The previous chapter having demonstrated how the narrative of indifference can be traced back to international law’s disciplinary identity, this chapter seeks to understand when and why this historical account emerged and still dominates scholarship. It brings a twofold ‘emotional’ explanation. The first relied on the work of Festinger and argues that ‘indifference’ emerged during the interwar as a narrative remedy for a cognitive dissonance between the belief that international law is a vector of order and the events of World War I. It transformed a failure of international law into a triumph of international law. It allowed the discipline to restore coherence between beliefs and facts and, by the same token, salvage the inside and outside credibility of the discipline. The second explanation highlights how the narrative of indifference can also be read as an expression of ‘exultant relief’ at the culmination of 50 years of pro-arbitration efforts on the part of international lawyers.