The problem of Public International Law effectiveness has
been continuously analyzed by international law legal scholars.
Very useful approaches have already been identified and now
a wide range of theories as to how to tackle this important
issue can be pinned down: From those who believe in a
“realistic approach,” to those who try to find in deep
philosophical reasons the problem of effectiveness, all legal 

scholars try to explain why entities in the international arena
should behave in a way that permits human beings to fulfill the
divine (or Absolute) mandate: that of achieving their own
happiness. The underlying idea of this paper might be explained
by saying that we try to find an explication that satisfies at the
same time, both the plane of “What it is” and the plane of
“What ought to be or what should be (The “Must-Be”
plane).” And in this sense, this paper which tries to do so by
using a multidisciplinary approach (as we use not only the
juridical sciences, but also HABERMAS’ “Social Philosophy,”
the JACKSON’S International Economic Law approach and the
political science as well as the political economy and the
psychology), concludes that for Public International Law to
exist, and in fact, it does exist, it has to be effective, and indeed
it is. The problem is describing how it is effective; hence a
conclusion is laid out in the sense that only a customary-time
restrained and times-oriented/focused international law is
that which is effective. That is what reality shows, so in a way
this paper might fall down under the label of what legal
scholars throughout the world have called the “realistic
approach.”