Practice exams Public International Law - UU
- 3049 keer gelezen
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 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In this case, the Court developed the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Explain what function this margin of appreciation has in deciding whether an infringement in a right constitutes a violation of that right. Refer to paragraphs of the Handyside Case where necessary and/or helpful.
California – one of the states of the United States of America (US) – strongly opposes the new President’ s policies and rules. In a referendum, the people of California can express their will to become independent from the US and also express who they think must be the first President of California. From the referendum it follows that 95% of the people of California wish to become independent and 83% of the people would like to see former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as the first President of California. After taking some time to prepare the transition, the Republic of California is declared independent by the new President of California, Mr Schwarzenegger. Already in the first week of the independence, around 100 States express their congratulations to the newest State in the world and communicate their wishes to enter into all kinds of commercially interesting agreements and treaties.
Argue, by applying the relevant criteria, whether you think the Republic of California can be considered a State or not.
Do you think that the unilateral declaration of independence by California was a violation of international law? Motivate your answer.
South Africa claims that Namibia should have asked for South Africa’s permission and South Africa is right in this:
Reference to Article 60 UNCLOS: 6 points;
Article 60 UNCLOS says that, in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State (South Africa) shall have the exclusive right to authorize others (in this case Namibia) to construct artificial islands. Authorization (= permission) was thus required: 6 points.
Namibia claims that within the EEZ, other states enjoy the freedoms of the high seas, including building artificial islands. This argument is based on:
Article 58 UNCLOS giving a list of rights and duties of other States (like Namibia in this case) in the exclusive economic zone of a State (South Africa in this case): 3 points;
This list includes most of the freedoms referred to in article 87 UNCLOS (high seas freedoms): 2 points;
Yet the list does not include freedom of other States (Namibia) to construct artificial islands, because Article 60 UNCLOS says that, in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State (South Africa) shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of artificial islands: 3 points.
Further clarifications:
Mentioning art. 56 UNCLOS is incomplete. While it says that in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State (South-Africa) has jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, this provision does not exclude right of other States (Namibia) to establish artificial islands; Article 60 does so.
Merely mentioning art. 87 UNCLOS is an incomplete answer as it only establishes that freedom of the high seas comprises, inter alia, freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI.
Also, merely relying on art. 80 UNCLOS leads to an incomplete answer. It merely indicates that Article 60 UNCLOS applies mutatis mutandis to artificial islands, installations and structures on the continental shelf, situated in the high seas.
Personal jurisdiction (total 10 points):
Mentioning Art. 12(2) under a and b Rome Statute: 2 points;
Applying art. 12(2) under a and b Rome Statute (mentioning whether the act was committed on the territory of a state party or committed by a national of one of the state parties): 6 points (3 points per element);
Conclusion - the ICC has personal jurisdiction: 2 points.
Material jurisdiction (total 10 points):
Mentioning the basis of art. 5 Rome Statute: 2 points;
Checking genocide: art. 6 Rome Statute – It is doubtful that this would be genocide as the intent to destroy part of a population must be proven. Nonetheless the immediate context was the Rwandan genocide so if it is argued that this is an act of genocide and supported with sound arguments, it can be plausible: 2 points;
Checking crime against humanity: art. 7 Rome Statute – there must be a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population with knowledge from the state. Next, there must be one of the acts mentioned in the article. From DRC perspective, there is doubt that there is a widespread and systematic attack, although again, the Tutsi’s are targeted quite heavily in Eastern DRC. If a crime against humanity, it could be art. 7(1) under h; persecution of a group: 2 points;
Checking war crimes: art. 8 Rome Statute – at the time of these acts an armed conflict was off and on, making it possible to argue that there was a war-situation. At the same time, it is also easy to argue that there was not a full-fledged armed conflict going on. If a war situation was in place, there is still the question what the crime would be, possibly art. 8(2) b(i): 2 points;
Conclusion: the ICC does/might/does not have material jurisdiction, based on how the points mentioned here are argued: 2 points.
