Peace is the Fundamental Value that International Law Exists to Serve

Abstract

Hersch Lauterpacht set forth that international law should be functionally oriented toward both the establishment of peace between nations and the protection of fundamental human rights. This perspective was followed by Hans Kelsen, who authored Peace Through Law, reminding us that the pursuit of peace requires patience and commitment to international norms and legal institutions, such as international criminal tribunals, stating, “He who wishes to approach the aim of world peace in a realistic way must take this problem quite soberly, as one of a slow and steady perfection of the international order.” Later on the work of Grenville Clark and Lois B. Sohn spanned three decades, pursuing “World Peace Through World Law” through which they envisioned the creation of a World Conciliation Board, a World Equity Tribunal, compulsory jurisdiction for the ICJ, transfer of primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace from the Security Council to the General Assembly, and world disarmament enforced by regional courts. Several of these topics are under renewed discussion at present, including reform of the Security Council, the value of conciliation in international law, and the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Some suggest that the fragmentation of international law into specialized subfields, such as trade law, human rights, etc. resulted in a dissipation of attention to broader, common aims such as peace, instead promoting specialized technical expertise within each realm. To the extent that contemporary international law engaged with peace, it focused on the subject of peace treaties and the role of relevant institutions, such as the United Nations and regional entities.