Question: “Law, as it exists in domestic societies, has no place in international politics. Even if international law exists, it is ineffective in influencing the behaviour of states or in shaping the course and outcomes of international events. States only comply with international law when it is in their self-interest to do so. For international law to be relevant rules, norms and principles must be able to influence and shape the course and outcomes of international events independently of power considerations. This is the realist challenge to international law.” Do you agree? Why or Why not? Provide relevant examples to support your arguments.
Main dispute is that international legal norms-do change State’s interests in obedient behaviour. International law commitment is a proposal to create a reliable dedication to a specific plan position. The approval of treaty responsibilities lifts expectations in shaping the course and outcomes of international events, once made, are pricey for States to break. An International Law is one means that governments look to raise the reputation expenses of reneging, with major outcomes for state behaviour. Let us demonstrate this influence in the context of the public international law commitment of money, a field where States commonly have secured invidiously their sovereign decision-making standing. States just comply with international norms whilst it is in their self-interest to act so.