9.1 The International System
9.1.1 International law was not separate from internal law, as it is
today. The paradigmatic form of the state was monarchy. Its theo-
retical basis was the domestic household, that is, the territory and
population of the state constituted a household, and the king was
head of household. Like any head of household, he could enter into
obligations that bound his subjects and was responsible for crimes
committed by and upon them. International law was therefore based
on principles of law common to all the civilizations of the region.
At the same time, the peculiarities of international discourse endowed
it with its own special character.9.1.2 What made the society of sovereign states special was that
their kings were answerable to no human tribunal. Instead, they were
under the direct jurisdiction of the gods. In practice, this meant that
breach of the international rules could only be remedied by self-
help; in theory, the king in doing so was acting as a human agent
for divine retribution. In addition, direct divine retribution could be
expected in the form of drought, plague, or defeat in battle. Since
the existence of the gods was universally regarded as a fact, the
divine tribunal was as real in ancient eyes as a modern court of
international justice and probably not much less effective. Of course,
treaties and rules were broken, but no ruler would undertake an act
of aggression without seeking to justify it before his gods in terms
of international law, however weak his grounds. The gods could be
disobeyed; they could not be disregarded.9.1.2.1 Given that different nations might worship entirely different
gods, a certain theological tolerance was necessary for the system to
work. To some extent, this could be achieved by synchretism: there
was only one sun in the sky, if worshipped under different names.
But there was also “recognition” of the other party’s gods, who were
expected to punish their own subject for his sin against them in
breaching international rules. The ancient protagonists’ approach,
not being conceptualized, remains somewhat impenetrable but it
would seem that the divine tribunal was regarded sometimes as con-
sisting of one’s own gods, sometimes of the other party’s gods, and
sometimes of a sort of joint committee. 83
WESTBROOK_F2_1-90 8/27/03 1:39 PM Page 83