International Law Final

Identify two cases we studied that addressed the proper use of force in armed conflict. What is the view of jurists like Marco Sassoli, Antoine Bouvier, and Anne Quintin on the current status of this body of law for conflicts in the twenty-first century? - Background

Jus in Bello governs conduct during armed conflict through the principles of distinction, proportionality, necessity, and humane treatment. Distinction requires separating combatants from civilians. Proportionality prohibits attacks that produce excessive civilian harm. Necessity limits force to what is required for military objectives. Humane treatment forbids torture and requires care for the wounded. Common Article 3 applies in all non international conflicts and bans murder, mutilation, torture, hostage taking, and degrading treatment. Sassoli, Bouvier, and Quintin argue that International Humanitarian Law remains valid but is strained by asymmetric conflicts and new technologies such as drones and cyber operations. They emphasize that IHL must apply consistently regardless of whether the opponent is a state or non state actor, and that twentieth century rules can still regulate contemporary conflicts if interpreted rigorously.

Identify two cases we studied that addressed the proper use of force in armed conflict. What is the view of jurists like Marco Sassoli, Antoine Bouvier, and Anne Quintin on the current status of this body of law for conflicts in the twenty-first century? - Key Cases/Signifigance

In the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion (ICJ 1996), the Court held that any use of nuclear weapons must comply with distinction and proportionality. Because these weapons cause massive and uncontrollable civilian harm, their use would generally violate IHL, showing how technology can make compliance nearly impossible. In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v State of Israel (1999), in which Israel was accused of committing torture during interrogations of alleged Al Qaeda terrorists, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that necessity cannot justify torture and that targeted killings must always follow distinction and proportionality. The Court required real evidence of combatant status and measures to reduce civilian harm. Together these cases illustrate how modern conflict continues to test but not displace fundamental humanitarian principles.

Outline the circumstances under which states may legitimately use force as part of individual or collective self-defense, according to international law. Indicate the specific principles of law that members of the United Nations must invoke. Explain historic examples including the Caroline case and the Entebbe raid. Offer an analysis of the United States invocation of this doctrine in Nicaragua v. U.S. - Background

International law permits self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter when an armed attack occurs. Any response must satisfy necessity, proportionality, and immediacy, and states must notify the Security Council. The doctrine does not allow preemptive or retaliatory force. The Caroline incident (British forces crossed into United States territory in 1837 to destroy the American steamboat Caroline) created the classic standard that necessity must be instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means. The Entebbe raid (Israeli commandos conducted a long-distance rescue operation in Uganda to free hostages held by hijackers), involving an Israeli rescue mission into Uganda, raised debate because the force occurred without territorial consent but was argued as necessary to protect nationals abroad. These examples show that self defense is interpreted strictly to prevent abuse and maintain collective security under the UN framework. In US v Nicaragua, the US claimed their support of the Contra rebels was a necessary and proportionate defense against the corrupt Nicaraguan government colluding with El Salvadorian rebels.

Outline the circumstances under which states may legitimately use force as part of individual or collective self-defense, according to international law. Indicate the specific principles of law that members of the United Nations must invoke. Explain historic examples including the Caroline case and the Entebbe raid. Offer an analysis of the United States invocation of this doctrine in Nicaragua v. U.S. - Key Case Analysis

The Caroline case involved British forces crossing into US territory to destroy the ship Caroline, which they claimed supported Canadian rebels. This event produced the enduring tests of necessity and proportionality. The Entebbe raid involved Israeli troops entering Uganda to save hostages held in Entebbe airport, prompting debate over whether states may intervene when the host state fails to protect foreign nationals. In Nicaragua v United States, the ICJ rejected the US assertion of collective self defense because Nicaragua had not launched an armed attack, and the US failed to meet reporting and evidentiary requirements under Article 51. The Court clarified that self defense is tightly constrained and cannot justify indirect or covert uses of force.

