1.

The well-known definition of International law is that it is a body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations to one another. But this definition is far from incomplete, in that in the present and modern scenario, it is not only the relations of states that are being regulated, the states are not only the primary actors in which international law will apply but also in certain cases individual persons and entities with international personalities. But the addition of these two does not make the definition complete, as was discussed by Higgins the true definition of International law that it is a normative system necessary for organized groups and structures that will govern the conduct of each person, group or entity to the effect of it being obligatory. It is necessary to achieve the degree of order that will maximize the demands for the common good and the effective management of multilateral relationships. If this system works and is followed to a level close to what was envisioned by its proponents, then disputes which plague our society can be largely avoided if not totally eradicated. Although dispute eradication is not only its purposed because it can provide for a system wherein it can secure values that us as a people desire, like security, freedom and government. It is also a process and not just the reference to the trend of past decisions. It contributes to and is able to cope with a changing political world. It is the assessment of extra legal considerations like policies of the place or current norms, an acknowledgement of political and social factors to achieve neutrality and an unbiased decision making process. It is interpretation and choice that is compatible with values one seek to promote and objectives we seek to achieve or what the law as it ought to be and what the law is.

5. The law as a process is the acknowledgement of the need for persons in authority to look beyond and not only consider the application of past decisions rendered by their predecessors, their peers or they themselves which although intelligible and with legal force at the time, should not be the sole basis as for decision making but rather properly consider the whole picture, Its humanitarian, moral and social aspect or assessment of social extralegal considerations and current norms in the occurrence of the issue to be decided upon. It is the acceptance of the essential relationship between law and policy that should be dealt with systematically, openly, weighing all factors surrounding the attending circumstances instead of taking the lazier and less effective method in selecting and narrowing what to take into account in decision making to be able to reach an answer or decision, though this is not considered as the correct legal way In arriving on a decision by many and such process will subject the person authorized to render a decision to public scrutiny and discussion of on what the law should be applied not on what it is. It is the use of analogy, of reference to context, by analysis of the alternative consequences with the aid of a precise rule in the form of past decisions, this encourages interpretation and choice that is more corresponding with values we seek to promote and objectives we seek to achieve. Although this entails hard work in the identification of sources and application of norms, this way of decision making will not lose sight of the core function of what the law is and its function in society which first and foremost should and must be for the common good.

6. Sovereignty is defined in the Blacks Law dictionary as supreme dominion, authority, or rule. The Supreme political authority of an independent state. Bodin says that the essential element of the modern theory of sovereignty, that is, the absolute and perpetual power of the Republic, is in the external relations of States, their independence from all foreign powers and the impermeability of the body of the State against all outside interference. Cruz says it is the independence, the power of the state to direct its own external affairs without interference or dictation from other states. The degree of its freedom in this regard determines the status of the state as an international person. Its excessive assertion may defeat the effective operation of the law of nations. Given these definitions and explanations by renowned authors of the legal community in International law, one can only give an answer upon the consideration of what International law is, what absolute sovereignty is and what is beneficial for states, in that although in principle, Sovereignty should be a total independence of a state, to conduct itself and its relations free from any type of outside control or policy factors. But this is not the case, since in modern International law, there can no longer be an absolute freedom or sovereignty, such a freedom is best left to the stone- age or the times of anarchy and lawlessness where they belong. What we

have now is an awareness of interdependence of states, of oneness rather than division, of common interest and common good. In which a state is limited to act in the conduct of its affairs to conform to what was agreed upon and what was decided upon on what will benefit the many rather than the few and the forgoing of national interest for global interest.

