INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Definition of International Law
Q. 1. Define International Law. Is International Law a law in true sense of the term? Explain.
OR
Define International Law as given by Oppenheim. What would be the appropriate definition of International Law in present context?
OR
International Law is not a true law but a code of rules of moral force only. Discuss.
OR
International Law is a Positive Morality. Discuss.
OR
International Law is a binding body of rules applied by and to the States in their international intercourse. Explain.
Ans. In simple terms law regulates behaviour and International Law likewise tries to regulate primarily the behaviour of different States among themselves.
In 1905, Oppenheim defined International Law as “Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized States in their intercourse with each other.”
Criticism: The above definition may be criticized on following grounds-
1. Now, not only the States but other international entities and institutions are also taken into the ambit of International Law because these international entities/institutions enjoy rights and liabilities accorded by International Law.
2. Individuals in certain capacities are also the subject-matter of International Law.
3. Under the purview of International Law not only the customary and conventional rules are covered but general principles of law recognized by civilized States are also included.
4. The notion that International Law is a body of rules and conventions only seems half truth.
5. The word civilised before the States used in the definition is superfluous and objectionable.
In 9th edition of Oppenheim book published in 1992 the changed definition stands as “International Law is the body of rules which are legally binding on States in their intercourse with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relation of States, but States are not the only subject of International Law. International organisations and, to some extent, also individuals may be subject of rights conferred and duties imposed by International Law.”
As such the above narration includes the present changes introduced in the International Law.
J.L. Brierly and Hans Kelsen define International Law covering the theme as regulator of mutual behaviour of States, leaving aside the present developments in the ambit of International Law.
Likewise other traditional jurists of International Law such as Hughes, Alfhose, Wheaton, Lawrence etc. have more or less covered the same theme that International Law regulates the behaviour of States inter se, in their respective definitions of International Law.
An improved definition was given by J.B. Starke covering the recent development in International Law as “that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the principles and rules of conduct which States feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which includes also; (a) the rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions or organizations, their relations with each other and their relations with States and individuals, and (b) certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-State entities so far as the rights or duties of such individuals and non-State entities are the concern of the international community.”
The above definition is different from traditional definitions because in its scope alongwith States other international entities together with individuals and other non-State entities are also covered. The definition of Starke is appropriate. It takes into account the changing character of international law and truly reflects the present position of international law.
After the establishment of UNO in 1945, many entities have been accorded with creation of legal rights and duties and by enumerating them Starke has expanded the scope and vision of the International Law, coping with the present international needs and objects. It has been suggested that in future when some non-enumerated entity will be granted rights and duties compatable to International Law, the definition of Starke shall be lacking in covering that new addition.
The definition of Schwarzenberger covers the new developments in International Law. He defines International Law as the body of legal rules which apply between sovereign States and such other entities as have been granted international personality.”
It is clear from the above narrations that presently International Law includes in its ambit not only the relations of States inter se, but it also confers rights and obligations to other entities such as International organizations and institutions together with individuals.
In the definition of Schwarzenberger, the States, no doubt, have been given a prime place, but his attention has not escaped the presence of new trends whereby many a many entities are regularly conferred with legal rights and obligations coming into the ambit of International Law.
The International Law must be defined covering the new trends, which have sprung up to cope with new problems of international community. The basic elements/attributes of present International Law must be covered by a modern definition the elements of which are as follows:
1. The rules, regulations, principles, norms prevalent and observed by nations come into existence by consensus agreements, treaties, customs, conventions etc wherein States give their consent for imbibing them with binding nature through granting concessions in their respective sovereignty
2. After the establishment of UNO in 1945, the International Law has acquired enforceability and sanction.
3. The International Law serves the purpose of acquiring international peace and progress among the nations.
4. It aims at generating equality in treatment among the big and small nations.
5. Its goal is co-existence without exploitation, even in reterogeneous circumstances among the nations.
“International Law through its different norms/principles regulation etc. stimulates nations international entities and people to establish peace, co- existence, without exploitation for equal progress of all in peace as well as in war like circumstances.”
