Unlike other reams of legislation, there is no defined governing agency or territory of international law. The term is used to refer to a variety of different regulations, laws, and customs regulating, controlling, and referring to legal relationships between individuals with unique duties and privileges. Many academics and practitioners who are subject to a particular approach are defined in international law. Classical and current approaches are some of the notable approaches used to interpret international law. It is made up of legal associations between sovereign nations across the globe under the standard definition of international law. (Epps 271). In this regard, any nation which has no state status is ineligible for any international responsibilities and rights. On the other hand, the contemporary concept of international law takes into consideration the tenets of the state-centric concept; however, the legal relation is not limited to sovereign states. It also takes into consideration international organization and their associations.
As per the state-centric approach to international law, the jurisdiction of a nation is seen as territorial. Therefore, sovereign states are in a position to exercise authority within its standard limits. This is so for the contemporary approach; however, the jurisdiction also applies to international organizations. In regard to source, the state-centric approach holds that international laws are derived from states customs and treaties. With the far-reaching extension of the contemporary approach, the source of international laws are similar to those in state-centric approach; however, the juridical or natural association of international organization with persons is considered a source. Additionally, with the classical approach participant of the international law were sovereign nations, whereas with the contemporary approach the state and international law are regarded as participants.
Epps,Valarie. International Law.5th ed., Carolina Academic Press, 2014.