 An alternative way of dealing with the legitimacy of international law, given the absence of reliable enforcement mechanisms, is offered by Ronald Dworkin (2013). For Dworkin, legitimacy concerns not only a moral obligation of obedience, but one that is reliably enforceable through the courts. Given the absence of any international court with compulsory jurisdiction and reliable enforcement mechanisms, it could be argued that on this interpretation of legitimacy the question of international law’s legitimacy simply does not arise. As we noted previously (2.1), Dworkin avoids this sceptical conclusion by proceeding on the “fantasy” that such a court exists, that cases can be readily brought before it, and that there are effective sanctions to enforce its rulings. Dworkin claims we can discern the binding requirements of international law by asking: