Almost everything we do -games, night clubs, workplaces, schools- has a set of rules of morality and custom which tell us what we should do or should not do. Law helps to create safe and peaceful society that individuals rights are respected and protected. Those rules, that are made by governments called law, are enforced by the courts. If someone breaks that law, he has to pay a fine, pay for the damage or sometimes even may go to the jail. Since world population increased and different societies emerged, laws became requirements to control and hold the societies not to face the situation of danger and chaos. As a result, even in a well-ordered societies, people may have conflicts and disagreements and in these situations, rather than fighting and subverting, they turn to law and courts to decide who is right who is not. Law is a body of rules of conduct of binding legal force, but also there are other several ways to think about law, even though law has no universally accepted definition. In the domestic law, law is seen as the government issues, that are created generally by the legislature, to control society and lives of people. On the other hand , international law is different in the means of its structure. Domestic law has legislative body that creates those rules and laws, judicatory body which interprets that rules and laws and lastly executive branch that enforce those rules, sometimes using the police force if necessary. In international law system, there is no legislative, judicatory and executive force. To compare international lawyers and domestic lawyers, international lawyers need more time and more energy to explain the authority of sources and the content of norms, but domestic lawyers count on constitutions, codes, laws and a wealth of judicial decisions. Thus, basically defined, international law includes set of rules that are related to countries willingness to follow or not to deal with each other. As a result of anarchical structure of international law, no international law can be imposed upon states except of their own decision and choosing, so that there is a little pressure by international law upon domestic law to make its norms part of domestic law. Moreover, international law starts from the position of complete freedom of states and also it is not an obligation but restricting. International law is a kind of tool that states use to achieve their certain outcomes, rather than telling them what outcomes they should reach. There is an absence of unique government and enforcing entity in international law system. Unlike domestic projects, the international legal project is largely procedural rather than purposive, it is about coordination rather than subordination, a system aimed at protecting coexistence rather than some common substantive goal. (Megret, Frederic. "International Law as Law." International Law. 67. Print.) This structure gives a way to these questions; is international law really law? Where people find the rules of international law? Are they written in somewhere? How is international law enforced if there is no world government? There are five specific currents; the deniers, the idealists, the reformists, the apologists and the critics, who are involved in a discussion about whether international law is really law. To focus on the deniers, they think that international law is a law except morality. As a result, international law lacks of form of centralized and systematic enforcement. In this framework, international law is a tool (to be used based on its usefulness) rather than a framework (binding and determinative). For these reasons, they advocate that international law could never become fully law. In this sense, international law limits states sovereignty and it is only the self-imposed limitations by states; deeply system of promises (which lets states not to keep their commitment). The idealists, however, thinks that sovereignty cannot be its own legal source, international law has its own sources of authority, and this idea refers that there is always something prior, higher power than the state like in the issues of human rights. the idealists support the idea that international law is a law because it is somehow controlled and directed by some other higher sources and sovereignty is not base of everything. The reformists want to reform international law and they express the idea that international law as it exists is better than no law, but they have some doubts about its primitiveness; they focus on more purposive concept of international law.