What are key principles invoked in environmental litigation, including those cases centered on climate justice? Summarize two major decisions we studied. In relation to these cases, compare and contrast the ideas of jurists Edith Brown Weiss, Anthony D’Amato, and Christopher Stone. Explain whether or not you agree with their interpretations of key principles. To what extent, if at all, do you think they would endorse the adoption of a new international crime of ecocide? - BACKGROUND

Environmental litigation is grounded in principles such as state responsibility for transboundary harm, the precautionary principle, sustainability, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, and intergenerational equity. Climate justice cases emphasize fairness for vulnerable and future populations. Trail Smelter established that no state may allow harmful pollution to reach another state. Minors Oposa recognized that future generations have standing to protect natural resources. Scholars offer distinct views: Edith Brown Weiss argues for explicit duties to future generations, D'Amato questions enforceability and definitional vagueness, and Stone argues for expanding who can be a rights holder, including nature itself. These ideas shape contemporary climate litigation and reinforce the need for broader conceptions of harm.

What are key principles invoked in environmental litigation, including those cases centered on climate justice? Summarize two major decisions we studied. In relation to these cases, compare and contrast the ideas of jurists Edith Brown Weiss, Anthony D’Amato, and Christopher Stone. Explain whether or not you agree with their interpretations of key principles. To what extent, if at all, do you think they would endorse the adoption of a new international crime of ecocide? - SIGNIFICANCE AND OPINION

Trail Smelter confirmed that states cannot allow activities within their territory to cause substantial harm beyond their borders, even when the damage is unintentional. Minors Oposa showed that courts can recognize the rights of future generations and impose duties on governments to conserve environmental resources. Weiss would likely support the creation of an international crime of ecocide because her theory of intergenerational equity already treats environmental protection as a legal obligation owed across time. Stone may also endorse ecocide since recognizing nature as a rights holder aligns with prosecuting severe destruction of ecosystems. D'Amato would likely hesitate because he questions how courts would prove intent, scale of harm, and causation in environmental cases. In my view, the logic of these cases and theories supports moving toward an ecocide regime. The scale of modern environmental harm and the systemic failures of existing mechanisms make it reasonable to adopt a stronger accountability measure. Ecocide could fill a gap in current international law by deterring large scale environmental destruction when civil liability and soft law obligations are insufficient.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a relatively new institution with the potential to enforce international law. What is the current jurisdiction of the ICC, and what are the main arguments for and against enlarging it to include other offenses? The Rome Statute authorizes the use of criminal defenses such as intoxication, superior orders, and duress. Explain these defenses as allowed by the Rome Statute, and then offer your assessment of their validity. - BACKGROUND

The ICC has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when committed on member state territory or by their nationals. It operates as a court of last resort when domestic systems fail. Supporters of expanding jurisdiction argue that adding offenses such as terrorism or ecocide would strengthen accountability. Opponents caution that expansion may undermine legitimacy, politicize the Court, and stretch resources. The ICC continues to refine its role as global expectations evolve, particularly as conflicts increasingly involve non state actors and multinational corporations.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a relatively new institution with the potential to enforce international law. What is the current jurisdiction of the ICC, and what are the main arguments for and against enlarging it to include other offenses? The Rome Statute authorizes the use of criminal defenses such as intoxication, superior orders, and duress. Explain these defenses as allowed by the Rome Statute, and then offer your assessment of their validity. - STATUTE ANALYSIS

The Rome Statute recognizes several defenses. Intoxication is allowed only when it negates criminal intent and is not self induced for violent purposes. Superior orders may excuse liability only if the order was not manifestly unlawful and the accused lacked awareness. Duress applies in situations of imminent threat with no reasonable alternative. These defenses reflect the ICC’s aim to balance accountability with the realities of coercion in armed conflict. They are intentionally narrow so that defendants cannot hide behind institutional pressure or chaotic battlefield conditions to escape responsibility for serious crimes. In my view, the ICC’s approach is appropriate because it recognizes genuine moral constraints on human agency without letting high level or low level actors evade liability for atrocities. A broader set of defenses would risk weakening deterrence and undermining the normative force of international criminal law, while the current structure maintains both fairness and strong accountability.

