PIL - Exam Training - Cases - 2021
Public International Law
39 flashcards · Law · by daniel-eder
Countries A and B conclude a bilateral "Friendship Treaty": Art 42: There shall be free movement of persons of either nationality between the High Contracting Parties. Art 43: Free movement of persons under Art 42 shall only be restricted on grounds of public health, safety or security. Following the 2019 CoViD-19-outbreak, A requires everyone wishing to enter A to either show a negative CoViD-19-medical test or to accept a 2-week quarantine at his/her own cost B claims this violates the treaty.
Art 42 allows free movement, so it looks like there might be a violation But Art 43 allows restrictions based on public health covid 19 is threat to public health treaty not violated because of restriction is justified with Art 43
Following the 2019 CoViD-19-outbreak, Absurdistan requires everyone wishing to enter Absurdistan to either show a negative CoViD-19-medical test or to accept a 2-week quarantine at his/her own cost. In order to enforce these rules, Absurdistan mobilises part of her military reserve forces and puts them on border control duties. Bazaristan claims that these measures amount to an unlawful threat of force under the UN Charter, since military units are being deployed by Absurdistan at the border wi…
B claims that deployment of military units is unlawful threat of force Art 2 (4) UN-C prohibits the use or the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The measure does not coerce B to certain political decisions and has no impact on the territorial integrity thus no unlawful threat or use of force
Countries A and B have a dispute over The alleged violation of a bilateral treaty by A and The claim of an unlawful threat of force by A against B Bilateral Treaty: " ... Art 100: Any dispute arising from this treaty shall be decided by the International Court of Justice. ... " B brings a case against A before the ICJ A immediately nominates the Head of the Institute of Public International Law of JKU Linz as a Judge ad hoc, since there is no A Judge on the bench of the ICJ. The B President imm…
Jurisdiction of the ICJ is not compulsatory, thus must be established for each case Art 100 of the treaty establishes it Art 36 para 1 ICJ-S allows jurisdiction established by treaty Appointment of the Judge Art 31 para 2 and ICJ-S allow a party that has no judge of its nationality on the bench to nominate one ad hoc. the ad hoc judge may but does not have to be of the same nationality as the nominating state Art 2 ICJ-S requires judges to be persons of high moral character in case no indicatio…
Chalkland islands: 1600: Anglian warship draws chart of island and leaves flag 1800: Hispania colonises Island, not knowing about previous events (Flag long gone), builds farms and villages and establishes a local administration 1900: Anglia invades, forces Hispanians to leave and puts up a garrison After WW II: A and H join UN and grant independence to colonies.Ex-Hispanian colonies form the new State Perontina that also joins UN. Anglia still sees Chalkland Islands as her territories and cont…
1600 Establishing sovereignty over a territory requires a certain degree of effectivity depends on local conditions (island needs a lesser extent of administration and population than landlocked area) Drawing chart and leaving flag is not sufficient 1800 Coloninization and building of farms, villages and the local adminisration is sufficiently effective Hispania establishes sovereignty over the islands and they become hispanian territory 1900 UN Charter did not exist until 1945, so at the time…
Chalkland islands: 1600: Anglian warship draws chart of island and leaves flag 1800: Hispania colonises Island, not knowing about previous events (Flag long gone), builds farms and villages and establishes a local administration 1900: Anglia invades, forces Hispanians to leave and puts up a garrison After WW II: A and H join UN and grant independence to colonies.Ex-Hispanian colonies form the new State Perontina that also joins UN. Anglia still sees Chalkland Islands as her territories and cont…
Perontina As established by the other card about this case the Chalkland islands are Anglian territory even after WW II. Perontina joined the UN and is bound by the UN-C Art 2 para 3 requires peaceful dispute resolution, Art 2 para 4 forbids threat or use of force. The invasion is such a use of force Perontina violated Art 2 para 4 UN-C Anglia Seemingly also violated the prohibition of use of force However, Art 51 UN-C allows force for self defence this is also customary international law requi…
A group of “patriotic IT students” in Bazaristan on their own initiative launch a major cyber attack on networks in Absurdistan which effectively brings to a halt public life in Absurdistan for several days. Absurdistan has to literally disconnect itself from the Internet to restore all major public services Did Bazaristan Violate Art 2 para 4 UN-C?
= threat or use of force? Is a cyber attack an armed attack? Is a question of "scale and effect" (every armed attack is a use of force, but not every use of force amounts to an armed attack) Brought public life to a halt for several days, so it reaches the extent to be equated to an armed attack Is it attributable to Bazaristan? prohibition of Art 2 para 4 UN-C only covers force exercised by states against territorial integrity or political independence of another state Art 8 DARS: even non-gov…
Absurdistan is an authoritarian State in Central Asia. Its economy is transforming from mainly industry and agriculture towards a modern service-based economy. Digitalisation has only begun: Computers are quite common, but IT (= information technology) security is underdeveloped; most private (and even some governmental) networks are not even password-protected, and hardly anyone uses anti-malware programmes. A group of “patriotic IT students” in Bazaristan on their own initiative launch a majo…
International obligation A's actions also affect K could be a breach of an international obligation international obligation is not necessarily a breach of treaty K was dependent on A's IT providers, so the disconnecting of the Internet could have violated an international obligation Justification? wrongful actions can be justified in certain circumstances consent of the injured party self defence reprisals necessity necessity: essential interest of the state are at stake, and can only be prote…
Absurdistan is an authoritarian State in Central Asia. It is only just trasnferring to a modern service-based economy and its IT security is underdeveloped. A group of “patriotic IT students” in Bazaristan on their own initiative launch a major cyber attack on networks in Absurdistan which effectively brings to a halt public life in Absurdistan for several days. Absurdistan has to literally disconnect itself from the Internet to restore all major public services. Even less developed than Absurd…
Diplomatic Protection Austrian's Foreign minister Intervening on behalf of Iron Fist may be a case of diplomatic protection = this allows states to protect their nationals from violations of public international law by other states. There are two conditions for a state to exercise its diplomatic protection: nationality of claims rule local remedies rule Nationality of claims rule the protected individual must be a national of the protecting state Home state of Iron Fist needs to be identified H…
The USA enjoy a large part of the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, claim 12 nautical miles of coastal sea, another 12 nautical miles as a contiguous zone, as well as 200 nautical miles of both exclusive economic zone and continental shelf for economic exploitation. What is the legal situation?
Regulated in UNCLOS territorial sea ( coastal sea ): max 12 nm contiguous zone: max 24nm eez: max 200nm continental shelf: generally max 200nm, max 350nm if the continental margin extends beyond 200nm USA claims are within the limits
The USA enjoy a large part of the coast of the Atlantic Ocean, claim 12 nautical miles of coastal sea, another 12 nautical miles as a contiguous zone, as well as 200 nautical miles of both exclusive economic zone and continental shelf for economic exploitation. In particular, the USA have authorised the construction and operation of an artificial island (named Seawater Horizon) for the purpose of drilling for oil. The oil platform is equipped inter alia with a heliport and is located 20 nautica…
Building the artificial island? Art 60 UNCLOS allows building artificial islands in the exclusive economic zone It is 20nm off the cost, so it is within the 200nm eez and can be built. Restricted zone? Art 9 Chicago Convention allows creating restricted areas however Art 1 and 2 CC specify that airspace sovereignty is only on the state's territory = land area + territorial waters the island is 20nm off the coast, outside the 12nm territorial waters USA cannot declare a restricted zone Applicabi…
The United States of Atlantis, colloquially known as USA, are a large federal State in North America and have submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ by unilateral declaration according to Art 36 para 2 of the ICJ statute. The Salsastan Prime Minister wants to visit an artificial Island the USA built, but is denied entry into the airspace around it. Furious about the conduct of the USA, Salsastan brings a case against the USA before the ICJ, despite the fact that Salsastan has not yet submitte…
Jurisdiction? ICJ jurisdiction must be established for each case per Art 36 para 1 ICJ-S The US have accepted the optional clause of Art 36 para 2 ICJ-S, but Salsastan has not, so it does not come into effect due to lacking reciprocity Salsastan brings the case before the ICJ it accepts the jurisdiction via forum prorogatum USA does not accept it, but they reply formally, protest against a judge nomination and claim to have acted lawfully = they make a substantive response and thus engage in th…
On April 29th 2019, Arcadia decided to nationalize all property located in Arcadia and owned by Utopian citizens without compensation. The property was sold to Arcadian citizens for a very low price. Martha Brown, a 49-year old woman with Utopian citizenship, formerly owned a hotel in Arcadia’s capital, Arcadia City. After the expropriation the hotel was sold to Sarah Pale, a business woman with Arcadian citizenship. Martha Brown decides to take legal action and sues Mrs. Pale in front of a Uto…
act-of-state-doctrine: a court of one state cannot judge a foreign act of state. here that is the nationalisation of the property in arcadia this doctrine refers to situations where the actions of a state need to be considered as a preliminary question in a dispute between private individuals or between other entities here Martha Brown and Sarah Pale The limit of the doctrine is the violation of the ordre public, meaning states can refuse to respect acts that violate the ordre public The act-of…
On April 29th 2019, Arcadia decided to nationalize all property located in Arcadia and owned by Utopian citizens without compensation. The property was sold to Arcadian citizens for a very low price. Martha Brown, a 49-year old woman with Utopian citizenship, formerly owned a hotel in Arcadia’s capital, Arcadia City. After the expropriation the hotel was sold to Sarah Pale, a business woman with Arcadian citizenship. Martha Brown decides to take legal action and sues Mrs. Pale in front of a Uto…
Case: Tschechoslowakisches Holz Supreme Court ruled that it would apply the act-of-state doctrine and cannot determine the legality. Cases Poldi-Hütte und Tuchfabrik The SC stated that the doctrine is limited by the ordre public Case Raiffeisenkasse Brünn Both the SC and the Higher Administrative Court ruled that expropriation measures of a state do not affect assets abroad because of lack of jurisdiction (they are outside the territory of the expropriating state) in the given case, however, th…
The United States of Atlantis, (in short, USA) are a large federal State in North America and a founding member of the United Nations. Drone Inc. is a company founded and registered in Absurdistan (where it does not do any substantial business), wholly owned by private investors from Bazaristan, and runs a factory for the production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, colloquially known as “drones”) in Salsastan, the southern neighbour of the USA. They advertise their products on a website www.d…
Use of force? Art 2 para 4 of UN-C prohibits use or threat of force Art 52 UN-C justifies use of force in case of self defence there is no indication of an imminent attack that means the attack is not preemptive, but rather preventive thus the attack against the factory is unjustified and illegal. Legal Steps by Bazaristan The attack took place in salsastan, not bazaristan so bazaristan can only consider dimplomatic protection for Drone Inc Two requirements: nationality of claims: protected ind…
A<Arcadia and Utopia are two geographically opposing coastal states, separated by the Utopian Sea. Utopia had used the low-water line along the coast as the baseline for determining the breadth of its territorial sea for decades. Due to a partly ragged coastline with fringing islands, Utopia decided unilaterally to change the baseline from the low-water line to a straight baseline in December 2019. Thereby, parts of the sea – which had formerly been regarded as high seas – became part of the Ut…
We need to clarify if the usage of a straight baseline was permissible if customary international law forbids such a line longer than 10nm Straight baseline Art 5 UNCLOS states that the normal baseline is the low water line Art 7 parar 1 UNCLOS allows straight baselines where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into or has a fringe of islands. Utopia has a ragged coastline with fringing islands and thus fulfills the requirement. They can use a straight baseline Line longer than 10nm custom…
A well-organised rebel group has been trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Utopia since 2015. So far, they only control a small area of land in the Western part of Utopia, but their self-claimed “territory” has grown considerably over the last months and seems to grow even further. More and more citizens of Utopia follow their argumentation that the government should be replaced. Believing that they now have the backing of the population, they start armed attacks on governmental bui…
the classification IAC/NIAC decides the applicable law IAC: CA 2 GCs war or other armed conflict between two states NIAC: CA 3 GCs state + one non-state actor Art 1 AP II non-state actor needs a certain level of org, a command structure and holds territory At first we have Utopia and a rebel group involved. rebels are non-state actor the group is "well organized", and control a small area of land, thus they fit the Art 1 AP II definition The conflict is a NIAC according to Art 1 AP II, not just…
A well-organised rebel group has been trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Utopia since 2015. So far, they only control a small area of land in the Western part of Utopia, but their self-claimed “territory” has grown considerably over the last months and seems to grow even further. More and more citizens of Utopia follow their argumentation that the government should be replaced. Believing that they now have the backing of the population, they start armed attacks on governmental bui…
