]INTERNATIONAL LAW
READING ASSIGNMENTS (TJSL Law: 75-minute classes)
Class
1
2
Subject Matter
Textbook-Webpage Sections/Cases/Problems
(mini-review begin
-ing of each week)
Read textbook’s sections, cases, doc’s, and gray-box materials only when specified below in
daily assignments. “1.A,” etc = assigned Problems at end of each chapter. CWP = Course
Web Page at: <http://www.tjsl.edu/slomansonb/txtcsesite.html>. “ ° ” = quickly peruse.
What’s IL? Law or
Politics?
Sources of IL
§1.1 A-D (p.3-19); Prob 1.A (p.38); Prob 1.B
3
Statehood; Recognition; Secession;
State Officials
4
State Immunity;
Consular Relations
5
Embassies; Diplo
Immunity; Abuse
6
Orgs; UN; Security
Council
7
Trust Council; EU;
Org Immunity
8
Individual;
Corporation
9
Aliens; Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
www; Rendition
10
11
12
PROF. SLOMANSON
SPRING 2011
(Disregard “[_-_]”)
[2-7]
§1.2: Paquete Habana CWP; AM&S CWP; Art—Amer. Judges v. Judicial
Independence (Foreign Sources); Prob 1.C
[4-7]
§2.1: On Condition of Statehood; Prob 2.A; §2.3; §2.4: ICJ—Kosovo Indep.
CWP; Prob 2.C; §2.6 A: Ex Parte Pinochet CWP; Case Concerning Arrest
Warrant CWP
[4-6]
§2.6.B: Vatican Immunity—Doe v. Holy See CWP; Saudi v. Nelson CWP;
Prob 2.F; §2.7 A-C: Case Concerning Avena—Diplo Relations
[4-8]
§2.7.D: Radwan; Asylum—Colum. v. Peru CWP; Vienna Convention;
USA Staff Tehran (Hostages Case); Prob 2.K(One)-(Three)
[4-11]
§3.1: Reparations Injuries Suffered; Prob 3.A(1)-(2); ECHR UN Attribution
—Behrami v. France CWP; §3.2; §3.3.A-B.2; Prob 3.C
[4-15]
§3.3 B.3(ECOSOC)-C.3b (Scandal); Prob 3.E; §3.4: ECJ UN Reso—Yassin
CWP; §3.5°; §3.6: Art IV-Sec.11; Broadbent CWP; Prob 3.G
[4-14]
§4.1: Soldier Jones; Individuals; Prob. 4.A.; §4.2: Nottebohm; Prob 4.B; Sale
v. Haitian CWP; §4.3: Barcelona Traction
[5-10]
§4.4: Prob 4.D; §5.1; §5.2 A-F; SS Lotus; Blackmer; Prob 5.B; Prob 5.C [5-11]
§5.2 G: Union Etudiants & Yahoo v. La Ligue cases (French & US) CWP;
§5.3: Alvarez-Machain; State v. Ebrahim; Diplo Assurances; Arar v.
