Introduction to International Law | Harris Mahmood | Skillshare

Playback Speed


  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

Introduction to International Law

teacher avatar Harris Mahmood, Law Tutor

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

7 Lessons (1h 28m)
    • 1. Welcome to the Class

      2:43
    • 2. What is the idea behind International Law?

      15:25
    • 3. How did International Law develop?

      11:47
    • 4. Where does International Law come from?

      16:02
    • 5. Who settles disputes?

      13:40
    • 6. How do you decide who applies the Law?

      13:41
    • 7. What problems does International Law face?

      15:04
  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.

41

Students

--

Projects

About This Class

Are you a student at university about to delve into the realm of international relations, trade and politics? Or perhaps you are curious about how hundreds of different cultures form their own country and how they all relate to one another. Having a basic grasp of International Law is fundamental to understanding your field of study and to understanding the world we live in.

This course is designed to give lawyers, law students or just generally curious people an introduction to some basic concepts in International Law.

It is taught by Harris Mahmood, a Law Graduate and Private Legal Tutor from the University of Glasgow, who will take you through the history and background of International Law, the importance of an international legal system and how it operates in comparison to domestic law.

As the world becomes more and more interconnected and countries and cultures begin to mix more frequently, International Law will continue to play a fundamental role in this new global society. 

ABOUT HM LAW:

My name is Harris and I am Law Graduate from Glasgow currently working as a private law tutor. I make visually appealing, introductory law courses for students and generally curious people. My goal is to teach the law in an easy to understand manner and make legal education as accessible as possible.

USEFUL LINKS:

My Website: https://www.harrismhd.com/

My Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/edad30abf112/law

My Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkEwB7Qotogc0GGQyCUijdQ

My Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/harrismahmoodlaw/

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Harris Mahmood

Law Tutor

Teacher

Hi, my name is Harris and I am a Private Law Tutor based in Scotland.

I have created numerous visually appealing, introductory online Law courses for students, graduates and the general public to watch and learn.

My aim is to make legal education as accessible as possible.

 

Check out Youtube Channel for lots more lectures and content:

Youtube - Law course snippets and previews and videos explaining key events in legal history

I also have a website which you can check out for more information

 

Subscribe to my Newsletter for early access and discount codes for all my online courses:

https://mailchi.mp/edad30abf112/law 

See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
    0%
  • Yes
    0%
  • Somewhat
    0%
  • Not really
    0%
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.

