p 100/ int law

activity 7.1

Can it be argued that the process of self determination was inadvertently initiated with the mandate system of the L of N?

Yes. Wilson introduced the notion of self determination. L of N mandates were to be led to self determination by mandatories according to L of N charter.

self assessment question.

why do you think that the council of the L of N decided to ignore the wishes of the inhabitants of the Aaland Is? Were they right?

they did it because they believed the islands should pertain to Finland for the reason of contiguity and due to the continental shelf.

it would have made more sense to allot them to Sweden as L of N had accepted self determination

7.2

can one provide general answers as to why decolonisation and self determination achieved less than might have been open or expected? in your view does responsibility lie with the developed or underdeveloped states?

They achieved less because colonisation was on the whole good by Euro states in non Euro in C 20. The non Euro states were often unready for self determination and needed tutelage. Too much was expected. decolonisation was due to lies, racism and communism. the responsibility lies with anti imperialists. there were some bad people in developed countries who mistreated colonials.

self assessment

1. why were attempts made through the UN to assert rights to development and fair trading conditions never successful except in the passage of the resolutions themselves?

Because the UN is ineffectual. little money was given. trade rules were not changed. there was defalcation in poor lands and war. too many children.

2. is it conceivable that a right of secession could ever have been a part of a right to self determination?

yes it is. these are often the same.

p/ 111

7.3

is the idea of a human right to self determination of any continuing relevance after decolonisation ?should it be?

it is. the SNP thinks so. so do catalan separatists. it is debatable whatb colonisation is . it is a boo word. the tibetans are colonised.

self assessment

1. summarise crawford conclusions concerning the contemporary meaning of self determination . are they adequate and sufficient?

2. Has the continuing use of the principle uti possidetis proved helpful in the creation of new states since the cold war?

philistinism ================================================

Palestine

no cukture. classical and folk.

music. dance. books. novels, poesy.

plastic arts. visual. paintings. statutes.

no tastes. architecture.

cuisine

anti intellectual.

incurious. set in ways. closed minded. I wonder what is over here.

macho. xenophobic. no cosmopolitanism.

tech . sport,\

intro in Italian

sono molto grazioso, goloso, generoso, giocoso, gioiso, geloso,

scherzoso, vezzoso

alto ma non maigro

Beatles at Shea stadium

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, bouys and girls.

Hello Shea Stadium, Hello New York and Hello America.

Thank you so much for welcoming us here tonight. Thank you President Johnson for letting us in.

We are so delighted to be here in New York City – a city so nice they had to name it twice.

We are so glad to be here in New York, New York. And now I see that it really is true what they say ; New York is by far the greatest city in the world. God Bless America.

we thought we might maybve sing some songs and play some music. Would you like that>? Do you want us to?

Do you want a show? Do you want a show? But Do you really want a show? I can’t hear you. Did somebody say something? Don’t whisper. Speak up. Do you want a show? Do you really, really want a show?

=======

I want to say to all the young ladies of the United States, I have a message for all the American young ladies here tonight – we love each and every asingle one of you.

I say that, I say that – I say that to each and every one of you with the same depth of feeling as if I could visit your home myself.

Would you like that? WOuld you like that if I could that for real?

You might know that none of us is married. We are getting to the age when we should be married. And we won’t be happy. None of us four will be unhappy until all 4 of us is married to an American.

I wonder if my future American wife is there in the audience tonight. The one I am going to fall in love with – is it you? Are you here? I sense that you are here. In fact, I know that mu future American wife is here in the audience tonight. I say to my future American wife that I am speaking to you. I am speaking to you personally. I am speaking to you individually and not to anyone else. If you are my future wife shout yes right now!

I do not yet know who you are. But you know who you are. I do not yet know your name. But you know your name. If you are my future name – shout your name right now!

I do not yet know who you are. But I do know this. I will find you. We shall meet. And before long. I promise that we will be married within 1 year.

apology to harry

for you being born in a privileged family

for the civil list. money from taxpayer . people on civil list. minimum wage

Not NHS. disability benefit. homelessness. armed forces. green energy

palaces. toys

access to army. red carpet . celebs

Ludgrove. eton. sword of honour

A levels.

Sandhurst. drug addict. Nazi. racist comments.

got out of Afghan. at risk anyway

you got away with ilelgall possession of drugs

punching photographers for doing what they are allowed to do

exposing your penis to vulnerable young women.

public loved you and your wife.

millions spent on wedding.

adulation. honorary colonsehip. captain general of RM

media coverage that he courted.

free media. freed speech.

divine. above critcism. unqiuely immunity from scrutny and comment. irreproachable.

call him out. accountabiloty. every little decision contribues to claimta echange

flight to france.

breaches of protocoal. hugging. touching. tiaras

play second fiddle. in the ha penny place

touchy. hyper sensistive. a wimp.

a moaner. grow up. get over it

nurse a grudge.

