Final answer:
National law is generally more enforceable within a country's borders, giving it practical strength over subjects within that territory. International law, while having broader jurisdiction, lacks a centralized enforcement authority, making its strength and effectiveness depend on the willingness of states to comply and enforce. Thus, the relative strength of international versus national law often depends on the nature and context of the issue.
Step-by-step explanation:
In assessing which one is relatively more strong and effective in its application, it's important to recognize the complexities of both international law and national law. National law tends to be more enforceable within a specific territory, giving it a higher degree of immediate power and control over its subjects. On the other hand, international law has broader jurisdiction but often lacks a central enforcement mechanism. This makes its effectiveness dependent on the will and power of states, which can be inconsistent. Certain areas of international law, such as the law of the sea, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights law, show how moral obligations and functional needs can drive legal development and compliance, despite the absence of a central enforcement authority.
Additionally, the enforcement mechanisms for international law, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC), rely on states to respect and enforce their decisions. The effectiveness of international law is often undermined when powerful states choose not to recognize these institutions, as is the case with the ICC and certain nations like the United States, Russia, and China. Therefore, the question of strength and effectiveness between international law and national law can depend on the context and nature of the issue at hand, making the answer neither purely A nor B, but closer to C: It depends on the context and nature of the issue.