EXERCISES FOR INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT

Year 2018/2019

Case 1:

State A and State B were in tension on territorial border disputes. State A

claims, in case of necessity, it would use armed forces to solve territorial disputes
with State B.

On May 5, 2009, State A declared its success in enriching uranium at large-

scale. Although State A's government declares its uranium would be used to
produce civil electricity, some States accused State A of pursuing a program to
produce nuclear weapons. Due to the concerns of State A's declarations, on May
8, 2009, State B bombed the territory of State A to destroy its nuclear facilities.

According to the principle of prohibition on threat or use of force which is

embodied in the Charter of the United Nations,

- Is State B's acts of bombing State A's territory consistent with

international law? Why?

- What measures can be used to resolve disputes between State A and State
B?

Case 2:

Mr. A was a diplomatic officer of State X to State Y. On the Christmas

holiday, Mr. A returned to his home country to visit family. At the airport of State
Y, there was justifiable evidence denoting some antiques are in Mr. A’s
belongings. These antiques were prohibited goods for export under State Y's law.
Then, security staffs asked Mr. A to open his suitcase for inspection but Mr. A
expressly opposed such action.

1
 According to the Viena Convention on diplomatic relations (1961), answer
the following questions:

- Whether State Y's security staffs are entitled to open Mr. A’s suitcase to
check his luggage?

- Whether Mr. A is in custody or detention for criminal prosecution by the

competent authority of state Y?

Case 3:

After many rounds of negotiations, on October 25, 2012, the Foreign

Ministers of State A and State B signed a Minutes of meeting on trade cooperation
between the two States. This Minutes not only summarizes the entire negotiation
process, but also regulates the items of goods and schedule of tax reductions
agreed by the two States. Section 18 of this Minutes also stipulates: "This
document is enter into force immediately after signing".

Then, State B did not implement the above Minutes on the grounds that:
(i) "Minutes" is not an international treaty that legally binding the two parties; (ii)
When signing the Minutes, both foreign ministers do not have letters of
authorization from the two states.

According to the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties between states

(1969), answer the following questions:

- Is the above Minutes an international treaty? Why?

- Do the foreign ministers of state A and state B have to submit a letter of

authorization when signing international agreements on behalf of those countries?
Why?

Case 4:

2
 In 2010, State A and State B negotiated a treaty on joint development at
sea, in which they agreed that the treaty would enter into force immediately after
signing. On January 3, 2012, the treaty was signed at the official signing
ceremony.

Then State A objected to implement the treaty on the grounds: (i) some
provisions of the treaty are inconsistent with State A’s internal law; (ii) the treaty
has not been registered with the United Nations Secretariat.

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), answer

the following questions:

- Can state A invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform
treaty? Why?

- How does the registration with the Secretariat affect the validity of the
treaty?

Case 5:

Mr. X (a national of State A) is appointed as a head of consular post of

State A to State B. On December 10, 2012, Mr. X took advantage of his position
to use a merchant ship (flagged of State A) to transport drugs. When the ship was
in the territorial sea of State B, State B’s coast guard conducted search and seized
2 kg of heroin therein. The authority of State B decided to prosecute Mr. X for
illegal possession and transportation drugs (a serious crime under State B’s
Criminal Code).

Mr. X argued that the conducts of State B’s was illegal because: (i) Only
State A had jurisdiction on searching and arresting the ship flagged State A; (ii)
Mr. X, as a head of consular post of State A to State B, was entitled to immunity
so he shall not be brough to trial by State B’ s national court.

Questions:
3
 - Whether the conducts of State B’s Coastal Guard to search and arrest ship
X are in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(1982)? Why?

- Is Mr. X entitled to get criminal immunity under the Vienna Convention

on Consular Relations (1963)? Why?

Case 6:

On 12/1/2011, a merchant ship X (flagged of State A) exploited fishes in

State B’s contigous zone without prior consent of the State B. When State B' s
coast guard found this violation, ship X fled. Then State B dispatched a
government ship to pursue Ship X.

When Ship X was at high sea, it was caught and arrested by State B’s
government ship. After gathering sufficient evidences, State B’s authorities
prosecuted the captain and the crew to trial under State B’s law. The captain of
Ship X was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982),

- Whether the acts of State B on pursuiting and arresting Ship X are

violations of international law? Why?

- Whether the acts of State B on prosecuting and deciding the punishment

for the captain and the crew of Ship X are lawful? Why?

Case 7:

A merchant ship X (flagged of State A) was hired to transport oil from

State A to State B. While ship X was in the territorial sea of State B, it collided
with a fishing ship Y (flagged of state B). Ship X was cut in two and all oil on the
ship spilled into the sea. For repairation of the damage, State B took several urgent
measures, including a temporary suspension of the innocent passage of all foreign

4
ship in oil-contaminated territorial waters. Concurrently, State B proceeded to
investigate and prosecute the captain and the crew of ship X to State B’s court.
State A immediately opposed the prosecution of State B’s court on the reason
that: Ship X was flagged of State A, so only State A had jurisdiction over
prosecuting its the captain and the crew.

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982),

- Which State has jurisdiction over the captain and the crew of ship X in
the above collision? Why?

- Can State B temporarily suspend the innocent passage of all foreign ship
in oil-contaminated territorial waters? Why?

Case 8:

Merchant ship S (flagged of State A) was passing through the territorial

waters of State B (without entering the internal waters). On board, sailors fighted
with each other, causing death of one person die and three seriously injured. The
captain of the ship S requested State B to provide medical assistance. State B
decided to temporarily seize ship S and conducted an investigation to clarify the
case and brough the case to State B's court. State A objected and affirmed the
jurisdiction over the above case belongs to State A only.

Relations between the two States become tension therefor State B decided
to suspend the innocent passage of ships which flagged of State A while ships
flagged of other States still enjoyed innocent passage through the teritorial sea of
State B.

According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982),

- Does state B have criminal jurisdiction over the above case? Why?

5
 - Is it legal for State B to suspend the innocent passage of ships flagged of
State A through in the territorial waters of State B. Why?