Introduction
This essay critically analyses a three-part discussion on key concepts in public international law: reservations as a form of treaty participation, the interaction between international and domestic law, and the notion of jus cogens. Written for an undergraduate audience, the original piece demonstrates a broad understanding of the field and aims for a 2:2 (Lower Second Class Honours) standard. The purpose of this critique is to evaluate the essay’s content, structure, and analytical depth, appreciating its strengths while identifying areas for improvement. Key points of focus include the clarity of explanations, use of evidence, and the extent of critical engagement with the subject matter.
Content Knowledge and Explanation
The essay displays a sound understanding of foundational concepts in public international law, particularly in its treatment of reservations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). The discussion in Part 1a effectively outlines the historical shift from the unanimity rule to the object and purpose test, supported by relevant case law such as the ICJ’s 1951 Advisory Opinion on the Genocide Convention. Similarly, Part 1b on the interaction between international and domestic law competently introduces monism and dualism, drawing on landmark cases like Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria (1977) and Medellín v Texas (2008). Part 1c offers a concise explanation of jus cogens, referencing Article 53 of the Vienna Convention. However, while the content is broadly accurate, it occasionally lacks depth. For instance, the essay could explore the practical challenges of applying the object and purpose test or the contentious nature of identifying jus cogens norms, rather than merely stating their existence.
Critical Approach and Use of Evidence
A notable limitation of the essay is its limited critical approach to the knowledge base. While it consistently references authoritative sources and cases, there is minimal evaluation of competing perspectives or scholarly debates. For example, in Part 1b, the discussion of monism and dualism presents the theories as distinct without critically assessing their practical implications or addressing modern hybrid approaches in greater detail. Furthermore, although the essay cites key judicial decisions, it does not always comment on their broader significance or limitations. Indeed, a more robust analysis could consider how cases like Belilos v. Switzerland (1988) reflect tensions between state sovereignty and human rights obligations. The use of evidence, however, remains a strength, as it draws on a range of primary sources beyond the basic set readings, demonstrating a reasonable grasp of the field.
Logical Argument and Structure
The essay is logically structured, with each part clearly addressing a distinct topic. Headings and sub-themes are well-defined, ensuring clarity for the reader. Transitions between historical context, legal principles, and case law are generally smooth, as seen in the progression from treaty reservations to specific human rights applications in Part 1a. However, the argumentation could be strengthened by greater evaluation of alternative views. For instance, the essay might have considered counterarguments to the severability of reservations in human rights treaties. Additionally, while the conclusion of each section neatly summarise the points raised, they rarely offer deeper insights into the implications of these concepts for international law practice, which would elevate the work beyond a descriptive level.
Conclusion
In summary, this three-part essay provides a competent overview of key issues in public international law, achieving the 2:2 standard through its broad content knowledge and structured presentation. Its strengths lie in the clear explanation of complex ideas and consistent use of relevant case law and treaty provisions. However, the work could be improved by adopting a more critical stance, perhaps by engaging with scholarly debates or addressing the practical challenges of implementing these legal principles. Such enhancements would add analytical depth and demonstrate a stronger grasp of the field’s complexities. Overall, the essay serves as a solid foundation for an undergraduate study of international law, with room to develop a more evaluative perspective in future revisions. This critique highlights the importance of balancing description with critical insight, a skill essential for advancing academic discourse in this dynamic field.
References
- Brownlie, I. (2008) Principles of Public International Law. 7th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Crawford, J. (2012) Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Dixon, M. (2013) Textbook on International Law. 7th ed. Oxford University Press.
- Shaw, M. N. (2017) International Law. 8th ed. Cambridge University Press.
[Word Count: 532]
