The International Law Network Explained
The International Law Network is a complex web of interconnected entities that include states, intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations and the African Union, as well as multinational and non-governmental actors. It encompasses a wide range of legal relationships and international treaties governing interactions between countries, international organizations, and individual citizens. The network not only provides a framework for diplomacy and conflict resolution, but it also covers issues ranging from trade regulation to human rights standards.
Central to the international law network are treaties and agreements which set out obligations that states are bound to fulfil. These may vary in scope, from bilateral treaties between two states to international conventions that bind numerous states simultaneously. In addition to treaties, customary international law, which evolves from the general practice of states and their acceptance as law, also plays a critical role in the network. For instance, norms such as the prohibition on torture or the laws of armed conflict are considered customary and binding on all states .
The advent of globalization has substantially increased the complexity of this network. Interactions are now not only the domain of states and intergovernmental bodies, but also private actors such as multinational corporations, civic organizations, and civil society. The rise of non-state actors has added a new dimension to the international law network, leading to an increased demand for the development and enforcement of global legal standards on issues as diverse as environmental protection and free trade.
The international law network is constantly evolving to meet the challenges of a changing global landscape. Economic globalization, transnational terrorism, and new technologies such as the internet have all posed unprecedented challenges to the network and have resulted in a significant amount of international cooperation and treaty-making. The international law network is therefore ever-expanding, and efforts to reform and strengthen it remain a high priority on the international agenda.
Key Organizations in International Law
The network of international law is made up of many actors, both large and small. The most conspicuous players in this network are the major international organizations, which many consider both the locus and the focus of international law. In particular, the United Nations (UN) and its agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO), play a special role in formulating and disseminating international norms and standards. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also contribute to this work, albeit in a less formal capacity. International economic organizations, such as the World Bank and the six principal regional development banks, also play a key role.
The UN also plays a preeminent role in administering justice. Although the International Court of Justice is a court of general jurisdiction and its work is enhanced through cooperation with other UN bodies, including the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice is ultimately an independent body. The International Criminal Courts, created pursuant to treaties and thus independent institutions under international law, address situations that could not be dealt with by the International Court of Justice due to the limits of its jurisdiction.
International trade continues to be organized around several key agreements, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, adopted as the post-World War II order was being set up, and the General Agreement on Trade in Services, which continues the work of the WTO as it has functioned since its inception. The World Trade Organization — which is likely to be restructured in some way to reflect the evolution of its role in the broader political and economic order — has overseen and coordinated the deepening of international economic cooperation since 1995. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, long viewed as having central roles in the integration of emerging markets into the contemporary global economic system, continue to strive to respond to changes in both the economic system and the political environment.
International Commercial Treaties and Agreements
The international law network is governed by a complex web of treaties and international agreements, binding states and non-state actors alike. These instruments, ranging from broad-ranging conventions of universal scope to intricate bilateral accords, help to coordinate behaviour and foster cooperation on an international level.
At the apex of the international treaty framework is the United Nations Charter, which sets out the fundamental principles of the international order. Replete with a catalogue of binding treaty obligations, the UN Charter establishes norms governing the use of force, the resolution of disputes, human rights, and economic development. At its most abstract, the Charter promotes international peace and security, but practically, it enshrines the equitable use of resources, the promotion of self-determination, and decolonisation, all of which remain central to the development of international law.
Given the UN charter’s broad and ambitious scope, other substantive treaties enter into the specific details left to the discretion of the UN General Assembly, and establish hard and fast rules. Many of the treaties developed under the auspices of the UN concern the protection of human rights, through the elaboration of norms governing the treatment of individuals by states. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights transpose the Charter’s principles into binding obligations.
These obligations form the basis of not only protection, but also development, defence, health, and cooperation more generally. Numerous complex treaties regulate these relationships, underpinned by the generally applicable principles set out in the Charter. The 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, for example, contains comprehensive rules governing the sale of goods. Other conventions range more broadly – for the manufacturing, import, and sale of vehicles, etc – while others, such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity seek to coordinate global governance over otherwise sovereign areas of state responsibility.
Like the UN Charter, some of these treaties have a global mandate, while others remain regional or limited in scope. Many contemporary states, however, are willing to commit to an open and universal framework of international law, finding better outcomes through cooperation. A key area of wide-ranging collaboration has been trade. The World Trade Organisation establishes the general principles of international trade, and maintains a litigious capacity for resolving trade disputes. Australia, a party to over 20 accords under the auspices of the WTO, has made predominately favoured nation commitments pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). More detailed obligations governing the area of services are established under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and trade in intellectual property further reinforces the preference for a multilateral approach to legal coordination.
Other coordinating mechanisms include the Hague Conventions, which seeks to regulate both public and private international law, with treaties covering everything from the service of process abroad, to the recognition and enforcement of judgements. Institutions and administrative bodies are in turn established by specific subject area treaties, such as the European Patent Office, and ad hoc bodies dedicated to the maintenance of the international order.
The Problems of the International Law Network
The challenges faced by the international law network are vast. Political influence is the central hurdle. As The New York Times reports, powerful states such as the U.S., China, and Russia are able to sidestep or manipulate the system when it suits them. Crises such as the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian civil war, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea have revealed loopholes and persistent roadblocks that aggravate the need for a strong international legal system more urgently.
What happens when there’s a humanitarian crisis, such as the spread of Ebola in Africa or genocide in Syria? Issues of enforcement tend to magnify in these moments. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has reported, this is especially so in Syria where only 200,000 – or 3.5% – of refugees have fled to countries in North America and Europe. Conflict and violence are driving people into neighboring countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and even China where political leaders deny their status as refugees and border police "disappear" them. In South and Central America, many people fleeing violence and persecution from Mexico to Ecuador have been denied asylum because officials do not believe that their reported experiences justify flight.
