What is Shelton’s hierarchy of international law., and what are the practical implications of this envisioned hierarchy?

Shelton’s Hierarchy of International Law
Name:
Institution:
Shelton’s Hierarchy of International Law
Shelton argues that a hierarchy of norms existing international law. The Hierarchy contains binding norms (Jus cogens) and non-binding norms or soft laws. The Jus cogens, also known as the peremptory norms override any other norms in the country and includes even the objecting states. Therefore they are the superior laws that govern international law. Secondly, inferior laws, generally called the soft-laws are made up of normative provisions that are non-binding to the international community. The two layers of laws in the hierarchy are important in the understanding of international law (Shelton, 2006). However, they contribute to numerous issues especially the Jus cogens as not all countries agree to be bound by International standards. Instead, many countries want to remain autonomous as they undertake their national activities. Nevertheless, the laws present International sanity hence their requirement, especially during international engagements. Ultimately, the non-laws become soft laws; soft laws become the hard laws, and the treaty and common laws become the Jus cogens.
The hierarchy presents several implications to the International community. Firstly, different states obligations to the International law differ due to the difference in interpretation of the obligations each state has and their implementation. Secondly, the Jus cogens present an increasing variety in the level of the commitment in regulating state behavior following increase international problems.

Further, the interpretation of the normativity of the laws as binding or non-binding is increasingly becoming relative as different states and organizations determine their level of obligation differently (Shelton, 2006). Thus the threshold for the Jus cogens is undefined hence confusing to the international community. Finally, the source of these supreme laws is questionable as states deem themselves equal in rank and power when it comes to the formulation of the binding laws.
References
Shelton, D. (2006). Normative Hierarchy in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 291-323. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.library.norwich.edu/stable/3651149