Practice exams Public International Law - UU
- 3107 reads
These questions are based on workgroups from 2016/2017
The international legal order is decentralized. Explain what this decentralized nature means. How is this reflected in the way law is made, enforced and disputes are settled? Make a comparison with the situation in the Dutch Legal order.
For many years, North Korea has been testing long-distance missiles. Tests have shown that these missiles could hit the territory of the United States. North Korea also conducts nuclear tests, and it continuously makes aggresive speeches directed against the US. Leader Kim Jong Un was present at the most recent long-distance missiles test, and said the missiles would help 'strike great horror and terror into the hearts of the US'. The US does not decide to wait for an actual attack, but decides to attack North Korea as a means of self-defence. The US bombards the basis in North Korea from which the long-distance missiles can be fired. The base is destroyed, and twenty soldiers operating the base are killed. The next day, the US notifies the Security Council of the bombardment.
Which requirements must be met before a state can invoke self-defence? Mention relevant articles and/or case law.
In your opinion, did the US rightfully invoke self-defence in this case?
Midkemia issued the following statement when acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):
Declaration by Midkemia
The Government of Midkemia reserves the right not to apply any provision or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with religious laws applicable in Midkemia.
Article 51 of the CRC states that 'a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.' Kelewan responded with the following statement:
The Government of Kelewan considers that the reservation made by the Government of Midkemia, due to its very broad scope and unidentified character, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and thus not permitted under article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government of Kelewan does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Kelewan and Midkemia.
Is the statement by Midkemia an interpretative declaration or a reservation? Is it valid? Explain your answer and refer to the relevant sources of international law.
What exactly is the treaty relationship between Midkemia and Kelewan when it comes to the CRC?
Rather controversial means of intrusive action by states are the humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. Describe in your own words what a humanitarian intervention is. Try to define it in legal terms by placing the concept in the entire framework of peace and security and give two arguments in favour of humanitarian interventions and two arguments against it. You can use past humanitarian interventions as examples.
Paragraph 138 and 139 of the General Assembly World Summit Outcome Document of 2004 read as follows:
Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Would you argue that the concept of RtoP is different than that of humanitarian intervention or not? Why?
In Libya, RtoP was used as the basis for international action against the regime of Khadaffi. In the case of Syria, voices were heard arguing that the same basis should be invoked to put a stop to the violence there. Why has RtoP not (yet) been invoked in Syria?
Look up General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) on the definition of ‘aggression’. How does this Resolution contribute to the entire set of rules and principles on peace and security? And what are the weaknesses of the Resolution?
The Colombian government has been battling the armed group Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) for years now. This is happening mainly on Colombian territory but the FARC also has camps in Ecuador from which it conducts attacks on Colombian territory. On the 1stof March, 2008, the Colombian military counter-attacks a FARC-camp on Ecuadorian territory. During this attack, Raul Reyes, one of the main leaders of FARC, is being killed.
Does international law allow for such an armed intervention?
During the attack on the FARC-camp in Ecuador, the Colombian military confiscates the computer of Raul Reyes. In May 2008, Interpol confirms that the many e-mails and other documents found on the computer are authentic. These e-mails and documents appeared to demonstrate that Venezuelan President (at the time) Hugo Chavez offered the FARC up to 300 million US dollars and oil that the FARC could sell with a profit. The documents also suggested that the Venezuelan military helped the FARC to obtain small arms and that it facilitated meetings with arms dealers. If these allegations are true: in what way(s) was Venezuela violating international law by giving such support to FARC?
Would the support given by Venezuela to the FARC give Colombia the right to use force against Venezuela? Explain your answer.
The international legal system is characterized as decentralized because of the absence of a concentration of power, or a central authority responsible for establishing, applying and enforcing rules of international law.
International law consist of a community of equal parties (States), that make the rules themselves (by treaty and custom), settle their own disputes (arbitration and jurisdiction only with the consent of the States concerned), and impose sanctions on each other (countermeasures).
In the Dutch legal order, the rules are made by the legislater, disputes are settled by the courts, and sanctions are imposed by the authorities.
See art. 51 UN Charter and the ICJ's Nicaragua case.
Self-defence must be a reaction to an actual or imminent armed attack.
Self-defence must be necessary (no other option available).
