STUDENTS SUCCESS
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
LCP4801 -PACK INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1
2025 ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED
100%
Law
ans:> A series of rules regulating behavior (permissive or coercive)
Pacquete Habana and Lola
ans:> (SCOTUS, 1900): Two Spanish fishing smacks during the
Spanish-American War were captured and taken as prize of war. Spain
sues for property back. (I) Are fishing vessels exempt from prize of war
doctrine? (H) Yes. (CR) Their purpose is not war-related but rather for
betterment of mankind and historical precedent or customary IL has
shown that fishing smacks, via opinio juris, should be exempt.
Applicable Principles:
1. Customary law is a source of IL
2. Fishing smacks exempt for prize of war doctrines.
Gentini Case (Italy v Venezuela, Int'l Arb. 1903)
ans:> Gentini (an Italian) owned a business in Venezuela where he was
apparently removed forcibly, imprisoned, etc. etc. etc. 32 years ago and
Italy brought the case against Venezuela on his behalf. (I) Is the
principles of statutes of limitations applicable to IL? (H) Yes. (CR) "A
stale claim does not cease to become any the less so because it
happens to be an international one."
Applicable Principles:
1. General principles of Law are those which are common characteristics
of domestic legal systems
2. Statute of limitations applies in the international realm.
Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v Poland, PCIJ 1927)
,ans:> Acting against previous treaty, Poland expropriated a German
nitrate factory in Chorzow. Germany brought the suit to the PCIJ, Poland
knows they are in the wrong and therefore claim that the parties must go
to a Mix-Tribunal instead. (I) Is the Chorzow Factory case outside the
jurisdiction of PCIJ? (H) No. Poland has to pay. Based on Dirty Hands
principle, Poland was the reason that they could not go to the Mixed-
Tribunal in the first place and therefore the argument is null.
Applicable Principles:
1. Dirty hands is not a good argument.
Cayuga Indians (UK) v US (Int'l Arbitration, 1926)
ans:> After the War of 1812, the Treaty of Ghent was signed, protecting
the all UK citizens. The issue was, as part of the Treaty, the Cayugan
Indians were promised an annuity of $1800 per year. Only the NY
Cayugans were receiving the annuity. (I) Does the Treaty of Ghent still
apply to the Canadian Cayugans? (H) Yes it does, 100,000 must be
payed as a result). (CR): Many of those who were signatories of the
treaty were Canadian Cayugan. US argued that the article that allowed
the CC's annuity was simply nominal and of no value. CR that you can't
just throw out an entire article or part of a treaty, interpret differently, yes,
but discard, no.
Applicable principles:
1. Can't disregard an entire portion of a treaty.
2. This is the strongest case based on equity and at that, the equity
argument is weak. Thus, equity is not a sufficient argument for a case
Israeli Wall and Ad Op
ans:> While occupying Palestine, Israel built a wall in "Palenstinian
territory". They UNGA requested an Advisory Opinion as to the legality
of such. It was found that under the Fourth Geneva Convention, there
are rights restricting the building of a wall in occupied Palestine by Israel.
Though Israel didn't sign the treaty, it was accepted as customary
international law and therefore was required to maintain the law.
Applicable Principles:
1. Even when a treaty hasn't been signed, if such has become
customary IL, all states are required to comply.
Power of Authority of NY v Federal Power Commission (1957)
ans:> The Power of Authority of the State of NY is suing the Federal
Power Commission (FPC) because they denied the ability to grant the
,Power of Authority a license to build a hydroelectric dam on the Niagara,
FPC claiming that only the Senate had authority under the US/Canada
treaty of 1950. The applicable part of the treaty was of purely domestic
nature. (I) Do reservations of domestic nature apply to international
treaties? (H) No. (CR) it was abundantly clear that the reservation was
purely domestic and therefore had no binding internationally and can
therefore be heard and decided by the FPC, not the Senate of necessity.
Applicable Principle:
1. Domestic Reservations do not have validity in international treaties
because such treaties, like contracts, must include exchanges.
Genocide Convention - Adv. Opinion (ICJ, 1951):
ans:> (SPECIAL RULES FOR MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS ONLY)
UNGA seeks an advisory opinion regarding the reservations in the
Genocide Convention. (I)(1) can a reserving party, to whom there are
objections, still be considered part of the convention? (2) If so, what is
the relationship between the parties which object and the parties which
accept? (3) Does an objection have legal effect if the objector has not
yet ratified?
1) Ruling For Multilateral Treaties (Objective Determinant of Reservation
Validity): reservations can be deemed valid or not depending on the
effect of the reservation and the effect of the objection on the purpose of
the convention.
2) Ruling (2) for multilateral and bilateral treaties: States have the
individual right to appraise validity of the reservations. IF country B
disagrees with reservation of A then B does not recognize A as a
signatory.
3) If a international court is looking at a reservation, then you only use
the Ruling 1 (objective standard), but if you are looking in a domestic
court, then what your country decided on the reservation applies.
Load Line Convention (US At. Gen. Ad Op) (1941)
ans:> With the outbreak of WWII, President of the US wants to know if
the Load Line Convention (a treaty limiting the amount of cargo a ship
can carry) is still applicable. (H) No. it is not. (CR) Peacetime was the
assumption of the treaty, there is now no peace. Circumstance changes
must be fundamental or essential in order for the state to negate the
convention.
Applicable Principles:
, 1. Principle of IL rebus sic stantibus, that a treaty ceases to be binding
when the fundamental conditions upon which it was founded have
essentially changed. Suspension of the convention in such
circumstances is the unquestioned right of the state affected by such
essential change. Only when such changes are fundamental and not
anticipated can these changes apply.
Bremen v Prussia Fishing Case (1925 - German Supreme Court):
ans:> Before the onset of WWI, Prussia and Bremen exchanged lands
so that Bremen could have a sea port, with the treaty agreement that
Bremen wouldn't use the port for fishing and out-compete Prussian
poorer fishermen. After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles eliminated
Bremen's merchant fleet and so Bremen complained that the clause
forbidding Bremen's fishing activities was now unfair since they couldn't
use the port effectively anymore. (I) Was the war sufficient to change the
circumstances enough to abrogate the fishing clause of the treaty? (H)
No. (CR) Because of the integral nature of the clause (it was the whole
purpose of the convention) abrogation could not occur without consent
of Prussia. Even if Bremen simply paid reparations, Prussia would still
be bound by the treaty and Bremen wouldn't. Not equitable.
Applicable Principles:
1. the principal nature of a clause or portion of a treaty determines the
ability of one contracting part to abrogate such. In essence, if a clause is
the main purpose of the treaty, then agreement from both sides must
occur before abrogation can have effect.
2. Also, if the change to the treaty would become one-sided, then the
treaty wouldn't be fair.
3. Also, Boundaries treaties are almost never changed.
Techt v Huges: (C. of Appeals of NY, 1920):
ans:> A sister sues her sister after having received land from their father,
claiming that since her sister (Hughes) married an Austro-Hungarian,
who's country we were at war with, Hughes could not claim title to the
land by inheritance or decent. (I) Can Hughes claim title to land? Is the
treaty still exercisable during wartime? (H) Yes. Yes. (CR) A woman
takes upon herself the nationality of her husband, therefore Hughes is
an alien. Statutes state that only alien friend and natives are able to
inherit land by descent. Hughes is an alien enemy because of WWI.
However, a treaty also says that a person may receive property if not
disqualified by laws of nation. By Treaty she can inherit, by statute she
can't. Treaty is not void due to war since the treaty can be reasonably
carried out.
Revision Examination Tests
“Come all for this greatness”
...100% Correct Ans...
LCP4801 -PACK INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1
2025 ANSWERS/SOLUTIONS 2024 /2025 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED
100%
Law
ans:> A series of rules regulating behavior (permissive or coercive)
Pacquete Habana and Lola
ans:> (SCOTUS, 1900): Two Spanish fishing smacks during the
Spanish-American War were captured and taken as prize of war. Spain
sues for property back. (I) Are fishing vessels exempt from prize of war
doctrine? (H) Yes. (CR) Their purpose is not war-related but rather for
betterment of mankind and historical precedent or customary IL has
shown that fishing smacks, via opinio juris, should be exempt.
Applicable Principles:
1. Customary law is a source of IL
2. Fishing smacks exempt for prize of war doctrines.
Gentini Case (Italy v Venezuela, Int'l Arb. 1903)
ans:> Gentini (an Italian) owned a business in Venezuela where he was
apparently removed forcibly, imprisoned, etc. etc. etc. 32 years ago and
Italy brought the case against Venezuela on his behalf. (I) Is the
principles of statutes of limitations applicable to IL? (H) Yes. (CR) "A
stale claim does not cease to become any the less so because it
happens to be an international one."
Applicable Principles:
1. General principles of Law are those which are common characteristics
of domestic legal systems
2. Statute of limitations applies in the international realm.
Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v Poland, PCIJ 1927)
,ans:> Acting against previous treaty, Poland expropriated a German
nitrate factory in Chorzow. Germany brought the suit to the PCIJ, Poland
knows they are in the wrong and therefore claim that the parties must go
to a Mix-Tribunal instead. (I) Is the Chorzow Factory case outside the
jurisdiction of PCIJ? (H) No. Poland has to pay. Based on Dirty Hands
principle, Poland was the reason that they could not go to the Mixed-
Tribunal in the first place and therefore the argument is null.
Applicable Principles:
1. Dirty hands is not a good argument.
Cayuga Indians (UK) v US (Int'l Arbitration, 1926)
ans:> After the War of 1812, the Treaty of Ghent was signed, protecting
the all UK citizens. The issue was, as part of the Treaty, the Cayugan
Indians were promised an annuity of $1800 per year. Only the NY
Cayugans were receiving the annuity. (I) Does the Treaty of Ghent still
apply to the Canadian Cayugans? (H) Yes it does, 100,000 must be
payed as a result). (CR): Many of those who were signatories of the
treaty were Canadian Cayugan. US argued that the article that allowed
the CC's annuity was simply nominal and of no value. CR that you can't
just throw out an entire article or part of a treaty, interpret differently, yes,
but discard, no.
