Description
7 International Law situational questions:
1.The International Court of Justice is frequently referred to informally as “the World Court.” But is that term accurate? Is the ICJ “the World Court”?
2.As you know, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over such internationally-recognized offenses as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. At the Kampala Conference in 2010, the Assembly of States Parties added to that list the crime of aggression. Should the jurisdiction of the ICC be expanded to include other crimes? If so, which, and why? If not, should we be concerned that this list is too narrow, which may allow serious human rights abusers to evade justice?
3.The Refugee Convention of 1951 defines a refugee as someone who has fled, or is in any event outside, his or her country of nationality, and is unable to return because of “a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, [or] membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Europe, and to a lesser extent the Unites States, are currently being inundated by individuals described by the mainstream media as “refugees,” but who do not meet the Convention’s definition: they are seeking improved quality of life, not fleeing from persecution. Assuming that “economic migrants” are not eligible to receive the benefits to which refugees are entitled under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol, what obligations must receiving states honor in their treatment of these people?
4.Ever since it handed down its judgment in the Gabcikovo-Nagamaros Project Case in 1997, the ICJ has increasingly suggested that states depending on a common natural resource, such as a watercourse, are bound by an obligation, established through customary international law, of “equitable sharing.” Numerous international environmental treaties are based on this principle. This is said to derive from the concept of sic utere tuo, which the Court held in the Corfu Channel Case in 1949 is a rule binding on all states.
That sounds delightful, doesn’t it? Who could be against “equitable sharing”? But it is terribly vague. When, say, a river flows from Country A into Country B, and Country A desires to build a dam that will substantially reduce the river water available in Country B but will bring substantial improvements to the quality of life of the people of Country A, what considerations should be taken into account in determining whether the proposed “sharing” of the watercourse is “equitable”?
5.If a Panel established under the World Trade Organization Agreement finds that a Member has denied another Member a benefit guaranteed under the treaty (for example, by denying its products most-favored-nation status or national treatment), and the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) accepts this finding, the DSB will grant the offending Member an opportunity to bring its trade measure into conformity with the WTO Agreement. If the offending Member does not do so within the time allotted, the DSB may authorize the affected Member to retaliate against the offender by imposing tariffs or other trade restrictions on import of its goods. Should the WTO Agreement be amended to allow the DSB to award monetary damages as compensation to the injured Member?
6.What would be the outcome were the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the question: “Is the practice of capital punishment for the commission of certain criminal offenses in domestic legal systems consistent with conventional and customary international law?”
7. In the last two decades, three of the five permanent members of the Security Council have been accused of serious violations of international law (some examples are: Russia – the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines flight #17 over Ukraine and the invasion of Crimea; China – the treatment of the Uighur minority, human rights violations in Hong Kong, and the unilateral claims of sovereignty over areas in the South China Sea; the U.S. – unauthorized invasion of Iraq, human rights violations at Guantanamo and elsewhere, and the use of drones in places like Yemen and Somalia).
Obviously, all three deny these allegations, and to answer this question you need not accept that any of them is (or is not) accurate. But whether or not the charges are legally supported, the mere fact that they have generated widespread discussion raises this issue: what, if any, opportunities does the international legal regime provide to review the legality of acts and omissions of the P-5?
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.
International Law Situational Questions
Part 1
1. Accuracy of the Term ''the World Court'' about The International Court of Justice
2. Jurisdiction of the ICC
3. Host Countries Obligation to Economic Refugees
4. Question 4: Equitable Sharing of Watercourse
5. Dispute Settlement in Trade Agreement
Part 2: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Capital Punishment
•
Defining the Discretionary Power to give an opinion
•
Defining the legal framework/ Applicable Law
•
Consequences of capital Punishment
2. Legality and Omission of the P-5
•
There are limited opportunities by the legal regimes that directly define how the legality of
the acts of the five members of the UN Security Council (P-5) can be defined.
•
The Security Council holds major powers to enhance peace and security, formally defined
in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
•
The quality of the P-5 decisions is a major factor in defining their capacity to govern ICJ
operations.
•
Whereas each of the P-5 members holds significant powers in the Charter's success, they
maintain consistency in their actions subject to the international laws.
•
The P-5s are mainly concerned about the failure to meet their obligations in enhancing
peace and security.
•
The UN Charter remains vague in defining a meaningful legal regime that would constrain
the council.
Running head: INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS
International Law Situational Questions
Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
1
INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS
2
Part 1
1. Accuracy of the Term ''the World Court'' about The International Court of Justice
The term ‘‘the World court’’ referring to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is accurate.
