Transcript Mock exam
Mock exam 2010 Method / the « law -approach » : • Specify the question : what is the essence (question) • Use legal sources – as a basis for the rules ( legal reference) – in order to find out whether the facts fit the rules (fit) • Pro et contra discussion if needed ( arguments) ( either what the rules are , or how the facts fit the rules) • Conclusion at the end Question 1 - Qualify the situations • Question : does IHL apply to the different situations ( armed conflict), and which regime of IHL applies to each situation. • Legal ref : GCart2, GCart3, APII 1(1)+(2) • Fit the facts : OAG, threshold, attribution for classification ( link Omega – Beta), intervention of forces, two parallell conflicts, A) BEFORE N.Y 2008 • Is there a NIAC? – « armed conflict »? • Organization : OAG • Intensity : «Beyond riots and internal disturbances» APII + ICC, « protracted armed violence » ICTY • Which type of NIAC ? – GCart3 « armed conflict of a non-international character » (« territory » no restriction) – APII3 «in territory », « territorial control » – API1(4) ( always last) B) BETWEEN N.Y 2008- 10 Jan 2009 • If done by Beta soldiers – Is there an IAC ? • GCart2 threshold ? • GCart2 « between » the HCP ? – Commentary « intervention of the armed forces of states » • If done by Omega rebels – Can the acts be attributable to Beta ? • overall controll ( Genocide) or effective controll (Nicaragua) – Does it reach the threshold for GCart2 ? C ) AFTER 10 January 2009 • Is there an IAC? – GCart2 « between the HCP » – GCart2 « declaration of war » ? • If straight forward – keep it short and to the point Classification - advice • Identify the different pairs of conflicts • Classify each pair. Question : « does IHL apply to this conflict ? » – 4 possibilities + no armed conflict • Always start with the legal basics/ source : This is the point of departure for the legal assessment : – GCart2 «armed conflict between HCP » ( States) • Mere intervention by armies ( Commentary to GC), Tadic – GCart3 « armed conflict not of an international character » • organization ( party) • intensity ( protracted, more than riots and internal disturbances ) (Tadic and Haradinaj) – APII art 1(1) « armed conflict between armed forces and …on its territory…territorial control, – If API1(4) ( only the last question, only if relevant!) • • If a given conflict may not be determined because of a factor X – assume the alternatives, and conclude for all. If straight forward – be brief ! Question 2) • Question :status - is the decree in line with the principle of distinction : are the drug traffickers and drug producers lawful targets under IHL ? • Legal ref. : DPH in NIAC ( custom / ICRC guidance) : – continuous combat function ( member of armed forces of OAG) – civilian DPH. NB : two parallell conflicts. This question under the NIAC. (Is the question of ‘combatant’ in case of an IAC relevant? Does it change anything here ?) • Do the producers and traffickers « take a direct part in hostilites »? If they are not , they are provided with targets immunity under IHL, and the decree will be unlawful. • Are the drug producers / trafficers directy participating in hostilites according to APII 13(3)? – Continuous combat function ? • Custom / ICRC : War effort in very narrow sence NO – Civilian DPH • War -sustaining effort ? NO – Criteria for DPH : • Threshold of harm • Direct causation (link) : But does this include war- sustaining effort such as drug trafficing ? – Production trafficking – closeness in link ? • Belligerent nexus (so designed) No necessary threshold of harm/ no sufficient link • The decree breaches the principle of distinction unlawful • Is this a ” war – crime ”? Question 3 Legality of bombing of Delta • Question : is this an indiscriminate attack ? • NOTE : the question is NOT whether the bombing was a military necessity, or whether it complied with military necessity! No such general assessment exist under IHL. • Legal ref. : API art 51(5) a and b Question 3 • (« armed attack » under the UN Charter ?) ad bellum • Indiscriminate attack ? – Indiscriminate Method API art 51(5) a) or – Disproportionate API art 51(5) b) NOTE ! : actual casualty- figures are IRRELEVANT for the assesment « anticipated » + « expected » • Military necessity not assesed by IHL ! • Military objective API art 52(2) : only objects – Object objective – Almost any civilian object can become a military objective ! Other sources: • API art 85 (3) / ICC : war-crime • Manual on Air and Missile Warfare ( custom) Question 4 • Question: is the method used to free the hostages lawful ? • Legal ref.: APII 12, custom • Is this hostage-taking ? GCart3 , APII 4(2) – if Beta attacked ? – If Omega attacked? • If it is hostage-taking ( unlawful), can this be belligerent reprisal ? – Can NEVER breach the principle of distinction in belligerent reprisal! • Abuse of protected emblems APII art 12, ICC 8(2) e) ii) • Absolute prohibition • Is this perfidy ? – Ruses of war (APIart37, custom) not prohibited – Perfidy ( API art 37(1), custom) – prohibited • Objective : to protect principle of distinction • BUT IS THIS THE SAME IN NIAC ? GENERAL ADVICE • Avoid repeating facts without linking it either to the question, to the legal sources or to an argument. • Do not speculate in facts, but feel free to suggest necessary parameters ( ex. who shot down the plain), if it has important implications