Transcripts

1. Welcome to the Class: Hello and welcome to this introduction to international law online course. My name is Hadassah and I'll be your guides where I'll be taking you through some of the basics, the fundamentals and some of the easy to understand popular law behind international law and the law graduate from the University of Glasgow, graduates with first-class honors. And right now I'm a private legal Tutor, Tutoring various different students on different courses on topics as well. Some adult learners and try and get them up to speed with some of the fundamentals and the basics of law. Gr interested in tutoring or if you have any questions, please feel free to email me Just as a side note as well, as well as this course. I also have another online course, it's called Introduction to Scottish and common law as available on Udemy and Scotia. And you can see the link in the description. So here's this course in that, well, it seemed that a number of people, so the number one category would be undergraduate students, students who are studying an international subject at University. Another cat three could be masters students, the LLM students studying international law, international relations, something similar and David, like some sort of introduction to international legal concepts, foreign lawyers will also benefit from this course. This course can provide you with some very good introductory concepts, especially if you're about to go into this area and the general public, anyone who's genuinely curious and wants to find out more about law. So let's get on to the course topics. I've tried to encompass a broad range of topics in this course. However, it doesn't go into as much T2 as perhaps a university lecture. So I've tried to be very concise and only covered the very main points or the most popular areas that people are interested in. So before looking at the background and setting of international law, looking at the history of international law, then looking at sources of law, dispute settlement, how parties settle problems. What is there an international court, for example, jurisdiction, which I'll get onto, which is essentially when does the state have a right to prosecute and problems that international law might face in the future. Now I like to simplify all my courses, right? So I can understand some of these words. It can be a bit difficult to understand. So I've simplified all of those topics. So the first one would be, what is the idea behind international law, which will be this lecture. Second one, how did international develop? Where does international law come from? Who settles disputes? Had you decide to apply the law? And what problems does international law face? So it's much easier when I break down my slides and questions, especially for a lot of people. 2. What is the idea behind International Law?: Hello and welcome to this introduction to international law online course. My name is hardest and I'll be your guide where I'll be taking you through some of the basics, the fundamentals and some of the easy to understand popular law behind international law and the law graduate from the University of Glasgow, graduates with first-class honors. And right now I'm a private legal Tutor, Tutoring various different students on different courses on topics, as well as some adult learners and try and get them up to speed with some of the fundamentals and the basics of law. If you are interested in tutoring or if you have any questions, please feel free to email me Just as a side note as well, as well as this course. I also have another online course. It's called Introduction to Scottish law and common law as available on Udemy and Scotia. And you can see the link in the description. So here's this course in that, well, it seemed that a number of people, so the number one category would be undergraduate students, students who are studying an international subject at University. Another cat three could be masters students, the LLM students studying international law, international relations, something similar and David, like some sort of introduction to international legal concepts, foreign lawyers will also benefit from this course. This course can provide you with some very good introductory concepts, especially if you're about to go into this area and the general public, anyone who's genuinely curious and wants to find out more about law. So let's get on to the course topics. I've tried to encompass a broad range of topics in this course. However, it doesn't go into as much detail as perhaps a university lecture. So I've tried to be very concise and only covered the very main points or the most popular areas that people are interested in. So before looking at the background and setting of international law, looking at the history of international law, then looking at sources of law, dispute settlement, how parties settle problems. What is there an international court, for example, jurisdiction, which I'll get onto, which is essentially when does the state have a right to prosecute and problems that international law might face in the future. Now I like to simplify all my courses, right? So I can understand some of these words. It can be a bit difficult to understand. So I've simplified all of those topics. So the first one would be, what is the idea behind international law, which will be this lecture. Second one, how did international develop? Where does international law come from? Who settles disputes? Had you decide to apply the law? And what problems does international law face? So it's much easier when I break down my slides and questions, especially for a lot of people. So let's get into the first lecture setting. What is the idea behind international law? That's me, that's me in mines in Germany. And I was there doing a year abroad and 2018 slash 2019, I was doing my year abroad. I remember traveling and meeting up with lots of other students who were also doing a year abroad. People from Ghana and Switzerland, and Italy and France and all sorts of countries. And I think it's easy to overlook just how remarkable of feet. This is the idea that so many different types of cultures and people are able to travel, first of all from distance plans and meet up together and not only cooperate with each other, but also try and solve problems and be in the same area being the same space. Historians estimate that around 10000 BC, the world was split up into thousands of distinct, very, very distinct cultures, none of which knew about each other. As you could have a small tribe and let's say Germany. And yes, they might know about the tribe next to them or that the tribes over the forest. But definitely the tribe that was bordering into France or enter Switzerland, let alone the African tribes. They wouldn't have the other clue about who these people were. And slowly, the world becomes more and more integrated through trade and other things, and we essentially become one world. So really good example of this would be, for example, Germany and Japan. Today Germany and Japan, they trade nearly $40 billion worth of goods with each other. I mean, you'd be hard pressed to go to one of these countries. And if you were to mention a German person or Japan, Japanese person, they would pretty much have an idea of what that person would be or where that country is located on a map. This was not always like this up until the last, only among other end, the last thousand years of human history, Germany and Japan barely knew each other. They had their own institutions, their own systems, their own monarchies most likely. And so they will be developing themselves without any cooperation at all. You ask a German person back in 10, 83, Japanese person looks like, I don't even know. The species of Homo sapiens are human beings. First emerged around Africa and Asia. And a long, long time ago, they would have no clue just how big the world was. Just have vast planetary earth was until very recently in human history, where today humans have conquered the entire planet. We pretty much have Homo sapiens and every single area on the planet or habitable earth. And even the C is we've managed to. And explore a lot of that as well. And because of this, today, we have access to all the different types of cultures in the world. It doesn't matter which country you go to. Any country no longer are, they're only going to be natives of that land. You will see people from all walks of life. And I'm a prime example of this, of cultures being able to immigrate and move from one place to another. My parents came from Pakistan to the UK and settled here. And hopefully our live my life mostly as a European, no longer as a full blooded Pakistan. So it's extremely remarkable achievement in human history. So here's where we start to relate this now to law, to international law. So what we have today in the 21st century as a global society, all of the people or the vast majority of people are interconnected in some way or another. Whether it's history, politics, where we have these internationally recognized states, whether it is through economics, we have these market economies and now they're able to trade with each other. Whether it's through science and many of the science programs in different countries, they apply the same scientific principles, the kind of global universal science, scientific principles, or whether it's through law. We also know as these individual states created, we have the same international legal rights and obligations. Each state's, each country interacts with each other and applies the same legal principles. And even really, when you look at the domestic law of countries, they're very, very similar. And now what's really important if you want to understand international law Philly, and actually, if you want to understand the world fully, understand this concept of a state and what it actually is. When I see states, I mean, why actually as a country? So the best way that I can explain this for you is if you take Scotland and England, never imagine you are standing right on the border between Scotland and England. If you see that little line there, imagine you're standing right there. Now it's easy on a map to separate the territory of Scotland and the territory of England. But if you were to actually stand on that border, that's really all you would see. You would see darts and grass, and mud and natural terrain, right? Where exactly on that piece of terrain a moment to create a border to separate Scotland and England. Now when you start looking at the world in this way, you realize that all of these borders that we've created are totally artificial. What the border that separates Germany and France is artificial, separates Russia and Georgia is artificial, Morocco and Algeria as artificial rate. All of these borders are totally artificial. At some point, us as human beings have decided that this is going to be the territory of these people. And this is going to be the territory of these people. And what's remarkable is naturally in the physical world, that stuff doesn't exist. Everything that we've created exists up here and our minds. If tomorrow the people of Skull and the people of England forgot what Scotland and England was. We forgot what a border was. We just eventually starts to amalgamate into each other. We start to integrate into each other. There is no border. And so all of these are human creations. And I think that's the best starting point to then go on with your study of international law, a CTO, but domestic law. And now it seems obvious, right? It seems obvious that internationalism, something exotic, something that exists with the whole planet and domestic law is kind of just within one territory. Well, that is true to an extent, but it's not a very good explanation, right? So the best way to explain this, to explain domestic law is that each takes control of its territory. And in order to take control, it creates a domestic legal system which suits the morals and values of its people. So essentially what this means is that the Moroccan people are able to choose laws which the morals and values of Morocco, of the Moroccan people. And so this is a good way of looking at domestic law. And what's really interesting about domestic law is these institutions of, often existed for centuries