Hi,
This is my first time posting here and before that let me brieftly introduce myself. I'm currently a student studying in Taylor's University College in Malaysia completing the South Australian Matriculation.

As the following discusion title, i'm doing a research on international law whether is it enforcing or binding and see as the real law in the eyes of the world. There are pros and cons in international law and therefore i would like to have some opinions from all of you in part of my research.

as part of my educational outreach program, entitled "wisdom for taylor college students", i will give you the short answer:

"yes,it's binding, unless it's inconvenient, or you're sure it will lead to trouble, in which case, no, it's not binding."

if you want the full course, with money-back wisdom guarantee, send me access details of your educational fund account and i will tell you if you are rich enough to be smart. or smart enough to be rich.

It is only binding when there is statute to ratify it. and plus, it is not tat easy. How abt amending the international law? does anyone try to amend it? or why should amend the international law? im appreciate for all the opinions that given...

ah mei, it's not the words,it's the guns.

the one with the most guns doesn't pay any attention to law. quite simply, enforcement is only possible on the weak.

so milosovich goes to jail, bush does not.

i'm not sure international law isn't an oxymoron. however, international trade will often create conditions where a country will accept limited sanctions to preserve prosperity. so there is plenty of opportunity for lawyers to cultivate law in support of commercial conditions. over a period of time, a body of law may become international in scope as trade makes conflict difficult. the european union seems to demonstrate this situation.