In chapter 3, I argue that international law appeared in the 2003 debates primarily as an autonomous reason for or against war. Speakers invoked the legality or illegality of the invasion of Iraq as reason enough, on its own, to justify or condemn Australia’s actions. Speakers constructed international law as a measure of the justifiability of government action separate from any other measure such as morality or participation in an alliance, calling on a power that they believed international legal status would create. The 2003 debates included some examples of international law as a collective justification, but these were generally subordinate to the autonomous form of international legal language.

In chapter 4, I examine the debates of 1965–66 over Australia’s participation in the Vietnam War. In 1965–66, the UN Charter regulated the use of force by states but the success of international legal arguments in the public debates did not depend on the ability of the speaker to characterise an argument as a ‘legal’ one. Successful use of international legal language in the 1965–66 debates depended on the ability of the speaker to cast international law as something more than merely law – as either a standard of morality or a manifestation of an alliance. The legality or illegality of Australia’s actions was not enough, on its own, to provide a persuasive justification for war in 1965–66.