There is a wide diversity in the instruments of so-called 'soft law' which makes the generic term a misleading simplification. Even a cursory examination of these diverse instruments inevitably exposes their many variables in form, language, subject m...
There is a wide diversity in the instruments of so-called 'soft law' which makes the generic term a misleading simplification. Even a cursory examination of these diverse instruments inevitably exposes their many variables in form, language, subject matter, follow-up monitoring procedures. Theses variables, coupled with the inherent contradictions in the concept of soft law, highlight the challenges presented to the structure and substance of traditional international legal order by the increasing use of soft law.
Both the contradictions and the challenge exist at many levels and are revealed by the conflicting claims arising out of instruments of soft law that are made by states and other participants in the international legal order. These claims and the responses made to them challenge the accepted international legal order on the juristic, substantive and procedural levels, while the complexity of some of the inherent contradictions within the claims themselves further confuses any analysis.
In this article through the examination of several important theories of soft law, the definition of the soft law will be made.