Authority claims remain rooted in the antecedent existence of a degree of indeterminacy, in particular in the international legal system, in which a lack of systematicity characterises how international actors claim and exercise authority. The indeterminacies in international law give rise to certain practices and mechanisms designed to cure such deficiencies, and in particular these practices are observed by law-applying and law-interpreting bodies, of which international courts and tribunals tend to be the exemplars. These ‘authority claims’, far from being scattered and random claims for legitimation, in fact give a peek into international law’s structure as a legal system with mechanisms of determinability, these mechanisms being designed to privilege coherence and order. The discretion revealed in the practices of interpretation is in fact the outcome of interpretative practices, not their cause. Accordingly, the sustainable existence of a legal system remains rooted in the existence, identification, and study of its law-applying officials, whose authority depends in part on their recognition by a wider professional or epistemic community of international lawyers. The social and communitarian foundations of authority, therefore, complement any claims to interpretative authority engendered by the legal system itself.

权威要求仍然植根于一定程度的不确定性的先前存在，特别是在国际法律体系中，其中缺乏系统性是国际行为者如何要求和行使权威的特征。国际法的不确定性导致了某些旨在弥补这些缺陷的做法和机制，尤其是法律适用和法律解释机构遵守这些做法，国际法院和法庭往往是其中的典范。这些“权威主张”远非分散和随意的合法性主张，实际上让我们得以窥见国际法的结构，即作为具有可确定性机制的法律体系，这些机制旨在赋予一致性和秩序特权。解释实践中所揭示的自由裁量权实际上是解释实践的结果，而不是其原因。因此，法律体系的可持续存在仍然植根于其执法官员的存在、识别和研究，他们的权威部分取决于他们得到更广泛的国际律师专业或知识社区的认可。因此，权威的社会和社区基础，补充了法律体系本身产生的任何解释权威的主张。其权威部分取决于他们得到更广泛的国际律师专业或认知社区的认可。因此，权威的社会和社区基础，补充了法律体系本身产生的任何解释权威的主张。其权威部分取决于他们得到更广泛的国际律师专业或认知社区的认可。因此，权威的社会和社区基础，补充了法律体系本身产生的任何解释权威的主张。