I must confess that to some extent I have been playing 'devil's advocate'. I am a final year law student and have undertaken a considerable amount of study on international law. It is an exceedingly complex area. As such my purpose in raising the considerations I have is to hopefully provoke some thought on how we approach and view the international laws and conventions of the Nap era. There are no absolutes in law and this is especially true in the international arena. Of course I have no problem with it being studied and applied to Nap history, but I feel that it must be done carefully. Hence the questions I have been raising, and which my study of international law has convinced me are fundamental to understanding it - why was it created? who created it? whose interests does it serve? whose standards and customs does it purport to represent? is it enforceable, and if so by whom? how acceptable, recognised and obeyed is it by various parties? who does it apply to? what powers, contexts and interests may overule it? how may it be used to analyse and judge the actions of people? what other factors are relevant in such an analysis?

Isn't law fun?

Regards,
Chris