Mock exam 2010. Method / the « law -approach » : Specify the question : what is the essence...
-
Upload
dana-stokes -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Mock exam 2010. Method / the « law -approach » : Specify the question : what is the essence...
Mock exam 2010
Method / the « law -approach » : • Specify the question : what is the essence (question)
• Use legal sources– as a basis for the rules ( legal reference)– in order to find out whether the facts fit the rules (fit)
• Pro et contra discussion if needed ( arguments)( either what the rules are , or how the facts fit the rules)
• Conclusion at the end
Question 1 - Qualify the situations
• Question : does IHL apply to the different situations ( armed conflict), and which regime of IHL applies to each situation.
• Legal ref : GCart2, GCart3, APII 1(1)+(2)• Fit the facts : OAG, threshold, attribution for
classification ( link Omega – Beta), intervention of forces, two parallell conflicts,
A) BEFORE N.Y 2008
• Is there a NIAC?– « armed conflict »?
• Organization : OAG• Intensity : «Beyond riots and internal disturbances» APII +
ICC, « protracted armed violence » ICTY
• Which type of NIAC ?– GCart3 « armed conflict of a non-international
character » (« territory » no restriction)– APII3 «in territory », « territorial control » – API1(4) ( always last)
B) BETWEEN N.Y 2008- 10 Jan 2009
• If done by Beta soldiers– Is there an IAC ?• GCart2 threshold ? • GCart2 « between » the HCP ?
– Commentary « intervention of the armed forces of states »
• If done by Omega rebels– Can the acts be attributable to Beta ? • overall controll ( Genocide) or effective controll
(Nicaragua)– Does it reach the threshold for GCart2 ?
C ) AFTER 10 January 2009
• Is there an IAC?– GCart2 « between the HCP »– GCart2 « declaration of war » ?
• If straight forward – keep it short and to the point
Classification - advice• Identify the different pairs of conflicts
• Classify each pair. Question : « does IHL apply to this conflict ? » – 4 possibilities + no armed conflict
• Always start with the legal basics/ source : This is the point of departure for the legal assessment :– GCart2 «armed conflict between HCP » ( States)
• Mere intervention by armies ( Commentary to GC), Tadic– GCart3 « armed conflict not of an international character »
• organization ( party) • intensity ( protracted, more than riots and internal disturbances )(Tadic and Haradinaj)
– APII art 1(1) « armed conflict between armed forces and …on its territory…territorial control, – If API1(4) ( only the last question, only if relevant!)
• If a given conflict may not be determined because of a factor X – assume the alternatives, and conclude for all.
• If straight forward – be brief !
Question 2)
• Question :status - is the decree in line with the principle of distinction : are the drug traffickers and drug producers lawful targets under IHL ?
• Legal ref. : DPH in NIAC ( custom / ICRC guidance) : – continuous combat function ( member of armed forces of
OAG)– civilian DPH.
NB : two parallell conflicts. This question under the NIAC.(Is the question of ‘combatant’ in case of an IAC relevant?
Does it change anything here ?)
• Do the producers and traffickers « take a direct part in hostilites »? If they are not , they are provided with targets immunity under IHL, and the decree will be unlawful.
• Are the drug producers / trafficers directy participating in hostilites according to APII 13(3)?– Continuous combat function ?
• Custom / ICRC : War effort in very narrow sence NO– Civilian DPH
• War -sustaining effort ? NO– Criteria for DPH :
• Threshold of harm• Direct causation (link) : But does this include war- sustaining effort such as drug
trafficing ? – Production trafficking – closeness in link ?
• Belligerent nexus (so designed) No necessary threshold of harm/ no sufficient link
• The decree breaches the principle of distinction unlawful
• Is this a ” war – crime ”?
Question 3 Legality of bombing of Delta
• Question : is this an indiscriminate attack ?• NOTE : the question is NOT whether the bombing was a military necessity,
or whether it complied with military necessity! No such general assessment exist under IHL.
• Legal ref. : API art 51(5) a and b
Question 3• (« armed attack » under the UN Charter ?) ad
bellum• Indiscriminate attack ?
– Indiscriminate Method API art 51(5) a)or– Disproportionate API art 51(5) b)NOTE ! : actual casualty- figures are IRRELEVANT for the
assesment « anticipated » + « expected »
• Military necessity not assesed by IHL !• Military objective API art 52(2) : only objects– Object objective– Almost any civilian object can become a military
objective !
Other sources:
• API art 85 (3) / ICC : war-crime• Manual on Air and Missile Warfare ( custom)
Question 4
• Question: is the method used to free the hostages lawful ?
• Legal ref.: APII 12, custom
• Is this hostage-taking ? GCart3 , APII 4(2)– if Beta attacked ?– If Omega attacked?
• If it is hostage-taking ( unlawful), can this be belligerent reprisal ?– Can NEVER breach the principle of distinction in
belligerent reprisal!
• Abuse of protected emblems APII art 12, ICC 8(2) e) ii)• Absolute prohibition
• Is this perfidy ? – Ruses of war (APIart37, custom) not prohibited– Perfidy ( API art 37(1), custom) – prohibited• Objective : to protect principle of distinction• BUT IS THIS THE SAME IN NIAC ?
GENERAL ADVICE
• Avoid repeating facts without linking it either to the question, to the legal sources or to an argument.
• Do not speculate in facts, but feel free to suggest necessary parameters ( ex. who shot down the plain), if it has important implications