Art 52 para 2 AP I says, attacks shall only be directed against military objectives = Principle of Distinction it defines them as "making an effective contribution to military action" and "whose destruction offers a definite military advantage" At this stage the conflict, however, was still an NIAC and AP I is not applicable as per Art 1 para 3 AP I (refers to CA 2 GA which is IAC) But, the content of Art 52 para 2 AP I is also customary international law (like most of the Geneva law) and thus…
A well-organised rebel group has been trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Utopia since 2015. So far, they only control a small area of land in the Western part of Utopia, but their self-claimed “territory” has grown considerably over the last months and seems to grow even further. More and more citizens of Utopia follow their argumentation that the government should be replaced. Believing that they now have the backing of the population, they start armed attacks on governmental bui…
During the attack the second in command of the rebels gets killed. Combatants are considered military objects, and therefore can be attacked legally, however this concept only exits in IACs, but we have a NIAC. in NIACs this is a question of direct participation in hostilities = DPH. The second in command is part of the rebel organization, and inflicts harm on opponents by his actions. He is a DPH and therefore a military objective (not a civilian). The killing was a lawful act of war.
A well-organised rebel group has been trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Utopia since 2015. So far, they only control a small area of land in the Western part of Utopia, but their self-claimed “territory” has grown considerably over the last months and seems to grow even further. More and more citizens of Utopia follow their argumentation that the government should be replaced. Believing that they now have the backing of the population, they start armed attacks on governmental bui…
Art 52 para 2 AP I says, attacks shall only be directed against military objectives = Principle of Distinction it defines them as "making an effective contribution to military action" and "whose destruction offers a definite military advantage" Art 54 para 2 AP I explicitly forbids attacks against objects indispensible to the survival of the civilian population. The bridge, guaranteeing grocery supplies, was such an object and the attack was unlawful At this stage the conflict, however, was sti…
A well-organised rebel group has been trying to overthrow the legitimate government of Utopia since 2015. So far, they only control a small area of land in the Western part of Utopia, but their self-claimed “territory” has grown considerably over the last months and seems to grow even further. More and more citizens of Utopia follow their argumentation that the government should be replaced. Believing that they now have the backing of the population, they start armed attacks on governmental bui…
Art 2 para 4 UN-C forbids the threat or use of force. There are some exceptions, such as Art 51 UN-C: self defence, as well as Art 20-25 DARS: necessity, consent of the victim, ... however none of the exceptions apply, therefore Arcadia joining the fight is illegal
Bill, a citizen of El Muskador, finds a website advertising shares in property on the Moon for EUR 1,00 per 10 square foot each. As Bill has been interested in space since his early childhood, he uses his savings to purchase 1000 shares (that is 10.000 sq.ft) on the Moon. Bill hears on the news that the national space agency of El Muskador has sent the spaceship SpaceY to the Moon to conduct scientific research exactly on the part of the Moon he has bought. He immediately sees an opportunity to…
Art 2 OST: outer space, including moon, cannot be subject to tnational appropriation. Art 1 OST: outer space, including the moon, is free for exploration and use by all states, including scientific investigation Since El Muskador has ratified the OST, the state is bound to it and has thus to respect the regulations enshrined in the treaty. Bill, on the contrary, is a natural person. However, the state is not allowed to enforce private claims. Therefore, Bill cannot enforce his claims from the c…
During an armed conflict, the sheep breeder Tom is hit by a grenade and killed while a) he is driving a jeep and is on his way to visit his grandmother Comment on the legal situation under PIL.
Tom is a non state actor, therefore the case is a NIAC. We now need to clarify if Tom is a protected civilian or a DPH the jeep is a military object in this case: Tom performs no military action at all, Tom is a protected civilian The jeep is neither by its nature nor use a military object Both the killing of Tom and the destruction of the jeep are unlawful under PIL
During an armed conflict, the sheep breeder Tom is hit by a grenade and killed while b) he is driving a jeep with the cargo bed fully loaded with ammunition to the front and delivers the ammunition to the troops. Comment on the legal situation under PIL.
