On rules, principles, and teaching international law

As an educator, I am always pondering my teaching methods and questioning whether they are adequate for my students' growth. I have recently revisited Karl Llewellyn's "The Bramble Bush", a book that had a profound impact on my intellectual and academic development. In the very first pages, Llewellyn demystifies the legend that the study of law is (or could be) limited to learning the rules. His words made me consider my own teaching, and how much of it is reliant on the shortcut of simply paraphrasing the rules.

While teaching jurisprudence, I can easily avoid using specific provisions, except for rudimentary examples when necessary, and prioritize instead instilling the underlying principles in my students. Similarly, when it comes to teaching investment law, I have found that focusing on specific treaty rules may prove futile. Although the rules may be virtually the same across different treaties, the diversity in their interpretation by tribunals renders them unreliable for teaching purposes. I rather believe it is more important to emphasize the underlying principles of investment law, as this enables students to gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the field. 

However, while teaching the law of state responsibility, my lectures primarily revolve around the ILC articles. I first teach the rules, and then dive deeper into its interpretation and analysis with my students. This realization challenges my teaching principles, as I always emphasized  - sometimes in less than elegant terms - that anyone can learn the rules, but only a few can interpret and apply them: to truly comprehend the various aspects of the law, one must move beyond mere rote memorization and try their hand at of interpretation. It is through this lens that students can gain a more profound understanding of the law, appreciating its complexities and the factors that shape it. The ability to interpret the law is of far greater value than the ability to simply recite rules, for it enables students to apply their knowledge to the multifarious real-world scenarios they will inevitably encounter. Nevertheless, I wonder if my approach is at times detrimental to my students. Is my preference for principles and rationale over rules a narcissistic pursuit or a pragmatic approach to teaching? I am beset with these thoughts, and may need to ruminate before the next teaching term.