CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF MBEYA

FACULTY OF LAW-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW

QUESTIONS FOR TEST ONE
SUBJECT: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (LAW 404)

DATE OF EXAMINATION: 18TH DECEMBER 2024

Instructions
i. Students must conduct thorough research on issues raised in the scenario and applicable laws.
ii. On the examination date, only one question will be selected by the course instructor.
iii. The test will be closed book. No legal instrument or books will be allowed in the examination
room.
iv. Reference to relevant articles of applicable treaties and case laws is mandatory.
v. Time for the timed test will be only 45 minutes

QUESTION ONE

James Gordon, a citizen of the USA and a journalist working for the CTN Network, was
kidnapped and severely beaten by a member of the secret police of Yondoland during
official interrogation in the state embassy of Yondoland in Syria. The reason for
kidnapping was an attempt to incite violence against the Government of Yondoland
through seditious publications. Unfortunately, this was a common practice in Yondoland
which has neither ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
nor the Convention against Torture (CAT) or any other international human rights treaty.
James Gordon seeks justice before domestic criminal courts of Bongoland where the
member of the secret police who carried out the beating is currently residing. The Criminal
Code of Bongoland contains a provision that allows the exercise of jurisdiction “in
accordance with international law”. Further, the State of Bongoland is a signatory of the
above international instruments. The arrested member of the secret police of the state of
Yondoland claims jurisdictional immunity.
Using relevant legal authorities, discuss the following issues:

(a) Whether the Bongoland court has jurisdiction to try the accused person.
(b) Whether the accused person enjoys immunity as pleaded.

QUESTION TWO
Elections were recently held in the State of Mongolia, and a populist party came to power.
One of the party’s promises during the election campaign was to work towards expulsion
of foreigners originating the neighboring State of Carmel. Carmelian authorities, who had
followed the elections closely, responded to the hostile tone towards persons originating
from Carmel by adopting a law stating that all persons living in Mongolia who could
document links to Carmel were to be regarded as Carmelian citizens regardless of whether
they also were citizens of other States. This law came into force immediately.

Following the elections, certain extremist groups seized the opportunity, and organized
demonstrations in which property belonging to Carmelian citizens was destroyed. The
Mongolian Police did not interfere with the demonstrations, and none of the demonstrators
were brought to justice. The new Minister for the Interior argued in the press that he feared
serious riots if he had ordered the police to interfere with the demonstrations.

The extremists seemed to be encouraged by the passivity of the Governments. Several

persons were killed, tortured and raped. In total about 250 people had been attacked, of
which 75 were killed. The total number of Carmelians living in Mongolia was 200,000.
Mongolian authorities condemned the attacks, and the Minister for the Interior called for
the guilty to be brought to justice. However, little was done in practice, and those arrested
turned out to be innocent. There was evidence that harassment of Carmelian citizens
continued, but not as explicitly as had previously been the case.

The Carmelian Government, which felt that they could not passively witness the misfortune
of their citizens in Mongolia, secretly sent agents into Mongolia in order to investigate the
acts that had been committed. The agents managed to capture two leaders of the extremist
group that was considered responsible for the attacks against Carmelian citizens. They were
smuggled out of Mongolia into Carmel, where they were imprisoned. The Government of
Mongolia then accused the Carmelian Government for intruding into its internal affairs
without their consent. Consequently, the state of Mongolia lodged a complaint in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the state of Carmel for unauthorized detention
of her citizens.

Assume that you are working as a legal adviser at Carmel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
advise the Minister on the following:
(a) Possible legal claims and arguments to be raised by Carmel before the International
Court of Justice.
 (b) The available avenues that could have been used by the two countries to avoid
conflict in exercising state jurisdiction over the offenders.

QUESTION THREE
Paulo ole Sankey is a top diplomat for his country, Kusadikikia. He has served in several
diplomatic missions outside his country. In spite of all that, even some of his fellow members of
staff did not know what actually was his duties. At one point he acted as a telephone operator, at
another he was a military attaché, because some believed he was a soldier, but at some other times
he acted as a cultural attaché. At his last station, Maruku, the capital city of Bukara, he was
described as a First Counselor, but his true assignments remained mysterious. The junior members
of staff referred to him as “mtu asiyejulikana” an acronym ascribed to people in the intelligence
services. In addition to his not-so-clear assignments, Ole Sankey also frequented discotheques,
cultural events and at times he would date female students from his home country. Once in a while
he would be seen with street girls at his house where he had no family. The Bukara Ministry of
Foreign Affairs raised alarm to the ambassador, His Excellency Majungu Majungu, who however,
appeared to protect him. Ole Sankey would not respond to a summons to appear to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, citing diplomatic Immunity.

