PIL - Exam Training - Theory - 2023

Public International Law

8 flashcards · Law · by daniel-eder

XY is regulated by a multilateral treaty and at the same time there exists universal customary international law (CIL) with the same content. -State A is not a contracting party to the treaty. -State B is a contracting party. -State C is not a contracting party to the treaty and is a persistent objector. -State D is a contracting party, but has filed certain reservations to which B has objected. -State E is a contracting party. A dispute between all five states on an issue related to XY arises.…
Both D and E are contracting parties, so generally the treaty is applicable. As discussed in c (relationship between B and D) D has generally made a valid reservation according to Art 2 lit d and Art 19 VCLT The question is now how that reservation relates to D. Art 21 (5) VCLT states that if a state raises no objection after a period of 12 months after notification of the reservation, it is considered to be accepted by that state. The case does not state if such an objection was raised or not.…
XY is regulated by a multilateral treaty and at the same time there exists universal customary international law (CIL) with the same content. -State A is not a contracting party to the treaty. -State B is a contracting party. -State C is not a contracting party to the treaty and is a persistent objector. -State D is a contracting party, but has filed certain reservations to which B has objected. -State E is a contracting party. A dispute between all five states on an issue related to XY arises.…
A is not a contracting party and therefore not bound by the treaty. If one state is not bound by the treaty, it is not applicable to their relationship. Thus in this case the treaty is not applicable to the relationship A - B This means other sources of PIL need to be considered, Art 38 ICJ-S lists CIL as the next option. As the case indicates that there is customary international law with the same content (and there are no persistent objectors) CIL is applicable.
XY is regulated by a multilateral treaty and at the same time there exists universal customary international law (CIL) with the same content. -State A is not a contracting party to the treaty. -State B is a contracting party. -State C is not a contracting party to the treaty and is a persistent objector. -State D is a contracting party, but has filed certain reservations to which B has objected. -State E is a contracting party. A dispute between all five states on an issue related to XY arises.…
A is not a contracting party and thus not bound by the treaty. C is also not a contracting party and not bound by the treaty. The treaty is clearly not applicable. But C is also a persistent objector, which means that it is also not bound by the existing Customary international law with the same content. Note: it is not possible to be a persistent objector against ius cogens. If the content of the treaty and of CIL would be ius cogens then C would be bound! But the case does not clarify the con…
XY is regulated by a multilateral treaty and at the same time there exists universal customary international law (CIL) with the same content. -State A is not a contracting party to the treaty. -State B is a contracting party. -State C is not a contracting party to the treaty and is a persistent objector. -State D is a contracting party, but has filed certain reservations to which B has objected. -State E is a contracting party. A dispute between all five states on an issue related to XY arises.…
Both B and D are contracting parties, so generally the treaty is applicable. However, D has filed reservations to which B has objected. Is the reservation valid? The Art 2 lit d VCLT defines reservation as "unilateral statement ... to exclude or modify the legal effects of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that state" Art 19 VCLT regulates when a reservation cannot be made. The description of the case does not indicate any of the three options listed in leg cit (reservati…
At the local pub, Bill and John have a few beers with their mates. Bill complains that the local newspaper keeps reporting about that boring international stuff, even though all of that does not concern the ordinary person in the slightest. John counters that “this is only partly correct, because there are exceptions.” Others interestedly gather to join the discussion, but at that point either participant of the discussion fails to explain or justify the points they were trying to make. Step in…
PIL is generally not directly applicable to individuals, however they are still affected: PIL creates international obligations for states, which they in turn have to implement. Thus PIL influences and changes domestic/national law. This indirectly affects "ordinary persons" Further in IHL, the ICC has jurisdiction over individuals (unlike the ICJ, which does not) Human rights treaties as well as the TFEU grant rights directly to individuals.
Explain the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC is regulated in the Rome Statute. Art 1 establishes jurisdiction over persons, complementary to national criminal jurisdiction. Art 5 lists the crimes the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to. Art 11 (1) restricts jurisdiction to crimes committed after the statute entered into force (1.4.2002) Art 12 (2) requires that a person is a national of a state party to the Rome Statute, or that the crime was committed on the territory of a state party to the statute in order for the ICC to have…
“The Court […] gives judgment that […] the United Kingdom violated the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of Albania, and that this declaration by the Court constitutes in itself appropriate satisfaction.” Explain in your own words what this means and also classify it in a more general context! Do you think such statements really are appropriate satisfaction?
Art 34 DARS states the possible forms of reparation satisfaction, restitution, compensation one or more of them Art 35 regulates Satisfaction with a non exhaustive list leg cit allows amongst others an acknowledgement of the breach but also other appropriate modalities of satisfaction. However in all of these modalities it is the responsible state who has to take that action. While the court's statement also acts as an acknowledgement of the breach, it is not by the responsible state, so I find…
What is the difference between universal and partial succession?
For universal succession all the rights and obligations pass on to the new state. For partial succession the successor can "Pick and choose" from the legal positions of the predecessor. This has long been considered limited for newly independent states (former colonies). Since the 1990s there is also a trend towards partial succession.