These are the two prompts I would like you to answer:
1) Martti Koskenniemi once wrote that ‘Article 31 of the Vienna Convention is of the nature of a compromise: it refers to virtually all thinkable
interpretative methods.’ (From Apology to Utopia, 2005). Do you see Art. 31
as a useful guide to treaty interpretation?
3) The idea of the state as the only primary subject of international law may be doctrinally correct, but disregards the complex realities of how international law is actually made in the 21st century. Do you Agree or Disagree?