Even if the mass killing was not committed with

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW the dolus specialis to destroy the ethnic group as
such, the same may still constitute the Crime
Against Humanity of Extermination if the mass
killing was widespread and systematic or the War
I. Crime of Intentionally Attacking Civilians if the
same took place in the context of or was
associated with an armed conflict. The norm for
the prevention, prosecution and punishment of
The dictatorial regime of President A of the crimes against humanity and war crimes are also
Republic of Gordon was toppled by a customary norms of international and therefore
combined force led by Gen. Abe, former binding on all States. (Prosecutor v. Stakic, ICTY,
royal guards and the secessionist Gordon July 31, 2003)
Peoples Army. The new government
constituted a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission to look into the serious crimes
committed under President As regime. Thus, Republic of Gordon has the obligation under
After the hearings, the Commission international law to prosecute and punish all
recommended that an amnesty law be those involved in the mass killing of the members
passed to cover even those involved in of the indigenous group and providing amnesty to
mass killings of members of indigenous those involved is violative of this obligation.
groups who opposed President A.
International human rights groups argued
that the proposed amnesty law is contrary
to international law. Decide with
II.
reasons. (4%)

Compare and contrast the jurisdiction of the

Suggested Answer:
International Criminal Court and
International Court of Justice. (3%)

The proposed amnesty law is contrary to

international law.
Suggested Answer:

The indigenous group may constitute an ethnic

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
group which is protected by the law on Genocide.
(ICC) primarily deals with the prosecution of
If the mass killing was committed with the intent
individuals for core international crimes, while the
to destroy (dolus specialis) the said ethnic group
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
as such, in whole or in part, then the crime of
(ICJ) deals with contentious proceedings between
Genocide was committed. The international norm
States.
for the prevention, prosecution and punishment
of Genocide is a peremptory (just cogens) norm
of international law and, therefore, non-
derogable. (Prosecutor v. Blagojevic and Jokic,
As to subject matter jurisdiction (ratione
ICTY, January 17, 2005)
materiae), the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to
the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole, particularly:
(a) the Crime of Genocide; (b) Crimes against
Humanity; (c) War crimes; and (d) the Crime of
Aggression. (R. Sarmiento, Public International
Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, p. 308).
On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the ICJ
covers legal disputes which the States refer to it.
This includes disputes concerning: (a) the
interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of
international law; (c) the existence of any fact
which, if established, would constitute a breach of
an international obligation; and (d) the nature or
extent of the reparation to be made for the
breach of an international obligation. (Article 36,
ICJ Statute) The ICJ also has jurisdiction to give an
advisory opinion on any legal question as may be
requested by the General Assembly or the
Security Council or on legal questions arising
within the scope of the activities of other organs
and specialized agencies of the U.N. upon their
request and when so authorized by the General
Assembly. (Article 96, U.N. Charter)
As to jurisdiction over the persons or parties
(ratione personae), the ICC shall have the power
to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the
most serious crimes of international concern, and
shall be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions. (Art. 1, Rome Statute) On the other
hand, only States may be parties in cases before
the ICJ and their consent is needed for the ICJ to
acquire jurisdiction. (R. Sarmiento, Public
International Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised
Edition, p. 185)
III.
A, a British photojournalist, was covering
the violent protests of the Thai Red-Shirts
Movement in Bangkok. Despite warnings
given by the Thai Prime Minister to
foreigners, specially journalists, A moved
around the Thai capital. In the course of his
coverage, he was killed with a stray bullet
which was later identified as having come
from the ranks of the Red-Shirts. The wife
of A sought relief from Thai authorities but
was refused assistance.
A. Is there state responsibility on the part
of Thailand? (2%)
B. What is the appropriate remedy
available to the victims family under
international law? (3%)
Suggested Answer:
A. No, there is no state responsibility on the
part of Thailand because the acts of the Thai Red-
Shirts were not the acts of Thailand. Under the
Principle of Attribution or Imputation, a State only
incurs liability for individual acts or omission
which can be attributed to it. The Thai Red-Shirts
are not its officials, agents, or representatives
and they were not acting on the instructions of, or
under the direction or control of, the Thai
Government. (R. Sarmiento, Public International
Law Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, pp. 65-
66)
B. Unless the Red-Shirts becomes the new
Government of Thailand or Thailand
acknowledges and adopts the conduct of the Red-
Shirts as its own, the victims family has no
appropriate remedy under international law. Their
remedy, if any, if only available under the
domestic laws of Thailand by the institution of the
appropriate criminal cases against the persons
responsible for A killing and the filing of an action
to recover damages arising from As death.
IV.
Choose the statement which appropriately
completes the opening phrase:
A State which resorts to retorsion in D. A State which resorts to retorsion in
international law international law should apply proportionate
response within appreciable limits.

A. must ensure that all states consent to

its act. Retorsion consists in retaliation where the acts
complained of do not constitute a legal ground of
B. cannot curtail migration from the offense but are rather in the nature of unfriendly
offending state. acts done primarily in pursuance of legitimate
State interests but indirectly hurtful to other
C. can expel the nationals of the offending States. (R. Sarmiento, Public International Law
state. Bar Reviewer, 2009 Revised Edition, p. 233)

D. should apply proportionate response

within appreciable limit.
To be valid in international law, acts of retorsion
E. None of the above. should not be excessive when compared to the
unfriendly acts committed by the offending State.
Moreover, they should not violate a States
obligation under Article 2(3) of the U.N. Charter to
Explain your answer. (2%) settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security and
justice are not endangered.

Suggested Answer: