We are all subject to domestic laws, because we all live in a sovereign state. A sovereign state is a political entity that governs the affairs of its own territory without being subjected to an outside authority. Countries are sovereign states. The United States, Mexico, Japan, Cambodia, Chile, and Finland are all examples of sovereign states. In domestic law, or law that is applicable within the nation where it is created, some legitimate authority has the power to create, apply, and enforce a rule of law system. There is a legitimate law-creating authority at the “top,” and the people to be governed at the “bottom.” The law might be conceived of as being “handed down” to the people within its jurisdiction. This is a vertical structure of law, because there is some “higher” authority that imposes a rule of law on the people. In the United States, laws are handed down by the legislative branch in the form of statutory law, by the judicial branch in the form of common law, and by the executive branch in the form of executive orders, rules, and regulations. These government branches have legitimate authority to create a rule of law system, and this authority is derived from the U.S. Constitution. See Figure 13.3 "The Vertical Nature of U.S. Domestic Law" for a simple illustration of the vertical nature of domestic law in the United States. Of course, people can influence who become members of the branches of government through elections and which issues are brought before government to consider and possibly legislate, but that does not change the fact that people are subjected to laws that are handed down in a vertical nature.
It’s important to note, however, that not all law can be conceived as a vertical structure. Some laws, such as international law, or law between sovereign states, are best thought of in a horizontal structure. For example, treaties have a horizontal structure. This is because the parties to international treaties are sovereign states. Since each state is sovereign, that means that one sovereign state is not in a legally dominant or authoritative position over the other. SeeFigure 13.4 "An Illustration of the Horizontal Nature of International Law between Nation-States" for an illustration of the horizontal nature of international law between nation-states, using the North American Free Trade Agreement as an example.
An obvious challenge to laws created in horizontal power structures that lie outside of any legitimate lawmaking authority “above” the parties is that enforcement of violations can be difficult. For this reason, many horizontal laws, like treaties, contain provisions that require the parties to the treaty to submit to a treaty-created dispute resolution panel or other neutral tribunal, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Though it is common for treaties to set forth expectations that disputes will be heard before some predesignated tribunal, some international relations experts believe that the state of international law is one of persistent anarchy.
Examine the differences between vertical structure and horizontal structures of law. Consider the case of a criminal in the United States. The criminal can be prosecuted by the laws of the United States (federal or state, depending on the jurisdiction of the offence) and, if convicted, will have to submit to the authority of the United States for punishment. This is because we recognize that there is some legitimate authority in domestic law that allows the U.S. government to exact punishment against convicted criminals. Compare this to a sovereign state that violates a treaty agreement. For example, perhaps a member of a treaty has broken its treaty promise to refrain from fishing in a certain fishery. Since in the international arena there is no overarching power “above” the parties to a treaty, enforcement of treaty agreements can be difficult.
Another common challenge in international law is that the laws are applicable only to parties who voluntarily choose to participate in them. This means that a sovereign state cannot generally be compelled to submit to the authority of the international law if it chooses not to participate. Compare this with domestic law. Everyone within the United States, for example, is subject to the jurisdiction of certain state and federal courts, whether they voluntarily choose to submit to jurisdiction or not. This is why fleeing criminals can legitimately be caught and brought to justice in domestic law through extradition.
- 1462 reads
