For Private Circulation Only MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Year-II Semester-III: Academic Year : 2020-2021 Second Open Book Assessment, November - 2020 3.2 International Law Total Marks: Thirty (30) Instructions: 1. 2. 3 4, an Read the questions carefully and answer. No clarification shall be sought on the question paper Use the Answer File Template sent by Examination Section and fill the necessary information Answer File Nomenclature: UID and Course Name (For Example- UID: UG2020- 01 & Course Name: 1.1 Legal Methods, Answer File Nomenclature: 2020- OlLegalmethods), Use of open resource(s) to answer the question(s) permitted, Email the answers in MS Word File to the respective course teacher/s on or before 2.00 pm, November 8, 2020 (Sunday), without fail Note: Attempt any THREE (3) questions. All questions carry equal marks. 1. Assume that it is possible to appeal from the award of 21 May 2020 of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The 'Enrica Lexie' Incident (Italy v. India). Draftthe grounds of appeal for India with appropriate explanation. 10 Marks 2. The State of NorthSea and SouthSea are sharing a long border with each other. Both the States are members of the United Nations and all major international law treaties. But due to the post-colonial politics, both the States are not satisfied with the demarcation of the border. Both States claim extended territory over the territory of other, and this has resulted into clashes several times in the past. But due to sudden discovery of uranium in the bordering region of the State of SouthSea, the matter of border claims turned into a high voltage military action from the side of the State of NorthSea. It conquered the whole eastern bordering region of the State of SouthSea and started developing facilties to extract uranium, Initially, the State of SouthSea was unprepared to retaliate against the military action of the State of NorthSea. But after the chilly winter got over, armed forces of the State of SouthSea launched a heavy counter attack against the armed forces of the State of NorthSea. By the end of two months military action, the State of SouthSea was able to remove the soldiers of NorthSea from its territory, and captured the entire western province of the State of NorthSea Since the beginning of this armed conflict, the United Nations and the world leaders are calling upon both the parties to come to a peaceful agreement over their bordering areas and stop the use of force. Taking the chance of the victory in the war, the State of SouthSea signed a peace treaty with the State of NorthSea wherein both States agreed 1For Private Circulation Only not to resort to force in future relating to border disputes and a portion of the western province of the State of NorthSea was ceded to the State of SouthSea, -Comment of the validity of the peace treaty with proper explanation citing the rules of Jaw of treaties, use of force and self-defence, and any other legal consequences State of Uzistan is ruled by a military government since 2010. All forms of political and civil rights have been suspended due to the declaration of emergency under martial law. However there is one rebel group, mainly supported by the civilian government in exile of the State of Uzistan, are resisting this military authority. Due to this armed resistance there is also a situation of armed conflict prevailing in the State of Uzistan since 2013. There are also reports of massive violations of human rights in the State of Uzistan, ‘These reports have triggered a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations in imposing an arms embargo on the State of Uzistan since 2017. Even though a cargo ship destining to the sea port of the State of Uzistan with a large quantity of arms and ammunitions ordered by the military government started sailing from the State of Kijistan in 2019, The ship was registered in the State of Kijistan and flying Kijistani flag. The civilian government in exile of the State of Uzistan received intelligence input about this shipment of arms and ammunitions, Further it informed this matter to the Government of Tajistan and requested for intervention. As the Govemment of Tajistan was sympathetic tothe civilian government in exile of the State of Uzistan and in favour of the Security Council's sanction, planned a naval operation to impose the arms embargo. The navy of the State of Tajistan intercepted the ship in the territorial waters of the State of Biristan and executed the operation. Seven crew members who were resisting the attack on the ship were killed during the operation of the Tajistani navy. Finally the Tajistani Navy confiscated the ship, arms and ammunitions and detained the remaining crewmembers of the ship who are nationals of the State of Kijistan. ‘The State of Kijistan protested against this naval operation of the State of Tajstan and asked for compensation for the damage and detention of their ship and the cargo holdings. Ttalso asked for the release of the ship, crewmembers and the cargo holdings, and demanded the extradition of the navy personnel who are responsible for the death of the seven crew members for trial. The State of Biristan also protested against this operation as a violation of its sovereignty and requested for return of the ship, crew members and the cargo holdings to their custody. However, the State of Tajistan claimed that they acted within the mandate of the resolution of the Security Council and humanitarian principles to save the civilian population of the State of Uzistan, -Considering the facts mentioned above, (i) identify the relevant rules of public international law that would be applicable to this case and (i) Discuss the legal impacts of the operation with respect to the legal arguments of Kijistan, Tajistan and Biristan It will be assumed that all the States are parties to major international treaties and conventions. 