Nation-states adhere to the principle par in parem non habet imperium, „There is no sovereign power among equals.“ This is reaffirmed in Article 2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that no State shall be subject to another State. John Austin thus asserted that „so-called“ international law, which lacks sovereign power and is therefore unenforceable, is not at all a law, but a „positive morality“ based on „opinions and feelings“. ethical rather than legal. [57] With this manual, we, as publishers and authors, have tried to depart from what has been rightly described as „well-taken paths“1, as the history of international law has been written so far – that is, as a history of history since the 16th century. 2 It was also written as a progressive story in which The End would become a world (p. 2) governed by the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American and French revolutions.3 This history of progress in the name of humanity certainly has its beauty. It gives the history of international law a clear basic idea and direction, thus giving it an understandable structure. But unfortunately, this beauty is wrong. It is likely that almost all nations abide by almost all the principles of international law and almost all of their obligations. Although States (or increasingly international organizations) are generally the only ones empowered to deal with a violation of international law, some treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have an optional protocol that allows individuals whose rights have been violated by member States to petition the International Human Rights Committee.

Investment treaties generally and regularly provide for enforcement by individuals or investment companies. [54] and trade agreements between foreigners and sovereign governments can be applied at the international level. [55] (92) Cf. F. Stier-Soglo, who argued that until the end of the 19th century „the history of international law or that which was considered as such did not have sufficient sources“ („History of International Law-Literary Literature“ (no. 56) 214, translated by the authors). The book FC by Moser Beyträge zu dem Staats- und Völker-Recht und der Geschichte (4 volumes JC Gebhard Franckfurt 1764, 1765, 1772) is, despite its promising title, essentially a collection of legal acts and a description of the practices of the German territories. A „pre-modern“ historiography of international law was R Ward An Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations in Europe, from the Time of the Greeks and Romans to the Age of Grotius (2 volumes Wogan Dublin 1795). According to Arthur Nussbaum, who mentioned this work from the beginning of his literary research on the history of international law, it was „the first literary enterprise of its author (born in 1765), who later gained some notoriety as a novelist.

Its core consists of an astonishing, if sometimes diffuse, compilation of historical data and anecdotes preceded by a long theoretical „introduction“ (Concise History (n 56) 293). (34) See B Mazlish and R Buultjens (eds.) Conceptualizing Global History (Westview Press Boulder Colorado 1993); also D Reynolds One World Divisible: A Global History since 1945 (Allen Lane London 2000). For surveys, see P Manning Navigating World History: Historians Create a Global Past (Palgrave Macmillan Basingstoke 2003); next P Vries `Editorial: Global History` (2009) 20 Global History 5–21. For the meta-level of historical writing, see GG Iggers and QE Wang with the support of S Mukherjee Global History of Modern Historiography (Pearson Longman Harlow 2008); R Blänkner `Historische Kulturwissenschaften im Zeichen der Globalisierung` (2008) 16 Historische Anthropologie 341–72. The „Unite for Peace“ resolution was initiated by the United States in 1950, shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War, to circumvent possible future Soviet vetoes in the Security Council. The legal role of the resolution is clear, as the General Assembly cannot adopt binding resolutions or codify laws. The „seven joint powers“ that introduced the draft resolution[49] during the relevant discussions never argued that it would in any way give the Assembly new powers. Instead, they argued that the resolution simply explained what the Assembly`s powers under the Charter of the United Nations already were in the event of a Security Council impasse. [50] [51] [52] [53] The Soviet Union was the only permanent member of the Security Council to vote against the interpretations of the Charter recommended by the Adoption by the Assembly of Resolution 377A. States may also, by mutual agreement, submit disputes to the International Court of Justice, based in The Hague, Netherlands, for arbitration. The judgments of the Court of Justice in these cases are binding, although it does not have the power to enforce its decisions. The Court may, at the request of an authority, issue an opinion on any question of law empowered by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.