120 million from trashing tyour fmaily.

farewells

Needham

I had heard the rumour he was born in Czechia. Turns out to be true.

I remember spring of F I was up to him. He was a cantankerous and scathing sort . A bald man with a brusque manner. He was certainly in command. He was an old chap and was visibly irritated to have to teach slow coaches.

He would praise some ”he is a man among boys. A ray of light in a morass of idiocy.”

Commended for good efforts were given to me. He gave one to Prescot. Prescot then irked the beak. Needham demanded it back. Prescot’s mouth fell agape in horror. He misquoted the Bible: ‘Mr. Needham has given, Mr. Needham has taken away – blessed be the name of Mr. Needham.”

Needham read us Latin poesy. He would then tell us the cadences saying ‘tum titty tum titty tum tum” and so on.

I got a Christmas present before I met Needham. It was grass in a bag which had a face on it. I called it Mr. Needham .

It was he who taught me how to spell emperor by correcting my misspelling. Further, I wrote that a patron gave a client money or a sportula. He reminded me that a sportula is money

Paddy K cheated liberally in tests. We knew he was looking things up in the book in tests. But no one ratted him out.

Mr. N expressed a desire to slap an irritating boy. Someone pointed out a copper had been fined for a clip around the ear. Needham said it would be worth it

Needham would do a monkey impression for Prescot – ooga ooga ooga Prescot. As in the boy was dim.

In Greek he ridiculed Harbord for his handwriting.

Such persiflage would be considered quite intolerable today.

Twas Mr. N who told us about the IRA ceasefire. Someone referenced the Ulster Conflict. Needham said one would not find fighting in Ulster now.

I remember the next year I bumped into Mr. N. and Miss A. Mr. N was with his goodwife. We walked along the street. He spoke about me and observed that I was not too keen a grammarian I was frightfully eager when it came to classical history.

In school hall Mr. N had a chap from sixth form select up there. He introduced Hood as buttons. Hood has silver buttons on his waistcoat. I did not get the allusion to panto.

I mourn Mr. N. He was one of a kind.

=============

Juan Rey

I knew him not till I took Castilian. In D I turned up to his classroom. Wrong place. He looked me up in the calendar and pointed me in the right direction

He was small and square faced. He spoke in a tenor voice.

In divs he alluded to his views. He castigated Franco as a fascist dictator.

He told us junete – horseman. I recall avoidance of the passive

I did oral with his spouse. I was stuck for words. I was trying to tell a tale about a picture and mentioned la guardia civil.

I introuced muself by my Christian name in Castilian. Uniquely he called me that

I sat beside an earl. tried to look at his paper in tests. Rey reprimanded me for it

I remmeber my waistcoat was tirn. had to wear a horrid green suit fir a week. Rey then criticised this for going on too long

Jewel Clarke got himself into trouble. Irked Rey whose face turned red

when we played up he told us we were like a bottom F div

Rey spoke to Balls. I had to drop French – I could not cope with two languages.

In a report Rey said my grammar may prevent me getting an A. It did not.

In class he asked it it was my piece in the newspaper.

I met Rey at a footer match the next year on Master’s. we spoke about the article on the death penalty that I perused.

He was a decent sort but I did not regard him with great affection.

============

GRENFELL

The only Grenfell I ever heard of besides the tower.

I knew who he was. He was slender and flinty faced. I only once came across with him. Invigilating Latin exam. I decided I might take some paper out with me. He called me and someone to the front desk as we were leaving. He looked at us gravely, and said in a declaratory voice, ”Well the board will have to be informed.”

Later Sagar called me to his study and said ”that was dishonest of you”. But why would anyone care about lined paper?

I had no other dealings with him. He was unobjectionable. But I scarcely heard of him.

Some years later 2006 I met him on the district line. I introduced myself and he invited me to sit beside him. He told me of his time in Uganda. He had been an engineer. We chatted pleasantly but he was not a sanguine type. He was too coldly mathematical for me. He told me of his son who was at Cambridge. We parted courteously. That was the last I ever heard of him.

Grenfell was a decent chap but shall soon be forgotten.

==============

WELSH

A hideous had grown up in South Africa. He and Hudson had been at the same school. But Welsh spoke RP.

