1. Government lawyers often do not consider the question of ‘method’ when dealing with international law.
2. There is a gap between ‘law in the books’ and ‘law in practice’, which can be seen in examples such as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea cases.
3. The authors left their government jobs to pursue PhDs to explore this gap between ‘law in the books’ and ‘law in practice’.
The article provides an interesting insight into how government lawyers approach international law, and how there is a gap between what is written in books and what is practiced by states. The authors provide several examples to illustrate this point, such as the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea cases. However, it should be noted that these examples are limited to certain areas of international law, so it may not be representative of all areas of international law. Additionally, while they provide some evidence for their claims, they do not provide any counterarguments or alternative perspectives on their claims. Furthermore, they do not discuss any potential risks associated with this gap between ‘law in books’ and ‘law in practice’ or any possible solutions to bridge this gap. As such, while this article provides an interesting perspective on international law, it should be read with caution due to its limited scope and lack of counterarguments or alternative perspectives.