Return to Answer

• assume questions are asking about the substantive law;
• assume the facts as stated;
• don't require authors to complicate a question;
• assume the facts have been proved.

Unless a question clearly asks an evidential question (admissibility, hearsay, relevance, etc.), we take the facts in the question as a given, as if they were proved to the relevant standard of proof, and answer how the law would apply to them.

• assume questions are asking about the substantive law;
• assume the facts as stated;
• don't require authors to complicate a question;
• assume the facts have been proved
• international law is law

Unless a question clearly asks an evidential question (admissibility, hearsay, relevance, etc.), we take the facts in the question as a given, as if they were proved to the relevant standard of proof, and answer how the law would apply to them.

International law is law

If someone is asking about international law, they are starting from the premise that it exists and is meaningful as law — please engage with the question on that basis.

See the information at international and the linked Q&As in the expanded info. International law is a well-specified subfield of law in academia and in practice. Several Q&As on this site address the nature of international law:

• What gives rise to binding obligations at international law?
• What does it mean for international law to be binding? What is the nature of obligation at international law?

Regardless of enforceability, or the political aspect of international law, that does not remove its status as law. International law is perhaps not the archetypal example of law that we encounter in our day to day life, but the theory that all law must be an order of a sovereign backed by force has long been displaced, or at least challenged.

Of course it is open to an answer to observe that there are no treaties or customary international law that touch on a specific issue.

"Can I be sued? Etc."

We presume that questions are not asking about a procedural or standing issues, or the mere physical ability to do something. Instead, we assume the question is asking about how the law would apply to the facts: e.g. whether the facts as stated would make out a cause of action, or what legal test would apply, or what the legal repercussions would be, etc.

"Can I be sued?" etc.

We presume that questions are not asking about a procedural or standing issue, or about the mere physical ability to do something. Instead, we assume the question is asking about how the law would apply to the facts: e.g. whether the facts as stated would make out a cause of action, or what legal test would apply, or what the legal repercussions would be, etc.

"Can I be sued?"

We presume that questions are not asking about a procedural or standing issue. Instead, we assume the question is asking about how the law would apply to the facts: e.g. whether the facts as stated would make out a cause of action, or what legal test would apply, etc.

Unrealistic facts can be part of the hyptothetical

Sometimes a question asks something that seems very simple. This is okay. While there may be many complications that could make the question more interesting to you, or would result in a fact pattern that more clearly intersects with criminal prohibitions, if the question asks about a simple scenario: answer about that simple scenario.

"Can I be sued? Etc."

We presume that questions are not asking about a procedural or standing issues, or the mere physical ability to do something. Instead, we assume the question is asking about how the law would apply to the facts: e.g. whether the facts as stated would make out a cause of action, or what legal test would apply, or what the legal repercussions would be, etc.

Unrealistic facts can be part of the hypothetical

Sometimes a question asks something that seems very simple. (E.g. "Is [some apparently legal thing] illegal?) This is okay. There might be many complications that could make the question more interesting to you, or that would result in a fact pattern that more clearly intersects with criminal prohibitions. But if the question asks about a simple scenario: answer about that simple scenario.