The conflict over international Law

There is an ongoing argument over the extent to which international law and international institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could provide the basis for an orderly society of states, where international law could solve disputes before they escalate into military conflict.

Debate about international court of justice.

Realists maintain that The international system is in a constant state of antagonism. There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. In pursuit of national security, states strive to attain as many resources as possible. States are unitary actors each moving towards their own national interest. There is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance. The overriding national interest of each state is its national security and survival. Relations between states are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their military and economic capabilities. The interjection of morality and values into international relations causes reckless commitments, diplomatic rigidity, and the escalation of conflict.

Idealism (linked to liberalism) In the American study of international relations, idealism usually refers to the school of thought personified in Merican diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson, such that it is sometimes referred to as Wilsonianism, or Wilsonian Idealism. Idealism holds that a state should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War II. It particularly emphasized the ideal of American exceptionalism. However. Idealism transcends the left-right political spectrum. Idealists can include both human rights campaigners (traditionally, but not always, associated with the left) and American neoconservatism which is usually associated with the right.

What do realists believe about institutions such as the ICC and ICJ? Examples of realist behaviour? Arguments for this view?

The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America was a 1984 case of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaguara and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the UN security council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation. The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992, following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation, thus settling the matter

What do liberal idealists believe about institutions such as the ICC and ICJ? Arguments for this view?