THIS PAPER IS NOT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXAMINATION HALLS

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON LA2029

LLB
DIPLOMA IN THE COMMON LAW
BSc DEGREES WITH LAW

International protection of human rights

Friday 8 June 2018: 14.30 – 17.45

Candidates will have THREE HOURS AND FIFTEEN MINUTES in which to

answer the questions.

Candidates must answer FOUR of the following EIGHT questions.

Candidates must answer all parts of a question unless otherwise stated.

Permitted materials
Students are permitted to bring into the examination room the following
specified document: one copy of Core Documents on European and
International Human Rights (Palgrave Macmillan).

© University of London 2018

UL18/0369
Page 1 of 3
1. ‘It is difficult to challenge the notion that human rights, as articulated by
international law, represent uncontested universal norms that are
equally relevant to all.’

Discuss.

2. ‘The global “#metoo movement” on social media in response to

widespread allegations of sexual harassment and assaults against
women has highlighted the shortcomings of the approach and scope of
the Women’s Convention.’

Discuss.

3. ‘The Children’s Convention is based on the mistaken premise that

children can enjoy rights independently of others. It is for this reason
that their rights continue to be systematically abused.’

Discuss.

4. ‘The right to religious liberty is at best a peripheral right in contemporary

society.’

Discuss.

5. ‘Regional human rights bodies are the only effective way to protect
human rights.’

Discuss with reference to regional human rights treaties. (DO NOT

discuss United Nations systems.)

6. ‘Almost every aspect of the United Nations system for the protection of
human rights has been politicized. Until this is properly addressed, the
UN system cannot work effectively.’

Discuss.

7. ‘A number of developments over the last seventy years or so mean that

atrocities committed during armed conflict will now be appropriately
addressed by the law and the institutions that have been established.’

Discuss.

UL18/0369
Page 2 of 3
8. Norton and Karpinsky are (fictional) states which share a lengthy border.
There is a long history of tension between the two countries. Norton and
Karpinsky have long coastal shores. The coastline is ragged and it is
difficult, without highly advanced navigational equipment, to know
precisely when the maritime boundary (which delimits each state’s claim
over the sea adjoining its coastline) has been crossed. Fishermen from
both states are frequently arrested and imprisoned by coastal patrols
from the other state for having crossed the maritime boundary. The
government of Karpinsky suspects explosives are being smuggled into
its territory by, among others, fishermen from Norton and provided to
spies or terrorists associated with that country.

Ivan and Pietr are both Norton nationals and work as fishermen in the
sea which adjoins the coasts. Three months ago Ivan and Pietr crossed
the maritime boundary into the sea adjoining Karpinsky’s coast in their
fishing boat. A Karpinsky patrol ship intercepted them and they were
arrested on suspicion that they were terrorists from Norton or smuggling
explosives into Karpinsky. Ivan and Pietr were taken to a police station
in Karpinsky, where they were held separately in adjoining police cells
and questioned by officials. Ivan was punched in the face several times,
slapped a few times and sworn at many times by the officials. Ivan
subsequently had his knees hit with a cricket bat, causing significant pain
and discomfort. Ivan soiled himself during the interrogations. He was
not provided with adequate medical assistance or a change of clothes at
any time. Pietr, from his cell, could clearly hear Ivan’s mistreatment.
The police did not physically assault Pietr but did put him in a cell with
very bright lights which were always on and the police played loud music
continuously in the cell. Pietr was not given any food but was provided
with water.

After two months in the detention, both Ivan and Pietr were blindfolded
and transported by helicopter to a ship. Ivan and Pietr did not recognise
or understand the language spoken by their captors but one of the
officials could converse with them in their own language. On the ship,
both Ivan and Pietr were subjected to beatings. Furthermore, they were
on several occasions thrown into the sea when sharks were in close
proximity but they were retrieved each time just before the sharks could
attack them. After three days of questioning and beatings on the ship
Ivan and Pietr were thrown overboard but they were only three miles out
to sea and were able to swim back to the shore of Norton.

Karpinsky and Norton are both parties to the 1966 International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the (first) Optional Protocol to the
Covenant, the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the
1951 European Convention on Human Rights. Assuming, where
relevant, all domestic remedies have been exhausted, advise Ivan and
Pietr as to any rights which may have been violated and the possible
avenues of redress which the aforementioned mechanisms may provide.

END OF PAPER
UL18/0369
Page 3 of 3