This Article provides the first application of the emerging mixed jurisdiction jurisprudence to a comparative analysis of international law. Such a comparative law analysis is important today as the growth and increasing vitality of international juridical, administrative and legislative institutions is placing demands on international law not previously experienced. International law is unsure where to look for help in coping with these new stresses. In significant part this isolation can be attributed to a general view among international law scholars that international law is sui generis, and hence there is little to be gained from national legal systems. This Article seeks to rectify this problem by showing substantial congruence between international law and those national legal systems that may share many characteristics. The Article argues that those states that fit best with international law are those that have been classified as mixed jurisdictions. The result of this showing will be to open international law to the lessons leaned over the centuries by such mixed jurisdictions as Scotland, Louisiana, Quebec, South Africa and Israel.