Summary

In the wake of the events that took place in Crimea, it was admitted in many parts that there is a crisis in international law. It is often claimed that legal disagreements, such as the annexation of Crimea, have deep cultural roots. More broadly there is a growing interest in the phenomenon found in the literature in the field of international law that hiding under the apparent consensus – and the anticipated differences of opinion – are different approaches from one country to another towards international law. This belief has been motivated over the past few years by a significant number of studies, which either view the treatment of international law in a comparison of countries or focus on a single country, with the goal of describing some differences in the interpreting community.

The article attempts to show that the comparative international legal project (as it is predominantly handled in literature) is constructed on a false foundation. The relationship between culture and international law, as is the case with force and legality, is not a straight line. The arguments for international law related arguments are not the expression of one or another culture in the same way that interpretations concerning national regulations are. Rather, the peculiarities of international law are expressed in the need to dress up interpretations in an internationally acceptable form – if necessary, to protect one’s (cultural peculiarities) objectives in universal legal language.