Applicable principles:
1. Can't disregard an entire portion of a treaty.
2. This is the strongest case based on equity and at that, the equity
argument is weak. Thus, equity is not a sufficient argument for a case
Israeli Wall and Ad Op
ans:> While occupying Palestine, Israel built a wall in "Palenstinian
territory". They UNGA requested an Advisory Opinion as to the legality
of such. It was found that under the Fourth Geneva Convention, there
are rights restricting the building of a wall in occupied Palestine by Israel.
Though Israel didn't sign the treaty, it was accepted as customary
international law and therefore was required to maintain the law.
Applicable Principles:
1. Even when a treaty hasn't been signed, if such has become
customary IL, all states are required to comply.
Power of Authority of NY v Federal Power Commission (1957)
ans:> The Power of Authority of the State of NY is suing the Federal
Power Commission (FPC) because they denied the ability to grant the
,Power of Authority a license to build a hydroelectric dam on the Niagara,
FPC claiming that only the Senate had authority under the US/Canada
treaty of 1950. The applicable part of the treaty was of purely domestic
nature. (I) Do reservations of domestic nature apply to international
treaties? (H) No. (CR) it was abundantly clear that the reservation was
purely domestic and therefore had no binding internationally and can
therefore be heard and decided by the FPC, not the Senate of necessity.
Applicable Principle:
1. Domestic Reservations do not have validity in international treaties
because such treaties, like contracts, must include exchanges.
Genocide Convention - Adv. Opinion (ICJ, 1951):
ans:> (SPECIAL RULES FOR MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS ONLY)
UNGA seeks an advisory opinion regarding the reservations in the
Genocide Convention. (I)(1) can a reserving party, to whom there are
objections, still be considered part of the convention? (2) If so, what is
the relationship between the parties which object and the parties which
accept? (3) Does an objection have legal effect if the objector has not
yet ratified?
1) Ruling For Multilateral Treaties (Objective Determinant of Reservation
Validity): reservations can be deemed valid or not depending on the
effect of the reservation and the effect of the objection on the purpose of
the convention.
2) Ruling (2) for multilateral and bilateral treaties: States have the
individual right to appraise validity of the reservations. IF country B
disagrees with reservation of A then B does not recognize A as a
signatory.
3) If a international court is looking at a reservation, then you only use
the Ruling 1 (objective standard), but if you are looking in a domestic
court, then what your country decided on the reservation applies.
Load Line Convention (US At. Gen. Ad Op) (1941)
ans:> With the outbreak of WWII, President of the US wants to know if
the Load Line Convention (a treaty limiting the amount of cargo a ship
can carry) is still applicable. (H) No. it is not. (CR) Peacetime was the
assumption of the treaty, there is now no peace. Circumstance changes
must be fundamental or essential in order for the state to negate the
convention.
Applicable Principles:
, 1. Principle of IL rebus sic stantibus, that a treaty ceases to be binding
when the fundamental conditions upon which it was founded have
essentially changed. Suspension of the convention in such
circumstances is the unquestioned right of the state affected by such
essential change. Only when such changes are fundamental and not
anticipated can these changes apply.
Bremen v Prussia Fishing Case (1925 - German Supreme Court):
ans:> Before the onset of WWI, Prussia and Bremen exchanged lands
so that Bremen could have a sea port, with the treaty agreement that
Bremen wouldn't use the port for fishing and out-compete Prussian
poorer fishermen. After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles eliminated
Bremen's merchant fleet and so Bremen complained that the clause
forbidding Bremen's fishing activities was now unfair since they couldn't
use the port effectively anymore. (I) Was the war sufficient to change the
circumstances enough to abrogate the fishing clause of the treaty? (H)
No. (CR) Because of the integral nature of the clause (it was the whole
purpose of the convention) abrogation could not occur without consent
of Prussia. Even if Bremen simply paid reparations, Prussia would still
be bound by the treaty and Bremen wouldn't. Not equitable.
Applicable Principles:
1. the principal nature of a clause or portion of a treaty determines the
ability of one contracting part to abrogate such. In essence, if a clause is
the main purpose of the treaty, then agreement from both sides must
occur before abrogation can have effect.
2. Also, if the change to the treaty would become one-sided, then the
treaty wouldn't be fair.
3. Also, Boundaries treaties are almost never changed.
Techt v Huges: (C. of Appeals of NY, 1920):
ans:> A sister sues her sister after having received land from their father,
claiming that since her sister (Hughes) married an Austro-Hungarian,
who's country we were at war with, Hughes could not claim title to the
land by inheritance or decent. (I) Can Hughes claim title to land? Is the
treaty still exercisable during wartime? (H) Yes. Yes. (CR) A woman
takes upon herself the nationality of her husband, therefore Hughes is
an alien. Statutes state that only alien friend and natives are able to
inherit land by descent. Hughes is an alien enemy because of WWI.
However, a treaty also says that a person may receive property if not
disqualified by laws of nation. By Treaty she can inherit, by statute she
can't. Treaty is not void due to war since the treaty can be reasonably
carried out.
