Submitted to:

Sir Ali Shan Shah

Submitted by:
Usama Umar
ROLL #. 11020
Course Code: IRS-503
Subject:
Public International Law

BS-IR 5TH (M)

Department of Political Science & International Relations
DEFINITIONS
A body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their
relations with one another.
Another definition of international law is over here.
International law, also called public international law or law of nations, the body of legal rules,
norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that are legally
recognized as international actors.
SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
The main sources of international law are treaty law, international customary law and general
principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
Treaty law
Treaties and Conventions are written agreements that states willingly sign and ratify and as
such are obliged to follow. Such agreements, which are also called statutes or protocols, govern
the mutual relations between states. They are, however, only binding on those states that  have
signed and also ratified the particular treaty.  
The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties of 1969, sets out the fundamental legal rules
relating to treaties. The Vienna Convention defines a treaty, identifies who has the capacity to
conclude a treaty, and outlines treaty interpretation, disputes, and reservations.
The basis of treaty law is ‘pacta sunt Servando’, which means that agreements must be
honoured and adhered to.
Reservations, declarations and derogations
Many states are involved in the process of drafting a treaty, which often includes stark
disagreement on the scope and content of the agreement. In order to increase the number of
signatories and ratifications of a treaty, and hence global order, international law does allow for
states to limit the full application of a treaty, or clarify their specific understanding of the legal
content. This is done through reservations, declarations and derogations.
Reservations are defined by the Vienna Convention as:
A unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying,
accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the
legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State. (Article 2 (1)(d))
Only specified reservations are permitted and they cannot undermine the object and purpose
of the Treaty.
Declarations, unlike reservations, do not affect legal obligations, but are often made when a
State expresses its consent to be bound by a specific treaty. The State uses the declaration to
explain or clarify its understanding of particular aspects of the treaty text.  
For example, the reservations and declarations made to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Some treaties, especially human rights treaties, provide for a derogations system, which allow
for a state party to temporally suspend or limit their legal obligations in exceptional
circumstances, for example during armed conflict or national emergency. For example, the
freedom of assembly may be limited during times of armed conflict. However, some rights can
never be derogated from under any circumstances, notably the prohibition on torture,
inhumane and degrading treatment.
It is important to note that international humanitarian law (IHL) does not have a system of
derogations as it is a body of law specifically designed to provide minimum protection during
armed conflict. 
Customary international law
Customary international law is made up of rules that derive from "a general practice accepted
as law". Customary international law is comprised of all the written or unwritten rules that form
part of the general international concept of justice.
Unlike treaty law, which is only applicable to those states that are parties to the particular
agreement, customary law is binding upon all states, regardless of whether they have ratified a
treaty.
Unlike treaty law, customary international law is limited in that it is not codified in a clear and
accessible format and the content of the rules is generally less specific that what you may find
in a treaty. However, as a source of IHL, customary international law is of fundamental
importance in armed conflict due to the limited protections afforded to internal conflicts by
treaty law and the lack of ratification of key treaties. Customary international law exists
independently from treaty law and in 2006 the Independent Commission of the Red Cross
(ICRC) published a collection of the rules of IHL considered to be customary in nature. They
identified 161 Rules of customary international law.

How does a rule become customary international law?

When states respect certain rules consistently in their international and internal relations, with
legal intentions, these practices become accepted by the international community as applicable
rules of customary international law. 
There are two criteria for identifying a rule as part of customary international law: state
practice (usus) and legal nature of that practice.
State practice (usus) - Customary law is confirmed through the behavior of states (objective
criteria), manifested through their official statements and actions.
Legal nature of practice is the expressed opinion of states, individually or collectively, that their
actions have a legal and not a mere policy basis.
In short, customary international law is based on consistent actions by the majority of the
international community. Examples of customary international law are the prohibition on the
arbitrary deprivation of life, the prohibition on torture, and the rule that civilians and civilian
objects cannot be the subject of direct attacks during armed conflict.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

International Law or Law of Nations deals with rules for the governance of Sovereign States in
their relations and Conduct towards one another It Comprises of two parts Namely 1) Public
International Law 2) Private International Law or Law of Conflict.
First of all, let us differ them by their definitions,
Public International law is the body of legal rules, which applied between Sovereign States and
other International Personalities.
While
Private International Law is also Called as 'Conflict of Law' deals with cases involving foreign
element. In case of Dispute between an individual citizen or State and Foreign Element, where
there is need to contact with foreign system of law, the Private International Law will apply.

The main points for Public International Law are over here.
Public International law is the body of legal rules, which applied between Sovereign States and
other International Personalities.
Public International law rules are outcome of International custom and treaties.
Public International law is enforced by international pressure and fear for example – breakage
of diplomatic relations, sanctions etc.
In public International Law there is no Predetermined Court.
Public International Law is same for all the States.
The main points for private international law are over here that can differ it from Public
International Law.
Conflict of laws, often called Private International Law. Private International Law regulating
relationship between Private persons (Natural or Legal) of two different States.
Private International law rules are framed by the State legislature.
Private International Law is enforced by the concerned State executive.
In private International Law courts are predetermined.
Private International Law differ from state to state.

Is international law a proper law or not?

Definition of International Law:
“The term International Law means the body of rules of law, which apply within the
International Community or society of Sates.”
The most exceptional contention utilized by researchers who are of the view that global law
isn't a genuine law is the implementation contention. Hence, global law is generally censured
on the premise that it can't be implemented to the fullest as in the instance of homegrown law.
This attestation to an enormous degree is disputable and truth be told, false in all
circumstances on the grounds that even the homegrown law can't be completely upheld by any
means times. For instance, in the homegrown setting, if an singular successes a body of
evidence against the express, the individual is helpless before the state to go along with the
decision on the grounds that the individual can't hold a firearm to the top of the state to propel
the state to consent to the court's decision. Hence, it very well may be contended that in the
homegrown setting, states maintain the decisions of homegrown court generally to ensure
their picture or notoriety at the worldwide level as a reputable express that guarantees the
standard of law or likely on the grounds that they simply need to do as such because of the way
that in the real sense no one can propel a state to withstand by a homegrown court choice.
Besides, global law to a huge degree is enforceable in the global framework and there are
numerous situations where ground-breaking nations like the USA, China, Russia, and so on have
been the gathering dismissed the case by the Chinese government and said that the
confinements of these individuals were "made altogether or fractional non- recognition of the
global standards identifying with the privilege to a reasonable preliminary" . Despite the fact
that the choice of the UN's working gathering on self-assertive confinement isn't legitimately
authoritative on China, the Chinese government agreed to the decision what's more, acted as
needs be. The previously mentioned are only a couple of the numerous situations where
incredible nations on the planet have been endorsed for breaking global laws to which these
nations have consented and acted by the decision of a global council. It is, anyway an
undisputed reality that, in a few circumstances, incredible nations or states have penetrated
one global law or the other without being rebuffed or at times won't to keep the decisions of
worldwide courts be that as it may, nearly, the occasions states withstands and offer
acknowledgment to worldwide law is a lot higher than the occasions they break worldwide law
without being rebuffed.
There had been an extraordinary discussion regarding the inquiry, if worldwide law is a law.
Some addressed the inquiry in positive while others in negative. These two perspectives can be
clarified as under-
Not A Law-Supporters of this view are,.
• John Austin-a main English essayist on Jurisprudence addressed the inquiry in negative. As
per him, International Law isn't accurate law, yet a code of rules and lead of good power as
it were. He holds that International Law is no law as it doesn't radiate from a law giving
power and has no approval behind it. Austin portrayed International Law as sure worldwide
ethical quality comprising of assessment or estimations current among countries for the
most part.
• Hobbes And Pufendorff-additionally responded to the inquiry in negative by saying that
there is no certain law of countries appropriately contributed with genuine lawful power
and official as the order of a predominant.
• Holland-saw that International Law contrasted from common law and not upheld by the
authority of a state. As indicated by him, the law of countries is nevertheless private law
'writ enormous'. In this perspective on the issue, he called "Global Law as the evaporating
purpose of Jurisprudence". As per him, rules of International Law can't be kept into the
classification of law since it needs endorse, which is a basic component of metropolitan law.
• Jeremy Bentham And Jethro Brown are the other unmistakable legal advisers who
additionally deny the lawful character International Law.
Global Law Is A Law-supports of this view are:
• Hall And Lawrence then again addressed the inquiry in agreed. As indicated by them,
International Law is routinely treated and authorized as law, similar to specific sort of certain
law, it is gotten from custom and point of reference which structure a wellspring of
International Law.
• Pitt Cobbett saw that International Law should rank with law and not with ethical quality.
• Sir Frederick Pollock composes the solitary basic conditions for the presence of law are the
presence of political network and the acknowledgment by its individuals from settled standards
official upon them in that limit. Worldwide Law appears to be overall to fulfill these conditions.
Recognition of State and Governments in International Law:

As demonstrated by International Law, Recognition is the customary confirmation of the status

of a free State by other existing states. Each State should have some principal features, called
attributes of statehood, all together for various States to see the State as free. States are
considered as the essential individuals in International Law. The affirmation of a state is as often
as possible a political exhibit of a state. Affirmation is absolutely not a persuading confirmation
regarding the presence of the state.
The Significance of Recognition of States:
• To get reasonableness status with various people from the overall organization
• To get worldwide rights and contracting overall commitmentor
• To participate in overall relations.
Acknowledgment of Government: The tree is the express, The leave is the public authority.
Relationship: The tree is the state. The leaves are various governments. While governments
(leaves) may go to and fro, the express (the tree remains) Once the affirmation is given to an
express, the affirmation can’t be taken out. Acknowledgment of an organization may be
legitimately held or eliminated.
The significance of affirmation of governments shifts true to form and between singular States.
In any event it includes that the seeing State wishes to be restricted by the overall legal results
of affirmation. The best strategy to see an organization isn’t portrayed, as the decision whether
to see an organization is an uneven demonstration and at the watchfulness of each individual
State. The primary models for seeing an organization are the ground-breaking control and the
validness fundamental, though a couple of States have decided to annul the affirmation of
governments all together.