holmes institute faculty of higher education …€¦ · select the party you wish to represent...

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines

Trimester T1 2019

Unit Code HI5015

Unit Title Legal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise

Assessment Type Group Assignment

Assessment Title Research paper and presentation

Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)

Students are required to research an International Law Case of your choice from the

list below and explain in a report format on the background of the dispute, facts, legal

issues, individual parties’ arguments, tribunal’s decision and the importance of the

case in international law.

Weight 30% of the total assessments

Total Marks 20 marks – research paper and 10 marks for presentation

Word limit Not more than 2000 words

Due Date Friday Week 10 – 11.59pm

Submission Guidelines

All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.

The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.

Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.

of 8


Assignment 2 Specifications Purpose: This assignment aims at ensuring that students have familiarised themselves with their chosen

International Case law and are able to explain the background of the dispute, facts, legal issues,

individual parties’ arguments, tribunal’s decision and the importance of the case in international

law.

Details: Topics and presentation schedule: Please organise yourselves into groups of not more than 5 students and not less than 3 students. The assignment consists of 2 parts;

A. Written report – worth 20% and must be submitted – Friday Week 10 at 11.59pm.

1. Select a case from the list of International Law Cases below.

2. Advise your lecturer by email of your group members with student ID numbers and chosen case. Please note: your lecturer’s prior approval of your case is required.

3. Select the party you wish to represent (ex. China in the “Philippines v. China in the South China sea” case; or Canada in “Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon”).

4. Research, read and understand your selected case.

5. Prepare and submit a written report discussing the following:

background of the dispute

brief facts of the case

the legal issues presented

the individual parties’ arguments, with particular emphasis on your selected party’s arguments

the tribunal’s decision

the importance or significance of the case in international law (i.e. why the case is important in the development of international law). You can also discuss any other developments following the court or tribunal’s decision.

Assignment structure is to be written as a report format. It must include;

Cover page

Executive summary

Table of contents

Section headings

Paragraphing

Page numbers

Reference list at the end of the report

of 8


B. Group Presentation – worth 10% and will be presented / submitted in week 10.

Strict adherence to the 10 minute limit is expected.

1. Present and discuss the summary of your report in 10 minutes. 2. The Presentation will be done in class or video recording. Your lecturer will advise which is more

appropriate. Whether in-class or video presentation, all members must present. The group will be marked down if not all members present.

3. Video link must be uploaded to a publicly-viewable video sharing platform (ex. Youtube, Dropbox, Google drive) and the video link uploaded on Blackboard.

4. A video presentation consists of both images and audio. For this reason, a plain Power Point presentation showing slides even with accompanying voice recording is not considered a video and, hence, not allowed.

Important Reminders: Lecturer approval of chosen case:

1. You must email your lecturer your list of group members and chosen case by week 4.

2. You must obtain approval by email from your lecturer of your group and chosen case before starting work on it. You must NOT start work on your group assignment until your lecturer approves your group and case. Please note: failure to obtain lecturer approval will result in a failing mark for the entire group for this assignment.

Submission:

1. All group report submissions must be done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.

2. Please fill in the “Group Report cover sheet” (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.

3. Each group must email to their lecturer a “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates).

4. Non-submission of either the group report or video presentation link (if a group is doing a video) on Blackboard/SafeAssign (if doing a video presentation) is equivalent to non-submission, which will merit a mark of 0 (zero) for the group assignment.

5. This is a group assignment and is meant to be worked on in groups. Groups of less than 3 and more 5 members will receive a penalty of 10 marks (50%).

6. Reports must be submitted via SafeAssign on Blackboard and show a similarity percentage figure. Any group report that does not show a SafeAssign similarity percentage will not be marked and be required to re-submit.

7. Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).

of 8


Citation and referencing:

1. The group report must have a minimum of 6 scholarly, academic references, which are appropriate for a Masters Level assignment.

2. Assignments are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with a generally accepted

system of citation (ex, Harvard System). A properly referenced assignment showing in-text citation is critical to passing and obtaining a good mark in the group assignment.

SafeAssign similarity percentage:

1. Plagiarism in any form, shape or manner is unacceptable under any circumstances and will be dealt with according to Institute policy on plagiarism.

2. In general, for written reports, a SafeAssign similarity percentage of 25% or below is acceptable. Regardless of the similarity figure, all group reports must use in-text citation and observe proper referencing rules.

INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES

Please choose from one of the following topics from the list (see below). Note: Where possible, groups are expected to refer to the texts of the original cases and conduct additional research. Do not rely merely on the case summaries as it is not possible to write a 2,000 word report based only on case summaries.

1. De Sanchez v. Banco Central De Nicaragua Textbook (August, Mayer & Bixby 6th ed): pp. 63-65 2. Chattin v. United Mexican States Textbook: pp. 93-96 3. 3. Islamic Republic or Iran v. United Sates of America http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79 4. Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany Textbook: pp. 51-53 . 5. Sandline International Inc. v. Papua New Guinea Textbook: pp. 73-76 6. The M/V Saiga Case (Merits) Textbook: pp. 98-103 7. In the matter of the Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L Loewen vs USA Textbook: pp. 145-147 8. Bumper Development Corp. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and Others Textbook:

pp. 150-153 9. Abbott v. Republic of South Africa Textbook: pp. 163-167 10. Bank of India v. Gobindram Naraindas Sadhwani and Others Textbook: pp. 172-175 11. Jorge Luis Machuca Gonzalez et al. v. Chrysler Corporation et al. Textbook: pp. 177-179 12. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. (Belgium v. Spain) Textbook: pp. 187-189 http://www.icj-

cij.org/en/case/50 13. Metro Industries v. Sammi Corp. Textbook: pp. 200-205 14. United States v. Blondek, Tull, Castle, and Lowry Textbook: pp. 225-229 15. Arab Republic of Egypt v. Southern Pacific Properties, Ltd., et al. Textbook: pp. 249-250 16. Brady v. Brown Textbook: pp. 257-262 17. Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A. v. United States Textbook: pp.264-266 18. The Bhopal Case – Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India Textbook: pp. 277-281 19. Batchelder v. Kawamoto Textbook: pp. 288-290 20. Wilson, Smithett & Cope, Ltd v. Terruzzi Textbook: pp. 315-319 21. Hunt et al. v. Alliance North American Government Income Trust, Inc. et al. Textbook: pp. 344-345 22. Vishipco Line et al. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. Textbook: pp. 351-354 23. Finance Ministry v. Manifattura Lane Marz Otto, SpA Textbook: pp. 378-379 24. Canada v. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds18_e.htm

http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79



https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds18_e.htm

of 8


25. Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages Textbook: pp. 381-384 26. Duberg v. UNESCO Textbook: pp. 452-454 27. State v. Nagami (Japan 1968) Textbook: pp. 470-472 6 28. Spiess et al. v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc. (US 1979) Textbook: pp. 480-482 29. Performing Right Society Limited v. Hickey Textbook: pp. 494-496 30. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India Textbook: pp. 499-501 31. Starbucks and Ethiopia Dispute Coffee Trademark Issues Textbook: pp. 513-515

http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2621 https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/ethiopia-and-starbucks-reachcoffee-agreement

32. Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hammerton Textbook: pp. 516-521 33. Treibacher Industrie, A.G. v. Allegheny Technologies, Inc. Textbook: pp. 576-579 34. Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northern Food Trading Co. (US 2005) Textbook: pp. 595-598 35. M. Golodetz & co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc. (The Galitia) Textbook: pp. 62-632 36. Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd. v. Malaysian International Shipping Corp. Textbook: pp. 635-

639 37. Mair v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Eastern Caribbean States 1983) Textbook: pp. 671-673 38. Far East Realty Investment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals et al. (Philippines 1988) Textbook: pp. 676-677 39. Trans Trust Sprl v. Danubian Trading Co., Ltd. (UK 1952) Textbook: pp. 687-689 40. Sztejn v. J. Henry Schoeder Banking Corp. Textbook: pp. 695-696 41. Philippines v. China in the South China Sea https://pca-cpa.org/wp-

content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712- Award.pdf http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/philippines-vs-china-in-the-south-china-sea-thedispute-so-far

42. In the arbitration proceeding between Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide (Claimant) and Republic of the Philippines: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Washington, D.C.) https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4114.pdf

Marking criteria

Marking criteria Weighting

Written Report

Introduction to chosen case 4%

Identification of legal issues 6%

Tribunal’s decision 6%

Organisation or structure 2%

Referencing 2%

TOTAL 20%

Presentation

Discussion on the content of the topic 3%

Overall presentation clarity 3%

Overall impression 4%

TOTAL 10%

TOTAL Weight 30%

Assessment Feedback to the Student:

http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2621%20https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/ethiopia-and-starbucks-reachcoffee-agreement%20

http://www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2621%20https://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/ethiopia-and-starbucks-reachcoffee-agreement%20

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/philippines-vs-china-in-the-south-china-sea-thedispute-so-far

https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4114.pdf

of 8


Marking Rubric – Written Report

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Introduction of case, background and facts of the case (4 marks)

Demonstration of thorough knowledge of the chosen case (4 marks)

Demonstration of a very good knowledge of the chosen case (3.5 marks)

Demonstration of a good knowledge of the chosen case (2.5 marks)

Demonstration of satisfactory knowledge of the chosen case (2 marks)

Demonstration of little or no knowledge of the chosen case and discussion has little or no relevance to the case chosen. (1 mark)

Identification of legal issues presented and individual parties’ arguments, with particular emphasis on selected party’s arguments. (6 marks)

Accurately and succinctly identified all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (6 marks)

Identification of all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (5.5 marks)

Identification of most but not all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (4.5 marks)

Identification of some of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (3.5 marks)

Failure to identify any of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (<2 marks)

Explanation of the tribunal’s decision and significance of the case in international law (6 marks)

Accurately and succinctly explained all of the tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (6 marks)

Explained all of the tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (5.5 marks)

Explained most but not all of the tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (4.5 marks)

Explained some of the tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (3.5 marks)

Failure to explain any of the tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (<2 marks)

Overall presentation and quality of report (2 marks)

Report is exceptionally structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (2 marks)

Report is well structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.75 marks)

Report is somewhat structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (1.5 marks))

Report is structured with some clarity, and use of some paragraphs and subheadings. (1 mark)

Poorly presented. Report is not structured with any clarity, and does not use of paragraphs and subheadings. (0.5 mark)

Referencing (2 marks)

Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for

Clear systematic referencing using Harvard

Clear systematic referencing using Harvard

Limited attempt at formatting references.

Poorly presented, no apparent

of 8


all sources. At least 6 relevant references were used from good sources. All in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (2 marks)

style for all sources. At least 5 relevant references were used from good sources. All in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1.75marks)

style for all sources. At least 4 relevant references were used from good sources. Most in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1.5 marks)

References largely unrelated to the topic area. At least 3 references were provided. Most in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1 mark)

structure. No use of Harvard referencing style. References were unrelated to the topic area. Only 0 r 1 relevant reference given (0.5 mark)

Marking Rubric - Presentation

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

Discussion on the content of the topic (3 marks)

Excellent discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful at all times. (3 marks)

Very Good discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful most of the time (2.5 marks)

Very Good discussion from most speakers. Discussion was relevant and insightful some of the time (2 marks)

Satisfactory discussion from all speakers. Discussion was relevant and provided no insight (1.5 marks)

Little or no discussion from speakers. Discussion not relevant to the topic being discussed. (1 mark)

Overall presentation clarity (3 marks)

Excellent use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were covered equally. (3 marks)

Very good use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were covered equally. (2.5 marks)

Good use of visual aids. Presentation structured well to ensure that all topics were mostly covered equally. (2 marks)

Satisfactory use of visual aids. Presentation structured whereby most topics were covered (1.5 marks)

No visual aids used. Presentation had no structure and most topics were not covered. (1 mark)

Overall impression (4 marks)

Outstanding impression left on audience. Each speaker had a thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed equally. Exceptionally professional delivery and audience engagement. Adherence to the time constraints

Very good impression left on audience. Each speaker had a somewhat thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat equally. Very professional delivery and audience

Good impression left on audience. Each speaker had a somewhat thorough knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat equally. Professional delivery and audience

Satisfactory impression left on audience. Most speakers had some knowledge of the areas discussed and contributed somewhat equally. Somewhat professional delivery and audience engagement.

No impression left on audience. Most speakers had little knowledge of the areas discussed and did not contribute equally. No professional delivery or audience engagement. No adherence

of 8


of 10 minutes (4 marks)

engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (3.5 marks)

engagement. Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (3 marks)

Adherence to the time constraints of 10 minutes (2 marks)

to the time constraints of 10 minutes (1 mark)

holmes institute faculty of higher education …€¦ · select the party you wish to represent...

Documents