Aveneu Park, Starling, Australia

1. jus ad bellum at the time

I think that the regulation of the use of force is acceptable for the most part.
It is worth considering that the clarification of jus ad bellum at the time
constituted a key element in the concept of “just war”. The norms of
jus ad bellum in the modern international system have adopted a strictly
imperative form of prohibition on the use of military force. This is the
fundamental international legal principle. Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the
United Nations obliges members of the organization to abstain “in their
universal relations from the risk or utilization of power against the regional
trustworthiness or political autonomy of any state, or in some other way.”
The UN Charter provides, in fact, only two exceptions to this general
principle. Firstly, the use of military force can be lawful if it is
implemented to maintain or restore international peace and security in
accordance with the UN Security Council resolution (Articles 42 and 43 of the
Charter). Secondly, the UN Charter “not the slightest bit influences the right
to individual or public self-protection if  assault using weapons happens against the
member of the association, until the point that the Security Council takes the
measures important to keep up worldwide peace and security “(Article 51 of
the Charter). The existence of different legal complexes for international and
non-international armed conflicts requires their qualification in order to
ensure the protection of war victims and reaction to the developments of the
international community. This qualification is quite difficult from the
theoretical point of view and is always “ticklish” from the political
point of view. The qualification of a conflict assumes that a judgment is being
made on jus ad bellum issues.

The principles of the laws of war (jus in bello) fill in as rules for a good battle
once war has started. Some keep up that ethical quality does not exist in
fighting, and that is why protest just war concept. But just war concept puts
forward an ethical system for fighting and rejects the idea that “anything
goes” at the times of war. Combative armed forces are qualified for an
attempt to win, however they can’t do anything that is, or appears to be,
important to accomplish triumph. There are limitations on the degree of damage that
might be possible to noncombatants, and restrictions on the weapons of war.
These limitations expect to restrict war once it has started.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

I think nowadays these principles might not be
beneficial in protecting both combatants and non-combatants. In the world for
the period of 2001-2016. The vast majority of armed conflicts (with few
exceptions) were internal. The most disturbing thing in the prevalence of
internal conflicts is that among the actors of the “non-governmental”
front, terrorist groups that initially do not recognize the “laws and
customs of war” are increasingly dominant. This is what gives ground to
governments not to consider them as a party to the conflict. As a result,
terrorists drop out of the regime created by the Geneva Conventions. They cannot
be considered combatants, and when capturing they are not prisoners of war.

In my opinion, the fragmentation of international human rights law is something
that was necessary to be done. The phenomenon of fragmentation today is most
often seen as a dynamic process of splitting, dividing, “atomizing”
international law into parts by singling out autonomous and self-sufficient
international legal regimes, by spreading international law in new areas of
relations, and by creating a large number of institutions for management and

The fragmentation of international human rights law
has been talked about by the development of the material extent of human rights
law, the expansion in the quantity of people acting in it and the want to raise
the adequacy of open international commitments through the cognizance of a
complex “development” system, for instance, in the field of human
rights. The well-known paradox of globalization lies in the fact that, although
it leads to the strengthening of the uniformity of the life of society
throughout the world, it also accelerates its fragmentation, i.e. appearance of
specialized and relatively autonomous spheres of functioning and structure of

Increasing the effectiveness of international human rights law is objective,
since the current state of international relations urgently requires compliance
by all states with existing international legal principles and norms, bringing
them in line with the requirements of universally recognized norms of international
law, especially the principles of peaceful coexistence and the peaceful
settlement of international disputes .

It seems that the main directions for increasing the
effectiveness of international human rights law are related to progress in
achieving a new quality of international relations. The main feature of which
should be the dominance of the principles of non-violence and the rule of law,
as well as the further development of international law, its improvement by making
 general principles more concrete and
creating may be new international human rights law corresponding to urgent
needs and changed conditions.

