Conversely, a state may fail to contribute, through choice or through non-recognition by other states, to negotiations of treaties.
The consensual nature of international law, that is, the fact that a state is only bound by those laws to which it has explicitly or implicitly consented, has prompted observations that it must therefore also be ineffective. Two main schools of thought exist regarding this. The Apologist would contend that international law merely expresses in rule-language that which states choose to do, and therefore cannot be considered a constraint on or regulation of states" actions and decisions. The Utopian would claim that international law in fact does aim to restrict the behavior of states, and is not entirely dependent upon the consent of states, but nonetheless tends to be disregarded.
As a final observation on the nature of international law, it is worth mentioning the similarities between the Realist interpretation and that of the Austinian Command Theory.
in legal scholarship. The command theory of law suggests that compliance with law can be equated with behavior at gunpoint. Law is imposed upon actors as the command of the leader or sovereign. Clearly this theory will interpret international law as no law at all, as there exists no commanding and enforcing lawmaker in international society, or as rules imposed by the most powerful actor upon the rest. .
The question arises on this point. It is mostly the problem of enforcement which bring the question up. Is international law "really" law in the absence of effective enforcement machinery?.
Whenever there is a serious breach of international law, the question of whether international law is really "law" is asked and an answer tried to be found. International lawyers and scholars have a vested professional interest in calling it 'law." Or they may agree to talk about international law as if it were law, a sort of quasi-law or near-law.