The use of force must be proportional to the armed attack.
The use of force as self-defence must be reported to the Security Council.
And the right to use force ends when the Security Council takes appropriate measures.
There was no actual armed attack, so you need to look at criteria for anticipatory self-defence.
Argue whether the attack was imminent, i.e. 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and deliberation' (Caroline criteria). Since North Korea has been conducting tests and threatening the US for decades, it is hard to argue that an attack is now imminent.
The self-defence was necessary, as negotations and other peaceful means to respond have proved futile.
The use of force was proportional: only the base destroyed, no civilians killed.
The use of force as self-defence was reported to the Security Council, and the US only carried out this one military strike.
Midkemia does not call its statement a 'reservation', but that is not decisive.
What matters is whether the statement purports to modify the legal effect of the provisions of the CRC. See art. 2, paragraph 1 (d) VCLT.
From the text of the reservation, it appears that Midkemia wants to exclude the application of all provisions of the CRC if those provisions are incompatible with the religious laws that apply in Midkemia. Its intended purpose is thus modification, and thus it is a reservation.
The reservation made by Midkemia may be considered incompatible with the object and purpose of the Treaty because it can exclude the application of all provisions of the Convention. As a result, the objective of the Convention cannot be realized. It is thus an invalid reservation; see 19 (c) VCLT.
Kelewan considers the reservation - rightly - as a forbidden one, because it is not consistent with the object and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Kelewan regards Midkemia as a full party to the Convention; in Kelewans view, Midkemia cannot rely on the reservation (Kelewan regards the reservation as non-existent).
Midkemia can choose to withdraw the reservation, or withdraw from the Convention.
If Midkemia takes no action, Midkemia is a party to the whole treaty, and the reservation is automatically void because it is contrary to the object and purpose of the Treaty.
Humanitarian intervention is the threat or use of force by one or more States acting without authorization from the Security Council. States will use this to prevent attacks on their own territory and to prevent attacks on their civilians. They could also use it to help a friend or neighbour who is suffering from attacks. However, since the Security Council has not given authorization, it is actually illegal what they do and it could violate more people than it would if there wasn't an intervention. Examples are Kosovo and Iraq.
This responsibility to protect is different from humanitarian intervention, since this is with authorization of the Security Council (through the Security Council), where there is no authorization in the case of humanitarian intervention.
In the case of Syria, it was not the regime itself that committed genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and/or crimes against humanity. It is IS that commits these, or some of these, crimes, not the government. The regime of al Assad is even helping with fighting IS.
In most cases where the principles on peace and security are being violated, there has been an aggression. This resolution says aggression can only be committed by States, while there are also armed groups, such as IS, that also commit aggression. According to this resolution, that is not possible.
There is one State using force on the territory of another State. International law does allow such an armed intervention, if this is an act of self-defence (article 51 of the UN Charter), if an armed attack occurs. In this case there has been several armed attacks (the FARC also has camps in Ecuador from which it conducts attacks on Columbian territory). Columbia could use its right to anticipatory self-defence. The Caroline principle must be applied here, which says that there has to be an instant, overwhelming attack which leaves no time for deliberation. Columbia could not fight against Ecuador, only the rebels, check if the rebels have something to do with the State.
There is probably an existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.
Columbia could not use its right of self-defence, since there has been no armed attack by Venezuela.
South Africa has claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to the fullest extent possible. Suppose that neighbouring Namibia is constructing an artificial island that lies within South Africa’s EEZ. This artificial island is meant for a Namibian research centre intended to do research on the role of climate in the change of water currents around the Cape. South Africa informs Namibia of its mistake in placing this island in South Africa’s EEZ and tells Namibia that it has no right to do this without South Africa’s permission. Namibia responds by saying that within the EEZ, other states enjoy the freedoms of the high seas, including building artificial islands. Which country is right and why? Both states are party to UNCLOS.
In the International Court of Justice Arrest Warrant Case (Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) v. Belgium), Belgium issued an arrest warrant for the arrest of Mr Yerodia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DRC at the time. The reason for this was incitement of racial hatred by Mr Yerodia against Tutsi’s in Eastern DRC. Belgium was not allowed to prosecute Mr Yerodia. Determine whether Mr Yerodia could possibly be tried by the International Criminal Court for these acts by considering whether the Court has personal jurisdiction and material jurisdiction (so there is no need to go into temporal jurisdiction). Mention relevant treaty provisions. The DRC ratified the Rome Statute in April 2002.
