Is International Law Really Law?

What is international law, international law is actually considered a law; the answer to these questions can be found in different international resolution examples. There is a law as an example of the time to comply with and observe the law, and the bombing and settlement of Greenpeace can be found in New Zealand vs. France. Another example is the Iran-Islamic Republic v. America against the United States shooting down Iranian civil aircraft.

International law has plagued scholars and policy makers for centuries. Is international law really "law"? When will you do? Who will enforce international law, and why does the government want their partners to fully comply with their promises? If you are in compliance, will this tell us the usefulness of international law as a tool to achieve substantial transformation of state law? This paper mainly extracts these and related problems from political science literature and also from academic research of international law, economics and political philosophy.

Can international law really be regarded as law? If we adopt the definition of Osinia law, the order provided by the monarchy backed by threats of sanctions, it is clear that international law is not a law. However, a lot of people are asking this definition. Hart (1961) argues that the distinction between legal systems is not the existence of a central enforcer but rather a combination of primary rules (which defines what is permitted and what is not permitted) and secondary rules (rules on regulations) doing. After all, in his view, international law is considered "sufficiently similar to law" (Hart 1961: 231), although Bull (1977) notwithstanding the lack of an overall officer, however the latter is a law It should be considered. The ultimate reason is that people using it - state courts, international courts, diplomats, politicians - believe that these rules have a legal status.

It can be said that the various ways in which the legal quality of international law is questioned will ultimately not be determined by legal issues, ie whether international law is truly properly called law. However, these problems are actually fueling allegations of fire, which is helping to strengthen the position of commentators trying to adopt a more rigorous approach to international law order. There are two advantages of clarifying the position of international law through analytical framework. It helps to better describe the system and, perhaps more importantly, it can help international lawyers correctly identify and interpret the law. Therefore, allow seemingly theoretical efforts to produce actual results