Re: Hey, 'soft law' question
kami said:
This may sound stupid...but how can it be a regulation if it cannot be enforced? Is it not then incapable of regulating an action and thus pointless? Or is it more an expression on what various states see as 'a pretty good idea that they cbb'd to legislate'?
International law is by its very nature voluntary. The concept of state sovereignty, which states that every state has the authority to exercise its own will, renders the prospect of enforceable international laws impossible. Most nation-states, however, recognise that they have obligations under international law, and generally live up to them (e.g. most rulings of the International Court of Justice, the UN's prime judicial organ, are in fact obeyed).
I wouldn't say these soft laws are 'pointless'. International law is more about trying to cultivate a global culture based on its ideals, not enforcing them in a draconian fashion. You can't really compare national and international legal systems, because they're not trying to achieve the exact same ends. The theory goes a little something like this: today a nation-state might become a signatory to a treaty such as Kyoto, and tomorrow it might, owing to the pressures of international conformity, embody it in its domestic legislation. Baby steps.
