Open: individuals can establish their own relationships within the law and shape it

There is someone to enforce the rules when you have a dispute

IR is the study of relations between actors across national borders

Key aim of public policy is to reduce "domestic and foreign relations to system of laws"

focuses on businesses that have contractual obligations in multiple countries and jurisdictions

clash of domestic laws and domestic laws with international law

force plays a very limited part in enforcement (sanctions instead)

constructivism: states commit because they become persuaded of the appropriateness of such action and to fashion themselves as a legitimate state

international legal framework and the internal legal system form a unity

prevalent in civil jaw jurisdiction (Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy)

extreme cases: monists hold national law is null and void if it contradicts with IL

according to VCLT national law if not justification of non-compliance

formal international mechanisms to enforce IL are notoriously weak

outside of the EU there is hardly any supranational enforcement

second order compliance: actions in accordance with the ruling of an authoritative body charged with the interpretation of adjudications of a primary rule

first order compliance: states complying with the substance provisions of a rule

actual observance (compliance by states) and validity (binding force of the law)

Are the broader effects of treaties on society/economy beneficial

AND it is always uncertain if a treaty between two states was signed by a person who had authority to do so

legislators and courts produce legal rules for an established national community = highly centralised process

legislation depends on mutual consent and necessity = they are largely contracts without any third party effects

IL allows for this ambiguity to arise and is therefore, realists would say, bad law

international courts draw legitimacy to adjudicate from the will of the states involved in a dispute

international adjudication is unable to impose effective restraints upon the struggle for power in the international scene

The ICJ does not occupy the same role as the US Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals

If states agree on resolving a dispute through a tribunal than that tribunal is unconnected to the ICJ

decisions by international courts rely on national governments to enforce their rulings

a small nation must look for the protection of its rights to the assistance of powerful friends which can marshal superior power

comes up when these states are undertaking first steps towards colonisation

can be credited for moving away from theology and towards rationality as the basis for legitimate governance (key for enlightenment)

European sovereign states required an acceptable method to conduct inter-state relations according to a commonly accept standard

they consisted of broad idealistic principles like the sanctity of treaties, conduct in warfare and trade

there was no clear conception of a universal community with a common vision of ordering the world

there was no conception of an international community of states co-existing within a defined framework

beginning of the last phase of Hinduism cyclical notion of time: kaliyuga

different rights and duties were codified to bring the individual and states into accordance with the universal logic of dharma

Mahabharat: about the struggle of power during the Kurukshetra War

2500-2100 BC: several treaties between the rulers of Lagash and Umma

rights were granted to citizens of the states in each other's territories

law of nature = law is an objective (natural) fact that is applicable everywhere

despite the name: jus gentium remained a national law of the roman empire as it did not accept other nations on a basis of equality. It was also mainly civil law and not public law

jus gentium gradually overrode the narrow jus civile until the latter ceased to exist

more humane rules towards warfare (no civilians, animals, and trees were to be harmed during conflict)

Christians, jews, and Hindus were treated as "people of the book", a shariatic legal category that allowed them some legal recourse (although not on par with Muslims)

sense of cosmological supremacy hindered China to treat other legal orders as "equal"

sophisticated system of tribunaries during the Atlantic Ocean trade

concerned with jus gentium (strong proponent of natural law) and just war theory

friendly towards the indigenous population of the Americas (relatively)

legitimises the Spanish conquest of the Americas in "De Indis" (1539)

saw non-Christian regimes as equal actors in legal order of nations

"silete theologi in munere alieno!" - theologians, keep your silence about matters that are outsied of your expertise!

contemporarily: would be somewhere between Hobbesian anarchy and Kantian cosmopolitanism