The Austinian handicap of international law is well-know and has been widely discussed in the literature. It constitutes a common charge made by International Relations theorists against the international legal scholarship as a whole which is derided for deifying its object of study. From an Austinian perspective, international law cannot be considered a set of commands for it can only be enforced by moral sanctions. The ambition of this paper is certainly not to refute the Austinian handicap or to rebuild legality beyond enforcement. The modest point this contribution seeks to make is rather that Hart provides only a temporary respite from the Austinian handicap which he reintroduces in another form. In making that argument, this paper aims to provide some elements to critically re-evaluate the place of enforcement in our studies of international law.