now. That's not the case with every country, right? So you have a lot of newly independent countries. Let's take for example, Pakistan, right? I was given independence in 1948. The, that's not a very long thing, that's less than a 100 years that it's been independent. So it's domestic institutions, it's legal and political institutions are very young and have no existed for centuries. It a bit UK for example. Its institutions have existed for a long, long time. And so it's been refined over and over and over again. And it's really, really solid. And that's where you'll find with a lot of the European countries. And then comparing that to international law, people think that international law has been around for a long time, hasn't. It's a very, very new concept. It's easy to overlook just how kids you could say lawless states where when they use to interact with each other. And a perfect example of this is World War II stay. There was very, very led to authority and international law and international regulation. So states often. With violates laws and do pretty much what they want. So a lot of international law is very young gets, we will speak wells in the next lecture. But it's only really come about after World War II. And so the institutions have not been around for as long. So why do we have international law? Well, a lot of people, it's heavily criticized rate. Why, if we've got these domestic legal system, do we need international law, right? Why do we need these states to start working with each other? Why can't these states just govern themselves? Well, there's a few reasons that you may need international law rate or that international exists. The first one is exploration. And so having an international legal system often allows people the freedom to navigate the world. Importantly, the freedom to navigate without being subject to restrictions and able to navigate safely. If I'm going to pass through someone's territory, I need to know that I feel safe by these international laws and that I won't just get martyred. Or if my, if I'm on a ship and it's going through someone else's territory, someone else's sees, I need to know that. So no one's going to come and arrest me. It's very important for exploration, for treat. It's almost essential and actually one of the fundamental reasons for international cooperation in the first place. And if you want to provide essential services to others, right? So you have this groundbreaking medicine that will cure malaria that's been developed in Germany. Yet in Germany there's very, very few cases of malaria. Well, it would make a lot of sense for that medicine to be traded for profit to countries, for example, in Africa, where malaria is still a huge, huge problem. So it's essential for trade Dre. And of course that does mean a lot of people get very, very rich. And then that does mean the often exploit that for power. However, Alice says my opinion that international trade and international cooperation has made the world a much better place. Like I said, human cooperation. We have international law for humans to cooperate and solve the global problems like poverty and disease, right? Things that us as human beings, whether conscience shouldn't allow for other human beings to experience, right? And so the best way to solve these problems is to have all the minds working together. And last but not least, conflict prevention, right? Having international law establishes a type of legal order and that prevents people from going to war with each other. Now, domestic law has this right, establishes governments, and government is able to provide law and order in order to stop people from fighting each other, right? Whether it's groups, whether it's people, doesn't matter. International law needs pretty much the same thing. And the problem is when a country goes to war with another country, the effects of this in terms of destruction to life, are much, much greater than if a person was just to murder another person, the only victim, they are really the person who is martyred. When a country goes to war on another country, bomb starts to fly around. There's biological and chemical weapons involved, there's armed militia groups, there's heavy duty machinery. And so there are civilians caught in the crossfire, bunch of human rights abuses and people can die and have an awful life afterwards as well. So it's very, very important to stop conflicts. Now a quick note about public versus private international law, right? There are two types of international law. There's public and private, and I'm going to have a very brief description of both of them. And we'll look at which one we're going to study in this course. So, private international law regulates the conduct of individuals when this involves more than one country. The best way of thinking about this is for example, if I'm a business and I am creating a contract with another business in another country. So if I'm situation in Scotland and I contract with someone and Nigeria, this would be regulated by private international law because it's private law. But with an international aspect. This course will cover is not this, but public international law. This is regulating the conduct and relations between different states, right? So private individual law, sorry, private international law. It's people contracting with each other. Public international law. Countries acting with each other, are cooperating with each other or conducting relations with each other. And if you're interested, there's an excellent book called International by John clubbers, which I read the university, which I've used as my source material for much of this course. I believe now there's an updated version. So this was back in 2013. I believe there's an updated version. So you can check that a excellent book. 3. How did International Law develop?: Hello, and welcome back to Introduction to International Law online course. So in this lecture we are going to be talking about history, the history of international law, and how it's called to where it has today, going to be very brief. And really you'll see just how young is. So history, how does international law developed? So you'll find that with international law, it's a very, very young area or there's not been any solid or codified law which goes back up until the 12th century or 13th century. It is fairly, fairly new. So here's a timeline of international law and what we'll be covering in this lecture. We'll be looking at the 17th century and the teachings of you. You will gluteus and the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia, and that ended the Thirty Years War. And we'll be looking at then at the nineteenth-century, the late 19th century and the first meeting that the Hague Convention. I looking at the early 20th century, which is the creation of the League of Nations. And then really were international law begins to take off is after World War II. So 1945 and beyond. And World War II ends and all the post-war developments in international law starts to take shape. And that really was a landmark and international law in terms of developing and codifying more law between states. So let's look at the seventeenth-century, the two main developments that we see. For first of all, this man, Hugo Grotius, he wrote a big current SE, I believe was, it was called the Law of War and Peace, published in 1625. Cruces was a leading Dutch intellectual at the time. He wrote in this book was that he introduced the concept of laws and regulations covered in different states, right? So before that people thought that there was no law governing two countries, two states. But he kind of changed this and realize that really people interact. People from different countries were beginning to interact with each other, beginning to trade with each other. And so therefore their governments must also be beginning to interact with each other. And so as they begin to interact, destroy cars, new rules, new regulations. But he also did, He was the develop the concept for the freedom of the seas are the high seas. And that is basically the idea that when human beings are on seas, there were those C's are not the territory of any one country. So no one country can forbid human being going out on a boat and go into the Atlantic Ocean. So he developed the concept of freedom of the seas. The second mean development that we saw was the Peace of Westphalia. And that was concluded in 1648. And this was a peace treaty that was concluded between different European countries. And it brought an int, the Thirty Years War. And the 30 years war was essentially a religious war between different European countries in which there was a lot of bloodshed, a lot of fighting. And so this peace treaty, what it did was divided different territories and Tunisian state's right. And that's essentially where you get the creation of a lot of the European countries such as Germany in France, the Peace of Westphalia developed this concept of a nation state that people in the people in Germany would be able to control for and set the laws and regulations for whatever was in its territory and the people would France will be able to do so as well. But the main thing was that religions rate. Germany was able to decide its own religion, and France was able to decide its own religion, whether that be Protestant, Catholic, whatever, they'd be able to decide their own. So that would stop people from fighting each other. Moving on, international law then took another momentous sleep during the heat conventions of 1899 and 1901. And what this did was it codified many of the international legal rule. So before these conventions, states were beginning to interact with each other a lot. And when they did this, they would be kind of law that was created between them. But importantly, it wasn't written, so it wasn't codified. It was kind of like what we would call custom. So Germany knew how to act with France. But they never, ever officially agreed on any single wrote anything on paper. But they kinda knew how to act. And they acted in a way that assume that they were burned by some sorts of law. So the heat conventions brought together all these different countries and codify the law of the basic laws that they were already been by. And so for example, in 1899, one of these sort of codifications, an example would be the Declaration concerning the US or the UK concerning the prohibition of the use of projectiles. With this, all objects have spread as fixating poisonous gases, essentially biological and chemical weapons, right? Even back then, people knew that whether in war or in peacetime, you cannot attack people with biological or chemical weapons. And then 1970 was another conference. An example of what they concluded there was the Convention relative to the rights and duties of neutral powers and persons in case of war on land. Essentially that independent or neutral country cannot be attacked during war. And it was a bunch of these different laws and rules. And it was very, very important for code the codification of international law and making international law this subject that you're able to study, the League of Nations was created and this was in the early 20th century. And what the League of Nations, that is that it was essentially the first intergovernmental organization. So whereas with the hay conventions, this was a conference kind of like a convention where different countries would come and they would sign a few documents and a few treaties and go back home. And the League of Nations, they created an actual organization. So now, instead of just saying a few documents and gone back home, states agree to be bound by the, by whatever rules this organization created. League of Nations no longer exists. It was succeeded by the UN and essentially disintegrated because of a number of reasons which I'll go through. People often think that the League of Nations was a complete failure. That wasn't actually prevented. A lot of things. So some of the benefits or the advantages of the League of Nations was created the first-world courts. It was called the permanent courts of international justice. So today, the world courts, I guess you could say it's the International Court of Justice. Well, its predecessor was a PCI j, right? And so this was revolutionary. The