Sunday, January 20, 2013

sample exam in public international law




1.      Which of the following is not an objective of the United Nations? (a) prevention and removal of threats of peace (b) suppression of acts of aggression (c) to develop friendly relations among nations (d) to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations (e) to use war as an instrument of peace (e) to prosecute heads of states who violate international humanitarian laws.
2.      The UNITED NATIONS ---  (a) is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members (b) sits in the Hague Netherlands (c) is  authorized to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state (d) shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter (e) shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with customs so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security
3.      To become a  member of the United Nations, one must be (a) state (b) peace-loving (c) accept the obligations contained in the UN Charter (d) willing to carry out the principles international law (e) upon a decision of the Security Council.
4.      Which of the following a cardinal principle of the UN? (a) All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter (b) All Members may in their international relations use  threat or  force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations (C) The Organization shall ensure that states which are NOT Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security (D) the United Nations cannot intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state (E) the UN cannot  require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;

5.      Which of the following is not within the jurisdiction of the ICC? (A) the crime of genocide (b) the crimes against humanity (c) disputes arising from treaty interpretations (d) crime of aggression (e) murder
6.Which of the following is NOT considered as genocide? (a) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (b) killing members of the group (c) Deportation or forcible transfer of population (d) )     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group (e) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

7. Crimes against humanity is defined as acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. Which of the following is an example of crimes against humanity?
 (a) genocide
(b) aggression
 (c) enslavement 
(d) ) Killing members of the group
(e) war crimes

8. Which of the following is not considered as a crime against humanity?
(a) Torture
 (b) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization
(c) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender
(d) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
(e)  The crime of apartheid

 9. The jurisdiction of the ICC is “ ratione temporis”. This means that (a) its jurisdiction is temporary or optional (b) its jurisdiction attaches only with respect to crimes committed  after becoming a state party (c) jurisdiction attaches even to non-member states (d) that a state may accept jurisdiction and waive immunity
(e) that the Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry of force of the Rome Statute.

10.Articel 20 of the Rome statute speaks about “Ne Bis in Idem”. This means that (a) no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court (b) No person shall be tried by another court for a crime  for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court(c) no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offence  (d) all of the above (e) none of the above.

11.The International Criminal Court shall use what applicable law? (a) the Rome Statute (b) treaties (b) international law of armed conflict (c) national laws of states (d) apply principles and rules of law as interpreted in its previous decisions (e) all of the above.

12.  Under the Rome Statute, the principle of nullum crimen sine lege is defined. Which of the following is not a definition of said principle?   (a) A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court (b) A person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of its national law (c) The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. (d) In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favor of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted (e)A person convicted by the Court may be punished only in accordance with this Statute.

13.Which principle states that “In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply” ? (a) Nulla poena sine lege (b) Nullum crimen sine lege
(c) Non-retroactivity ratione personae (d) Individual criminal responsibility (e) ratione temporis

14. Under the ICC, the principle is that “The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute”. Which of the following principles support this tenet? (a) Nulla poena sine lege (b) Nullum crimen sine lege (c)Non-retroactivity ratione personae (d) Individual criminal responsibility (e) ratione temporis.

15. Which of the following best describes as to what “SOFT LAW” is? (a) non-binding norm (b) it can influence state behavior (c) the UN Declaration of Human Rights (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

16. The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. Which statement is NOT correct? (a) this is a statement of the doctrine of transformation (b) the doctrine of Incorporation is illustrated (c) we are bound by the treaty (d) we adopt pacta sunt servanda (e) we support the UN Charter.

17.Under public international law, what statement below is correct with respect to the right to bail? (a) in quarantine cases bail is not available (b) bail can be granted in extradition cases (c) bail can be granted in deportation cases where the accused is detained (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

18.Which statement is wrong with respect to an extradition case? The standard of proof in extradition cases (i.e. whether to grant it or not) is (a) proof beyond reasonable doubt (b) preponderance of evidence (c) clear and convincing evidence (d) substantial evidence (e) none of the above since extradition proceeding is sui generis.

18. When we say that extradition is sui generis, we actually mean that (a) it is not administrative (b) it could be criminal in nature (c) it is a class in itself (d) not civil in nature (e) none of the above.


19. Which statement is NOT correct with respect to extradition? (a) it is created by a treaty (b) it demands the surrender of one accused of a crime (c) it is a punishment for a crime (d) it is a trial not to determine the guilt of the accused (e) it is merely  basically administrative in character.

20. Which of the following is not  a peremptory norm ? (a) jus cogen (b) compelling law (c) an international law principle (d) customary law (e) treaty

21. Which  of the following is an example of jus cogens? (a) non-refoulement (b) extraterritoriality (c) anti-slavery norms (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

22. It is defined as under international law as "a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast ---- (a) territorial sea (b) contiguous zone (c) exclusive economic zone (d) bay (e) continental shelf.

23. Which describes correctly our internal waters? (a) Waters landward of the baseline (b) the state has completed jurisdiction (c) archipelagic waters (d) none of the above (e) all of the above.

24. Which is correct about our territorial sea? (a) 12 km  (b) 12 nautical miles (c) 44 km (d) 12 miles (e) 200 nautical miles  -- from the baseline.

25. It is defined as a band of water extending from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to twenty four  nautical miles (44 km; 28 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea".---- (a) Territorial sea  (b) internal waters  (c) contiguous zone  (d) exclusive economic zone (e) continental shelf.

26. Which is NOT correct concerning the exclusive economic zone? (a) it extends to a maximum of 200 km from the territorial sea baseline (b) it includes the contiguous zone  (c) all economic resources are controlled by a state within this zone (d) it is a coastal nation’s territorial waters (e) all of the above.

27. It extends out to the outer edge  but at least 200 nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) from the baselines of the territorial sea if the continental margin does not stretch that far. It does not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (650 km; 400 mi) of the baseline, or beyond 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) from the 2,500 metres (8,200 ft) isobath, which is a line connecting the depths of the seabed at 2,500 meters. (a)  Territorial sea (b) internal waters  (c) contiguous zone  (d) exclusive economic zone (e) continental shelf.

28. On a more positive note, also after World War II, both international organizations and states gave recognition and importance to human rights. Thus, on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. Which of the following is NOT true concerning the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS? (A) it is a treaty signed by states (B) the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community (C) it is a soft law (d) on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted it (e) it forms part of the law of our land.



29.  Which of the following are the so called trends in international law which our country cannot ignore? (a) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global recognition; (b) the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere; (c) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (d) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other
(e) the acceptable subjects of international law are still states and entities which are given international personalities.

30. Which of the following is NOT correct concerning the Warsaw Convention? Plaintiff can bring an action for damages concerning airline violations at his option  in (a) the court of any place where the carrier is operating (b) in the court  of the domicile of the carrier (c) in the court where the carrier has its principal place of business (d) the court where the carrier has an establishment by which the contract has been made (e) the court of the place of destination.

31. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except (a)  under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate (b) the treaty must be ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose (c) the treaty must be recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State (d) only a and b  (e) all of the above.
32.Which of the following is not correct concerning the Visiting Forces Agreement? (a) it was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government (b) The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States Senate  detracts it from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State.  (c) as an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but merely to the US Congress under the Case–Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification (d) the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a binding international agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies with the requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution (e) The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence "allowed under" the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

33. Which of the following is a “sole executive agreement” within the American system of treaties? (a) These are advised and consented to by the US Senate in accordance with Art. II, Sec. 2 of the US Constitution (b) These are joint agreements of the President and Congress and need not be submitted to the Senate (c) These are agreements entered into by the President which are  submitted to Congress within sixty (60) days of ratification under the provisions of the Case-Zablocki Act, after which they are recognized by the Congress and may be implemented (d) all of the above (e) none of the above.

34. Which word describes the holding that “ treaties entered into by the United States are not automatically part of their domestic law unless these treaties are self-executing or there is an implementing legislation to make them enforceable”--- (a) Medellin (b) Zablocki (c) Martens (d) Kenney (e) Roerich.

35. Which is NOT correct concerning the interpretation of treaties? (a) A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose (b)  The state cannot take   into account, together with the context any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions (c)the state can take into account  any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the party  (d) all of the above (e) none of the above.

