The question as whether an international act is legally right or
wrong? Is the focus of this analysis. This is premised
on the fact that states are living in a well ordered world under the aegis of
established codes of international law.
Hugo Grotius, the father of international law through his classic “on
the law of war and peace” is a major motivator of this school.
Most legality are traceable to the Killog –Briand
Act 1929 which out lawed war as an
instrument of national policy except in
self –defence; the general
convention of 1949 where
nation states are
expected to
play active parts in the protection of
war victims, the Hague convention of
1954 for neutral states to
participate in the protection of cultural
property; and the 1961, Vienna
convention on diplomatic intercourse and
immunities. The task in this or approach is for analysts to look at the legality of a state vis-Ã -vis these conventions.
The
contemporary view of international politics requires not only attention of the
nature of a state but also a revaluation of the meaning of international law. The code of conduct for
the nation-states has not prevented civil wars
coups d’ etat, intervention, invasion, violation of treaties, seizure of
territories , disappearance of sovereign
states from the political map, or two
world war within a generation.
It is
obvious that international law is not law in conventional
sense of an enforceable command issued
by a superior on interior. No court may force a state to
submit to litigation against its will or enforce a section without prior agreement of the
parties to a suit . The lack of hard-and –task, enforceable rules permits
states to exploit wide latitude or behavioural options in executing their
foreign policies.