MT Questions Flashcards
State A and State B, along with 8 other states, signed a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2015. The Treaty provides that it will enter into force one year after the deposit of the 10th instrument of ratification. As of 2018, only 7 instruments of ratification have been deposited with the UN Secretary-General. Despite signing the treaty, State B has not yet ratified it.
*In 2019, State A accused State B of violating the provisions of the Treaty by building a nuclear reactor, claiming it as an indication of plans to develop nuclear weapons.
Questions:
- Is State B’s first contention (a) valid? Discuss the binding nature of a treaty on signatories before it enters into force. (10 points)
- Is State B’s second contention (b) valid? Discuss the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) to non-parties and how this affects customary international law. (10 points)
- Is State B’s third contention (c) valid? Analyze whether the construction of a nuclear reactor violates the object and purpose of the treaty. (10 points)
signatories to a treaty does not bind
The State of Pentium is facing separatist movements from a group known as the “Celerons,” who have declared the establishment of the “State of Antusia” within Pentium’s territory. The Celerons claim that they have met the necessary elements of statehood, and they are now demanding international recognition. The State of Pentium refuses to recognize the Celerons’ claim and asserts its territorial integrity.
Pentium presents the following arguments:
(a) The “State of Antusia” does not fulfill the elements of statehood under the Montevideo Convention.
(b) Pentium is not obliged to afford the Celerons international rights and recognition, as the Celerons are not considered subjects under international law.
(c) The actions of the revolutionary government of the Celerons, also known as the ICLM, violate Pentium’s right to territorial integrity.
Questions:
- Is the State of Pentium correct in arguing that the Celerons do not fulfill the elements of statehood under the Montevideo Convention? (10 points)
- Does Pentium have an obligation to recognize and grant international rights to the Celerons under international law? (10 points)
- Does the establishment of the ICLM’s revolutionary government violate Pentium’s right to territorial integrity under international law? (10 points)
In 2010, States A and B entered into a bilateral treaty for the construction of a dam on their shared river, with the aim of improving irrigation and electricity supply in both countries. In 2020, State A experienced financial difficulties and discovered that the dam was not yielding the expected improvements in irrigation and electricity supply. Without consulting State B, State A immediately declared the termination of the treaty, claiming that the circumstances had fundamentally changed since the treaty was signed.
State B objected to the termination and argued that State A’s unilateral action was not justified under international law.
Questions:
Can State A invoke the principle of rebus sic stantibus to justify the immediate termination of the treaty? (10 points)
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), what are the requirements for invoking a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus) as grounds for terminating a treaty? (10 points)
Was State A justified in unilaterally terminating the treaty without consulting State B? (10 points)
States A and B, along with several other states, signed an international treaty aimed at prohibiting the use of torture under all circumstances. The treaty contains a provision explicitly banning torture even in cases involving national security concerns. Upon signing the treaty, State B made a reservation stating that it reserves the right to use “any means necessary to protect its citizens from the threat of terrorist attacks where it is convinced that such means will protect human life.”
As an advisor to the President of State A, you are asked to evaluate whether or not to accept State B’s reservation.
Questions:
Can State B’s reservation be considered valid under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)? (10 points)
Explain the significance of a reservation being contrary to the object and purpose of a treaty. (10 points)
If the treaty involves a jus cogens norm, such as the prohibition of torture, can a reservation be made? Why or why not? (10 points)
In 2021, the President of the Philippines signed an international agreement on environmental protection during a global summit. The Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) assessed the agreement as an executive agreement and advised that it did not require Senate ratification. The Philippines has since continued to act in accordance with the agreement. A group of environmental activists filed a petition arguing that the agreement is not legally binding on the Philippines until ratified by the Senate, while the government claims that the country is already bound by the agreement’s provisions.
Is the Philippines already legally bound by the provisions of the international agreement upon signing? Discuss the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) on expressing consent to be bound. (10 points)
Who has the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and international agreements in the Philippines? Discuss the role of the President and the delegation of powers to the DFA. (10 points)
Is Senate ratification necessary for the Philippines to be bound by the substantive provisions of the agreement? Why or why not? (10 points)
The international community has long debated the status of the death penalty under international law. While some states have abolished it, others continue to retain or reintroduce the practice. A human rights group claims that the death penalty is now prohibited under customary international law, and seeks to challenge its application in State A, which retains capital punishment for certain crimes. Meanwhile, State B, a member of a regional organization, has abolished the death penalty and argues that it is prohibited under regional customary law in its part of the world.
Questions:
Is the claim that the death penalty is prohibited under general customary international law valid? Discuss the requirements for the formation of a customary international norm and whether these requirements are met concerning the death penalty. (10 points)
Can the prohibition of the death penalty be considered a regional custom in certain parts of the world, such as Europe? Discuss the concept of regional customary international law and whether the prohibition of the death penalty meets the necessary requirements in Europe. (10 points)
How does the practice of major states, such as the United States, impact the formation of an international custom regarding the death penalty? (10 points)
what is a treaty?
For the purposes of the VCLT found in Article 2(a) defines treaty as:
means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed
by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation;
