The subject allotted to me by the convokers of this convocation is as difficult a subject as is known to the indisciplines of international law and relations. If the US dollar had not so depreciated, it might be termed “the sixty-four dollar question.” Or, to sustain the materialistic metaphor which characterizes our society, compliance might be described as the “bottom line” in the accounting of international law.

It is obvious enough that international law is a meaningful force in the affairs of men only to the extent that men and their instruments comply with that law. Nevertheless, among international lawyers there is a certain tendency to avoid grappling with problems of compliance. Compliance sometimes appears to be assumed, or it may be treated as a problem more of politics than law. Or it is affirmed that compliance is predominant and that indeed the record of compliance with international law compares favorably with that of the domestic law of States. One way or another, the need for the international lawyer to confront the awful truths of noncompliance may be reasoned away. But diplomats, politicians, political scientists, the press, and others who handle, mishandle, manhandle, or merely interpret international relations do not fall victim to the error of discounting the importance of compliance with international law. They tend to fall into still more fundamental error. They overlook the importance of international law itself. Citing actual or alleged noncompliance with international law, they may conclude that international law does not exist, or is not “law,” or at any rate does not govern the really important things that States do.