International Law and Sovereignty: Between Legal Obligation and Political Will

https://doi.org/10.55966/assaj.2025.4.1.071

Abstract

This article explores the enduring tension between legal obligation and political will within the framework of international law and state sovereignty. Tracing the historical evolution of sovereignty from the Westphalian model to its modern-day reinterpretation in an era of globalization, human rights, and supranational governance, the study examines how international legal norms often clash with the strategic interests of sovereign states. Theoretical perspectives including natural law, legal positivism, realism, liberalism, and Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are employed to critically assess how states interpret and navigate their international obligations. By analyzing key legal sources such as treaties, customs, and jus cogens norms alongside institutional mechanisms like the United Nations, International Criminal Court (ICC), and World Trade Organization (WTO), the paper evaluates the enforceability of international law in light of selective compliance and political manipulation by powerful states. Case studies including the U.S. and the ICC, China's rejection of the South China Sea ruling, and humanitarian interventions in Kosovo and Syria highlight the asymmetries in enforcement and the instrumental use of law. The article advocates for norm internalization, civil society engagement, and institutional reforms to bridge the gap between international legal commitments and state behavior. It concludes by proposing a reimagined sovereignty one that balances national autonomy with global legal accountability to meet contemporary transnational challenges.

Keywords: International Law, Sovereignty, Legal Obligation, Political Will, ICC, UN, Realism, TWAIL, Global Governance, State Compliance