482 Conclusionpurely utilitarian set of practices agreed among states, and therefore reduc-
ible ultimately to contractual arrangements. Some believe international law
to be a set of mora l prescriptions, a ltoget her distinct from actua l conduct— so
that the challenge of lawyers is to bring conduct into line with the rules to the
greatest extent possible. Within this group, some see international law as a
systematic and comprehensive system. Others see it as a menu of specifi c
rules, with gaps remaining where no rules have been made. A rival vision
holds international law to be fundamentally descriptive— that is, as a distil-
lation or summation of the general practices of states. Others believe inter-
national law to be descriptive of the features of a par tic u lar social system as
such. Some insist that international law is, more than anything else, about
human welfare, so that human rights, good governance, and economic de-
velopment lie at its heart. Some would enlist international law as a guardian
of diversity and pluralism. Others would have it as a homogenizing agent,
bringing universal standards to bear across the world.
In the course of our journey, we have seen all of these, and more. Our
story has been less the stately progress of a monolithic “thing” called inter-
national law, and more an account of how these various competing visions
have moved onto, and off of, center stage, come into and out of focus (or
fashion), and jostled and manuevered to gain the advantage over rivals. At
its very broadest, international law could be seen as a perpetual dialogue
between two competing mentalities. Th ey could be characterized in many
diff erent ways— as idealistic and pragmatic, for example, or as maximalist
and minimalist. But the diff erence is between those who believe that inter-
national law is best seen as a dispute- settlement system, resolving confl icts
between in de pen dent and heterogeneous agents, as opposed to those who
see international law as a vehicle for the advance of civilization, enlighten-
ment, human dignity, and so on. Where the one group hears the smack of
the gavel, the other hears the blast of the trumpet.
In certain respects, our history might be seen as a sort of theater—
complete with constant changes of cast and plot lines. But if so, then we
must acknowledge the playwright to be singularly adept at concealing his or
her overall story line. Our history, sadly, cannot claim to be a script for the
future. But it is hoped that it enables its readers to watch— and even to par-
ticipate in— the drama with a greater sense of awareness of what is happen-
ing at any given time. Our ability to recognize the players, even when they