1Kosovo Summer University Professor SlomansonPristina University Kosovo Due no later than FridayTake-home Final Examination August 2, 2002 10:00 AM

Instructions: This is a two-page take-home final examination for the course in Public International Law (#16). This examination contains of ten short essay questions-all involving the same developing situation. Each of these essay questions must be answered in English, and with no more than 100 words which is slightly less than half of a typed page. Your entire examination answer should thus be the equivalent of about five (5) typed pages. You must use one-inch margins and 12-point font (and the equivalent of both, if you have to handwrite your examination because of electricity problems).

I will be available for one hour after I distribute this examination in/near our classroom, so that I can answer any questions you have about the English meaning of any word used in this examination. I will, power permitting-accept e-mail questions about words used in the examination, but not the legal principles associated with any word. I will review my e-mails late Thursday afternoon if power is available. I will not be able to do so after 6 PM on Thursday.

You must do your own work when writing this final examination. Plagiarism (two or more papers which are produced from the same source) will result in "F" grades. You do not have to make citations to cases, or other resources, but may do so if you feel that will improve the quality of your answers. Such citations will be counted as part of your 100-word limit.

Note: The U.S. military equivalents for the letters of the alphabet include: "K" = Kilo and "Y" =Yankee. I will use such terms for describing the countries where the hypothetical events in thisexamination take place. ME FAT! [Albanian for Good Luck, but not the very different meaning in English.]

Facts: Political relations between the nation of Yankee and the nation of Kilo have been steadily deteriorating. Several years ago, State Yankee launched a land-based military offensive against its smaller neighbor (Kilo). Yankee could have annexed Kilo-which used to be a part of Yankee-because Yankee's military is far superior to that of Kilo. Instead, Yankee withdrew its forces from Kilo. Yankee's diplomatic ambassador to Kilo then announced that Yankee's leadership was satisfied that it no longer had anything to fear from Kilo, because Yankee had so easily controlled Kilo's terrain during Yankee's brief military campaign. Yankee has since stationed a number of its ground troops near the Yankee-Kilo border. Yankee has also sought a number of economic concessions from Kilo (since Yankee's successful invasion a few years ago). Kilo has reluctantly acquiesced in Yankee's demands.

Certain Kilo government officials planned an event, which they referred to as Operation Anticipation. This morning, their designated pilot thus flew a Kilo fighter plane into the building, which is Yankee's governmental headquarters-and one of Yankee's most precious national symbols. Several hundred of Yankee's military and civilian workers were killed, who were either in the Yankee government building or harmed outside by falling debris.

The pilot was Captain Pajaziti, who is a military officer in the Kilo Air Force. He ejected from his aircraft immediately before the plane crashed into the Yankee government building. Pajaziti

escaped by changing into civilian clothing and concealing his pistol to avoid capture. The Yankee police later captured Pajaziti.

You work on the staff of the United Nations 6th Committee (Legal). Because of your superior command of international legal principles, you have been selected to provide an analysis of the issues below. It is now Thursday, 12:00 noon. You must provide your work product for committee review by Friday, 10:00 AM. The UN Security Council will then meet to decide what action to take, based upon your analysis of the following issues:

Questions:1. Did Kilo's Operation Anticipation in Yankee violate International Law?2. Could Kilo justify Operation Anticipation on the basis of self-defense?3. What jurisdictional principles of International Law could Yankee use to prosecute Captain Pajaziti?4. Yankee police later capture Pajaziti. Skenderbeu is a Kilo consular official who works in Yankee. Skenderbeu is allowed to talk to Pajaziti by cell phone for two minutes. The Yankee police tape record this supposedly private conversation. Have Yankee's police thus violated International Law?5. The Kilo police thus learn the surprising fact that Captain Pajaziti-in addition to being the military officer who flew the airplane into Yankee's government building-is also Kilo's current Ambassador to Yankee. Can Pajaziti claim immunity from prosecution? 6. After Skenderbeu leaves the Yankee jail where Pajaziti is being detained, the Yankee police interrogate Pajaziti. They use the "shaking" technique described in the Israeli Interrogation cases. Have the Yankee police thus violated Pajaziti's individual rights under International Law?7. Assume that you are now the chief prosecutor for Yankee. Your task is to determine in what international court or courts to file charges against both Pajaziti and Kilo, so that more attention will be brought to Operation Anticipation. In what court or courts would you file this case?8. What crimes would you claim that Kilo and Pajaziti committed, were you to file a case in these international tribunals?9. Would you be able to sue Kilo in a court within State Yankee?10. Could the Yankee government nationalize the Kilo-owned tractor manufacturing plant in Yankee? If so, would Yankee be required to compensate Kilo?

1INTERNATIONAL LAW PROFESSOR SLOMANSONFINAL EXAMINATION SUMMER 2003 PRISTINA UNIVERSITY EXAM # _ _ _ _ Instructions: This is a takehome examination. You will hand the following to Zana–our ATA Logistics Officer–between 9:30 AM and 10:00 AM on Friday, August 1, 2003, near the ATA office on the 4th floor of the Fakulteti Juridik: (1) your book and (2) your exam answer. Any answers/books not given to Zana at the above time on Friday will not be graded, and will not receive any credit for this course. Place your Exam number–but not your name–on your answer. Failure to do this will result in no credit for the course, because I do not want to know whose exam I am grading. I will be available to answer any form (but not substance) questions at the outside Stellar Bar Caffe–across from the Swiss “Embassy” near the Grand Hotel–from 6 PM (1800) until 7 PM (2100) on Thursday, July 31, 2003.

Page limitation: Limit your answers to the following questions–which must be in English (the language of this course)–to a total maximum of 5 typewritten pages. I will accept handwritten answers if you cannot type them. The font size for both typewritten and handwritten answers must be no smaller than the standard 12-point font–and all margins no smaller than one inch (per these same instructions, which were previously handed out in class). This page limitation will allow you to write and rewrite your answer, before you submit it to me, which is an important part of the learning process associated with this course and it final examination.

Plagiarism: You may discuss this examination with other classmates. However, you must write your own examination answer. If any two or more answers are evidently the same, these answers will not receive credit for this course. The decision of the co-professors will be final.

Facts: The fictional nations, Unita and Iraga, are parties to all relevant treaties. Unita is a powerful democratic nation in the western hemisphere. Iraga is a lesser developed military dictatorship in the eastern hemisphere. Iraga is developing a growing international trade in Ratsaflatzapackalumer (RFP). This product is Iraga’s only export. Profits from Iraga’s production and marketing of RFP are used to improve the condition of life for Iraga’s citizens. A poisoned shipment of RFP arrives in Unita, resulting in the death of hundreds of Unita citizens. Unita’s legislature thus enacts the following amendment to its Foreign Relations Law:

General exception to the jurisdictional immunity of foreign states: A foreign state shall not be immune, however, from the jurisdiction of the courts of Unita in any case in which money damages are claimed against a foreign state–for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or any other terrorist act engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.

A radical group of Iraga citizens, known as Alka, claims responsibility for poisoning the RFP before it left Iraga. Unita’s leader believes that Iraga clandestinely supported Alka’s poisoning the RFP shipment sent to Unita. Unita’s leader becomes increasingly bellicose (warlike). She issues the Presidential Executive Order:

This nation will no longer tolerate Evil Doers who intend to terrorize the citizens of the peace-loving people of Unita. Three-hundred forty-two Unita citizens endured a new form of torture, at the hands of the government of Iraga, and its henchmen known as Alka. I have thus issued the following five actions: (Presidential Executive Order continued)

1. Today, I have ordered the arrest of all Iraga diplomats. 2. They will be sent to our military facility in Guantanamo, Cuba, where they will remain

in our custody–along with other illegal combatants–during Unita’s continuing war on terrorism. 3. I have also authorized the seizure of all Iraga commercial vessels in Unita’s ports, as a

means of preventing any further entry of RFP into Unita.

4. Our war on terrorism necessitates my ordering Unita’s immigration authorities not to consider any request for asylum made by any citizens of Iraga who now, or in the future, find their way to our shores.

5. Finally, I hereby place Iraga on notice that Unita will take whatever military action is required to defend Unita from the scourge of terrorism now emanating from Iraga. Unita does not intend to wait until the United Nations Security Council debates whether (or not) to take action. This Executive Order will remain in effect until the perilous times we now face no longer threaten the existence of this nation.

The nations of Iraqa and Unita submitted to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as follows:

UNITA’S SUBMISSION TO THE COMPULSORY JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ Sept. 28, 1946: Unita hereby submits to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for all cases arising under International Law. However, under Article 2.7 of the UN Charter, no entity within this new organization may intervene in affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of Unita, as determined by Unita.

IRAGA’S SUBMISSION TO THE COMPULSORY JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ Jan. 15, 1975: Iraga hereby submits to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, on the basis of reciprocity, for all cases arising under International Law.

Questions: You are a private lawyer who excelled in your course in International Law. You have been retained to provide your analysis of the questions below. The relatives of the deceased Unita consumers of poisoned RFP come to you–requesting that you file a lawsuit against Iraga in all of the following venues (forums)–so that they can obtain as much publicity as possible: the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and a local court in Unita. They believe that the country of Iraga purposefully arranged for shipments of poisoned RFP to Unita, as a means of terrorizing Unita citizens. These relatives want you to negotiate directly with Iraga’s leader. They also want you to sue her personally, in addition to the above suits against the nation of Iraga.

What advice should you give to your Unita clients regarding: * your ability to negotiate with Iraga’s leader on their behalf; * the power (competence or subject matter jurisdiction) of the above forums to proceed with the requested litigation against the nation of Iraga; * whether there are jurisdictional bases, under International Law, to justify the application of Unita law to prosecute an Iraga citizen responsible for the death of the Unita citizens (assume that the leader of the Iraga group–responsible for poisoning the RFP that was shipped to Unita–is in the custody of Unita); and* the problems arising under International Law with the plans contained in the Unita president’s Executive Order.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (PIL) PROF. SLOMANSONFINAL EXAMINATION PRISTINA UNIV 2004INSTRUCTIONS. Page limitation–five pages. Preferably typed, single- or double-spaced. Use standard font and 1-inch margins. Submit in English no later than 10:00 AM, Friday, July 30th just outside of ATA office on 4th floor of Law/Economics Building. Warning: You may discuss this exam with other students. However, you must write your own examination. Two or more answers that are the same will receive a grade of “F.”

FACTS. Kukkesovo is a troubled country. Its population is ethnically 90% “Labanian”people and 10% “Bersian” people. Kukkesovo’s leader is a nationalistic Labanian named Tina Gurova. She decides that the Bersian minority is a threat to Kukkesovo’s future because of its proximity to Bersia–a larger and more powerful nation on Kukkesovo’s border–whose ethnicity is almost 100% Bersian. Tina therefore launches a brutal campaign to force all Bersians to leave Kukkesovo. Bersians are thus forced to leave their houses and to flee to neighboring countries. One of those countries, Madonia, initially allows 100 Bersians to enter Madonia. Madonia soon decides to block any more Bersians from entering Madonia. Madonia also sends the previously admitted Bersians back to Kukkesovo.

These 100 Bersians are immediately imprisoned–on the basis that they have now violated the Kukkesovo executive order of Tina Gurova to leave Kukkesovo. While in prison, they are beaten, denied access to legal assistance, and never charged with any crime.

Kukkesovo and Madonia have ratified all relevant multilateral treaties (which you have studied in this course). Kukkesovo’s submission to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states that: “Kukkesovo accepts ICJ jurisdiction in all cases, except for matters included within Kukkesovo’s sovereign right to manage ethnic tension within its borders.”

A young, idealistic Labinian named Never Hanasi is Kukkesovo’s Foreign Minister. He complains to Time Gurova about the way that she is treating ethnic minority Bersians. She ignores his advice that Kukkesovo change the way in which it is treating its Bersian population. He writes a newspaper article that circulates around the world. A group of countries, lead by the nation of ASU, are militarily aligned in an international organization called “OTAN.” OTAN seeks a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution, seeking authority to take whatever measures are necessary to respond to Kukkesovo’s ethnic discrimination–because it is a major threat to regional peace. Tina Gurova responds by publicly stating that the UN Charter specifically bars any country or organization from interfering with the internal affairs of any nation.

OTAN decides to bomb Kukkesovo, hoping to force its government to change its repressive discrimination against the ethnic minority Bersians. Neither OTAN nor ASU seek a UNSC resolution authorizing such force, because Kukkesovo ’s neighbor Bersia is a permanent member of the UNSC which would veto such a bombing. Tina Gurova flees from Kukkesovo to Madonia. ASU then seeks her extradition from Madonia to ASU for a criminal trial.

QUESTIONS. #1: Can Tina Gurova and Kukkesovo be prosecuted for violating PIL? #2: In what court or courts would they be prosecuted? #3: Can either Tina Gurova or Kukkesovo claim sovereign immunity? #4: Did Madonia violate PIL? #5: Did OTAN’s bombing of Kukkesovo violate PIL?#6: Would ASU courts have the power (jurisdiction) to try Tina Gurova in ASU?

1Public International Law Student Number: _ _ _ _ _ (not your name) Prof. Slomanson Final Examination Summer 2006 Pristina University

INSTRUCTIONS: You are limited to five type-written pages for your English-language answer. Use the standard 12-point font, and one-inch margins. I will remain for one hour after distributing this exam, to answer any questions you may have about the English meaning of any word. Your answer, wherein your name will not appear anywhere, must be submitted to me at or before 10:00 AM Friday, July 28, 2006, at the Human Rights Centre. (I will come at 9:30 AM.) Because of the large number of students in this class, I will likely have to grade on Saturday as well—meaning two things: (1) you will not be able to get your grade/certificate until sometime on Saturday; and (2) if you are late on Friday, that will lessen the possibility of my completing grading in time for you to get your certificate at Friday’s closing ceremony. FACTS: Billiam is a United States (U.S.) citizen. He travels with a U.S. diplomatic passport, is an employee of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.), and poses as a professor of International Law at Pristina University in Kosovo. His superior C.I.A. officer mistakenly believes that making things worse in Kosovo will pressure regional negotiators from various nations into facilitating Kosovo’s final status by the end of 2006. This officer therefore orders Billiam to go to Gracianica, where he kills a Swedish KFOR soldier at night. The next night, Billaim sets fire to Pristina’s oldest mosque. No one sees Billiam commit either of these crimes. Billiam, who is an egotistical person, is proud of what he has done. After drinking a bottle of Skanderbeg cognac, Billiam brags to his co-professor (named “Never”) about what he has done. Never is shocked. He immediately reports Billiam’s admissions to both NATO and the United Nations Special Representative for Kosovo. QUESTIONS: (1) Assume that both Sweden and the U.N. want to pursue claims against the U.S., because of Billiam’s conduct. Discuss the jurisdictional bases upon which Sweden would pursue its claims against the U.S., and whether the U.N. can do so. (2) Assume that Sweden wants to sue the U.S., and Billiam, in a Swedish court. What responses would these respective defendants likely make in the Swedish proceedings? (3) Assuming that Billiam was acting as an agent of the U.S., did the U.S. thereby violate the international prohibition against the use of force in international relations? (4) Assume that both Serbia and the U.N. request that the following courts prosecute Billiam for his crimes in Kosovo: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Court. You are the chief legal counsel for each of these courts. Can you proceed with a case against Billiam? On what grounds? MORE FACTS: Billiam flees to Bulgaria, hoping to seek asylum there, because of his fear of prosecution for his conduct in Kosovo. Just after crossing the border from Macedonia into Bulgaria, he is stopped by the Bulgarian police. He is secretly jailed in Sophia, and soon sent to an undisclosed prison in Eastern Europe. No one knows of his precise location, which is no longer in Bulgaria. At that secret prison, which is controlled by the U.S. C.I.A., Billiam is beaten until he confesses to his crimes in Kosovo. Such beatings are routinely administered to inmates at that prison. He remains there for several years, without being charged for his crimes. A journalist discovers that Billam’s detention place is a U.S. military camp in Kosovo. His whereabouts are reported in major international newspapers. The U.S. then charges Billam with various crimes, for which he will stand trial by a U.S. military commission at Camp Bondsteel. MORE QUESTIONS: (5) On what bases could Bulgaria incur State responsibility for a violation of International Law? (What are the violations?) (6) Has the U.S. incurred State responsibility under International Law for Billiam’s beating? (7) What impact might the judicial analyses in Rasul (textbook page 510) and Hamdan (supplement page ___) have upon Billiam’s detention without charges, and his pending trial by military commission?

International Law Prof. SlomansonFinal Examination Pristina University Take-home Exam Summer 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS PageICJ President’s Memorandum …............................................................................................ 2

FILEAlpha’s Memorial .................................................................................................................. 3Bravo’s Memorial ……..………………………..………………………………................ 4 Alpha’s Submission to Jurisdiction ……………………………………………………… 5Bravo’s Submission to Jurisdiction ……………………………………………..…………. 5

LIBRARYStatute of the International Court of Justice ……………………………………….………. 6Reference re Secession of Quebec Case … ……………………………………….………..7International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ………...…………………….……… 8Geneva Convention: Civilians ……………………………………… ……………….. … 9Geneva Convention: Protocol I ……………………………………………..…………… .. 9Israeli “Unlawful Combatant” Case ………………………………………..………….. 10Charter of the United Nations ………………………………………………………...…. 11Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran …….............… 12Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ………………………………….………..… 12United Nations Genocide Convention ………………………………………….………… 12

[pages in exam were numbered]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEDen Hague, Netherlands

MEMORANDUM July 21, 2011

To: Justice Tung Fm: President, International Court of Justice (ICJ)Re: Instructions

The nations of Alpha and Bravo have enjoyed good international relations for many years. But a new and more conservative government came into power in Bravo, with a related decline in their international relationship. Attempts at diplomacy failed. Alpha thus filed its Petitioner’s Memorial (complaint) against Bravo in the Registry of the ICJ. Bravo then filed its Respondent’s Memorial (answer) in our Registry as well. Both States have ratified all applicable treaties.

After reading this instructional Memo, examine the FILE. It contains some essential litigation documents. The enclosed LIBRARY contains legal resources that may impact your analysis. These resources are not necessarily the only legal rules which may be applicable. (Text deletions from the original sources are not indicated.) Do not assume that every scrap of information in this FILE and LIBRARY is relevant to some issue. Note that this exercise has twelve (12) pages total. You are limited to 5 type-written pages, double-spaced, with one-inch margins all around, and typed in 12-point font. (I can thus hopefully manage to have the papers graded in time for the Friday, 5:00 PM closing ceremony, where certificates and grades are given out.) Your answer must be submitted to me in the classroom, at 9:45 AM, Friday, July 22, 2011. I cannot accept late papers, because I have little time to do the grading.

Note the parties’ respective point-by-point arguments in their Memorials. Bravo has no objection to the Page 3 map, which is Alpha’s illustration of key events in this litigation.

Use whatever format you wish when responding to my following request. You may work with your fellow justices on this assignment, but your memo must be your own. (Two or more papers that are too similar will receive no credit, and they will not receive a PSU certificate.) Write a draft ICJ judicial opinion on the following issues: (1) Does the court have jurisdiction to decide this case, based on the parties’ submissions to our jurisdiction? (2) Do Bravo’s Bordians have a right to secede from Bravo, to establish their own nation? (3) Did Bravo violate International Law, by its ban on nijabs and burqas in public? (4) Was Bravo’s designation of Bordian rebels as “unlawful combatants” in accordance with International Law? (5) Was Bravo’s missile strike at Leaderman’s home in Alpha a proper example of self-defense under International Law? (6) Did Bravo’s missile strike at the hospital violate International Humanitarian Law? (7) Regarding Bravo’s counter-claim—can the Alpha authorities arrest the Bordians in Bravo’s embassy? (8) Did Alpha’s Bordians perpetrate an act of genocide at the Bravo Embassy?

Hisashi OwadaHisashi Owada, President International Court of Justice

FILEMEMORIAL

Republic of AlphaInternational Court of Justice

The Hague, The Netherlands 1. The Nation of Alpha hereby submits this case to the Court, pursuant to its prior submission to the court’s jurisdiction. 2. Bordians are an ethnic minority group that inhabits both sides of the Alpha-Bravo international border (see Exhibit A below). Bordians in both countries would like to secede from Alpha and Bravo, to establish their own nation near the Alpha-Bravo border. Alpha supports this Bordian quest for self-determination, as long as any new Bordian nation is established only on the Bravo side of the border, in the Bravo province inhabited mostly by Bordians. Bravo is firmly against any Bordian secession. Bravo also mistreats its Bordian minority. For example, Bordian women are not allowed to wear their Islamic burqas or nijabs in public. 3. A small band of Alpha Bordians once crossed the border, south into Bravo, to perpetrate suicide bombings—after which these civilians immediately retreated to Alpha. Bravo’s president thus designated all captured Bordian rebels as “unlawful combatants,” a term which does not appear in the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or any other international instrument. While detained in Bravo, they are not entitled access to Bravo’s civilian or military justice systems. They are being detained indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities between Bravo and the Bordian rebels. 4. A Bravo’s pre-emptive missile strike violated International Law. Two Bravo missiles crossed into Alpha’s airspace. Neither the UN Charter, nor related State practice, authorize military operations against another country. 5. Bravo’s air defense program was designed to target and kill Themain Leaderman, who is the leader of the Bordian rebels in Alpha. A Bravo cruise missile killed Leaderman in his house―adjacent to an Alpha hospital. The other missile killed 19 civilian hospital patients, and wounded 38 more, when it struck the hospital next door to Leaderman’s house. This disastrous mission violated International Humanitarian Law. 6. Exhibit A to this Memorial (below) is a map depicting certain details about this situation. Exhibit A Hospital Rebel’s House

↓ ↓ Republic of Alpha

A’s Bordian Province Bravo Embassy

B’s Bordian Province Republic of Bravo Bordian Detainees

MEMORIALRepublic of Bravo

International Court of JusticeThe Hague, The Netherlands

General List No. 151Bravo’s Response to Alpha’s Memorial

1. The Court does not have jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Bravo’s prior submission to the jurisdiction of this court―which the Respondent State herein invokes. Should the Court find that it does have jurisdiction, Bravo further pleads as follows. 2. Bordians of course have the right to self-determination. However, the Bordian province’s secession from Bravo would be illegal. Even if it were legal, the alleged circumstances do not give rise to a right of unilateral secession of the Bordian province from Bravo. This is because Bravo must protect its populace from the danger of Bordian suicide bombers, with measures including the burga/nijab ban. This clothing has been used by male Bordian suicide bombers in Bravo, posing as females. France’s April 2011 “burqa/nijab ban” evinces the need for protective measures. These unlawful combatants are pursuing objectives designed to strike fear into the hearts of Bravo’s non-Bordian majority, and to further the unlawful Bordian quest for independence. 3. Bravo’s “unlawful combatant” designation is a reality necessitated by today’s War on Terror. Designating captured Alpha Bordians as “unlawful combatants,” and detaining them until the cessation of the Bordian hostilities against Bravo’s citizens, provides the Bravo government with the best means of protecting Bravo citizens from suicide bombers. 4. Modern States must react to the grim reality that they can no longer wait to act, when hot waters are simmering―within a degree of boiling over, to perpetrate a scalding catastrophe. 5. The incident at the Alpha hospital was both unfortunate and unintentional. The attack on Alpha rebel leader Themain Lederman was necessary, because he has planned more suicide bombings in Bravo. The hospital incident was a ripple in an increasingly toxic pond, being poisoned by Alpha’s clandestine support for a Bordian secession from Bravo. Bravo regrets the collateral damage—but Alpha must acknowledge that Bravo’s predator drone program did not violate International Humanitarian Law.

Bravo’s Counter-claim Against Alpha 6. A group of Alpha Bordians travelled to Alpha’s capitol city. They took over the Bravo embassy in Alpha, in retaliation for the targeted killing of their Bordian rebel leader (Leaderman). They took the Bravo embassy staff as hostages. These Bordian captors allowed a reporter to enter the embassy, after the Bordians killed all of the embassy staff, except for Bravo’s Ambassador to Alpha. They then told the reporter: “Our demands for releasing our Bordian brothers―who are being detained in Bravo—necessitated our killing the embassy staff. Now that Bravo understands our commitment to self-determination, we will soon kill not only our remaining hostage, the Bravo Ambassador here in Alpha, but also each and every Bravo citizen we can. Thus, a bomb is now ticking, and will accomplish our objectives on a massive scale, if our detained brothers are not released in 24 hours. All Bravo citizens deserve to be exterminated, because of their acquiescence in the suffering endured by Bordians on both sides of the border, who have suffered at the hands of Bravo’s new authoritarian government.”

Alpha’s Submission to the Jurisdiction International Court of Justice (1967)Alpha herein submits to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in all legal disputes concerning matters which are not within the domestic jurisdiction of Alpha, to be determined by Alpha on a case-by-case basis.

Bravo’s Submission to the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (2002)Bravo herein submits to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on the basis of reciprocity, for all legal disputes concerning alleged breaches of International Law.

LIBRARY

Statute of the International Court of Justice

Article 36 1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. 2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: a. the interpretation of a treaty; b. any question of international law; c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. 3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time. 4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court. 5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms. 6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.

Supreme Court of CanadaReference Re Secession Of Quebec

37 I.L.M. 1340 (1998)

112. International law contains neither a right of unilateral secession nor the explicit denial of such a right, although such a denial is, to some extent, implicit in the exceptional circumstances required for secession to be permitted under the right of a people to self-determination, e.g., the right of secession that arises in the exceptional situation of an oppressed or colonial people, discussed below. As will be seen, international law places great importance on the territorial integrity of nation states and, by and large, leaves the creation of a new state to be determined by the domestic law of the existing state of which the seceding entity presently forms a part. 123. International law grants the right to self-determination to “peoples.” Accordingly, access to the right requires the threshold step of characterizing as a people the group seeking self-determination. However, as the right to self-determination has developed by virtue of a combination of international agreements and conventions, coupled with state practice, with little formal elaboration of the definition of “peoples,” the result has been that the precise meaning of the term “people” remains somewhat uncertain. 133. The other clear case where a right to self-determination accrues is where a people is subject to subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context. This recognition finds its roots in:

Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, the realization of the principle of equal rights in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, in order: (a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and (b) To having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned; and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.

134. A number of commentators have further asserted that the right to self-determination may ground a right to unilateral secession [and although] described in several ways, the underlying proposition is that, when a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally, it is entitled, as a last resort, to exercise it by secession.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 2 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. * * * Article 4  1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. 2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. * * * Article 14 1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. * * *

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

Art. 71 No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial. Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible. * * * Art. 72Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence. * * *

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977

Article 45―Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities 1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention [re Prisoners of War], if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal. * * *

Supreme Court of IsraelSitting as the High Court of Justice

23 Kislev 5767 (13 December 2006)Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and Palestinian Society v.Government of Israel, Prime Minister of Israel, Minister of Defense

PRESIDENT (EMERITUS) A. BARAK: 1. In February 2000, the second [Palestinian] intifada began. A massive assault of terrorism was directed against the State of Israel, and against Israelis, merely because they are Israelis. This assault of terrorism differentiates neither between combatants and civilians, nor between women, men, and children. 2. In its war against terrorism, the State of Israel kill[s] members of terrorist organizations involved in the planning, launching, or execution of terrorist attacks against Israel. 3. Petitioners’ [Israeli Torture Committee and Palestinian Society] position is that the targeted killings policy is totally illegal, and contradictory to international law, Israeli law, and basic principles of human morality. It violates the human rights recognized in Israeli and international law, both the rights of those targeted, and the rights of innocent passersby caught in the targeted killing zone. 5. Petitioners’ stance is that this division between combatants and civilians is an exhaustive division. There is no intermediate status, and there is no third category of “unlawful combatants.” Any person who is not a combatant, and any person about whom there is doubt, automatically has the status of civilian, and is entitled to the rights and protections granted to civilians at the time of war. Nor is a civilian participating in combat activities an “unlawful combatant;” he is a civilian criminal, and in any case he retains his status as a civilian. Petitioners thus reject the State’s position that the members of terrorist organizations are unlawful combatants. 13. Respondents’ position is that the targeted killings policy, as implemented in practice [is] performed only as an exceptional step, when there is no alternative. Its goal is to save lives.

Charter of the United Nations Article 2The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. 1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. 2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter. 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. * * * Article 51 Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran United States of America v. Iran: Judgment of 24 May 1980

85. The rules of diplomatic law lays down the receiving State’s obligations regarding the facilities, privileges and immunities to be accorded to diplomatic missions and, on the other, foresees their possible abuse by members of the mission and specifies the means at the disposal of the receiving State to counter any such abuse. But the principle of the inviolability of the persons of diplomatic agents and the premises of diplomatic missions is one of the very foundations of this long-established régime, to the evolution of which the traditions of Islam made a substantial contribution. Even in the case of armed conflict or in the case of a breach in diplomatic relations those provisions require that both the inviolability of the members of a diplomatic mission and of the premises, property and archives of the mission must be respected by the receiving State. Naturally, the observance of this principle does not mean that a diplomatic agent caught in the act of committing an assault or other offence may not, on occasion, be briefly arrested by the police of the receiving State in order to prevent the commission of the particular crime. But such eventualities bear no relation at al1 to what occurred in the present case.

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Article 22 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. Article 29 The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article IIIn the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical

destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.