that it is the threat of sanction, of the flashing red light of the patrol car, that keeps our foot off the accelerator.
If we associate the law with the police, then, it is not surprising that we find the concept of international law a difficult one, for there are clearly no effective "police" in international affairs. At one time it was hoped that the United Nations would fulfill the role of international policeman, but the record of UN enforcement has been spotty at best.
Should we then take international law seriously, or regard it merely as a pious platitude, to be invoked when convenient for political or propaganda purposes, and ignored otherwise? In this report it will be argued that international law -û in spite of its manifest shortcomings, particularly in the area of enforcement û is indeed a valid form of law, and one which for important reasons deserves our respect and support.
We will find that û- in spite of the sad record of war and international lawlessness û- that peace within international law is still the primary mode of interaction between nations. The world is not Beirut writ large. International politics is not a Habbesian jungle, a war of all against all. Not only do nations carry on an immense body of everyday business in a lawful way, but even nations with deep enmities between them do manage (most of the time) to seek peaceful redress of their differences through international law.
At the head of the bill of indictment of international law is, of course, the fact of war (Kelsen, 1966, p. 22-25). Aggressor nations can make war virtually with impunity, so long as their military means of making war are adequate to the purpose. The victims of aggression seldom have any real recourse save to defend themselves by military means. It is true that small and weak nations may be able to call upon more formidable allies, but these allies respond not as a policeman answering a "911" call, but...