Negotiation has been defined as any form of direct or indirect communication whereby parties who have opposing interests discuss the form of any joint action which they might take to manage and ultimately resolve the dispute between them.

The negotiation aim to reduce or, as appropriate, eliminate tariffs as well as non-tariff barriers, particularly on goods of export interest to developing countries. The negotiations are conducted in the Negotiating Group on Market Access.

At a difficult time in the World economy, as countries face pressures to increase protectionism, trade negotiations provide us the opportunity to prevail on them to adopt market-opening measures.

• What are the 4 Types of Negotiations?
• What are the Types of Negotiation in Law?
• What are the 7 Rules of Negotiation?
• What is the Role of Negotiations in International Business?
• What is the Process of Negotiation in Law?
• Why do we Negotiate in International Law?
• What are the Principles of Negotiation?
• What are the 9 Negotiation Strategies?
• What is the Most Important Rule in Conducting Negotiations?
• What are the Five Main Sources of International Law?
• Which are the Main Theories of International Law?

What are the 4 Types of Negotiations?

Negotiation is a discussion in which two or more parties attempt to reach an agreement through bargaining. Here are a few examples of negotiation in business:

• Salary negotiation: Candidates for jobs can bargain with an employer about their salary and benefits.
• Vendor negotiation: Many businesses negotiate with vendors on the pricing and services provided in contracts.
• Conflict-resolution: Often, conflict-resolution in the workplace involves a negotiation between two or more parties that can result in an agreement.

Below is a list of negotiation types:

1. Principled negotiation

Principled negotiation is a type of bargaining that uses the parties’ principles and interests to reach an agreement. This type of negotiation often focuses on conflict resolution. This type of bargaining uses an integrative negotiation approach to serve the interests of both parties. There are four elements to a principled negotiation:

• Mutual gain: The integrative approach to a principled negotiation invites parties to focus on finding mutually beneficial outcomes through bargaining.
• Focus on interests: Negotiators can identify and communicate their motivations, interests and needs in principled negotiation.
• Separate emotions from issues: In principled negotiation, parties can reduce emotional responses and personality conflicts by focusing on the issues rather than how the problems make them feel.
• Objectivity: Parties in a principled negotiation can agree to using objective criteria as a baseline for negotiations. Examples of objective criteria in negotiations include market rates, expert opinions, laws and industry standards.

For example, the leaders of two departments for a large company often argue over the resources for each department. The two leaders enter a principled negotiation to discuss solutions. They listen to each other’s positions and decide to base resource allocation on the percentage of revenue each department generates for the company. The department leader who receives more resources agrees to support the other department’s functions, and the two leaders reach a compromise.

2. Team negotiation

In a team negotiation, multiple people bargain toward an agreement on each side of the negotiation. Team negotiations are common with large business deals. There are several personality roles on a negotiation team. In some cases, one person may perform more than one role. Here are some common roles on negotiation teams:

• Leader: Members of each team in a negotiation usually appoint a leader to make the final decisions during negotiations.
• Observer: The observer pays attention to the other party’s team during a negotiation, discussing their observations with the leader.
• Relater: A relater on a negotiation team works on building relationships with the other team members during bargaining.
• Recorder: A recorder on a negotiating team can take notes on the discussions of a negotiation meeting.
• Critic: While this may sound like a negative role, having a critic on the team during negotiations can help you understand an agreement’s concessions and other negative results.
• Builder: A builder on a negotiation team creates the deal or package for a bargaining team. They can perform financial functions during negotiations, calculating the cost of an agreement.

3. Multiparty negotiation

A multiparty negotiation is a type of bargaining where more than two parties negotiate toward an agreement. An example of a multiparty negotiation is bargaining between multiple department leaders in a large company. Here are a few of the challenges of multiparty negotiations:

• Fluctuating BATNAs: BATNA stands for best alternative to a negotiated agreement. With multiple parties in a negotiation, each party’s BATNA is more likely to change, making it harder for parties to agree. Each party can evaluate its BATNA at each negotiation stage to understand the results of a proposed agreement.
• Coalition formation: Another challenge of multiparty negotiations is the possibility for different parties to form coalitions or alliances. These alliances can add to the complexity of bargaining. Coalitions can agree to a specific set of terms to help all parties reach an agreement.
• Process-management issues: Managing the negotiation process between multiple parties can lead to a lack of governance and miscommunications. People in multiparty negotiations can avoid these issues by choosing a leader willing to collaborate with others toward an agreement.

