In the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (WTO) case, the Court stated that «international organizations are subjects of international law which, unlike States, have no general jurisdiction». (para. 25.) Since the second half of the twentieth century, international courts and tribunals have multiplied. One of the oft-cited consequences of this process is the fragmentation of international law. For example, international law for some policy areas has been developed in a fragmented manner when problems have been identified. This evolution means that international law has evolved to solve certain problems, or in a functional way. Examples of relevant areas of law are human rights law, use of force, humanitarian law, international trade law, international environmental law, international economic law and the law of the sea. The various legal bodies resulting from the development of functional areas of law in response to the problems identified not only provide substantive rules of law, but have also led to the creation of international tribunals competent to hear cases within a separate legal body. A problem that arises in the context of multiple courts is that a case or related cases may be brought before different courts, which may result in different decisions as to which parties have violated international law, or in different interpretations of the law, thus contributing to the fragmentation of international law. On May 31, 2010, Israel stormed a Turkish ship carrying aid to Gaza. At an emergency meeting, the UN Security Council called for an immediate, impartial, credible and transparent investigation in accordance with international standards. Israel responded by saying, «Israel is a democratic nation.
Israel has the ability and the right to investigate itself, not to be questioned by an international body. Explain whether or not the UN Security Council is authorized to take up this issue. (10 points) Give and discuss 2 examples that illustrate that States have the fullest form of legal personality under international law. (i) to the extent that such dispute may give rise to friction or an international dispute: Art. 34 Charter of the United Nations; Conversely, a significant disadvantage of this primary role of States is related to the changing structure of international law; namely, the proliferation and growing importance of non-State actors in international law. The international legal system that governs the role and relationships between different actors does not reflect these changes, for example by giving non-State actors the appropriate form of power in the field of international law-making. – States undoubtedly have the capacity to assert an international claim. – States have general competence: unlike international organizations, which rely on their constituent instruments and the functions specified therein, States have a general competence which is beyond doubt. 10: The Member States of the United Nations have entrusted the Security Council with the primary responsibility for the «maintenance of international peace and security» (Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations).
The specific powers of the United Nations Security Council to exercise this role are set out in Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII of the Charter of the United Nations. States are considered to be the original and most important legal subjects of international law. Under this chapter, the United Nations Security Council may make recommendations or decide on measures to be taken to maintain or restore international peace or security (Article 39). An important advantage of the fact that States are the main subjects in the field of the creation of international law is that States must apply and enforce international rules at the national level. So if they make the law, they are more likely to follow those rules. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the fact that States are still the main subjects in the field of the creation of international law. 6 This question concerns the application of the ICJ hostage trial in Tehran to the facts of the present case. In the Tehran Scourge case, the ICJ established two distinct stages of State responsibility. The first phase concerns the Iranian government`s inaction on its obligations to protect the U.S.
embassy. Iran was held responsible for its failure to protect the United States Embassy because it was fully aware of its obligations, had the means to fulfil its obligations and was not fully compliant (para. 68). The second phase of the Tehran hostage trial concerns the recognition and approval of the students` actions by the Iranian authorities. This led the ICJ to conclude that the students` actions were now being translated into actions of that state, Iran was held accountable for its own actions. The students had become agents of the Iranian state, for whose actions the state itself was internationally responsible. (para. 74). The arrest warrant case concerns a sitting Head of State, but certain conclusions can be drawn to answer the question. First, former heads of State can be held accountable for acts committed in private during their tenure. Second, they can «be prosecuted before certain international criminal tribunals for breaches of international law.» In this context, the question arises whether acts that constitute international crimes are or can be committed in private.
This specific issue was addressed to some extent in the Pinochet case. According to the House of Lords, the (functional) immunity of a former head of state did not prevent his extradition for torture. Nevertheless, it is not clear what this means: did he torture in private, is torture not behavior that enjoys functional immunity? In the case of reparation for violations, the ICJ concluded that the United Nations as an international organization has legal personality, but this «is not the same as saying that it is a State, which it is certainly not, or that its legal personality and its rights and obligations are the same as those of a State. […] This does not even mean that all its rights and obligations must be at the international level, any more than all the rights and obligations of a State must be at that level. Discuss Adova`s attack on Rotania in light of international law. (10 points) (i) In accordance with Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council may consider any dispute or situation likely to give rise to international tension with a view to determining whether the continuation of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.