ABSTRACT

The element of state interest naturally stands in the way of concluding that either human rights or obligations or exceptions to the prohibition of the threat or use of force constitute customary international law. Neither human rights, nor humanitarian exceptions or obligations in connection with the regulation of the use of force are likely to be found in customary international law by a genuine analysis of state practice and opinio iuris. General principles of law identified in foro domestico can only lead to a relativist approach to human rights. General principles of law do not offer a valid alternative, unless they are construed as importing natural law into the catalogue of Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Scholars may continue to assert that something represents a manifestation of international law by shifting the methodology, but it is doubtful that an academic fragmentation of sources doctrine will contribute to the credibility of international law.