The phrase "International Law is the Vanishing Point of Jurisprudence" floated by Holland implies that when we explore the complexities of international law, we reach the outermost limit or the ultimate frontier of legal thought and theory. In his view, Holland says that International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence because there is no judge or arbiter to decide international disputes. He believes that the rules of International Law are followed by States by courtesy.

Sir Thomas Erskine Holland, a notable British jurist and International Law theorist, put forth the intriguing notion that the law governing the international community finds itself at a perplexing juncture in the realm of jurisprudence. According to Holland, these two realms, jurisprudence and international law, exist on divergent paths that seem destined to remain forever apart. In his view, they occupy opposite ends of a spectrum, rendering their convergence an elusive and enigmatic prospect.

Explanation:
Let's break down this concept in simpler terms:

Understanding Jurisprudence:
Jurisprudence is like the philosophy of law - it's the study of the nature of law, its principles, and how it shapes societies. When we talk about jurisprudence, we usually focus on the laws within a single country - the rules and principles that govern our behaviour and interactions within that nation.

Enter International Law:
Now, imagine zooming out from the laws of one country to consider laws that apply to the entire world. That's where international law comes into play. It deals with legal issues that go beyond borders and affect the global community. So, when we say "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence," we mean that international law pushes the boundaries of what we usually think about when studying laws within a country.

Diverse Legal Systems:
In a single country, we have a legal system that everyone follows. But internationally, we're dealing with a bunch of different legal systems - each country has its own way of doing things. This makes international law really complicated. For example, what might be considered a fair trial in one country might not be the same in another. So, understanding and reconciling all these different legal traditions becomes a big challenge.

Think about human rights. Every country has its own ideas about what rights people should have. But when we talk about international human rights law, we're trying to set universal standards that should apply everywhere. This is tricky because different cultures may have different views on what constitutes a basic human right. So, international law challenges us to find common ground among diverse legal systems.

Fragmentation and Pluralism:
Imagine trying to juggle multiple balls at once. That's a bit like how international law works - it's fragmented and pluralistic. Instead of having one clear set of laws, we have lots of treaties, agreements, and customs that countries follow. This makes it hard to have a neat and tidy legal system like we might have in our own country.

Take climate change agreements as an example. Many countries come together to make agreements on reducing carbon emissions. Each country has its own commitments, and there's no single world government enforcing these rules. So, international law involves a lot of negotiation and cooperation among different nations.

Limited Enforcement Mechanisms:
In a country, there's usually a police force or some authority that ensures people follow the laws. But internationally, it's not as straightforward. There are no world police making sure everyone plays by the rules. Instead, countries have to agree to cooperate and follow the laws voluntarily.

We have the International Criminal Court (ICC), which deals with serious crimes like genocide and war crimes. However, its power is limited because not all countries agree to be bound by its decisions. Some powerful countries aren't part of the ICC, which shows the challenge of enforcement on a global scale.

Sovereignty and Global Governance:
Sovereignty is like a country's independence - it's the idea that each nation governs itself. But international law challenges this concept because it encourages global cooperation and governance. Issues like human rights, environmental protection, and international crimes make us question how much control a country should have over its own affairs.

Look at global health regulations. When there's a pandemic, countries need to work together to control the spread of diseases. This involves sharing information and resources, which challenges the traditional idea of absolute sovereignty.

Emerging Legal Concepts:
International law introduces new ideas that might not exist in our own legal system. It's like exploring uncharted territory. For instance, there's something called transnational law, which goes beyond individual countries. This could involve legal issues related to the internet, outer space, or global trade - areas where traditional legal theories might struggle to keep up.

Think about cyber law, which deals with crimes and issues that happen in the digital world. Traditional legal theories might not have anticipated the need for laws about hacking, online privacy, or digital property. International law challenges us to create new legal concepts for these emerging issues.

Global Interconnectedness:
We live in a world where everything is connected. The internet, trade, and communication link us together. International law deals with issues arising from this interconnectedness. It's like navigating a vast network of legal relationships that go beyond what we typically think about in our own country.

