To me, education is not just the matter of financial livelihood and social status, but why education is needed? Whether the provided education is authentic, what the lacks or loopholes of education are and to the final stage: would education make the absorbers immortal? These are some of the questions and rhetoric that make me view education very differently from those of my peers and even my parents and lecturers.

Law and Politics are usually confused with one another and cannot be meticulously separated from each other; as we usually hear the Faculty of Law and Politics, Center for Political and Legal Tuition, Professor of Law and Politics, etc. These are the facts that initiate me an idea to bring the core difference between Law and Politics and put it on a public display. The core difference would help the student to deeper understand the subject matters.

Do you have such the wonder? If no, start to make yourself curious about the core difference between Law and Politics to initiate your mental vocation and if yes, this is an article to unveil you a unique difference between Law and Politics to make you deeply understand.

As a student of Law, newspaper columnist, expert author, media liaison officer, legal and political assistant, I have found one complete differences between Law and Politics. This difference is “the interpretation.”

Most students of Law and Politics do not know that the most important theme of their education is “the interpretation.” Why I dare to say this? Up to the present, we have billions of sources ranking from books and international media publication to the abstract sources, but these so-called information will not make us a true political analyst or lawyer.

What we are seeing on these sources is just “plain information”, so what are these information are. If information is just all about information, University is not needed, because most of these sources are available everywhere and even free. The things that we have not found on these sources are “the interpretation” or the path to interpretational secretes. Let’s now jump up to the very core of our article.

Legal interpretation must be “within”: in interpreting the law, the lawyer of any party or the conflicting parties themselves cannot interpret the law out of the law being enforced in the country where the trial is being heard. This may seem very vague and let us bring an example to clarify. If you commit or are accused of committing a crime in the country in which you are residing in, you or your lawyer are not entitled to interpret the law out of the laws being enforced in your residing country. To a stricter extent, the laws being used for interpretation must circumnavigate the crime that you did or are accused of committing. This case is different from “political interpretation.”

Law and Politics may be equally broad, but interpretation in politics is much broader than in legal one. Have you ever noticed that a political analyst for a university in America would use approach in political interpretation by drawing examples from any country, any sources and any celebrities in the world. Political interpretation (analysis) is not as “within” as in law.

Politics is much more flexible and so much softer than law. Other merits why politics allow much broader interpretation, because we even see a huge similarities between socialist and capitalist states (similar political application), but the laws in these two separate kinds of state are totally different. I know the last one sentence is too vague for you, but let’s start the legal and political interpretation.

This article takes a snapshot in time of the relevance of international law. It does so by taking the historic purposes of international law as the point of departure for floating the idea that international law must cater to the reality of contemporary times to be sufficient.

For long, international law or the law of nations was understood as the panacea for resolving inter-state disputes. Those who viewed international law through the lens of criticism could but quote a few instances of its absolute failure. However, even the biggest of its opponents could not criticize international law endlessly because there were no Iraqs, Afghanistans, 9/11s or 7/7s for that matter.

The same is no longer true. A layman or a lawyer alike would rather paint a bleak picture of international law through the brush of the realities of ongoing armed conflicts to which international law has failed to put an end. A very important question naturally comes to mind: is international law living through challenging times? It is indeed. Is it sufficient as it stands today? Yes and no.

Historically, international law has served two main purposes: it has provided a platform for like-minded states (the traditional subjects of international law) to resolve their disputes through mutual debate. Secondly, it has narrowed down exceptions to the use of force. Unfortunately, these very purposes continue to be cast in serious doubt by recent developments at the international level.

“Like-mindedness” is a comforting triggering factor for states to agree on a dispute resolution framework. However, it is precisely just that. States are increasingly refusing to enter into negotiations with emerging subjects of international law on the pretext that they are opposed to civilization or that they do not share their vision of “like-mindedness”. Consequently, a disparity or grey area now exists between states and emerging subjects which is increasing by the day.

This disparity may partly be explained by sovereignty which is the jealously guarded claim by a state over its territory and existence. Sovereignty, in its nature, is opposed to claims by insurgents or terrorists. Historically, insurgencies, rebellions and terrorist acts have been dealt with with an iron fist by states. The veil of sovereignty has been pierced by international law mostly in the backdrop of the collective will of the international community. For instance the UNSC authorized collective action against Iraq in 1990 in which the sovereignty of Iraq was negotiated to the collective will of the international community.

However, sovereignty does not and can never constitute the biggest threat to international law. In the opinion of the authors, the gravest threats to contemporary international law lie in (i) the non-recognition that the context of “like-mindedness” as originally envisaged is in a gradual state of transition, (ii) that emerging subjects of international law are now a reality of the times in which we live and, (iii) the belief of states and emerging subjects that power is the sole constitution of international law.

“Like-mindedness” explains the most essential percept of the earliest foundations of international law. “Like-mindedness” is conceptually grounded in the belief that “peace and mutual co-existence” is the right of every state in the world. States elevated themselves to a horizontal level of the status of “equals”. In line with the understanding that “equals cannot be treated unequally”, states identified themselves as equals in terms of their legal rights and obligations towards one another even if the political and economic influence that they held individually would change.

A potent manifestation of “like-mindedness” inherent in traditional international law is the United Nations (UN) created in 1945. Its purposes included reaffirming the international rule of law, developing friendly relations among states and achieving international cooperation in solving disputes between states.

But the five decades of UN life and consequently the success of international law is viewed differently. Those who see the glass as half empty quote instances of the failure of the UN in providing solution to the Israel-Palestine dispute, putting an end to the Cold War, or in stopping the invasion of Iraq. Those who see the glass as half-full paint a picture in which a world without UN is shown hostage to chaos, with war as the rule and peace the exception. Both these views are tenable but fail to explain the reasons behind the inadequacy of international law in the present times.

The “like-mindedness” which was a founding feature of international law and the UN has inevitably failed to comprehend the reality posed by the emerging subjects of international law. In the past few years, notably after the tragic events of September 11, international law has been put to trial. The established principles of international law have been cast into doubt. It is increasingly being argued that they do not apply to emerging subjects.

It is a fallacy to assume so because when law and material reality collide, it is law that must accommodate. Insurgencies and terrorism are a reality. Concerted international efforts need to be made to find solutions through dialogue and debate. Account should be taken of the political milieu passing through which emerging actors of international law have matured at the international level. Disputes between states and emerging subjects of international law must be addressed through a bi-lateral framework in which they are treated as the “new equals” in an evolved paradigm of “like-mindedness”.

International law needs to avoid the allegation that its constitution is grounded in power. Sense of ownership over international law is crucial to international dispute resolution. It is one thing to despise terrorist acts and quite another to rule out negotiations or dialogue with terrorists. The first is a corollary of humanity. The second of common sense and wisdom. Allowing emerging subjects of international law to benefit from international rights and guarantees would inculcate in them a sense of responsibility towards international law.

International law has taken centuries to evolve but could easily fall victim to power if reason does not evolve its journey with the changed circumstances. It is important for internationalists to grasp the ramifications of “change” introduced by emerging subjects of international law. Responses that have familiarity with reality would avoid misconstruing the purposes of international law. Fear of risking sympathy towards emerging subjects of international law must be discarded altogether and they must be allowed to generate their perspective in an environment of dialogue.