Ashcroft CWP
[4-9]
Range Sovereignty: §6.1; 6.2: Legal Consequences Wall CWP; UNSC Reso. 1244; Prob. 6.B;
land & sea
§6.3: Port Tranquility—Mali v. Keeper CWP; US v. Larsen
[4-8]
Range Sovereignty: [§6.3 continued] Prob. 6.C; Prob 6.F; §6.4: USSR v. Powers; Prob 6.K
13
sea (continued), air
Treaties: types,
applications
14
15
Treaties: US
Amnesty, adjudicate, arbitrate
16
Force: defined,
applications,
legality of war
17
Force: SelfDefense
[4-8]
§7.1: Medellin v. Texas CWP; §7.2: Genocide Conv—Reservations;
Fisheries Juris CWP; §7.3: Weinberg Treaty—Weinberger CWP
[4-8]
Prob 7.A; Prob 7.C; Prob 7.E; Prob 7.G
[4-10]
§8.1: Azanian AZAPO CWP; §8.4: Norwegian Loans; §8.5: Pros.v.Tadic
CWP; Radio Machete—Nahimana CWP; §8.6: Open Door-Dublin
[5-11]
§9.1: Definition Aggression; Draft Code Crimes; What Future UN; §9.2 AC: UN Conf Int’l Org (UNC Articles); Role of Diamonds; UNSC Reso. 687;
I.L.C. Draft Articles; Military & Para. Acts Nicaragua; Armed Act Congo
CWP; BritIraqWar—Regina (Gentle and Another) CWP; Prob. 9.B
[5-9]
§9.2 D: Letter Dated 7 October; Int’l Law & War Iraq (Yoo); Concept of US
Nat’l Security (Moscow); US Nat’l Security Strategy & “Bush Doctine”
(Gray); Report UN: Shared Responsibility; p.495—US 2002 Nat’l Security
Strategy/Defense Exercise CWP
[1-11]
Page 1 of 3
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Force: nukes,
humanitarian intervention, laws of
war
Force: combatant
status, detainee
relief, military
commissions
Force: lawyers
memos, Obama
exec orders
§9.2 F: UNSC Reso.1803 (p.503); Legality Threat/Use Nukes (p.501) CWP;
§9.2 G: §9.5; Prob 9.G; §9.6: US Gov’t Response to ICRC; The Geneva
Convention III; Protocol I-II; US v. Calley CWP; Israeli Civilian—Public
Committee Against Torture CWP; Int’l Legal Issues Mistreatment
Detainees; Interp. of Geneva Conventions (Exec. Order)
[4-8]
§9.7: Findings of the Inter-American Commission (GITMO) CWP;
Rasul CWP; Boumediene CWP; Hamdan CWP; A (FC) and Others; Senate
Armed Services Inquiry CWP
[5-8]
p.547(d) + p.548 Lawyer Violations—[1]-[3] + [4 & 5 added to webpage]
CWP, especially [2] Opening Statement (Nuremberg) & [3] Padilla v. Yoo;
§9.7.F Obama Exec Orders [1]-[4] (p.550); Prob. 9-K
[2-10]
Human Rights: UN §10.1: Boxed In (Crane); Bosnia v. Serbia Genocide Case (p.572) CWP;
Charter, Universal
Prob 10.B; §10.2: Charter UN; Int’l Covenant Civil & Political Rts; Report
Declaration, Intl
HRts Comm; Joint European Council; Death Penalty—Jeffrey Joseph and
Covenants
Boyce CWP; Int’l Covenant Econ-Soc-Cultural Rts; Ilndiwe Mazibuko v.
Johannesburg° CWP
[4-10]
Human Rights:
§10.3.A Conv. Elimination Racial Discrim CWP; Georgia v. Russia CWP;
Racial Discrim
Prob 10.D; §10.3.B: Conv. Elimination Discrim Women CWP; Opuz v.
Treaty
Turkey CWP; UNSC Reso. 1325; UNSC Reso. 1820 CWP; Report of UN
Sec-Gen Women; Accountability Int’l Law Violations Non-State Actors;
Group Rights:
Women as Architects of Peace
[4-8]
women
Women, children,
§10.3.C: UNSC Reso. 1612 CWP; Child Soldiers—Prosecutor v. Brima
religion, indigenCWP; Prob 10.G (Session #2); Declaration Religious & Linguistic
ous, GLBT
Minorities; UN Declaration Indigenous Peoples CWP; Aurelio Cal and
Maya Village CWP; (French-Dutch) Statement on Human Rights + Syria +
UN Round Op-ed CWP; India Gay Rts—Naz Foundation CWP
[4-8]
Islam: cultural
§10.4 E (p.628): Islamic Legal Philosophy (p.629); Muslim Headscarf—
relativism. CorpSahin v. Turkey CWP; Paradox Universalism & Cultural Relativism; §10.5:
orations & HRts,
Corp HRts—John Doe v. Unocal CWP; §10.6: Alien Tort Statute—Sosa
US & HRts
CWP; Torture Victim Protection Act
[3-6]
Environment: law
§11.1: Principles Allocation Transboundary Harm CWP; §11.2: Int’l Envir.