I had no truck with him till B. outside Allington one boy thumped another’s shoulder without malice. what was that about – Welsh inquired

Nothing the perpetrator explained.

It was not about nothing – was Welsh’s judgment

I do not recall the upshot.

He was intense and choleric.

Taught me for Chaucer. A comp that November was a day in the life of the school. I took a snap of him when class was about to begin. He then launched into a moralistic tirade about what I had done. I had to give him the snap and the negative.

I sent it to him. Then in class he thanked me for it. I saw him outside his flat on the high street and smiled contumeliously.

He was supercilious and dislikable.

int law p 81 activity 6.1

explain the status of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is the present position satisfactory?

The VCLT says pacta sunt servanda and a state can only be bound by a treaty if it wishes. It says reservations cannot defeat the purpose of the treaty. The position is satisfactory but enforcement is weak. Not it is not satisfactory

self assessment questions

which provisions in the Vienna Convention codify and which are innovative and what are the consequences?

VC says what counts as a treaty and that they must be obeyed. The innovative provisions are those that

the consequences are being brought to the ICJ

or rebus sic stantibus

activity 6.2

the acceptance of reservations in treaty law meets a need created by multilateral treaties with many parties (often more than one hundred) . Unless reservations were accepted, agreement between so many states would be almost impossible. that notwithstanding , reservations do severely compromise the goal of consistency and uniformity in the creation of int obligations.

Discuss.

It is true that without reservations some treaties would not be signed. But if a reservation is so extensive as to undo the treaty in effect then the treaty might as well not exist. Reservations make treaties lopsided. It means they are not uniform.

self assessment.

when and under what circs may a treaty affect states not party to it?

some treaties claim universality. The UN Charter impacted states not yet party to it

activity 6.3

why do you think peremptory norms have developed in int law? What are political views that created a debate?

they have developed because not enough treaties were agreed. this is analogous to common law. Political views that created a debated are those who reject ius cogens and the debate around what the norms are. Norms are very loosely defined and evolve.

self assessment. what arguments can be made for the view that a treaty breaching a peremptory norm of int law may not be wholly invalid?

As Bill Barr said the only way to change int law is to break it. Some say peremptory norms are not law or at least not hard law.

6.4

paraphrase VCLT

do you think it actually goes further than declaring that treaties are to be interpreted using common sense in the light of the intentions of the parties?

Yes it does.

6.5

what arguments can be made in favour of the restrictive approach of int law to allowing unilateral withdrawal from treaty obligations ? Is it sufficient to say as some authors do that the object is to excuse states from obligations that have changed beyond all recognition , rather than to provide an escape from what has turned out to be a hard bargain?

This argument enhances sovereignty. it makes states more willing to sign treaties. anyone has the right to change his mind. A state cannot be held to a state against its will.

yes there is sic rebus stantibus. The danger of allowing states to withdraw is that they will do so before they discharged their obligations. That will also mean that states can never be sure that other state parties will honour their obligations.

6.6

assume that it is possible to appeal from the decision of the ICJ in Gabcikovo/ Nagymaros Dam case. Draft the grounds of appeal for Hungary?

The Czechoslovaks agreed this. They knew it could go wrong. Pacta sunt servanda. The other party;s ground to annul the treat y are invalid.

self assessment

the purpose of the rebus sic stantibus doctrine to excuse states from obligations that have changed out of all recognition rather than to provide an escape from what has turned out to be a bad bargain

That could be so. That might be the case that states try to evade honouring their obligations by bogusly saying that the situation has made abiding by the treaty is impossible.

sample exam Q

1. critically consider the circs under which a treaty may be terminated suspended against the wishes of one party.

If the situation has changed beyond recognition or another party has withdrawn from the treaty.

2. what was the innovative about the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? how significant are the innovations?

it was that treaties must be abided by, treaties can be vitiate by circs and that there be a treaty on treaties and there are rules about exegesis.

int law p.60. activity 5.1

explain and justify the distinction between jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to enforce

Jurisdiction to prescribe means the power to make law. States can do this. They fashion int law and they are subject to it.

Jurisdiction to enforce is for supra national organisations and not sovereign states. That is because states can be partial. Those who have this prerogative are the UN, EU, ICJ and others.

SELF ASSESSMENT

paraphrase the above quotation from the lotus case

”a state may not exercise its power in the territory of another state…

this is derived from int custom or from a convention

int law does not prohibit a state from exercising jurisdiction in its own territory in respect of any case which relates to acts which have taken place abroad.”

p 62

activity 5.2

define jurisdiction

this is the right to create and administer law. It means ”saying the law.” It means to legislate, to operate courts and police forces.

self assessment questions

1. why is it necessary to distinguish between jurisdiction to prescribe and jurisdiction to enforce?

because states that make law cannot be the entities that enforce law. That would allow partiality. The right to enforce might be absed.