Enforcement issues, however, extend to everyone, including civilian populations, armed groups, and even states. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has struggled to enforce the provision of its Rome Statute since entering into force in 2002. It has faced allegations of racism and selective justice, and has been targeted by state parties who fail to execute arrest warrants such as Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Many African states have quit the ICC’s membership following the Court’s indictment of several leaders on the continent.
Despite these issues, the international law network perpetuates what might be the most important functions of its time: granting legitimacy to governance and protection to those pursued by the state system. Its limitations, however, impact the ability of states to govern during times of conflicts , and of civilians to receive humanitarian protection.
In 2015, Russia sought legitimacy for its military actions in Syria by gaining support from the international law network. However, despite an invitation to intervene from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the U.N. remains divided over the issue. A 2015 Security Council Resolution authorized action by the U.N.-backed coalition forces to fight against the Islamic State. The mission did not include fighting against al-Assad’s regime. Russia argued that the U.N. failed to recognize the "common enemy" and its duty to protect the Syrian people. Over a million civilians have been displaced as a result of the U.S.’s failure to engage with Assad’s regime in its mission. Its actions demonstrate just how difficult the rhetoric or "responsibility to protect" can be enacted in practice.
The Solution
State parties had few options through much of the 20th century when faced with major crises. On these terms, states often felt that the U.S., Russia, or a European state would carry the burden of governance or international protection. However, the challenges of the 21st century challenge this assumption. By contrast, the global governance community is now struggling to understand what it means to "share the burden" of humanitarian action and governance. With this growing understanding, we have more options than ever before to seek innovative solutions. We have the option of taking greater pushback against any state party that fails to upholding its responsibilities to its citizens. African states must take this stance constructively and responsibly rather than quitting the ICC’s membership, for example.
The social contract theory provides a fundamental analysis for states and organizations to better understand their scope of responsibilities. This also offers greater potential for better coordination among states by providing a platform to enable states to engage recurrently.
The international law network’s capacity to overcome these challenges is unknown. The issues it faces are enormous and multi-dimensional.
The Role of Technology in International Law
The advent of new technologies that connect people and power artificial intelligence (AI) has the cumulative effect of shoring up and expanding the international law network. Today, networks interact with one another in ways that create new forms of economic, intellectual, and emotional capital. As such, these cross-network exchanges generate value. On this network, new technologies increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and accessibility of international law. Today, authorial walls, whether within networks or between them, dissolve. And strong empirical evidence ties the prevalence of digital tools to increased coordination, cooperation, and consumption. Given these trends, effective leaders position themselves and their constituencies at the center of the international law network, where they can take maximum advantage of cross-network transactions. At present, the practice of international law involves a creative use of technology. Many international lawyers augment their professional capabilities with, for example, AI-powered contract assessment tools or online research platforms. The legal writing process, itself a manifestation of information processing and problem-solving, uses AI to accelerate basic transactional guidance. However, the current legal uses of AI reinforce the status quo. All legal transactions – from due diligence to dispute resolution – are subject to the constraints of time and distance. A piece of information that rests in a remote database is nearly impossible to retrieve in real time if the retrieval mechanism involves significant delay, because legal relationships evolve faster than most databases can catalogue. This is particularly true in a world where the knowledge economy is moving expeditiously towards a state of continuous production, deployment, and refinement. If corporations seek to maximize network efficiencies, and if the practice of law is itself a network, then lawyers will need new tools to overcome the constraints of spacetime. Effective leaders will not merely import off-the-shelf technologies, but will deploy and repurpose them to serve sui generis purposes. Adapting technologies beyond their original design to accomplish new ends is an aspect of what it means to be a leader in the practice of international law.
The Future of the International Law Network
What future developments should we expect from the international law network? The distribution of risk suggests that the dynamics of the legal marketplace will force migration toward leading legal hubs like London and New York. In the longer term, however, as risk is redistributed across international financial systems, the need for a global network of legal counsel may become obsolete.
To anticipate how these dynamics may play out in the real legal marketplace, we made various assumptions based on the various factors and patterns we discussed earlier. We also had to make some assumptions about the future: a positive outcome for the European economy, a continuation of United States hegemony in the global marketplace, international standardization due to the transparency provided by the internet—among other things. In our scenario, the United States maintains its standing as the world’s most important economy. European economies, their budget deficits reined in, begin to grow in unison as each economy simultaneously rebounds. The OECD predicts that European growth will slow to 1.5% annual GDP after 2020 as compared to 2.5% today, and growth in China will slow from 9% growth to 6% . Absent the sort of massive catastrophe that we’ve experienced over the last decade (or something on the order of 10% of loss of GDP), this is good news for the globe; and for the legal marketplace as well.
For the "Big Four" firms, this modest growth will mean that the locational advantages of the leading legal hubs (London, New York, and soon-to-be Singapore) will remain, and potentially outpace the cities that make up the "Billion Square Miles" network. In the near term, the legal marketplace will look similar to the current marketplace: large firms in major financial centers, local firms in non-major financial centers, a distributed industry overall, but one that skews in favor of the hubs.
But in the long-term (more than 10 years) we see the potential for significant changes. If the United States and Europe remain on a level economic growth trajectory, then the result will be a global redistributing of firms in response to the value they can bring under realistic market conditions. Legal firms will flock to the leading financial centers as never before. Africa, Central Asia, South America and the Arctic will become more isolated than ever, with the market momentum being concentrated in the wealthiest major cities.