By: Christian Jay Myers*
International law is a legal enigma. Because of international law’s unfamiliar aspects and unique challenges, its legitimacy as “true law” is often called into question. This Comment offers a novel application of sociology to international law, tailored to the ambition of reducing the skepticism that international law is not truly law. In a world that is continuously moving toward globalization, international law’s importance is increasing.
An application of sociology’s three dominant paradigms—structural functionalism, social conflict, and symbolic interactionism—to international law reveals that the skepticism, although not misplaced per se, is frequently misguided. First, structural functionalism shows that States are inclined to comply with international law for either national or global purposes. Second, social conflict illuminates how international law strengthens over time and why international law’s strength appears greater in some States than in others. Third, symbolic interactionism demonstrates that unfamiliarity with international law, alone, is often the reason for the fallacious conclusion that international law is not truly law.
Tasked with overseeing the conduct of almost 200 sovereign States and billions of citizens, within the realm of jurisprudence, international law is sui generis. Its uniqueness, however, does not invariably imply the absence of a capability to regulate behavior. Although imperfect, international law remains essential to the functionality of our globalized world. Accordingly, a deeper understanding of international law’s legitimacy is imperative. Overall, to properly understand international law’s place as a legitimate body of law, this Comment posits that sociology’s three main paradigms assist in debunking the skepticism that international law is not truly law.
*J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University, Penn State Law, 2023.