The justification of international public law in the “world community” is an issue that has led some of the brightest minds in jurisprudence to engage in many of the most fascinating ongoing legal debates. There are those who argue that international public law is pointless and proof of that is the systematic violations to international law by some of the most powerful nations in the world – including those in the UN Security Council. Others coherently reply to that objection saying that if violations to the law were enough to render a legal order pointless, then all legal systems are obsolete, for despite our civil and criminal codes and legislations people are killed and robbed every day. The questions around international law are many and the levels of complexity are so that a simple post in a law student’s little blog really won’t even begin to provide insight on the issue. But because lately circumstances in my academic life have led me to do a lot of reading on this matter, I came across what I perceive as an outstanding justification of international law in Malcolm N. Shaw’s book titled International Law:

Where countries are involved in a disagreement or a dispute, it is handy to have recourse to the rules of international law even if there are conflicting interpretations since at least there is a common frame of reference and one state will be aware of how the other state will develop its argument. They will both be talking a common language and this factor of communication is vital since misunderstandings occur so easily and often with tragic consequences. Where the antagonists dispute the understanding of a particular rule and adopt opposing stands as regards its implementation, they are at least on the same wavelength and communicate by means of the same phrases. That is something. It is not everything, for it is a mistake as well as inaccurate to claim for international law more than it can possibly deliver. It can constitute a mutually understandable vocabulary book and suggest possible solutions which follow from a study of its principles. What it cannot do is solve every problem no matter how dangerous or complex merely by being there. International law has not yet been developed, if it ever will, to that particular stage and one should not exaggerate its capabilities while pointing to its positive features.

As with other issues of international law, I doubt anyone could have put it in better words.