Until recently, the fundamental link between two basic concepts in international law, namely the right to self-help and the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, has been neglected in doctrine and practice. The main issue is that international law traditionally recognizes the right of states to safeguard their own rights by resorting to countermeasures as well as the obligation to settle their disputes by accepted and recognized diplomatic and judicial procedures. Both concepts are based on their own merits, which are assumed to be valid in contemporary international law. It is the primary purpose of this study to determine which rules and principles govern the relationship between the two concepts. The book's major findings arise from an analysis of scholarly work, supported by examples from five different case studies. Drawing insights from legal as well as political science, it will be a valuable resource for students, academics and policy makers in international law, international relations and related areas.

Papers originally presented in a conference held at the Catholic University, Milan, on 10-11 May 2002.

This book explores the contentious topic of how collective and community issues should be protected and enforced in international law. Elena Katselli Proukaki takes a detailed look at the issue of third-State countermeasures, and considers the work the International Law Commission has done in this area. The volume addresses both the theory and practice of third-State countermeasures within international law. Critically reviewing the conclusions of the International Law Commission on the non-existence of a right to third-State countermeasures, it includes consideration of examples of State practice not previously covered in the literature of this topic. In taking a thorough view of the issues involved the author identifies concerns about third-State countermeasures which remain unanswered, and considers the possible legal ramifications arising from a clash between a right to third-State countermeasures and obligations arising from other international norms. The Problem of Enforcement in International Law explores questions evolving around the nature, integrity and effectiveness of international law and the role it is called to play in a contemporary context. This book is of great interest and value not only for specialists in this area of international law, but also human rights, trade and EU lawyers, practitioners, legal advisers, and students.

Academic Paper from the year 2019 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Public International Law and Human Rights, grade: 2.50, University of Santo Tomas (Faculty of Arts and Letters), course: Legal Management, language: English, abstract: In this essay I will explore the status of enforcement mechanisms used in international law and their effect on the overall effectivity of the law, using, principles, treaties, major researches and related jurisprudence. Effectiveness of law refers to whether the law has changed a state’s behavior from what it would have been in the absence of the law. In order for a law to be effective, parties must agree to comply to it. For this reason, the international committee provides enforcement mechanisms, which are methods used to induce compliance and increase cooperation from international bodies. These enforcement mechanisms fulfil a state's immediate interests. However, despite using these enforcement mechanisms, the international committee currently faces non-compliance and the possible unenforceability of the International Court of Justice as one of the major problems encountered in international law. Why is non-compliance still a major problem in international law if enforcement mechanisms are already in use?

Until recently, the fundamental link between two basic concepts in international law, namely the right to self-help and the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means, has been neglected in doctrine and practice. The main issue is that international law traditionally recognizes the right of states to safeguard their own rights by resorting to countermeasures as well as the obligation to settle their disputes by accepted and recognized diplomatic and judicial procedures. Both concepts are based on their own merits, which are assumed to be valid in contemporary international law. It is the primary purpose of this study to determine which rules and principles govern the relationship between the two concepts. The book's major findings arise from an analysis of scholarly work, supported by examples from five different case studies. Drawing insights from legal as well as political science, it will be a valuable resource for students, academics and policy makers in international law, international relations and related areas.