ABSTRACT
A better approach to dealing with "rogue" regimes would be to follow the traditional rules of international law. These permit self-defense, that is, action by a state against another that is threatening its national interests–a right that was fully incorporated into the United Nations Charter. The traditional rules give rogue regimes less reason to develop weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, they still permit significant scope for unite united state action. On the facts, the conservative critics of international law are mostly right. Even traditional international law was not made by an elected, accountable legislature; was often ambiguous to the point of being unknowable; was not enforceable by regular judicial processes; and accorded totalitarian dictatorships the same legal status as democratic republics. The good news is that international law, properly configured, should not be viewed as a burden for our foreign policy. Rather, it can function as a positive force, capable of promoting a more stable international environment.
