As I had never taken a law class previously, and I major in Journalism, taking PIL at Georgetown was unlike any other class I had ever taken before. I had never really looked at controversial issues in contemporary politics from a legal perspective, where I would form an understanding based on reasoning backed up by international agreements, such as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, etc. Things weren’t simply wrong or right based on my opinion and/or morals, but I started to understand whether things lean towards wrong or right as a legal decision based on such agreements. Not only did I learn important laws in relation to sovereignty, self-determination, self-defense, etc. When I did one of my research papers on state responsibility regarding COVID-19 and China, I never really realized there are so many ways to look at an international issue besides the main idea of the issue itself. For example, when looking COVID-19 and China, all that came to me personally was COVID-19 caused a global pandemic, and it originated in China. However, I never thought about questions such as, should China be held responsible legally for the spread of COVID-19? Since it first originated there and then spread? Thus, this course definitely made me think about world issues from an international law perspective, rather from a perspective that is solely derived from what’s happening on the surface level. The idea that intrigued me the most is definitely how self defense is such a common “justification” for world leaders to initiate violence and inflict pain on people, as it is the only reason that can allow use of force. For example, two separate invasions (the US and UK invasion of Iraq and the Russian invasion of Ukraine) that occurred for different reasons, both took place with self-defense as an excuse – showing how powerful self-defense is in international law, as it is the only justification that allows use of force, while no other law does.