International law is undergoing a period of transformation in the context of a rapidly changing climate and the new geopolitical situation to which it is giving rise. Many international lawyers view the current era of exit from or challenge to existing international laws and institutions as one of crisis in the international legal order. In contrast, this chapter suggests that international lawyers should not automatically position ourselves in opposition to this process of change. The idea that international law is primarily committed to achieving certainty is the product of a way of thinking that is characteristic of times that are stable. Yet the assumption that the political and physical worlds that form the backdrop to international law will remain relatively stable is based on the conditions of an era that is passing. In a time of significant geopolitical and physical change, international lawyers need not automatically approach the remaking of international institutions or the withdrawal from treaties, even hard-won multilateral treaties, as necessarily a bad thing. In other words, there is no reason why international lawyers should necessarily defend all existing law and institutions, or see ourselves as guardians of the status quo. It is possible to think in strategic, positive, or at least pragmatic terms about the roles that international lawyers might play in a time of transformation.