10 MarksFor Private Circulation Only 4, The State of MiLand and GiLand are sharing a long border with each other which is mostly unguarded since their separation from the JiliLand Empire in 2000, In the State of MiLand parliamentary election was scheduled in the month of May 2019. Twomajor political parties, the Mango Party and the Banana Party, were campaigning for the election. Along with several other issues, the issue of expulsion of illegal nationals/ immigrants of GiLandian origin were of high voltage. The Banana Party promised that all such illegal nationals/ immigrants originating from GiLand who are presently staying in the territory of the State of MiLand would not be harmed if they come to power, moreover it would take every necessary steps to regularize their citizenship claims through a law, But the Mango Party was offensive towards the people of GiLandian origin residing in MiLand, In the past, they called for nationwide protest against the people of GiLandian origin and asked fortheir expulsion to GiLand. During the election process in 2019, the Mango Party promised that each of these illegal nationals/ immigrants of GiLandian origin would be expelled from MiLand once it come to power. The government of the State of GiLand was aware of this threat to the people of GiLandian origin residing in Miland and could imagine the horror that was coming to the life of these innocent people. The State of GiLand came up with its own plan to save these people from a situation of statelessness. It passed a law with immediate effect enabling that all those people residing in the territory of MiLand who could produce a Jegal/ identification document to prove their connection to GiLand were to be regarded as GiLandian nationals regardless of their acceptance of any other nationality. After the election, the Mango Party came to power in the State of MiLand, Following this political development, certain extremist groups took the opportunity to organize violent demonstrations, During the series of demonstrations, property belonging to the people of GiLandian origin were destroyed and 250 people have been killed. The newly elected Mango Party government didn’t do anything to prevent such damage to private property and lives, however it condemned such attacks and promised to bring. the perpetrators to justice. However, the promises were not kept and the violations to the life and property of the people of GiLandian origin living in MiLand was continued The State of GiLand did not want to witness the atrocities inflicted upon the people of GiLandian origin living in MiLand, It sent several officers of the Special Operation Forces to MiLand in disguise to collect information, However these officers got hold of two key extremist MiLandian leaders, ultimately arrested them and smuggled them into GiLand for trail, The State of MiLand protested the violation of their sovereignty by the officers of the Special Operation Forces of GiLand, and asked for the release of the two leaders, The State of GiLand rejected the commission of any such act and requested the State of MiLand to protect the life and property of the people of GiLandian origin living in MiLand, However, diplomatic and political pressure were increasing on both the States to resolve this conflict peacefully, -You are a legal advisor working in the GiLandian Foreign Affairs Ministry, You are asked to prepare a document containing- (i) the claims that the State of MiLand may possibly bring before the ICJ and the arguments behind the claims, (ji) the claims that the State of GiLand may possibly bring before the ICJ and the arguments behind such claims. Both the States recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ in accordance with ArticlePy For Private Circulation Only 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and parties to all major international law treaties “No reality- based discussion of Charter revision can ignore Article 108, which allows for amendments by two-thirds of the General Assembly members but require ratification by all the Security Council permanent members in order for those amendments 10 come into force. This does not mean that reform is unattainable, but rather that international constitutional amendment, in its conventional understanding, 1s the least likely to succeed and to be satisfactory.” - WM Reisman (1994) Amending the UN charter, Symposium on Reforming the United Nations. Am Soc Int Law Proc 88: 105, -Consider the statement and analyse the aspirations of several States such as India, Brazil, South Africa and Japan in the matter of structural reforms in the Security Council of the United Nations. 10 Marks