the establishment of another NATO-friendly state in the region. In
late 2024, a major opponent of the regime took the capital and forced Assad to flee the
country while Israel invaded portions of the southern region of the country. With the
interim government being heavily backed by Turkey - a NATO member - the
international community will have to move to ensure security while holding state and
non-state actors accountable for the events of the war.

American Interventions

American military intervention began in 2014 in support of the rebel forces against
the Assad Regime. This included a covert supply of weapons provided by the CIA worth
$1 billion, efforts to train rebel forces that was only ended in 2017, and air strikes
(Mazzetti, Goldman and Schmidt, 2017). When viewed through the lens of international
law, however, a question on the legality of US actions comes to fore when considered
with the provisions of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which states:
 “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Rather than the use of diplomacy in de-escalating conflicts, the direct use of force
in Syria by the US can also be viewed as a direct contravention of Articles 39 to 42 of
the UN Charter. Said articles vests unto the Security Council the authority to act and
respond to conflicts and “threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”.
However, the US government entered the conflict using military force.

Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect

The above-mentioned doctrine places said responsibility on the members of the

international community to ensure the protection of the citizens of states that are
incapable of guaranteeing such protection. Taken in conjunction with the provisions of
the UN Charter, it is only when diplomatic measures fail can the UNSC implement
sanctions and measures against an erring state or entity (Global Centre for the
Responsibility to Protect, 2008).

Question of Legality of US Intervention

The military intervention of the United States in the armed conflict raises certain
issues in terms of legality according to the UN Charter. As such intervention was done
without the sanction of the UN Security Council, it cannot be said that the act was
committed within purely humanitarian means nor for the protection of citizens of Syria.
Even so, the UNSC limits its intervention through peacekeeping and non-violent
humanitarian means such as actions in the domain of hygiene, medicine, education,
and the like - thereby limiting participation of the international community outside of
armed conflict, a tenet that the United States clearly violated with the supply of arms to
pro-U.S. forces. US intervention in the country, then, was done militaristically in order to
advance its own interests in the region.

Neo-Realist Perspective in International Relations and International Law

Neo-Realism, postulated by Kenneth Waltz, highlights the tendencies of states to

pursue their own interests in international relations. (Walts, 1979). This is also in
conformity with the law-based theory in international politics. However, unlike law-based
theory, the neo-realist model emphasizes the influence of external constrains and
opportunities in state behaviors. In essence, state models in a neo-realist model behave
 in such a manner that guarantees their survival and interests and would always respond
in protection these interests (Kocs, 1994).

American Interests in the Syrian Conflict

It can be argued that American intervention in Syria was not motivated by the
need to uphold international law but by its interests in preserving its relationship with
Israel, Turkey, etc. Other points of interests for the US in the conflict is the opportunity
to maximize energy resources and secure oil deposits in the region. This is highly
evidenced by the actions of Trump who enacted the US withdrawal policy in 2017 but
then subsequently ordered troops in the region to secure the state’s oil reserves in 2019
(Oggunnowo and Chidozie, 2020). Moreover, US troops have steadily grown in numbers
even after the ousting of the Assad government (Stepansky, 2025).

Based on the foregoing, the prime driver for state actions concerning international
relations tends to be driven more by its own interests rather than an actual desire for the
promulgation of international law. In these instances of unauthorized military
interventions by the US, the UNSC failed to take action and conflicts in Syria continued
even after the ousting of the Assad regime. The breach of procedure stipulated in the
UN Charter has not resulted to any sanction, action, or even dialogue in the UN. More
than anything, it highlights the slow, and arguably nonexistent, reaction of the
international community due to a lack of mechanism for the enforcement of international
law.

F. Kangaroo Court’: House Passes Bill to Sanction ICC for Israel Arrest Warrants

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Illegitimate Court Counteraction

Act" on January 9, targeting what critics call a kangaroo court—the International
Criminal Court (ICC)—for issuing arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The bill, passed by a
243-140 vote, imposes sanctions, including visa bans and asset freezes, on those
involved in prosecuting U.S. or allied nationals not party to the ICC's Rome Statute, such
as Israel. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promised quick action to finalize the
bill for President-elect Donald Trump’s approval.

