Abstract

The purpose of this article is to compare contemporary preambles, especially those to multilateral treaties, with the preambles theorized by Plato in the "Laws". Our thesis is that preambles actually "persuade" states to implement treaty provisions and to justify the adoption of international legal instruments to their people, precisely as was argued by Plato in the "Laws". In order to demonstrate this thesis, we will describe the main characteristics of Plato's preambles and will provide textual evidence so as to point out their significance for an understanding of contemporary preambles. The article stresses the persuasive force that moral emotions may have if introduced in contemporary preambles.