August 1, 2025
Few weeks ago, in a university meeting, we were discussing about the fact that international law was included in the first year subjects of a political science degree. That discussion – is it possible to teach international law to freshers? – has triggered the following thinking.
These spare comments are applicable also to law degrees since the political science degree under discussion features various law subjects. Having spent much of my academic life in another country, and being a bit conversant with different legal and educational systems, I am venturing into saying this may apply to other countries too.
The anecdotal background of this blog is my personal reading of recent the very rich ICJ Advisory Opinion on State responsibility for climate change as well as all the other tragedies and amenities that populate the world of international law this Summer.
Usually, the arguments against introducing international law to first year students is that it is too complex, some substantive elements (like customary law) are too fuzzy (or, alternative view, they require a level of sophistication freshers cannot have), it does not feature a well-defined (or univocal) institutional structure, even less well-defined is the enforcement of obligations. In addition to this, a factor which is dramatically relevant today, States simply seem they don’t really bother. Fundamental obligations of international law (be they related to the use of force, humanitarian law, human rights law) go completely ignored. You don’t need a law degree to increasingly realise this fact. In sum, it is far better, and more self-assuring, to begin your learning process in law by approaching domestic law, in its binary dimensions of private and public/constitutional law. This brings certainty of thinking, since domestic systems are deeply rooted in a constrained historical-geographical boundaries. It is much easier to identify the existence and content of the law, and of compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
Consequently, you cannot start with international law inasmuch as it requires advanced thinking and understanding of nuances of law and legal processes.
This brief post suggests a different argument and a different narrative.
The premise of this post is that law students should be thinkers (philosophy aficionados may recall Descartes’ “Cogito, ergo sum”: we are humans among other things because of our ability to think). We don’t want – or need – people that simply (and uncritically) memorise laws and regulations, decisions and treaties. In an increasingly complex world, this type of professionals would be useless. Students – I was saying – should be thinkers. Studying law at university level means to appreciate the issues and the way through which law attempts to solve these issues. But law is not maths: 2 + 2 does not necessarily make 4. For the simple reason that a 2 is not always 2. And the final result of a legislative process, of an international negotiation, of a settlement or a judicial decision is never a dry sum. (For more about this, go back to my earlier post of this Summer on “what is law?”.)
Hence, teaching and learning law at university level means to have people thinking and reasoning. It means to equip them with the ability to capture nuances – in the appreciation of reality and facts, in the interpretation of the law, in its application. In understanding, that there are always at least two sides of the coin and that very rarely Aristotelian syllogisms or formal logic can help you. Incidental gloss: this awareness may be more difficult for Continental students and is something which is much more natural to Anglo-Saxon students. It all boils down to the prevailing cultural and intellectual traditions which students absorb already at primary school – if not even at the nursery ! – and which is always surrounding you!
Much of what I am saying here laying down this premise could be said for other subjects that inherently make students think. What I have in mind is jurisprudence or philosophy of law, Roman or ancient law. These subjects are, in my humble view, fundamental subjects which should feature in any law degree and, perhaps, also in other degrees where the study of law is included.
Granted this very important premise, international law naturally becomes a wonderful candidate for legal training. Any reader that is an international lawyer can immediately see that (I hope!). Since, however, other readers may not be fully conversant with international law, I am spelling out below few points supporting the teaching and learning of international law in first year degrees.
- International law forces you to think hard about key concepts and themes that underlie many areas of the law: the sources, legal interpretation, enforcement, the relation between law and other perspectives such as those of IR/politics and economics and history.
- Corollary: You can never take anything as given or granted and absorb it uncritically.
- The study of the sources of law – custom, treaties and general principles – opens you up to the very same normative templates you have in domestic law systems.
- Many of the key legal concepts draw on private law – even Roman law, which is excellent because it gives you an historical perspective of the law.
- Since international law often work through principles or broadly-phrased norms, it is an excellent springboard to understand and develop the ability to develop legal argumentation.
- Being still largely State-centred, many international organizations – the institutions – in international law are skeletal and the classic tripartite functions (legislation, administration, adjudication) are very often tentative and in flex. From a learning perspective, this frailty is an excellent springboard for – once again – thinking hard about rationales, objectives, advantages and limitations of human and legal institutions; for fully appreciating the variety of forces that shapes the law.
- One specific legal institution that is particularly dear to lawyers is adjudication. Dispute settlement in international law is extremely varied and this too enables students to compare different iterations and assess their relative strength and weaknesses.
- More fundamentally, the study of international law in general makes you think about the nature of international law – and the nature of law in general. What is a legal obligation? Should we think about international law only in terms of enforcement and compliance? Is there any other factor or perspective that we are missing?
- All this “theoretical” thinking is not useless, or academic, because it has definitely implications for practical thinking (as seasoned practitioners or scholars can certainly testify).
I am sure that are many other aspects and nuances are missing here but I guess the main gist of my argument is clear enough. I will keep on thinking about this! I hope these brief – disjoined – thoughts may help you doing the same in this frantic Summer!
lucaslaws 