undermine the rule. That is. if State A's policy is in fact to violate rule x. one could not reasonably expect it to conform to the rule simply because it made a dishonest statemen To be sure, the International Court of Justice(ICJ)in the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua(Nicaragua v United States), (Nicaragua v United States" )stated that If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or not the State's conduct is in fact justifiable on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than weaken the rule 6 As will discussed below, the ICJ's assertions regarding legal principles in its judgments are not binding on states generally, but even if the quoted language is considered simply on its merits it is hard to defend. Why do hypocritical statements confirm a legal principle if the law-making process is one in which legal principles derive from conduct creating g reasonable expect Surely, if it is known that a given state says one thing but does another, it would hardly be reasonable to rely on what the states says when forming expectations Suppose, however, that the proxy for behavior is not simply a statement, but adherence a treaty requiring certain behavior -how should this affect CIL?(Of course, regardless of its status as CIL, a rule established in a treaty is binding on states parties to the treaty. The question here is whether such a rule's incl a treaty should count as practice establishing a CiL obligation). In fact, it has long been established that states often rely on treaties as evidence of 151986ICJ.14 la.at98,186 17 See, discussion infra at nn. 207-2328 15 1986 I.C.J. 14. 16 Id. at 98, ¶ 186. 17 See, discussion infra at nn. 207-232. undermine the rule. That is, if State A’s policy is in fact to violate Rule X, one could not reasonably expect it to conform to the rule simply because it made a dishonest statement. To be sure, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States),15 (“Nicaragua v. United States”) stated that If a State acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or justifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or not the State’s conduct is in fact justifiable on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than weaken the rule.16 As will discussed below, the ICJ’s assertions regarding legal principles in its judgments are not binding on states generally,17 but even if the quoted language is considered simply on its merits, it is hard to defend. Why do hypocritical statements confirm a legal principle if the law-making process is one in which legal principles derive from conduct creating reasonable expectations? Surely, if it is known that a given state says one thing but does another, it would hardly be reasonable to rely on what the states says when forming expectations. Suppose, however, that the proxy for behavior is not simply a statement, but adherence to a treaty requiring certain behavior - how should this affect CIL? (Of course, regardless of its status as CIL, a rule established in a treaty is binding on states parties to the treaty. The question here is whether such a rule’s inclusion in a treaty should count as practice establishing a CIL obligation). In fact, it has long been established that states often rely on treaties as evidence of