We are living through a defining moment in international law. The pace of globalization makes cooperation through international law and institutions vital. The recent SARS scare, exponentially magnified by the ease of international travel, poignantly illuminates the proactive, standard-setting role that international rules, such as World Health Organization regulations, can and should play. Yet public impatience with international law is mounting. Paradoxically, this unease may be the product of international law’s maturity and success. For the first time since World War II, states have consistently embraced international institutions to assist in the management of prominent international issues. From the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) to the U.S. engagement of the United Nations Security Council prior to the Iraqi conflict, states have turned to, or at least paused to reflect upon, international law, catapulting it prominently into public view. Admittedly, international law’s record in these cases is mixed at best. But precisely because of widespread reliance on international law in these high-profile roles, its failures have become a focal point for public skepticism and criticism.