I found this unit to be really interesting and well-organised. There was a different convenor this semester than the previous one and she was really helpful and her lectures were well-structured. The assessments were very engaging (especially the treaty negotiation). Would absolutely recommend taking this unit !!

The fundamental role of a subject convenor is to assist students to learn and develop. What I totally fail to understand is why this subject convenor chose to publish a model answer to the final exam after the exam was completed. The appropriate course would have been to provide a model answer to a past paper prior to sitting the final exam. But to publish the sample answers once we have sat the exam is simply unfair.

The biggest problem with this unit is not the content (which is actually really interesting), but the unit convenor. The assessment tasks and quizzes seemed excessively difficult, in particular the final take home exam. He also has quite a condescending and dismissive attitude. The treaty negotiation exercise was a nightmare, with little/no structure and guidance given, so it was very difficult to participate and engage in a meaningful way. The weighting of assessments was also strange, with 13% afforded to participation, and a 30% reflective paper which is based on your active participation, as well as 7% for collaborate questions. Basically 50% of the unit is collaboration based. Another fundamental issue with this unit is that the final exam is a problem question, however the tutorials lack structure and you can easily make it through to the exam without ever writing an answer to a problem question. In most units, you are prepared for the exam. However, the tutorials in this unit did not seem to match the content and assessment expectations. My advice is that tutorials are basically useless, but it would be smart to make use of the textbook and complete the problem questions in the textbook throughout the semester.

Initially, I thought that as I was not interested in international law and because the first week focused on history that I would not like the subject. However, I really did enjoy the subject. I would recommend completing the required readings, as then you can integrate this knowledge into the assignments including the timed assignment at the conclusion of the course. The tutors are a wealth of knowledge!

The worst subject ever. The unit was poorly convened and not at all engaging.

As a politics major, studying a combined Arts/Law degree; some of the topics interested me such as war law, international criminal law, international responsibility etc. while others were taught rather dry and tediously such as treaty interpretations, declarations, articles. The major issues: 1. Roy Baker, the convenor did not bother doing live lectures and recorded lectures from 3-4 years ago making some students wary and raise concerns about the outdatedness of the material as well as a reflection of the laziness of the covenor. 2. The convenor, Roy was unfriendly and unapproachable. His announcements and assessment instructions on ilearn always seemed to have a grim, annoyed tone as if we'd already done something wrong or he couldn't trust us to follow the rules. There was a lot of content and while interesting, the problem questions in the course and the assessments were extremely detailed and lengthy i.e. 5-6 page long hypothetical scenarios! with a lot of issues to discuss. The marking for the problem question mid-semester assessment was fair, but there wasn't a lot of guidance as to how to answer the question and the feedback was mostly generic. I found this to attest to the quality of teaching of the subject, where we are paying hundreds of dollars for a course but not receiving adequate feedback that can specifically help us for future exams. The final exam was a three hour take-home and very difficult due to the short-time frame; as the hypothetical scenario was again very long and detailed and there were too many questions to be answered as well as the requirement of full AGLC3 citation, it was essentially the same format as the mid-semester problem assignment but instead of being given two weeks we got 3 hours to do it, not to mention a strict word limit which is difficult to edit through when you only have a short timeframe. Anyone whose done an international law unit will know the citations are a nightmare and can take several hours just to prepare a few and make it pristinely perfect. Prepare citations beforehand as you won't have time in the exam. Don't underestimate the power of the weekly quizzes. I managed to scrape through a distinction by putting in the effort to boost my marks through the quiz.

I find the weekly quizzes helpful as it forced you to keep up to date with the content which can be very helpful for exams towards the end of semester. However the amount of referencing involved is ridiculous and every single part needs to correct to be awarded the mark, which I hated as even Roy Baker the Unit Convenor didn't know how to do some of them yet expected us to know how to do it.

The course content was quite dense in that it covered a lot of different areas of international law. The content is not difficult to understand but you do need to put in the time to read the textbook every week. I found that to do well in the quizzes listening to the lecture and doing the reading was imperative. Other than the quizzes, the assessment was difficult but not impossible to get through. I didn't have Malcolm as my tutor but his class slides were extremely helpful. The unit convenor is very unapproachable and rigid which makes finding answers to your questions a lot more difficult. However the delivery of the lectures was not bad, well paced and well structured with examples.

Referencing for this subject was a nightmare, and the tutor did not know how to help when you asked for assistance!

This course was not taught well. The hypotheticals given in the assessments were extremely difficult and the convenor did not answer questions or respond well to queries.