In 2003, the UK became engaged in an international armed conflict in Iraq. The UK decided to establish a prison in Iraq where the people detained are mostly Iraqi nationals suspected of having committed terrorist acts. The UK decided to outsource some of the tasks related to the management of the prison to a private military and security company registered in the United States of America, called Blackwater. For this purpose, a contract was concluded between the UK Government and Blackwater in which the following provision could be found:
‘All prisoners shall be treated with respect for their human dignity at all times. Prisoners may not be subjected to any form of illegal ill treatment. Torture is particularly and irrevocably prohibited.’
The UK is a party to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In 2007, reports appeared in the media that the staff of Blackwater working in the prison tortured a large number of Iraqi prisoners.
Could the UK be held responsible for the torture of Iraqi prisoners committed by Blackwater employees? Motivate your answer and mention applicable (treaty) provisions and/or case law.
In the case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that although the UK had interfered with Mr Handyside’s right to freedom of expression, the UK was not in violation of Article 10 of the
.....read moreWhat are the ways through which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could establish jurisdiction over a dispute between two States? Mention relevant treaty provisions to support your answer.
Justitia and Benevoleria are members of the United Nations. In 1980, the two States decided to conclude a bilateral treaty called the Yellow Pipeline Treaty ('the Treaty') regulating the construction of underwater pipelines between the two States. The Treaty does not contain any provisions on dispute settlement. After Justitia began its construction in 2003, Benevoleria accused Justitia of violating several provisions of the Treaty, and decided to bring a case against Justitia to the ICJ for these violations.
In 1976, Justitia made an unconditional declaration recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory in relation to other states that made the same declaration. In 1990, Benevoleria also made a declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, but only over disputes arising from multilateral conventions.
Would the ICJ have jurisdiction in this case? Mention relevant treaty provision and case law to support your answer.
What is the right of innocent passage according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Mention relevant provisions under UNCLOS to support your answer.
Upon ratification of the UNCLOS in 2003, Myanmar made the following declaration in relation to the exercise of the right of innocent passage:
Myanmar is of the view that (..) a notification requirement is needed in respect of nuclear-powered ships or ships carrying nuclear or other inherently dangerous or noxious substances.
In your opinion, is Myanmar’s notification requirement regarding nuclear vessels and vessels carrying noxious substances in conformity with UNCLOS? Mention relevant provisions under UNCLOS to support your answer.
Name and briefly describe the sources of international law. Provide an answer of no more than two lines for each source and mention relevant treaty provisions to support your answer.
Parvati and Forbido are parties to the Convention on Access to Resources in the Numera Steppe (the Steppe Convention), a treaty aiming at improving access to water.
Among the provisions of the Steppe Convention is the following:
Article 12. ACCESS TO WATER
In the event that a source of water is located on the border between State parties, the Heads of State of the respective parties shall enter into negotiations in good faith for an arrangement on access to the water.
As a republic, Parvati made the following declaration when ratifying the Steppe Convention:
“With regards to Article 12, Parvati does not recognize the authority of any monarch, king or queen, of another State and will only engage in negotiations with elected members of democratic institutions.”
The Kingdom of Forbido is a constitutional
.....read moreThe International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established at a United Nations conference in 1944. The IMF's mandate includes ensuring the stability of the international monetary system, as well as overseeing all macroeconomic and financial issues which affect global stability. In recent years, the IMF has become concerned with the fact that, despite global economic growth, there still exists a lack of access to education for young girls in many countries around the world.
The IMF raises the issue with the United Nations General Assembly. The General Assembly decides to request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the following question: what obligations do States have under international law with regard to ensuring access to education for their citizens?
Can the ICJ render an advisory opinion at the request of the General Assembly in this case? Mention relevant treaty provisions and case law to support your answer.
Between the IMF and the United Nations, there is an agreement authorising the IMF to request advisory opinions from the ICJ. The IMF thus decides not to raise the issue with the General Assembly, but to bring a request for an advisory opinion to the ICJ by itself on the same question: what obligations do States have under international law with regard to ensuring access to education for their citizens?
