Question

1. Explain how do international organizations contribute to the development of international law?

2, Explain what is assess the relationship between the U.S. and the World Court.

Answer 1

1. The dominant role now held by foreign bodies, is a significant contrast between 19th- and 21st-century international law. The international organizations differ in scale and scope. These may be bilateral, subregional, national or global, and fairly narrow or very wide issues may be addressed. The powers and duties delegated to foreign bodies, too, vary widely. Some foreign organisations are legally recognised as foreign entities, and are thus responsible for infringements of international legal obligations while others are not.

Many foreign organizations played significant roles in international affairs. They include the World Bank, which offers global development assistance, the International Monetary Fund, which helps countries handle their balance of payments issues, and the WTO, which monitors and governs foreign trade. Regional bodies and agreements, such as the EU and the Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States, control regions that have historically come under national jurisdiction. Although an international organization may have reasons to outsource some of its operations to entities or persons who are obviously autonomous and can not be considered officials, this does not rule out the fact that the actions conducted by such entities or persons at the request and on behalf of the organization are credited to the latter under international law. In that case the attribution will also be based on a factual relation.

2. For a long time, the United States has had an awkward relationship with the International Court of Justice, which arbitrates legal disputes among UN member nations which recognize its jurisdiction. In 1986, the United States withdrew from mandatory court jurisdiction after the court ruled that it owed war reparations to Nicaragua. The United States also disagreed with the court's view that in cases involving Mexican citizens on death row, it failed to meet its responsibilities under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations during 2005.

More recently, the United States has increased its engagement with the ICJ, especially with regard to individuals facing the death penalty in the United States, despite significant challenges within its own constitutional framework, making substantial efforts to comply.