Is global legal regime thesame as the system of international law?

Answer 1

'Global Legal Regime' is not a standard or familiar legal phrase in US law. It implies, through traditional nomenclature, a world-encompassing body of rules agreed to and adhered to by all nations that is actively enforced. No such contrivance exists. It is more likely politi-speak or some other form of nonsense jargon meant to give more weight or gravitas to whatever idea follows that phrase.

Also, 'system of international law' is a bit of a misnomer as well, but has underpinnings in reality. There is no 'International law', per se. That is to say that there is no ultimate body of law, or codified rules (like a Constitution or State Statutes), agreed to, or voted on or subscribed to by all Nations, or even most Nations.

International law merely refers to certain treaties, traditions, and agreements between nations. The UN doesn't pass world laws, even if such laws existed, there is no 'world police' to enforce those laws, or even a 'world court' in which cases are tried.

Things like the NATO alliance, the Russia-US SALT treaties, extradition agreements, and coastal territorial limits comprise 'International law' and are a hodgepodge of different agreements between different Nations made about different things, at different points in history.

But, for example, while the US and Canada may have mutual extradition treaties that doesn't mean all countries do, and it doesn't mean that the countries that DO have extradition treaties all have the same treaties. Canada wont extradite a criminal to the US if he faces the death penalty, while Mexico generally will.

And any of these agreements between Nations can be broken at any time, and the consequence is generally something along the lines of a minor 'diplomatic incident' that you never hear about and occasionally simply results in the renegotiation of the agreement that was breached.