Can the ICJ issue an advisory opinion at the request of the IMF in this case? Mention relevant treaty provisions and case law to support your answer.
All States in this case are parties to the United Nations Charter.
Over the last 5 years, the State of Proximia has suffered from several gruesome attacks in its territory by a group called ‘Independent State’ (IS). IS comprises of militants from all over the world, but it receives funding, weapons and training from the prosperous neighbouring State of Neverland. Witnesses have also seen members of Neverland’s army on the ground directing IS troops in their day-to-day activities, with modern technologies and tactics. Without this support IS would be completely
incapable of carrying out its activities.
After IS carried out a particularly grave attack at a concert in a Proximian park, which killed 20 Proximian nationals, Proximia decided to conduct air strikes targeting several military bases in Neverland. Neverland immediately objected, claiming that Proximia has violated international law.
Do you agree with Neverland? Mention relevant treaty provisions, customary international law and case law to support your answer.
Audaria is a province of the State of Croteria. Living in Audaria is a group of ethnic minority called Audarian, who possesses a language, culture and religion that are distinct to the rest of Croteria. Audaria has a regional authority which exercises administrative control throughout the region. In
.....read moreThese questions are based on workgroups from 2016/2017
The international legal order is decentralized. Explain what this decentralized nature means. How is this reflected in the way law is made, enforced and disputes are settled? Make a comparison with the situation in the Dutch Legal order.
For many years, North Korea has been testing long-distance missiles. Tests have shown that these missiles could hit the territory of the United States. North Korea also conducts nuclear tests, and it continuously makes aggresive speeches directed against the US. Leader Kim Jong Un was present at the most recent long-distance missiles test, and said the missiles would help 'strike great horror and terror into the hearts of the US'. The US does not decide to wait for an actual attack, but decides to attack North Korea as a means of self-defence. The US bombards the basis in North Korea from which the long-distance missiles can be fired. The base is destroyed, and twenty soldiers operating the base are killed. The next day, the US notifies the Security Council of the bombardment.
Which requirements must be met before a state can invoke self-defence? Mention relevant articles and/or case law.
In your opinion, did the US rightfully invoke self-defence in this case?
Midkemia issued the following statement when acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC):
Declaration by Midkemia
The Government of Midkemia reserves the right not to apply any provision or articles of the Convention that are incompatible with religious laws applicable in Midkemia.
Article 51 of the CRC states that 'a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.' Kelewan responded with the following statement:
The Government of Kelewan considers that the reservation made by the Government of Midkemia, due to its very broad scope and unidentified character, is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and thus not permitted under article 51 paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government of Kelewan does not consider this objection to preclude the entry into force of the Convention between the Kingdom of Kelewan and Midkemia.
Is the statement by Midkemia an interpretative declaration or a reservation? Is it valid? Explain your answer and refer to the relevant sources of international law.
What exactly is the treaty relationship between Midkemia and Kelewan when it comes to the CRC?
Rather controversial means of intrusive action by states are the humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect. Describe in your own words what a humanitarian intervention is. Try to define it in legal terms by placing the concept in the entire framework of peace and security and give two arguments in favour of humanitarian interventions and two arguments against it. You can use past humanitarian interventions
.....read moreThese questions are based on work groups from 2016/2017
There are a number of functions of international law. Name and shortly describe three functions of international law.
When we talk about ‘international law’ we actually mean ‘public international law’ which must be distinct from ‘private international law’. Explain the difference between public international law and private international law.
The field of public international law consists of many more specific fields. Name and describe at least three of these fields.
As a law student, you will follow courses on European Law, being the law of the European Union. Does this field of law fall under public international law? Explain why or why not.
Read the ICJ’s North Sea Continental Shelf Case and answer the following questions on customary international law. Which elements determine whether a rule of customary international law exists?
What did the ICJ say about establishing these elements? Also mention the relevant paragraphs of the case.
If a state disagrees with a certain practice and makes this clear from the moment the practice starts developing into a customary norm, what would be the effect on the existence of that customary norm? Involve two perspectives in your answer: what would be the effect on the existence of that customary norm in general and what would be the effect for the state that disagrees with the norm?