36.Which of the following statements is erroneous? (a) the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere (b) From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda (c) a party to a treaty is  allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty (d) the provisions of a treaty are always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, or that it is subject to the police power of the State (e) Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislation.

37.The case of Gonzales v. Hechanova ruled that (a) Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislation(b)  the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere (c) From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda (d) a party to a treaty is  allowed to "invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty (e) our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

38. Which of the following may not be considered an en banc case of the Supreme Court (a). Cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law, executive order, or presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;(b) Criminal cases in which the appealed decision imposes the death penalty;(c) Cases raising novel questions of law;(d). Cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers(e) cases affecting consuls.

39. IT is defined as a record of a routine agreement that has many similarities with the private law contract. The agreement consists two documents, each of the parties being in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, the accepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters may be government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. It is frequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process of legislative approval. ----(a) treaty (b) protocol (c) exchange of notes (d) bilateral treaty (e) executive agreement.
40. It is defined as "an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation-------- (a) treaty (b) protocol (c) exchange of notes (d) bilateral treaty (e) executive agreement.

41. Which is NOT true concerning treaties and executive agreements? (a) Under international law, there is a big difference between treaties and executive agreements in terms of their binding effects on the contracting states concerned  (b) executive agreements  are similar to treaties, except that they do not require legislative concurrence and are usually less formal and deal with a narrower range of subject matters than treaties (c) a treaty has greater "dignity" than an executive agreement, because its constitutional efficacy is beyond doubt, a treaty having behind it the authority of the President(d) a ratified treaty, unlike an executive agreement, takes precedence over any prior statutory enactment (e) International agreements may be in the form of treaties that require legislative concurrence after executive ratification.

42. The President of the International Court of Justice as of date is (a) Sang-yun Song  (b) Sang-Hyun Sang (c) Sang-Hyun Song (d) Ban Ki Moon  (e) Jorge Lomanaco  .

43.Concerning the ICC, what is the meaning of “primary jurisdiction”? (a) it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes."(b) it is the duty of  the ICC to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes (C) the state waives jurisdiction over international law war crime violators in favor of the ICC (D) It is the duty of the state to arrest a person who commits crimes against humanity (e) when a person is tried by the ICC, the municipal court must give way to said trial.
44. Which of the following is not correct? (a)By their nature, treaties cannot have a limiting effect on the otherwise encompassing and absolute nature of sovereignty. (b) By their voluntary act, nations may decide to surrender or waive some aspects of their state power or agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise exclusive and absolute jurisdiction. (c)The usual underlying consideration in this partial surrender may be the greater benefits derived from a pact or a reciprocal undertaking of one contracting party to grant the same privileges or immunities to the other. (d) On the rationale that the Philippines has adopted the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution (e) Such waiver does not amount to an unconstitutional diminution or deprivation of jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

45. Which of the following is NOT correct? (a) under international law there is a considerable difference between a State-Party and a signatory to a treaty (b) Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory state is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty (c) a State-Party is legally obliged to follow all the provisions of a treaty in good faith (d)  the Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome Statute and not a State-Party for lack of ratification by the Senate (e) Any argument obliging a signatory to the Rome Statute to follow any provision in the treaty would be premature.
46. The state of X is a state party to the International Criminal Court. State Y  is not a signatory to the ICC. State X and Y entered an agreement which states that when a citizen of X commits a crime under the jurisdiction of the ICC in the state of Y, state Y must surrender the person to the state of X and not to the ICC. Which of the  following statements is correct? (a) the agreement is invalid as it is contrary to the ICC mandate (b) the agreement is valid since X has primary jurisdiction over said person as he is his citizen (c) the agreement is pursuant to the provisions of the ICC (d) the agreement is valid, as the ICC can also waive jurisdiction over said person (e) the agreement is valid since jurisdiction over the ICC is optional.

47. The Ampatuan massacre can be considered as a crime against humanity. Which of the following is correct? (a) The case can be filed before the ICC (B) The Philippine court may waive jurisdiction over said case in favor of the ICC (C) The ICC cannot have jurisdiction because of the principle of ratione temporis (d) the case must be filed before the ICC so that a fair and expeditious trial can be had (e) The ICC does not have jurisdiction because the Philippines is not yet a signatory to the ICC when the crime was committed.

48. Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 1864 is contained in what Geneva Convention? (a) First  (b) Second (c) Third (d) Fourth (e) Fifth.
49. “Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience” ---- is actually the (a) Martin’s clause (b) Marten’s clause (c) Roerich’s Pact (d) preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention I (e) Porter Clause

50. The Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 1906, is contained in what Geneva Convention? (a) First  (b) Second (c) Third (d) Fourth (e) Fifth.
51. The Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929 is contained in what Geneva Convention? (a) First  (b) Second (c) Third (d) Fourth (e) Fifth.

52. Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention deals with (a) Protection of Civilians in Non-international conflict (b) Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (c) Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (d) Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929 (e) Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

53. Mr. Verstuyf is the head of the World Health Organization. He arrives in the Philippines brining with him a number of baggages which is suspected by the Philippine Intelligence to contain contraband. Which of the following statements is correct? (a) as he is engaged in unlawful acts, his baggages can be searched (b) he cannot be searched because he enjoys immunity from search (c) he can be searched because he violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (d) he can be searched through a search warrant that a Judge issues (e) he cannot invoke his immunity as he is suspected of bringing contraband to our country.


54. Which is NOT true about the International Court of Justice? (a) Only states can be parties to a suit before it (b) it can render advisory opinions (c) it is  bound by precedents (d) its jurisdiction is optional on the part of the states (e) it  uses customary law in deciding cases.
55. Which of the following statements is NOT correct concerning the Security Council? (a) The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first in- stance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of inter- national peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution (b) The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist , the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council (c) The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years (d) A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.  (e) Each member of the Security Council shall have two representatives.








Saturday, January 19, 2013

DUAL JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ

The International Court of Justice acts as a world court.
The Court has a dual jurisdiction :
it decides, in accordance with international law,
disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States
 (jurisdiction in contentious cases);
and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions
at the request of the organs of the United Nations
or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request
 (advisory jurisdiction). 


Contentious Jurisdiction

In the exercise of its jurisdiction in contentious cases, the International Court of Justice
 has to decide, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature
 that are submitted to it by States. An international legal dispute
can be defined as a disagreement on a question of law or fact,
a conflict, a clash of legal views or of interests.
Only States may apply to and appear before the International Court of Justice.
 International organizations, other collectivities and private
persons are not entitled to institute proceedings before the Court.
Article 35 of the Statute defines the conditions of access for States
to the Court. While paragraph 1 of that Article
 opens it to the State parties to the Statute, paragraph 2
 is intended to regulate access to the Court by States
which are not parties to the Statute. The conditions
 of access of such States are, subject to the special provisions
contained in treaties in force at the date of the entry into force
 of the Statute, to be determined by the Security Council,
with the proviso that in no case shall such conditions place
the parties in a position of inequality before the Court.
The Court can only deal with a dispute when the States
concerned have recognized its jurisdiction. No State
can therefore be a party to proceedings before the
Court unless it has in some manner or other consented thereto.


Advisory Jurisdiction

Since States alone have capacity to appear before the Court, public (governmental)
 international organizations cannot as such be parties to any case before it.
A special procedure, the advisory procedure, is, however, available
to such organizations and to them alone.
Though based on contentious proceedings, the procedure
in advisory proceedings has distinctive features resulting from t
he special nature and purpose of the advisory function.
Advisory proceedings begin with the filing of a written request
for an advisory opinion addressed to the Registrar by the
United-Nations Secretary-General or the director
or secretary-general of the entity requesting the opinion.
In urgent cases the Court may do whatever is necessary
to speed up the proceedings. In order that it may be
fully informed on the question submitted to it, the Court is
empowered to hold written and oral proceedings.
A few days after the filing of the request, the Court
draws up a list of those States and international
organizations likely to be able to furnish information
on the question before the Court. In general, the
 States listed are the member States of the organization
 requesting the opinion, while sometimes the other states
to which the Court is open in contentious proceedings
are also included. As a rule, organizations and States
authorized to participate in the proceedings may submit
written statements, followed, if the Court considers
it necessary, by written comments on these statements.
These written statements are generally made available to
the public at the beginning of the oral proceedings, if the
Court considers that such proceedings should take place.
Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases where it
 is stipulated beforehand that they shall have binding
effect (for example, as in the Convention on the Privileges
 and Immunities of the United Nations, in the Convention on
 the Privileges and Immunities of the specialized agencies
of the United Nations, and the Headquarters Agreement
 between the United Nations and the United States of America),
 the Court's advisory opinions have no binding effect.
The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free
 to decide, by any means open to it, what effect to give to these opinions.
Although without binding effect, the advisory opinions of the
Court nevertheless carry great legal weight and moral authority.
They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and have peace-keeping virtues.
Advisory opinions also, in their way, contribute to the elucidation
and development of international law and thereby to the strengthening
of peaceful relations between States.



