The Binding Force of International Agreements and Customary International Law: A Comparative Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29303/ulrev.v9i2.417Keywords:
Bimding Force, Customary International Law, Legal Legitimacy, International Treaties.Abstract
International treaties and customary international law are two main sources in the international legal system. Both have the function of regulating relations between countries and international actors, but there are differences in the mechanisms of formation and binding force. This article aims to conduct a comparative study of the binding force between international treaties and customary international law. Using normative legal research methods, an analysis is carried out on the legal principles, doctrines, and practices of states to understand how the legitimacy and effectiveness of both are recognized in the international legal system. The results of the study show that international treaties generally have more explicit and specific binding force because they are based on the formal agreement of the parties, while customary international law is binding based on general practices accepted as law (opinio juris). However, in certain situations, customary law can apply more broadly, including to countries that are not parties to an agreement. This study emphasizes the importance of understanding the interaction between the two in an effort to maintain legal certainty and stability of international relations.
References
Arato, J. “Treaty Interpretation and Constitutional Transformation: Informal Change in International Organizations.” Yale J. Int’l L 38 (2013): 289. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/yjil38&div=13&id=&page=.
Binder, C. “Stability and Change in Times of Fragmentation: The Limits of Pacta Sunt Servanda Revisited.” Leiden Journal of International Law 25, no. 4 (2012): 909–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156512000507.
Brownlie, I. “The Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes.” Chinese Journal of International Law 8, no. 2 (2009): 267–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmp015.
Helfer, L. R., & Wuerth, I. B. “Customary International Law: An Instrument Choice Perspective.” Mich. J. Int’l L. 37 (2015): 563. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mjil37&div=22&id=&page=.
Helfer, L. R. “Flexibility in International Agreements.” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations: The State of the Art, 175. Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Hernández, G. I. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Kammerhofer, J. “Uncertainty in the Formal Sources of International Law: Customary International Law and Some of Its Problems.” European Journal of International Law 15, no. 3 (2004): 523–553. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/15.3.523.
Klein, N. Dispute Settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Mattei-Gentili, P. “The Quest for Opinio Juris: An Analysis of Customary Law, from Hart’s Social Rules to Expectations and Everything in the Middle.” Noesis 34 (2020): 89–114. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4000/noesis.5154.
Norman, G., & Trachtman, J. P. “The Customary International Law Game.” American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (2005): 541–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602291.
Petersen, N. “Customary Law Without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation.” Am. U. Int’l L. Rev 23 (2007): 275. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amuilr23&div=15&id=&page=.
Raustiala, K. “Form and Substance in International Agreements.” American Journal of International Law 99, no. 3 (2005): 581–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1602292.
Roberts, A. Is International Law International? Oxford University Press, 2017.
Roberts, A. E. “Traditional and Modern Approaches to Customary International Law: A Reconciliation.” American Journal of International Law 95, no. 4 (2001): 757–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/2674625.
Shaw, MN. Hukum Internasional. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
Silviani, N. Z. (. “Interpretasi Perjanjian Internasional Terkait Historical Rights Dalam UNCLOS 1982:(Studi Kasus: Sengketa Laut Cina Selatan Antara Republik Rakyat Cina v. Filipina Dan Sengketa Kepulauan Chagos Antara Mauritius v. Britania Raya).” Jurnal Selat 6, no. 2 (2019): 154–71. https://doi.org/https://ojs.umrah.ac.id/index.php/selat/article/view/1067.
Thirlway, H. The Sources of International Law. Oxford University Press, 2019.
Tuori, K. “Pacta Sunt Servanda.” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 2, no. 1 (2023): 44–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.57048/aasf.130107.
Ulyashyna, L. “The Meaning Role Of The Pacta Sunt Servanda Principle In International Law: Identifying Challenges To The Legitimacy Of Peace And War.” Public Security and Public Order 32 (2023): 105–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.13165/PSPO-23-32-05.
Zhifeng, J. “Pacta Sunt Servanda and Empire: A Critical Examination of the Evolution, Invocation, and Application of an International Law Axiom.” Mich. J. Int’l L. 43 (2022): 745. https://doi.org/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/mjil43&div=23&id=&page=.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Grace Putri Waghe
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright holder by Author
