Written Diploma Exam – Winter – Topics since 2019

2019

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:
Secession.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
Foreign law before a judge or arbitrator.

 

2020

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:
“In practice, when a State challenges an inter-State arbitral award, the award is, in reality, merely an attempt to resolve the dispute at issue, since, under public international law and in view of what might be considered its imperfect essence, there is no binding mechanism guaranteeing the enforcement of inter-State arbitral awards that is independent of the sovereign will of States.”[1]

What do you think of this statement?[2]

[1] Caldeira Brant, L. N., « L’autorité de la chose jugée en droit international public », p. 209 to 211.

[2] This is an extract of par. 147 of the Conclusions of the Advocate General Pikamaë on the preliminary jurisdictional objections phase in the case C-457/18, Republic of Slovenia v. Republic of Croatia, before the European Court of Justice.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
Critically evaluate the contributions of States, international organizations, and non-state actors to the development of private international law.

 

2023

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:
‘While peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) continue to be linked to notions of the conscience of mankind in practice and scholarly writings, even then the material advanced to illustrate recognition of the norms as peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) remains acts and practice generated by States, including within international organizations.’
(Draft conclusions on identifications and on legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) with commentaries, adopted by the ILC on its 73st session, 2022, A/77/10, at 39).
Please discuss.

 

2024

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:
‘Like all law, international law is the product of a community of culture and interests … It depends on the intensity of this community whether it succeeds in objectifying … fundamental legal principles, and whether the fundamental legal principles prove to be sufficiently effective to be positivized by states’ acts of will into rules of international law.’ (HERMANN HELLER, SOVEREIGNTY) (1927)

Critically discuss this statement, considering to what extent it captures the relationship between the concept of an international community and the role of general principles of law in international law today.

 

2025

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:

Please jointly comment on these two excerpts from ICJ’s jurisprudence:
“But it cannot be concluded from the mere fact of the control exercised by a State over its territory and waters that that State necessarily knew, or ought to have known, of any unlawful act perpetrated therein, nor yet that it necessarily knew, or should have known, the authors. This fact, by itself and apart from other circumstances, neither involves prima facie responsibility nor shifts the burden of proof.” (The Corfu Channel Case, merits, judgment 9 April 1949, I.C.J Reports 1949, p. 4 at p. 18).
And
“As an occupying Power, Uganda had a duty of vigilance in preventing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by other actors present in the occupied territory, including rebel groups acting on their own account. Given this duty of vigilance, the Court concluded that the Respondent’s responsibility was engaged ‘by its failure . . . to take measures to . . . ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in Ituri district’ (2005 Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 231, paras. 178-179, p. 245, para. 211, and p. 280, para. 345, point 3).” (Armed Activities on the territory of the Congo [DRC v Uganda], reparations, judgment, ICJ Reports 2022, p. 13, para. 78).

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:

Please comment the following extract of the resolution of the International Law Institute adopted on 4 September 2021 titled “Human Rights and Private International Law”, including in the light of recent trends of domestic case law.

“Article 3 Jurisdiction

  1. Heads of jurisdiction in international cases shall be based upon substantial connections with the case or the parties thereto, taking into consideration the parties’ human right of access to a court and avoiding any form of discrimination prohibited under international law.
  2. The immunity of States should not deprive the victims of human rights violations in cross-border relations of their right to reparation.

Article 4 Forum necessitatis

If the rules of jurisdiction may lead to a denial of justice in a given case, the right of access to a court may exceptionally require that a court exercise jurisdiction if there is no closer link with a State where access to justice would be available.”