idea that you had this world core that will decide the, decide cases between different countries have the revolutionary idea. What it also did, they also prevented some minor conflicts. So an example would be the German Polish conflict over Upper Silesia, which was a territory, a disputed territory between the two countries. Now what's so important about this is that a lot of the time, big conflicts will emerge from the minor conflicts, from small things, right? Even World War one and World War I read a book which sort of described how people at the time felt a bit World War one and World War II. And you would think that people knew that something historical momentous was happening in the world, that this was a big war. It was only after the fact that people were reflected on the world. Then they realized just how drastic, just how effect it had on human history right? At the time or during the early stages of the war, people just saw it was a minor conflict or minor skirmish that would eventually evaporate, right? Eventually come to a halt. And so that's really important. It was really important for the League of Nations to prevent some of these minor conflicts in case they then began, began to escalate and become worse. So you'd have no conflict between Germany and Poland, but Upper Silesia could have gotten very, very ugly. And we could have had three World Wars instead of two. What the League of Nations also did was developed international law formula, like I said. And the Hague Convention codifies a lot of laws. League of Nations just added to this and it became a much more stable subject. Unfortunately, the League of Nations didn't last. There were a number of reasons for this, and you can roughly summarize it into a few, right? So, for example, sanctions. Normally when states break international law, and the best way to punish them is actually not to declare war on them. It's to help them with sanctions, economic sanctions, political sanctions, military science rooms. And today that's quite an effective remedy. But during 1910, 1920, and the sanctions that the League of Nations would impose were very, very ineffective, right? And the reason they were so ineffective was because there was no central decision-making authority. No one institution within the League of Nations had the power or ability or the respect or the authority to tell nations what to do or to kinda keep them in line. And so because of this, because of this lack of central authority, couldn't prevent World War II from breaking out. Germany violated. And the League of Nations then went on to withdraw from the League of Nations, which means there was no longer bound by any international laws and obligations. And so it was able to then become the catalyst really for World War II. After World War II, when people came to terms with atrocities of what just happened and of many human rights abuses, people began to take more of an interest in international law. And so most of modern international law originates from these conventions and peace treaties and human rights treaties that are concluded after the war. So examples of these institutions would be the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and gas, which is very important because once you have countries that trade with each other, they're less likely to go to war with each other. The International Criminal Court, which is holding individual heads of state. So presidents and prime ministers to account for human rights abuses and crimes against humanity and genocide. The European Union, which is super-important, which has become the sort of all encompassing international organization. Trades, they decide social policies, they decide everything really. This was after World War II because that occurred within the European states. The ECHR, which predicts individual human rights as well. Now, two cases that I really want to look at, which are actually very, very important for understanding some basic principles. But international law is first of all the SS Wimbledon case, which was in 1921, and second of all, the lotus case in 1926. And the facts aren't as important as are the general rules that these two cases created. That was that international law is a consent-based system in which in order to be bound by it, a state must be sovereign, right? So it must have control of its own territory and must be independent. And it also has to consent to being governed by international law. A state cannot be bound by international law automatically, like a citizen of Scotland, as soon as I am born in Scotland, I'm automatically burned by the laws and regulations of that country. Still it's only a 100 and countries, and they are not automatically subject to international laws. They have to consent to being governed by this. Now the good thing is in modern international law, it's often very beneficial for states to be bound by international law, right? That's why there are so many members of the UN. It's often not from beneficial for them to have a voice and the General Assembly to be protected by the UN Charter, to avoid other bigger countries coming invading them, and to be able to trade freely. So it's much better for them. But this is one of the main aspects of international law, but you'll need to bear in mind. 4. Where does International Law come from?: Welcome back. We're on to Lecture 3 of Introduction to International Law. And here is where we really get into the nitty-gritty ray. We really get into the law of international law. And we're going to look at legal concepts, and we're going to look at the operation systems of the legal nature of international law. Where does international law come from? Now, I think it's really important to note that international law is not as codified as domestic legal systems. And what that means is that there is no set documents or official document which states exactly the different sources of law. The closest thing international law has to sort of like a document that states the different sources of law. This is the Statute of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, which is the UN's World Court, the UN's own core which decides disputes between states. And it's contained in Article 38 subsection 1. The statue of the ICJ is regarded as very good authority for understanding what sources of law or international law, however, is no official in the sense that these are the only sources of law. I want to look at this in a later slides and look at how there may be other types of sources of law that could be applicable in international law, perhaps in the future. But for now, this is a really, really good foundation. The statute, the ICJ, Article 38. So what does it say? Well, the courts, which is the ICJ courts, whose function it is inside in accordance with international law, such disputes that are submitted, submitted to it shall apply first international conventions, then international custom, then the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and then judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists as subsidiary means no, Those are the most important areas we're going to look at. So essentially what this says is if you were to rank the sources of law according to the ICJ. International conventions and international custom share the number one spot. They have pretty much just as much authority as each other. The, maybe the only edge that international conventions have over custom is that it's codified, it's written. And so you don't need to guess. It's much more robust. You can tell where the law is. But in reality, they are very, very high authoritative sources. Now, a lot of commentators have noted that the start source, which is general principles of law, as often used only to fill gaps, right? Not to be used as the sole authority for international law rate. Just because general principles of law is, as the name suggests, it, very general area. What is a general principle of law? And general principles differ between different domestic states. And so they may not all agree on this. Whereas with international conventions and customs, the idea is that they essentially are opened by the all agree with that. Finally, as a subsidiary means only we're going to look at judicial decisions and published his teachings. Subsidiary, meaning that you only use these and to backup your argument and not to use them as a sole source of law to decide a case. Let us now begin to look at international conventions and treaties, and international conventions and treaties. And the statute states international conventions. I've added treaties. Really in reality, a convention or a treaty is just a document on a piece of paper signed by different countries with a bunch of different laws, right? So you have Article 1, Article 2, Bobo, and they can take different forms. You can call them a convention, you can call them a treaty, a declaration and agreement. It doesn't matter, but essentially they serve the same purpose. Some sort of agreement between countries or declaration between countries that they agree to be bound by this law. It's often the dominant source of law just because like I said, as essentially custom, except codify it, right? It's written, that's easy to read, easy to study, and people will look at it as a very, very good source of law. Treaties themselves are governed by another treaty, right? So the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. So it's almost like a double glazed windows. In order for there to be rules on treaties, countries need to agree on those rules on treaties. How did you come up with an agreement on the rules on treaties? Well, you make a treaty, but those are to do with very, very technical specificities about treaties, right? What's a reservation? When can a country sign? How can it saying explains things like this? What's also important within treaties is that as stated in the VC ALT 1969, every single States who enters into an agreement or a convention or a treaty must apply principles of good faith. That is, the coincident treaty acting, acting to uphold treaty and upload the laws and regulations of international law. Act in good faith and they have to act with consent, right? No one can force them to be part of this treaty. They must do it out of their own collection. Secondly, we get onto custom, international custom, no, costume can be very, very difficult to understand, especially for non lawyers write, it took me four or five years to really get to grips with custom. Brick. Explain this in my introduction to Scottish law course. And Scottish also has customers a source of law. And I'll try and explain this how I did back then. Imagine me and a friend have a custom between us that every time we meet up, we shake each other's hands. Right? So every time I was to meet this friend, I would shake his hand. This would continue for 10, 20, 30 years. That every time literally every time I made a shake his hand, let's say one day right after these 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 150, 200 years of me shaking his hand every time metal, he decides not to shake my hand. My initial reaction below, what the hell, right. Why shaking my hand? It's almost as if we've created a law. And then by him, no shaking my hand is broken the law right? Now you wouldn't normally think of law in this way, but that's exactly what it is. I imagine that it's not mean him shaking each other's hands. Imagine this is issues in society, right? Crime and murder and contracts, and family law and property, etc. These are all just customs. The unknown been written down and codified, right? And so international law, like I said, it's such a new area of law that not all laws are codified. Know all laws are written them. Some of you had to rely on custom. And so whereas in domestic systems, almost all customers now written down and wall somewhere. And international law, it's not always written them because there's so many problems. You need a lot of states to agree. You can only be burned by a few consent, etc. And so custom plays a huge role in international law. Now whether that will exist, will continue to exist in a thousand years? I'm not sure. I don't think so. I think by that time, international law with him will be much better established, the institutions will be much stronger. And so you won't need