Tom is a non state actor, therefore the case is a NIAC. We now need to clarify if Tom is a protected civilian or a DPH the jeep is a military object in this case: delivery of ammunition is DPH because his delivery has negative impact on enemy the same is true for the jeep, as it is the means for the dph Both killing Tom and destroying the jeep is lawful under PIL
During an armed conflict, the sheep breeder Tom is hit by a grenade and killed while c) he is driving a jeep with the cargo bed fully loaded with ammunition to the front to deliver ammunition to the troops, but he stops on the way to get out of the car and take a picture of a cute little sheep. Comment on the legal situation under PIL.
Tom is a non state actor, therefore the case is a NIAC. We now need to clarify if Tom is a protected civilian or a DPH the jeep is a military object Ammo delivery is DPH, and the jeep becomes a military objective by being the means to the DPH Because Tom stopped the delivery briefly we have to consider the "revolving door phenomenon", which means if a civilian stops the DPH he regains status as protected civilian, until he resumes the DPH. In our cae however Tom still had the intention to deliv…
During an armed conflict, the sheep breeder Tom is hit by a grenade and killed while: d) he is driving a jeep, used for vegetable deliveries to remote regions, and on his way back he regularly picks up soldiers to transport them back to the city. Comment on the legal situation under PIL.
Tom is a non state actor, therefore the case is a NIAC. We now need to clarify if Tom is a protected civilian or a DPH the jeep is a military object When delivering vegetables Tom is a protected civilian and the jeep is no military objective. When transporting soldiers Tom contributes to military actions and thus becomes a DPH, and the jeep a military objective. Due to this transport being regular the revolving door phenomenon does not come into effect, because Tom now participates in an organi…
Absurdistan and Bazaristan are two neighbouring states in Central Asia. Both are members of the United Nations and have signed all major multilateral treaties in PIL. Edward Rainden, an IT engineer from Absurdistan, was granted political asylum in Bazaristan after having made public unlawful internet activities of the Absurdian Secret Service Advise on the legal situation under PIL regarding the asylum grant!
Bazaristan is allowed to grant political asylum in its territory as an expression of its territorial sovereignty, thus it did not violate public international law.
Absurdistan and Bazaristan are two neighbouring states in Central Asia. Both are members of the United Nations and have signed all major multilateral treaties in PIL. Edward Rainden, an IT engineer from Absurdistan, was granted political asylum in Bazaristan after having made public unlawful internet activities of the Absurdian Secret Service. During a visit to the Absurdian consulate in Bazaristan Mr. Rainden is kidnapped by three agents of the Absurdian Secret Service, covertly and forcefully…
The Secret Service agents are attributable to Absurdistan. The kidnapping of Rainden by agents of the Absurdian Secret Service is a sovereign act of state organs of Absurdistan in the territory of Bazaristan. The agents are definitely attributable to Absurdistan. By doing so, they infringed the sovereign territory of Bazaristan and thus the principle of non-intervention (customary international law). There are no circumstances precluding wrongfulness. Additionally, Art 9 ICCPR prohibits arbitra…
Absurdistan and Bazaristan are two neighbouring states in Central Asia. Both are members of the United Nations and have signed all major multilateral treaties in PIL. Edward Rainden, an IT engineer from Absurdistan, was granted political asylum in Bazaristan after having made public unlawful internet activities of the Absurdian Secret Service. During a visit to the Absurdian consulate in Bazaristan Mr. Rainden is kidnapped by three agents of the Absurdian Secret Service, covertly and forcefully…
According to Art 9 VCDR, the receiving state (Bazaristan) may at any time notify the sending state (Absurdistan) that the head of the mission is persona non grata. The receiving state does not have to give any reasons. The sending state has to recall that person or at least terminate his/her functions within a period set by the receiving state. If the sending state fails to do so (or if the ambassador does not leave), the receiving state may disregard the diplomatic immunity and all privileges…