The international system plays a decisive role in
the evaluation of international human rights law. The task of assessing norms
is just to answer the question of how effectively this or that law meets the
urgent needs of today. Therefore, in each specific situation, the definition of
the criterion will depend on at least two factors: the general objectives of
the international system and the specific effects of the human rights law. Only
then we can compare the actual and possible options for implementing the law,
choose the best (optimal) and determine how much the actual result corresponds
to the optimal one.

According to the Nottebohm principle, one has to show/demonstrate important and
strong ties to the state that is under doubt. This principle has been used only
for dual citizenship situations where one had to demonstrate or at least decide
which nationality would be adopted in particular case. In my opinion, this
principle is still useful in most of the cases. However, in today’s
increasingly globalized world where dual/multiple nationality is accepted by
most of the countries and the idea of one globalized citizenship is in greater
discussion, I think, it will become less useful and insignificant .

I am not sure whether this principle should be uphold beyond individual
nationality or not. Nationality is inside the jurisdiction of particular State,
which decides according its own laws, the principles identifying obtainment of
its nationality. It is in some cases declared that there must be a real and
successful connection between an individual and a state, keeping in mind the
end goal to set up a nationality which must be acknowledged by different
states. It is every now and again contended that without any perceived criteria
the attribution of nationality must be considered as discretionary and that
there must be some sort of an individual and regional link. However, the law has
been bit by bit lessened in its significance because of one special case, which
concerning the bringing of cases up if there should arise an occurrence of
human rights security, particularly to multiple nationals who endures damage in
the third state and can’t be protected by the country of origin.

In today’s world, where every possible environmental problems have occurred and
are increasing every year. I think it is the time for expansion of environmental
law and this can be done through principles of IEL. The principles of
international environmental law are fundamental norms and concepts reflecting
the common position of the subjects of international relations on the most
important issues related to ecology, nature management and environmental
protection. A distinctive feature of the current state of international
environmental law is the widespread use of non-binding international
agreements. Agreements of this kind simplify the negotiation and insertion into
the texts of the treaties of amendments required in the light of new problems,
where scientific knowledge and public opinion are the main factors stimulating
the adoption of urgent measures. The non-binding principles promote the growth
of international cooperation in the field of environmental law and directly or
indirectly indicate new directions for the development of international public

The formation of environmental law during the last
decades led to the emergence of an increasing number of concepts, principles
and international legal norms relating to various issues of environmental
protection. The main reason why the principles began to play such a prominent
role is related to the reasons for the emergence and development of
international environmental law. Environmental law has developed mainly in a
disjointed, non-systematic way, as individual responses to specific
environmental challenges and threats.

Both divisions, individual and social, have cherished sustainable advancement. This
kind of sustainable advancement incorporates the improvement in social,
financial, ecological and political divisions. The lawful space has likewise cherished
the principles of sustainable improvement. This rule can be seen as
philosophical idea that is connected and used in the political arena.
Consequently, the international law is restricted within the boundaries of  these improvements. Besides, it doesn’t go
about as a type of authority and depends on the state rank or nations rank to
strengthen its standards.

The sources of global law consider as a need for innovation and social
advancement. Nowadays, world does not see the global law as a need. We ought not
to accept that all countries will cherish such comprehension of global law on a
worldwide status. Taking everything into account, I think that in order to make
progress in moving from Eurocentric to an all the more comprehensively arranged
law. Thus, in my opinion, this statement is not quit true.

I cannot fully agree with the statement.  The universal law is a system that incorporates
a gathering of complex instruments. The extensions are trusted that would help it
to become more relevant worldwide. But, this does not make global law a
something that would be able to answer all the questions and fulfill the existence
of humanity. Instead it is unequipped for accomplishing satisfaction of
humankind’s presence; it exclusively depends on the person to decide. Universal
law is accepted to realize that it can make better framework in international
issues. The benchmarks of law and legal frameworks are incorporated encouraging
more universal coordinated effort.


I'm Simon!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out