Supporters of the bill argue the ICC unfairly targets democracies like Israel while
ignoring major global atrocities, such as Sudanese genocide or China's treatment of
Uyghurs. Critics, including lawmakers and experts, label the ICC a kangaroo court
focused on undermining U.S. allies rather than addressing pressing human rights
violations. This move counters the Biden administration's 2021 reversal of sanctions
previously imposed by the Trump administration on ICC officials investigating U.S. war
crimes.

This news underscores the argument that international law is not true law,
highlighting the issue of selective enforcement. Critics contend that the ICC's perceived
bias and selective application of its mandate undermine its legitimacy. Supporters of the
"Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act" further argue that such actions infringe upon the
sovereignty of democratic nations a cornerstone of international law. The ICC's selective
enforcement reveals the vulnerability of its authority, often influenced by political
motivations, as demonstrated by its actions against countries outside its jurisdiction.
Such practices not only weaken the credibility of international law but also present the
risk of severe consequences if the system is misused in the future.
CONCLUSION:

We stand that International Law is not a “True Law” as it is critical for regulating
state interactions, addressing global challenges, and maintaining a sense of order in
international relations. International law operates through a decentralized system of
state consent, customary practices, and mutual recognition, rather than through formal
enactment by a singular legitimate authority. International law lacks the enforceability of
domestic law and frequently relies on voluntary compliance. There are areas for reform,
particularly in terms of enforcement and equity.

It is not a true law in the sense that it lacks a central, sovereign authority capable
of enforcing rules with physical sanctions. Instead, it operates more as a set of moral
guidelines or legal fictions that are enforced only when powerful states or international
bodies choose to do so. While the principles of international law may be recognized
globally, the enforcement of sanctions is inconsistent; the application depends heavily
on the consent of states and the prevailing political dynamics. As such, international law
cannot be considered a genuine legal system like domestic law, and its status remains
more as a framework for ethical conduct rather than a true body of enforceable law.

At the end of the day, while the concept and efforts behind International Law as a
True Law is very ideal, the fact of the matter is, there are a lot of issues/ concerns with
enforceability of laws and sanctions, which, in the end, made us state that International
Law is not a true law.
References:

https://blog.ipleaders.in/subjects-international-
law/#:~:text=The%20three%20major%20theories%20that,and%20role%20in%20Int
ernational%20law

https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1249/International-Law:-

Bird.html#:~:text=Meaning%3A%20The%20expression%20'International%20Law,
members%20of%20the%20international%20community

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/transnational-law-
as-protoconcept-three- conceptions/BA314AEC4B78D7B58764C8E8E184E4A1

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-
maps/transnational-law

https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/privateinternational

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1phIR1gKI8

https://www.aseanlawassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ALA-PHILS-legal-
system-Part-2.pdf

https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/03/functions-of-international-law.html

https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2015/12/weakness-of-international-law.html

https://www.britannica.com/topic/international-law
https://blog.ipleaders.in/father-of-international-law/

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=3tvPz3z0rxEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&
q&f=fatent/themes/gklaw-theme/downloads/library/studymaterials/20public-
international-law.pdf

http://www.msrlawbooks.in/file/PUBLIC_INTERNATIONAL_LAW.pdf

https://www.gklawcollege.com/wp-con

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/1/4/live-israels-bombing-carnage-
escalates-as-gaza-ceasefire-talks-resume?update=3422386

https://thediplomat.com/2018/12/dutertes-war-on-drugs-cant-escape-international-law/
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/01/10/kangaroo-court-house-passes-bill-to-
sanction-icc-for-israel-arrest-warrants/

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/un-security-council
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600864?read-now=1&seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-
trump.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/6/what-is-behind-us-strategy-of-keeping-
troops-in-post-assad-syria

https://www.google.com.ph/books/edition/_/2tOuQwAACAAJ?hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahU
KEwifp8uA3Y6LAxWnc_UHHTMAJH4Q7_IDegQIEBAC

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244020919533