of anarchical structure of international law, no international law can be imposed upon states except of their own decision and choosing, so that there is a little pressure by international law upon domestic law to make its norms part of domestic law. Moreover, international law starts from the position of complete freedom of states and also it is not an obligation but restricting. International law is a kind of tool that states use to achieve their certain outcomes, rather than telling them what outcomes they should reach.
There is an absence of unique government and enforcing entity in international law system. Unlike domestic projects, the international legal project is largely procedural rather than purposive, it is about coordination rather than subordination, a system aimed at protecting coexistence rather than some common substantive goal. (Megret, Frederic. "International Law as Law." International Law. 67. Print.) This structure gives a way to these questions; is international law really law? Where people find the rules of international law? Are they written in somewhere? How is international law enforced if there is no world government?
There are five specific currents; the deniers, the idealists, the reformists, the apologists and the critics, who are involved in a discussion about whether international law is really law. To focus on the deniers, they think that international law is a law except morality. As a result, international law lacks of form of centralized and systematic enforcement. In this framework, international law is a tool (to be used based on its usefulness) rather than a framework (binding and determinative). For these reasons, they advocate that international law could never become fully law. In this sense, international law limits states sovereignty and it is only the self-imposed limitations by states; deeply system of promises (which lets states not to keep their commitment). The idealists, however...