A Modest Proposal for Ending International Law Courses

While I am only a law school student, I am not the only one asking: is international law dead?

Several opinion pieces have been published on the question. An example from my research is a panel event from October 2025 titled "The Death of International Law?" hosted by Georgetown University in Qatar. Ironically, the YouTube recording of University College London Professor Ralph Wilde’s lecture from the event begins with a title slide which appears to have interpreted the question as a statement: “THE DEATH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW”.

Disagreement over international legal standards is nothing new. But under the current administration, international law has been subordinated to national interest. There are numerous examples, from threats to annex Greenland to a proclamation that America “will run” Venezuela. It is no coincidence that the degradation of international law corresponds with a similar escalation of violence and unlawful actions nationally, such as the shootings of Renee Good and Akex Pretti and the repeated refusal of Department of Justice officials to recognize the illegal appointment of Lindsey Halligan as an acting United States Attorney.

Why? Because the philosophical pillars of domestic law also function as the same pillars of international law. Law schools must treat international law as essential and inseparable, instead of optional and peripheral, to its graduates’ education. Only then might we restore the credibility of international and national law, not just in theory, but in practice.

International law has been taught since the founding of the country. By 1907, however, only ten schools surveyed offered it as a course, and only as an elective. The 20th century saw an expansion in private law due to numerous factors, including the Industrial Revolution. But by the end of the century, industrialization and globalization necessitated experts in legal regimes between countries.

Consider the typical American legal education since then:

• In Contracts, we learn economies thrive only because of enforceable promises. Parties to an agreement cannot rely on each other's good faith but on courts to uphold their bargains in a predictable framework.
• In Torts, we learn how wrongs are remedied under normative expectations. Social order is manifested by imposing duties of care in which people are obligated to not cause harm to another.
• In Criminal Law, we analyze the mens rea behind actions in order to decide if certain conduct is blameworthy and therefore deserving of punishment.
• In Constitutional Law, we learn that state action depends on accountability and constraints. Laws must apply equally, regardless of status, or else people do not have a reason to uphold the social contract.

Now consider how international law was, and is, taught: a separate silo in the upper years of law school, often only for students who already have a niche interest. It is outside of the bounds of the country, and therefore, outside of the bounds of curriculum. For most students, I suspect, doctrinal classes may as well assume America is afloat in the void of space.

No cases to study for intercontinental trade disputes. No duty of care for those overseas. No crimes across borders. No separation of powers in supranational unions. The exceptions are usually only incidental.

This educational gap is not merely academic. Looking at American Association of Law Schools and American Bar Association survey data, about one-in-four schools offered an international law course between 1912 and 1938. The failure of international peacekeeping efforts in the ensuing Second World War would create a generation of lawyers committed to a rules-based international order — a world grounded in law, not power. This is evidenced by the number of schools offering an international law course rising to one-in-two by 1953 and virtually every law school by 1996.

While the number of schools offering international law classes increased, the number of students learning international law has stagnated. Writing in 1997, John A. Barrett Jr. noted “since the 1960s, the percentage of students taking these courses has remained relatively constant.” It’s no surprise because international law is often siloed and elective. One survey found only 4% of US law schools required an international law course in 2015 compared to almost a quarter in Canada and 89% in Mexico.

This contrast cannot be chalked up to different legal histories. The post-war international consensus galvanized around ideas of legitimacy and social contract, in line with the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His ideas, as well as other Enlightenment thinkers, influenced America’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution which created the domestic rule of law we have today.

To continue segregating international law into separate courses and departments falsely lures future generations of lawyers into believing it is also isolated in practice. It creates practitioners who believe our international economy can sustain growth while sabotaging agreements for unilateral gain. It incentivizes environmental devastation which harms those downstream. It allows for the proliferation and normalization of interstate violence. It reduces our own ability to defend ourselves by alienating allies.

And that is where we find ourselves currently.

President Trump, in an interview with The New York Times, said “I don’t need international law”. In a sense, he is right: we don’t need separate legal principles to justify an international rule of law. The same legal principles which provide us with justice at home can provide us with justice abroad. Likewise, the abdication of those principles between nations inevitably will sabotage faith in those principles domestically. We can only hope today’s lawyers and judges will act with this understanding, but we can, and should, act to ensure tomorrow’s lawyers and judges are wiser.

Executive Power, International, Rule of Law