On the 9th of February, Christ’s Hospital welcomed 4 Old Blue (alumni) Lawyers to adjudicate a debate with the motion, ‘This house believes that international law cannot be effectively enforced.’

The debate followed the British Parliamentary (BP) format, which involves four teams — two teams debating for each side of the argument.

The debate began at 19:30 with an initial vote, where the proposition took the majority.

Points raised within the first proposing and opposing teams included the impracticality of international law, especially given the different governments found throughout the world.

The opposition rebutted these arguments with the reasoning that to judge international law solely by its economic impacts is wrong, and to also consider the fact that international law fosters peace.

Two more speakers raised their points, mentioning the topics of compromise, sanctions, and compliance with international law.

The proposition challenged the importance of reputational costs when a country violates international law. This was countered with the claim of confirmation bias being applied to the argument, to which an analogy was used: ‘Just because one person evades taxes, does that mean that taxes are ineffective as a whole?’

A break then followed, during which the floor was open for questions to the debaters.

A member of the first opposition team, IJ, said she found the debate ‘interesting,’ and ‘a very good opportunity for us young people to get together and do something that really matters […] especially in today’s society.’

Given time to prepare their speeches, the opposition whip and government whip firstly answered questions, before summarising the matters raised by their team throughout the debate.

The opposition whip, who spoke first, gave a clear overview of the opposition’s arguments, before leaving the audience with a powerful question: ‘Would you rather live in a lawless world or one with imperfect law?’

The government whip expressed the views of the proposition succinctly, and implied that if stability cannot be achieved nationwide, it cannot be enforced effectively on an international scale.

A closing vote was conducted, this time with the opposition winning over the majority of voters.

Sir Rupert Jackson, one of the visiting Old Blues, gave feedback to the speakers, before he and the other visitors — Paul Chaplin, James Tyler, and Tamas Lorinczy held a Q&A session for the students.

This evening of debate proved to be beneficial, not only for the speakers, but also for those who watched.