The Realist Argument Analysis

In the context of authority, Murphy argues that international law arises from a horizontal structure, in which all 193 nation states have supreme authority in self-governing their statehood. However, Teitel disagrees with Murphy’s viewpoint because she argues that sovereignty fails to understand the challenges of security in terms of protection and preservation of the people. Her argument is based on a framework of humanitarian law where sovereign states are shifting their relations between economic development and the promotion of human rights. Therefore, it is imperative to argue that the legality of international law is changing due to the expansion of humanitarian law because it is an attempt to bridge the gap between existing legal forms. Issues arise between the antagonist relationship between sovereignty and human rights. For instance, when it comes to the sovereignty, Murphy argues that all of the 193 nation states that are fully sovereign regard themselves as equal in the context of the horizontal structure. Despite their differences to land mass, population size, or financial capabilities, all states that are fully sovereign have an equal right to function as a state and make decisions within their borders. With this in mind, it is
Sovereign states have the only power to conduct foreign affairs, since businesses are not involved in signing treaties or in creating law that is applicable to sovereign states. Hence, the operation of treaties is fueled primarily by the interests of the state. The realist perspective supports this claim because it boils down to a state’s interest and the conscious decisions states make. For instance, treaties could lead to opportunities in attracting foreign business through international relations. Even though there is a chance of increasing one’s economy, it can have large impacts on the