Further clarifications:
The term ‘personal jurisidiction’ is used as Klabbers uses it and we have used this in class as well. If someone mentioned art. 12 Rome Statute as territorial jurisdiction, this has not been considered incorrect.
Personal jurisdiction means having jurisdiction over the person before the court, not whether a person is a natural person or whether a person enjoys immunity (the Rome Statute excludes immunity for state officials anyway).
Points were granted for merely mentioning the crimes in art. 5 Rome Statute even with little clarification.
The crime of aggression is difficult to apply as it is typically a crime that is committed by states.
Temporal jurisdiction was excluded from the question yet many went into this (the fact that the crimes were committed before entry into force of the Rome Statute).
This question asks after the responsibility of the UK, to which end the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) must be applied. The division of points:
Acknowledge that the ARSIWA apply as customary law: 1 point;
Mention art. 2 ARSIWA and the elements: 2 points;
Act or omission (both options are possible): 3 points;
Torturing Iraqi prisoners; OR
Omission: prevention the Blackwater staff from torturing Iraqi prisoners;
Attribution: 5 points:
Departing from an omission: no attribution because the state omits (the duty rested on the state);
Departing from an act: Mentioning a relevant article (either art. 5, 7 or 8 ARSIWA) (2 points); Argumentation (3 points);
Breach of law: 5 points: Mentioning the relevant law (CAT or the customary rule not to torture) (2points); Explaining the breach(3points);
Conclusion (attention is paid to coherence! If the argument leads to the conclusion that there was no state responsibility, yet the conclusion is that there was, points are deducted): 4 points.
Minimum understanding of the ‘margin of appreciation’ (leaving some interpretative space for domestic authorities): 5 points.
Rationale of the margin of appreciation (i.e. lack of uniform conception in Europe, advantages of knowledge that domestic authorities have): 10 points max.
Additional aspects (precision (para 48-49), structure, and the relationships between the margin of appreciation and the ECtHR (“hand in hand with a European supervision” – para 49)): 5 points max.
Further clarifications:
Students who did very well (scoring 18-20 points) were able to identify that although states have a margin to interpret both the content (in this case “morals”) of the law as well as the means used to protect it (i.e. necessity of measures etc), European supervision applied to both of these aspects and they were thus able to describe the relationship between the margin of appreciation and Art. 10 (2) ECHR. With the margin of appreciation, it must be clear that when there is little regional consensus, there is a wider margin of appreciation. When there is broad regional consensus, there is a smaller margin of appreciation.
A common mistake made was to confuse art. 10(2) ECHR with the margin of appreciation. Art. 10(2) ECHR contains a test and when applying this test, the ECtHR uses the margin of appreciation. An argument based on balancing of rights (non-discrimination versus freedom of expression) is not correct.
This question asks for the application of the Montevideo criteria on statehood. The division of points:
Mentioning the Montevideo Convention: 0.5 points;
Territory: 1.5 points when mentioned and described and/or applied – 1 point when only mentioning the element;
Population: 1.5 points when mentioned and described and/or applied – 1 point when only mentioning the element;
Effective government: 1.5 points when mentioned and described and/or applied – 1 point when only mentioning the element;
Capacity to enter into relations: 1.5 points when mentioned and described and/or applied – 1 point when only mentioning the element;
Reference to the theory of recognition – name the declaratory and constitutive theories: 1 point per theory;
Applying a theory correctly: 0.5 points;
Clear conclusion to the question: 1 point.
There is no explicit prohibition of unilateral declaration under international law: 5 points. This has been clearly established in the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion. For merely mentioning this case: 2 points. Explaining in more detail what has been decided in the case: 5 points.
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
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
.....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
The 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
.....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
.....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
.....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
.....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
.....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
.....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:
Waag jij binnenkort de sprong naar het buitenland? Verzeker jezelf van een goede ervaring met de JoHo Special ISIS verzekering
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