Query on John Austin comment

[Hamza Kahlon]

Salamz

I need a comprehensive or any sort of answer on
Arguments For and Against John Austins comment that ''int law is a positive international morality''

I require a link to any thread which has covered this question
Or
Any external link available with respected seniors and members
Or
Some member kind enough to give some pointers related to this.

Will b grateful
God bless

[Farman1]

The famous British jurist John Austin the founder of Positive School of thought alongwith Hobbes and Pufendorf disapproves of International Law to be a law in the true sense of it's term. He is of the view that International Law is a code of rules of morality.

Arguments by Positive School:

1- It has not emanated from a law giving authority.

2- It lacks sanction, an essential of law

3- It has no executive authority to enforce the decisions of ICJ.

4- Absence of effective legislative machinery.

5-No determinate political authority to compel the states to observe the rules of Int. Law.

6-Frequent violation Int. Law

Contrary to all above arguments Int. Law is a true law
and has a great role to play in the modern globalized world. Int. law is derived from customs, treaties, judicial decisions and juristic works. States don't deny it's existence and treat it as their own domestic law.Int. law is the cornerstone of the UNO whic also recognises it. So far as violation is concerned then it cleary means that it is. Because only laws are violated.

Suggestions for It's improvent:

1- The ICJ must be given compulsory powers and jurisdiction.

2- There must be an Internation Criminal Court in order to adjudicate int. crimes.

3- Int. law must be properly codified.

4- An International Bureau of Investigation and Prosection to probe into int. crimes.

5-The powers and role of International Law Commission must be expanded.

6-Legislative powers of General Assembley must be enhanced.