mandatory and positivist theory of law has classified this as a system of subordination based on orders backed by threats, only domestic laws of states are subordinated to a centralized sovereignty able to monopolize the use of coercive forces in an effective manner and use it to impose any legal regulations, which in turn inevitably need of an institutionalized system capable of supporting not only the legitimacy of their bases, but also guarantees their mandates.
International law lacks a centralized sovereign power able to monopolize the use of forces, he found no relationship of subordination, if coordination, there is no institution capable of dealing overall objectives, if they can talk about them. There are few guarantees for international standards, which are heterogeneous and decentralized, even contrary and conflicting. There is more to the will of the same subjects of this law as a guarantee of rules, only states have their own effective power to ensure the commitments made with other states, ie international standards are not supported only by the own sovereign will of their primary subjects and original modern sovereign states. Do not forget that this sort rarely clear legal right exists because it establishes itself, which in turn requires compliance principles accepted in the practice of States, pacta sunt servanda and good faith are some of these principles.
international hierarchical structure seen from the inequality of power exists in fact, is formed and justified by positive regulations and safeguards, meaning that in reality the legal equality of states rating makes equally to states with different levels of development, different cultures, thereby maintaining not only a value for equality, but also stating that the society is egalitarian, that should be empirically observed levels of inequality in developing looking policies of redistribution of capabilities, greater equality empirical constructive. The successful policy usually extremely conservative inequitable structure. See who wasted as equal to that needed for survival is the logical inconsistency of principles such as formal and sovereign equality. This reality is the product of anarchic structure that dilutes the responsibilities, leaving the hands free and open to negotiate. The joint declarations that establish the legal equality of states maintaining a status quo based on actual inequality, the inconsistency between the value for equality and the lack of policies for effective prosecution. It is a system based on mutual misunderstanding as to everything that does not conform to the zealous national interests, supported by dogmatic sovereign, ie final.
National interests are often more particular the principles endorsed by the general will of free peoples. Political and social stratification within states often globally alarming in most states, which results in political participation in the networks of domination and influence. In this way the national interest, public order and state security are nothing more than demagoguery when they are attributed to a village has not consented.
Contrary to the above has been denied that international law can be considered right, that to have profound differences with the classical concept of law as law. In the same way that denies the existence of an international society for denying the existence of international law. A higher power greater ability to ensure the commitments made, greater ability to adjust the agreement to their advantage, that the absence of an impartial body able to impose collective international standards, essential to speak of international law because this case internationally, is just an example where it is diluted in legal politics.
Some have also said the international land builds a civilization, a community, a right, as well as within the states for quite some time. Others have denied that community within the states, vindicating the plurality, tolerance and respect for differences not only in the world, but within the same political communities. A sociological definition of law of relativity would show in the ratings and the strong similarities between the internal and external structure. The dualism sees two legal systems differentiated monism just one, views that affect the distribution of resources and expertise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment