IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTment legal advisers discuss a number of crises during which they were called on to provide legal assistance as the government sought to craft an appropriate and effective response. The question of the degree to which States believe they are obligated to follow international law is a key, but not exclusive, element of the role international law will play in shaping foreign policy. As such, the so-called compliance debate factors significantly into a Legal Adviser's approach and is heavily reflected in the structured conversations with the Legal Advisers in the subsequent chapters. Although each of the Legal Advisers, regardless of their nationality or political party, subscribes to the view that law does matter and there is an obligation by States to comply with international legal obligations, their views are quite varied when it comes to which norms and principles constitute binding law, the interpretation of those binding rules, and the Legal Advisers' obligations when they believe that their government is violating international law. Most importantly, and possibly most interesting, is that the Legal Advisers hold a diverse array of perspectives and have differing opinions as to their role in ensuring proper adherence to international law and their individual approaches to fulfilling that role.

To ensure that the reader is able to follow and appreciate the nuanced approaches of the different Legal Advisers, this chapter briefly reviews the scholarly debate regarding State compliance with international law.