A reflection on the limits of law between sovereign states in a world without global coercive authority.
– The legal nature of law and the problem of coercion
– How law operates between sovereign states
– Structural limits of public international law
Does Public International Law actually exist?
This is an important question worth addressing.
Recent global conflicts, particularly wars and geopolitical crises, have revived countless voices calling for the strict enforcement of Public International Law.
Before proceeding, it must be clarified that this reflection does not aim to diminish the work of scholars in the field. Uruguay, for instance, produced distinguished figures such as Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga, who served on the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
However, it remains legitimate to examine the matter candidly.
According to the Royal Spanish Academy, law is a set of principles and rules whose observance can be enforced through coercion.
This definition leads to a central concept: coercion.
Coercion implies the use of force to compel someone to act against their will.
Coercibility refers to the possibility of applying such force.
Public International Law generally lacks both.
Some historical exceptions may be cited, such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II. Yet these cases only confirm the broader pattern.
International courts do exist, as demonstrated when Argentina brought Uruguay before the International Court of Justice in the dispute over the pulp mill in Fray Bentos.
However, such proceedings are only possible because the states involved voluntarily accept the court’s jurisdiction.
In other words, the system functions only when states choose to make it function.
The opposite example can be found in the devastating Iran–Iraq war, which lasted roughly eight years.
Where was international law then?
The issue does not lie with the theory of international law itself, but with a structural limitation.
Within national legal systems, when a judge orders an eviction, the state can enforce the decision through police power.
In international relations, there is no equivalent global authority capable of enforcing rulings.
United Nations peacekeeping forces, often called Blue Helmets, typically intervene only after peace agreements have been reached, in order to preserve stability.
Thus the answer to the initial question appears straightforward.
No.
Will this ever change?
No one can predict the future.
But for now, it can be said that such a development is neither present nor expected in the foreseeable future.