Non-tyrannical states may be tyrannical when acting beyond their borders. Since antiquity, imperialism is the principal example of external tyranny. Post-war scholarship recognises the broadening scope of domination and neo-imperialism in an ever more complex global governance order. Domestic constitutionalism is no bulwark against the same state acting as tyrant abroad. Domestic orders remain – partially by design – a weak basis to restrain states from such tyrannical (international legal) tendencies. Both Aristotle and Arendt pointed to exemplifiers, and this chapter argues that the current international legal order presents many more. Tyranny needs to be added to this analysis, even as international law seeks to cloak itself in constitutionalised legitimacy. External imperial tyranny is detrimental on two fronts. Imperialism is harmful to those upon whom it falls, but also upon the tyrannical actors themselves and those that fall under their internal governance. Power, which is tyrannical in one place but constitutionalised in another, causes harm to both groups. It is impossible to hive the good order from the bad if the constituted power holders are the same. But there is a second binarity. A Janus-faced state that inwardly acts constitutionally while externally acting imperially contributes to a larger tyrannical order. Within that order, a second Janus appears, where those subject to the interventions of states or international organisations must comply with precepts of ‘good governance’ while inter-state relations and international organisations rely on rule by law.