在全球化的時代下，任何國家，甚至於公司或個人，都不可能不受到一些跨領域事件與行為的影響，在這種情況下，國際法的重要性不言可喻。但是從經驗上看，國際法並未受國家的重視，許多國家法學院的課程，國際法也不是核心課程或是重要課程。其原因基本上與法的概念有關。例如，國際法是不是法？以及如何確認國際法規則？這些問題涉及國際法的本質與方法論也影響到國際法規則與原則的權威性，以及國際法的實效。但由於一般法律學者習慣於以國內法律體系概念看待國際法，加上國際法本身有關制度上規則的不完備，國際法因而出現弱化的現象。國際法的法源，國際法與國內法的關係，國家領域管轄權等議題都可以看見國家意志的影子及其影響，所以才會有國際法具有國家同意性的說明。本文對於國際法的議題與問題加以反思，認為國際法教學的整體目標應涵蓋本體、知識與現象等三個面向。並以此三個面向分析說明國際法的方法論，制度性規則的發展，國際法新價值體系的規範理論，檢討國際法的名稱問題。最後做成結論認為證立國際法的規範性意義與其證立方法，就是國際法教學最為重要的目的與目標。忽略這個目的與目標，誤以為國際法僅是學習現實國際社會中所出現的多樣性國際規則體系(rules regimes)，不但會有造成掏空國際法價值體系的危險，並將會加劇國際法的破碎。

No States, even corporations or individuals, can be free from the impact of globalization. Without a slightest doubt, International Law plays a significant role in the development of international regime. However, in practice, neither States nor law schools take International Law seriously, whether in dealing with international affairs or in legal education. The reason for this mainly concerns the concept of law. In this connection, the question whether International Law is a law usually comes up as to affect the authority or validity of the rules of international law. In fact, legal scholars in general are used to categorize the concept of law based on domestic legal systems; consequently, International Law is weakened especially vis-à-vis the insufficiency of institutional rules in international regime. The issues such as the sources of International Law, the relations between International Law and Municipal Law and the territorial jurisdiction of States are the reflections of the weakness of International Law in terms of the role played by States. Obviously, it explains why International Law is of consensual nature. This article rethinks the issues and topics in International Law and finds out that the object and purpose of International Law teaching should comprise ontological, epistemological and phenomenological dimensions. Based on the three aspects in International Law teaching, the article analyzes respectively the methodology of International Law, the development of institutional rules, the emergence of new values in international regime and finally the examination of the alternative name for International Law. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the importance of the method and principles for the justification of international rules and considers it as the main object and purpose of International Law teaching.