to rely just on basic custom, but for now it's very new and we do have to rely on. So there are two things, if you remember in the ICJ article that you require for customed to be accepted, the first thing is it requires a general practice and between states. So a lot of commentators, a general practice is, is any material or legislative acts of state. So material active state, Anything state does any sorts of actions that it does that require regarded as law. And any legislative acts are the legislation that adopts and it's domestic law. So let me give you an example of a material items which could be regarded as international customers. Let's say states, whatever goods enter their country and they have to carry out the relevant checks to make sure those goods are safe and sanitary. Them carrying those checks on those goods would be regarded as a material act of state. A legislative acts of state would be F dot country provides a law or passes a law stating that any goods that come in have to be safe and sanitary and there'll be subject to checks at the border. And that would be regarded as general practice. Snow. On top of general practice, you also need any general practice that is also accepted as law. Now the way you measure this as through this time called opinio juris. So there are lots of acts of states are a lot of acts that governments to which they do, often, they don't regard it as low. So let's say, for example, rolling the red carpet for foreign diplomats to comment. Now, that's a very, very important custom as a general practice at some material Act. But neither the states first steps on the red carpet nor the one that rules regards this as being burned by war rate that would just be selling. So there's got to be something we are, people feel that they must be bound by law. And so this idea of opinio juris essentially as the idea that a state's feels subjectively bone by a law. What do states feel? Do students feel that they are burned by the slow well, FDR then that means accepted as well. If there's a dispute and FC don't feel that they're banned by law. Well then it doesn't satisfy. One of the criteria is for Custom and therefore most likely won't be international customers. Next we look at general principles of law. Now, like I said, it's not as authoritative as the other areas of law I looked at before. So with general principles of law, they're often just use to fill the gaps between international custom and international conventions. Because international, so new, so international conventions won't be able to regulate on every type of issue. And there might not be customer on every type of issue either. This is where you look at some of the general principles of law. In Article 38 of the statue, stated that only the civilized nations as general principles of law are regarded. Now this distinction today is very unclear. The roots and the history of this distinction between civilized and uncivilized nations was back when countries were still ruled by a colonial countries, right? So whereas the UK would be classed as a civilized country. It was governing over, let's say, India, right, as an uncivilized country. And of course today that distinction is problematic. It's almost termed racist. So today news distinctions may have to emit. Maybe this could be democratic and undemocratic countries, but again, not poses more problems about, well, as this country democratic, as Turkey, a democracy, right? And so there's problems when it comes to this stuff as well. And so it's likely that this will be subject to amendment and perhaps in the next few years. And there are numerous general principles that are covered. For example, we have the double jeopardy r2, where no one person may be tried twice for the same crime. Or let's say, for example, ignorance of the law is no defense to an act. So if you commit a crime and you see that I wasn't aware that this was a crime under law, then that's no defense. There are a number of different principles that you can apply. And finally, we'll look at subsidiary lava is judicial decisions and institutional teaching snow. First, we look at judicial decisions. In my introduction to Scottish law, I spoke about judicial precedent, which is very, very important and the British legal system. And in common law legal systems, essentially, judicial precedent is the idea that judges are able to replace and make law themselves instead of only being in the hands of government trade. So if I'm a judge, I can give a law or my opinion and that then becomes law, right? Instead of just becoming nearly persuasive, international law doesn't operate on the system, has no idea of precedent. And so any decisions from the ICJ or any other courts will not bind future decisions. It won't then become law. The only law would be what we've discussed, conventions, customs, general principles, right? And the other form as a subsidiary means will be published his teachings. And this would be, for example, Hugo Grotius that we spoke about. And the force are in the second lecture. Sorry. So gluteus, his teachings would be regarded as publicists. Teaching sees a very intelligent philosopher is an institutional writer, and any of his books and essays would be regarded as relating to international law and establishing some very, very well-funded principles. And often the publicists will relate to international law. Now I said earlier how there may be other possible sources of law outside of the four that we've just, or five that we've just mentioned. So because some street is general principles and the subsidiary means, there's a lot of discussion between academics whether there are other possible sources of law, with three main ones being the most commonly discussed, right? So the first one will be UN resolutions. Now, UN resolutions are the result of a consensus abroad, majority consensus. Of all the, all the official states in the world are under a 184 of them. The second type of possible sources of law are articles by the International Law Commission. And if you don't know the International Law Commission, It's essentially an organization of leading international law academics. And they put their minds together and they create those big conventions and treaties that I'm countries and follow. So an example would be the Genocide Convention now was essentially created by the IOC. And the ILC are now looking at more conventions, creating more conventions. So an example would be there creating a convention regulating crimes against humanity. And so the IOC, or these incredibly, incredibly intelligent academics who sort of all come together and create these very, very detailed international treaties and conventions. It's possible that in the future their articles that they submit. So I know their draft articles and things like this could become a source of law in themselves. And last but not least, unilateral declarations. A unilateral declarations could be any sorts of statements or like I said, legislative acts or anything that they've said or done, which can then be regarded as being a declaration from that country. So the idea is that if enough countries comment and say something, eventually people will be burned by this law. So if tomorrow the USA comes out and says that the sky is green, and suddenly Bolivia and Venezuela, in Germany and France and Kenya and Zimbabwe start to agree that I actually had the sky is green. A 194 states start to make declarations at the sky is green. Eventually the idea is that this will just become a part of international law, that the sky is green. Now of course, that's not always the case. And all of the time, if a state makes unilateral declarations, that could be regarded as maybe a material active state. And if they feel that heavily inverted the non-incremental legislation anyway. And so it would then become a legislative act of state. And so then it would be an example of a general practice. And if it's an example of general practice, all you need is that it's accepted as well, then it becomes international customers. So it's a source of law anyway, but it's an interesting, roundabout way of saying what could be regarded as well in future. 5. Who settles disputes?: Hello, welcome back. We are on to lecture 4 of the introduction to international law online course. And in this lecture we are going to be looking at dispute settlements, right? Essentially, who decides the cases? So it's obvious that if you have laws and regulations that apply to countries, apply to States, well, there's obviously going to be disputes. And so who is the one that actually decides them? Well, we have a number of ways that we can do this. And we'll be looking at very specific legal methods and international dispute settlement. You can either go through the political sludge diplomatic way, or you can go through the legal way, political and diplomatic ways we're now going to cover. But some examples are negotiation, mediation, conciliation. There are others as well, such as inquiry and fact finding and other kinds of ways to politically and diplomatically come to your desk, come to an agreement on a dispute. And the advantages of these compared to the legal methods. As I often wonder when it's political and diplomatic, it's often just twisted, getting into the room and agreeing with each other on an issue, or maybe talking it out. Essentially, it's much quicker, much, much cheaper. There's no need for lawyers or cite the law or anything like this. And so things get resolved much quicker. And often this is what states will do, um, just because it's much easier. Now, if the states are not able to diplomatically make amends or settle their issues, they can then use legal methods. We'll be looking at two of them. First as arbitration and the other one is adjudication, litigation or court action. Or we're looking at the differences between them and exactly who will decide each case. Before we begin, I want you to take a very good mental notes of this place. It's called the Peace Palace, located in the Hague, in the Netherlands. This building will host both of the course that we're going to discuss. This presentation, that is the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Court of Justice. And the idea is that there isn't a separate room for the ICJ, in a separate room for the PCA. The idea is it's the same room, except they'll change the layout and they'll change the name. But this piece Palace will hold all of these disputes and all of these cases are very interesting place. I'm sure you can go and visit it if you are ever in the Netherlands. So let's begin with arbitration. So what is arbitration? Arbitration is when two parties in the dispute will submit their arguments and evidence to a trusted third party to make a decision. And you may be thinking, well, how is that any different from court action, from adjudication? Well, there are a few differences between that and arbitration. So if you compare that with litigation, there's no use of an official George or courts, right? So you don't need a George's at 18 thousand years of experience. It can be anyone, an arbitrator can be anyone. And often it's decided by the two parties. So a really, really normal case or a really common case in international law is lazy. Germany and France are in a desperate with each other and they take their case, the arbitration. Both of them will then probably pick an arbitrator to decide a neutral country. Let's say that could be Portugal, or let's say it could be spin, right? Or it could be the United Nations General Secretary. Hu is, by this definition, is meant to be neutral. So they can basically pick. So that's the same with the judge. The judge is often not selected by the parties themselves, is appointed. It can also be conducted without lawyers, if they would like. So often there are legal arguments but can be conducted without lawyers. And the decision that arises from an arbitration is confidential and private. That means cases aren't as public. And the decisions are often kept between the parties and the benefits of arbitration over court action. Well, it can be quicker at can also be cheaper and it's often much more informal. Parties will often adopt this measure and there's a bunch of arbitration cases every year. And the most famous Court of Arbitration, and that's a misleading title because