THIS BOOK BEGAN WITH FIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE of international law and the role of State Department and Foreign Ministry Legal Advisers. The following answers emerged from our structured conversations with these Legal Advisers.

Did the Legal Advisers Perceive International Law to Be Binding Law?

Since the dawn of the Cold War, there has been a rich tradition of skepticism about the “legality” of international law on both endsof the political spectrum. John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush Administration, once declared: “International law is not law; it is a series of political and moral arrangements that stand or fall on their own merits, and anything else is simply theology and superstition masquerading as law.” None of the Legal Advisers engaged for this project would agree with that extreme position. Importantly, neither the United States nor any other government has ever taken the position that international law is not binding on it.

The Legal Advisers commonly perceived international law as real law that is binding on their governments and that operates as a constraint on policymakers, even where important national security interests are at stake. In Chapter 7, Abe Sofaer illustrated the constraints presented by international law in his discussion of the seizure of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro by PLO operatives. The terrorists were put on a plane in Egypt for safe haven in Tunis, and the United States sought to thwart their escape. According to Sofaer: