Exam Strategy & Theoretical Foundations

1. The exam format

The PIL exam is open book, runs for two hours, and asks you to answer one essay-style question. Each question is a quotation or proposition followed by “discuss”. The proposition is normally provocative — it may overstate a case, set up a binary the lecturer wants you to refuse, or echo a position one of the theorists holds (e.g. a Mutua-flavoured line about saviours, an Anghie-flavoured line about colonialism, a Goldsmith-flavoured line about pre-emption). Your job is not to agree or disagree wholesale; it is to take a defensible legal position on the question, marshal authority for it, and acknowledge the counter-arguments.

Open-book does not mean a research session. Drew’s mark scheme rewards the same things a closed-book exam would: clear thinking, structure, doctrinal accuracy and engagement with academic debate. The book sits next to you for citation precision and to refresh quotations — not to be transcribed. Examiners can spot a script that has been built around the textbook table of contents.

2. IRAC — Drew’s required structure

Drew’s tip sheet is explicit: “Use the IRAC formula.” She concedes it is a “crude formula” but treats it as the safe scaffold every script should fall back on. Internalise it before the exam:

• I — Identify the legal Issue. In the introduction, name the specific legal question the proposition raises. “The proposition asks whether the prohibition on torture, as a peremptory norm of international law, displaces the procedural rule of state immunity in civil proceedings before foreign courts.” Lay out the argument and the structure of the paper. Do not begin with three paragraphs on the Bush administration, the Cold War or the colonial origins of the discipline — Drew calls those out by name as the kind of long historical/political introductions she penalises.
• R — Set out the Rule, law or theoretical framework. Anchor the doctrine before applying it. For statehood: Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 plus the declaratory v constitutive theories. For self-defence: Article 51 UN Charter, the Caroline test, the Nicaragua gloss. The point is that the reader should know exactly which legal regime you are applying before you start applying it.
• A — Apply the law to the legal issue. This is where the marks live. Take each leg of the doctrine in turn and run it against the facts/proposition, citing the cases and academic argument as you go. Set out both sides; critique the side you wish to oppose. Drew’s instruction is unambiguous: “Make sure you know and are able to discuss and critique the opposing sides in the debate.”
• C — Conclude. Link back to the legal issue raised in the introduction. Do not introduce new arguments or new material in the conclusion; the conclusion is the place to crystallise the position you have argued for. A good conclusion in an open-book exam is two or three sentences: this is what I argued, this is what the authority supports, this is the reason the contrary view fails.

Within the “Apply” section the same micro-rule holds: “set out the legal framework before you apply it.” If you are dealing with both effective control (Nicaragua) and overall control (Tadić), state both tests, then run the facts through each. Don’t leap to a conclusion and back-fill the framework.

3. Drew’s dos and don’ts (verbatim, then unpacked)

From Drew’s exam-tips handout, paraphrased only where the source has been distilled:

• DO structure your answer using IRAC. A script without a recognisable structure loses marks even when the doctrinal content is correct.
• DO answer the question. The question is the proposition in front of you, not the chapter you happened to revise hardest.
• DO give legal authority for all your arguments. “It is not enough to give the rule — you must give authority for the rule.” Even if your statement of law is correct, marks are lost if it is not anchored in a case or treaty article.
• DO rely on primary materials (treaties, cases, ICJ judgments and advisory opinions) for the law itself.
• DO refer to the debates in the literature. “This is where you get the ideas about law and about the law.” Name authors. Discuss and critique opposing sides.
• DO have your own voice. “Don’t just write down what other people say or argue. Make your own argument.” This is decisive. The script that ventriloquises Anghie or Chimni without taking a position scores below the script that uses them as tools to support a defended thesis.
• DO NOT give long historical/political introductions. Cut the wind-up. Open with the legal issue.
• DO NOT include irrelevant material. Padding signals weakness.
• DO NOT engage in political ranting. Strong arguments do the work; polemic is a substitute. “Let the argument do the work.”
• DO NOT use footnotes. Citation goes inline.
• DO NOT just describe the law. “Engage with it; use it to build an argument; analyse it; deploy it. The law should be used in pursuit of your argument.”
• DO NOT ignore the other side. “You must set out both sides of the argument and critique arguments that you wish to oppose.” Sitting on the fence loses marks; ignoring the counter-argument loses more.

4. Citing authority in an exam

Drew is precise about the citation conventions: identify the authority, do not write a coursework footnote.

