Is International Law Real Law? — The Austin Debate — KSLU Pil Notes

Is International Law Real Law? — The Austin Debate

flowchart LR
    Q[Is IL Real Law?] --> AUSTIN[Austin: NO]
    Q --> MODERN[Modern Jurists: YES]
    AUSTIN --> A1[Law = command of a sovereign]
    AUSTIN --> A2[No world sovereign above States]
    AUSTIN --> A3[No effective sanction = no law]
    AUSTIN --> A4[IL is merely positive morality]
    MODERN --> M1[UN Charter Art 25 - UNSC decisions are binding]
    MODERN --> M2[ICJ, ICC, ITLOS are functioning courts]
    MODERN --> M3[Art 38 ICJ Statute codifies sources like a legal system]
    MODERN --> M4[States comply 99% of the time - Henkin]
    MODERN --> M5[Sanctions exist - economic, diplomatic, military]
    MODERN --> HART[H.L.A. Hart - IL is primitive law, not no law]

Counter to Austin — Point by Point

Austin’s Objection	Counter-argument
No sovereign above States	Sovereignty is relative — jus cogens norms override even State consent
No effective sanction	UNSC can impose sanctions + military force under Chapter VII
Only positive morality	States treat IL as legally binding — Art 26 VCLT: pacta sunt servanda
No courts	ICJ, ICC, WTO DSB, ITLOS, ECHR are functioning judicial bodies

Verdict: IL is a primitive but real legal system — it lacks centralised enforcement but is not mere morality. (H.L.A. Hart)