Absurdistan and Bazaristan are two neighbouring states in Central Asia. Both are members of the United Nations and have signed all major multilateral treaties in PIL. Edward Rainden, an IT engineer from Absurdistan, was granted political asylum in Bazaristan after having made public unlawful internet activities of the Absurdian Secret Service. During a visit to the Absurdian consulate in Bazaristan Mr. Rainden is kidnapped by three agents of the Absurdian Secret Service, covertly and forcefully…
Bazaristan calling the meeting Art 30 UN-C says the SC shall adopt its own rules of procedure Rule 2 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure allows any member of the SC to request a meeting thus it is irrelevant that B is only a non-permanent member Embargo Acts under Chapter VII (such as this embargo) need an SC Decision according to Art 39 UN-C in casu SC decided unanimously that A's actions are a threat to peace (which is one of the three options of Art 39 UN-C) This opens up actions in Chapte…
Absurdistan and Bazaristan are two neighbouring states in Central Asia. Both are members of the United Nations and have signed all major multilateral treaties in PIL. Edward Rainden, an IT engineer from Absurdistan, was granted political asylum in Bazaristan after having made public unlawful internet activities of the Absurdian Secret Service. During a visit to the Absurdian consulate in Bazaristan Mr. Rainden is kidnapped by three agents of the Absurdian Secret Service, covertly and forcefully…
Absurdistan intends to bring a case against the UN before the ICJ. However, only states can be parties before a proceeding before the ICJ according to Art 34 ICJ-S The UN as an international organization thus cannot be a party in a contentious proceeding. Arcadias’s claim hence will have no success.
Absurdistan and Utopia after both having accessed to the UN Convention against Torture decided to conclude a bilateral supplementing treaty on the extradition of prisoners who claim to have been treated inhumanely. The negotiations between the two Presidents were challenging and tedious, but in the end, at least a basic consent was found. They signed the treaty and made a joint statement at a press conference proudly proclaiming the protection of human rights. Some days later, the President of…
A and U concluded a bilateral supplementing treaty to the UN Convention against Torture bilateral means that both sides need to consent to the content that means reservations are not possible in bilateral treaties! The "supplement" that U sends is a type of reservation, and thus is not binding. The "reservation" that U sends later is also a reservation, and thus not binding.
Absurdistan and Utopia are having a dispute over a supplementing treaty to the UN Convention against torture the presidents signed. A small group of supporters of the Absurdian President, encouraged by his words against Utopia, had already decided to take matters into their own hands and rioted close to the border to Utopia. They threw several stones across the border and eventually hit a couple of Utopian soldiers who had already been alerted and commanded to support border control in anticipa…
Throwing of stones by Absurdistan citizens The small group of supporters is not attributable to Absurdistan therefore A did not breach PIL Utopian soldiers fire gunshots Gunshots definitely breach Art 2 para 4 UN-C However ARt 51 UN-C allows self-defence against armed attacks it is questionable if throwing stones is an armed attack but regardless, the small group are not attributable to Absurdistan, so there is no armed attack by a state Gunshots are not justified by self defence Absurdistan la…
Banana buys a couple of high-performance speedboats (fast, but unarmed) for use by her police and coast guard from Speedboat Inc., a manufacturer in Absurdia. Unsatisfied with the performance of the boats, Banana pays only 50% of the price. When Speedboat Inc. sues Banana before an Absurdian court, Banana claims jurisdictional immunity. Tensions between the two states rise Advise on the legal situation under Public International Law regarding that lawsuit!
