PIL week 2 Assignment
Assignment 1
Timeline:
-state of Amadea ratified the TPMG treaty 1.10.2015
-state of Bachia ratifies 1.9.2016
-state of Chopinia ratifies 5.9.2016, but files declaration that it is not bound by Art 3
-Amadea objects to Chopinia on 6.9.2016-treaty is in force as a whole
-state of Debusia signed the Treaty on 1.9.2014 but has not ratified it
a.) DJ Bromfiets is a famous Dutch techno DJ. He holds a public techno music performance in
Bachia on 2 September 2016. Does Bachia, under the TPGM Treaty, have an obligation to
arrest DJ Bromfiets on 2 September and extradite him to Amadea?
-Bachia ratified the treaty on 1.9.2016 and the DJ have performed on the 2 nd of September.
According to the Art. 24 VCLT “A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as
it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.”
In our case and acc to art 4 of TPGM treaty, the treaty enters into force on the day when it is
ratified by 20 signatory states. In our case the 20th state, Chopinia, ratifies but states a declaration
that it is not bound by art 3. According to the facts, DJ Bromfiets held a performance on 2 Sept.
2016 which means that the treaty has still not been ratified and thus Bachia does not have to
comply with the treaty provisions. Also, acc to art 28 on Non-Retroactivity of Treaties states:
“Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do
not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to
exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.”
b.) DJ Bromfiets holds a secret techno music performance in Chopinia on 30 September 2016.
Chopinian authorities become aware of this performance and arrest DJ Bromfiets. Amadea
demands extradition of DJ Bromfiets. Does Chopinia, under the TPGM Treaty, have an
obligation to extradite DJ Bromfiets to Amadea?
-the treaty is now in force in this case
-Chopinia ratified the treaty on 5.9.2016 but files a declaration (“The State of Chopinia
understands that it is not bound by Article 3 of this Treaty.”) that it is not bound by Article 3
which states: “The State of Amadea shall have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute techno DJs.
Other high contracting parties shall extradite to Amadea a national of any state who is suspected
of being a techno DJ.”
-acc to art 2 (1) (d) VCLT: "Reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or
named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty,
whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in
their application to that State.
- under article 19 (c) VCLT, a reservation is allowed as long as it is not incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Treaty. In this scenario, the reservation would be compatible since it
does not go against the object and purpose of the TPGM.
-article 20 (4) (b) VCLT- In cases not falling under the preceding paragraphs and unless the treaty
otherwise provides: (b) An objection by another contracting State to a reservation does not
preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States unless a
contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State;
-art 21 (3) VCLT on legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations: When a State
objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the
, reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two
States to the extent of the reservation
-hence, state Chopinia does not have any obligations under TPGM treaty
c.) Is Debussia in violation of its legal obligations if it allows a techno music performance to take
place in its territory on 1 October 2016?
-state of Debusia signed the Treaty on 1.9.2014 but has not ratified it
- TPMG treaty is in force at this time, but Debussia is not bound currently since ratification is
required in order for a State to bind itself as under Article 14 Vienna Convention.
-article 18 VCLT covers the situation between signature and ratification. State Debussia would
have an obligation to refrain from action against the purpose of the Treaty.
-at this stage, it would not be considered a breach of Article 18 since the action (if any) is not
active enough to be considered to fall as a breach
d.) On 2 October 2016, Debussia announces that it wishes to ‘un-sign’ the TPGM Treaty. On 3
October 2016, Debussia enters into a bilateral treaty with the neighbouring State of
Furtwangleria. Did Debussia by entering into the TMF Treaty with Furtwangleria act in
accordance with its legal obligations under the TPGM treaty and/or the VCLT?
- can treaty be unsigned? Not in VCLT, no legal basis-US unsigned from treaty; ICC Statute
example
- before the moment that the ‘unsigning’ or intention to do so, it would be considered as a breach
under Article 18 Vienna Convention (?)
- Debussia has no obligations under the TPGM since it has not ratified it. The ‘unsigning’ does
not stop the obligation under Article 18 Vienna Convention from occurring. The intention to not
be a party would be present by entering into a new, conflicting Treaty.
-It would then be possible for Debussia to ‘back-out’ from the TPGM and enter into the new
Treaty in this manner.
e.) On 24 October 2016, the President of Amadea, Wolfgang van Beethoven, reveals on national
television that it was actually not he who signed the TPGM Treaty on behalf of Amadea.
Concerned about his safety, President Van Beethoven sent his lookalike to the international
conference in Vienna where the TPGM Treaty was signed back in 2014. It was actually
President Van Beethoven’s lookalike who signed the TPGM Treaty. His lookalike is an
Amadean actor whose name is Arnold Schwarzenberger and has never had a position in the
Government of Amadea. Is Amadea still bound by the TPGM Treaty?
- Under Article 7 VCLT it can be argued that the lookalike had been given full-power to represent the
State in this circumstance. The President’s intention was to grant full-power to the lookalike in his
stead for fear of his safety. But, it does not have official full powers acc to art 7.
If one argues that the lookalike was not given full-powers then Amadea can still be bound by the
Treaty since under Article 8 VCLT , if Article 7 is not applicable then a State can still be bound if the
State confirms afterwards that it consents to the Treaty which is valid through ratification.
Assignment 1
Timeline:
-state of Amadea ratified the TPMG treaty 1.10.2015
-state of Bachia ratifies 1.9.2016
-state of Chopinia ratifies 5.9.2016, but files declaration that it is not bound by Art 3
-Amadea objects to Chopinia on 6.9.2016-treaty is in force as a whole
-state of Debusia signed the Treaty on 1.9.2014 but has not ratified it
a.) DJ Bromfiets is a famous Dutch techno DJ. He holds a public techno music performance in
Bachia on 2 September 2016. Does Bachia, under the TPGM Treaty, have an obligation to
arrest DJ Bromfiets on 2 September and extradite him to Amadea?
-Bachia ratified the treaty on 1.9.2016 and the DJ have performed on the 2 nd of September.
According to the Art. 24 VCLT “A treaty enters into force in such manner and upon such date as
it may provide or as the negotiating States may agree.”
In our case and acc to art 4 of TPGM treaty, the treaty enters into force on the day when it is
ratified by 20 signatory states. In our case the 20th state, Chopinia, ratifies but states a declaration
that it is not bound by art 3. According to the facts, DJ Bromfiets held a performance on 2 Sept.
2016 which means that the treaty has still not been ratified and thus Bachia does not have to
comply with the treaty provisions. Also, acc to art 28 on Non-Retroactivity of Treaties states:
“Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do
not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to
exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.”
b.) DJ Bromfiets holds a secret techno music performance in Chopinia on 30 September 2016.
Chopinian authorities become aware of this performance and arrest DJ Bromfiets. Amadea
demands extradition of DJ Bromfiets. Does Chopinia, under the TPGM Treaty, have an
obligation to extradite DJ Bromfiets to Amadea?
-the treaty is now in force in this case
-Chopinia ratified the treaty on 5.9.2016 but files a declaration (“The State of Chopinia
understands that it is not bound by Article 3 of this Treaty.”) that it is not bound by Article 3
which states: “The State of Amadea shall have exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute techno DJs.
Other high contracting parties shall extradite to Amadea a national of any state who is suspected
of being a techno DJ.”
-acc to art 2 (1) (d) VCLT: "Reservation" means a unilateral statement, however phrased or
named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty,
whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in
their application to that State.
- under article 19 (c) VCLT, a reservation is allowed as long as it is not incompatible with the
object and purpose of the Treaty. In this scenario, the reservation would be compatible since it
does not go against the object and purpose of the TPGM.
-article 20 (4) (b) VCLT- In cases not falling under the preceding paragraphs and unless the treaty
otherwise provides: (b) An objection by another contracting State to a reservation does not
preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States unless a
contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State;
-art 21 (3) VCLT on legal effects of reservations and of objections to reservations: When a State
objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself and the
, reserving State, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply as between the two
States to the extent of the reservation
-hence, state Chopinia does not have any obligations under TPGM treaty
c.) Is Debussia in violation of its legal obligations if it allows a techno music performance to take
place in its territory on 1 October 2016?
-state of Debusia signed the Treaty on 1.9.2014 but has not ratified it
- TPMG treaty is in force at this time, but Debussia is not bound currently since ratification is
required in order for a State to bind itself as under Article 14 Vienna Convention.
-article 18 VCLT covers the situation between signature and ratification. State Debussia would
have an obligation to refrain from action against the purpose of the Treaty.
-at this stage, it would not be considered a breach of Article 18 since the action (if any) is not
active enough to be considered to fall as a breach
d.) On 2 October 2016, Debussia announces that it wishes to ‘un-sign’ the TPGM Treaty. On 3
October 2016, Debussia enters into a bilateral treaty with the neighbouring State of
Furtwangleria. Did Debussia by entering into the TMF Treaty with Furtwangleria act in
accordance with its legal obligations under the TPGM treaty and/or the VCLT?
- can treaty be unsigned? Not in VCLT, no legal basis-US unsigned from treaty; ICC Statute
example
- before the moment that the ‘unsigning’ or intention to do so, it would be considered as a breach
under Article 18 Vienna Convention (?)
- Debussia has no obligations under the TPGM since it has not ratified it. The ‘unsigning’ does
not stop the obligation under Article 18 Vienna Convention from occurring. The intention to not
be a party would be present by entering into a new, conflicting Treaty.
-It would then be possible for Debussia to ‘back-out’ from the TPGM and enter into the new
Treaty in this manner.
e.) On 24 October 2016, the President of Amadea, Wolfgang van Beethoven, reveals on national
television that it was actually not he who signed the TPGM Treaty on behalf of Amadea.
Concerned about his safety, President Van Beethoven sent his lookalike to the international
conference in Vienna where the TPGM Treaty was signed back in 2014. It was actually
President Van Beethoven’s lookalike who signed the TPGM Treaty. His lookalike is an
Amadean actor whose name is Arnold Schwarzenberger and has never had a position in the
Government of Amadea. Is Amadea still bound by the TPGM Treaty?
- Under Article 7 VCLT it can be argued that the lookalike had been given full-power to represent the
State in this circumstance. The President’s intention was to grant full-power to the lookalike in his
stead for fear of his safety. But, it does not have official full powers acc to art 7.
If one argues that the lookalike was not given full-powers then Amadea can still be bound by the
Treaty since under Article 8 VCLT , if Article 7 is not applicable then a State can still be bound if the
State confirms afterwards that it consents to the Treaty which is valid through ratification.
