Law professors Goldsmith and Posner have an excellent and very relevant op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on Europe’s sentiments toward international law. Goldsmith and Posner argue, as they do in their book The Limitations of International Law, that international law is predominantly based on state interests. This is as much the case in Europe as anywhere else. The only difference is that Europeans often like to portray themselves as adhering to international law whereas previous and current US administrations have made no attempts to hide their scepticism toward certain international legal regimes. Goldsmith and Posner argue that issues like extraordinary rendition, ban on meats containing growth hormones, import bans on GMO induced products and the area of climate change (where some EU states will fail in their Kyoto obligations) clearly indicate that European countries equally disregard international standards when it is in their interest to do so. Why then do many Europeans call for and expect a more “European-like” approach to international law and relations by recent president-elect Obama? Goldsmith and Posner argue that one reason is historical – Europeans have traditionally favoured international consensus. This is probably correct as the economic prosperity witnessed across Europe today is to a great extent rooted in international and regional integration. However, it would suit European leaders if they would come clean and admit to their “pick and choose” approach to international law. At the same time, it appears unrealistic, if not outright hypocritical, to hope for greater US involvement in international law under President Obama if some European countries continue to pursue national interests.