7. No, the absence of a sovereign does not mean that International law is not really law, although the drafters of the U.N charter deliberately declined to give the General assembly legislative authority other than budgetary matters. The resolutions of the General assembly which although are recommendatory and not directly binding in so far as to enforcement, But non- compliance with said resolutions actually gives way to formation or development of the binding quality of resolutions and International laws or in other words law is developed by a variety of non- legislative acts which do not seek to secure, in any direct sense compliance from persons, states or entities that should be bound by it. As was stated by the ICJ in the Namibia Advisory opinion, it would not be correct to assume that because the General Assembly is vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting in specific cases within framework of its competence, resolutions which make a determinate or have operative design. The General assemblys power of recommendation in its resolution is not merely interpreted in the literal sense of the word. It can also mean or give a duty of compliance and obligation to act. Judge Schwebel and Prof Arrangio Ruiz posits that although resolutions can contribute to formation of International law, but such event rarely occurs because states dont meaningfully support what a resolution says and almost always do not mean that resolution is law. Their view which although has a historical basis can be regarded as somewhat true, but International law is made by concordance of the wills of states and that is enough for it to follow that this brings mandatory legal rules into existence. The bottom line is that it is rarely if not always against national interest even if there might be a short term advantage to violate International law and therefore even if technically there is an absence of a sovereign, International law is a law.

9. The sanctions of International law are different from municipal law, in that in International law there are no generally prescribed specific methods for its enforcement or in other words it has no definitive teeth or fangs to ensure strict compliance in fear of such specific methods which is present in municipal law. But there are a number of factors that induce a municipal law- like effect as to its compliance. In summary these factors or sanctions if you may want to call it of International law can be described and stated as the compulsive force of reciprocal advantage and the fear of retaliation

for non- compliance. But these two can be further explained by the following sanctions by International law. The inherent reasonableness of International law in its formulation can be said to be a sanction, in that if observed will redound to the welfare and benefit of all nations, owing to the inherent need of man for international order and avoidance of anarchy. Sometimes this may not be enough of a sanction for compliance with International law so another sanction may come in the form of the nature of man as a social being, this very nature compel individuals, states and entities to follow the certain norms of conduct imposed. The respect of states of the United Nations or the worlds perception or opinion of a country which follows International law can also be called as a sanction. The last and the most effective if not the best sanction would be the constant and reasonable fear of retaliation that even the most powerful states feel and consider before acting in violation of International law.

10. Law habit is considered as a natural deterrent inherent in our International law system which exists and operates to minimize the extent to which states breach the law. This exists due to the binding nature or quality of International law through Political acceptance by various states. Since states are the ones who create what International law is, then it would be right to say that International law, since it is in accordance to the will of the International community rather than made by a centralized law- making body will be followed by the states who accepted such common practice and acknowledged to be such by other states. Yes, there is such a thing in international relations, as it can be seen in areas where there is cooperation between states through acts like the exchange of diplomats for regulation of international communications as opposed to areas where states would be better served by violating International law rather than following it, though this is a minority to the great number of states who comply with the duty imposed by International law. Though the common global view or perception of people is that the more powerful the state, the easier it is for them to violate International law or can readily ignore the law whenever it is beneficial to them. But it isnt as easy and simple as that, since one must look beyond such benefit and take into consideration the myriad of factors or implications of their actions like that of the political and economic repercussions before taking actions of violations.

11. Yes, we need a theory of international law since, this theory provides different approaches to give an explanation to or simpler and sometimes complex understanding as to the existence, action and reactions of states or subjects of International law, and if upon knowing and understanding the various factors at play in the International community, we as a whole, can suggest improvements in its every aspect, be it from its formation, up to its implementation and enforcement.

The purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace, to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Given these purposes, upon the attainment of such and reaching of a total understanding of the theory of International law, the need for existence of International law will cease and bring about an evolution if you will, and if I may be so bold to propose, an idea or conversion of the term International law to an Intra- Nation or State Law. I am of the belief that if we as a people, push and clamor for the formation of a single world government where every state or country regardless of its GNP production, religion, race, population, creeds or past history will be accepted and be joined to a single cohesive body. Disputes can be largely if not totally avoided, war, famine, greed, hate or contempt be a distant memory.