The rules that we are dealing with are usually those set out in treaties.
These are agreements between states and might be multilateral, regional, or
bilateral.
Treaties are usually our clearest source of international law, but
the rules might also be part of customary international law.
Customary international law usually refers to a combination of state practice and
that practice occurring because a state believes it to be the law
at the relevant time.
It can be hard to identify customary international law and
we can refer to a lot of different international activity,
like general assembly resolutions, diplomatic notes from governments,
declarations by international organizations.
All of those activities help us to determine if there is a customary law rule
in place or not.
We might also find rules within domestic legislation,
particularly the domestic laws that implement international treaties.
But even when we know what the rules are,
we still have questions about how those rules are interpreted.
We might find different rules applying to the same situation.
For example, Chile might impose restrictions on harvesting swordfish as
part of the conservation and management of its fish stocks.
But the EU might see this as a trade dispute instead.
States might interpret the rules differently and
we might have to look to see if there are any exceptions to the rules that apply,
depending on the particular situation.
We might end up with a dispute about who is bound by the rules.
Not every state is a party to every treaty, in some instances we're dealing
with new situations and the existing rules don't fit very well.
If you think about the time that humans first started going into space,
we didn't have rules about who owned outer space, who would be responsible for
what happened out there, or who was responsible if spacecraft or
satellites fell out of orbit and crashed onto Earth.
To prevent disputes, we had to draft new rules.
And when it comes to who can draft these rules, who interprets them and
who can solve these problems, we need to think about a number of key actors,
not just states.
Intergovernmental organizations are important mechanisms for
states to get together and work to solve issues.
Non governmental organizations can become involved, to bring attention to an issue,
and seek to bring a state's conduct into line with international obligations.
Individuals in multinational corporations may be able to use investment mechanisms
to access dispute settlement procedures.
They can bring their complaints about their treatment to human rights
committees, or to potentially access regional courts.
To solve disputes, the main emphasis in international law is to do so peacefully.
Obviously it doesn't always work that way.
Under the UN Charter, there are a range of different dispute settlement techniques,
ranging from negotiation and mediation, to engagement in international law regional
organizations, through to arbitration or adjudication.
Since the end of the Cold War, there's been a significant increase in the number
of international courts and tribunals available to resolve international
disputes, especially for financial, trade, and investment matters.
We also have different international courts and other bodies that can deal with
human rights, international crimes, and the law of the sea.
Ultimately, international law is a key point of reference for actors in
the international system to justify their conduct and to assert their interests.
There is no shortage of tools, mechanisms, processes, organisations of all varieties
that an be involved in solving major problems in international law.
Critical in this regard, to finish with some alliteration, is cooperation,
coordination and communication among these actors all necessary and
possible, with political will.
[MUSIC]