2. why is it necessary to distinguish between objective territoriality and subjective territoriality?

Objective territoriality is undisputed. Subjective territoriality is when a state claims the right to legislate and control an area but this is disputed. This is particularly the case in relation to the sea.

self assessment questions

1. can you conceive of a justification for the US’s assertion of jurisdiction under the Helms Burton legislation )the act which os well worth reading .

This act is the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act 1996. it is about secondary sanctions on those who trade with Cuba. it is grounded on the effects doctrine. as trading with Cuba has an effect on the USA by making it less likely that Cuba will compensate US citizens for seized property. No this is unjustified. It is an unwarrantable intrusion on the right of other nations to trade.

2. is the effects doctrine ever justified?

Yes it would be if there were a more clear cut moral and legal case. The US nationalises property so Cuba is also permitted to do so.

activity 5.3

what do you consider to be the essential difference between the non controversial and the controversial bases for int jurisdiction?

They are almost all controversial. If every sovereign state has agreed to something then that is uncontroversial. UNSCR are contentious because it privileges 5 already potent states. UNGA is contentious because of who gets to be a state , how unrepresentative it is and some tyrannies having a vote. ICJ is controversial because of the states taht are unofficially guaranteed judges there.

self assessment questions

1. when if at all might universal jurisdiction be important?

If someone is hostis humani generis. If the crime threatens the whole world.

2. should a state be able to make use of the effects doctrine? Under what circs?

Only very seldom. if the effect is very grave and this will not infringe on the sovereignty overmuch . This is applicable to large scale terrorism.

5.4

what are the justifications for immunity from jurisdictions? Explain the doctrine of sovereign immunity as applied by the English courts, making reference to the State Immunity Act 1978?

The justifications are that this is needed to conduct government and diplomacy. Diplomats would otherwise be hostages. States would be ungovernable. The state would have to waste its time with petty disputes

The sovereign immunity act says the crown cannot be proceeded against nor the sovereign arrested. Moreover, it states that diplomats cannot be the subject of a criminal or civil case.

self assessment

had English courts already achieved through the common law that which was enacted in the state immunity act?

not quite. Richard II and Charles I were on trial. But with regard to ambassadorial immunity – yes this was already accomplished.

Q1

Universal jurisdiction is much more significant in theory than in reality? Discuss

Yes because these cases seldom go ahead. They are problematised if a mainly white state is proceeeding aginst a mainly non white one.

Q2. What principles underlie the doctrine of sovereign immunity ? Does the doctrine of sovereign immunity achieve its goals?

the principles are that a head of state cannot be proceeded against nor can his or her diplomats. The goal of making diplomacy possible is achieved. It lets heads of state get away with too much. why should agencies not have immunity? They are emanations of the state.

int law p 47

self assessment

1. what historical factors meant that sovereignty was never (or almost never) absolute?

because of complex interdependence. some states are much smaller, pooerer and weakers. States are members of int orgs.

2. explain the significance of the sovereign equality of states.

this means that in theory that are on a level footing. each gets one vote in the UNGA. A state can sign a treaty and leave it. It has the right to join and leave any organisation. They can all issue a currency, appoint ambassadors and receive them . they all have diplomatic immunity and sovereign immunity.

activity 4.2

what are the implications of regarding states as the only subjects of int law?

that would meant that one could not take action against individuals or other orgs. they could not be arraigned. they would have no locus standi, This would underscore the cruciality of states.

p 49

activity 4.3.

what is legal personality? why is an understanding of int legal personality crucial for any appraisal of int law?

legal personality is being able to initiate a lawsuit or to be the subject of one. it allows one to sign a treaty or contract.

int legal personality is vital so we know who can be the subject or it and who can help to form int law.

self assessment exercise

define and explain the different attributes of legal personality

they are that legal personality is vital because it allows someone to start a lawsuit or be the subject or one. This gives locus standi.

An attribute of it is that an entity with legal personality has duties to obey the law and can be sanctioned.

5.3

why have individuals come to occupy a place in int law since WW2/

Because it was decided to establish int criminal tribunals in 1945. It was not states that were held responsible entirely. That would penalise the innocent. It had been decided that crimes against humanity existed. Individuals were therefore held accountable.

self assessment

do you think that the role of the individual in int law is rational. How can it be justified?