Is International Law a law in the true sense of the term? The supporters of analytical, imperative, positive theories of jurisprudence the exponent of which include Jermy Bentham, Jethro Brown, Hobbes, Pufendarf and Austin have asserted that since law is the command of a sovereign with a sanction signifying that those who disobey the command shall be punished, as such according to these jurists the International Law is not a law in the true sense of the term because of the following reasons-
1. In the State administration, the law is devised by the political power regulating the behaviour of its people and those who disobey it, are punished by that political power. In case of International law, there is no such political power who can regulate the behaviour of different States which are itself a sovereign entity in most of the cases.
2. There is lack of a legislative forum in case of International Law as is available in the case of Municipal law in the shape of higher and lower legislatures for the Central and State level legislation as the case may be.
3. As per Analytical and other similar schools the International Law lacks sanction. It has no machinery for punishing those who dare to disobey.
4. Even if International Court of Justice, or mutual treaties provide some agreement or decision for the solution of the dispute, there is no authority or forum to compe! the parties to obey the decision of the Court or conditions of the agreement, if one of the party chooses to withdraw or disobey the award/decision/agreement.
5. There is lack of a powerful Court competent to commence contempt proceedings in the International law jurisdiction, the ICJ commences and takes cognizance of a case when both the parties agree to honour its jurisdiction over them, hence if one of the party refuses to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, it becomes helpless.
6. Law between the States becomes enforceable only when the States giving a sort of concession to their sovereignty, accept it through agreements, treaties, conventions etc.
Hence, the jurists of this school regard International Law as ‘law like’ or quasi law not a law.
On the other hand, the modern jurists claim that the International Law is a law quite enforceable and duly accepted by the States. So far as the question of ‘sanction’ in the International Law is concerned, the jurists of Historical School assert that this element of sanction is not a necessary ingredient of a law. People follow and obey law as a matter of habit Moreover, if we accept that sanction is a necessary element of a law, in International Law, there is enough provision for sanction. The some extent, covenant of the League of Nations provided, and now, the U.N. Charter provides for some sanctions. The shape of sanction may be Military in all its variances in Land, Sky and Ocean. It may by economic in the shape of blockade, boycott, restrictions censors etc. It may be social through censor resolutions, non-invitation, snapping of ties etc.
These provisions and practices are no doubt available, but its implementation requires bold decision because now the world has become very small due to technological explosion of many devices world over and effect of one event is felt all over the world. Moreover, a resolution to get through from the Security Council of the UNO is also not an easy task because of the clash of interests of the permanent members of the Security Council.
Having all these points in view it has been suggested that International Law is a law but a weak law. Holland had remarked that International Laws the vanishing point of jurisprudence, having in mind all these difficulties in enforceability of International Law.
In conclusion, we may say that International Law is the congregation of such rules and regulations which regulate the mutual relations of differen units of International community. In the members of International community, the States have a prime place, but besides States, International Institutions, individuals in their different capacities and other non-Stalt entities are also in the ambit of international community and as such are the subject-matter of International Law. In other words, International Law applicable to them.
In theory under the aegis of International Law, through Security Council resolutions of drastic actions against the defiant/guilty States or other Cognate entities or individuals may be initiated as a sanction for defying International rules, regulations, treaties and orders of International Court of Justice etc. In other words, for not obeying or disobeying International Law, action, group action through Security Council which is a part of U.N.O. can be taken.
But in practice, Security Council is basically dominated by five permanent Member Nations (Great Britain. France, USA, Russia, China). The ten temporary members are elected for 2 years.
Originally in 1945, when the UNO was established, the Security Council consisted of 10 Members, 5 permanent and 5 non-permanent for 2 years by election. By 1976 when many a many colonies of different powerful States got freedom and became an independent States and obtained the membership of the UNO, it was felt that Security Council’s body should be expanded to have in it proper representation of States and to cater such a demand the number of non-permanent members was expanded from 5 to 10. But it has not fulfilled the aspirations of new developing States and now the demand is to expand the number of permanent members of the Security Council from 5 to 10 and non-permanent members from 10 to 15 so that proper representation of all the democratic forces of the nations may be effected and hold and dictatorship of 5 permanent members may be chained by changing the procedure and right of veto voting.
By effecting this basic change in the structure and body of Security Council not only the prestige of International Law will improve but also the democratic status of UNO will flourish.
India, Germany, Australia, North Korea, Canada, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, Switzerland etc. may be mentioned as prospective members (Permanent) if the format of Security Council is expanded in the near future.
Q. 2. Discuss the nature of International Law. Do you agree with the view that International Law is merely a positive morality.
OR
‘International Law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence’. Discuss while examining the nature of International Law.
OR
“International Law is law in the making” Jethro Brown. Do you subscribe to this view?
OR
“International Law is law by analogy (Holland). Comment.
OR
“International Law is law by courtesy (Holland). Comment.
Ans. Nature of International Law. There has been a controversy among the scholars whether international law is a law or not. The controversy whether International Law is a law or not revolves on the divergent definitions of the word ‘law given by the jurists If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendraf that law is command of soverign, enforced by a superior political authority, then International Law cannot be included in the category of law On the other hand, if we subscribe to the view that the term ‘law’ cannot be limited to the rules enacted by superior political authority, then International Law can be included in the category of law.
Most of the jurists now subscribe to the view that the International Law is really law. So far as the sanction or coercive force behind the law is concerned, it may be said that it is not an essential element of law an even if sanction is regarded as an essential element of law there are sanctions in International Law. The existence, prevalence and authority of International Law is proved without doubt, but its efficacy depends upon the status of that State which tries to implement it and equally upon the status of that State against whom certain norms of International Law is to be implemented. It is so, because in the Security Council the five permanent members have power to exercise their veto power and that veto power is exercised according the different demands and interests and political suitability of the time which cannot be predicted and cannot be treated as constant and so in similar situations dissimilar behaviour of permanent members of ‘Security Council is not a matter of dismay/wonder.
So it is correct to assert that International Law is a law and is capable of being enforced externally through UNO machinery. Law is capable of external enforcement, while morality is the internal conscience regulated behaviour of States and if morality is contravened, the concept of sin comes in and conscience punishes the guilty. As regards, International Law, the States do accept International Law, but to protect their self interest or needs, sometime, on the basis of their physical power and wealth violate International Law. As such the nature of International Law is that it is accepted as law by different units of international community and is treated as binding over them and regulates their mutual behaviour. The nature of International Law is pervading and controls the behaviour of international community directly as well as indirectly. The control is indirect when States seek refuge under the International Law after violation of international norms-that whatever action they have committed is supported by International Law. It may seem irony but truth is truth. States when commit some wrong, they propagate that their action is within the limits of International Law.
International Law is observed in peace time as well as in war time. The war has also its rules controlling International Law and it prescribes and regulates the behaviour of belligerents, citizens, neutrals, Asylum, Intervention combatants and non-combatants.
Is International Law a mere positive morality?– To answer the above question it is pertinent to know what is morality and how it is different from law. According to Oppenheim, the rules of morality are those rules which through the approval of the community regulate the discretion and only the discretion of a person and is internally concerned with the conscience. While law may be enforced externally on the basis of sanction if need be. The fact that International Law is of a binding nature has been accepted in principle by almost all the constituents of international community. The fact that International Law is binding distinguishes it from morality because morality lacks binding nature in application. So we can say that International Law is a law So if morality becomes enforceable among the constituents of international community it will be equivalent to International Law in the present context. If morality is made enforceable externally it will not remain morality because its connection with the conscierice shall stand snapped hence the proposition that International Law is mere positive morality is not acceptable logically as explained above.
Is International Law a vanishing point of jurisprudence? In the opinion of Holland, the International Law is accepted and used only on the basis of courtesy. It lacks sanction hence it cannot be placed in the category of a law. On these points, Holland laments that International Law is not a law but a reflection of vanishing point of law. Austin has also remarked that International Law is a law without sanction hence its observance depends upon courtesy.
The contention that International Law is without sanction is not fully correct, because there is something which provokes nations to behave according to norms of the International Law. Even if we agree that there is lack of sanction in International Law, it is submitted that it will not be correct to assert that International Law is not a law. It may be a weak or less effective branch of law-but still it is a law. If we compare International Law with Municipal law; we shall find that International Law stands on a weak pedestal, but at the same time the comparison of International Law with Municipal law of a State seems unjustified because both are practised in different areas. For a Municipal law State authorities become competent to legislate, formulate, implement and enforce it in the given defined territorial jurisdiction which may be termed as centralized system of administration while in case of International Law, though some agencies are working but the whole system happens to be decentralized and depends upon the sweet concession of sovereignty in the shape of agreements, consensus, treaties, conventional etc. without any strong machinery for implementation or enforcement. But still States obey the norms of International Law and hence it may be asserted that International Law is not the vanishing point of jurisprudence.
When Holland remarked that International Law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence (that is International Law is not a law), he intended this because in his opinion there was no effective Court of Justice or Arbitration machinery to solve the international disputes between the nations. This point of view, because of technological explosion world over, and many a new development in different norms and emergence of new norms and human rights, the scope of International Law has expanded a lot and many a many new States have come into being with democratic and co-existence view points to give the shape of International Law a new look and new responsibilities to bear out. The establishment of International Court of Justice, and activization of Security Council for its expansion with the increase in numbers of members of States in the U.N.O.; the tinge of power in International Law is increasing day-by-day. As such contention of Holland seems irrelevant in the present state of International Law.
Holland also asserts that International Law is more like morality than law. But this statement is also not correct, because rules of morality are concerned with conscience and affect discretion while rules of law are binding.
It is pertinent to mention here that not only the U.N.O. but its cognate agencies and entities established through international agreements, have in their respective Constitutions and policies many a many sanctions because of which, the States follow these provisions which are part of the International Law. The States which are sovereign, give honour in implementation, enforcement and following of the International Law not by themselves but by other agencies working under them including individuals. Many States legislate for enforcing international treaties as the law of the land. Under these circumstances, the saying that international law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence is not correct.
Q. 3 (a). What is the basis of obligation in International Law? In this connection discuss the positivistic and naturalistic theories.
OR
Describe the main principles of the basis of International Law and justify the right basis of International Law.
OR
How far auto limitation or self-determination, Pacta sunt servanda and consent theory are valid bases of International Law?
Ans. Basis of International Law.-1. (Theory as to the Law of Nature). Those jurists who adhere to natural law thinking assert that International Law is the one of the parts of natural law. In other words, the States accept International Law, because natural law is a higher law much above the laws of the States. Grotius is regarded as the father of the present International Law. According to Grotius, the natural law is the dictate of right reason. His disciples presented natural law as an ideal law which is founded on the nature of man as a reasonable being. The International Law is binding and obligatory because in reality it uses natural law in special circumstances conducive to International Law. Vattel is one of the famous jurists of natural law school who in 18th century had described natural law as the base of International Law. The other natural law adherents like Pufendorf. Christian Thamasious etc. have also asserted that natural law is the base on which the structure of International Law stands.
Criticism.-. The jurists of natural law school assert that natural law norms are the base of International Law and binding nature of International Law comes from the natural law thinking. But the different followers of the natural law, give different meanings of their understanding of natural law Some say it as ‘reason’, some say it as justice while others say it as ‘utility and/or common interest of international community. As such this thinking lacks uniformity.
2. The other main defect of this school of thinking is that it is not based on the real international relations and realities of States behaviour.
Leaving aside the criticism as discussed above, the effect of natural law on International Law has been quite remarkable and it has given idealism to International Law in its development processes.
2. Theory of Positivism. The jurists of positivism in opposition to naturalists assert that the basis of International Law is the real behaviour of States. In real sense, the law is that which is law in reality, and in this context International Law exists in treaties and customs. This view in 18th century was in good circulation te quite famous and Bynker-Shock, the famous positivist tried to establish this view by writing many books.
According to Positivists, the sources of International Law on the last analysis comes to be the wishes of States. The norms and rules of International Law derive their power through the assent, agreement. consensus, concession in sovereignty of States.
The German Jurist Hegel propounded the theory of wish of the States as the basis of International Law. Positivists asserted that under the International Law, those rules and regulations come which come into existence because of the State’s restrictions on their power by themselves 1.e. by process of voluntary restriction or auto limitation and in return by giving assent to the rules of International Law.
So we may deduce that International Law is that system of rules and norms whose binding nature depends upon the assent/acceptance of States.
Criticism. The view point of positivists mainly depend upon the real transactions of the States/Nations. But one can criticise their school of thought as follows-
1. The concept of the will/wish of States as propounded by positivists is purely a similie which is quite away from the reality. It does not express the real elements. In reality, the will of the State is the will of those persons who constitute a State A State may be democratic, or under a Crown or under a Dictator and accordingly the real power of state may differ according to their forms.
