Neither interest nor identity theory fully account for the legal process that is transnational that is normative. Contribution in the transnational legal process helps establish the identity of the state is one that obeys the law, but what exactly is critical is the interaction, not the label that purports to identify a state as liberal or not. Act as obey international law as an outcome of repeated interaction with other governmental and non-governmental actors in the international system. Estates breach of law creates contradictions and unavoidable frictions that hinder its continuing participation within a transnational legal process. Connectivity impairs its ability to ensure new lending, when the sovereign debt is defaulted on by a developing country. The leaders in the nation’s may change over time for a policy violation of international law to among conformity to avoid such frictions in its relationships that are continuing.
As transnational actors interact, they create patterns of behaviour and generate norms of actions that is outside which they in turn internalise. Law-abiding states internalise international law by integrating it within their national legal and political structures, laws, executive actions, and judicial decisions which take account of any corporate international standards. Nations also responds to other states reputations as law abiding or not. Legal ideologies prevail among domestic decision-makers such that they can be influenced by perceptions that their activities are unlawful, or that domestic opponents or other states in the global regime also categorise them. Also, domestic decision making becomes enmeshed with international legal norms, as institutional arrangements with the making and maintenance of an international dedication become entrenched in national political and legal processes. It’s through this continued process of interaction and internalisation of international law requires its stickiness as it is understood, that their identity is acquired by nation states, and that countries to find encouraging the rule of international law as a portion of a national self-interest. It is essential to know that although international law looks a feeble, the reality is the fact that countries use the rhetoric of international law for their very own purposes at any specific time to justify their political position.