a ELINA . O042T1591 Se, Monash University Faculty of Law. Semester 2, 2013 Examination Period EXAM CODES: LAW4122 TITLE OF PAPER: International Law EXAM DURATION: 2 hours writing time (if optional assignment submitted) OR 3 hours writing time (if NO optional assignment submitted) READING TIME: 30 minutes settling/reading and noting time THIS PAPER IS FOR STUDENTS STUDYING AT:( tick where applicable) DBewick Clayton CMalaysia C1. Off Campus Learning 1 Open Learning CCaulfield Gippsiand C1 Peninsula C1 Enhancement Studies 11 Sth Africa OPharmacy C1 Other (specify) During an exam, you must not have in your possession, a book, notes, paper, electronic device/s, calculator, pencil case, mobile phone or ather material/item which has not been authorised for the exam or specifically permitted as noted below. Any material or item on your desk, chair or person will be deemed to be in your possession. You are reminded that possession of unauthorised materials in an exam is a discipine offence under Monash Statute 4.1 No examination papers are to be removed from the room. AUTHORISED MATERIALS CALCULATORS YES NO OPEN BOOK BYES No ‘SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED ITEMS DYES NO if yes, items permitted are: Candidates must complete this section if required to write answers within this paper DESK NUMBER STUDENT ID Page 1 of 7INSTRUCTIONS TO GANDIDATES 1. The duration of the exam allows time for you to plan your answers, and you are strongly encouraged to do so. 2. The standard of expression, spelling, punctuation and grammar will be taken into account in the assessment of your answers in this examination. Please note that it is your responsibility to ensure that your handwriting is iegible. 3. Write your student ID number (but NOT your name) on the cover of each answer booklet used. ‘This examination paper consists of TWO PARTS: Part A and Part B. 5, Part A contains 1 question and is worth 60 marks. ALL candidates are required to answer ALL parts of question 1 in Part A. This part is worth 60% of the final mark for this unit. 6. Students who did not complete the optional assignment are required to answer Part B. This part is worth 40% of the final mark in this unit. 7. Part B contains 1 question. Students required to answer Part B must answer all parts of that question. .. Students attempting Part B should use a separate booklet or booklets. Page 2 of 7PARTA {All students must attempt Part A) Question 1 (60 marks) Ando is a state which achieved independence in 1964. It was formerly a colony of Colonia. Soon after independence, tensions between the two main groups, the Dragos and the Lakas emerged. The Dragos, who constitute the majority ethnic group in Ando, are mainly concentrated in the fertile west of the state. On the eastem side of Ando, separated from the west by the Andon mountain range, 80% of the population are ethnic Lakas. The land in the east is barely fertile. Ando’s easterly border is with the state of Bratal. Since 1980, Ando has been ruled by a military dictatorship under the leadership of General Sogard, a member of the Dragos ethnic group. General Sogard has concentrated government spending in the west of Ando, where schools, roads and hospitals are of a good standard. Government jobs (and most private sector jobs) in Ando are restricted to ethnic Dragossians. Those living in the east rely mainly on subsistence agriculture and live in villages governed by traditional law. They receive no government assistance and the only public infrastructure which exists was built during colonisation. On 1 January 2013, a group calling itself “Free Lakas”, made the following proclamation through their spokesperson, Tyron: “For more than 40 years we have been abandoned by the government of Ando. We have supported ourselves, resolved our own disputes, and followed our own ways of life. General Sogard does not want us, We do not want him! From this day forth we are a free people; a free country: the Republic of Lakas!”” Prior to the proclamation, 80% of the villages in eastem Ando pledged their support for the Free Lakas movement and endorsed Tyron as their leader, pending elections which Tyron has promiised to organise as soon as possible. When asked for comment on the proclamation, General Sogard stated: “Irrelevant people say irrelevant things. The unity of Ando is beyond question.” On 1 March, the governments of Bratal and Colonia recognised the Republic of Lakas as an independent state, under the leadership of Tyron. This event passed without comment from General Sogard. On 15 March, a geology report commissioned by the Free Lakas group (and paid for by a donation from Bratal) showed evidence of vast mineral wealth in the territory claimed by the Free Lakas group. News of the geology report reached General Sogard on 30 March 2013. On 1 April 2013 he issued the following statement: “Those who seek to undermine the unity of Ando are the scum of the earth. The people of Ando are proud and strong, We will not let terrorists divide our land!” On 2 April, the United Nations Security Council issued a resolution which: © Declared the situation in Ando to be a threat to international peace and security; # Urged ail sides of the dispute to seek peacefull means of resolving it; © Condemned all forms of terrorism; © Resolved that civilians must not be subject to attack Page 3 of7In response to the resolution, General Sogard’s deputy, and chief of the army, Major Eon, declared: “There are no civilians among the Lakas. They are all terrorists. Those who do not denounce the false claims to independence must die! We will clear the land of all trace of them!” On 5 April, the Dragos military commenced bombings on Lakas villages. Tens of thousands of villagers were killed. Tyron immediately requested the assistance of Bratal and Colonia. On 6 April, Colonia commenced bombings of military targets in Ando, in particular secking to destroy communications targets and military equipment. It also targeted the palaces and offices where General Sogard and his family were thought to reside, It used its military aircraft to drop food aid to villages on both sides of the Andon mountain range. On the same day, Bratal delivered a cache of weapons to Tyron, for distribution to ethnic Lakas. Military commanders of Bratal held training sessions in Lakas villages on how to use the weapons and, in particular, how to engage in guerrilla warfare by