Want this question answered?
Codifying international law mostly happens with bilateral/multilateral treaties in which states give their "consent to be bound" to that particular treaty with respect to article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 -- 'pacta sunt servanda' that roughly means that treaties are binding agreements. On the contrary, international customary law (another source of international law, see article 38 Statute of the International Court of Justice) is not codified. That doesn't mean it's not binding (in some cases, like the peremptory norm, it very much is binding for everyone), but chances are that there is too much doubt concerning the legal security of a particular norm. Therefore, in order to be sure that a norm has a binding character for the states which agree thereto, codifying rules of international law creates legal security.
Because there's nothing worse than extremists codifying their religious regulations into civil law.
what is codifying statute
Codifying acts is when a legislative act and all of the amendments to the act are brought together. They are then passed as one new act.
There were just laws so they differ from the from law king after king had.
what are the merits and demerits of srilankan labour laws
i need some answer for this title.. what do u guys think of the advantages of written law?
readly accecibility of the law
no
[object Object]
when the law does stuff that isn't helpful is a weakness. a strength is when the law does something good.
effect of globalization in law enforcement?