Second Year option for third year Help please (International Law)

I am currently in my second and we have been given a chance to pick a topic for next year and one of them is International Law.

I just want to ask if anyone here who has ever study or is studying International law could give me any advice and direction on how good and hard it is compare to other general Laws such as (Criminal, Tort Contract, Public Law) and what are the exams like, is it Essays only or with Problem Questions ? Thank you in advance

P.S. At the minute I am not 100% sure which Legal route I want to take so If you have any other topic you studied that you would like to suggest instead of International Law please feel free.

I took Public International Law as a module during my degree and while I managed to score 71% overall it was probably the hardest earned first of all my subjects during the three years. Having said that I found it a very enjoyable and useful subject to study.

It is different from other areas of law you will probably have studied. While those other areas generally concern the settlement of disputes between individuals or individuals and the state, International Law is concerned primarily with the relationship between States. (Individuals do come into it in some ways, I'm generalising.) The sources of law are different. No longer are you concerned with statute and case law but with the Law of Treaties, individual treaties, Customary International Law, UN Resolutions (some binding, some non-binding) and with judicial decisions of a new and different range of courts, to you, such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or ad hoc international tribunals such as those dealing with the former Yugoslavia or Seirra Leone. The whole system of remedies and damages for breach are different as are the enforcement mechanisms. (Some go as far as suggesting that International Law is merely aspirational as it is ultimately unenforceable) Terminology can also be tricky - eg. in many instances it will be incorrect to use the term "war", the correct term should be "armed conflict", and "countries" don't exist, "States" do. So those are some of the difficulties that you will encounter.

Having pointed those out, however, I found it a fascinating and highly relevant subject. Did the US and UK breach International Law when they invaded Iraq? If so does any personal/criminal liability attach to Bush and Blair; before which court might they be made amenable, or have they acted with impunity? If the Syrian regime did use chemical weapons where did Obama find the legal authority to call for armed intervention? (Responsibility to Protect, but some scholars deny the doctrine has evolved sufficiently.) Is the use of drones in another sovereign State a breach of International Law? Is the Russian State currently in breach of International Law in the Crimea, if so what law? What if oil was discovered on the moon, who would own it or have the rights to it? Who owns the seas and which bits and for what purpose?

If finding the answers to those questions interests you then take the subject. If you couldn't care less about what happens in those far flung places then give it a miss. If you are considering postgrad study also consider taking international law as many LLM courses tend to have a more global, outward looking focus as opposed to an inward looking one. Also useful if studying European/International human rights or think you might later be interested in International Relations/Politics.

How it is assessed will be down to your institution. I would look for a module brief or have a chat with the module leader if unsure.

Wow you couldn't gave me a better answer, thank you very much and I think I am going go for it because the questions you outlined the type things I have always been interested but just picking the courage to go for it since like you said its hard is the problem but seeing that i am very interested in it, it might be little bit easier. One again thank you !

I got a similar mark to cliffg (72%) and agree with his comments but in some ways PIL seems a rather unsatisfying subject to me. The questions are interesting but the consequences of the answers are often not.

Did the US and UK breach International Law when they invaded Iraq?
Is the use of drones in another sovereign State a breach of International Law?
Is the Russian State currently in breach of International Law in the Crimea..?

Suppose the answers to those three questions are yes. If we were studying criminal law, or contract law, or virtually any other branch of law, we could say that the consequence of a breach would be imprisonment, or a fine, or restitution, or whatever, and that those remedies could be enforced against the party in breach. That's not necessarily so in PIL, particularly when one of the parties in breach is powerful politically / on the Security Council. Not to say that breach of International Law has no consequences but they are often political/diplomatic rather than legal.

And some of the questions themselves are a little unreal because the parties involved don't really care what the law is:

What if oil was discovered on the moon, who would own it or have the rights to it?
Who owns the sea bed?

Suppose that the US is the only country with technology sufficiently advanced to mine the oil, and they don't want to share, and disagree with the widely held view the moon is 'commons', i.e. it belongs to everyone. Would it even make sense to say that the 'law' is that the oil belongs to everyone in the absence of a recognized legislature? In fact, the US is actually a party to a treaty on space, but suppose it withdraws...

Finally, some of the most important questions involve large elements of circularity - 'Is X a state?', as you will see when you study theories of statehood.

I guess the main part of cliff's post that I agree with is 'some go as far as suggesting that International Law is merely aspirational as it is ultimately unenforceable' - to me, most of it wasn't really 'law' at all. But there's no doubting it's an interesting subject.

Thank you for your answer and your advice, I deided to chose International Law, hopefully I will enjoy it !

I got a similar mark to cliffg (72%) and agree with his comments but in some ways PIL seems a rather unsatisfying subject to me. The questions are interesting but the consequences of the answers are often not.

Did the US and UK breach International Law when they invaded Iraq?
Is the use of drones in another sovereign State a breach of International Law?
Is the Russian State currently in breach of International Law in the Crimea..?

Suppose the answers to those three questions are yes. If we were studying criminal law, or contract law, or virtually any other branch of law, we could say that the consequence of a breach would be imprisonment, or a fine, or restitution, or whatever, and that those remedies could be enforced against the party in breach. That's not necessarily so in PIL, particularly when one of the parties in breach is powerful politically / on the Security Council. Not to say that breach of International Law has no consequences but they are often political/diplomatic rather than legal.

And some of the questions themselves are a little unreal because the parties involved don't really care what the law is:

What if oil was discovered on the moon, who would own it or have the rights to it?
Who owns the sea bed?

Suppose that the US is the only country with technology sufficiently advanced to mine the oil, and they don't want to share, and disagree with the widely held view the moon is 'commons', i.e. it belongs to everyone. Would it even make sense to say that the 'law' is that the oil belongs to everyone in the absence of a recognized legislature? In fact, the US is actually a party to a treaty on space, but suppose it withdraws...

Finally, some of the most important questions involve large elements of circularity - 'Is X a state?', as you will see when you study theories of statehood.

I guess the main part of cliff's post that I agree with is 'some go as far as suggesting that International Law is merely aspirational as it is ultimately unenforceable' - to me, most of it wasn't really 'law' at all. But there's no doubting it's an interesting subject.

I took Public International Law as a module during my degree and while I managed to score 71% overall it was probably the hardest earned first of all my subjects during the three years. Having said that I found it a very enjoyable and useful subject to study.

It is different from other areas of law you will probably have studied. While those other areas generally concern the settlement of disputes between individuals or individuals and the state, International Law is concerned primarily with the relationship between States. (Individuals do come into it in some ways, I'm generalising.) The sources of law are different. No longer are you concerned with statute and case law but with the Law of Treaties, individual treaties, Customary International Law, UN Resolutions (some binding, some non-binding) and with judicial decisions of a new and different range of courts, to you, such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or ad hoc international tribunals such as those dealing with the former Yugoslavia or Seirra Leone. The whole system of remedies and damages for breach are different as are the enforcement mechanisms. (Some go as far as suggesting that International Law is merely aspirational as it is ultimately unenforceable) Terminology can also be tricky - eg. in many instances it will be incorrect to use the term "war", the correct term should be "armed conflict", and "countries" don't exist, "States" do. So those are some of the difficulties that you will encounter.

Having pointed those out, however, I found it a fascinating and highly relevant subject. Did the US and UK breach International Law when they invaded Iraq? If so does any personal/criminal liability attach to Bush and Blair; before which court might they be made amenable, or have they acted with impunity? If the Syrian regime did use chemical weapons where did Obama find the legal authority to call for armed intervention? (Responsibility to Protect, but some scholars deny the doctrine has evolved sufficiently.) Is the use of drones in another sovereign State a breach of International Law? Is the Russian State currently in breach of International Law in the Crimea, if so what law? What if oil was discovered on the moon, who would own it or have the rights to it? Who owns the seas and which bits and for what purpose?

If finding the answers to those questions interests you then take the subject. If you couldn't care less about what happens in those far flung places then give it a miss. If you are considering postgrad study also consider taking international law as many LLM courses tend to have a more global, outward looking focus as opposed to an inward looking one. Also useful if studying European/International human rights or think you might later be interested in International Relations/Politics.

How it is assessed will be down to your institution. I would look for a module brief or have a chat with the module leader if unsure.

Hello

Thank you your answer. I would like to please ask what books did you use for revision and making notes, I am really stuck with the books to go for. pleas help.


Thank you in advance.

Can someone tell me what is the difference between international and European law, as I'm not sure which to choose for a degree?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well the main simple difference is that European Union (EU) regulates only the member states withing Europe and there are total of 28 European countryies that have joined. But an International Law is much wider and most of its law tend to apply to countries across all the continents.

In terms of Applicable, the EU law seems to have more power and control over its memeber of states and the member of states within the EU tend to respect the laws set under EU.

But since the international law has more countries involved, certain country tend to chose whether to sign up to a treaty or not or whether they want to be involved in certain treaty, making it very flow and not powerful enough.

So EU = 28 European Countries

Iternational Law = Various of countries around the world.

Ahh. ..Thank you! !! Great explanation! so do you think international is better as you gain a broader knowledge?

Posted from TSR Mobile