I respect greatly the principles and intellectual calibre of the Foreign Office lawyers who today gave evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry.
I am afraid, however, I largely view "international law" as a well-meaning fiction.
As Elizabeth Wilmshurst correctly conceded, it is not enforceable, at least as it stands.
I share fully the liberal - but normative view - that it should be enforceable, but as a positive statement of law (in any meaningful way), "international law" does not exist.
If you say softly it should exist, I will agree.
If you demand loudly that it should exist, I am with you.
But, if you say it does exist, then I will have to ask you where and how it is enforceable.
For, to adapt Tim Minchin in Storm, what do you call "international law" which is actually enforceable before a court or tribunal?
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.