What is a peremptory norm (ius cogens)? Give an example
After negotiating a treaty text, the VCLT provides several ways in which a state can consent to be bound by the treaty.
The United States (US) participated in the negotiations of the Treaty of Rome (the Statute of the International Criminal Court). The text of the Treaty of Rome was adopted by the ‘Rome Conference’ (officially: the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court) in 1998. After the text was adopted, each individual state can – if it wishes to do so – sign the text. The US signed the Treaty of Rome on 31 December 2000. Consider the VCLT and the Treaty of Rome. What is the legal implication for the US of signing the Treaty of Rome?
On 6 May 2002, the Secretary-General of the UN received the following declaration from the US:
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary’s status lists
.....read moreIn de Staat Sitia vindt al jarenlang een burgeroorlog plaats, die steeds gewelddadiger wordt. De Staat Ixia, die niet direct betrokken is bij de burgeroorlog in Sitia, is gechoqueerd door de beelden op de televisie en wil graag met militaire middelen ingrijpen om de oorlog te stoppen. Leg uit onder welke voorwaarden een dergelijk militair ingrijpen rechtmatig kan zijn.
Wanneer kan een entiteit onder het huidige internationaal publiekrecht als ‘Staat’ worden beschouwd?
Is erkenning van de entiteit als ‘Staat’ door andere Staten hiervoor tegenwoordig een juridisch vereiste? Zo niet, is dergelijke erkenning dan wel relevant in de praktijk?
Een olietanker van de Staat Sitia lijdt schipbreuk vlak voor de kust van de Staat Ixia. De olie begint te lekken uit het schip en drijft richting de kust. Om een milieuramp te voorkomen, besluit de Staat Ixia om het schip en alle olie die er nog in zit te vernietigen, door vanuit een straaljager enkele bommen te werpen op de olietanker. Alle mensen hebben het schip dan reeds verlaten. Staat Sitia wil graag dat Ixia aansprakelijk gehouden wordt voor het vernietigen van de olietanker. U bent de juridisch adviseur van Staat Ixia. Aan u is de taak om te betogen dat de Staat Ixia zich kan beroepen op een rechtvaardigingsgrond, waardoor de hierboven geschetste omstandigheden geen internationaal onrechtmatige daad van Ixia opleveren.
Zantanakrant, 9 maart 2009
Strafhof gelast arrestatiebevel Valek
Door een onzer redacteuren De Citadel, 4 maart.
Het Internationale Strafhof heeft vandaag een arrestatiebevel uitgevaardigd tegen de Ixische president Valek wegens misdaden tegen de menselijkheid en oorlogsmisdaden in Ixia. Hij wordt niet vervolgd voor genocide. Hoofdaanklager Cahil had daar wel om gevraagd. Valek wordt aangeklaagd voor moord, uitroeiing, het verdrijven van burgers, marteling en verkrachting (misdaden tegen de menselijkheid) en gerichte aanvallen tegen de burgerbevolking en plundering (oorlogsmisdaden). In het conflict in de Westelijke regio van Ixia zijn sinds 2003 zeker 200.000 doden gevallen en zijn 2,5 miljoen mensen ontheemd geraakt. [...] In juli vorig jaar vroeg Sitia de rechters een arrestatiebevel uit te vaardigen. Dat leidde tot protesten van onder andere de Zandzaadstam en de Juweelstam, die zeiden te vrezen dat het geweld in Ixia zou aanwakkeren als Valek vervolgd zou worden. Het Strafhof is van mening dat er geen duurzame vrede in Ixia kan zijn zonder gerechtigheid. De regering van Ixia weigert elke vorm van medewerking met het [Straf]hof. De griffier van het Strafhof gaat “alle benodigde landen” medewerking vragen bij de arrestatie van Valek. Het [Straf]hof heeft geen eigen politiemacht en is zodoende afhankelijk van staten om verdachten te arresteren. Als Ixia en andere landen weigeren mee te werken bij de arrestatie, zal de griffier de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties om maatregelen vagen. Valek zei gisteren, vooruitlopend op het verwachte arrestatiebevel, tegen een menigte juichende aanhangers in
.....read moreStelling I: het non-interventiebeginsel vereist dat het geweldverbod is geschonden.