technically arbitration at chambers are not courts. It's not technically a court because it does not label court. It doesn't submit legal proceedings. But it's called the Permanent Court of Arbitration could, should really be called Permanent Chamber, the permanent institution of arbitration. But this is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague. It was created in 1899, and it consists of appointed arbitrators from each of the parties. So often say let's say I Germany at row, appoint a preset list of arbitrators that f were to ever come into care court action and knows who's going to decide those cases. And it's not just states, I can bring cases here, It's non-state. So for example, companies and businesses, international organizations like environmental organizations, they can bring cases to the PTA as well. Some notable cases no bearing in mind. Arbitration cases are not are not public. They're often confidential. It's difficult to find notable cases where it's difficult to find cases that are fun to actually redraw preference to which were historically pretty interesting. So the first one is the case of the island of polymers that was Netherlands against the USA. In this case, and the dispute was well over this island and the texture or the Island of polymers, which is now located in Indonesia. And it was decided that this was the territory of the Netherlands, not the USA. And the arbitrator NES was Max Huber, who was an international teacher, decided on a bunch of different cases. Another specific case which is also was interesting was during the latrine Ethiopian War, both the countries decided to submit their claims to the PCA over the disputed territory of BAD me, okay, and then eventually resolved. So the second legal method that states can use as adjudication, this is just basically normal court action. So using a court or a similar institutions that your tribe settle at this very similar with courts have four more rigid. They are Nita hire lawyers and evidence, and it costs a lot of money that are earned a 125 different international courts and tribunals across the world. No reason there are so many is because there's actually loads and loads of international organizations. There's one statistic stating that there are more international organizations than there are actual states. So the UN will have a 194 countries and Abby, you NSF as an organization. But along with are all these little states have their own many organizations, right? Some are bigger than others. For example, the EU is bigger than the Arab League, for example, but they're all have these. There'll be many organizations. So with each of these organizations, they have their different, they have their own courts and tribunals. And so there are a 125 different instructor courts and tribunals. Not all of them take on a lot of cases, some taken 0 cases every year rate. The ones are the most important, are, for example, the European Court of Human Rights to take on a lot of cases. The International Criminal Court, the ECG, which is the EU Court, the International Tribunals for the law of the sea, which is take some cases regarding the Law of the Sea on disputes regarding natural resources and seas and oceans and self-regard. And the African Court of Justice, which is a court that deals with African states, have come parties. And of course, the most important international court in the world over and above what we just saw and those examples as the International Court of Justice. Now the two reasons why it's most important is the ICJ has jurisdiction over the most number of people in the world because there are a 194 to the UN as an organization. The most number of states as members in the world, great, the EU only has 26 states, and the UN has a 184. So that means that every single person pretty much in the world is subject to the law of the ICJ because all a 194 countries are under its law. Theoretically, the ICJ has jurisdiction over the largest number of people around the world, upwards of 16, 56 billion if you live in a territory, no other court has that much jurisdiction. But also, what is also important is that the ICJ theoretically again, can decide on any subject at once, whether that's use of force or international law, the sea or environmental issues or contractor shoes, whatever it wants. As long as they have some sorts of international perspective. Where does the course we looked at before? Let's see, the European Court of Human Rights, it is limited to only analyzing cases which are the basis of human rights right. They can only look at human rights cases. Look at international Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. I can only look at cases regarding the Law of the Sea. International Criminal Court that can only look at criminal acts. The ICJ can look at pretty much all of them. Plus, That's why it's so important in the world. Created in 1945 again, that's after World War II, consists of 15 ICJ judges. So you often see them and a big role. And each ICU judge will be greater Supreme Court Justices. And my previous course and international Scottish law, I looked at the UK Supreme Court. And in the UK Supreme Court, I believe there are 13 Supreme Court justices. 12 or 13. I'm not entirely sure so that either 12 or 13 Supreme Court Justices, and I described those UK Supreme Court justices as if you're making a football analogy as the Premier League of judges. They are some of the smartest people in the country, right there in the top league of law of judges in that country. If you look at the ICJ, these 15 ICJ judges, one of the requirements for being an ICD a judge is that you have to have had qualified at the highest level of your domestic institution in order to just be considered as an ICT job. So if you look at the UK Supreme Court as the Premier League ICJ judges are like the World Cup of judges and not even just a World Cup because and the World Cup, you've got teams are not very good to compete in tournaments. You probably say like the quarter finals and above of the World Cup. So that really the best of the best. And what's important is with ICJ only states can bring cases. So no environmental groups know businesses know companies, only countries. And there are so many notable cases because the cases are so public and the product huge effect on international relations, right? So one of the, one of the really important ones was but nuclear weapons advisory opinion. And they said that the possession of nuclear weapons is not strictly prohibited international law, but this must be used in self-defense. And this was a heavily criticized decision of the ICJ because essentially they were allowing for the US, whether it's a sole yours or not, they were allowing for the sole use of nuclear weapons. And as we know, you only need one use of nuclear weapons in order to work pretty much wipe out humanity. Because what happens is if one country says that they're using nuclear weapons in self-defense, another we'll use it in self-defense and I will just keep going. And eventually you have the end of humanity, right? You wipe out 90% of the population and the flora and fauna on Earth. And then what uses international law then, if we have no one to be subject to, if you have no people. So it's a hugely criticised opinion, but they have to look within politics. You have to work the SIC, do you have to work within the political atmosphere at the time? And so if they were to come in strictly prohibit nuclear weapons would have angered a lot of the nuclear were nuke producing states at the time. Another interesting case was Nicaragua against the USC, where they were pretty ICJ stated that the USA violates international law by supporting Nicaraguan rebel group to fight against the Nicaraguan government. Which basically means that by proxy, USA was guilty of aiding the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government, right? So you're attributing state liability for the actions of someone else, which is very interesting and they USE funded the rebel group loads. I think it was the contrast. They funded the contrast that crazy interesting case again, as really well advisory opinion. So this picture you can see is the wall that separates Israel and the West Bank. And the ICJ ruled that the barrier separating Israel and Palestinian territories as a violation of international law. And this small is unfortunately still up. And it's the source of a lot of contention. And Palestine and Israel, even recently it was still the case. And there's been a lot of new UN resolutions. There's been an ICJ case to say that this is illegal, but unfortunately very little has been done about this. Mostly again, due to politics and, and G2, power struggles between countries. And what's a recent, ongoing case has come to light to the ICJ is the Rwanda genocide case. So this is ongoing and this is deciding whether Myanmar, the state of Myanmar, also known as Burma, has committed genocide against the Rohingya ethnic group, which are in its territory. And both parties are submitting claims. It's actually Gambia that has brought a case against Myanmar to the ICJ. And so began the other provides all the evidence. So there'll be providing the evidence and this will be ongoing. I'm sure it'll take a while for the ICH make its decision. Should be interesting as what happens in the end. 6. How do you decide who applies the Law?: Hello, welcome back. We are on to lecture number five or so close to the end. Only one more lecture after this. And in this lecture we'll be looking at jurisdiction surgeons. Very, very boring, right? Why chili is jurisdiction? It's basically how did you decide to apply the law? Now, normally, this can be a very boring subject to can be a very boring topic. And I'm actually very proud. I laid my slides on how I've tried to explain this concept and a very easy to understand fashion, right? So I'm hopefully this lecture going to explain the basics of jurisdiction of international jurisdiction. What state gets to apply, what law and who decides who applies the law, and hopefully doing that. Are we able to enlighten most of these has a note of caution. I would say try and make sure you pay attention to this lecture. Because if you do, that concept of jurisdiction will just become really, really easy for you to understand. So make sure you pay attention. And if you need to go over it once or twice this lecture, then feel free to do so. So I'm going to begin first by seeing that theoretically every entry of planet Earth is subject to law of some kind. And what I mean by that is it doesn't matter if you're in the city. Doesn't matter if you're in the ocean, if you're on the Sahara desert, or if you're in the Amazon rain forest strain, as long as you're in the orbit of planet Earth at someone's job to apply the law that has come from somewhere, at least theoretically that's the idea. Now, obviously, if you are in the Amazon rain forest and let's say you robbed someone and runaway. It's very, very hard for someone to actually prosecute you because there are lots of practical considerations I need to take into account. How are the police going to get all the way and the Amazon, how are they going to identify? There are no witnesses, right? So you need to take these things into account. But theoretically, you are subject to the law of presumably Brazil. If you're in the Amazon, any forest, there'll be some country whose job it is to prosecute you. And the problem comes where two-state start to argue about whose job it is to prosecute, whose job is to apply the law. And that's what we're going to look at now just quickly, noting the freedom of the seas rate, freedom of the high seas. When I talk class time that the high seas are free and no one state can rule over it. But doesn't mean that it's low-lifes. That doesn't mean that you can take a boat, comes the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and calcium on and you won't be prosecuted. But it does mean that, that no one country has exclusive jurisdiction over prosecuting. If you're on the Atlantic Ocean and the closest country is Belgium, let's say, for example, that doesn't mean that it's Belgium's job to put you into prison, right? It could be anyone. It could be the owner of the ship or what country you're a national over what country the victim is a national