THERE IS SOMETHING peculiar about international law. Ever since its emergence as an autonomous professional discipline, international law has been a contested object. For how can law exist – let alone rule – among sovereign nations that recognise no authority beyond their own? What can be the significance of a legal system in which juridical subjects themselves, and most notably powerful ones, control the meaning and enforcement of legal rules? In any case, should one really speak of ‘international’ law when, historically, this law has been created by and for European nations? Although at the turn of the twentieth century international law has consolidated its position within the academy, through the creation of new chairs, learned societies and scientific publications, scepticism remains high. International law is too different from the familiar forms and techniques of municipal law. It seems primitive, weak and under-elaborated. Above all, international law is accused of being either too philosophical or too political