President of the INTERNATIONAL COURT OFJUSTICE


Presidency


The President and the Vice-President are elected by the Members of the Court every three years by secret ballot. The election is held on the date on which Members of the Court elected at a triennial election are to begin their terms of office or shortly thereafter. An absolute majority is required and there are no conditions with regard to nationality. The President and the Vice-President may be re-elected. The President presides at all meetings of the Court; he/she directs its work and supervises its administration, with the assistance of a Budgetary and Administrative Committee and of various other committees, all composed of Members of the Court. During judicial deliberations, the President has a casting vote in the event of votes being equally divided. In The Hague, where he/she is obliged to reside, the President of the Court takes precedence over the doyen of the diplomatic corps. The President receives a special supplementary allowance of 15,000 dollars per annum, in addition to his/her annual salary. The Vice-President replaces the President in his/her absence, in the event of his/her inability to exercise his/her duties, or in the event of a vacancy in the presidency. For this purpose he/she receives a daily allowance. In the absence of the Vice-President, this role devolves upon the senior judge. On 6 February 2012 the Court elected Judge Peter Tomka (Slovakia) to be President and Judge Bernardo Sepúlveda-Amor (Mexico) to be Vice-President. The following judges served as President or Vice-President before the present holders of those offices:
1946-1949 Guerrero and Basdevant
1949-1952 Basdevant and Guerrero
1952-1955 Sir Arnold McNair and Guerrero
1955-1958 Hackworth and Badawi
1958-1961 Klaestad and Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan
1961-1964 Winiarski and Alfaro
1964-1967 Sir Percy Spender and Wellington Koo
1967-1970 Bustamante y Rivero and Koretsky
1970-1973 Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan and Ammoun
1973-1976 Lachs and Ammoun
1976-1979 Jiménez de Aréchaga and Nagendra Singh
1979-1982 Sir Humphrey Waldock and Elias (Sir Humphrey Waldock died on 15 August 1981. The functions of the Presidency were thereafter exercised by Judge Elias as Acting President, by virtue of Articles 13 and 14 of the 1978 Rules of Court.)
1982-1985 Elias and Sette-Camara
1985-1988 Nagendra Singh and Ladreit de Lacharrière (Judge Ladreit de Lacharrière died on 10 March 1987. On 6 May 1987 the Court elected Judge Mbaye to be its Vice-President for the remainder of his predecessor’s term.)
1988-1991 J. M. Ruda and Mbaye
1991-1994 Sir Robert Jennings and Oda
1994-1997 Bedjaoui and Schwebel
1997-2000 Schwebel and Weeramantry
2000-2003 Guillaume and Shi
2003-2006 Shi and Ranjeva
2006-2009 Higgins and Al-Khasawneh
2009-2012 Owada and Tomka




















































International humanitarian law (IHL), or the law of armed conflict,

International humanitarian law (IHL), or the law of armed conflict, is the law that regulates the conduct of armed conflicts (jus in bello). It comprises "the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions, as well as subsequent treaties, case law, and customary international law."[1] It defines the conduct and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in relation to each other and to protected persons, usually meaning civilians.
Serious violations of international humanitarian law are called war crimes. International humanitarian law, jus in bello regulates the conduct of forces when engaged in war or armed conflict. It is distinct from jus ad bellum which regulates the conduct of engaging in war or armed conflict and includes crimes against peace and of war of aggression. Together the jus in bello and jus ad bellum comprise the two strands laws of war governing all aspects of international armed conflicts.
The law is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties. There are also other customary unwritten rules of war, many of which were explored at the Nuremberg War Trials. By extension, they also define both the permissive rights of these powers as well as prohibitions on their conduct when dealing with irregular forces and non-signatories.
International humanitarian law operates on a strict division between rules applicable in international armed conflict and those relevant to armed conflicts not of an international nature. This dichotomy is widely criticized.[2]