law. That's what it means. It doesn't mean that it's solely lawless. You do everyone and practice that sometimes that's the case, right? That crimes committed on the high seas are very, very rarely are they prosecuted by anyone, because normally states just don't know or don't care to find out whose job it is to prosecute. So eventually people do get away with police, just something to bear in mind, the jurisdiction. When you look at jurisdiction, you have to look at different types, right? So we have territorial, national protection of national interests. Passive personality are universal and each of these types of jurisdiction will be claimed by a country. To state that we have jurisdiction. Decide this case because of territorial, national interests. Are nationals, are, they are possible Santa universal. Now we're looking at each one of these in turn and using examples and hopefully, hopefully I can break them this sometimes difficult concept into really, really easy bite-sized information. So let's first look at territorial jurisdiction, which is easily the most common. This is where a state has a right to prosecute individuals for crimes which took place on its territory. So perfect example, Assyrian, Germany. And we have Alex here and he's got a gun. And he shoots Anna. Or could, or which country is going to prosecute Alex for his crime? In this case, it's pretty obvious it's going to be Germany. Germany that has jurisdiction because the train took place on German territory and becomes complicated in the next example. What F no, Alex's in Germany. He standing on German territory, he shoots his gun, but the bullet lands in France and hits in France. Right? What then who's to decide who prosecutes Alex? No. Would it be Germany because he shot the gun there? Would it be France since L received the bullet there? Well, what we see here, because the bullet travels from Germany to France, what we would say here is that Germany claims jurisdiction based on the intention of the crime. So that would be the subjective intention. And then France claimed jurisdiction based on the effect of the crime, objective effect. Both of these two countries have valid legal arguments to prosecute Alex. But what would normally happen here is France and Germany would get into a room. And like we discussed before, but international dispute settlement, it come to a negotiation and agreement as to who is going to prosecute Alex, tried to clean this in this example, it's not a problem. German law is very, very similar to French law. Shooting someone is pretty much the same sentence or same crime gets a bit complicated when you have crimes that really do span loads of countries rate. But if you are more than one country that a crime has been committed and Crime such as fraud or cybercrime. These are really, really interesting international legal issues. And that smarter than me have struggled with plus territorial jurisdiction. And unfortunately that's probably the most basic of jurisdictions, right? And even knots bit difficult to comprehend. And I'm going to go through the next four. The next one we're going to look at nationality jurisdiction. And this is where a state has a right to prosecute individuals who are nationals of its country. So let's look at the example again. Let's see, we're in France. And Alex, the guy from before, he's got a gun and he shoots LR members. This time is not short-term from Germany, shorter entrance to the garden, right? But Alex is a German national, normally you'd think, okay, well, it's taking place on French territory. And so France has jurisdiction. Well, yes, unless Germany really, really, really wants to prosecute Alex themselves. Maybe Alex to the public figure, or maybe Alex's an enemy of the state. Maybe Germany really wants to prosecute Alex. Ben has a valid claim to do so under national jurisdiction. So Germany would then claim jurisdiction based on nationality of the perpetrator. And there yes, it contradicts territory jurisdiction. But there are times that this is important, maybe German does have a valid claim rate, whatever it could be. The third type of your section we're going to look at is protection of national interests right now. Jurisdiction based on protection of national interests Misses where a state has a right to prosecute individuals, where it is in its national interests to do so, right? So again, we're in Germany. Okay, Here's Pablo. Okay, the same Pablo has gone were in German Republic as the gun. And he is planning an attack to shoot possible French victims in France. Now the attack is planned in Germany, but it's to be carried out in France, right? Classic terrorist attack rate. Pablo as a terrorist. Here's an, a German basement is carrying it was attack on French soil and eventually gets caught, right, as victims were going to be France, the crime was going to take place in France. It was planned in Germany. And Pablo, which ends interesting, is actually an Italian national. So we have all these different types of jurisdiction, all contradicting one another. And in this case, this is where France need claimed jurisdiction based on the five edits is in their national interests. To do so. Remember, it can't rely on territorial jurisdiction because the crime of planning a terrorist attack took place in Germany. They can't rely on nationality jurisdiction because problems in the Italian national, but it can't rely on its national interests. So the fact that the release French victims that are going to die, France couldn't prosecute problem. The fourth type we're going to look at is passive. Personality is probably second most controversial one. And I think it's very rarely used, but that's the idea that a state has a right to prosecute individuals were the victims, were nationals of its country. Let's take a similar example, January. So we're in France. And Alex, the Germans, from before it's gone, it's gone. And he actually shoots and kills a bunch of Italian tourists, bunch of Italian victims and trans. And this case, territorial jurisdiction, France, nationality jurisdiction, Germany. And national interests duty section. Well, I guess you could say that Italy has a claim for national interests jurisdiction because the victims were Italian. But what different steps from the previous example is that there was going to be a terrorist attack actually taking place on French territory. In this case, the Italians are actually in France, right there, just the Italian by nationality, Italy here that claimed jurisdiction of passive personality because the victims of the attacks wrote Italian nationals. Now, I can tell this is getting a little bit confusing and this is maybe where you want to go back and revise national interests and look at the difference between that and Parser personality. The final form of jurisdiction, which is very, very different to all of the other ones that we've looked at. This thing called universal jurisdiction is probably the most controversial, but at the same time very exciting form of jurisdiction and applies almost solely in international law. And this is where a state has the right to prosecute individuals, where this is in the interests of humanity. An excellent example is we're in France again. Here we have the French government and they kill a bunch of its own French citizens. This seems as if this is a totally fringe issue. It's a France issue here. French territory, French victims, French nationals doesn't matter, French national interests. This is a France issue, open and shut case. The problem is that because it's the French government that is shooting French victims, who exactly is going to prosecute the French government? Would be the French government itself or no. Would it be the French courts where it's highly likely that the courts have been paid off by the government or there's some corruption, or of course are basically almost piece of the government. Would it be the other French people will probably not have official legal policy to try the French government. So who exactly is going to prosecute France for killing its own people? Well, Germany has no connection to the crime, but Germany claims surely section based on the fiber, it is in the interests of humanity. And this is what it is so controversial but universal jurisdiction. What gives Germany the right interfere with internal French politics or internal fringe matters? And this is the biggest criticism of universal jurisdiction. Basically me give peripheral states the right to interfere and other countries and their internal regulations, laws and regulations. But the flip side from a moral point of view, from a moral perspective, is that it is absolutely necessary because we have cases of crimes against humanity and genocide occurring. And this is a card through generations, through centuries. And no one has been able to prosecute until very, very recently in human history. And one of the best examples I can give of a organization who uses universal jurisdiction is the International Criminal Court, the ICC, to just give you a framework for just how remarkable the ICC and its application of universal jurisdiction as is assembled by a 100 and 23 countries cells. The ICC is located in the Netherlands. It has a Nigerian President. It Gambian prosecutor, once investigated with Venezuela upon the request of Argentina. And no other point in human history has there been this much cooperation between this many different people to prosecute a very small elite group. It really does give you a sense of the power of UGA, the power of international law, and how slowly, slowly this worlds that we call planters divided up into 200 states and thousands of different cultures, has managed to become this one global community from my opinion, regardless of what's been going on. But nationalism and politics and the ISS is common in a lot of criticism. I think in the future, this is probably something that will remain, especially as international law becomes more and more prominent. 7. What problems does International Law face?: Hello, welcome back. And here we are at the final lecture on this introduction to international law online course. And I've had a great time teaching making this course. It's been great. But in this last lecture, we are going to be discussing some problems in international law. And try and get you guys to start thinking about, well, what is the future of international law? And if I ever do practice and if ever do work in this area, what kind of things do I need to deal with? So here are some issues that I've identified and when it comes to some challenges that international law is going to face, right? So the first challenge that I've identified as one that's very, very common to international law. Maybe just low in January when it's politics, the interference of politics and different political opinions and theories turning to mess around with international legal concepts. Okay? The second area that I've identified as the rise of nationalism, again, very closely linked to politics, but this idea that states are becoming more introverted, starting to become more national, instead of becoming more extroverted and looking towards the wider community. Another area that has always really been a problem with international law is the idea of enforcement, right? So the idea that you have a police force and a domestic state enforces the law, but an international lawyer, you don't actually have this, you don't have an international police. So we're looking at enforcement and what kind of problems and that causes international lawyers, especially. And the fourth area, technology, right? It's going to pretty much every industry I think existing and definitely is going to impact law. I'm already technology is beginning to impact some legal forms and domestic countries. And it's only a matter of time before international law. Also, This is the technological rough. Let's begin first by talking about politics, the importance of the role, of its role in international law. Now when you take Connecticut domestic states, any sort of country, right? It's obvious that the political theories, the laws and values, the political values, but that countries people hold will be eliminated in the law of that country. Let's take, for example, the USA and Russia. Russia as a country where communism and