Not because I'm prepared for the exam (I'm not - at all) but because I am SO ready for the exams to finally end.
Then again, after 3 days of boring myself to death "studying" for International Law and the Use of Force which words cannot properly express how much I hate, having to do a desperate last-minute crash course on Kant sounds like heaven to me. At the very least, it will be interesting which is so much more than I can say for jus ad bellum.
Seriously. I couldn't think of anything more pointless. The three most commonly-occurring things that I read in my notes are 1) the ICJ avoided the issue; 2) states remain divided on the issue; and 3) it is unclear whether such and such doctrine exists as a matter of customary international law. What could possibly be more pointless than "law" that is unclear and uncertain, interpreted by a court whose opinions aren't strictly binding, which do little to clarify doctrinal controversies? I'm so happy that this awful subject is finally over.
As for the actual exam, I can't believe protection of nationals came out. I didn't spend a lot of time on it as I thought that it wasn't important (textbook said it was a matter of historical interest!!!) but it actually came out. My R2P answer was also incredibly average - the first two pages were about why unilateral humanitarian intervention is illegal which isn't directly relevant to the question, which called for a critical analysis of the effectiveness of R2P in the light of the international response to Libya and Syria. It also didn't help that I spent most of my time on revising unilateral humanitarian intervention and NATO's action in Kosovo, so I didn't have a lot on R2P in Libya. I still managed to write 7 pages' worth of crap.
As for the hypothetical on self-defence: the less said about it, the better. I hated this topic. I should've chosen lawfare which is at least sort of theoretical while self-defence was substantive (in the international law sense) and there were so many boring things to remember. Like I don't even care what states said? Like how ridiculous is it to make law according to state practice?? Also wrongly said that ICJ in Nicaragua said that self-defence cannot be exercised in response to terrorism. Still can't remember it; think it was DRC v. Congo. Or whatever.
Fuck it. Just so glad it's done. I think I managed to scrape a merit. Distinction is out of the question for sure - I didn't even bother working towards that. That was how much I hated this course.
Time for Jurisprudence.