Reference no: EM131389847

Vienna Convention And Other International Law Problems

1. Morocco has signed the International Whaling Convention, but has not ratified it. What legal obligation, if any, does Morocco have under the Convention?

2. Article 23(a) of the Annex to Convention (No. IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land specifically prohibits the use of "poison or poisoned weapons." Radiation from nuclear explosions can poison people. The conference of the parties to the convention has never considered the convention to apply to nuclear weapons. Does the prohibition in Article 23(a) apply to nuclear weapons? (JD)

3. The government of Brazil and British Petroleum (BP) have entered into an agreement for BP to explore oil in the Amazon rain forest. When BP finds a huge deposit of oil, Brazil cancels the agreement and decides to engage in development of the oil resource by itself. Is there a violation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

What if the UK government had entered into an agreement with Brazil on behalf of all of its corporations, setting out rights and obligations of UK companies doing business in Brazil. If cancellation of the BP-Brazil agreement violates the UK-Brazil agreement, would the UK have a claim for treaty breach?

4. After much public debate, the United States has decided to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. However, to protect its economy, it would like to include a reservation to its ratification document. The reservation rejects the emissions limits of Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol that apply to the United States. Annex B limits the greenhouse gas emissions of all developed countries by setting out individual emissions reduction targets. It does not set out emissions limits for developing countries. Article 26 of the Kyoto Protocol prohibits reservations. What effect?
What effect if the US were to enter a reservation to article 26 also?

5. Same facts as #4. Assume that Article 26 does not exist, i.e. reservations are permitted. The U.S. ratifies the Kyoto Protocol subject to the above-described reservation. However, per governmental policy, the U.S. complies with its Annex B limits on greenhouse gas emissions. It then discovers that France has failed to comply with its Annex B limits. Can the U.S. claim a treaty violation by France?

6. The Nile River flows though three countries - Egypt, Sudan, and Uganda. Recently, Uganda and Sudan entered into a treaty concerning the use and conservation of the Nile. Egypt refused to take part in the negotiations. Did the treaty nonetheless create legal rights for Egypt?

7. In 1996 a multilateral treaty was concluded regarding the international maritime transport of hazardous and noxious substances. Article 46 provides that the treaty enters into effect only if "at least twelve States, including four States each with not less than 2 million units of gross tonnage, have expressed their consent to be bound by it." 8 states have deposited ratifications. Only two of these states have more than 2 million units of gross tonnage. Is the treaty legally effective? What effect if an additional 10 states deposit ratification instruments, but none have more than 20 million units gross tonnage?

8. Country X, which has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, now wishes to be no longer bound under the Covenant. The Covenant contains no provisions concerning termination or withdrawal. What must Country X do to escape its obligations under the Covenant?

9. About 50 years ago, Country X and Y both ratified a law enforcement treaty in which they agreed to "take all measures necessary and appropriate for the interrogation of suspected criminals." Recently, a citizen of Country X was arrested and tortured for alleged drug trafficking in Country Y. Can Country Y use the treaty to show that torture was necessary and appropriate?

10. Country X and Y, two neighboring countries, have entered into an agreement to reduce air pollution in their region. The treaty requires both countries to reduce their respective contributions to the regional air pollution by 50%. Country X has only been able to reduce its air pollution by 45%. Enraged, Country Y seeks to take revenge by issuing new pollution permits that will undo all of its own pollution reductions needed to comply with the treaty. Is Country Y in violation of the treaty?

11. The intergovernmental negotiation committee (INC), made up of government representatives from all around the world, has just concluded negotiations of the Minamata Mercury Convention (MMC). At the end of the last INC meeting, all of the participating negotiators take a vote of agreement on the final text. The governmental representatives participating in the negotiations were both lower level foreign ministry staffers from some countries and high level officials from other countries. All of them cast votes in support of the final draft document, except the representative from North Korea.

Can a member of an Alaskan Inuit community bring a claim against various governments for mercury pollution that violates the new MMC provisions (because mercury pollution can be found as far as the Arctic region)?

What if the Canadian government decides to bring such a claim on behalf of the Innuit?

Later in October, the plenipotentiaries or their official representatives are holding an official conference to adopt the treaty. The vote is unanimous, with the exception of North Korea again. Afterwards, North Korea claims that the treaty has not been validly adopted. The Inuit and Canada want to raise a treaty violation claim again. What result?

Five years later, North Korea has not signed the original MMC, and the time period for signature and ratification has expired. The MMC has now entered into force. The MMC has a provision that allows ratification within 3 years of adoption and accession at any time. Can North Korea still become a party?

12. After adoption of the MMC, the US signs but does not ratify it. Subsequently, because of a change in Presidential Administration, there is also a change in policy. The new Administration opposes the MMC. The US then proceeds to: 1) continue ongoing trade in mercury with many countries, an activity that the MMC requires to be phased out eventually, 2) enter into agreements with several other governments to promote the continued and increased use of mercury in gold mining and various products, even though the treaty requires that mercury containing products and use be phased out.