4. Adversarial negotiation

An adversarial negotiation is a distributive approach in which the most aggressive party in a negotiation achieves an agreement that serves their interests. Here are a few examples of adversarial negotiation tactics:

• Hard bargaining: Hard bargaining is a strategy in which one party refuses to compromise in an agreement.
• Future promise: A person using this tactic can promise the other party a future benefit in exchange for current concessions. You can counteract this tactic by asking for the future promise in writing.
• Loss of interest: Another adversarial negotiation tactic is loss of interest, in which one party pretends they’ve lost interest in pursuing an agreement.

What are the Types of Negotiation in Law?

When preparing to negotiate, business professionals often wonder what types of negotiation are available to them. Some of the most common are distributive negotiation, integrative negotiation, team negotiation, and multiparty negotiation. 

Read Also: How Entrepreneurs Help Build Democracy in Service-oriented Business

In distributive negotiation, parties compete over the distribution of a fixed pool of value. Here, any gain by one party represents a loss to the other. You may also hear this referred to as a zero-sum negotiation or win-lose negotiation.

Integrative negotiation gives us one of the biggest chances of a win-win. In these types of negotiation situations, there is more than one issue to be negotiated, and negotiators have the potential to make tradeoffs across issues and create value. In many cases, distributive negotiations can become integrative if we take the time to search for additional issues to include. 

Team negotiations are those types of negotiation situations where the negotiating parties are made up of more than one person. These might include union contract negotiations or major business negotiations.

Lastly, multiparty negotiations include, as you might imagine, multiple parties. These types of negotiation situations might include municipal projects or international negotiations. Multiparty negotiations do require more complex negotiating skills, but there is also more opportunity to find tradeoffs and create value. 

One of the final types of negotiation that you may encounter is the “one-shot” negotiation where parties have no intention of continuing to work together. One-shot negotiations often carry a risk of unethical behavior and hard bargaining if parties believe they have no need to build a trusting relationship.

What are the 7 Rules of Negotiation?

1. Know what you are trying to accomplish.

What would success look like? If you don’t know where you want to go, you will never get there.

What are the minimum outcomes you must achieve? If you cannot achieve them, are you prepared to walk away from the table? If not, perhaps you have not yet properly defined your minimum outcomes.

2. Develop a game plan before negotiations start.

Do you need this deal more than the other party, or do they need it more than you? Are you dealing from strength, or are you in a weaker position? Are the concessions you need to make not in your short- or long-term best interests?

Every negotiation requires compromise and trade-offs. You are not going to win on every issue. Therefore, it is important to determine the issues that are deal-breakers for you. Try to determine which issues are deal-breakers for the other side, and can you live with agreeing to them?

3. Study and understand your counterpart.

Understand the negotiating style of the lead negotiator on the other side of the table. What is their reputation and track record in past negotiations with you and with others? Can they be trusted to meet their negotiating table commitments?

Listen to the other party and ask questions to further understand what they want to accomplish. Communicate what you want to accomplish. Identify where your goals overlap and where they don’t so you can work to close the gaps.

4. Work towards a win-win.

If you have an ongoing relationship, it’s important for a win-win result. If one party feels they were treated unfairly in a negotiation, the relationship between the parties could be damaged and may affect future negotiations. Maintaining a good relationship in the long run is more important than a win-lose result.

If this is a one-off negotiation, you need to decide how hard you want to take advantage of your perceived strengths and drive towards a “win-lose.” You could run into the other party again in a different situation where you may not have as strong a position. People have long memories.

One of the objectives of a negotiation, through the process of give-and-take, is to find more overall value for both sides, perhaps not apparent before negotiations start.

5. Avoid negotiating with yourself.

Once you make an offer, wait until the other side responds with a counteroffer. If you put another offer on the table before a counteroffer is made, the other side will view this as a weakness and try to exploit it to their advantage.