Law (Weiss p.668); Legality Threat/Use Nukes + Questions 674; Prob 11.B
Climate Change 2007—Synthesis Report
[2-9]
Environment: apps Prob 11.C; §12.1.A: Need to Refocus on Mandate; §12.1.B.1: MCC-Marble
& Economic Law
v. Ceramica CWP; (b) Letters Credit
[3-10]
Economic Law:
§12.1.B.6: US 1996 US Act + Cuban Act (response) CWP; Necessity of
embargo, WTO, IP, Ending Embargo; §12.2: US v. Eurodif; TRIPS—Anheuser-Busch CWP;
corruption
Prob 12.B; §12.5.A (U.S. FCPA)
[4-7]
Bribery; Q & A §12.5.C-D; OECD Art. 1; Prob 12.D; Q & A
[4-7]
Page 2 of 3
Notes:
(1) Only the cases, problems, and textbox materials listed in the above reading assignment
document are assigned for reading. Read all of the assigned sections, e.g. “§1.2” (p.26–38), unless
otherwise indicated—e.g., “§1.1 A-D” (p.4–19, thus excluding §1.1.E. on p.19). The gray
textbox/webpage reading is located on the Course Web Page @
<http://www.tjsl.edu/slomansonb/txtcsesite.html>. As the book author, I have to be all things to all
people (adopting professors). We all have different views about what materials to assign, and which
changes to make from semester to semester, depending on contemporary hot button issues and
examples. Most, but not all materials in the above assigned reading will be covered in class. All assigned
cases and problems will be covered-presented (by student presenters).
(2) Part of the rationale for this skills class is that you will all be engaged in a collaborative
learning environment, which is the subject of my article in 61 Journal of Legal Education __ (2011)
<www location tba>, and indicative of what the ABA will be requiring in the very near future. What I
have been doing in my CA Civ Pro class for many years, which I’m now applying in this class, means
that my role will be essentially that of a traffic cop—to keep things moving—while providing context
and weekly mini-reviews.
Successful completion of this class satisfies the upper-level skills elective requirement for TJSL
students.
(3) I will e-mail the weekly role-playing problems or cases, usually each Thursday morning, of
the week before you are assigned to present. Your assigned debates/presentations will normally be
limited to two minutes per side/assigned role. Let me know if you want to: (a) present on a particular
topic (see course website Daily Blueprint); and/or, (b) you would like to represent certain countries, or
other specific interests. I can thus consider your preferences when I make your debate/presentation
assignments (no pressure).
You must let me know— by the end of the last class of each week—whether you will be unable
to be in class on one or more days in the following week. You must also have a buddy who can cover for
you, if you are assigned, and for any reason you are unable to appear (aka your client must always be
represented). There will be a grade deduction for any mis[s]cues.
You may swap assignments with another student, up until the start of each class wherein you are
assigned a role play/case/problem.
(4) You will receive an oral presentation grade for the semester. It will be 10 points out of about
65 total points. There will be a 5-point midterm, based on the message I sent you all before classes
started. That will be a short paper: (a) of about 1 or 2 pages on your mentee visit to that law firm; and (b)
about 3 pages on a topic that involves either the work of that form, or a mutually agreeable topic of your
choice. The final will be about 50 points, since no one can predict with pin-point accuracy the maximum
number of arguments available for tested topics. However, I have had some 15 years of experience with
this kind of final exam, which will be a three-hour essay involving some course-related documents and
a library of relevant documents, such as major treaties we will study.
(5) Because the textbook presents the substance of this course in narrative, treatise-like format,
you need not buy any outside supplements. I will bring the most popular outlines, in the event that you
do not trust what I just said in the prior sentence. You can outline the course, by following the course
textbook’s format. All suggestions re textbook content are welcome. My including student insights has
been an important feature of the success of this book, which is now used in 20 countries.
Last rev: 01/05/11
Page 3 of 3