According to this school of thought international law is a law in true sense. They give the following arguments in support of their view:
- For the definition of law a political superior authority is not so necessary, ii. In fact there is a legislative body in the shape of General Assembly and Security Council and the states enter into treaties which also act as legislature,
- In fact there is a potent judicial machinery in the shape of International Court of Justice ( IJC ). Though its decisions are binding on the parties when they by their mutual consent refer the case to it.
- It is wrong to say that there is no executive authority to enforce International law, because the adverse view of the member states and fear of cessation of diplomatic and economic ties and fear of war act as sanction for its implementation.
It is right to say that international law has frequently been violated but on this basis the status of international law as a law shall not be denied because law is law and its obedience is totally an other factor. And municipal law has also been violated. vi. Furthermore, states themselves consider it binding upon them