The other reviews quite rightly emphasise the strength of this book's content. Indeed, this books provides a comprehensive collection of primary/secondary sources and 'insightful' commentary, relative to other international law cases/materials books aimed at students. However, that last qualification is important. Relative to cases/materials books generally (ie across all areas of law), it is readily apparent that this book is significantly deficient in terms of structure, coherence, cross-referencing and the ratio of source:commentary.
Dixon & McCorquodale's source book is stronger in these latter respects, but lets itself down in terms of content and comprehensiveness.
Why must there always be compromise between content/structure? I do not feel that this properly can be attributed to either the nature of the subject (the inevitable 'argh, i can't possibly get all of this into book form' excuse) or pressure from publishers (the equally inevitable 'argh, the publishers wouldn't let me put it all in' excuse). International lawyers intent on writing cases/materials books should (to excuse a pun) take a leaf out of McKendrick's contract source book, Elliot's administrative law source book, Herring's criminal law source book, or Tony Weir's tort case book (the latter is also published by Sweet & Maxwell, and hence must suffer the shameful structure/format and miniaturised commentary typeface, but is a fantastic book nonetheless).
A final note: while I do not readily support any form of legal spoon-feeding, it would be reassuringly 'nicer', given the unfamiliar nature of international law to undergraduate students, to include a brief summary of the salient points arising from the major cases (after they have been set out in nigh-on full length), rather than to proceed on the assumption that all has been happily digested and understood. See, eg McKendrick's contract source book, for a good example of how to do this.