targeting weaker targets and spreading fear. Booklets distributed at the training sessions stated: “the weak can become the strong — you must defend yourselves with all the ferocity with which you have been attacked.” Over the following weeks, groups of ethnic Lakas who had received this training crossed the mountain range and attacked villages of ethnic Dragossians, Reports have emerged of such groups killing unarmed men, women and children. On 10 April, facing intense diplomatic pressure, General Sogard sought to distance himself from the ‘worst episodes of the conflict by sacking Major Eon. On 12 April, Bratal issued an arrest warrant for Major Eon. Later that day, Bratal military personnel abducted Major Eon from his home in Ando and removed him to Bratal, where he will soon stand trial. (Earlier in the year Bratal had enacted legislation making the commission of genacide anywhere in the world a crime punishable by Bratal law.) Both Ando and Bratal are parties to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and have unconditionally submitted to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under art 36(2) of the ICI Statute. Ando, Bratal and Colonia are all members of the United Nations. Advise Ando, in respect of international law: a) Was the proclamation made by the “Free Lakas” on | January 2013 lawful? What was its legal effect, in light of subsequent events? (12 marks) b) On what basis might Ando argue that the recognition of the Republic of Lakas by Bratal and Colonia was unlawful? (3 marks) ©) Were the actions of Colonia and Bratal during the conflict permitted by intemational law? (30 marks) {note ~ sub-questions (d) to (¢) are on the next page] Page 4 of 74) Assuming that the actions of the ethnic Lakas in Dragossian villages constitute acts which, if done by a state, would constitute breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, is Bratal responsible for those actions? (§ marks) e) Was the issuing by Bratal of the arrest warrant for Major Eon, and his subsequent arrest, internationally wrongful? If so, what is the likely remedy? (10 marks) Page $ of 7PART B (Students who did not attempt the optional assignment must attempt Part B) Question 2 (40 marks) Petro, Qaris and Ruania are coastal states. Their borders are shown in Map 1 (set out below). In 2010, Petro and Ruania concluded and each ratified a treaty which provided for joint exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf adjacent to their states, which extends more than 100 nautical miles off the coast. The boundaries of the continental shelf, as claimed by Petro and Ruania, and the area under planned exploration, are also set out in Map 1 Under the treaty, Petro and Ruania agreed to: i) _~ delimit the continental shelf on the basis of the equidistance principle alone; ii) share the costs, risks and profits arising from the exploration and exploitation of resources under the sea-bed; iii) oppose any challenge to the delimitation of the shelf boundaries by Qaris, iv) agree a plan of works and responsibilities and review it on an ongoing basis, At the time of the agreement, Qaris lodged an official diplomatic protest with the governments of Petro and Ruania, rejecting the basis of their delimitation of the continental shelf. The first phase of exploration took two years and was conducted by Ruania at a cost of $10 million. ‘The report issued in March 2012 showed natural gas reserves worth $2 billion. It also noted that the construction and running of offshore drilling platforms would damage coral and disrupt the migration pattems of key fish species in the area. Soon after, Petro and Ruania revised the plan of ‘works to provide for a second phase under which Petro would commence construction of the drilling platforms in December 2012, and begin installing them in 2013. Qaris’s economy depends largely on fishing. When it received news of the report it lodged further protests with the governments of Petro and Ruania. In October 2012, the Sea-Green Party won a surprise election victory in Petro. The new government quickly announced its solidarity with Qaris’s environmental concerns. It commissioned an environmental study into the proposed drilling platforms. That study found that damage to the environment could be minimised by constructing the platforms according to the strictest standards, Dut this would push the overall cost of construction to $1.6 billion. The major engineers’ and constructors’ union in Petro (whose members comprised all the Workers in Petro qualified to work cn the project) resolved that they would not be part of any project which did not protect the environment to the maximum extent. In November 2012, in light of pressure from its citizens and unions, the government of Petro passed laws prohibiting investment by the government in environmentally damaging projects. It also issued a statement calling for a new multilateral agreement on the delimitation of the continental shelf. In December 2012 the government issued a formal notice suspending works on the project until further notice. In January 2013, Ruania announced that if Petro was no longer willing to contribute to the project, it would proceed on its own and claim all the profits. By February 2013 it had commenced Page 6 of 7construction of materials for the platforms but would not be in a position to begin installation until 2014 at the earliest. Petro and Ruania are not parties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ot the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They have both submitted unconditionally to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The government of Petro asks you for advice on the following: a) Is the method of delimiting the continental shelf boundaries chosen by Petro and Ruania consistent with customary international law? (8 marks) b) What is the effect of the treaty on Qaris’s sovereign rights? (4 marks) ©) Could the effect discussed in (b), if any, impact on the validity of the treaty? (8 marks) 4) If the treaty is valid, does Petro have lawful grounds for suspending performance of its obligations under the treaty, and could any of those grounds support a later decision to terminate the treaty? (20 marks) Proposed site of natural gat MaP1 exploration t SoS a OT RUAMIA 5 50 nautical miles Dotted lines 7 indicate SO nautica) Proposed miles continental shelf boundaries under 2010 treaty 1 Y _ Page 7 of 7