International Affairs: Global Governance - Week 3

I am doing a MOOC on global governance from The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

Here are my thoughts on week 3:

Hard Laws and Soft Laws
A hard law is a treaty/agreement which is agreed by national bodies and contains rights and responsibilities. An example of this is the European Convention on Human Rights which is an international treaty which created a court which can penalise national bodies if judgements go against them.

A soft law is a resolution passed by an international body, which national bodies voluntarily choose to follow. An example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly. Whilst it affirms a number of rights, they are not legally enforceable.

The arguments in favour of a hard law (and therefore against a soft law) include:
 - they are legally enforceable
 - there is a single interpretation of the law
 - if a national government changes, the law still has to be implemented

The arguments in favour of a soft law (and therefore against a hard law) include:
 - A national body can work towards compliance without being penalised
 - A government has to choose to comply rather than having compliance imposed on them - embedding the policy within the nation
 - Nations can customise their compliance mechanisms to suit their situation

When should hard or soft law be used?
Hard laws should be for enforcement and sanctions. Soft laws should expand and clarify the hard laws e.g. exemptions or an evolving standard that you don't want to make permanent yet. Soft laws might be all that is possible politically at a certain time.

The advantages of soft law
Soft laws can be preludes to hard laws to prepare the ground politically. They are easier to create and amend over time. You don't need hard laws if a soft law will lead to compliance e.g. Basel and banking.