Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 10 Summary
II
However, to argue that international law is not binding because of its lack
of organized sanction is to accept the analysis that law is a matter of orders
backed by threats. Another more plausible argument would be that, as in
municipal legal systems, there are certain provisions, which are necessary, such
as those prohibiting the free use of violence. If such rules and organized
sanctions are necessary for municipal law, are they not equally so for
international law? “They are maintained without insisting that this follows from
the very words like ‘binding’ or ‘obligation’. The answer to this argument can be
found when one looks at the difference between states and human beings. States
are different enough that the natural characteristics which make some rules, with
corresponding sanctions, minimally necessary in a society, unnecessary in the
case of states. Because of this, international law as such may not require any
sanctions. “When the rules are disregarded, it is not on the footing that they are
not binding; instead efforts are made to conceal the facts”.
III
As such, one can see that there are various degrees of dependence or
independence. When one accepts this notion, one can answer the claim that
because states are sovereign, they cannot be subject to international law. For the
word ‘sovereign’ is negative; it is the absence of certain types of control. The
autonomy of a state is not unlimited and neither can it be only limited by certain
obligations because it would be an assertion of a claim that states should be “free
of all other restraints”. Among states, there exists a given form of international
authority, therefore, the sovereignty of states is limited to that extent.” The rules
of international law are indeed vague and conflicting on many points, so that
doubt about the area of independence left to states is far greater than that
concerning the extent of a citizen’s freedom from municipal law”.
Hart has three main arguments against this theory: (1) they fail to
completely explain why states can only be bound by self-imposed obligations; (2)
there is something incoherent in the argument that states can only be bound by
rules which they have imposed upon themselves. “For, in order that words
function as an agreement, and so give rise to obligations and confer rights, rules
must already exist providing that a state is bound to do whatever it undertakes”.
(3) There are facts. One must “distinguish between claims that states can only be
bound by self-imposed obligations, from the claim that they could be bound in
other ways under a different system, in fact no other form of obligation for states
exist under the present rule of international law”.
And although Hart does not subscribe to this theory, there are two factual
exceptions: (1) new states are bound by general obligations they weren’t
signatories to, and (2) states are bound by rules they previously never agreed to
when new situations arise, like gaining access to sea.
IV
Hart believes that it is not necessary for states to believe international law
is moral to conform to it. “Any form of legal order is at its healthiest when there
is a generally diffused sense that it is morally obligatory to conform to it”.
Many modern theorists, like Kelsen, insist that international law has a
‘basic norm’, or Rule of Recognition, to which the validity of rules constitute a
single system. The opposed view, however, claims that this is false; that
international law simply consists of a set of separate primary rules of obligation,
which are not united in this manner.
Hart does not discuss the merits of these, instead questions the
assumption that it must contain such element. He asks: ‘why should we make
this a priori assumption and so prejudge the actual character of the rules of
international law?’ Surely, it is “conceivable that a society may live by rules
imposing obligations on its members as ‘binding’ that may not be unified in any
way, or does not derive their validity from any more basic rule”. The existence of
rules does not involved the existence of such a basic rule.