It has been argued that international law is not law. Critics allege that it lacks a centralised legislature, judiciary and executive. As a result, international law is argued to be unenforceable and inaccessible. In this article, I will illustrate why this view is fallacious and flawed. International law differs from domestic law and may lack such institutions and qualities in equivalent form. However, international law fulfils these functions in a competent manner. The lack of centralised institutions does not diminish the validity of international law. I will highlight how there is indeed an effective executive, legislature, and judiciary in international law, despite lack of a centralised characteristic. I will also illustrate how its laws are enforceable and accessible.