Why We Obey International Law: Positivism Or Naturalism?

Harshita Goel, BBA LLB, O.P Jindal Global University

ABSTRACT

The law that regulates interactions between states is commonly referred to as International Law. Undoubtedly, the concept of international law has been prevalent for millennia, but the twentieth century saw an increased value placed on the necessity of international collaboration. Since that time, internationally recognised entities like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. have been established to enhance this collaboration. However, why does a state or anyone for that matter abide by the international law or rules formulated via these international organizations? Understanding why one or why a state follows international law could be done after first understanding what ‘law’ is, how it is formed and why ‘law’ of any kind, in general, is obeyed by individuals. There are two thoughts of jurisprudence as to what is ‘law’ and why is it obeyed, i.e., positivism and naturalism. The purpose of this article is to analyse why states or society, in general, adhere to international law. Is it because of the application of natural law, which has its origins in morality and was developed by philosophers like Aristotle, St. Aquinas, and many others, or if it could be because of the analytical branch of thought and legal positivism, as propounded by John Austin and other positivists, which is the complete opposite theory and believes that morality and law are incompatible. This article will discuss the background, growth, and contemporary applicability of the two streams of jurisprudence and analysis which perspective is most accurate to explain international law applicability and existence.