Assignment: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
PART I: (MAXIMUM 1,800 WORDS)
Albertonia, an independent country in the plains of South America, has for centuries maintained friendly relations with the neighbouring Republic of Lusitaniland.
Their relations are governed by several multilateral treaties (including the United Nations Charter, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and by their common membership in a regional integration system, the Organization of South American Unity (OSAU), which comprises five other South American countries and which establishes, among other things, an internal market and common institutions for the maintenance of peace and security.
In January 2014, a revolution in Lusitaniland leads to an overthrow of the government and the assumption of power by political forces hostile to Albertonia because of what they perceive as Albertonias radical free-market policies.
The new government quickly proceeds to the nationalization of several Albertonian companies operations in Lusitaniland, which provokes much anger in Albertonia and has the Albertonian government mobilize its armed forces and hold military manoeuvres close to the border between the two countries.
Public outrage in Lusitaniland against this perceived provocation by Albertonia is great, and in July 2014, a group of demonstrators enter the Albertonian embassy in the Lusitanian capital, Caramba. They take several embassy staff hostage and keep the building occupied. Lusitaniland?s police forces take position outside the building, while the most popular radio station in Caramba praises the occupation as an act of courage in the face of the brutal imperialism of Albertonia.
In response, Albertonia sets Lusitaniland a 24hour ultimatum to free the embassy staff and liberate the embassy building. At the end of the ultimatum, Albertonia dispatches a special helicopter unit of its air force to rescue the staff.
The unit enters Caramba at 2 am on 15 July, manages to free two of the hostages but is then repelled by an angry mob and loses a helicopter in the operation.
Two of the Albertonian soldiers involved in the operation are taken by the occupiers as prisoners of war. Albertonia then brings the matter before the Peace
Council of the OSAU, which authorizes, by 5 votes to 2, a peace enforcement mission of the Organization.
The mission, which is quickly dispatched and contains forces from three member states (most forces as well as the commander--in chief are from Albertonia), enters Lusitaniland on 2 August, occupies the embassy, frees the hostages and returns the embassy to Albertonian control.
Invited by Albertonia, the OSAU keeps protecting the embassy from attacks by the population of Lusitaniland. Meanwhile, Santiania, another member state of the OSAU, declares that, in response to Lusitaniland´sirresponsible behaviour, it suspends all economic relations with the country and also suspends the operation of the chapter on trade relations in the Charter of OSAU.
Lusitaniland takes the case against Albertonia, the OSAU and Santiania, to the International Court off Justice. It asks the ICJ to declare:
1. That Albertonia has violated international law by entering Lusitaniland?s territory with its helicopter unit;
2. That OSAU and Albertonia have violated international law by entering Lusitaniland?s territory with the OSAU?s peace enforcement mission;
3. That Santiania has violated international law by unlawfully suspending the operation of the trade chapter of the OSAU Charter.
Albertonia, in its counterclaim, asks the ICJ to declare that:
1. Lusitaniland has violated international law through its actions in relation to the occupation of the Albertonian embassy in Caramba.
Part. 2
In Part II, you should choose TWO of the three essay questions.
If there are any ambiguities, state so or make assumptions. Please state clearly
What law, case, or principle you are relying on (in whichever reference format you choose).
PART II (MAXIMUM 1,200 WORDS)
Answer TWO of the following three questions:
1. Does international law have a democratic deficit? Discuss.
2. Should international courts have jurisdiction over countries without their consent? Discuss.
3. Is international law a construct of the Western world? Discuss.