Workshop 2:
As the classic international system is based on nations, and national states would disappear with the
end of capitalism, this would disappear too.
Because the Soviet Union had to coexist surrounded by capitalist states, they changed their view of
international law into a temporary transition of coexistence between different interclass systems but
only until socialism was universal. SO the Soviet Union only accepted IL if it would eventually lead
to its main goal. With the creation of the League of Nations they had to accept national-sovereignty,
determination and equality between states and after the death of Stalin came the acceptance of
peaceful coexistence. Between communist states there was a sense of a higher socialist international
law.
This relationship between socialist states, although it was designed to protect the ideology from the
influence of the west, it also attracted Third World countries that wanted some independence and an
independent identity from the West.
After 1991, Soviet views have developed into the emphasis of human values and global
interdependence
Ideal international society that entails cooperation between socialist states that creates a new IL.
Creates a new system (socialist), because they don't want to be part of the IL system because it was
created by capitalists.
1. Can we say that our Iº society is failing?
No, although things don’t run as smoothly as we would like, we wouldn’t go as far as to say
our international society is failing. We would say an example of this is the Ukraine-Russia
conflict. Although sanctions are a somewhat effective way to punish Russia for its actions, it
still doesn’t stop it from committing said actions. This shows how the international law
system lacks enforcement. However, this doesn’t mean our Iº society is failing, it simply
means it needs improvement to ensure that IL is being followed. Another important aspect of
this is that each country should be able to maintain its sovereignty, which makes it harder for
the Iº system to enforce law without infringing this right.
2. Can we catalog China and Russia as a determined aggressor?
Yes, because the Alliance has been confronted with a new security environment and Russia
and China have evolved from a potential strategic partner to an aggressor state. "Secretary
Austin cited several threats and challenges facing NATO, including Russia's destabilising
behaviour, the rise and violance of China, terrorism and global challenges.
The Russian attack on Ukraine is a clear infringement of one of the most basic principles in
International law: the prohibition of violence. In addition, Russian troops in Ukraine are
repeatedly acting in contravention of the rules of humanitarian international law. Russian
aggression aimed at destroying Ukraine as an independent state. They showed not only a
military aggression, also a propaganda based on lies and falsifications; trade and economic
pressure; energy blockade; terror and intimidation of Ukrainian citizens; cyber attacks; a
strong denial of the very fact of war against Ukraine despite large scope of irrefutable
evidence; use of pro-Russian forces and satellite states in its own interests, all of them will be
considered as a charateristics of a determined aggressor.
To mention China, according to an AP news article which was published on 27 of July US
officials underscored that Beijing has encroached in sovereign waters of its Asian neighbors
and violated international law with impunity. China’s violation of Nations Conventions on the
Law of the Sea, its indifference to the Arbitral Tribunal award at The Hague three years ago,
its frenetic atoll building spree, not to mention the militarization of the Spratly Islands, fishing
bans in disputed waters and rampant ecological destruction of coral reefs, makes it painfully
clear that Beijing’s endgame amounts to a global security threat. For this reason China can be
considered as an aggressor, who especially ignores all the International Law rules.
3. What’s the difference between our current system and the one that broke down in the
beginning of the 20th C (League of Nations)?
The current international system is supported by the United Nations, which is an
intergovernmental organization that is responsible for maintaining international peace and
security. Unlike the League of Nations that was founded after the catastrophe of the First
World War (1914-1918), the United Nations was first raised in the middle of the Second
World War and finally founded in San Francisco in 1945.
On the other hand, regarding universality, the United Nations collects all the powers, so the
United Nations would be more universal than the League of Nations, since it did not include
so many powers. Moreover, in terms of membership, the United Nations has 193 member
states, while the League of Nations only had 58, which meant that its power was reduced. In
addition, the UN has mainly 6 organs (General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat,
International Court of Justice, Economics and Social Council and Trusteeship Council) and
the League of Nations mainly had only 3 organs (General Assembly, Council and Secretariat).
On the other hand, the voting system is more effective in the United Nations than it was in
the League of Nations, since in the UN general assembly, decisions are made by a two-thirds
majority, while in the League of Nations it was for a trifle, which made the proposals more
difficult to carry out. As for an international court, the United Nations had a court of justice
as a main organ, however, the League of Nations did not have an international court as such.
There was an international court but it did not belong to the league of nations (Permanent
Court of International Justice).
Before → It did not promote war but it was not strong enough to avoid it. (states promoted
own self-benefit).
Now→ Promotes peace
4. Are we living an international reorganization process?
Yes, new superpowers, especially from Asia, are rising very fast as China, Brazil or India
even overcoming the previous ones such as the US. Thus, old superpower countries are not
disappearing but have been faced by the rising of new ones which seem to continue this
trajectory of growth and development.
Old actors gain more power (US losing hegemony), individuals get more and more rights, but
it isn’t a new change that changes IL completely.
5. Is it concurrent with Marxist IL theories?
Yes, Marxist IL theory is concurrent with the international reorganization process since it
recognizes the existence of different social systems that could be extrapolated to the
international world. Thus, international law is in continuous movement based on what
Marxism considers a huge attraction from poor countries to developed ones with the purpose
of gaining more power and claiming their own national identities and discrediting Western
financial and cultural structures. This idea supports the main point of the communist and
Marxist theories which argue that the sovereignty of the state and the self determination must
be the main purposes of the country to reach equilibrium and a peaceful co-existence without
being ruled by a universal international law.
No, because marxism distinguishes between periphery and core, but they now are changing
within that system, which shouldn’t be possible as per marxist ideas.
6. Identify the characteristics of IL
- IL no legislative. Executive and judiciary.
- There is no unified system of sanctions
- Horizontal legal structure (all 190 countries equal)
- It only exists within states, individuals cannot create the law.
- Formulated by international agreements
- Create rules binding up on the signatories
- Based on customary rules
- Based on treaties
- Based on consent, can't be tried for something you have not consented to
7. How are functions and principles of IL related?
The main function of IL is to create peaceful coexistence between all countries. All of the
many principles help create the basis of how IL is created and developed over time,
showcasing the values of the states that created it.
For instance, we can't invade another country (territoriality) if we recognize a country's
borders, we will not invade because it's not ours.
Workshop 3:
2. Does it meet statehood criteria? Why?
Kosovo does meet statehood criteria. It has a permanent population of approximately 1.8 million
people. Kosovo also has established relations with other states, for example the United States and
Japan, and is recognised by them as an independent state. In regards to the United States, U.S.
investors in Kosovo are involved with projects in the construction, energy, health, information
technology, and real estate development sectors. Kosovo also has an established government that
mostly consists of kosovo- albanians. Regarding Kosovo’s government according to the 2008
Constitution, the executive branch of government is led by a president (head of state) and a prime
minister (head of government). The president is elected by the Assembly of Kosovo for a five- year
term. Lastly, Kosovo has a defined territory. The United Nations Mission in Kosovo administered
almost 11,000 km^2 of land to Kosovo.
3. Does it meet Badinter criteria? Why?
The Banditer Criteria was a mean to divide Yugoslavia after its fallout. Yugoslavia was therefore
meant to be divided into its 6 provinces, without attending to ethnicity, which was regarded as
independent to territoriality. Serbia was a province of Yugoslavia, Kosovo was a region of Serbia,
so Kosovo is not meant to be an independent country attending to the banditer criteria, it was
meant to stay as a region of Serbia.
In fact, following the Badinter Borders Principle, this one only applies to cases of dissolution of
states, in this case Yugoslavia, and not to those of secession.
In 1991, after the Cold-War period, the European Community established the Arbitration
Commission, also known as Badinter Commission, with the intention of dealing with the
recognition of new states which appeared after the dissolution of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia in 6 provinces. Although not legally binding, this commission has
influenced states in matters related to minority rights, border change, state secession and
recognition among others.
This principle was accepted by the former Soviet Union and its former states and is based
mainly on the separation of territoriality and self-determination from the ethnic principle.
However, Kosovo was a total contradiction of it.
The Badinter Borders Principle only applies to cases of dissolution of states and not to those of secession.
Workshop 4:
Group 7: Amnesty International: Carlota De Miguel, Aranzazu Moneva, Ana Blanca, Carmen
Horrillo, África Martí
Does it have the capacity to act globally?
Amnesty International is an international NGO focused on human rights. Amnesty
International addresses governments, intergovernmental organizations, armed political
groups, companies and other non-state actors. It does have the capacity to act globally, as its
influence is seen all over the world. For instance, with regard to the attacks in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Amnesty International called on the UN Security Council to
"impose an international arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups in
Gaza”. One of its functions is to bring the UN’s attention to issues surrounding IL,
specifically the ones related to human rights.
Does it have a domestic legal personality?
This is a personality effective in the domestic legal system of a specific State. Each State will
therefore have its own rules and methods to determine which entities have legal personality in
its domestic legal system. According to most legal systems, the legal status and capacities of
an entity are determined by its ‘personal’ law. Therefore, the domestic legal personality
results directly from the international legal personality
NGOs are obliged to accept the national legislation of the state in which they have been
established and where they are based. So they must have legal personality in the UK, where
their headquarters are located.
NGOs play a vital role in international law and governance by influencing the formation of
international law and serving as watchdogs in the execution of international agreements. UN
has granted NGOs a consultative status, which allows them to give expert information and
advise international governmental organizations. In any case, consultative status to an INGO
does not mean, the transfer of rights, immunities and privileges of a member of any
organization. Nevertheless, some claim that if an INGO is granted consultative status by an
IGO, it simultaneously acquires “a certain international legal status, albeit not that of a
subject of international law.”
However, countries around the world are putting domestic restrictions against NGOs in the
form of both formal legislation and executive policy.NGOs are limited in their ability to
combat such domestic regulations, partially because they do not possess legal personality in
the international legal system.
Can you give examples of this entity participating in International law (Treaties)
Amnesty International cannot create a treaty itself, however it can participate in International
Law by campaigning the creation of treaties and conventions, for example, Amnesty
International campaigned hard in the UN convention against Tourture. Another example of
Amnesty International participating (somehow) in International Law is its work on climate
change which includes standing for human rights in the Paris Agreement on climate change,
contributing to stronger human rights standards on climate change, and supporting
environmental groups as they put forward human rights arguments.
However, we should consider the long campaign by Amnesty International and partner NGOs
that gave birth to the Arms Trade Treaty and it becoming international law on 24 December
2014. Any state that is a party to the treaty must obey strict rules on international arms
transfers. The Treaty was designed to stop deadly weapons from getting into the hands of
people who will use them to commit human rights violations, including genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes. After 25 December 2014, it is binding international law for
every country that ratified it.
Does it have an international legal personality?
No, Amnesty International doesn 't have full legal personality as it is only limited to address,
support and advise governments and international organizations. It also promotes human
rights campaigns in order to develop future treaties or agreements which I cannot sign. But
AI cannot sign treaties by itself having a legal participation and it has not the power to
enforce and impose constraints.
The European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International
NGO only created a system for the establishment of the legal personality of NGOs in
national laws and did not recognise the international legal status as such. Moreover, there is
no direct entitlement or obligation of NGOs under international law.
Nevertheless, we could say that to some extent Amnesty International has influence on
International Organizations and Governments as they bring and report global issues to those
organs. So we can consider a de facto recognition of their (partial) legal subject. So we
can conclude that Amnesty international doesn´t have neither full international legal
personality nor derivative but to some extent it has a certain partial type of legal subject.
Does it participate in IL or IR w/ States?
Yes, Amnesty International participates in IL as it is often involved in IL matters, such as
securing an international Arms Trade Treaty in 2013, the International Criminal Court in
2002, and a global convention against torture in 1984.
Sometimes they participate in IR indirectly, by the mobilization of its followers, they pressure
governments and international institutions, or directly through treaties that AI brings forward.
They are more focused on trying to bring down a corrupt government by informing and
warning its people than by trying to directly negotiate with it.
Workshop 5: Debate
Workshop 6:
Group 4: TEU (1992):
1. Who are the signatories of this Treaty?
The Treaty on European Union, commonly known as the Maastricht Treaty, is the
foundation treaty of the European Union (EU).The twelve members of the European
Communities signing the Treaty were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom. The Treaty introduced European citizenship, allowing citizens to reside in
and move freely between Member States. It established a common foreign and
security policy. And also, the Treaty developed close cooperation on justice and
home affairs to ensure the safety and security of European citizens.
2. Where was it signed?
The Treaty was signed in Maastricht (The Netherlands) 7 February 1992.
3. When does it enter into force?
Although it was signed on February 7, 1992, as Carmen said. It entered into force
on November 1, 1993. The treaty established a European Union (EU), with EU
citizenship granted to every person who was a citizen of a member state.
4. When does this treaty end?
5. Were there any reservations made? How, why and what are they?
A reservation is a declaration made by a state by which it purports to exclude or
alter the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to
that state.
Denmark reservations: Denmark acceded to the Maastricht Treaty with four
reservations securing its refusal to:
●
●
●
●
introduce a single European currency in Denmark;
participate in the formation of a single foreign and security policy;
introduce a common European citizenship;
introduce cooperation at the supranational level in the fields of justice and
internal affairs.
Denmark's cooperation in these areas would require initial approval by popular
referendum. At the EU Summit in Edinburgh in December 1992, 11 EU member
states supported Denmark. As a result, at a subsequent referendum on 18th May
1993, 56.8% of Danes approved the signing of the agreement. The stage was set for
the next stage of European integration for Denmark, albeit with reservations.
British reservations: The Protocol states that certain articles of the Treaty do not
apply to the United Kingdom:
● its powers in the field of monetary policy are not affected by the Treaty (the
United Kingdom retains its powers in the field of monetary policy under
national law);
● it is not subject to the provisions of the Treaty relating to excessive deficits;
● it is not concerned by the provisions of the Treaty relating to the European
System of Central Banks (ESCB), the European Central Bank (ECB) or the
regulations and decisions adopted by those institutions.
The United Kingdom's voting rights are suspended for the acts of the Council
concerning:
● the decision on the irrevocable fixing of the exchange rates between the
currencies of the Member States that move to the third stage and adopt the
euro;
● the appointment of the President, the Vice-President and the other four
members of the Executive Board of the ECB.
6. Explain the process and requirements of EMU Membership
The decision to form an Economic and Monetary Union was taken by the European
Council in Maastricht in December 1991. The EMU offers opportunities for economic
stability, higher growth and more employment and the economic responsibility is
divided between Member States and the EU institutions.
The basic prerequisite for admission to EMU is membership of the European Union.
Even financially strong and stable countries outside the EU cannot therefore become
Alliance members.
In addition, there are strict conditions which are imposed on the economy of a
candidate country. For example, the inflation rate must not be lower than 1.5% of the
most price stable EMU country. More than 60% of the country must not be indebted
and the new debt must be less than 3%. It should be noted that these are admission
criteria. If a member state no longer meets these criteria after admission, it does not
automatically drop out.
The EMU process involves three stages, each of which consists of progressively
closer economic integration.
● coordinating economic policy;
● achieving economic convergence (bringing economic cycles broadly in step);
● adopting the euro, the EU's single currency. In order for a county to be able to
participate in this third stage , they need to adopt the euro convergence
criteria.
Original source:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:11992M/TXT&from=E
N
Workshop 7:
The serving president of country X visits country Y for an official two-day visit.
He is notorious worldwide for having committed gross human rights violations against his
own people. During his stay, he becomes ill and remains in a private hospital to recover,
following which he takes a few days off work on his own leisure.
The public prosecutor of country Y decides to bring criminal proceedings against the
president by arguing that:
3. Country Y enjoys universal jurisdiction over these offenses (irrespective of whether the
president also enjoys immunity in the present instance).
Firstly, according to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, the principle
of universal jurisdiction provides for a state’s jurisdiction over crimes against international
law even when the crimes did not occur on that state's territory, and neither the victim nor
perpetrator is a national of that state. The principle allows national courts in third countries to
address international crimes occurring abroad, to hold perpetrators criminally liable, and to
prevent impunity.
Furthermore, during the session of the scope of the application of the principle of universal
jurisdiction, some delegations stated that the principle permits States to prosecute and
investigate certain crimes when the States of territoriality or nationality (active and passive)
are unable or unwilling to do so.
However, as the person is the actual Head of State, he enjoys immunity that prevents
Country Y from prosecuting under universal jurisdiction, at least as long as he is in office.
Although, according to the United States vs. Noriega case, if Country Y doesn't recognise
him as president due to human right violations, he will lose his immunity and hence, can be
judged.
In the English Court of Appeal in Al-Adsani v. Government of Kuwait, the Court rejected an
argument that the term ‘immunity’ in domestic legislation meant immunity from sovereign
acts that were in accordance with international law, thus excluding torture for which immunity
could not be claimed.
In Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe, the House of Lords held that recognition of sovereign immunity
did not involve a violation of the rights.
A number of delegations observed that the primary responsibility for investigating and
prosecuting serious international crimes lies with the State of territoriality and/or the State of
nationality.
Some delegations stated that the principle permits States to prosecute and investigate
certain crimes when the States of territoriality or nationality (active and passive) are unable
or unwilling to do so. The view was expressed that approval of the State or States
possessing territorial or nationality jurisdiction must be received to the application of the
principle.
Several delegations drew attention to the importance of prosecutorial independence and
prosecutorial discretion; the questions of whether the alleged perpetrator needed to be
present in the territory wishing to exercise universal jurisdiction and whether formal consent
of the territorial State would be required for the principle’s application; the need to establish
appropriate safeguards in national legal systems; the relevance of enabling domestic
legislation; and standards for the situation that may arise when States possess overlapping
jurisdiction.
UN The scope and application of the principle
https://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/70/universal_jurisdiction.shtml
of
universal
jurisdiction
Immunity of government leaders
Many forms of immunity are granted to government leaders to rule over the world, continent,
nation, province, urban area and rural area without fear of being sued or charged with a
crime for so doing:
●
Sovereign immunity, the prevention of lawsuits or prosecution against rulers or
governments without their given consent
●
●
●
●
●
Sovereign immunity in the United States bars suit against federal, state, and tribal
governments, which cannot be sued without their consent. Governmental consent to
be sued is expressed through legislation as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity
Parliamentary immunity, immunity granted to government leaders during their tenure
and in the course of their duties
Speech or Debate Clause, a provision in the United States Constitution that provides
immunity to members of Congress for statements made in either house
Immunity from prosecution (international law), exclusion of elected officials from
prosecution under international law
State immunity, principle of international law that the government of a state is not
amenable before the courts of another state
National courts can exercise universal jurisdiction when the State has adopted
recognizing the relevant crimes and authorizing their prosecution
Workshop 8:
CONCILIATION
Conciliation is a dispute resolution process where an independent third party helps people in
a dispute to identify the issues, develop options, consider alternatives and try to reach an
agreement. The solution proposed by the conciliator might include an idea that would have
been unlikely to come from a judicial body reaching a decision just on the basis of the legal
rights of the parties. The conciliation process is extremely flexible and by clarifying the facts
and discussing proposals stimulates negotiations between parties.
The process of conciliation involves a third-party investigation of the basis of the dispute and
the submission of a report embodying suggestions for a settlement. As such it involves
elements of both inquiry and mediation, and in fact the process of conciliation emerged from
treaties providing for permanent inquiry commissions. Conciliation reports are only proposals
and as such do not constitute binding decisions. The main difference between conciliation
and mediation proceedings is that, at some point during the conciliation, the conciliator will
be asked by the parties to provide them with a non-binding settlement proposal.
The rules dealing with conciliation were elaborated in the 1928 General Act on the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes (revised in 1949). The function of the commissions was
defined to include inquiries and mediation techniques. Such commissions were to be
composed of five persons, one appointed by each opposing side and the other three to be
appointed by agreement from citizens of third states. The proceedings were to be concluded
within six months and were not to be held in public. The conciliation procedure was intended
to deal with mixed legal–factual situations and to operate quickly and informally.
They are interest-based, as the conciliator will when proposing a settlement, not only take
into account the parties' legal positions, but also their; commercial, financial and / or
personal interests. This is a good option for the Ukraine war because the settlement can
provide an incentive for Russia to leave Ukraine and an opportunity for Ukraine to receive a
payment for war damage.
Turkey could be considered as a conciliator between countries. Despite the fact it is a NATO
member, he maintains a good relation with both countries supplying weapons to Ukraine and
refusing to sanction Russia. The reason is very simple, Ukraine is a very important arms
consumer, and Russia supplies gas to Turkey
THE CONCILIATION PROCESS
The conciliation starts with the appointment of the conciliator, which will then decide the
procedure to be followed, any rules that the parties have agreed upon. The conciliator will
start the investigation into the law, and the oral and written submission from the parties’
agents will be presented. The conciliator will try to facilitate the amicable settlement of the
dispute. As the proposal is non-binding in nature the record has to be given to both parties
so that they can decide whether to accept or not. If they agree to accept, then the conciliator
will draft a document where the conciliation has been successful and will outline the terms of
the agreement. But, if either party rejects the recommendations, it will be recorded that the
parties could not accept the proposals thereby dissolving the conciliation.
Unlike judicial settlement, the entire procedure and written record of the conciliation remain
confidential unless the parties agree otherwise. This can be a good way of resolving
disputes since public opinion and pressure do not play a role, where parties focus on the
conciliation outcome, rather than showing its strength on the procedure.
Workshop 9:
Group 7: Russian annexation of Crimea
Process and mobilization
Russia mobilizes its troops in February and March 2014 to seize control of Crimea.
Ukrainians had recently deposed their pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was
ousted in the Maidan uprising by protesters seeking warmer relations with the EU and Nato.
Yanukovych fled to Russia in February 2014 after the months-long uprising, which saw
security forces shoot dead at least 77 protesters in Kyiv. Ukraine would go on to usher in the
first in a series of pro-European governments to replace him.
The ousting of Yanukovych provoked immediate unrest in the east of Ukraine bordering
Russia, where pro-Kremlin sentiments are higher. In addition to spurring on separatists,
Vladimir Putin took advantage of the removal of Yanukovych by ordering work “on returning
Crimea to Russia”. Amid pro-Russian demonstrations in the Crimean port city of Sevastopol
days after Yanukovych fled (on 25 February, several hundred pro-Russian protesters
blocked the Crimean parliament demanding non-recognition of the central government of
Ukraine and a referendum on Crimea's status), masked Russian troops without insignia
moved to capture strategic sites across Crimea.
Despite international outcry, Russia formally incorporated Crimea as two Russian federal
subjects – the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol – on 18 March 2014.
Crimea and Sevastopol have since switched to Moscow Time.
Russian IL violations
In Crimea, Russia violated the first principle of international law – that countries may not
acquire territory or change borders by force. Russia’s actions flagrantly violated its own
international commitments including in: Article II of the United Nations Charter; the Helsinki
Final Act; the Budapest memorandum; Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership
between Ukraine and the Russian Federation; Article V in the General Assembly’s 1974
Definition of Aggression; Resolution 242 of the UN Security Council.
●
●
●
●
●
●
Art.II UN Charter: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Helsinki Final Act: establishes the inviolability of European frontiers, rejects any use
of force or intervention in internal affairs and urges the signatories to respect human
rights.
Budapest memorandum: prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion
against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements
and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine
gave up their nuclear weapons.
Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine the Russian
Federation, and the violation of its article II: The High Contracting Parties, in
accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and their
obligations under the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, shall respect each other’s territorial integrity and confirm the inviolability of
their common borders.
Article V, paragraph 3, in the General Assembly’s 1974 Definition of Aggression
specifically requires that a purported acquisition of territory resulting from aggression
not be recognized as lawful.
The UN Security Council in Resolution 242 states that not only acquisition of territory
by war is to be rejected on its merits but emphasized its inadmissibility.
After taking Crimea by force, Russia tried to give its actions a veneer of legitimacy with a
referendum. This so-called referendum was conducted in a heavily militarized environment;
was clearly illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution; and the result remains unrecognized by
the international community given that polling stations were supervised by armed Russian
forces and people weren’t given a fair choice in the check voices.
The two reported instances of the use of force (the use of the Russian units deployed in
Crimea and the presence of the “little green men”) both amounted to prima facie violations of
the prohibition of the use of force as well as to acts of aggression and to an armed attack.
The Russian Federation cannot justify these prima facie violations by any sound legal
arguments because all the legal grounds that the Russian Federation has presented, or
could potentially present (self-defence, intervention by invitation, the use of force in support
of self-determination, protection of nationals/humanitarian intervention) either have an
unclear status under international law or the conditions for their application were not met in
Crimea.
We can conclude that the privilege that international law gives to established boundaries
presents serious difficulty for Russia’s claimed justifications for use of force and annexation
of Crimea. Justifications for an armed intervention, even if accepted, are not justifications for
the forcible acquisition of territory. The arguments that Russia has used to defend the use of
force against Ukraine, therefore, do not, as such, justify the annexation of Crimea.
Workshop 14: MAkeup workshop
Something that I never contemplated before Public International Law is how state succession
relates itself to nationality: a state is created anew, as it isn´t composed by cultures and
languages that have been around for thousands of years, and the same goes for states that
simply disappear. What interested me in this topic and the reason why I chose it is, how does
state succession work for that, in an individual territory, for all its history, dozens of states
succeeded each other even though the people is always the same. When is the “clean state”
principle truthful to its name? how can a country be reborn again without inheriting all its
predecessors’ problems?
The Vienna Convention on Succession and respect for treaties answers some of these
questions. It determines treaties can have two natures: territorial, in which obligations are tied
to a defined territorial unit and the boundaries constituted will survive even if the treaty
doesn´t; and political, tied to a particular regime and therefore not binding for successor
states, this is the case for neutrality or alliances.
The following is a list of methods of creation, succession, and disappearance of states:
Absorption: when a country ceases to exist because its absorbed by another, which now exist
in an enlarged form. Treaties of the absorbing state must be extended to the new
incorporation.
Merger: two or more countries unite and form one new successor states. Unless all parties
disagree on it, treaties still apply, but they must decide if a treaty will be enforced only in the
territory of the former state which signed it, or if it is expanded to all the new successor state.
In case of dismemberment the obligations of the predecessor will be allocated between the
successor states. If it is a case of dissolution only territorial treaties are maintained.
Secession: in the case a territory separates form a country and forms its new one, the existing
country is free of all its obligations to the separated territory and the new country is only
forced to comply with the treaties that were tied with that specific territory. However, the
International Community stimulates the adoption of multilateral treaties. In case it is a
cession of a territory from one country to another then the obligations of the former are
replaced by the ones of the latter.
When it comes to Human Rights treaties, then it’s generally accepted that the treaty continues
to apply even if you are declared a completely new state. This is because it is seen as an
obligation to the international community, to humans, and not to a specific country.
In case of membership to International Organizations, if you are a successor state, you are
assumed to cover the predecessor state. If you are regarded as a new state, then you must
apply for admission and the same goes for all the new states form by a dissolution.
The case I find most interesting in this subject is the dismemberment and the further
reunification of Germany:
After WWII, Germany was torn apart by the Allies (France, the US and the UK) and the
USSR. It was fragmented into 4 areas of influence, each belonging to one of the countries.
Berlin suffered the same division. In 1947 the Allied powers merged their zones, the Allied
powers maintained obligations but ended their occupation and formed the Federal Republic
of Germany (West Germany). In response, Soviets formed the German Democratic Republic
(East Germany). Until the 1990´s the Cold War developed and political differences were too
big to not recognize the two Germanys as completely different entities. But with the end of
the Cold War, the two sates signed a treaty that entailed an economic union. The GDR
assimilated the Mark and the central bank (both of the FDR) In 1990 the two Germanies were
completely unified, and the Soviets fled the territory. This treaty clearly determined that the
unification was in reality an absorption, the FDR had absorbed the GDR, the former
extending its territory and the latter ceasing to exist.
Workshop 12:
Question 4: Does State C have an obligation to help the spacecraft in distress?
Does this answer change if the problems come from Private Company X’s
spacecraft or State B’s?
According to the Rescue Agreement, 1968: The aim of this agreement is to secure
cooperation between states for the rescue and return of astronauts.
Article 1 (State A)
Each Contracting Party which receives information or discovers that the
personnel of a spacecraft are experiencing conditions of distress shall
immediately:
1. Notify the launching authority or, immediately make a public
distress announcement.
2. Notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who should
disseminate the information without delay by all appropriate
means of communication at his disposal.
Article 3 (State C)
If information is received that the personnel of a spacecraft have alighted on
other place not under the jurisdiction of any State, those Contracting Parties
which are in a position to do so shall, if necessary, extend assistance in search
and rescue operations for such personnel to assure their speedy rescue. They
shall inform the launching authority and the Secretary-General of the United
Nations of the steps they are taking and of their progress.
Since the contracting parties in the case of the distress of State A are State B,
Company X, and State C. The most competent, according to the situation, should be
the one to rescue the one in distress. The expenses (Article 5.5) shall be borne by
the launching authority.
The answer does not change if the problems come from Private Company or from
State B.
TREATY ON PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES IN THE
EXPLORATION AND USE OF OUTER SPACE, INCLUDING THE MOON AND
OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES
ARTICLE V
States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer
space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident,
distress, or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high
seas. When astronauts make such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly
returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle.
In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one
State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States
Parties.
States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the
Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any phenomena they
discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could
constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.