Welcome back emkoxinh!
1) Again, some of your misspelling words are:
"pessimistics" is "persimists"
"enhence" is "enhance"
"obstackles" is "obstacles"
"thay" is "they"
"more over" is "moreover"
"gobal" is "global"
"relegious" to "religious"
2) I'll try to simplify some of your sentences to make it clearer:
"There are pessimistics who say that it is barriers like different views of crime of different countries as well as the distinction in relegious belief that affect the practicalbility of international laws. To start with, if international laws are implemented, hardly do they cometrue because one crime in this country can be seen serious but less in others. More over, people of varied religions hold ways of thinking about seriousness of crime. For example, according to the dogma of islamism, adulterty and robberies are tatamount to killing someone, and hence criminals may suffer life punishment for that while church believes rest on the idea of the examption of sin to provide them the chance to be self-aware and correct their behavior."
Opponents of international laws may argue that the difference in cultures and religions may influence its applicability. This means different punishments can be applied on the same level of crimes in different countries based on their own religions. For example, Islamist believe that rapists and robbers should receive life imprisonment or capital punishment, while Christians give these people a chance to correct their behaviors.
"However, proponents of common laws agure that not only do they enhence people’s awareness of crime but they also partially help to solve gobal issues. Firstly, knowing that in any crime committed, they will be undergoing a strict punishment regardless of where thay are, criminals will be warned and reduce there seriousness in their action. Secondly, when it comes to environment, in case of not agreeing upon a common treaty, the world would be put in danger. Different nations will discharge numerous amount of pollution without being criticized, in hope of quickening their economic development, and as a result, more natural disasters and more lives are claimed. Tsunami, ozone depletion and other current hazards are telling examples of lacking global effort in setting a consensus in the amount of waste allowed to be emitted among nations."
However, it seems that global laws can not only increase people's awareness of crime but also contribute to solve global issues. Firstly, international laws can easily be spread to the global population since they are consistent in every countries. As a result, potential criminals may stop committing crime if they know about the punishments in advance. Furthermore, environmental issues in many countries can also be reduced as a result of enforcing international laws. The greenhouse effect, ozone depletion and global warming are the consequences of lacking global effort in setting regulations to limit the amount of toxic substances to the environment.
I think some of your ideas are good. But you should simplify your sentence to reduce the mistakes and improve the readability (don't try to use difficult words) . In terms of spelling, you should use the grammar tools in Mr word to check for any misspelled words. All the best.