Customary international law: not merely fiction or myth

The concept and application of customary international law in modem international law are often controversial. Much debate exists on the definition of this law and its consistent application. Many questions arise such as what do we ask of international law? What does it need to be? What constitutes 'good' international law or does it even exist? Should there be just one source of international law or are several sources better? How does one determine whether international law has failed or that it is a myth or fiction instead? This article will argue that the definition debate is poorly defined. For example, it misses the point on the true value of customary international law by assuming that a clear definition is advantageous and therefore needed. In some of the debates on its consistent application this has focused mainly on a limited number of cases and fails to convert into a serious question. The article will argue that it is wrong to assume that inconsistency in the approach to the substance of customary international law is an issue. Instead, the issue concerns the person making the assumption more than the assumption itself. Finally, it will be shown that customary international law influences and regulates state behaviour, a fact that gives this law its legitimacy. As a result, customary international law is far from being a fiction or myth. On the other hand, it is a valuable source of international law due particularly to its flexible nature