Introduction

The law and the legal system are very important in any civilization. In modern times, no one can
imagine a society without law and a legal system. Law is not only important for an orderly social
life but also essential for the very existence of mankind. Therefore, it is important for everyone
to understand the meaning of law.
1

In a layman's language, law can be described as' a system of rules and regulations which a
country or society recognizes as binding on its citizens, which the authorities may enforce, and
violation of which attracts punitive action. These laws are generally contained in the
constitutions, legislations, judicial decisions etc.
2

Jurists and legal scholars have not arrived at a unanimous definition of law. The problem of
defining law is not new as it goes back centuries. Some jurists consider law as a 'divinely ordered
rule' or as 'a reflection of divine reasons'. Law has also been defined from philosophical,
theological, historical, social and realistic angles.
3

Same applies to the concept of International Law. It has emerged to be a concept of great
importance since the past few years. It has been interpreted defined or presented in different
prospective by different jurists. As the Municipal law is to a citizen of the country the same is the
international law for a state. This is the provider and protector of a states rights and duties. Like
any other concept the concept of International law has also been upheld or rejected on many
grounds. One of the famous or most powerful rejections of International law has been presented
by the propagators of Analytical school of thought. Austin, Bentham, Holland all deny the
existence of international law. The concern for this study is the statement given by Holland:
International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence. This statement broadly defining
denies the international law to be termed as a law as it is a mere morality or as exclaimed by
Austin is a Positive Morality. For understanding and analyzing this statement of Holland we
need to focus on two concepts firstly jurisprudence and secondly International Law.

1
http://www.cbseacademic.in/web_material/doc/Legal_Studies/XI_U2_Legal_Studies.pdf, accessed on April 9 at
5:00 pm
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
Jurisprudence:
The word jurisprudence has evolved of the Latin word Jurisprudentia meaning thereby
Knowledge of law. But this is very general meaning of the word jurisprudence. It has also been
tried to define it more specifically by various jurists.
Ulpian defines it as the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of right and
wrong.
4

Salmond defines it as the science of law. He categorizes jurisprudence into three kinds that is
expository or systematic, legal history and the science of legislation.
5

Julius Stone exclaims it to be a Lawyers extraversion. It is the lawyers examination of percepts,
ideals and techniques of the law in the light derived from present knowledge in disciplines other
than the law.
6

Focusing on the analytical school of thoughts concept, Holland defines it as The Formal
science of Positive law. By formal science he means that which deals with the various relations
which are regulated by legal rules than with the rules themselves which regulate those relations.
Explaining positive law he says Jurisprudence is not a science of legal relations a priori, as they
might have been or should have been, but it abstracted a posterior from such relations as have
been clubbed with legal character in actual system, that is to say from law which has been
actually imposed or positive. In other words, Positive law means the actual existing law as
distinguished from ideal law or what law should be.
7

Here interlinks the concept of law given by Austin. He exclaims law to be the Command of
Sovereign backed by the Sanctions. This is why his concept is also called the triangular concept
of law, as it is based on three main elements command, sovereign and sanctions. So any rule or
regulation to be called as a law must have the recognition of the state which is sovereign and
must have some sanctions to create a binding force on all those who are the subjects of such law.

4
B.N. Mani Tripathi, Jurisprudence The Legal Theory, p.4
5
Id at p.4,5
6
Id at 7
7
Id at 5
International law
Starke defines International law as that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the
principles and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do
commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which also includes:
a) The rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions or organizations,
their relations with each other, and their relations with states and individuals; and
b) Certain rules of law relating to individuals and non states entities so far as the rights or
duties of such individuals and non states entities are the concern of the international
community.
Other definitions;
According to Hall, international law consists of certain rules of conduct which modern
civilized states regard as binding on them in their relation to each other.
According to Oppenheim, International law is the name for the body of customary and
conventional rules which are considered legally binding on civilized states in the
intercourse with each other.
According to Fenwick, International law may be defined in broad terms as body of
general principles and specific rules which are binding upon the members of
international community in their mutual relations.
According to Whiteman, International law is the standard of conduct at a given time for
states and other subjects thereto.
According to the revised definition of Oppenheim by Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur
Watts, International law is the body of rules which are legally binding on states in their
intercourse with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations of
states but states are not the only subject of international law, international organizations
and to some extent individuals may be the subjects of rights conferred and duties
imposed by International law.



Nevertheless, from practical point of view, it is well to remember that international law is
primarily a system regulating the rights and duties of states inter se. so much is hinted at in the
very title international law, or in other title frequently given to the subject- the law of nations,
although strictly speaking the word nations is only in a crude way a synonym for the word
state. Indeed, it is very good practical working rule to regard international law as mainly
composed of principles whereby certain rights belong to, or certain duties are imposed upon,
state.

Object of international law

The main object of international law has been to produce an ordered rather than a just system of
international relations, yet in later developments, for example, in the rules as to state
responsibility concerning denial of justice, and in the rules and practice as to international
arbitration, there has been evidence of some striving to ensure that, objectively, justice be done
between states. Moreover, apart from seeing states receive just treatment, the modern olaw of
nations aims at securing justice for human beings. It is significant further that the word justice
appears in the titles respectively of the Permanent Court of International Justice and its
successor the International Court of Justice, both being judicial tribunals set up to decide
disputes between states and to give advisory opinions according to international law. The justice
is a primary purpose of the law of nations emphasis its kinship to state law.






Interplay between International law and Jurisprudence
According to Holland International law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence. By using the
words "vanishing point" in relation to international law and jurisprudence, he meant that
international law and jurisprudence are parallel to each other, and they therefore are distinct and
separate though it might be appearing that they are one and the same at vanishing point.
Vanishing point is a point at which parallel lines in the same plane appears to meet. Thus
international law cannot be kept in the category of law mainly because there is neither any
sovereign authority nor sanctions exist if its rules are violated. In the light of above discussions
the analytical jurist, Holland, remarks that international law is the vanishing point of
jurisprudence. He has given reasons for the above view:
He has stated therefore that international law can indeed be described as law only by courtesy,
since the right with which it is concerned cannot properly be described as legal.
It is submitted that while his view was perhaps correct at his time but at present the same is
subjected to severe criticism and therefore, it is not tenable in the changed character of
International law, due to treaties the obligation of states and other social environmental and
humanitarian characteristics of international law.
8

It is the vanishing point of jurisprudence, since it lacks any arbiter of disputed questions, save
public opinion, beyond and above the disputant parties themselves and since, in proportion as it
tends to become assimilated to true law by the aggregation of states into a larger society, it
ceases to be itself, and is transmuted into the public law of a federal government.
9

International law is studied these days in the real context of international politics, but
jurisprudenceor theories about lawtends to be studied in a vacuum. Jurisprudence may be
one step removed from law itself, but does this mean that it is of purely theoretical interest? A
political scientist has recently drawn a sharp distinction between "the most important aspect of
the lawits operation in the international environment and jurisprudence per se.

8
http://www.answers.com/Q/International_law_is_the_vanishing_point_of_Jurisprudence
9
Thomas Erskine Holland, The Elements of Jurisprudence p.343

In fact, on one hand, jurisprudence contributes to the creation and development of international
custom, because continuous and constant repetition of acts may constitute the material element
of the creative process of a customary rule. On the other hand, it has influenced the development
of concepts such as jus cogens, obligations erga omnes, and international crimes. However, the
authority or influence of jurisprudence in international law is deeply bounded by state consent.
Jurisprudence is a concept with many ramifications, which could lead us from the general theory
of sources of international law, to the role of international judge, to the proliferation of
jurisdictions or to the debate on the unity and fragmentation of jurisdictions. All the above
requires the hard work of conceptual definition and bibliographic selection in order not to get
lost in these other key issues, which, however, will be inevitably alluded to the extent necessary
for the purpose of the work.
10

Jurisprudence in the interpretation of international law
Neither customary nor conventional rules of International Law exist concerning interpretation of
treaties. Grotius and the later authorities applied the rules of Roman law respecting
interpretation in general to interpretation of treaties. On the whole, such application is correct in
so far as those rules of Roman law are full of common sense. But it must be emphasized that
interpretation of treaties is in the first instance a matter of consent between the contracting
parties. If they choose a certain interpretation, no other has any basis. It is only when they
disagree that an interpretation based on scientific grounds can ask a hearing. No scientific
grounds other than those provided by jurisprudence are available. The best means of settling
questions of interpretation, provided the parties cannot come to terms, is arbitration, as the
appointed arbitrators will apply the general rules of jurisprudence. Now in regard to
interpretation given by the parties themselves, there are two different ways open to them. They
may either agree informally upon the interpretation or execute the treaty accordingly; or they
may make an additional new treaty and stipulate therein such interpretation of the previous
treaty as they choose. In the latter case one speaks of "authentic" interpretation in analogy with
the authentic interpretation of Municipal Law given expressly by a statute. Nowadays treaties
very often contain the so-called "compromise clause" as regards interpretationnamely, the
clause that, in case the parties should not agree on questions of interpretation, these questions