socialism as the dominant political view or at, was, if you take the Soviet Union, that was the dominant political view as laws are going to reflect that. It's going to reflect a socialist Marxist view. And the numerical where it's much more free market, free market capitalism and liberalism, its laws are going to reflect the political view. So it's obvious that you can never ever draw a line between politics and law. They're heavily, heavily influenced and they both influence each other. It's obvious then if you get international law as its own system of law, that the politics and the political views of the individual states has also going to begin to influence international law. And this is where you get different theories of international law, whether it takes one particular view, wherever it takes another particular view. But the problem with international law is not made up of sort of this collective group of people, is made up of political values, fit up to 100 states, all with different views on the world, all with different views and how to make the world a better place. And so what you'll then have is that international law is interpreted based on a wide variety of different areas. So for example, you have a colonial interpretation of international law. International law is used to further the powers of colonial, former colonial countries. You have the same spectrum, you have anti-colonial, an interpretation of international. The actually international law is used for some subjugated states to assert their rights in the UN and to harness the anti-colonial movement. Again, feminism. There's also been a feminist, feminist outlook on international law that gives rights and obligations or equal rights to women in society. So with all of these interpretations, whether it's Marxist are free, free market or if its colonial, anti-colonial international law really, you can see it's doing its job equally managing to annoy every single sector of society. Or maybe it's pandering to every single sector of society. And this is just shows you the international law is what you make it. And politics will always influence international law and a variety of different ways. I think the best way is just to look at politics and international law is the international law is just the sum of what the states wanted to be. And more often than not, what states really want as a peaceful and a progressive society and for everyone to become really very much. So if that's the idea, as long as that's the main purpose, then the message will probably common two parallel lines eventually. Second issue I want to deal with his nationalism, again, very closely linked and something has been heavily influenced by politics, especially sometimes the, one of the criticisms of international law is that it's just too intrusive that these states where have fought for independence for a long, long time. And there are processes and historical achievements from gaining independence and enzootic gave up some of that sovereignty for an international legal system is simply just goes too far, right? And so international becoming a bit too intrusive. And so what happens sometimes that the states began to look inwards. They look to solidify domestic policies and domestic institutions at the expense of the international institutions. What's obvious is that rules such as prohibition of torture or probation of slavery. These are pretty much rules that majority, you know, every country follows rate. They will happily agree on this kind of stuff. And so it's okay for international law to legislate on these issues. Issues that everyone in the world agrees on. The problem comes when international law starts to dictate things such as climate change policy and trade law, for example, rate and the coming and going of goods. And this is where countries can often find that international legal institutions are becoming very intrusive, um, and so they become very scared and turn inwards. And you'll find that this is pretty much exactly what has happened with these two scenarios. One being the election of Donald Trump, a populous figure, kinda make America great, again, an anti internationalists. And also breaks the EU as a form of international organism, is an international organization, sorry. And EU then essentially is a form of international law. And so by Brexit, what people in the UK, at least the majority of people said, was that, well, we don't want to be bound by the laws of the international community or the European community. We want to be bound by the laws of Britain. And it's not just Trump rate these populous voters that especially sort of national voices. This is popular in some of the biggest countries in the world, India and Brazil. The challenge for international law is actually just finding a balance between being not too intrusive so that some states become bad apples and withdraw from EU treaties and sorry, international treaties and conventions and are no longer subject to laws and regulations. And on the flip side, you have to make sure that international law is not too lenient either. Because then otherwise, countries, big powerful states at USC and China and these kinds of countries will begin to and use their power flexor muscles and create global monopolies. Eventually that will lead to catastrophes, war, power, hierarchies, and power dominance. The third is shown to look as enforcement. Like I said in the introduction, domestic states enforce laws through the police. The police are given the authority as kind of like a legal going to use force and to do whatever's necessary to get you to obey the law and international law. There is no international police. No country can form the international police force and tell them to come and stop another country from invading them more to apply international law. The idea is that in a perfect world that states consent to the law and they always the law, but that's never the case. Un peacekeepers have been deployed, but that's not international police. Un peacekeepers are literally peacekeepers. They can only act in self-defense. There they are to come hostilities between fighting parties. They're not there to take aside or to enforce law or any similar club. And you could argue that the US sometimes acts as an international police force. Again, is a good thing. Probably notes, it's made mistakes in the past. And its invasion of Iraq, for example, was pretty much an entire violation of international law. It's not agree upholder of international law itself. There is an idea that maybe you can designate the UN Security Council and to form a military and go and impose international law and countries. Well, that's okay. For example, Botswana violates international law. Or if China violates international, whatever the US violates international, these countries are on the Security Council. So who's going to, are they going to invade themselves? Probably not. It becomes a big problem. Enforcement and international law, it's always been a problem. And so the only way really to enforce this is simply to trust that states will uphold their laws and obligations. And probably the only way to do that is to make international favorable. So as long as it's keeping peace in the world, as long as it's making people rich. As long as people are happy, people will follow law F naught, then that becomes a problem. So the final area I want to look at as technology, and I'm only going to touch upon two main issues and in technology and international law, perhaps issues that I have a personal interest in. Um, but there are a bunch of other issues that are lots and lots of articles about the role of technology and law. So you may all know this man, his name is Elon Musk is pictured there, top rate. And he's previously said that one of his main goals in life with his company SpaceX, is for the human colonization of Mars and not being probably for a number of reasons, general curiosity, the fact that global warming is. Eminent, perhaps the planet cannot hold human life for too long, especially the rapid industrial rate that we are using it at. And the fact that Mars has been shown to support some forms of human life, right? And so he is publicly comment him along with six International Space Agency, six or seven international space agencies, that they will be looking at colonizing Mars. And what happens when the first humans do arrive in Mars? Who gets control of the territory? International law is going to play a huge role because when you look at the first ever humans to step on planet Earth, we had no concept of law or technology or anything like that, right? Today, we're essentially colonizing a new planet. Yet with all the information and knowledge that we found through centuries on a different planet. So who gets a piece of Mars and what's going to be the role of international law. Again, something fascinating to think of it for the future. The other issue that I'm really interested in, which involves international law is the idea of network states, right? So it's this idea that territory is becoming less and less of a burden on human beings, right? And essentially is to do with employment and work. So before technology and the means, the main idea was that your job was always tied to the territory where your end. So for example, if you are working as a doctor in France, your job would only exist in France. You would have to be in France to do your job and to make money. If you wear, then you could move to Germany and to become a doctor. But then you would have to physically move territory to Germany to become a doctor. Now with technology, we're finding that this idea of work from anywhere as becoming more and more prominent. There are lots and lots of people who work for US companies. They'll job is entirely on a laptop. They'll move to Thailand for lower living expenses yet all you need is a WiFi connection to do their job and the money is coming in and people are getting services and everyone's happy. So when you start to disconnect territory from work, I think that will have fundamental impacts on the idea of countries, no. So then the idea is that the most important aspects that gives a state it's right to govern people is not longer territory, is networks in the future. So it could be a case that these artificial borders based on territory that we've created physical territory could no longer be as relevant. And we have these things called network states, where you have an entire country based upon networks between different computers, right? And it's no longer that you get the passport or the country that you're born into, or the territory that you're born into. It's actually the passport of the network that you're born into. Now again, this is, I'm looking at future from a movie or something like that. Very, very interesting area. And so we'll international law and cybercrime law start to interact with different network, starting to negotiate with each other. I guess said time and time again. At this point it's almost like a cliche for me because I've studied it for so long. But international law is exactly what states make of it. I think when you analyze globalization and international law overall, it's almost as if it's a train that's never going to stop once you expose human beings to more and more and more growth, more and more and more potential to see different things, to experience different things to meet new people. It's something that's unstoppable. And so regardless of populist nationalist government official to say that we are better as one nation and we're better as a single territory that should shun the international community. It's pretty much an impossible feat administrate. It was an impossible feat to get to this point where lots and lots of these countries interact with each other and narrow, I think it's impossible, equally impossible to go back to where we were before, where countries are isolated or territories are isolated and they don't trade, and they don't cooperate with each other. Thank you so much for watching this online course. It's my second online course. Hopefully I'll have more to follow as well. But again, if you have any questions or if you're interested in legal to drink, I'm happy to do so. Just email me and hope you're successful and your legal career or any other career in the future.