Section 1: identify and discuss the key problem or issue the author(s) address(es)
Here discuss what the root problem or issue the author engages. Understand why the author thinks this
topic matters for scholars of international law and what the stakes are, and for whom.
Section 2: What is the principal argument of the author(s)?
Here discuss how do(es) the author(s) support their argument? Who is/are the author(s) attempting to
speak with or challenge?
Section 3: Discuss the type of intervention the author(s) is/are making? (150 words)
Is the author uncovering problematic assumptions about theories, doctrines, and policies? Or mapping a
scholarly or legal field? Or highlighting unresolved gaps, conflicts and ambiguities in existing arguments or
proposals? Or focusing on structural biases and blind spots that existing approaches ignore? Or bringing new
(or old but forgotten) concepts, theories, theorists, personal narratives, and/or empirical methods to bear on
familiar problems? Or presenting new data or a new analysis that challenge(s) existing empirical findings?
→ What is the author arguing
Section 4: How do you assess both the principal argument and the attempted contribution?
In your opinion, what lines of inquiry has/have the author(s) opened and also closed? How might one
critique the argument made? To what extent to you agree or disagree with the author(s)? Provide some
explanation for your position.
Critical reading nr.1 – Development of self-determination
This article is about the development of self-determination in international law. The key
problem of the author is the right to self-determination. This human right has to do with the
organization of global politics in an international legal order. Studying this subject is
important for soon to be lawyers since international law and politics draw a thin, vague line.
Self-determination was first seen as an attack on colonialism. The 1960 declaration bought a
change, and the right was accepted. Decolonization became a human right.
The authors main argument is about the role and the goal of self-determination. This right
form an essential connection between the structure and operation of international law and
international distributive justice. Self-determination has become an instrument to spread
sovereign powers in e.g. States.
, Based on the three movements, a new goal has been introduced. This can be seen as the
intervention during the article. The author considers and discusses various arguments about
the right to self-determination. These problematic assumptions include paradoxes of self-
determination. This paradox concerns firstly the role of self-determination as a protection as
they can govern themselves. Conflicting is that self-determination can be observed as a
threat against the spread of sovereignty across the globe.
Although I attentively read Macklem’s statements, I do not completely share the authors
opinion. The right to self-determination can not be merely political. It has always existed.
However, the point of views about this human right has changed a couple of times in the
past decades. This new point of views made several new insights possible.
In my opinion, the matters in the paradox as discussed in the article mostly symbolize the
protection of people by governing themselves. The right to self-determination is understood
as a protection of the citizens. They can be sovereign in their own development.
Here discuss what the root problem or issue the author engages. Understand why the author thinks this
topic matters for scholars of international law and what the stakes are, and for whom.
Section 2: What is the principal argument of the author(s)?
Here discuss how do(es) the author(s) support their argument? Who is/are the author(s) attempting to
speak with or challenge?
Section 3: Discuss the type of intervention the author(s) is/are making? (150 words)
Is the author uncovering problematic assumptions about theories, doctrines, and policies? Or mapping a
scholarly or legal field? Or highlighting unresolved gaps, conflicts and ambiguities in existing arguments or
proposals? Or focusing on structural biases and blind spots that existing approaches ignore? Or bringing new
(or old but forgotten) concepts, theories, theorists, personal narratives, and/or empirical methods to bear on
familiar problems? Or presenting new data or a new analysis that challenge(s) existing empirical findings?
→ What is the author arguing
Section 4: How do you assess both the principal argument and the attempted contribution?
In your opinion, what lines of inquiry has/have the author(s) opened and also closed? How might one
critique the argument made? To what extent to you agree or disagree with the author(s)? Provide some
explanation for your position.
Critical reading nr.1 – Development of self-determination
This article is about the development of self-determination in international law. The key
problem of the author is the right to self-determination. This human right has to do with the
organization of global politics in an international legal order. Studying this subject is
important for soon to be lawyers since international law and politics draw a thin, vague line.
Self-determination was first seen as an attack on colonialism. The 1960 declaration bought a
change, and the right was accepted. Decolonization became a human right.
The authors main argument is about the role and the goal of self-determination. This right
form an essential connection between the structure and operation of international law and
international distributive justice. Self-determination has become an instrument to spread
sovereign powers in e.g. States.
, Based on the three movements, a new goal has been introduced. This can be seen as the
intervention during the article. The author considers and discusses various arguments about
the right to self-determination. These problematic assumptions include paradoxes of self-
determination. This paradox concerns firstly the role of self-determination as a protection as
they can govern themselves. Conflicting is that self-determination can be observed as a
threat against the spread of sovereignty across the globe.
Although I attentively read Macklem’s statements, I do not completely share the authors
opinion. The right to self-determination can not be merely political. It has always existed.
However, the point of views about this human right has changed a couple of times in the
past decades. This new point of views made several new insights possible.
In my opinion, the matters in the paradox as discussed in the article mostly symbolize the
protection of people by governing themselves. The right to self-determination is understood
as a protection of the citizens. They can be sovereign in their own development.
