The eight very different higher education institutions define excellence in ways that make sense to the people they serve and reflect the demands of culture and place. They are places that have looked for and pursue a clear sense of purpose and where institutional behavior aligns with stated values and goals. These portraits offer insights into the ways institutions can create cultures of excellence without slavishly following the norms and metrics celbrated by international ranking schemes. They also show policymakers that concentrating resources on a few institutions is not the only way to lift quality and strengthen a national system.

Building on a comprehensive conscription system established ahead of the French Wars, the Habsburg Monarchy could raise armies almost as large as those available to Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. But fielding a large force was not enough to win. Among the more prominent factors undermining Austria’s military capacity was the collective ethos of her officers, whose meagre pay, low social standing, and limited promotion opportunities bred indifference to military professionalism. While reform efforts by the talented Archduke Charles substantially improved the fighting effectiveness of the Habsburg troops, the Archduke never enjoyed the full trust of the emperor. Against Charles’ advice, in 1805 the army was pushed unprepared into war, resulting in a crushing defeat. In spite of far better military performance in 1809, the Monarchy’s attempt to take on the Napoleonic Empire single-handedly led to another costly failure. Forced to scale down its army in the Peace of Schönbrunn, Austria covertly retained much of its veteran manpower. In 1812, while nominally a French ally, further arrangements were set for a rapid expansion and training of her forces. When the Habsburgs have re-joined the war against Napoleon, the size and quality of the Austrian contingent tipped the balance in favour of the Allied Coalition ensuring Napoleon’s final defeat.

This chapter discusses the weight of teachings in the ICJ generally, drawing the conclusion that teachings have generally low weight in the ICJ. Various patterns in the use of teachings are drawn on to support this conclusion. The most striking pattern is the contrast between majority opinions, which almost never cite teachings, and majority opinions, where many judges cite teachings. An attempt is made to explain this, with the most promising explanation being that this is part of the Court’s institutional culture. The Court’s use of teachings is also compared with the use of judicial decisions and works by the International Law Commission, which are generally assigned more weight than teachings. This is because of teachings do not have the official authority of those sources.