美国密歇根大学代写论文:国际法
Keywords:美国密歇根大学代写
然而，一般来说，国际法并不总是容易转化为“硬”法。许多原因可以考虑。其中一个原因，可能是最明显的是，没有至高无上的机构有权制定法律，并确保遵守。另一个不太相关的原因是，所有的国家在经济和发展方面都处于不同的水平，因此，所有国家都不能合理地遵守同一水平。同时，由于这种多样性，所有缔约国并不总是积极参与新协议谈判因为他们没有被邀请或是因为即使当他们的代表，他们不需要了解他们的谈判和新的法律后果的技术诀窍。主要的原因是，考虑到所有其他的原因和数量的缔约国（包括国家和非国家）参与谈判和谁有利害关系的结果，这是很难达成一项协议，每个人都会很高兴与。特别是在环境保护领域，该地区的敏感性及其与贸易、经济和国家主权的密切关系构成了额外的问题。的事实，有时一个不能确定的东西对环境的影响，直到这件事情的发生带来了其他的问题，而不是去没有任何形式的方针时，当事人往往选择“软法”的形式的工具如工作守则、决议和原则、标准声明，通常在语境下的“框架”协定的指导方针。他们显然不是法律但不完全缺乏权威（Birnie和波义耳，2002；P25）。在讨论特定条约的适用时，至少可以为各国考虑提供一个焦点。
美国密歇根大学代写论文:国际法
However, in general, international law is not always easy to convert into ‘hard’ law. Many reasons may be considered for this. One of the reasons and possibly the most obvious is the fact that there is no supreme body with the authority to make the laws and ensure compliance. Another not too unrelated reason is the fact that all the states are at different levels economically and in terms of development and therefore, the same level of compliance can not be reasonably expected of all states. Also, because of this diversity, all states parties are not always actively involved in negotiations for a new agreement either because they are not invited or because even when they are represented, they do not have the technical know-how to understand the negotiations and the consequences of the new law for them. The main reason though, is that considering all the other reasons and the sheer number of parties (both state and non state) involved in negotiations and who have stakes in the outcome, it is really difficult to arrive at an agreement that everyone would be happy with. In the realm of environmental protection in particular, the sensitivity of the area and its close relation to matters of trade and economics as well as state sovereignty pose additional problems. Other problems are posed by the fact that sometimes one can not be sure of the environmental impact of something until such a thing happens.Rather than go without any form of guideline at all, the parties usually opt for ‘soft law’ in the form of instruments such as codes of practice, resolutions, and declarations of principles, standards, and guidelines usually within the context of ‘framework’ treaties. They are clearly not law but they do not completely lack authority (Birnie and Boyle, 2002; p25). They can at least provide a focal point for the consideration by states when debating the application of particular treaties.
