anotherlongshot (anotherlongshot) wrote,
anotherlongshot
anotherlongshot

BRING. ON. JURISPRUDENCE.

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.

Tags: exams, llm, via ljapp
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments