#publicinternationallaw

[miomio7]

If we survived Public International Law exam, we can survive any exam!😂😂😭😭😭 @syub_hin 국제법 시험에서 살아남으면 다른 시험도 당연히 살아남는다규 ❤️😂 #PublicInternationalLaw #Hanyang #midterms #국제법 #한양대 (at Seoul, South Korea)

[dakshinieruwanthikagunaratne]

The Arrest Warrant Case: (Re)Asserting Immunity of Foreign Ministers for War Crimes

In this landmark case on immunity of individual state officials, the International Court of Justice upheld the immunity of foreign ministers before foreign courts even when the allegations amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court attempted to mitigate this controversial finding by setting out 4 situations where foreign ministers can be held accountable for violations of international law. In reality, 3 of these methods depend heavily on action by the State of nationality and the 4th method can be avoided by smart logistics. See more here. Immunity of individual officials flow from sovereign equality. The judgement created a considerable de facto hierarchy between the need to uphold human rights and punish perpetrators for international crimes using foreign courts, on one hand, and principles of sovereignty, on the other. This hierarchy was reasserted with the Court's subsequent judgement on State immunity - Germany vs Italy. Read more here.

(Source: ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com)

[dakshinieruwanthikagunaratne]

The Lotus Case: A Summary Focusing on Jurisdiction

That famous case of the ICJ where the Court held that (almost) anything is possible, as long as it not prohibited by international law. The principle survived  Kosovo - would it survive Crimea? The jurisprudence is advance for its time as it set the bench mark for, what we now call, subjective and objective territoriality. The ICJ took a positivist approach on State consent and sovereignty: a fact criticised by some. Here is an excerpt of the famous two principles. Note the distinction between what is permissible within a State's territory and what is permissible extra territorially. "The first principle of the Lotus case said that jurisdiction is territorial: A State cannot exercise its jurisdiction outside its territory unless it an international treaty or customary law permits it to do so. The second principle of the Lotus case: Within its territory, a State may exercise its jurisdiction, on any matter, even if there is no specific rule of international law permitting it to do so. In these instances, States have a wide measure of discretion, which is only limited by the prohibitive rules of international law." You can read the full summary here.

(Source: ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com)

[dakshinieruwanthikagunaratne]

Nicaragua vs United States: Implications on Customary International Law

Overview: The case involved military and paramilitary activities conducted by, or with the assistance of, the United States against Nicaragua from 1981 to 1984. Due to a multilateral treaty reservation of the United States (hereinafter called the Vandenberg reservation), the Court was compelled to base its findings only on customary and general principles of international law. As a result, the Nicaragua case developed significant jurisprudence on clarifying customary international law on the use of force and non-intervention, elements necessary to form customary international law and the relationship between the latter and treaty law. Controversial aspects of the decision included the court’s methodology used to determine that the principle of non-intervention had attained customary law status, the court’s reliance on UN resolutions as a source of opinio juris and the court’s reliance on multilateral treaties to determine customary international law in face of the Vandenberg reservation. Read more here.

(Source: ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com)