Contents

Two historical streams: The Law of Geneva and The Law of The Hague

Modern International Humanitarian Law is made up of two historical streams: the law of The Hague referred to in the past as the law of war proper and the law of Geneva or humanitarian law.[3] The two streams take their names from a number of international conferences which drew up treaties relating to war and conflict, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and the Geneva Conventions, the first which was drawn up in 1863. Both are branches of jus in bello, international law regarding acceptable practices while engaged in war and armed conflict.[4]
The Law of The Hague, or the Laws of War proper,"determines the rights and duties of belligerents in the conduct of operations and limits the choice of means in doing harm."[5] In particular, it concerns itself with the definition of combatants, establishes rules relating to the means and methods of warfare, and examines the issue of military objectives.[6]
Systematic attempts to limit the savagery of warfare only began to develop in the 19th century. Such concerns were able to build on the changing view of warfare by states influenced by the Age of Enlightenment. The purpose of warfare was to overcome the enemy state and this was obtainable by disabling the enemy combatants. Thus, "(t)he distinction between combatants and civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy combatants must be treated humanely, and that quarter must be given, some of the pillars of modern humanitarian law, all follow from this principle."[7]

The Law of Geneva

The massacre of civilians in the midst of armed conflict has a long and dark history. Selected examples include: the massacres of the Kalingas by Ashoka in India, the massacre of some 100,000 Hindus by the Muslim troops of Timur (Tamerlane) or the Crusader massacres of Jews and Muslims in the Siege of Jerusalem (1099), to name a few examples drawn from a long list in history. Fritz Munch sums up historical military practice before 1800: "The essential points seem to be these: In battle and in towns taken by force, combatants and non-combatants were killed and property was destroyed or looted.[8] In the 17th century, the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius wrote "Wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents."[9]

Humanitarian norms in history

However, even in the midst of the carnage of history, there were expressions of humanitarian norms to protect the victims of armed conflicts, i.e. the wounded, the sick and the shipwrecked which date back to ancient times.[10]
In the Old Testament, the King of Israel prevents the slaying of the captured following the prophet Elisha's admonition, to spare enemy prisoners: In answer to a question from the King, he said, "You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master.”[11]
In ancient India there are records, for example the Laws of Manu, describing the types of weapons that should not be used. "When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire."[12] There is also the command not to strike a eunuch nor the enemy "who folds his hands in supplication....Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight...".[13]
Islamic law states that "noncombatants who did not take part in fighting such as women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind, and insane" were not to be molested.[14] The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, proclaimed "Do not mutilate. Do not kill little children or old men or women. Do not cut off the heads of palm trees or burn them. Do not cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter livestock except for food."[15] Islamic jurists have held that a prisoner should not be killed as he "cannot be held responsible for mere acts of belligerency."[16] Islamic law did not spare all non-combatants. In the case of those who refused to convert to Islam or pay an alternative tax, Muslims "were allowed in principle to kill any one of them, combatants or noncombatants, provided they were not killed treacherously and with mutilation."[17]

Codification of humanitarian norms

However, it was not till the second half of the 19th century that a more systematic approach was initiated. In the United States, a German immigrant, Francis Lieber, drew up a code of conduct in 1863, which came to be called the Lieber Code in his honor, for the Northern army. The Lieber Code included the humane treatment of civilian populations in the areas of conflict, and also forbade the execution of POWs. At the same time, the involvement of a number of individuals such as Florence Nightingale during the Crimean War and Henry Dunant, a Genevese businessman who had worked with wounded soldiers at the Battle of Solferino, led to more systematic efforts to prevent the suffering of war victims. Dunant wrote a book, which he titled A Memory of Solferino, and in which he described the horrors he had witnessed. His reports were so shocking that they led to the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and the convening of a conference in Geneva in 1864 which drew up the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.[18]
The Law of Geneva is directly inspired by the principle of humanity. It relates to those who are not participating in the conflict as well as military personnel hors de combat. It provides the legal basis for protection and humanitarian assistance carried out by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC.[19] This focus can be found in the Geneva Conventions.