Stelling II: het non-interventiebeginsel brengt mee dat staten zich niet mogen mengen in de interne aangelegenheden van een andere staat.
Welke criteria voor de uitoefening van het recht op zelfverdediging onder artikel 51 van het VN handvest komen in het Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory advies naar voren?
Aan welke criteria moet een humanitaire interventie volgens Nederland voldoen?
Met betrekking tot de individuele strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid inzake oorlogsmisdrijven onder internationaal publiekrecht kan gesteld worden dat deze:
Het internationaal milieurecht:
Aan welke voorwaarden moet zijn voldaan voor een onrechtmatige daad onder internationaal publiekrecht?
Gewoonterecht bestaat uit twee elementen. Welke elementen zijn dit? Geef van ieder element één concreet voorbeeld.
Op 20 februari ontploft er een bom in een hotel in Apollonia. Na enig speurwerk van de politie van Apollonia blijkt dat de daders voornamelijk de nationaliteit hebben van Mercuria en zich ook op het grondgebied van Mercuria bevinden. Mercuria wil de daders berechten.
Mag Apollonia de daders zelf arresteren op het grondgebied van Mercuria? Waarom wel/niet?
Op grond van welk beginsel mag Mercuria de daders zelf berechten?
Beschrijf het collectieve veiligheidssysteem van de Verenigde Naties, zoals dat is neergelegd in het VN Handvest.
De buurlanden Magua en Natea hebben decennia lang tegen elkaar oorlog gevoerd. Beide landen hebben zich tijdens deze strijd schuldig gemaakt aan genocide. Eindelijk heerst er weer vrede. Bij wekelijkse informele bijeenkomsten hebben de presidenten van beide landen regelmatig verklaard dat zij nooit meer genocide willen plegen en bovendien alles willen doen om genocide te voorkomen. Dit hebben partijen steeds genoteerd in de notulen van de bijeenkomsten. Na een tijd van rust is het leger van Magua toch weer overgegaan tot het plegen van genocide. Vele burgers van Natea zijn inmiddels het slachtoffer geworden van deze genocide. Natea stelt, dat Magua in strijd handelt met zijn verplichtingen die voortvloeien uit het verdrag dat tijdens de informele bijeenkomsten werd gesloten. Het verdrag houdt volgens Natea in dat het plegen van genocide verboden is. Magua stelt, dat er geen sprake is van een verdrag.
Is er sprake van een verdrag? Motiveer uw antwoord.
NB: de vraag heeft betrekking op de vorm en niet op totstandkoming, inwerkingtreding of geldigheid van verdragen.
Op grond van welke andere rechtsregel zou het plegen van genocide verboden kunnen zijn?
Lees het volgende bericht (Bron: Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken):
“Somalië kampt al decennialang met conflicten en rivaliteit tussen (sub-) clans en belangengroeperingen onder leiding van elkaar bestrijdende krijgsheren. Het land gaat gebukt onder extreme armoede en kent al 16 jaar geen effectieve regering. […] De situatie werd sinds 2006 complexer door de opkomst van de Unie van Islamitische Rechtbanken (UIC), een groepering die zich langs godsdienstige lijnen verzet tegen de internationaal erkende overgangsregering (TFG) en de krijgsheren. […] De spanning tussen de UIC en de TFG liep in de tweede helft van 2006 hoog op. Diplomatieke initiatieven van de Arabische Liga en de regionale organisatie IGAD om een politieke oplossing voor het conflict te vinden liepen op niets uit waarop een militaire interventie volgde. In verrassend korte tijd heroverde de TFG, met steun van het Ethiopische leger en de VS, een groot deel van zuid-Somalië op de UIC. De situatie in het land blijft echter zeer instabiel. De UIC voert dagelijks guerilla-achtige aanvallen uit op de TFG. Een vredesmacht van de Afrikaanse Unie probeert de situatie in Somalië te stabiliseren.”