Using relevant legal authorities, determine criminal or civil liability of Ole Sankay in the
above scenario.
QUESTION FOUR
The Government of Belgium and Government of Bongoland entered into an international
investment treaty for benefit of foreign investments in the host state. Article 5 of the Treaty
obliged parties to apply Pacific Methods of Dispute Settlement of their own choice prior
submission of dispute to International Court of Justice for determination. In January 2024, a
dispute arose between the Belgian Energy Company, which possesses a concession for 33 years
at Karaoke Gold Site in one of the regions in Bongoland and the residents of Bongoland. The
source of conflict was refusal by the management of Belgian Energy Company to allow local
miners to exploit gold in one of the areas covered by the concession.
As a way to protect their property rights, the management secured all the licensed area with KJK
Security Guards. However, in March 2024 the local residents from the Eastern side of Karaoke
Site through their rebellious group known as ‘kanjanja warriors’ invaded the Karaoke Gold site,
killed five Belgian employees, stole company’s machines and 100 ounces of gold from the
reserve, and ran away. These attacks on the company and its officers were immediately reported
to the Bongoland Police Force, but no any efforts were undertaken by the police officers to arrest
 perpetrators, in fear of political unrests in the region. Furthermore, the government of Bongoland
did not make any official statement with regard to the incidences. In May 2024, another rebellious
group from the Western part of Karaoke Gold Site known as ‘wadudu warriors’ invaded the
company, wounded 10 employees and stole 50 ounces of gold. Two security guards were killed
and the remaining ran away. However, no person was arrested by the Police Force despite
reporting of the incidence. Following these two unprecedented events, the Management of the
Belgian Energy Company based at Brussels resolved to close business at Karaoke Gold site in
order to protect its officers and employees from attacks.
Now, the government of Belgium after unsuccessful negotiations with Bongoland authorities, is
considering of instituting the case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for reparations
caused to the Belgian nationals and Belgian company. You are approached by the Belgian
authorities in Bongoland to advise on critical issues concerning attacks to Belgian company and
nationals.
Prepare a reasoned opinion addressing the following critical questions:
(a) Identify sets of legal instruments and legal sources that can be applied by the International
Court of Justice to resolve the above conflict.
(b) Assuming that ICJ issues a judgment in favour of Belgium, explain whether or not such
judgment is binding on Bongoland.

QUESTION FIVE

Astor and Rishmak are the two Range States having Relationship in various Aspects like Trade,

Economic, Social and cultural Aspects. They also share a border where Endangered species (Royal

Markhor) Immigrant Wild life lives as they tend to migrate between the two states according to

the changing Environments. Rishmak is mainly resided by one traditional community, Dione

Ginsu, with hunting rights over the Royal Markhor for many years for subsistence and religious

spiritual rites.

Astor and Rishmak ratified the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES) since 1975. In 2007, the Royal Markhor was added in the Appendix I of

the CITES as endangered species. Similarly, the two states are Parties to the Convention on the

Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) of 1983. To ensure effective

regulation of trade in endangered Royal Markor, Astor and Rishmak signed the Astor-Rishmak

Trade Agreement (ARTA), 2003, in which they committed to observe customary international law

and general principles of international law concerning protection of indigenous community rights.

Furthermore, Astor and Rishmak are Parties to United Nations Charter, the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, the Statute of International Court of Justice and the United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons of 2007. However, Astor has not

domesticated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the United

Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons of 2007.

After the Royal Markhor was added in the Appendix I of both CMS and CITES, Astor enacted

national laws strictly prohibiting the taking of Royal Markhor, except for Dione Ginsu Community

hunting rights for subsistence in Rishmak. From the year 2016, Dione Ginsu though auction sold

their hunting rights of Royal Markhor to the Foreign companies at a value of USD $ 100,000 per

Royal Markhor. This triggered off the Astor Government to forward a Diplomatic note to the

government of Rishmak concerning the taking of Royal Markhor in violation of Convention on

the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) prohibiting taking of animals

belonging to such species for commercial purpose.

As a result, the Astor Society for the Humane Treatment of Animals (ASHTA), a Non-

Governmental Organization, launched a campaign propagating the prohibition of hunting of

animals through imposing ban on importation of trophies. In the year 2022, the Government of

Astor collected public views concerning the taking of Royal Markhor whereby 95% of the

population were against auctions; hence a law was enacted by enact the law that prohibited the

importation of hunting trophies. This government act led to rise of conflict between the two

countries. The dispute was mediated accordingly but there was no successful agreement. Both
parties Astor and Rishmak agreed to appear before the International Court of Justice for

determination.

From the above scenario, address the following concerns:

(a) Identify different legal instruments and principles that can be used by the International

Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve the above conflict.

(b) Identify different subjects of international law in the above scenario.

(c) Explain the available enforcement framework for the decision of the International Court of

Justice and any challenges likely to be encountered.

(d) With reasons, can the decision of the International Court of Justice bind other states not

party to dispute?

QUESTION SIX
Write a brief case note on any two of the following:
(a) North Sea Continental Shelf Case (1969) ICJ Reports 4
(b) Asylum Case (Colombia vs. Peru (1950) ICJ Report 266
(c) Attorney General vs. Adolf Eichman, Criminal Case No.40/61 of 1991, District Court of
Jerusalem.
(d) Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua vs. United States of America (Merits) (1969) ICJ Reports 14.