You are on page 1of 14

Treaty

QUESTION 1
Mancunia, Lupia, Jobinia, Lugoland and many other States have signed and
ratified a treaty to control fishing activities in the South Ocean. The treaty provides
for the maximum levels of catch annually and other matters necessary for the
protection of marine environment in the area. At the time of ratification, Lupia
makes a declaration stating that the treaty does not preclude it from making special
laws for poor coastal fishermen in the country. Mancunia objects to this declaration
on the basis that it constitutes a reservation incompatible with the object of the
treaty. Jobinia, not only objects to the declaration, but also states that due to the
incompatible reservation, the treaty does not enter into force between itself and
Lupia. Lugoland keeps silent. The treaty is silent on whether reservation can be
made by States Parties.
Analyse the relationships between Mancunia, Lupia, Jobinia and Lugoland in the
context of reservation of treaties. (15 marks)

QUESTION 1
Although a treaty has been concluded in accordance with all the requirements of
treaty-making, it may on various grounds subsequently be alleged to be invalid.
The invalidity of a treaty may be either on relative grounds or on absolute grounds.
In the light of the above statement, critically examine the grounds for the invalidity
of treaties. (15 marks)

QUESTION 1
(a) States A and B make a treaty in which each undertakes not to allow any
foreign military bases on its territory. States B and C make a treaty the
following year in which B agrees that C shall establish a foreign base on B’s
territory. A learns of the treaty between B and C and protests. As a result, B
refuses to allow C to establish the promised base.
(i) Has C a good claim against B to reparation? Why?(4 marks)
(ii) What if B had ignored the protest? Would A then have had a good claim for
reparation against B? Why?(4 marks)
(b)State A has concluded a Treaty of Alliance with State B under which each
State is required to provide military assistance to one another in case of an
aggressive war against a third state. Now State B is launching an aggressive war
against State X and is demanding State A to send her military assistance. Is
State A legally bound to provide the said assistance as she agreed to do so
under the Treaty of Alliance? Give reasons to your answer referring to treaty
law and case law.(7 marks)
QUESTION 1
State A, State B and State C entered into the Lavender Bees Treaty to protect the
population of “Lavender Bees” from extinction. Lavender Bees is a speciesof bees
which can only be found in the three countries. Negotiations for the Treaty started
in 2005. In 2010, all the three States authenticated the Treaty by signing. In 2011,
all three countries ratified the Treaty simultaneously. The Treaty provides that it
will enter into force in 2 years from the date of ratification. In 2014, the President
of State B declared that the Ozz Region which is home to the Lavender Bees to be
cleared for the development of palm oil plantations. In 6 months, the whole
population of Lavender Bees in State B was wiped out by a disease that originated
from palm trees. The disease is now killing Lavender Bees in neighbouring States
A and C. In 2016, the World Bees Organisation declared that Lavender Bees are
already extinct. State A and State C are claiming that State B has breached the
Lavender BeesTreaty. In its defence, State B is arguing that:
(a)The Lavender Bees Treaty is terminated because of the extinction of thelavender
bees species;
(b)The President of State B did not get the approval of State B’s Parliament when
ratifying the Treaty (the Constitution of State B is modeled after the United
Kingdom’s system);
(c)The President of State B negotiated, signed and ratified the Lavender Bees
Treaty because of an ultimatum by State C to his State that the former would cut
economic ties if the treaty failed to be concluded;

Discuss the legal issues involved. States A, B and C are Parties to the Vienna
Convention
on the Law of Treaties.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 1
Critically examine the regime established by the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties 1969 with respect to reservations of treaties, with special reference to the
legal effects of objection to reservations.(15 marks)
QUESTION 1
Enumerate the grounds for invalidating a treaty and focus your discussion on the
absolute grounds, namely, ‘coercion’ and ‘conflict with jus cogens’. Elaborate your
answer with practical examples.(15marks)