UK PM David Cameron is very upset by these developments and wants to raise these actions as legal breaches of the US' obligation under international law. What result?

13. Assuming that the MMC specifies that it enters into force after 30 countries have ratified it. After ratification by 25 countries, country A would like to raise a concern about a violation of the treaty terms by one of the other countries that has already ratified it. Could country A commence a dispute settlement action for a treaty violation?

14. Some years after the MMC has entered into force, country A's legislature has decided allow the large-scale export of mercury. This is in direct violation of the MMC's provisions. In response to concerns about the breach, country A responds by saying that its hands are bound and that it is only following its own domestic laws. What result?

15. Because of concerns about its obligations under international law, country A then decides to use an ingenious ploy devised by its lawyers. It decides to withdraw from the treaty, allow for the export (which would just take a few months), and then re-accede to the MMC. What result?

16. True or False?

Canada is a party to a multilateral environmental agreement, which has many other parties. Recently, all of the parties adopted an amendment to the agreement. After 5 years, 90% of the parties have ratified the amendment. However, Canada has not ratified the amendment. The agreement has no provisions that specifically address the treaty amendment process.

Canada is bound by the amendment. True or false?

- True

- False

17. True or False?

Walmart has agreed to supply the Canadian military with 2 million boxes of toilet paper. After 1 million boxes have been delivered, the soldiers complain that the toilet paper is too rough. The Canadian government decides to cancel the order and order toilet paper from another company. Walmart would like to bring a claim in the International Court of Justice to recover lost profits from Canada.

Walmart may recover damages for a treaty violation under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. True or False?

- True

- False

18. Multiple Choice.

In 2000, the governments of Transylvania and Canada have entered into an agreement to promote trade and tourism among the two countries. 10 years later, in 2010, a dispute has arisen about how the word "tourism" should be interpreted in the treaty.

Canada is searching for support for its position. Which of the following is the strongest evidence as to how the treaty should be interpreted?

a) An official interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of the meaning of "tourism" in the treaty.

b) An official interpretation by the International Court of Justice of what "tourism" means in a trade and tourism treaty between 2 other countries.

c) Letters exchanged between both countries in 1995 that address the issue of tourism and discuss the possibility of a future treaty covering the subject.

d) A separate, contemporaneous agreement entered into by Canada and Transylvania in 2000 addressing the visa requirements for travelers to each country, including tourists. This agreement interprets tourists and tourism in a way that supports Canada's position.

19. Fill-in-the-blanks.

The Republic of Transylvania would like to trick Poland into lowering trade tariffs. So Transylvania asks Poland to enter into a friendship treaty. Transylvania provides Poland with a draft agreement text that sets out mutual interests and desires for cooperation. However, in the final agreement that is signed and ratified by Transylvania and Poland, Transylvania has inserted a new footnote (in very small type). The footnote specifies that Poland agrees to lower its trade tariffs for Transylvania. Poland's diplomats and legislators overlooked the footnote when they signed and ratified the agreement.

Please fill in the blank (no more than 100 words):

Poland is legally _____ (bound/not bound) by the footnote because _____________.

20. Fill-in-the-blanks.

The governments of Rumsfeldistan and Cheneystan have entered into a treaty that states the following: "1) The parties to this treaty agree that genocide and torture are NOT governed by international law. 2) Any alleged incidents of genocide or torture can only be remedied by NATIONAL law."

Fill in the blanks (no more than 100 words):

The treaty is ______ (valid/not valid) and the reason is __________.

21. Multiple Choice.

Which one of the following statements would be LEAST PERSUASIVE in supporting the argument that Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration is customary international law. Please select ONE answer.

a) Principle 21 has appeared in many multilateral environmental agreements since 1972.

b) Most countries follow Principle 21.

c) Principle 21 is a good idea.

d) Principle 21 has been adopted as binding law in many national legal systems across the world.

22. Multiple Choice.

Transylvania entered into a treaty of friendship with Poland in 1950. The treaty has no provisions regarding termination of the treaty. In 2010, Poland and Transylvania have become enemies. They jointly decide to terminate the treaty.

Which of the following is TRUE? Select ONE answer.

a) They can terminate the treaty effective immediately.

b) They must give each other at least 6 months notice before they can terminate the treaty.

c) They must give each other at least 12 months notice before they can terminate the treaty.

d) They can never terminate this treaty because a friendship treaty cannot be terminated.

23. Fill-in-the-blanks.

The United States government believes that fish stocks in the North Pacific Ocean are severely overfished. Marine scientists generally agree with that assessment. The US would like to impose a moratorium on fishing in the ENTIRE North Pacific Ocean, including areas outside of its territorial jurisdiction. It proposes to enforce that moratorium through its navy: the US navy will arrest any vessels, whether US or foreign, that engage in fishing activities in the North Pacific.

Please provide 3 reasons/arguments in support of or against US attempt to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction. (Fill in the blanks, no more than 100 words). You may provide arguments for both sides.

US exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction is or is not legally justified under international law because: