Exam:
6 question over the case studies
Comprehension (6)
Application (6)
Analysis (6)
Writing critiques
- Make sure you answer the question.
- Don’t use your word count setting up the question. The farther back you start, the fewer
words you have to use for your legal analysis, which is the skill we are training.
- Opinio juris not opinion juris
- Write clearly using simple words.
- Engage with the required (and recommended) readings.
- Be as specific as possible when discussing the law.
- Show me you understand the law and legal issues raised.
- Consider counterarguments to your position and strengthen your position by acknowledging and
Engaging with them.
- Show that you understand different sides of an issue and use this awareness to add nuance to
your legal analysis.
- Be critical! As a law student, you have the right and obligation to agree and disagree with the legal
arguments of others, including professors, renowned scholars, judges etc.
Your legal opinion matters and there is no need to be deferential just because someone
is older or studied law longer than you have. You are entitled to disagree respectfully using legal
arguments of your own
- 9 or higher: a superb answer that manages to combine incisive writing and reflection with an impress
Knowledge of the question. The answer should show evidence of thorough required reading and
perhaps recommended reading and should integrate this with novel personal reflections that
demonstrate an exceptional knowledge of the subject area
The answer is well reasoned., well organised has no typographical errors and exemplifies a
flawless piece of analysis at the highest undergraduate level
(1) Are existing international laws sufficient for addressing particular challenges, and if not, what is
needed? (What is insufficient about the law?)
- (1) nuclear weapons;
- (2) killer robots;
- (3) business and human rights; and
- (4) arms trade.
⇒ we focus on the design and content of the relevant international laws – are they achieving their
stated purposes and are they well-suited to meeting a
a particular challenge? If so, how? If not, what is needed?
,(2) How does the nature of international law facilitate and limit its ability to address wicked
Problems (how IL is fundamentally different from domestic law)?
- (1) nationality stripping and statelessness;
- (2) climate change;
- (3) increased refugee and migrant flows; and
- (4) human trafficking
⇒ we focus on the strengths and limitations of international law as a field to address
wicked problems and what this teaches us about the nature of international law more generally, as
distinct from domestic law and other fields that contribute to addressing these problems. In other
words, what can we reasonably expect international law to do?
(3) How do and should international laws interact with one another in a particular situation?
- 1) freezing a suspected terrorist's assets;
- (2) detaining a suspected terrorist; and
- (3) arresting former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir on charges of genocide.
⇒ understand and assess the legal techniques and arguments that judges and lawyers use to reconcile
differences between international legal regimes that claim to be relevant to the same situation.
Questions in the syllabus
Ius cogens = peremptory norms, no derogations are permitted!
state cannot object to ius cogens rule e.g. genocide / torture
Ultra vires = goes beyond the power
1. Nuclear weapons
sufficiency of IL regulating atomic weapons
- Doomsday Clock:
‘Closer than ever...[to] civilisation-ending nuclear war – whether started by
design, blunder, or simple miscommunication’.
- Next to political will, Independent monitoring and international treaties are essential to
prevent this
- What treaty measures / monitoring are in place?
Questions
,1. Are nuclear materials and weapons independently monitored and, if so, how?
2. What are the main international treaties regulating nuclear weapons?
Question 1: Independent Monitoring
- Eisenhauer speech: creation of international Organization within the UN for cooperation for safe use
of nuclear technology
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 1957
- Promotes safe secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology
- Implemented nuclear safeguards in 181 countries
- Prevent spread of nuclear weapons
- In states which signed agreement with the agency, it inspectors visit regularly nuclear facilities how
much and where material is kept
- Independent agency ensures that governments abide to their international legal commitments →
monitors
Question 2: International Treaties
- States have signed treaties to stop test and spread of nuclear weapons
- US and Soviet Union → till 1963
Partial Test Ban Treaty signed in 1963
- 165 States Parties
- bans testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water
- does not ban underground testing (US and Russia)
- Followed up with Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (signed 1996, not in
force)
⇒ bans all nuclear explosions above and below ground for testing purposes or not
⇒ outstanding ratifiers: China, Iran, North Korea, US
- But: States have agreed on implementing CTBT monitoring system → monitor
⇒ possible to detect every nuclear explosion worldwide (already in place)
Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ) (treaties that create)
NWFZ: state party to the treaty - States commit not to manufacture, acquire, test or possess nuclear weapons
Alfonso García Robles, Mexican Diplomat ‘Mr. Disarmament’ because of Cuba crisis
1959: Antarctic
1967:Latin America
1971:Seabed
1985:South Pacific
1992:Mongolia
, 1995:Southeast Asia
1996:Africa
2006:Central Asia
Total NWFZ: 102 States, Antarctic and seabed
⇒ International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that states comply with their commitments in those trea
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) = an agreement which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons and promote disarmament.
- Enforced since 1970
- Core multilateral treaty (most widely ratified) → important element / instrument
- signed 1968, entry into force 1970 (191 States Parties)
Purpose: limit the spread of nuclear weapons through 3 pillars:
(1) non-proliferation
(2) disarmament
(3) peaceful use of nuclear energy
- Ratified by all Five Nuclear Weapons States - Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNSW):
(NSW) in 1967 All States except NSW
(states who possessed nuclear weapons before 1967): = 186 state parties
● Russia (Soviet Union),
● United States,
● France,
● China,
● United Kingdom
= they have to reduce how many they have
and can't keep them forever.
= there is no ‘deadline’
= obligation of disarmament
= if not ratified, it is not applicable for them
States not ratified: India, Israel, Pakistan
- as the NPT regime is treaty-based, its normative reach does not extend to non-signatories so that
paradoxically, the five nuclear weapons states (NWS) are legally obligated to eventual nuclear
disarmament, but the three extra-NPT nuclear-armed states (India, Israel, Pakistan) are not
- Article VI obligation of the NWS to eliminate their nuclear arsenals remains contentious, and arguabl
weak.
- VI disarmament obligation through unilateral decisions and bilateral agreements to reduce the
numbers of nuclear warheads globally by 75-80 percent from the Cold War peak
6 question over the case studies
Comprehension (6)
Application (6)
Analysis (6)
Writing critiques
- Make sure you answer the question.
- Don’t use your word count setting up the question. The farther back you start, the fewer
words you have to use for your legal analysis, which is the skill we are training.
- Opinio juris not opinion juris
- Write clearly using simple words.
- Engage with the required (and recommended) readings.
- Be as specific as possible when discussing the law.
- Show me you understand the law and legal issues raised.
- Consider counterarguments to your position and strengthen your position by acknowledging and
Engaging with them.
- Show that you understand different sides of an issue and use this awareness to add nuance to
your legal analysis.
- Be critical! As a law student, you have the right and obligation to agree and disagree with the legal
arguments of others, including professors, renowned scholars, judges etc.
Your legal opinion matters and there is no need to be deferential just because someone
is older or studied law longer than you have. You are entitled to disagree respectfully using legal
arguments of your own
- 9 or higher: a superb answer that manages to combine incisive writing and reflection with an impress
Knowledge of the question. The answer should show evidence of thorough required reading and
perhaps recommended reading and should integrate this with novel personal reflections that
demonstrate an exceptional knowledge of the subject area
The answer is well reasoned., well organised has no typographical errors and exemplifies a
flawless piece of analysis at the highest undergraduate level
(1) Are existing international laws sufficient for addressing particular challenges, and if not, what is
needed? (What is insufficient about the law?)
- (1) nuclear weapons;
- (2) killer robots;
- (3) business and human rights; and
- (4) arms trade.
⇒ we focus on the design and content of the relevant international laws – are they achieving their
stated purposes and are they well-suited to meeting a
a particular challenge? If so, how? If not, what is needed?
,(2) How does the nature of international law facilitate and limit its ability to address wicked
Problems (how IL is fundamentally different from domestic law)?
- (1) nationality stripping and statelessness;
- (2) climate change;
- (3) increased refugee and migrant flows; and
- (4) human trafficking
⇒ we focus on the strengths and limitations of international law as a field to address
wicked problems and what this teaches us about the nature of international law more generally, as
distinct from domestic law and other fields that contribute to addressing these problems. In other
words, what can we reasonably expect international law to do?
