ABSTRACT
This chapter reflects upon the mainstream, normative approach to analysing decisions of international courts. It presents a critique of the strand of this academic practice that is sometimes denounced for producing allegedly unscientific outputs aimed pragmatically at organising case law, explaining judgments or merely opining on the technical correctness of interpretation made by an adjudicating body. It is posited that the intrinsic limits of the normative jurisprudence have prompted some normative scholars to borrow from the non-mainstream toolbox, thus avoiding the accusation of subjectivism and unscientific practice.
