4.2.19 Week 16 How International Politics affects National Politics International law - set of rules and norms (i.e. principles) regulating state behaviour (how they treat each other and their citizens) - originate from custom, treaties, and IOs - can be enforced by states but also by IOs Live in a more rule-based world: - international law and institutions increasingly binding - compare reaction to Syria's use of chemical weapons to Iraq in 80s - "In international relations there's nothing called trust; there's something called mechanism. They don't have to trust me in person. What counts is that the institutions work together" Bashar Assad States also traditionally the interpreters and enforcers of international law - states determine if they consider others to have broken int law (e.g. US invasion of Iraq 2003) - states resort to self-help in absence of other means of enforcement However, growth of IOs enhances scope of international law - individuals increasingly subject's of int law (e.g. human rights treaties) - IOs/international courts increasingly important in interpreting breaches of int law (ICJ, CJEU, ICC, UNSC) - IOs increasingly used to enforce int law (sanctions, peacekeeping) Obeying international law can be politically costly - e.g. ECHR judgment on voting rights for prisoners International legal obligations categorized as "hard" or "soft" - hard: backed up by penalties (financial, even force in some cases) - soft: backed up sentiment of doing right thing (meeting international norms, not reneging on treaties) Points to two different logics to explain how states act (March and Olson, 1998) - logic of consequences i.e. self-interested actors worry about consequences - logic of appropriateness i.e. worry about doing the right thing - sometimes hard to disentangle SANCTIONS