QUESTION 1
Elaborate the elements of treaties to which the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties 1969 applies.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 1
The State of Islamland hosts a multilateral conference to prohibit and punish
defamation of religion. At the end of the conference,a treaty named the Convention
on Prohibition of Defamation of Religion is concluded. The treaty obliges States
parties to pass national law to prohibit and punish blasphemous acts which injure
religious feelings of people. Article 10 of the treaty provides that a suspect must be
given the right to a fair trial, while Article 20 thereof prohibits death sentence.
A provision of the treaty makes it binding upon ratification. The treaty which
comes intoforce one year after the conference does not expressly prohibit
reservation. When the Muslim State of Imanland deposits its instrument of
ratification, it declares that the treaty does not precludeit from punishing a person
who blasphemes Prophet Muhammad with death sentence without trial. Islamland
and the State of Ruritania object to this declaration on the basis that it constitutes a
reservation incompatible with the treaty. The State of Equatoria also objects tothis
declaration on the same basis and adds that the treaty does not enter into force
between itself and Imanland. Other States keep silent. Discuss the effect of the
reservation by Imanland on the relations between the States that have ratified the
treaty.
(15 marks)

2
QUESTION 1
In 2010 the State of Loosea concluded a bilateral Treaty to Establish a Maritime
Boundary and to Equitably Resolve Resource Questionswith the neighbouring
State of Vincy. The Treatydraws an East-West boundary between the two states,
dividing their waters and continental shelves with an equidistance line (a line
drawn by measuring out an equal distance from the closest point on each state’s
coast). The Treaty provides in Article 17 that “Each state has full sovereignty over
all of the resources it extracts from its side of the maritime boundary line”.
In 2011 Loosean oil prospectors discovered a huge oil and gas deposit one mile
north of the boundary line (on the Loosean side). They commenced exploiting
these resources. The Vincy Ministry of Energy is notified by a third party that the
vast majority of the oil and gas being exploited by Loosea is primarily
on the Vincy side of the line, but as a result of the layout of the seabed the
reservoir of resources can be siphoned off by the Loosean oil rigs. Vincy does not
have the technical ability to exploit its oil and gas resources at this time, but is
deeply concerned that its sovereign deposits are being exploited by others. Vincy
wishes to suspend or terminate the Treaty, or, in the alternative, to sever Article 17,
which it nowdeems prejudicial to its interests and as incompatible with the object
and purpose of the Treaty.

An ad hoc arbitration is commenced between the two states. During initial


proceedings, Vincy lawyers discover that:
(1)Loosean oil experts knew about the reservoir lying between their two states and
the potential to siphon it off from the Loosean side of the boundary, prior to the
conclusion of the Treaty;
(2) the Vincy head boundary negotiator’s daughter had received a number of
threatening phone calls during the course of the Treatynegotiations and had
notified her father; and
(3)the official who signed the Treaty on behalf of Vincy, namely: the Permanent
Secretary of the Ministry of Education, did not have competence to do so under the
laws of Vincy.You are the arbitrator. Decide.
(15 marks)
State Responsibility
QUESTION 2
Mr. A, a photojournalist from State X, was covering the violent protests longed by
the Y Freedom Movement in Cristina, the capital cityof State Y. Despite warnings
given by the Prime Minister of State Y to foreigners, especially journalists, Mr. A
moved around Cristina. In the course of his coverage, hewas killed by a stray bullet
which was later identified as having come from the ranks of the Y Freedom
Movement. The wife of Mr. A sought relief from the authorities of State Y but was
refused assistance.
i.Is there state responsibility on the part of State Y?
ii.Would your answer be different if the Y Freedom Movement succeeds and forms
its own government in State Y?
iii.Assuming the responsibility of State Y is established, what is the appropriate
remedy available to the victim’s family under international law?
(15 marks)

QUESTION 2
Mr. Green is a national of the State of Noland and of the State of Neverland. He
has residences in both States, but his children are given education in Noland. He
has incorporated a company, XYZ Enterprises, in Noland. A national of
Jumboland is the majority shareholder of XYZ Enterprises. In addition to
conducting business activities in Noland and Neverland, the company has business
premises and factories in the State of Everland. One day, Mr. Green is in Everland
for business purposes. At that time, a sensitive issue has arisen between Noland
and Everland, and Everlanders are holding anti-Noland demonstrations. The
demonstrators attack the business premises and factories of XYZ Enterprises,
destroying the manufactured goods and occupying some of the premises. In one of
the attacks, Mr. Green is injured. When his workers bring him to a State hospital,
the doctors refuse to medically treat him. After the incident, Mr. Green and XYZ
Enterprises bring actions in the High Court of Everland against the demonstrators
but they are unsuccessful. Mr. Green’s suit against the doctors and the hospital is
also dismissed by the High Court. Noland does not want to jeopardise the chance
of solving the conflict with Everland by bringing international claims against
Everland on behalf of Mr. Green and XYZ Enterprises. Neverland asks for your
advice on whether it can bring international claims against Everland in the
International Court of Justice on behalf of Mr. Green and XYZ Enterprises.
Advise Neverland.
(15 marks)
QUESTION 2
Everland plans to test its nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean. An
environmentalist group, the Nature Defenders, dispatches its vessel, the Defender,
flying the flag of Waterland, to protest against the nuclear test. During the journey,
the Defender stops at a port in Mumboland. There, an Everlander secret agent
sneaks onto the Defender and blows it up. The explosion causes destruction to the
port and the adjoining beach.All the three States have accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Both Waterland and Mumboland
seek to make claims against Everland for breaching its international
responsibilities. Everland explains that the secret agent was authorised only to take
photographs of the Defender and thus Everland is not responsible.
Discuss.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 2
There was an insurrectional movement in State A, aiming to overthrow its existing
Government. The rebel forces were gaining ground, defeating the government
forces in many parts of the country. Before retreating from the capital city of State
A, the government forces had destroyed all the factories and industries owned by
nationals of State B. A few days later, the government forces unconditionally
surrendered. The insurrectional movement formed a new Government, headed by
its leader Mr. X who became the new President of State A. Since State A was
facing with an economic crisis, the President on his first day of presidency passed a
Presidential Decree, confiscating the assets of a multinational oil company
incorporated in State C.

A few months after that, a tourist from State D was jungle-trekking in a deep forest
which was declared by the Tourism Department of State A as an out of bound area
where cruel aborigines were at large. He was killed by an aborigine.
Discuss how and to what extent the national States of the victims in the above-
mentioned occurrences can make international claims against State A under
international law.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 2
Ali was a citizen of Heligoland. In 2007, he went to Myopia to attend the wedding
of his distant relative. While enjoying his food during the wedding, he was stabbed
by a Myopian policeman who was not in his uniform and was also a guest at the
wedding. Ali suffered serious injury and he had to be rushed to the nearest
Government hospital for treatment. However the hospital refused to treat Ali as he
was a foreigner.He died from his wound two days later. Despite the unfortunate
incidents, no action has been taken against the attacker.In 2008, Ali’s son brought
a lawsuit against the policeman and the Myopian hospital. He went to a Myopian
lower court but the decision of the court was not in hisfavour. He then appealed to
the Myopian appeal court but when the case was halfway through, he withdrew the
lawsuit. In 2014, Ali’s son approached the Government of Heligoland to institute a
legal proceeding against Myopia in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Advise
Ali’s son.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 2
In 1990, a civil war erupted in the State of Myopia between rebel and Government
forces. After the rebels were defeatedin 2000, the President of Myopia issued a
presidential decree authorising the Pink Panther to maintain law and order in the
city of Gogo, which used to be a stronghold of the rebels. The Pink Panther was a
powerful militia group which sided with the Government of Myopia during the
civil war. In 2014, while visiting Gogo, a person by the name of Mr. Fulus was
shot by a member of the Pink Panther. During the incident, the member of the Pink
Panther was patrolling the street. The shooting made Mr. Fulus permanently
paralysed.

Mr. Fulus was born in the State of Corona in 1965 but his ancestors were from
Myopia. Without giving up his Coronan citizenship, Fulus successfully applied
Myopian citizenship in 2000. His aim was to benefit from the Myopian booming
economy. Two years later, Fulus married a Coronan national. All of his children
were born and raised in Corona. In the same year, he secured a lucrative contract
with the Myopian Government through his company which was incorporated in
Corona. In 2005, he participated in an election in Corona and won a parliamentary
seat which he has been holding until now. In 2015, Mr. Fulus went to the Myopian
High Court to claim compensation against the Myopian Government for the injury.
The High Court rejected Fulus’s claim because of his failure to bring an important
witness to the court. But the witness was later killed in a car accident. At first,
Fulus appealed to the Myopian Courtof Appealagainst the judgment of the High
Court but when he received the news that a senior lawyer close to the Pink Panther
has been appointed as a Courtof Appeal judge to hear his case, he withdrew his
appeal.
He is now approaching the Coronan Government to bring a claim against Myopia
in an
international arbitral tribunal. Advise Mr. Fulus.
(15 marks)
QUESTION 2
Helena was born in Equatoria in 1956 and acquired the nationality of that state by
birth. She graduated from the University of Equatoria in 1980, obtained her Ph.D.
in 1986, and worked as a lecturer and later as a professor in the same University
until 1996.
In 1997Helena had to follow her parents who moved to Astoria, a federal state
comprised of a number of largely autonomous provinces. She acquired Astorian
nationality by naturalization.
After the death of her parents in 2011 Helena inherited their successful
manufacturing business which she continued to manage until 2013.
In 2013 the following events happened:
(i)The government of the province in which Helena carried on business appointed
an official overseer of her business with power of veto in respect of all
management decisions. The provincial government also imposed a special tax at
high rate on the turnover of Helena’s business and repudiated a lucrative contract
between Helena and the provincial government for the supply of manufactured
goods.
(ii)While driving home from work Helena was stopped and physically assaulted by
a detachment of intoxicated soldiers.
(iii)Helena’s private residence was looted by a riotous mob. The local police,
although aware of this happening, did notrespond to Helena’s request for
protection.
With sheer frustration, Helena moved back to Equatoriain the end of 2013 and
joined the University of Equatoria again as a professor. She has requested the
government of Equatoriato exercise the right of diplomatic protection and claim
reparation from Astoria for what she alleges is the expropriation of her business as
well as the assault on her person and looting of her private residence. Advise the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Equatoria.
(15 marks)
QUESTION 2
IBT Ltd is a company incorporated in Summerland but owned by Winterland
citizens. IBT is one of the major foreign investors in Myopia. The relations
between Summerland and Myopia were cordial due to Summerland’s support to
the Myopian government against the Myopian Leftist Forces (MLF). MLF had
been trying to establish a socialist government in Myopia by using arms since
independence.

One day, MLF successfully captured Silsila, a very important industrial town in
Myopia. A number of factories and business outlets in the town owned by IBT
were destroyed by the MLF forces. The MLF continued to exert its control
throughout Myopia until Akton, the capital city of the State fell into the hands of
the MLF. At that time, thousands of MLF supporters among the civilians rioted in
major cities. They attacked Summerland’scitizens including MrBoroi. Boroi was
seriously injured by the attack. The leader of MLF became the new President of
Myopia, who declared that the acts of the rioters had nothing to do with the
government butthe rioters would not be prosecuted. Meanwhile, the IBT’s branch
in Myopia faced financial difficulties after all its assets in Myopia were sold by the
new Myopian government to Myopian Government Development Enterprise.
According to the Myopian law, such an executive decision of the government
could not be reviewed in Myopian courts. Summerland wants to make international
claims against Myopia for its internationally wrongful acts against IBT and Boroi.
Advise Summerland.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 2
Johnson was a military captain in the Stavian army. He was in charge of a battalion
tasked with eliminating a rebellion in the province of Molopo. One day his
battalion launched a series of strikes against the rebels in Garisa, a town inMolopo.
Garisa was home to a large tea plantation owned by Makarena Tea
Company(MTC), a company incorporated in Makarena. The strikes allowed Stavia
to regain parts of Molopo and the Stavian army marched to the tea plantation. As
there were reportsthat some rebels were hiding in the plantation, MTC offered to
negotiate with Johnson to allow the rebels to surrender and be assured of their
safety. Captain Johnson agreed to communicate the offer to the Military
Commander in the Stavian capital for the Commander’s approval.
The Captain also declared the plantation as a protected zone. However, an hour
later, a group of Stavian army stormed the plantation, killing many rebels
and MTC workers. A factory and a building owned by MTC were also damaged.
MTC and its workers of Makarenan nationalityare pushing the Makarenan
government to institute legal proceedings against Stavia at the International Court
of Justice (ICJ). Later in a press conference, Johnson asserted that he did not order
the attack against the plantation. Discuss the possible international legal
responsibility of Stavia and possible invocation of such responsibility byMakarena.
(15 marks)

LAWS OF THE SEA

QUESTION 3
Discuss the relationshipbetween the rights and duties of the coastal State and that
of the other States relating to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under
international law and Malaysian law.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 3
A collision occurs on the high seas between two ships, TheVenture (flying the flag
of Vill State) and TheBoheme(flying the flag of Boh State). The Captain of The
Boheme was clearly at fault, having drunk himself in the middle of the voyage
with wine‘borrowed’ from a stranded yacht, which he had come upon earlier that
day. Coast Guard vessels from the State of Vill tow both ships into its port for
repairs. The Bohemeleaks oil all the way into the port, killing shellfish in the
territorial sea of Vill.When the Captain of The Boheme comes to his senses he
pushes two Coast Guard officers over the side of his ship, steals a speed boat from
the port, and races away from the shore. The Coast Guard officers pull themselves
out of the water, get on board the Coast Guard vesseland give chase. They catch up
to the Captain’s boat about 15 miles from the shore. They wave and shout for him
to stop. After he gestures rudely, they fire warning shots. The recoil of the gun
knocks a Coast Guard officer overboard and they stop to pull him back onto the
boat. The Captain of the Boheme zips away.The Vill Coast Guard vessel catches
up with the Captain’s boaton the high seas and sinks his boat after waving for him
to stop. The Captain isto be brought before the court of Vill tomorrow. Advise the
State of Vill.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 3
“Pirates are hostis humani generisand piracy jure gentiumis an international crime
challenging the sanctity of the freedom of the seas.”Discuss the above statement
with special reference to the definition of piracy under international law,
it’sessential elements, and the concept of universal jurisdiction over pirates.
(15 marks)
QUESTION 3
Tico, a fishing vessel flying the flag of Riesland, stops at about 340 nautical miles
from the coast of Amestonia. Tico starts to catch fish there. 2 small boats go up to
300 nautical miles from the coast of Amestonia. From the boats, divers go into the
seabed to collect pearls.Tico is spotted by The Enforcer, a naval vessel of
Amestonia.Amestonia has a law that considers the marine area up to 350 nautical
miles from its baselines as both its Exclusive EconomicZone and Continental
Shelf. The Enforcersuspects that Ticois violating the law, so The Enforcer flashes
lights to Ticoto stop. The small boats have already returned to Ticoat that time, so
Tico starts to speed to Riesland, and The Enforcer pursues rightly after.When
Ticois 14 nautical miles away from the coast of Riesland, The Enforcer shoots
across the bow of Tico, but Ticoignores the shooting. Thereafter, The Enforcer
shoots at the left side of Tico, causing it to sink. Officers from The Enforcer rescue
the fishermen, but one is drowned.
Discuss whether Amestonia’s exercise of hot pursuit and use of force are lawful.
Both States are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 3
In 2014 by Decree Law No. 101, Marina, a State party to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, established a Contiguous Zone of 24
nautical miles and a “Customs Zone” whereby its customs laws and regulations
would apply not only to its land territory but to a maritime zone extending up to
180 nautical miles from its coast. Marina had previously established an Exclusive
Economic Zone.The Morning Star, a tanker flying the flag of the State ofRuritania,
was detected by radar and was suspicious by the authorities of Marinaof selling gas
oil to other vessels within its “Customs Zone”. A small patrol boat was sent out to
search for the Morning Starbut was recalled when information was received that
the Morning Starhad changed course. The next day, a naval boat was sent out to
pursue the Morning Star. When the naval boat found the Morning Starat a place
outside the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone of Marina, it tried to arrest
the latter by firing at the latter with live ammunition, using solid shots from large-
calibre automatic guns. The attack resulted in damage to the star-board side of the
Morning Starand serious injury to two crew members. The ship and the crew were
detained by the authorities of Marina for trial purposes. Although the value of the
Morning Staris about USD 1 million, the authorities of Marina have fixed USD 3
million as the bond for the release of the ship and the crew. The owner of the
Morning Starseeks help from the Government of Ruritania regarding the alleged
unlawful arrest of the vessel and the crew, and unreasonable bond fixed for the
release of the ship and the crew.You are the Attorney General of Ruritania. Advise
your Government.
(15 marks)