If Speedboat Inc. can Sue Banana before an Absurdian court is a question of state immunity. State immunity means that a state is not answerable to courts of another state. This immunity is limited to "acta iura imperii", and does not apply to "acta iure gestionis" The application of state immunity is tested with the "private individual test" in casu: any individual could buy an unarmed speedboat from Speedboat Inc. thus that purchase is an actus iure gestionis State immunity is not applicable a…
Treaty of Banana: " THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, Convinced that free trade promotes general welfare and contributes to maintaining peace and security; Mindful of their obligations under the UN Charter and under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; Determined to contribute to fighting climate change by shortening naval transit routes, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide; Have agreed as follows: Article 1: Ships and other naval craft of the High Contracting Parties shall enjoy free…
UNCLOS are not applicable as a canal is part of internal waters, while innocent passage only applies to territorial sea. Thus we need to look at the treaty. Art 1 of the treaty grants free passage to "ships and other naval craft" the question is, if warships fall under that definition -> treaty interpretation according to Art 31, 32 VCLT I Interpretation textual interpretation (Ordinary meaning rule Art 31 (1) VCLT I): does not mention warships specifically, just says "ships and other naval cra…
Treaty of Banana: " THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, Convinced that free trade promotes general welfare and contributes to maintaining peace and security; Mindful of their obligations under the UN Charter and under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; Determined to contribute to fighting climate change by shortening naval transit routes, thereby reducing emissions of carbon dioxide; Have agreed as follows: Article 1: Ships and other naval craft of the High Contracting Parties shall enjoy free…
Absurdia complains about delays, Banana justifies this with personnel shortage due to the pandemic. Art 2 of the Banana Treaty declares Banana responsible for the administration. Merchant ships are covered by the term "Ships" of Art 1, so the treaty is applicable to them. Art 2 forbids discrimination on grounds of nationality. According to the complaint only some ships are affected by the delays, which indicates that the delays are not directed against Arcadian ships specifically, so there is n…
Treaty of Banana: " (…) Article 12: Any dispute between any two parties arising under this Treaty shall be submitted to arbitration. Each party to the dispute shall within 4 weeks nominate one arbitrator. The arbitrators so nominated shall agree within another two weeks on the appointment of a chairperson. If no such agreement can be reached, the President of the International Court of Justice shall appoint the chairperson. " Both Banana and Absurdia are parties to the Banana Treaty (as well as…
While Absurdia nominates an arbitrator for invoking Art 12 of the Banana Treaty, Banana refuses to nominate an arbitrator. However, the Treaty does not offer a solution for such a case as Art 12 only allows the President of the ICJ to nominate a chairperson if no agreement can be reached regarding the chairperson As seen in the "Interpretation of Peace Treaties Case" the President of the ICJ cannot nominate an arbitrator on behalf of Banana, because the treaty does not provide for that (only fo…
President Vorovka (a Russian name, meaning "[female] thief') of Absurdistan assumes that, following Brexit and the recent events on fishing in the waters around the Channel Islands, British and French fleets are busy monitoring each other. She orders the Absurdian fishing fleet to sail into the North Sea, to "stay outside UK territorial waters and catch as much fish as you can". Advise on the legal situation under Public International Law!
outside territorial waters -> inside the contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone both these zones have to be claimed, they are not automatically there The case does not specify whether the UK claimed those zones. If claimed: UK enjoy rights of a coastal state within the eez that includes regulation of fishing A would have to follow those if not claimed: A is free to fish there
Like many other European States, Absurdistan is affected by late or cancelled deliveries of certain SARS-Co ViD vaccines. Absurdian health minister Privivka ( another Russian name, meaning "vaccination") travels to neighbouring Bazaristan and signs a contract on 150.000 dloses of Vostok, a Bazarian SARS-CoViD vaccine produced by Bargain Basement Pharmacy Inc. and available to the general public without restrictions. After delivery Absurdistan refuses to pay for the vaccine. When Bargain Basemen…
State immunity means that a state is not answerable to the courts of another state It is limited to acts with imperum, so we need to determine if A acted with imperum or not private individual test vaccine is available to the general public without restriction private individual could have purchased A did not act with imperium State immunity is not applicable, A can be sued in a Bazaristan court.
In order to improve its international reputation (which has fallen to an all-time low) Absurdistan contacts UEFA (the European Football Association) and volunteers to host the final match of the upcoming UEF A European Championship. UEF A agrees, and the match is scheduled for April 1, 2022 in Absurdistans largest football stadium ( capacity 50.000, roughly the size of Ernst-Happel-Stadion in Vienna). On April 1, 2022, Absurdistan plans to close the airspace 20 nautical miles (equals 38 km) aro…
The question is, can Absurdistan close the airspace around the stadium? Art 9 para 1 Chicaco Convention allows the restriction of airspace for military necessity or public safety however, it is not allowed to make a distinction in respect of the state whose territory is involved and aircraft of other states. Absurdistan reasons with public safety, and a stadium full of 50k people definitely is a ground of public safety. However Absurdistan provides exceptions for its own military, police and re…