Geneva Conventions

Original Geneva Convention in 1864.
Progression of Geneva Conventions from 1864 to 1949.
The Geneva Conventions are the result of a process that developed in a number of stages between 1864 and 1949 which focused on the protection of civilians and those who can no longer fight in an armed conflict. As a result of World War II, all four conventions were revised based on previous revisions and partly on some of the 1907 Hague Conventions and readopted by the international community in 1949. Later conferences have added provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars.
The Geneva Conventions are:
In addition, there are three additional amendment protocols to the Geneva Convention:
  • Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 167 countries.
  • Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts. As of 12 January 2007 it had been ratified by 163 countries.
  • Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. As of June 2007 it had been ratified by 17 countries and signed but not yet ratified by an additional 68 countries.
While the Geneva Conventions of 1949 can be seen as the result of a process which began in 1864, today, they have "achieved universal participation with 194 parties." This means that they apply to almost any international armed conflict.[20]

Historical convergence between IHL and the Laws of War

With the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, the two strains of law began to converge, although provisions focusing on humanity could already be found in the Hague law (i.e. the protection of certain prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories). However the 1977 Additional Protocols relating to the protection of victims in both international and internal conflict not only incorporated aspects of both the Law of The Hague and the Law of Geneva, but also important human rights provisions.[21]

Basic rules of IHL

  1. Persons hors de combat (outside of combat) and those not taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
  2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.
  3. The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. The emblem of the "Red Cross," or of the "Red Crescent," shall be required to be respected as the sign of protection.
  4. Captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
  5. No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
  6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
  7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.[22]

Examples

Well-known examples of such rules include the prohibition on attacking doctors or ambulances displaying a Red cross. It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that, being considered the flag of truce, indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate. In either case, the persons protected by the Red Cross or the white flag are expected to maintain neutrality, and they may not engage in warlike acts themselves; in fact, engaging in war activities under a white flag or a red cross is itself a violation of the laws of war.
These examples of the laws of war address declaration of war, (the UN charter (1945) Art 2, and some other Arts in the charter, curtails the right of member states to declare war; as does the older and toothless Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it but used against Germany in the Nuremberg War Trials), acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform, and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.
Emblem of the ICRC

Later Additions to International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law now includes several treaties that outlaw specific weapons. These conventions were largely created because these weapons cause deaths and injuries long after conflicts have ended. Unexploded land mines have caused up to 7,000 deaths a year; unexploded bombs, particularly from cluster bombs that scatter many small “bomblets,” have also killed many. An estimated 98% of the victims are civilian; farmers tilling their fields and children who find these explosives have been common victims. For these reasons, the following conventions have been adopted:
The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1980) prohibits weapons that produce non-detectable fragments, restricts (but not eliminate) the uses of mines and booby-traps, prohibits attacking civilians with incendiary weapons, prohibits blinding laser weapons, and requires the warring parties to clear unexploded ordnance at the end of hostilities. As of December 2012, 109 states have ratified this convention or some of its provisions.
The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (1997), also called the Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty, completely bans the stockpiling (except for a few for training purposes) and use of all anti-personnel land mines. By late 2012, 160 states had ratified it.
The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (2000), an amendment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), forbids the enlistment of anyone under the age of 18 for armed conflict. It has been ratified by 150 states by December 2012.
The Convention on Cluster Munitions (2008) prohibits the use of bombs that scatter bomblets, many of which do not explode and remain dangerous long after a conflict has ended. By December 2012, 77 states had ratified it.

International Committee of the Red Cross

The ICRC is the only institution explicitly named under international humanitarian law as a controlling authority. The legal mandate of the ICRC stems from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as its own Statutes.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral, and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.
—30px, 30px

Violations and punishment

During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.
Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.
Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.Spies may only be punished following a trial and if captured after rejoining their army must be treated as a prisoner of war.[23] Suspected terrorists who are captured during an armed conflict, without having participated in the hostilities, may be detained only in accordance with the GC IV and are entitled to a regular trial.[24] Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.
After a conflict has ended, persons who have committed any breach of the laws of war, and especially atrocities, may be held individually accountable for war crimes through process of law.