whether international law has been effective or not?

Probably quite difficult for us to answer whether international law had been running with effective or not. But the author will try to describe the extent to which the implementation of international law and also the extent to which their effectiveness.

Let us begin by looking at how international law is made. Simply make the law in order to create. International law exists and was created to establish a peace in the world (peace keeping). In many areas where it is very possible a distortion that could cause chaos among the countries there. Of attraction and interest of the state forcing something else could happen when, where, and against anyone else. As realists that the relations between the countries in which anarchists are each other pursue his national interest and it is very possible military clash in the implementation.

That's why ultimately minded countries to reduce the possibilities of it. So each country who feel that the law needs to be formed, they gathered and made certain agreements that intersect terhadapa areas that need to be discussed. The hope is that the clash that might occur can be minimized and even eliminated, and of course also the creation of a peace in this world.

International law with international politics became a key word to describe the main problems associated with the problem of the effectiveness of international law in the state to ensure compliance with existing rules on the interstate level. International law itself comes from a few conventions and UN resolutions, with a holy purpose is nothing the international community is to foster a clean of all things hurt a country, thereby strengthening international relations or relations in a healthy state, dynamic and harmornis.

But in its implementation becomes very different when we look at actors who become perpetrators of international law. In relationship-woven by the countries of a country often occurs adverse action other countries. How international law regulate that? In international law there is named by an international responsibility. This is a concrete form as the implications of the law being violated. That is, when a state offense (eg do harmful actions of other countries) then he should abide by what has been outlined in international law.

International law exists to regulate all international relations for the duration of international life in spite of all forms of actions that harm other countries. Therefore, countries that take action which could harm other countries, or in terms of violation of collective agreement will be subject to legal implications, so a state must take responsibility for actions he had done.

What should be done by the state or the actors who violate international law? As the writer said above that for international law-breakers should do the international responsibility of law rules of international law which obliges the international legal person-action actors who violate international obligations that cause losses in other international legal persons for compensation.

Terakadang Nevertheless we still find there are countries that are not subject to sanctions against what he had done. The writer saw no international legal validity of the countries that could breach caused by the lack of functioning of international organizations in total and could be due to a violation of the hierarchical position of power who have more than the countries other.

More power is enough to make hegemony over other countries and also to the organizations specific intertasional. This condition later became knowledgeable of other countries and for international organizations that violate the law whenever it is a country that has power and contribute more to the countries and international organizations that exist. Pattern of mutual dependence also sometimes makes a country's attitude may change in response to a state pelangggaran. Fear of disngkirkan or not supported by the state that violate become a significant consideration by states that are part of international law actors.

In this context the author wants to argue that international law is not always able to operate effectively. It can be caused several things: such as the lack of functioning of international organizations, the dependence of small countries against big countries, if the violation is a country that has a greater power, dependence on certain international organizations of a particular country.

That is, the implementation of international law so far to be able to effectively complete. Because all versatile and value packed with interest. But that does not mean the law can not be executed. International law can be executed, but in certain limits can not be fully effective. This is because the composition and strukutur international system is hierarchically also influence. The trend that appears in the lawyer-implementasian international law when the violation is committed by big countries who have the power and contribute to the country and international organization or a patron in the international system, then the sanctions will be imposed could not match it should be. Conversely when the violation is a small country and has a hierarchically weak power it could just as easily be sanctioned.
Once again the writer wanted to say that it happens when the international system dominated by the hegemony even in a country so international law can be turned upside down dibolak casually. However, behind it all we must remain confident that the law must still be executed even though the conditions may be far from perfect