2. The view point of positivists that International Law depends upon the consent/assent of States, is away from reality. This principle fails when a new State enters the international community. In this case, the international customs begin to operate over this new entrants without its consent because it chooses to become a member of international community. The famous jurist Sir Cecil Hurst has vehemently criticized the consent theory of States for binding nature of International Law and has concluded that this theory is wrong
3. Ordinarily in transactions it is not necessary to clarify specially for customary rules and other legal rules accepted by civilized States that on these the States have granted their consent and hence they are the binding rules of International Law. As such, in International Law norms and rules are followed because of the need also.
Other Basis of International Law
1. Theory of Fundamental Rights.- Brierly opines that theory of fundamental rights has similarity with the principles of State of Nature. It is an accepted fact that man lived on this earth before the emergence of the community or the State and at that time too, the man lived even when there was no such concept where States may have super States over them. As such in natural state fundamental rights, such as right of self-defence, self respect, right of freedom, equality right to self preservation existed. Like man. States also possessed these fundamental rights because so far there is no world institution over and above the States.
2. Consent Theory. According to this theory States implement International Law because they have given consent to implement norms of International Law in their transactions. The advocates of this theory include Angilotti Vattel and Oppenheim etc. This concept does not suit to adherents of customary International Law, as they assert that customs are followed habitually. But in reply, the consent theory adherents assert custom exists because of implied consent. They argue that customary rules are binding as the nations have given implied consent to obey them.
3. Auto-Limitation Theory. According to this theory the International Law is binding on the States because States have themselves restricted their power and sovereignty to implement the principles of International Law. This theory stresses upon the freedom and sovereignty of States. The main exponent of this theory is Jenning. This principles is based upon the fact that every State has a freewill. This will is completely free and is not regulated by any external power. But a State itself can restrict or reduce its free will, power and sovereignty. The States are not bound to implement the norms of International Law because they are free and sovereign but if they wish they can restrict their freedom and sovereignty and may implement the norms of International Law-and this limiting of power and sovereignty is called auto-limitation theory of States for implementation of International Law.
4. Pacta Sunt Servanda. The credit to introduce this principle in International Law for implementation of its norms and principles goes to the Italian jurist Angilotti. According to him binding nature of International Law is based on a higher and fundamental principle of law which comes from Pacta Sunt Servanda. The meaning of Pacta Sunt Servanda is that States will honour the conditions of treaties and will implement them According to Angilotti this view is the main basis of International Law for its binding nature It is also supported by positivists. The Pacta Sunt Servanda principle promotes honouring of international treaties and if their implementation is violated there will be choas and lawlessness. It is a fundamental principle of International Law, that if States enter into a treaty. they must follow its conditions and must implement it and their provisions are treated as binding upon them. But to say that binding nature of International Law comes from Pacta Sunt Servanda, will not be justified, because this principle does not clear the position why customary principles are implemented?
The Real Basis of International Law. Because of technological and information technology explosion, the world has become very small in its scope and every incident in any corner of the world affects whole of the world, hence it is very essential to inaintain peace and progress while living as a unit of the world community. Isolation and steel-curtain policy has become obsolete in the present world. As such the remarks of Sir Cecil Hurst that International Law is in fact binding on States because they are states, seems very apt. States follow International Law because in following it, their interest is protected. Every State desires peace and progress and this can be achieved only through a law and hence States prefer following of International Law. So it can be safely said that main basis of binding nature of International Law is interests of States itself, and they (States) follow it because they (States) wish to remain as a State.
Q. 3 (b). Distinguish between Public International Law and Private International Law.
Ans. Distinction between Public International Law and Private International Law. Public International Law basically and mainly deals with and controls or regulates the transactions or behaviour between the different States/nations which have capacity to contract or recognize other States. Under the recent development in Public International Law the individuals are also covered when their human rights are violated and their local Government fails to redress the dignity caused by violation of Human Rights. Individuals are also covered in Public International Law when the question of their extradition, Asylum or crimes of assault of Head of State of other country is involved or they are the victim of terrorist or perpetrator of terrorism of international character. When such terrorists are located and caught in other countries, their prosecution and punishment is regulated through the Public International Law.
But main primary subject-matter of Public International Law is regulating of activities, transactions, behaviour of States/countries/nations.
