LAW AND NATIONAL INTERESTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

This article explores the complex and often contentious relationship between international law and national interests. It analyzes the major theoretical debates on this subject, contrasting the realist view of law as a tool of powerful states with the liberal-institutionalist perspective that sees law as a genuine constraint on state behavior. The study examines how states selectively use and interpret international law to legitimize their actions and advance their strategic objectives. Through various case studies, the research illustrates the ongoing tension between the sovereign right of a state to pursue its national interest and its obligation to adhere to a rules-based international order. The paper concludes that while national interest remains the primary driver of state action, the growing density of international law creates a framework that both enables and constrains foreign policy choices.

The relationship between international law and national interest lies at the heart of the study of international relations. This paper provides a thorough examination of this dynamic interplay, exploring how states navigate the demands of a legal order while pursuing their own strategic goals. The analysis begins by dissecting the core concepts, defining "national interest" and outlining the sources and nature of international law. The study then delves into the main theoretical schism. On one side is the realist school, which posits that international law is epiphenomenal, having little independent effect on the actions of states, particularly great powers, who obey it only when it aligns with their pre-existing interests. On the other side is the liberal and constructivist view, which argues that international law, through processes of legitimation, socialization, and reciprocity, can genuinely shape state identities and interests, creating a more orderly and predictable world. The paper uses historical and contemporary examples—from territorial disputes to trade negotiations—to illustrate how these theoretical tensions play out in practice. It analyzes how states employ legal arguments as a tool of diplomacy and justification on the world stage. The findings suggest that the relationship is not a simple binary of compliance or non-compliance; rather, it is a continuous process of interpretation, contestation, and adaptation, where law and national interest are mutually constitutive elements of modern statecraft.