In hoeverre
.....read moreOm elk signaal van ‘hooliganisme’ bij de UEFE Cup finale dit jaar in Eindhoven in een vroeg stadium te voorkomen heeft de politie besloten preventieve arrestaties uit te voeren. Zo werd ook een groepje Leidse studenten opgepakt, dat hun zustervereniging wilde bezoeken. De studenten hebben de nacht in een cel door moeten brengen en zijn de volgende ochtend met excuses weer op straat gezet. De zaak komt uiteindelijk bij de Nederlandse rechter, die zich geconfronteerd ziet met de vraag of deze arrestatie een schending is van artikel 9.1 van het IVBPR
Artikel 9
Een ieder heeft het recht op vrijheid en veiligheid van zijn persoon. Niemand mag worden onderworpen aan willekeurige arrestatie of gevangenhouding. Niemand mag zijn vrijheid worden ontnomen, behalve op wettige gronden en op wettige wijze.
Mag de rechter aan deze specifieke bepaling toetsen?
Stel dat tijdens het proces vast komt te staan dat Nederland een geldig voorbehoud heeft gemaakt op art 9.1 IVBPR, wat een beroep op de bepaling dus uitsluit. De advocaat van een van de studenten stelt dat artikel 9.1 IVBPR inmiddels de status van gewoonterecht heeft verkregen en concludeert dat Nederland derhalve nog steeds verbonden is aan de inhoud van de bepaling.
Indien u ervan uit gaat dat de conclusie van de advocaat correct is, is toetsing van het artikel 9.1 IVBPR door de rechter dan alsnog mogelijk?
Rechtssubjectiviteit omvat verschillende bekwaamheden. Welke bekwaamheden kunt u onderscheiden en welk rechtssubject komt alle bekwaamheden toe?
Ook internationale organisaties kunnen rechtssubjectiviteit bezitten. In welke uitspraak van Internationale Gerechtshof werd erkend dat de VN rechtspersoonlijkheid bezit en welke theorie past het Hof hierbij toe? Leg uit wat deze theorie inhoud.
Op 27 oktober 2005, even na middernacht, breekt in een cellencomplex in de buurt van luchthaven Schiphol brand uit. Elf mensen die vastgehouden worden in dat complex komen om. Nabestaanden van deze mensen proberen de Nederlandse staat voor de rechter te dagen wegens schending van het recht op leven, maar zelfs de hoogste Nederlandse rechter geeft hen geen gelijk.
Welke mogelijkheden zijn er voor de nabestaanden om binnen de internationale rechtsorde een individuele klacht in te dienen tegen Nederland? Kunnen deze mogelijkheden gelijktijdig worden bewandeld?
De Belgische regering overweegt ook een klacht in te dienen tegen Nederland wegens overtreding van haar internationaal-rechterlijke verplichtingen. Geen van de overledenen heeft een link met België.
Kan België desondanks een internationale statenklacht indienen tegen Nederland? Zo ja, waar? Aan welke voorwaarden moet dan zijn voldaan?
Edouard Vill is in 2005 gekozen tot president van Torturia. Hij besluit de kerstdagen in Justicia door te brengen. Op de tweede dag van zijn verblijf, wordt hij gearresteerd en aangeklaagd wegens misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. Volgens de Justiciaanse Aanklager is Vill tijdens de burgeroorlog in zijn Torturia (1999-2003) betrokken geweest bij het folteren
.....read moreUit het tweede beginsel van de Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) kun je afleiden dat:
Van staat tot staat kan het verschillen waarop het internationale recht doorwerkt in de nationale rechtsorde. Ten aanzien van de doorwerking van internationaal recht in de Nederlandse rechtsorde kan worden gesteld dat:
Een persoon met de nationaliteit van staat Adrie maakt zich vanuit dit land schuldig aan het hacken van websites en het verspreiden van virussen onder particuliere bedrijven in staat Boosland. Zou staat Boosland rechtsmacht kunnen uitoefenen ten aanzien van deze persoon?
Het onderscheid tussen zeegebieden die vallen binnen de soevereiniteit van kuststaten, zeegebieden waar kuststaten beperkte rechtsmacht kunnen uitoefenen en zeegebieden die buiten nationale rechtsmacht vallen, wordt gemaakt door het VN Zeerechtverdrag uit 1982. Welke van deze beweringen ten aanzien van deze zones is juist?
Reparation for Injuries: Het Internationaal Gerechtshof stelde vast dat:
JoHo can really use your help! Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world
There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.
Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?
Field of study
Add new contribution