However, referring to the ICJ as the World Court raises different discrepancies established in the
jurisdiction level exercised over the parties. No other court exercises such a high jurisdiction on
cross border disputes (Akehurst’s, 2019, pg 544). In other words, it is the highest court in the
world and the only one with such jurisdictions. Unlike the international criminal justice (ICC),
which was established through treaty and limited jurisdiction for specific acts such as war crimes,
genocide, and a crime against humanity, ICJ exercises universal and general jurisdiction
(Akehurst’s, 2019, pg 445).
The ICJ uses international law to address the disputes presented by the states and hence
has authority to preside ‘‘world’ ’cases. However, the states involved must accept the jurisdiction
of the court in all legal matters. As the United Nations' official judicial organ, the court has
universal and general jurisdiction in legal disputes. Under particular circumstances, states that are
not a member can also appear before the court and recognize its jurisdiction to preside the cases
(Akehurst’s, 2019 pg 541).
ICJ is the highest court globally, holding a contentious jurisdiction and advisory
jurisdiction over world entities. The accuracy of the term ‘‘the world court’’ can be measured by
the nature and the scope of the cases presided by the court. The ICJ addresses the cases which
are submitted by states. Since the states are the building blocks of the ''world'' and all states,
including the nonmember of the UN, can appear before the court, ICJ has fundamental
jurisdiction over all elements. Second, ICJ provides an advisory opinion on legal questions to
INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS
3
international agencies and organs (Akehurst’s, 2019, pg 542). The world court is an accurate
term for ICJ in contentious cases since only the states can be parties in the court proceedings.
However, the defendant state must accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ through an express
statement. The court's jurisdiction stands since the defendant's acceptance of jurisdiction can be
implied that the case is based on merit, and the defendant has not challenged the jurisdiction of
the court. The recommendation of parties to a legal dispute is also often assumed as sufficient to
give the court jurisdiction. In most instances, the majority of states agree by treaty on the
jurisdiction of the court. Despite the reservations in the court's jurisdictions in presiding cases in
the future, when either party withdraws its acceptance ICJ, the court maintains authority on cases
started against the defendant. Specialized agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO)
can request an advisory opinion on legal questions that arises within the scope of their activities.
Despite the objections that the court should fail to exercise its jurisdiction based on political
concerns or the views that the state that is affected by the decisions have not expressed their
consent, the court plays a significant role in providing legal guidance.
The term ‘‘the World Court’’ is accurate based on states' overall participation in court
proceedings. The ICJ policy on selecting judges highlights that the bench should represent the
world's principal legal systems. Of the five judges elected every three years to hold office in 9
years, they are from different nationalities. ICJ does not uphold the legal systems unique for a
particular country. However, ICJ is structured through five permanent members of the Security
Council, and each provides a member for the bench. While this raises questions on the world's
representation, the legal systems upheld apply to all states. ICJ has addressed this concern by
allowing a state to select an ad hoc judge when there is no judge of its nationality in the court
(Akehurst’s, 2019, pg. 542). Although an ad hoc judge is an independent and impartial candidate
INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS
4
not representing the national government, it ensures the litigants that the judges will not ignore
their views. ICJ also operates under the absent third party doctrine that allows the third party
affected by the proceedings to request an intervention.
2. Jurisdiction of the ICC
The ICC jurisdiction should be expanded to include other crimes to ensure no serious
human rights abusers can evade justice due to limitations from their country's legal policy to make
changes. The current jurisdiction the court exercise on the crime of aggression, genocide,
humanity, and war crimes is not too narrow. Still, it does not exhaust the list of crimes that the
court should be committed to addressing (Akehurst’s, 2019, pg. 444). The principle legal
framework that governs the ICC jurisdiction in the prosecution of different crimes adding to the
list can promote deterrence. The court only exercises jurisdiction when the crimes are committed
after the statute entry into force. This means for crimes not included in the list, reactionary
measures at the international organizations cannot effectively bring the human rights abusers to
justice. Including these crimes provide critical protection even to the nonmember states in which
the crimes are committed. Although there are limitations in the prosecution of charges to a state
that has not accepted or ratified the amendments regarding the new crimes included, it will give
the court a wider scope of enhancing justice and deterrence of crimes (ICC, n.d.).
Migrant trafficking is one of the major crimes that should be included within the ICC
jurisdiction as a crime against humanity. The most dreadful crimes to concern the primary role of
the ICC are the crimes against humanity. The crimes against humanity, which are listed in the
Rome Statute, give an important framework on an opportunity to expand the list of crimes under
ICC jurisdiction. There are different forms of human trafficking which are not clearly defined in
INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUATIONAL QUESTIONS
5
the Rome Statute (Akehurst’s, 2019, pg 444). The ICC's major concerns are on the gravest of the
crimes. Although they include human trafficking, including sexual slavery, imprisonment, and
enslavement, they are not clearly defined to promote prosecution. Human trafficking is significant
since it is continually a large and profit-making business after drugs and arms trafficking.
Different crimes are committed ...
Review
Review
