"World politics is entering a new phase".

        By maintaining high security and economic standards, we would also be able to maintain our character of structural power in the international arena. This image helps us to be autonomous (being able to “formulate and carry out domestic and external policies in terms of our government priorities”). Autonomy is key to limiting the power of the Confucian-Islamic connection by allowing us to coerce the United Nations into setting rules and limitations in the international system.  This can prevent clashes between civilizations and maintain the order between the “West and the Rest”.  

        Finally, if security, economy and autonomy can be preserved, and the threat of the Confucian-Islamic connection can be contained by the organization of strong economic and military alliances, the status and prestige of the U.S would prevail. Our status would help us develop the integration of the new liberal democracies and western countries, fortifying our civilizations against others that could denote threats.  

2. The main difference between natural law and positivist law is that the former maintain that the only law of nations is the law of nature, and that customary practices or treaties (bilateral of multilateral) between states make no true law. On the other hand, positivists maintain that the only law of nations is found in treaties and custom and that the law of nature is non-legal or non-existent. From this main disparity problems arise between these two main schools of law. For example, natural law regards states as units that are bound to the law of nature while positivists believe that the only law is that one made by the states through treaties and customs. In other words, for the naturalist, states are mere subjects, whereas for the positivist, states are authors and executors.  In addition, for the naturalist, law derives from ancient moral laws, whereas for the positivist, although natural reason matters, law has to be stated word for word by the states (consent). Moreover, natural law is the foundation of the concept of international politics while positive law is the real and tangible structure of it. Finally, natural law is somehow regarded (especially in the medieval times) as divine law and therefore, by its standards, if positive law “conflicts with natural law, it could not claim any binding force.”

        Both natural and positive laws are the grounds for today’s international law system. When dealing with an international conflict, the International Court of Justice relies on General principles (natural law), and International Customs, treaties and judicial opinions (positive law). An example of this interaction between positive and natural law is the principle of coastal boundaries; while each state has the right to control its own boundaries, it is important to set agreements or treaties where conflict could arise (like in the South China Sea). As we can see, natural and positive laws are complementary: one sets the principles and the other the specifications. Moreover, natural law’s grandest function was to give birth to modern international law while positivist law maintains the system’s balance when particular problems arise.

Contrary to the believe of many people that international law is not really law, in the contemporary international arena laws are very important. International laws cannot be enforced because there is not a government (an executive, legislative and judiciary) that controls the states; therefore, anarchy is a feature of the present international system. In order to avoid conflicts and to develop cooperation among the countries in this state of anarchy, it is important to enforce general principles and treaties that each nation would use in order to improve its growth in economic, social, military, and diplomatic areas. If the general principles are supported by tangible and real agreements (whether multilateral or bilateral), conflicts among states would reduce because countries would respect this non-legal and legal statements in order to avoid reprisals and retorsions from other nation or a group of nations (like the UN). In this way, the state of anarchy can be regulated for the improvement of all the actors in the international system.  

Bibliography

Akehurst, M. “Is international law really law?”, In A Modern Introduction to        International Law, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982)

Brierly, M. “International organizations”. In J. Bayleis & N.J. Renger (Eds.), Dilemmas        of World Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 18.

Holsti K.J, International Politics: A Framework of Analysis (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,        1995)

Huntington, S.P., “The clash of civilizations?” The Clash of civilizations? The debate.        (New York: Foreign Affairs, 1993)

Moens Alexander, Introduction to International Politics: Study Guide, (Vancouver:        Simon Fraser University)

Wight, M. “The three traditions of international theory”. In Gabriele Wight & Brian        Porter (Eds.), International Theory: The Three Traditions (Leicester: Leicester        Univ Press, 1991)