Yes, I do. Sometimes int tribunals need to do so when nat tribunals do not exist or are tainted. This reduces the incidence of such crimes. It can be justified by the need to punish and to deter crimes.

p 54

what if anything is the relationship between sovereignty and personality in int law?

Sovereignty is rightful self-rule. This is one form of legal personality in int law. All sovereign states have such personality but some non sovereign entities such as the UN have such legal personality.

self assessment

in what ways do you think int law responds to political changes in the world?

Political changes make int law. Int law changes through custom. The actions of states are political. Political decisions inform UNSC resolutions. There are political decisions behind electing judges to ICJ. Int law is shaped by political changes. It must take account of political changes: new states , treaties etc…

Q1. what is the status of the individual in int law ? Give examples where appropriate?

They can be arraigned before int triubunals such as milosevic, habre and others. But other than that they do not have locus standi. One states can take action against another over what was done to an individual.

Q2. All states are equal in their sovereignty but some are more equal than others. Discuss?

yes. True – all formally have legal equality. But puissant states can get away with breaking int law. They have a greater role in making it in UNSC and ICJ . They helped establish it.

int law p 34. activity 3.2

int conventions and treaties are the only way states can consciously create int law

Discuss

This is largely true. However, UNSCRs can create them too but only 15 states are in UNSC at a time. Moreover, norms can create int law but these are not so consciously fashioned.

self assessment question

Is there a significant debate between those who argue that treaties create law and those who argue that treaties imposed obligations which the law says must be carried out?

There is such a debate. Some deny that treaties make law at all. A state is entitled to withdraw from a treaty. There are those who say that whilst a treaty means obligations (these are not quite imposed as a state has consented thereto) but that the law does not mean that they must be discharged. That is because some say these are not justiciable. In any event a state could simply renounce the treaty to prevent enforcement. Further, enforcement is very ineffectual.

3.3

why do you think peremptory norms have developed in int law? What are the political views that created a debate?

They have developed because treaty has not made these laws explicit. They have developed because most states have chosen to conduct themselves in certain ways. The political views are the isolationists ones verses the globalist ones.

self assessment

wha justification may be advanced for the rule concerning the invalidation of treaties breaching a peremptory norm of int law?

The justification is that peremptory norms assume a higher priority than treaties. A state cannot breach such norms even if it wishes to. Otheriwse the nroms would be undone in time.

activity 3.4

what complications do you envisage arising from the existence of separate and different individual state reservations to multilateral treaties?

Some of these reservations effectively defeat the purpose of the treaty. They render the treaties almost a dud. They make enforcement harder. Some states may choose to withdraw from a treaty that has fallen into abeyance.

self assessment question

in what ways and to what extent do reservations to treaties by one state affect the obligations of the other states?

They affect the obligations to the other states if mutuality is breached. Bu some would say no – a state must abide by its obligations notwithstanding the reservations of another signatory

activity 3.5

what problems are inherent in the concept of customary int law?

the problems are the lack of certainty. What is the custom? How long does it have to exist before it is a custom? How many states must abide by it? What level of adherence is needed to qualify? Who are these civilised nations? Is there not a cultural specificity to this?

activity 3.6

what is anything necessitates the use of sources over and beyond treaty and custom?

travaux preparatoires must be studied to understand the intention that guided treaty and customs. They allow us to see what the custom is and to determine if the custom has become hard law. The uncertainty of custom means that one must examine how and why they were fashioned.

self assessment questions

how different is customary int law from the general principles of int law?

customary law one of the principles. The others say what int law is; saw that treaties must be obeyed; say that states are equal and say who is to adjudicate.

activity 3.7

what might be the reason for the development of soft law?

Because there are more human rights instruments now but many states are not signed up. There are plenty of General Assembly resolutions. Some states sign but do not ratify them.

self assesment

for which of agreements might soft law be appropriate?

Cultural ones and sporting ones. Things which are trifling

sample exam questions

Q1.

what problems arise in attempting to define the source of int law?

Which treaties are part of it? Do UN GAR have any legal standing ? wHAT Customs are int law? What counts as a custom? Is a law still a law if in abeyance for years?

Q2

in all int law no more curious concept exists than customary int law . it seems that its method of creation is uncertain, its method of development mysterious and its application arbitrary. Discuss.

Yes, it is all unclear. It develops slowly but then suddenly. It is vague how many states must abide by a custom and for how long and with what degree of obedience and which states count as civilised. When a custom becomes a law is a moot point. States often breach customary int law and get away with it. This is deeply unsatisfactory and undermines int law.