QUESTION 3
The Unicornwas a trawler owned by the State Fishing Enterprise of Phoenicia, a
sovereign State, and was on the high seas while the Dolphin, one of its boats, was
fishing at sea about 110 nautical miles off the Malaysian coast, closely watched by
the KD Sri Putra, a frigate of the Royal Malaysian Navy. The Dolphin then set off,
shadowed by the KD Sri Putra, to the place where the Unicornwas waiting and
transhipped the cargo onto the Unicorn. The KD Sri Putra signalled to the Unicorn
to stop in order to do boarding and searching. Neglecting the order, the Unicorn
speeded up further to the open sea pursued by the KD Sri Putra. Only with the use
of guns the KD Sri Putra was able to arrest the Unicorn, which was later taken to
Port Klang. The case was brought before the Magistrate Court, which decided to
imprison the crew, all of whom were Phoenician nationals, and forfeit the vessel.

The Government of Phoenicia objected to the arrest on the grounds that the
Unicorn had never been within Malaysian waters and never violated Malaysian
laws, that it was taking specimen of fishes only for research purposes, and that the
use of guns was not necessary and reasonable and thus in breach of the lawful
exercise of the right of hot pursuit. They further argued that the Malaysian court
had no jurisdiction as the Unicornwas a government-owned vessel protected by
immunity and that the imprisonment of the crew and the forfeiture of the vessel
were contrary to the Fisheries Act 1985.
Advise the Attorney General’s Chamber of Malaysia. (15 marks)

QUESTION 3
A warship of Furiland is moving from the Gulf of Aden to the Far East. When it is
passing through the Straits of Malacca, it is navigating in the Malaysian territorial
sea. Even after passing the south east of Johore, the warship continues to navigate
in the Malaysian territorial sea(although the warship could have entered the high
seas). A Malaysian naval vessel intercepts the warship, ordering it to move out
from the Malaysian territorial sea. The warship ignores the order, insisting that it
has the right of innocent passage.Discuss the legal implications of the above
situation.(15 marks)
QUESTION 3
Tito is a fishing vessel flying the flag of the State of Mumboland. Titois catching
fishes 210 miles from the Malaysian baselines, closely watched by KD Badang, a
Malaysian Naval vessel. Subsequently, Titomoves to an area 180 miles from the
baselines, and continues to catch fishes. KD Badangproceeds to the area and, when
the two vessels are within hailing distance, signaled to Titoto stop. Neglecting the
order, Tito speeds up to the open sea but is pursued by KD Badang.
Tito is caught up by KD Badangon the high seas. The crew of the fishing vessel
fire upon the naval vessel with machine guns. KD Badangresponds by firing back
with its own gun, resulting inthe sinking of Titoand the injury to one of its crew.
The crew of Tito are brought before the Magistrate court which sentences the crew
to imprisonment for six months. Discuss whether the acts of Malaysia are in
accordance with the law of the sea. (15 marks)

QUESTION 4
How is law and order maintained on the high seas? How does the international
community deal with piracy jure gentium? (15 marks)

UNITED NATION
QUESTION 6
Write extensively on the veto power. In your answer, explain how was it conferred
to the permanent members of the Security Council? What are its merits? Why has
it been criticised? (15 marks)

QUESTION 5
Explain the composition, functions and limitations of the following organs of the
United Nations:
(a) the Security Council; (8 marks)
(b) the International Court of Justice. (7 marks)

QUESTION 5
a) A permanent member of the Security Council abstained from voting for a draft
resolution in a Security Council’s meeting on a situation of breach of international
peace and security. Explain the effect of the abstention under the United Nations
Charter. (7 marks)
b) Discuss the possibility of the International Court of Justice reviewing a decision
made by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the United NationsCharter. (8
marks)