After almost two decades of—inter-disciplinary and counter-disciplinary—studies, debates, and critiques, alternative forms of interdisciplinarity have been envisaged and articulated. In this Chapter, I dedicate particular attention to some of these alternative interdisciplinary studies of IL and IR. Aiming to displace the dualistic framing that had structured an interdisciplinary conundrum, a varied group of critical scholars from both disciplines offered alternative approaches, turning attention to the practices, contestations, boundaries, and powers of legality (Rajkovic, Aalberts and Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2016a; Aalberts and Venzke, 2017; Aalberts and Gammeltoft-Hansen 2018a, 2018b). In so doing, this alternative literature positioned itself closer to more recent developments in IR, such as international political sociology and the practice turn, while also returning to significant characteristics of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) and IR critical constructivism. In this chapter, I offer a close reading of this alternative literature, paying particular attention to the way in which it resists reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and identities, while rethinking international law closer to fields, language games, and practices, and reengaging with the politics of international law from a more mesological or micrological perspective. Closing the first part of the book, I also notice a certain disregard for the international within this alternative literature.