To avoid not receiving a counteroffer, ensure that your offer is credible. If it isn’t, the other side may just ignore it and not make a counteroffer, prematurely ending negotiations.

6. Remember that it takes two parties to negotiate or renegotiate a deal.

If either party feels it is not in their best interest to do a deal, they won’t. Even if you perceive you are in a position of strength and you feel you can force the other side to acquiesce to your terms, they always have other alternatives, which if pursued, might hurt you in the long run.

So, before entering a negotiation, be well prepared. Know when you are willing to walk away. Understand your situation and that of the other party, including strengths, weaknesses and alternatives.

If you are in a long-term relationship with the other party, drive for a win-win. Exercise caution driving for a win-lose. People have long memories, and you might encounter them again, perhaps when they are in a position of relative strength.

What is the Role of Negotiations in International Business?

International negotiations need the parties to follow legal, procedural, and political regulations of more than one nation. These laws and procedures are often inconsistent, or even directly opposing in nature. International business agreements should look into these differences. Arbitration clauses, specification of the governing laws, and tax havens should be well defined in the agreements.

We have listed here the most common attributes and elements that must be taken into account while doing international negotiations.

• The presence of different currencies should be taken into account. As the relative value of different currencies is not fixed, the actual value prices may vary, and result in unanticipated losses or gains.
• Each government tends to control the flow of its domestic and foreign currencies. Therefore, business deals should look for the governmental willingness to make its currency available. Some policies of government may be detrimental as well.
• Governments often play a significant role in foreign business. Extensive government bureaucracies can affect the negotiation process. Legal complications may also set in.
• International ventures are vulnerable to political and economic risks. These risks require the negotiator to have knowledge and social insight.
• Different countries have different ideologies about private investment, profit, and individual rights. Effective negotiators will have to present ideologically acceptable proposals to the other.
• Finally, cultural differences, such as language and values, perceptions, and philosophies may result in very different connotations according to culture and norms. The international negotiator must be aware of this.

The role of international agencies in the negotiation process is indispensable. The agencies play a key role in finding an amicable and mutually beneficial negotiation. Organizations like the WTO have a big role in making the MNCs find a good solution to their international disputes. The requirement of such agencies become critical mainly in three areas.

When the business is unfamiliar with the issues and rules at hand

In many cases, business negotiations occur in a situation and place that is unfamiliar to the organization. These negotiations lead the managers out of their comfort zone and into unfamiliar territory. Often, the managers may not be quite knowledgeable in legal and cultural matters.

In such situations, the international agencies can play a big role. If the organizations’ managers are unsure of the issues under discussion or do not know the perfect rules of the game, an agency may be quite helpful in offering a helping hand.

When issues of time or distance present in the process

If the negotiation process takes place in an unfamiliar territory, the customs and rules are generally unknown to the key managerial decision makers. In this case, an international agency may be handy.

This also applies when the managers of an organization are under a tight deadline. When these managers don’t have the time and resources to meet with the other parties in a distant location or cannot participate in all steps in the process, they are quite unlikely to represent themselves well. In this situation also, an international agency may fill the gap.

When there is a poor relationship with the negotiating partner

If the organization is dreading to have negotiations with a party they had clashed earlier, then an international agency may play a key role. The agency may calm both the parties and ensure that the business negotiation remains a matter of business.

This is a good strategy in case of contentious diplomatic contexts, such as the negotiation of a cease-fire between warring armies. In the business world, if the rancour between a company and another over a business contract is deep-seated and ongoing, both sides may get benefits by employing experienced agents to move the negotiation process forward.

If the business thinks that they won’t be able to pursue their business interests effectively – especially when there are chances of aggressive behavior on the other side, an international agency may bridge the gap in finding an amicable and win-win negotiation.

What is the Process of Negotiation in Law?

The history of negotiation can be traced back to the times of Monarch era where Kings used to negotiate at the time of ongoing Wars in order to prevent the bloodshed in war. After the two great World Wars in the 20th century the negotiation rounds resulted into the creation of League of Nations followed by United Nations.

The scope of negotiation has increased over the time. The major objective behind negotiation is that the parties involved wishes to settle the dispute outside the court. The litigation process has its own disadvantages such as: bulky paperwork, excessive time, delays in process, costly- expensive and unfavorable decision.

1. Marital Deadlock: Where a dispute involves a relationship of marriage the pre litigation process includes negotiation. In such disputes sentiments and ego between husband and wife in a conjugal relationship are often settled by communication during negotiation process.
2. Business Negotiation: Business negotiation aims to manage business and corporate matters. The skill which are required in such negotiation includes making deals discussion on profits of the company team building negotiation of contracts negotiations with employees and laborer’s efficiently handling cases of disputes between clients and employees.
   In order to establish a business agreement, the art of negotiation is essential full stop business negotiation can be considered as a skill where in the big problems are drop down to small chunks and to every touch problem a solution is carefully found out.
3. Contract-Based Negotiations: Before entering into a contractual relationship, the parties negotiate the terms condition of dispute. This type of negotiation is the most famous type of negotiation and is in somewhat line with that of business negotiation. After a breach of contract, the deadlock can also be settled with the help of negotiations.
4. International Negotiations: The conflict between different nations can easily turn into scandals that needs to be resolved immediately. The international negotiations generally take a longer time than other negotiation processes as this process is complicated and involve various steps s bureaucrats are involved in the process. The major objective of International Organization is primarily to allow a smooth interconnectivity and interrelations between Nations in such a way that it is beneficial for both for all countries in the economy.

Why do we Negotiate in International Law?

The importance of negotiation can’t be overstated. Negotiation holds the key to getting ahead in the workplace, resolving conflicts, and creating value in contracts. 

When disputes arise in business and personal relationships, it’s easy to avoid conflict in an effort to save the relationship. Nonetheless, it is possible to turn tense disputes into productive negotiations and maintain strong relationships. The importance of negotiation skills in these instances is paramount. 

It’s not just dispute resolution that highlights the importance of negotiation, however. The right approach to negotiation can improve the situation of multiple parties. One example comes from the cast of the television show, Friends. 

At first glance actors Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and the rest of the star-studded cast might not be your first pick to peg as formidable negotiators, but at the height of program’s popularity they banded together to pull off an unprecedented salary negotiation. 

Cast member David Schwimmer originally took a hard look at his odds of success going into negotiations alone. Then he decided not to. The actors were uniquely close and accustomed to working together under high pressure. Each one had different leadership styles that would be useful in a negotiation. If they negotiated individually, studio executives could pit them against each other.

Instead, Schwimmer correctly assessed that a strong team comprised of the entire cast would be better for everyone in the long term. And in fact, they walked away with $1 million each per episode for the final two seasons, which aired from 2002-2004.

What are the Principles of Negotiation?

1. Separate the people from the problem. Strong emotions can become wrapped up with the substantive issues in a negotiation and complicate it even further. In principled negotiation, negotiators work to deal with emotions and personality issues separately from the issues at stake. For example, if two department heads are locked in a heated battle over resources, they or their leaders would confront the strong emotions underlying their dispute through active listening and other communication techniques. The goal is not to “win,” but to reach a better understanding of each party’s concerns.

2. Focus on interests, not positions. Negotiators often waste time arguing over who should get their way or, alternatively, trying to find a compromise point in between the two firm positions they have staked. In principled negotiation, negotiators look beyond such hard-and-fast positions to try to identify underlying interests—their basic needs, wants, and motivations.

Imagine that two siblings disagree about where to host their parents’ anniversary party. One wants to have it at a restaurant, while the other wants to have it in her home. They only make headway when they identify their deeper interests: the former doesn’t have a lot of time to devote to preparation, while the other is concerned about the cost.

Armed with this understanding of each other’s interests, they do some research and decide to host the party at a relatively inexpensive restaurant. This type of interest-based bargaining can enable solutions that meet each party’s needs.

3. Invent options for mutual gain. Negotiators often settle for the first agreement they reach, relieved to have hit upon an outcome that both sides can live with. In principled negotiation, negotiators devote significant time to brainstorming a wide range of possible options before choosing the best one.

