Natural law / natural justice is defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd as:

"A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, and aided by divine revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with equal obligation to individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id 4, note. See Jus NATURALE. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99. This expression, “natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical speculations of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered “according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a “state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, aud promptings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. See Maine, Anc. Law, 50, et seq. We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; and divine laws are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; (2) positive or revealed laws. A natural law is defined by Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says that these are called “natural NATURALE EST QUIDLIBET 805"

If everyone observed natural law, "do no harm" would likely be its catchphrase.  When you do a global search for natural law, you'll find the words "concept," "theory," and "philosophy" a lot.  This is because the theory may be taught in law school but the implementation of it in this reality isn't.

Most of us know that governments are part of the corporate world.  Most cities and towns in the United States were incorporated in the 1960's, and through federal funding grants, became beholden to the federal government by accepting funds from them.  For example, if a state accepts federal grant money through The Federal Highway Safety Act, they're committing themselves to providing a certain number and quality of services related to transportation to the public as set by the terms and conditions of the Act.  It's a contract.  Federal grant money is considered "public" money, and when a state accepts it, the state is beholden to the public to perform to the terms of the contract with the Feds.  The terms are fluid and are negotiated according to the needs of the state and the availability of funds for certain projects and equipment.

Like all corporations, governments have rules, policies and procedures along with statutes and codes that their employees are paid to follow.  Most have strict guidelines and are taught that the statutes and codes apply to the public.  This isn't true, but this is what they know.

If a government employee harms you while acting within the scope of his or her employment, how will you obtain relief?   Not an easy question for most people.

Well, if you're injured by an employee of a grocery store in its parking lot, to whom do you report it first, the police, or the grocery store owner?  Who's responsible?  That's easy.  The grocery store owner.  

But can I just take that individual into a court of natural justice and get relief?  Nope.

This is because the corporation protects those who follow its policies and procedures as long as they're operating within the scope of their employment.  They hire attorneys, call the insurance company, and reprimand the employee, if necessary, for stepping out of the boundary.  If you are seriously injured and their remedy doesn't give you relief, you can file a tort claim against the employee and often recover -- but you have to stay in their sandbox in order for them to be able to give you relief.  There is remedy, it's obscure but it's there.  And this is all they have to provide.

Can you force a corporation with policies, procedures, statutes and codes, who pays employees to follow them, to adhere to a law you say they should adhere to?  Nope.

Why would I want to take an employee of a corporation / government (a natural person) who injured me into a court of natural justice and think I can get relief?

I can't.  Because there is no jurisdiction.  It's apples and oranges.  When you attempt to force a body to adhere to a law you say they should comply with, aren't you exposing them to harm in some way?  Put yourself in their shoes for a minute.

Can I set up a court that I say operates in natural law and practices natural justice, find a judge and a jury, and convict corporate employees in absentia for harming me, or anyone else, and operate lawfully and with jurisdiction, and go get relief with a judgment in my favor according to the principles of natural law?  Nope.  

It's a noble effort, but not realistic, and it will never provide relief because those we might call upon to enforce it don't ultimately answer to us.  Their law is not natural law, so how would natural law apply to them?   

If you want to take, for example, the CEO of Bank of America into court and have him answer to crimes he may have committed against you, how would you enforce a subpoena, and how would you enforce a judgment in a natural law court?

You can't.

Some people would say, "well, I'm not a part of their corporate government and I don't recognize them.  So I shouldn't have to go by their laws, either." 

Agreed.  Then answer me, how would you get relief for an injury they caused you?  And wouldn't you expect the corporate / government employee you're going after to feel the same way about your law?

If there was a consensus of the public, however, that natural law is now the law of the land and all the states through legislature ratified it, that's different.  Now there is jurisdiction in law, along with enforcement, and relief.

In the international realm, if all countries adopted natural law by the will and consensus of the people, this could work.  And I'm not talking about a small group of people compared to the billions on the planet starting their own court.  I'm talking about the demand of the overwhelming majority of the people on this planet to make it happen, complete with a court run by the people to show them this is real.

If that were the case, count me in.

The ITNJ is not a public court.  It doesn't have the authority of the people through demand by the people for its existence.  Additionally, its similarity to the corporate-run courts of today is what will keep it from ever achieving its stated purpose.