• Cases: short name and date, plus the court. “Western Sahara Advisory Opinion (ICJ, 1975)”, “Pinochet (No 3) [2000] (HL)”, “Tadić Appeal (ICTY, 1999)”. The court matters: it tells the reader whether you are citing a binding ICJ judgment, an advisory opinion, an ICTY criminal classification, or a domestic decision.
• Treaties: short name and date — “Montevideo Convention 1933”, “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969”, “UN Charter 1945”. Critically, if you are relying on a particular provision, name the article. Drew’s example is decisive: do not write “the Montevideo Convention” when you mean “Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933”. Vague gestures at a whole instrument lose marks.
• UNGA / UNSC resolutions: “UNSC Resolution 678 (1990)”, “UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) 1960”, “UNGA Resolution 2625 (XXV) 1970 (Friendly Relations Declaration)”.
• Authors: name the author. “Crawford argues …”, “Kattan has suggested …”, “Higgins maintains that …”, “Chimni’s manifesto contends …”. Full bibliographic citation is unnecessary; the name and the proposition are enough.
• ILC instruments: “Article 8 ILC Articles on State Responsibility 2001”, “ILC Conclusion 11 on Identification of CIL (2018)”.

Internalise the cite-as-you-go habit. Every doctrinal sentence should end with a parenthetical or in-line authority. If you cannot supply one, the sentence is conjecture and either needs an authority or needs cutting.

5. Time management for two hours

An open-book paper of one essay rewards a budget that protects analysis from running out of time.

• 0–10 minutes — read and plan. Read the proposition twice. Underline the key legal terms (“jus cogens”, “armed attack”, “recognition”, “custom”). Write a one-line thesis at the top of the page. Sketch a four- or five-section IRAC outline with the cases and articles you intend to deploy in each section.
• 10–25 minutes — introduction and Rule. Open with the legal issue and the thesis (no historical wind-up). Set out the legal framework. Cite the founding instruments and leading cases.
• 25–90 minutes — Application and Critique. The core. Take each strand of the argument in turn. Run cases against propositions. Address the counter-argument explicitly — e.g. “the strongest objection comes from Germany v Italy … this objection ultimately fails because …”.
• 90–105 minutes — Critical evaluation. Engage the literature: Crawford v Anghie, Koskenniemi’s indeterminacy, Charlesworth’s feminist boundary, Chimni’s TWAIL frame. This is what separates a 2:1 from a first.
• 105–115 minutes — Conclusion. Two or three sentences linking back to the introduction. No new material.
• 115–120 minutes — proofread. Check every doctrinal sentence has authority. Check the title of every case is right. Check that you have not opened with three paragraphs of context.

6. Building a thesis and sustaining it

Drew’s most demanding instruction is the one easiest to overlook: have your own voice; make your own argument. A first-class script does not just survey the territory; it advances a position and earns it.

The position should be defensible, not safe. “The current law on state immunity is internally inconsistent: Pinochet (No 3) denies functional immunity for torture as a criminal matter, while Al-Adsani and Germany v Italy preserve it as a civil and inter-state matter, on a procedure/substance distinction that the Al-Adsani dissent rightly exposes as artificial. The doctrine should be reformed to apply uniformly across criminal and civil tracks.” That is a thesis. It tells the reader what the script will argue. Every section then either supplies authority for the thesis or addresses an objection to it. The conclusion crystallises it.

Sitting on the fence (“there are arguments on both sides…”) is explicitly penalised in this course. So is the opposite vice — advancing a position so absolute it ignores the counter-authorities. The discipline is: state the strongest version of the contrary view; explain why on balance it does not prevail.

7. Cross-cutting theorists you can deploy in any answer

These are the names that appear across multiple topics. A first-class script weaves them in even when not directly prompted, because they show command of the discipline as a whole.

• James Crawford — The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed 2006); Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th ed 2019); Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility. The mainstream positivist authority on statehood, recognition, state responsibility. Cite for the orthodox position before contesting it.
• Ian Brownlie — Principles of Public International Law (Crawford ed). The classic textbook restatement.
• Rosalyn Higgins — Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (1994). The policy-process tradition: international law as decision rather than rules. President of the ICJ 2006–09. Useful for any topic where the question is “what does the law require?” v “what is the law for?”.
• Martti Koskenniemi — From Apology to Utopia (1989/2005); The Gentle Civilizer of Nations (2002). The indeterminacy thesis: international law oscillates between an apology for state behaviour (rules deduced from practice, hence acquiescent) and an unattainable utopia (rules imposed on states, hence ineffective). Deploy whenever the question turns on whether a doctrine constrains state power.
• Antony Anghie — Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge 2005). The “dynamic of difference”: sovereignty itself was constituted through the colonial encounter; the “standard of civilisation” reappears in human rights, good governance, R2P. Indispensable for the critical-perspectives topic and for any question on statehood, recognition or self-determination.
• B.S. Chimni — “Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto” (2006); International Law and World Order (2nd ed 2017). TWAIL II. International law as “the principal language in which domination is coming to be expressed in the era of globalization”. Deploy on sources, statehood, use of force, immunity.
• Makau Mutua — “Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights” (2001) Harv ILJ. The SVS metaphor: the West-as-saviour, the post-colonial state-as-savage, the suffering subject-as-victim. Useful on humanitarian intervention, R2P, and the human-rights structure of any answer.
• Hilary Charlesworth (with Christine Chinkin) — The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (2000); “Feminist Approaches to International Law” (1991) AJIL. The feminist critique that international law’s public/private divide systematically excludes the sphere where most violence against women happens. Key for state responsibility and human-rights answers.
• Victor Kattan — works on Palestine, Israel and the law of statehood/recognition. Drew specifically names Kattan in her tip sheet as a model of the “name the author and what they argue” style of citation. Deploy on statehood, self-determination, the legality of occupation.
• Christine Gray — International Law and the Use of Force (4th ed 2018). The leading restrictive textbook on jus ad bellum. Cite alongside Dinstein on Topic 09/10.
• Yoram Dinstein — War, Aggression and Self-Defence (6th ed 2017). The narrow reading of Article 51.
• Hazel Fox & Philippa Webb — The Law of State Immunity (3rd ed 2013). The procedure/substance formulation that Lord Bingham relies on in Jones v Saudi Arabia. Cite on Topic 06/07.

8. Template openings and transitions

Open-book exams reward formulaic moves you have rehearsed. Pre-cook a few openings and transitions so you do not waste minutes inventing them.

Opening sentence (issue + thesis): “The proposition that [restate] raises a single legal question: whether [doctrinal pivot]. This essay argues that [your thesis], principally because [strongest reason]; the contrary position, drawn from [case/author], ultimately fails to [short reason why].”

Setting up the rule: “The legal framework is established by [treaty article + leading case]. Read together, these provide that [short statement of doctrine].”

Pivot into application: “Applying that framework to the proposition, three issues fall to be addressed in turn: first, [X]; secondly, [Y]; thirdly, [Z].”

Acknowledging the counter-argument: “The strongest objection to this view comes from [case/author], which holds that [counter-position]. That objection has force, but on closer examination [reason it fails].”

Concluding sentence: “The doctrine of [X], properly understood, supports [thesis]. The contrary readings either misread the leading authority ([case]) or assume a hierarchy of norms ([counter-thesis]) that the ICJ has not yet endorsed. The orthodox view [is/is not] the better one.”

9. Common pitfalls

• The political wind-up. Three paragraphs on Bandung, the colonial origins of sovereignty, the Iraq War, the Gaza conflict. Drew penalises this directly. Open with the legal issue.
• Vague treaty citation. “The Montevideo Convention provides …”. Always: Article 1 Montevideo Convention 1933.
• Description without engagement. Setting out Pinochet, Al-Adsani, Jones and Germany v Italy in sequence is not analysis. Apply them; show what they prove.
• Sitting on the fence. “There are arguments on both sides.” Take a position.
• Polemic. Calling a state “genocidal” or a doctrine “imperialist” without legal authority converts a critical argument into a moral assertion. The argument should do the work; the adjective should not.
• Ignoring the counter-argument. Even if you reject it, set it out. Examiners want to see you can run both sides.
• Footnotes. Drew explicitly bans them.
• New material in the conclusion. The conclusion crystallises what you have argued; it does not introduce a new authority.
• Treating “open book” as research time. The book is for citation precision. The argument is yours.
• Forgetting court / date. “Pinochet” alone is ambiguous (No 1, No 2, No 3?). Always “Pinochet (No 3) [2000] (HL)”.

10. Pre-submission checklist (final fifteen minutes)

• Does the introduction state the legal issue and a defended thesis — with no political wind-up?
• Is every doctrinal sentence anchored in a case or treaty article?
• Where I rely on a treaty provision, have I cited the article, not just the treaty?
• Have I named at least three academic voices and used them, not just listed them?
• Have I addressed the strongest counter-argument explicitly?
• Does the conclusion link back to the legal issue without introducing new material?
• Have I avoided footnotes?
• Is my voice present? Can the marker tell what I argue, not just what others have said?
• Have I cited each case with court and date the first time it appears?
• Have I avoided polemic where authority should do the work?

If every box is ticked, the script meets Drew’s standard. The marks above that come from the quality of the legal argument, the precision of authority, and the willingness to take a position the doctrine can carry.