Nature of International Law (Is International Law a Law of or Not)?

Regarding the nature of international law, some writers, like Zimmer and Willoughby are ambiguous as to whether it is a law or not. Since international law appears to control or even affect states in their actual search of 'very important national interest', which are often narrow and selfish, doubts are often expressed that international law is law.

A group believes that it is not a true law. It is nothing but international morality consisting of opinions and sentiments working among sovereign nations of the world. It is not binding as it is unsupported by the authority of a state. There is no capacity of sanctions against law violators. So, they support their view by saying that international law is not law but morality having only moral force. Thinkers like Hobbes, Austin, Holland, Zimmerli, Willughby, etc., emphasis that international law is not law. Holland even went to the extent of calling it as 'the vanishing point of jurisprudence'. For him it is law by courtesy only, because it has only moral sanction and no teeth. It means it is applicable only if states make themselves bound morally to accept it otherwise it has no adjudicative authority. Writers like Hall, Lawrence, Oppenheim, etc., maintain that international law not only operates as law but is distinct from international morality both with regard to the nature of its rules as well as its sanctions. Oppenheim however admits that international law is a weaker law, because 'it is a law between and not above the state.

Now the question is how to reconcile the views of its proponents and opponents. The controversy rests upon the definition of law, which one may choose to adopt. Austin would not accept it as true law because it is not the will of a political superior.

Holland would reject it as law because it cannot be enforced by a sovereign political authority. To these writers, law implies a lawgiver and an institution capable to enforce it. Thus, those who measure international law by national or municipal law believe that absence of centralized legislature, executive and judicial authority disqualified it as true law.

What is law? Those rules, which are made, applied and adjudicated by competent authority. In the light of this definition, international law is not strictly law. But keeping in view its utility to regulate relations among nations, it is then law.

The only strong solution of this controversy is solved to a large by Oppenheim's definition of law. He defines law "As a body of rules for human conduct within a community, which by common consent of this community shall be enforced by external power." Now the family of nations may be regarded as international community where have grown certain rules to govern inter-state conduct and the application of these rules is sanctioned by the consent of international community.