The enforcement of UN sanctions under Maltese law

Abstract

It is commonly believed that States have little respect for International Law and have no incentive to comply with it in the absence of world government and an effective police force. This belief springs from the rather frequent misconception that International Law is broken with impunity. Furthermore the breaches of International Law are very often more spectacular than the comparatively staid law of international cooperation. Thus one may pose the question as to whether International Law does conform to a proper legal system. John Austin, the nineteenth century positivist, argued that International Law is not really law because it has no sovereign. His criticism of International Law is largely based on a rather "peculiar" conception of law. However, he does expose one problem which constitutes the crisis of contemporary International Law, namely the lack of effective enforcement mechanisms. The best view, on the other hand, is that International Law is in fact just a system of customary law, and some of its chief defects are precisely those that the history of law teaches us to expect in a system based on custom. Violations of law are rare in all customary systems, and they are so in International Law. International Law is normally observed because the demands that it makes on States are in general not exacting, and on the whole, States find it convenient to observe it. However, the weakness of International Law lies deeper than any mere question of sanctions. One may argue that it is not the existence of a police force that makes a system of law strong and respected, but it is the strength of the law that makes it possible for a police force to be effectively organised.