(3) How do and should international laws interact with one another in a particular situation?
- 1) freezing a suspected terrorist's assets;
- (2) detaining a suspected terrorist; and
- (3) arresting former Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir on charges of genocide.
⇒ understand and assess the legal techniques and arguments that judges and lawyers use to reconcile
differences between international legal regimes that claim to be relevant to the same situation.
Questions in the syllabus
Ius cogens = peremptory norms, no derogations are permitted!
state cannot object to ius cogens rule e.g. genocide / torture
Ultra vires = goes beyond the power
1. Nuclear weapons
sufficiency of IL regulating atomic weapons
- Doomsday Clock:
‘Closer than ever...[to] civilisation-ending nuclear war – whether started by
design, blunder, or simple miscommunication’.
- Next to political will, Independent monitoring and international treaties are essential to
prevent this
- What treaty measures / monitoring are in place?
Questions
,1. Are nuclear materials and weapons independently monitored and, if so, how?
2. What are the main international treaties regulating nuclear weapons?
Question 1: Independent Monitoring
- Eisenhauer speech: creation of international Organization within the UN for cooperation for safe use
of nuclear technology
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 1957
- Promotes safe secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology
- Implemented nuclear safeguards in 181 countries
- Prevent spread of nuclear weapons
- In states which signed agreement with the agency, it inspectors visit regularly nuclear facilities how
much and where material is kept
- Independent agency ensures that governments abide to their international legal commitments →
monitors
Question 2: International Treaties
- States have signed treaties to stop test and spread of nuclear weapons
- US and Soviet Union → till 1963
Partial Test Ban Treaty signed in 1963
- 165 States Parties
- bans testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water
- does not ban underground testing (US and Russia)
- Followed up with Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (signed 1996, not in
force)
⇒ bans all nuclear explosions above and below ground for testing purposes or not
⇒ outstanding ratifiers: China, Iran, North Korea, US
- But: States have agreed on implementing CTBT monitoring system → monitor
⇒ possible to detect every nuclear explosion worldwide (already in place)
Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZ) (treaties that create)
NWFZ: state party to the treaty - States commit not to manufacture, acquire, test or possess nuclear weapons
Alfonso García Robles, Mexican Diplomat ‘Mr. Disarmament’ because of Cuba crisis
1959: Antarctic
1967:Latin America
1971:Seabed
1985:South Pacific
1992:Mongolia
, 1995:Southeast Asia
1996:Africa
2006:Central Asia
Total NWFZ: 102 States, Antarctic and seabed
⇒ International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that states comply with their commitments in those trea
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) = an agreement which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons and promote disarmament.
- Enforced since 1970
- Core multilateral treaty (most widely ratified) → important element / instrument
- signed 1968, entry into force 1970 (191 States Parties)
Purpose: limit the spread of nuclear weapons through 3 pillars:
(1) non-proliferation
(2) disarmament
(3) peaceful use of nuclear energy
- Ratified by all Five Nuclear Weapons States - Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNSW):
(NSW) in 1967 All States except NSW
(states who possessed nuclear weapons before 1967): = 186 state parties
● Russia (Soviet Union),
● United States,
● France,
● China,
● United Kingdom
= they have to reduce how many they have
and can't keep them forever.
= there is no ‘deadline’
= obligation of disarmament
= if not ratified, it is not applicable for them
States not ratified: India, Israel, Pakistan
- as the NPT regime is treaty-based, its normative reach does not extend to non-signatories so that
paradoxically, the five nuclear weapons states (NWS) are legally obligated to eventual nuclear
disarmament, but the three extra-NPT nuclear-armed states (India, Israel, Pakistan) are not
- Article VI obligation of the NWS to eliminate their nuclear arsenals remains contentious, and arguabl
weak.
- VI disarmament obligation through unilateral decisions and bilateral agreements to reduce the
numbers of nuclear warheads globally by 75-80 percent from the Cold War peak
