, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
Section A
1.1. Provide two different definitions of international law from your study material, identifying
the scholar associated with each definition.
According to Brierly, international law may be defined as “the body of rules and principles of action
which are binding upon civilised states in their relations with one another” (IPC1501, Study Guide, p.
80). According to Akehurst, “international law (otherwise known as public international law or the
law of nations) is the system of law which governs relations between states” (IPC1501, Study Guide,
p. 80).
1.2. In your own words, explain why international law does not have a single universally
accepted definition. In your answer, consider who the subjects of international law are and how
the tension between natural law and positivist theory contributes to the disagreement.
International law does not have a single universally accepted definition because scholars disagree
over who the primary subjects of international law are. Traditionally, only states were considered
subjects, but newer definitions also include individuals and international organisations (IPC1501,
Study Guide, p. 79).
Additionally, the tension between natural law and positivist theory contributes to this disagreement:
natural law theorists argue that international law derives from moral principles and a higher “law of
nature,” while positivists maintain that international law consists only of rules to which states have
consented, either through treaties or custom (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81). This fundamental
disagreement over the source and binding force of international law makes a single definition
impossible.
2.1. Distinguish between jus naturale (natural law) and jus gentium (positivism) as approaches
to international law. For each approach, identify the source of authority it recognises.
Jus naturale (natural law) is based on the belief that states should be legally bound to one another
because an orderly world is a natural principle, and its source of authority is morality, reason, or a
higher natural order (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81). Jus gentium (positivism) maintains that
international law is the sum total of rules to which states have agreed to be bound, and its source of
authority is the consent of states, whether expressed expressly (e.g., through treaties) or impliedly
(e.g., through customary rules) (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81).
2.2. Which approach do you consider more relevant to international politics today? Justify your
position with reference to a specific example such as a treaty, a human rights instrument, or the
practice of a state.
I consider the positivist approach more relevant to international politics today. This is because
positivism reflects the practical reality that states only consider themselves bound by rules they have
consented to, which is the foundation of treaties and international cooperation. For example, the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly states that a treaty does not create
obligations for a third state without its consent, and that states forced to sign treaties are not obliged
to uphold them (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 83). This demonstrates that state consent—not abstract
moral principles—remains the practical source of legal obligation in the current state-centric
international system.
Section A
1.1. Provide two different definitions of international law from your study material, identifying
the scholar associated with each definition.
According to Brierly, international law may be defined as “the body of rules and principles of action
which are binding upon civilised states in their relations with one another” (IPC1501, Study Guide, p.
80). According to Akehurst, “international law (otherwise known as public international law or the
law of nations) is the system of law which governs relations between states” (IPC1501, Study Guide,
p. 80).
1.2. In your own words, explain why international law does not have a single universally
accepted definition. In your answer, consider who the subjects of international law are and how
the tension between natural law and positivist theory contributes to the disagreement.
International law does not have a single universally accepted definition because scholars disagree
over who the primary subjects of international law are. Traditionally, only states were considered
subjects, but newer definitions also include individuals and international organisations (IPC1501,
Study Guide, p. 79).
Additionally, the tension between natural law and positivist theory contributes to this disagreement:
natural law theorists argue that international law derives from moral principles and a higher “law of
nature,” while positivists maintain that international law consists only of rules to which states have
consented, either through treaties or custom (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81). This fundamental
disagreement over the source and binding force of international law makes a single definition
impossible.
2.1. Distinguish between jus naturale (natural law) and jus gentium (positivism) as approaches
to international law. For each approach, identify the source of authority it recognises.
Jus naturale (natural law) is based on the belief that states should be legally bound to one another
because an orderly world is a natural principle, and its source of authority is morality, reason, or a
higher natural order (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81). Jus gentium (positivism) maintains that
international law is the sum total of rules to which states have agreed to be bound, and its source of
authority is the consent of states, whether expressed expressly (e.g., through treaties) or impliedly
(e.g., through customary rules) (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 81).
2.2. Which approach do you consider more relevant to international politics today? Justify your
position with reference to a specific example such as a treaty, a human rights instrument, or the
practice of a state.
I consider the positivist approach more relevant to international politics today. This is because
positivism reflects the practical reality that states only consider themselves bound by rules they have
consented to, which is the foundation of treaties and international cooperation. For example, the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly states that a treaty does not create
obligations for a third state without its consent, and that states forced to sign treaties are not obliged
to uphold them (IPC1501, Study Guide, p. 83). This demonstrates that state consent—not abstract
moral principles—remains the practical source of legal obligation in the current state-centric
international system.
