[E]very international dispute is of a political character, if by that is meant that it is of importance to the State in question. Thus viewed, the proposition that some legal questions are political is an understatement of what is believed to be the true position. The State is a political institution, and all questions which affect it as a whole, in particular in its relations with other States, are therefore political . . . [but] it is equally easy to show that all international disputes are, irrespective of their gravity, disputes of a legal character in the sense that, so long as the rule of law is recognised, they are capable of an answer by the application of legal rules.

I don’t think intellectuals do very well talking about the need for the world to be democratic, or the need for human rights to be better respected worldwide. It’s not that the statement falls short of the desirable, but it contributes very little to either achieving its goal or adding to the rigour of the conversation. I think the way to defend and advance large abstractions in the generations to come will be to defend and protect institutions and law and rules and practices that incarnate our best attempt at those large abstractions.