This paper discusses the question of whether international law deserves to be called law. The ineffectiveness of international law in the face of military power is well known, but the role of international law in preventing most disputes and conflicts among nations from reaching the point of war is often ignored. It is argued that international law is, for all its shortcomings, a vital mechanism for keeping most of the world at peace most of the time.
When, in 1979, the revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran took hostage the entire staff of the American Embassy in Tehran, it was a violation of a precept of international û- "the sanctity of the harald" û- that could be traced back to the dawn of recorded history. The United States government brought this gross violation of international law before the World Court, got a favorable ruling, and called for sanctions. These actions had no effect, and the hostages were held until Khomeini either grew tired of humiliating outgoing President Jimmy Carter, or feared what Ronald Reagan (whose bark was laud and whose bite was yet untested) might do in response.
A few years later, the shoe was on the other foot. The U.S. covertly mined harbors in Nicaragua, a nation whose government we recognized and with which we were formally at peace. This time, it was the Nicaraguans who protested under international law and took their case to the World Court. The Reagan administration's haughty response was to deny that the Court had jurisdiction.
These two incidents from recent years probably sums up the reasons why many people regard international law as something less than real law, if not an outright contradiction in terms. For a fundamental element of our everyday conception of law is the element of enforcement (Kelsen, 1966, p. 19-20). The law solemnly establishes speed limits on our highways, and we declare that good citizens have a duty to obey it û- but we quietly acknowledge ...