International law can be compared to the ground rule book of the international scene of state conduct. That’s why a Japanese airplane can travel safely to Brazil, why the post can travel from country to country, and the mechanism governing all from trade to war. Just as a neighborhood, the global neighborhood, it needs these ground rules it upon if it’s to operate. These ground precepts, learned through the ages, aren’t concepts of books uponinternational law—but they have real-world implications upon every diplomatic move, every trade pact, and every global crisis that you see reported upon the headlines.
After decades of watching these ideas develop, I’ve come to appreciate the way they handle, always skillfully, the balance of national interest and cooperative global action. It’s a delicate, continually shifting dance. Walk us through the most noteworthy of these ideas in simple language so we can gain a feel for how they give our global village invisible architecture.
Sovereignty of States – The Foundation Stone
Sovereignty can be most easily understood as the extension of the idea of your house as your castle. The doctrine retains the right of a state to the powers of governing itself without outside interference, the foundation of a regime of independent and equal states in the international arena. It was forged in the wake of the barbarous European wars and has formed the most important organizing principle of the international realm since.
What I’m particularly interested in is how much the sovereignty produces freedom as it produces responsibility. The state can decide the political system as it can decide the macroeconomic policy. And it means, in the same breath, shouldering the responsibility of the impact of the decisions it makes upon the others. It provides a strange scenario. The state, for instance, controls its natural resource, but if the environmental pollution of the mills of another state destroys the environment of yet another, herein lies the extent of the sovereignty that’s negotiated even today.
Non-Intervention – Respecting Boundaries
Related closely to the principle of sovereignty, the principle of non-intervention prohibits the states from interfering in the affairs of the other states. It would entail the use of, as well as the threat of, force against the territorial integrity, as well as political autonomy, of another state.

Of course, something that would be described as “interference” by a state would be described as “diplomatic pressure” by another, and it brings fiery debate to the floors of the United Nations regularly. It’s rarely ever black-and-white and depends greatly upon circumstances as well as perspective.
Exceptions to the Rule
This does not absolutely hold, and that’s the complicated aspect of the international law. The principle of non-intervention has had broadly consensused exceptions. Action in defense of self alone provides a clearcut example. More contemporary interventions authorized by the UN Security Council and the disputed “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine can trump the principle.
R2P presumes that if a state demonstrably does not cherish the protection of the people from genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, then the people of the global village must act. Its application has had selective, political applications, however, and it has stirred debate how to use it, as much as whether it can be used at all.
Good Faith and Treaty Obligations
Pacta sunt servanda (“agreements must be obeyed”) is the foundation of the international law of treaties. Upon the state’s signing of the treaty–on trade, climate, human rights, etc.–the state should obey it in good faith. It’s the seemingly simple proposition that converts a set of nice ideas and into binding commitments.
A state’s good name would be lost. States serially default on their treaties are pariah states, no trust accords, and it’s a very strong disincentive to default. The mechanism is legalised in the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, which prescribes the rules of how treaties are concluded, how they should be interpreted, and how they are terminated.
It ensures that the moments the diplomats seal the deal at the shaking of hands, the handshake has real legal effect that can be appealed later down the line years later. Besides the specific treaties, apart from them exist the jus cogens, the peremptory norms-norms so vital (like the prohibition of piracy or genocide) that they obligate all states, even if they haven’t agreed.
Equality of States – Equal Treatment of All
All the states are equal before the law everywhere, regardless of how large, prosperous, or powerful they are. It hence means, at least theoretically, that the island state of Tuvalu stands as equal to China before the law.
This no doubt stands utopian in the presence of the blatant imbalances of the powers of the globe, but it has a practical impact. It offers the weaker states protection from being bullied in the eyes of the law and equal representation through the ballot box in such entities as the UN General Assembly. Under the principle, the weaker states can identify themselves and elicit pressure, placing a strong check to the great powers and providing a forum for diplomatic settlement of conflicts.
Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
In order to avoid the settlement of all disagreements through the application of force, international law greatly prefers the use of peaceful means of settling disagreements. The states have various choices. Negotiation entails direct dialogue among the parties.
Mediation involves the use of an impartial external party in settling the disagreements through finding a resolution. Arbitration, which is more formal, involves the parties consenting to have an independent arbitrator make a binding decision.