Skip to content 
International Law: Definition and Concept
International law was initially called the law of nations, but it seemed misleading to call the rules regulating the mutual relations of nations. This law is called the law of nations because this term gives the impression that the law of many nations was studied. That is why, in the first place, Bentham used the word international law in place of this word in 1789, and since then this name has been prevalent.
Most traditional judges have considered international law to be a law that regulates the mutual relations of states and also defines it in this sense. According to Oppenheim, the law of states is the set of rules and regulations made by those people. Stereotypes are laws that are considered legally binding by states in their mutual relations.
ALSO READ: THE MAPPING HISTORY
An important element lies in this definition. First, this law is related to the set of rules governing relations between states. The term relations refers to the relations that are maintained by the states between their foreign offices or departments of foreign affairs.
The rules govern almost all the activities of states. Its rules govern the use of the ocean, outer space, and international communication. There are also rules governing postal services and international air traffic. Rules of this law, nationality, extradition, human rights, and the environment. It is also related to protection. It would not be unfair to say that there would hardly be any activity between states that would not be governed by international law.
The states consider the rules of these mutual relations as their authority. The rules of this law are binding on the states. They are applied strictly and not just on the basis of morality. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, most of the states in the world called such acts illegal rather than immoral. Third, such rules are made from videos and treaties.
New Definition Of Oppenheim
Oppenheim had given the appropriate definition of this law in the eighth edition of the book International Law, published in 1955. After this, there were fundamental changes in international law, due to which the appropriate definition became inconsistent with the context of modern international law and started being considered narrow-minded.
That is why it is not implemented properly. In the new edition of Oppenheim’s book International Law, published in 1992 and edited by Urban Training and Sir Arth, a new definition has been given to overcome the shortcomings of the appropriate definition of international law. It is a set of rules that govern the mutual relations of states. These rules are primarily those that govern the relations of states, but not only the international law of states; they may also be the subject of international organizations and, to some extent, express rights and duties imposed by this law.
This definition is broader than the previous one in the sense that it also includes international organizations and individuals who are governed by the rules of this law, yet this definition can be criticized on the basis that it is open In its definition, it has considered international organizations and individuals as the subject of international law but has not said that the rules of this law are binding on international organizations and individuals; hence, it is open that the new definition of this law can also be appropriately considered as modern international law. doesn’t fit in.
Stark’s definition of this law is as broad as Open Hum’s modified definition in this area. According to him, international law is a set of principles and rules of conduct that states feel themselves bound to follow. Therefore, they follow it equally in their mutual relations, and this also includes:
1. The functioning of international institutions or organizations, their mutual relations, and the legal rules of relations between the state and women.
2. Maintain legal rules that relate to international issues regarding the rights and duties of individuals and non-state entities.
Answer: The definition of international law is different from the traditional definitions, where traditional definitions keep only the states within their limits, whereas Stark has expanded their scope and said that international law deals with the rights of international institutions or organizations, individuals and other non-state entities along with states.
These units have come about as a result of developments in the field of international law that have taken place at the beginning of the present century, especially after the formation of the United Nations, but Stark accepts that they primarily deal with the mutual rights of states.
In the true sense, Stark has mentioned the names of various units in his definition whose rights and duties come to be regulated by the rules of international law, but any such unit that is not mentioned by stock will, with time, come under international law, and if their rights and duties start to be regulated by the rules of international law, then the definition will again become a subject of criticism. Thus, this definition may not be suitable for all the subjects. In the future, when a new entity acquires international personality and that definition becomes narrower.