In the case of Private International Law when two traders of different countries enter into some trading contract and some dispute regarding that business deal arises, if there is no agreement regarding the law of the country which will be used in deciding the dispute, a problem arises as to how and law of which country has to be applied to solve the dispute. Here comes the conflict of laws, if both the parties are insisting application of the law of their own country. It may happen that both countries may have conflicting provisions for the same subject/problem. This conflict of laws in international business transactions, guarantee, contracts for sale/purchase exports-imports of goods etc. is resolved through the aegis of Private International Law through its customs, business conventions or previous illustrations of similar nature or practices prevalent in the business communities to deal with such situations where before hand agreement for the applicability of a particular law is not available.
Whether the law of defendant or law of the victim or the law of defaulter or the law of aggressive party shall be applied, will depend upon the prevalent custom, convention or previous illustration on the subject-matter of the dispute, in legal terms the precedent. Private International Law is confined to solve the problems mainly of business deals between two individuals, group of individuals or business corporations having a separate entity from those who constitute it with different nationality belonging to two or more countries. In Private International Law instead of a State, the resident of that State is the subject-matter and transactions of these individuals of two different countries are covered for solution if some dispute arises/emerges between these two nationals of different countries. In short, through Private International Law, the problems of conflicts of laws in business deals of two individuals/nationals of two different nations/countries/States are tried for solution.
Difference between Public International Law and Private International Law may be described as below :-
Public International Law
1. The feature of Public International Law system is that its application is universal. It applies wherever there is a state and covers all main activities even at space in respect of celestial bodies.
2. The span and scope of Public International Law is wide and vivid. It covers the actions and behaviour of International States, bodies/ organizations and individuals also when they are victim or perpetrators of International crimes, violation of Human Rights etc.
3. The rules of Public International Law are rules applicable to all States of the world. Usually these rules control the behaviour of States uniformally.
4. The Public International Law applies uniformally to all the States. It is so because Public International Law has acquired a shape of a distinct body applicable to all.
5. The Public International Law comes into being through the consent of States in the shape of treaties, conventions international practices. customs and declaration of Charters by the U.N.O.
6. The conflicts of Public International Law have the forums of UNO (Security Council and International Court of Justice).
7. The sanction of Public International Law is very effective through the blockade, boycott means initiated by Security Council leading up to the aggression and war, the States which defy stand as annihilated. The means of persuation when fails, coercive means are adopted to enforce the verdict of Public International Law. It is no more a weak law.
8. It is called Public International Law because it is in existence for ever and applicable universally uniformly.
9. Public International Law remains in existence before the dispute and continues even after the dispute.
10. It may form the precedent though the decisions of International Court of Justice (ICJ) have simply persuasive value and in International Law Treaties and Conventions etc. may confine between the countries which are covered by them.
Private International Law
1. The Private International Law is mainly a law of different States which concerns as per Oppenheim mainly such matters between individuals as fall at the same time under the jurisdiction of two or more different States. In other words, where there is no pre- contract for adoption of a particular law to solve a dispute between two individuals of two different States, the Private International Laws system solves the same.
Private International Law provides a solution where conflict of law is the problem.
2. The span and scope of Private International Law is not so wide. It is confined to solve the problems of individuals usually of business deals belonging to two different states/ nations/ countries having two different sets of laws.
3. Rules of Private International Law are part of the International Law of the State to which the individual belongs. The rules control the transactions of individuals of two different States.
4. Private International Law differs from State to State. Here the different States have their different set of laws. regulating their nationals behaviours and where two different States nationals have a dispute the conflict of laws comes in as to which law is to be applied for solution of the dispute. Private International Law system serves to solve such disputes.
5. Private International Law comes into being by the enactment of different countries legislatures or rules, regulations adopted by the different States in their different territorial jurisdiction.
6. The Private International Law has no such forum for its dispute redressal, unless the States of the individuals adopt their cases to initiate a redressal through these bodies but subject-matter of such disputes are rarely business disputes for reference to such international bodies, hence strictly speaking out of the scope of Private International Law.
7. The sanction of Private International Law is very limited and unless the State intervenes, it carries no weight. The Private International Law is a weak law and depends on its enforcement on the sagacity of the disputants, individuals by two different countries_ having their future business deals in mind.
8. It is Private International Law because it comes in active role for solving dispute between the two individuals of two different nations who entered into transactions privately.
9. Private International Law is needed when there is no contract for application of a particular law before the contract or after the contract between the parties. It comes into existence to solve the conflict of laws after the dispute.
10. It forms no precedent and each dispute is decided according to its own merits.