10
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0081.xml
shall be settled by arbitration. Italy and Switzerland regularly endeavour to insert that clause in
their treaties.
11


Viewpoint of Jurists
Since it is a fact that some writers, particularly positivists such as Austin and Hart, have had
trouble with the term "law" in the phrase "international law," we can conclude that for most
people the term "law" probably connotes domestic "laws"those duly enacted by legislatures or
promulgated by dictators. Indeed, most people only have experience with domestic laws; public
international law is outside the ambit of their connotative acquaintance. It was only natural,
therefore, that some writers would seize upon the salient characteristics of domestic Law, label
that "real" law, and then proceed to call international law fictitious since it lacks a central
legislature or pervasive judicial system or other features of the law to which people are
accustomed.
To John Austin, for example, law is a command backed by sanction; without these elements,
an alleged rule of law is not "really" law. Thus at one stroke he consigned all international law to
the dust heap of "positive morality" since it did not conform to his domestic-law model.
To St. Thomas, law is the reflection of right reason; all laws which do not conform, even if
they happen to be commands backed by sanction, are presumably invalid.
Professor H.L.A. Hart today would argue that if there is no "rule of recognition" enabling us to
distinguish laws from other standards of social conduct; there is no "law." Not quite wanting to
dismiss international law in the way Austin to did, Professor Hart argues that the international
legal system is "primitive" and hopefully on its way toward acquiring its own rule of recognition.
We might, just for a moment and to demonstrate the relativity of verbal behavior, imagine that
the situation were reversed and that international law was the everyday experience of most
people while domestic law was the rare occurrence. Then self-styled "positivists" might arise

11
L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW-A TREATISE p.583

who would proclaim that domestic law is merely "positive morality" since in order for it to be
obeyed the state must use coercive police machinery, pervasive judicial systems with penalties
for disobedience, and enactment by the ritual of a legislature supposedly representing the
popular will. None of these are necessary for the true international law, they might add;
international law is obeyed because it genuinely meets the interests of all concerned and fairly
represents the consensus of its subjects.
12

In Kelsen's view, modalities of social and political influence accomplished by persuasion,
"setting a good example," or the promise of reward, are all non-legal. Law comes into the
picture only when a "threat of evil", consisting of depriving the individual of life, freedom,
property, or other values, is the basis of inducing the individual to behave in the desired manner.
Unpersuasive is the analogue of this in international law, where Kelsen at times appears to be
suggesting that world public opinion" is a sanction that makes some kinds of [pg263]
international rules valid. For the adoption of this kind of argument in the first place breaks down
the initial distinction Kelsen made between persuasion and threat of evil; if an aroused public's
anger at the District Attorney render other decisions he makes illegal (such as "sanction," so too
would all other instances of the public's anger at the decision not to prosecute an alleged
criminal whom he is convinced is innocent). And, in the second place, the use of ideas such as
"world public opinion" for a legal sanction is tantamount to a tautology: the public is upset
because someone broke the law, and that in turn defines what he did as law-breaking.
13








12
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=facultyworkingpapers
13
Supra 5, p.5

Bibliography

Holland, Erskine Thomas, The Elements of Jurisprudence, The Law book Exchange
Ltd., New Jersey, 7
th
Ed. 2006
Oppenheim, L, International Law-A Treatise, Longmans, Green and Co., London, Vol
1., 2
nd
Ed., 2012
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-
9780199796953-0081.xml (last accessed on 10/10/2014 at 11:00 am)
http://www.answers.com/Q/International_law_is_the_vanishing_point_of_Jurisprudence
(last accessed on 11/10/2014 at 11: 30 am)
D'Amato, Anthony, "The Relation of Theories of Jurisprudence to International Politics
and Law" (2011). Faculty Working Papers.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworkingpapers/1 (last accessed on
11/10/2014 at 11: 15 am)