In negotiation, options refer to any available choices parties might consider to satisfy their interests, including conditions, contingencies, and trades. For example, imagine a job negotiation where the candidate values a higher salary, while the hiring organization is concerned about being fully staffed. If so, the job seeker might be willing to make a concession on vacation days in return for the promise of a higher salary.

4. Insist on using objective criteria. It’s common in negotiation for parties to argue back and forth about whose “facts” are correct. This type of argument is likely to end in either impasse or an inefficient compromise.

A better way? In principled negotiation, negotiators rely on objective criteria—a fair, independent standard—to settle their differences. For example, they might agree to abide by standards such as market value, expert opinion, industry protocol, or law. Importantly, parties should agree in advance about which objective criteria to consult and agree to abide by the outcome.

What are the 9 Negotiation Strategies?

These are 9 negotiation strategies for success:

1. MIRROR WORDS SELECTIVELY

One of the quickest ways to establish a rapport and make your counterpart feel safe enough to reveal themselves is with a laser-like focus on what the other party has to say.  Use tactics like slowing the conversation down, repeating their words back to them, allowing for silence and changing your tone of voice (try the “late night FM DJ voice”)

2. PRACTICE TACTICAL EMPATHY  

Demonstrate to your counterpart that you see the nuances of their emotions. Proactively label their fears. Phrases like “It sounds like you are afraid of…” “It looks like you’re concerned about…” go a long way in disarming them. Also, list the worst things that the other party could say about you and say them before they can.

3. GET TO “NO”

 Being pushed for “yes” makes people defensive, but saying “No” makes the speaker feel safe, secure, and in control, so trigger it. Ask no-oriented questions, like:  “Is now a bad time to talk?” and “Have you given up on this project?”

4. TRIGGER “THAT’S RIGHT”

The moment you’ve convinced someone that you understand their dreams and feelings is the moment a negotiation breakthrough can happen.  Trigger a “that’s right” response by summarizing and reaffirming how they feel and what they want.

5. RESIST COMPROMISE

Frame the conversation in such a way that your counterpart will unconsciously accept the limits you place on the discussion. Navigate deadlines to create a sense of urgency and anchor your counterpart’s emotions so that not accepting your offer feels like a loss.

6. CREATE THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Don’t try to force your opponent to admit that you are right. Ask questions, that begin with “How?” or “What?” so your opponent uses mental energy to figure out the answer.    

7. GUARANTEE EXECUTION

Don’t let your work fall apart when you’re close to securing a deal:  Identify the motivations of the players “behind the table” and spot liars by paying attention to body language; test if your counterpart’s “yes” is real by getting them to reaffirm their agreement at least three times. Use your own name and humor to break tension and show your human side.

8. BARGAIN HARD

Identify your counterpart’s negotiating style, prepare, prepare, prepare, and steel yourself to take a figurative punch. These practices will give you the confidence you need for a tough conversation. 

9. FIND BLACK SWANS

To uncover the “Unknown Unknowns” work to understand the other side’s position and worldview. Find common ground with them, and get some face time. These tactics will help you dig deeper and uncover the hidden variables of the situation.

What is the Most Important Rule in Conducting Negotiations?

When entering into a negotiation, you have four primary approaches available, each of which significantly influences the outcome of the negotiation:

1. Win-Lose or Distributive Negotiation

Also referred to as the competitive, claiming value, or zero-sum approach, this technique revolves around the assumption that it is only possible for one party to win at the expense of the other party. In this approach, the negotiation concerns resources that only exist in a fixed amount, meaning as one party gains these resources, there are fewer of them available to the other party. The primary concern of both parties is to maximize their own interests by maintaining an advantage over the other party, so their interests are considered to be in opposition to one another.

The goals of a win-lose approach are to influence the other party to become less confident in their ability to reach their goals and to promote your objectives as desirable, righteous, imperative, or inevitable. Concealing or forcing information, misleading the other party, and engaging in other manipulative tactics are common in this approach, all of which violate the rules of negotiation and can result in detrimental consequences. To conclude this negotiation, both parties must believe the achieved outcome was the best possible and worthy of acceptance.

2. Lose-Lose

The last avenue that should be taken in any negotiation, this approach is implemented if one party feels their interests are at risk and wants to do anything possible to make sure the negotiation outcome is equally unsuitable to the other party.

A situation like this arises when each of the parties ignores the rules of negotiations, believing the desire for an equal level of loss to be more important than agreeing on an acceptable solution. Negotiations that adopt a lose-lose approach are least likely to conclude with a desirable outcome, and both parties ultimately end up losing.

3. Compromise

To avoid a lose-lose outcome, negotiating parties can agree to a compromise. This approach involves both parties conceding part of their original terms to settle for a less beneficial solution. Similar to the lose-lose approach, the resources in dispute are limited and both parties have demonstrated they are unable to convince the other to meet their demands. While offering a better outcome compared to the lose-lose approach, neither party achieves all of their goals.

4. Win-Win or Integrative Negotiation

Also referred to as the collaborative approach, this negotiation technique is superior to the others in every respect. Both parties begin the negotiation with an adequate amount of resources that may be divided in a way that allows both parties to win.

Their primary concern is to maximize the outcome for both of them, so they carefully follow the rules of negotiation and employ strategies such as sharing information, solving problems together, and other forms of cooperative behavior. Collaborative negotiators achieve better, more reliable results than competitive negotiators, with both parties feeling confident that they achieved their goals and are satisfied with the outcome.

Sometimes the win-win approach is termed “creating value” because the outcome leaves both parties with the assurance that they gained greater value than they possessed before the negotiation. By following the rules of negotiation, both parties gain their desired resources without fear of aggression or malice. This approach not only resolves the current negotiation but also builds mutual respect and trust that creates a foundation for the growth of a long-term business relationship.

What are the Five Main Sources of International Law?

International law goes through the boundaries of States, creating a system of legal norms that regulate the relations between nations. The sources of International Law are what determines of which means come or that might come the legal norms, that is, what composes this Law. For most authors on the theme, the sources are divided into material and formal.

The material sources are the content of the legal norm, they determine how a legal norm will be elaborated. Sociological, economic, psychological and cultural factors lead to a decision that later will be formalized in other sources of International Law. The material sources refer to these decisions.

The formal sources are the methods and processes of creating legal norms. They are mentioned in article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice:

“1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

1. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
2. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
3. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
4. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
5. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.

Article 38 doesn’t have the objective of being exhaustive. In it, the sources of International Law are just exemplified. Furthermore, the Statute doesn’t set a hierarchical level between the sources, that is, there is no hierarchical degree between the sources of International Law Below, you can see which are the formal sources expressed in article 38.

International Treaties

In general, international treaties are the main source of International Law. For the validation of a treaty, it is necessary the direct and democratic participation of the involved States. They are direct, clear and easy validation source because it is necessary its written and ratified (signed) documentation by all States that compromise to adhere to its rules.

International Customs

The international customs are general practices accepted as a law. They are the second major formal source and, historically, the older. For the formation of a custom, two elements are required: the material, generalized repetition of certain acts, and the psychological, the conviction that such acts are practiced by obligation. The customs must be proved so that they are valid.

General Principles of Law

The general principles of Law are sources hard of identifying and many have already been agreed to in treaties or are already considered as customs. The principles are norms that derive from National Law or Domestic Law and are accepted in the international order. We can consider, for example, the principles of good faith, protection of trust and acquired rights as general principles of Law.

Auxiliary means and New sources

Besides the main sources, the International Law also has as sources judiciary decisions and publicist doctrines. They are called “new sources” or “auxiliary means”. We can mention:

• jurisprudence – interpretations made by the courts that end up by determining a norm. They are considered as auxiliary means because new norms can’t be created by them, they only register the interpretations of the law.
• publicists doctrine – publicists are the ones that are versed in public law. Since they are skilled for such, their interpretations of the law can also be considered auxiliary means just as the jurisprudence.
• analogy and equity – come into play as auxiliary means in case of a lack of legal norm for a certain case. It has the objective of coming up with the fairest decision on conflicts of interests. The analogy is the application of a legal norm made to serve another similar case, while the equity takes place when there is no legal norm capable of reaching the particular case.
• erga omnes – obligations imposed on everyone, regardless of assent. It has the objective of preserving international fundamental values
• jus cogens – a set of norms that overlap the autonomy of the States’ willingness. They are hierarchically superior to the conventional norms, and can’t be repealed by treaties or customs. Among them are the prohibition of aggression, genocide and slavery.

Which are the Main Theories of International Law?

International law is a system of agreements and different treaties between different nations which helps in establishing and maintaining cooperation among different nations and also governs the relationship between different nations and how one nation interacts with other nations.

Or we can also say that International law is a set of norms which is made up of by different nations through different treaties and customary practices and that norms regulate the relation of one nation to other nations. International law is divided or classified into two branches i.e. ‘Public International law’ and ‘Private International law’.

‘Public International law’ is a branch of International law which deals with the relationships between nations. It also refers to those laws, rules and different principles that concern the conduct of different nations. This means how each nation will behave with the other nations and regulates the different International organizations and sets their role.

The primary motive for the creation of Public International law is inter-governmental organizations like the United Nations through the help of international treaties. Public international law includes humanitarian law, environmental law, human rights law, and these laws regulate the matter or issue of these areas particularly. 

‘Private International law’ is that branch of International law that deals with the conflict between private entities like the big corporate sector which have a network in more than one nation. Private International law governs the conflicts in the domestic laws of different nations which is related to the private transactions of nations.

There is no demarcation between National laws and Private International law because National laws are the primary source of Private International Law. And the laws which were included in Private International law are Contracts, torts, family matters, Intellectual property and many more.

Public International Law includes Humanitarian law, Environmental law, civil rights, and others. Now, we will deal with what are these areas of law which are included or part of Public International law.

Environmental Law comes into existence when there is a matter of global environment. It is more important as more nations realize that the activities of one nation can harm the global environment. Environmental law is a collective term that provides protection to the global environment and restricts the activities of different nations which will deteriorate the global environment.

Humanitarian Law is a part of Public International law which is a set of rules for humanitarian reasons, to put a limitation on the armed conflict that is on the peak. Humanitarian law is basically known as the Law of war or law of armed conflict whose motive is to deal with any issue of war or armed conflict and it is required most and considered as essential when the country is on the verge of war with any country. 

Read Also: The Different Structures Suitable for International Business

Civil rights Law is also a part and this law guarantees the rights for each individual to receive equal treatment and prohibits discrimination in different aspects or areas. This Civil rights law ensures that there should be no suppression of the rights of people. Many countries enact various other laws little similar to the civil rights law i.e. Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Age discrimination in Employment Act, American with Disabilities Act.

There are different theories as regards to the rising debate on Subjects of International law but there are majorly three theories of International law. All three major theories and their explanation is mentioned below. 

Realist theory

If we see what the followers of this theory think then we come to know that according to them the only subject of International law is the Nation States. They believe that the Nation-states are the only entities for whose conduct the International law comes into existence. The Nation States have separate legal entities and have their own rights, duties and obligations which they can possess under International law. So, according to the followers of the Realist theory, Nation-states are the ultimate and only subjects of International law. 

Fictional theory

According to the supporters of the fictional theory the only subjects of international law are the individuals not the nation-states. The reason they gave that the legal orders are for the conduct of human beings and for their wellness. And there’s nothing much difference between Nation States and an individual because Nation States are the aggregate of the individuals. And according to the followers individuals are the sole subjects of International law. 

Functional theory

In both the theories i.e. Realistic and Fictional adopted their opinion without considering other subjects of International law. But the functional theory tends to meet both the extremist theories. According to this theory neither Nation States nor individuals are the only subjects of International law. Even, not only the Nation States and individuals are the subjects of International law but other entities have been granted international personality and status and considered as Subjects of International law. 

After analyzing all the three theories then according to my view Functional theory is more accurate and best suited for the modern area of International law and also found suitable according to the world condition and trend. Declaring any one subject as the sole subject of International law is never a solution and hence, the other two theories lag behind than the Functional Theory.