Consider international trade. Goods and services move across borders, and countries need to have agreements on how to regulate this. International trade law involves creating rules for fair and smooth trade relations, requiring us to think beyond our national borders.

Counterview:
It is now widely accepted that International Law is indeed a form of law. It is important to acknowledge that International Law does not originate from a sovereign entity and lacks a mechanism for enforcement. Nonetheless, it can be argued that International Law is relatively weak in comparison to municipal laws. Many International lawyers do not support this perspective, asserting that the absence of strong sanctions in International Law does not imply a complete lack of enforcement measures.

There are some jurists who do not view international law as the ultimate focus of jurisprudence. According to them, there exists a distinction between state law and international law. They argue that the state cannot simply pass legislation regarding international law, but there is still a mechanism in place for its enforcement.

"International Law is obeyed and complied with by the states themselves because it is in the interests of states." They provide the subsequent reasoning for this particular item.

The verdicts issued by the International Court of Justice carry legal weight and must be adhered to by nations.

In the event that a state fails to uphold the order or judgment issued by the International Court of Justice, it is within the purview of the Security Council to provide its recommendation against said state, potentially leading to further action.

The States have willingly and mandatorily acknowledged the judicial authority of the International Court of Justice.

The verdict of the International Court of Justice has been adhered to up until the present moment.

The development of the system of enforcement, consisting of sanctions and fear, has taken place.

If there happens to be any sort of danger or potential harm to the tranquillity and stability of the global community, the Security Council, in accordance with chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, has the authority to undertake essential measures in order to uphold or reinstate harmony and welfare on an international scale. Apart from this, it is important to note that the determinations made by the International Court of Justice carry immense significance as they are deemed conclusive and obligatory for all parties involved in a particular disagreement.

Criticism:
The phrase "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence" has faced criticism due to its potential oversimplification of the breadth and relevance of jurisprudence. One notable critique is that the statement tends to disregard the critical role played by domestic legal systems and their influence on individuals' daily lives.

Traditionally, jurisprudence revolves around comprehending the essence of law within the framework of individual nations, delving into matters of justice, rights, and governance at a local scale. Neglecting the significance of domestic laws might result in an incomplete grasp of the intricacies of legal philosophy since local legal systems hold immense power in shaping societal norms and individual rights.

Furthermore, there are critics who claim that the phrase may exaggerate the worldwide aspect of law while underemphasizing the significance of having multiple legal systems. Instead of acknowledging the existence of different legal orders such as national, regional, and international laws, the phrase suggests a hierarchical relationship where international law is given more importance.

However, in reality, having multiple legal systems coexisting is recognized by legal pluralism. Each system contributes to the overall legal landscape. Failing to consider this complexity could diminish the depth of discussions about jurisprudence that go beyond just the global scope.

Moreover, the excessive importance placed on international law as the ultimate focal point may pose a risk of disregarding and devaluing other crucial legal domains that exist within the confines of our own nation. Jurisprudence encompasses an extensive array of legal theories, encompassing constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law, each possessing its own unique set of philosophical debates and principles.

A narrow-minded fixation on international law has the potential to overshadow and diminish the intricate inquiries into jurisprudential matters within these distinct legal arenas, thereby potentially constraining and restricting our comprehensive comprehension of legal philosophy in relation to various facets of society. Essentially, the exclusive concentration on international law within this phrase might culminate in an incomplete depiction of the wider panorama that constitutes juridical studies.

Conclusion:
The saying "International Law is the vanishing point of Jurisprudence" conveys the idea that delving into international law poses a challenge to traditional legal thinking. It delves into the boundaries of familiar legal concepts within a nation and brings forth complexities such as diversity, fragmentation, and limited enforcement on a global scale.

Manoeuvring through this vast international legal landscape pushes the limits of conventional legal thought, causing traditional theories to seem less relevant or even confrontational in light of the intricate issues arising from global cooperation and the coexistence of different legal systems.