When minorities choose to don religious garb, to what extent does international law guarantee their right to do so? Compare and contrast the approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee on this matter of cultural rights and provide an interpretation of at least two decisions. Some might argue that this jurisprudence reflects bias. Consider this contention and offer your own critical reflections.

International law protects freedom of religion through the Internation Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits discrimination and allows restrictions only when necessary to protect public safety, order, or the rights of others. The Human Rights Committee generally applies strong protection for individual expression. The European Court of Human Rights often takes a more deferential approach, permitting states to impose religious dress restrictions to preserve secularism or social cohesion. These different approaches reflect contrasting traditions regarding state neutrality and cultural pluralism.

When minorities choose to don religious garb, to what extent does international law guarantee their right to do so? Compare and contrast the approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee on this matter of cultural rights and provide an interpretation of at least two decisions. Some might argue that this jurisprudence reflects bias. Consider this contention and offer your own critical reflections. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

Leyla Sahin v Turkey and SAS v France show how the European Court of Human Rights often applies a wide margin of appreciation that lets states restrict religious dress to promote social cohesion or secularism. The Human Rights Committee, by contrast, is more protective of individual autonomy and typically requires states to justify restrictions in terms of necessity and proportionality. This difference reveals tension between universal human rights norms and regional approaches that emphasize national cultural values. Some scholars view the European Court’s jurisprudence as biased because it tends to treat Muslim women’s dress as inherently problematic rather than as an expression of identity. In my view, these decisions can create a hierarchy of rights where state interests overshadow personal dignity and agency. A more balanced approach is needed, one that recognizes legitimate state concerns but preserves the individual’s right to manifest religious belief without subjecting specific communities to disproportionate scrutiny.

Define the main principles established in the field of international environmental law for state responsibility. Analyze the major case we covered concerning liability for environmental harm and discuss its normative significance. To what extent, if at all, does the decision reflect reasoning similar to the Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras decision? - BACKGROUND

International environmental law establishes several foundational principles for state responsibility. These include the obligation not to cause transboundary harm, articulated through the sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas principle, which requires a state to exercise its rights without injuring another. Other principles include the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, and the duty of environmental impact assessment. These principles appear in instruments such as the Stockholm Declaration, the Rio Declaration, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. They have increasingly merged environmental protection with human rights considerations, especially with the rise of climate justice litigation. Together, they create a framework meant to ensure that states prevent, mitigate, and remedy environmental harm that affects both present and future generations.

Define the main principles established in the field of international environmental law for state responsibility. Analyze the major case we covered concerning liability for environmental harm and discuss its normative significance. To what extent, if at all, does the decision reflect reasoning similar to the Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras decision? -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

The Trail Smelter Arbitration involved a Canadian smelting plant releasing sulfur dioxide fumes that crossed into the United States and damaged crops and forests. The tribunal held Canada responsible and declared that no state may allow activities within its territory that cause serious environmental injury in another. This reasoning parallels Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras, where the Inter American Court held that states bear responsibility not only for direct actions but also for failing to prevent foreseeable harm by private actors. Both cases require states to act with due diligence. The normative significance lies in the expansion of positive duties to prevent transboundary harm, which remains essential for modern environmental regulation. In my view, these cases show a growing willingness of international tribunals to impose obligations even without explicit treaty language, which is necessary to address global environmental challenges.

What are the main problems with enforcing international law on doping in sports? Who is Rebagliati and do you think the judicial disposition of his case fair? Consider the new policies of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Association of Athletic Federations, and indicate they should be changed. Explain your reasoning. - BACKGROUND

Enforcing doping rules is difficult because testing standards vary across national laboratories, athletes move across jurisdictions, and federations often face political or economic pressures that undermine enforcement. There are also scientific problems related to false positives and inconsistent testing windows. International bodies like the World Anti Doping Agency and the International Association of Athletics Federations attempt to harmonize standards, yet compliance remains uneven. These problems reflect the broader struggle to regulate globalized sports within a non uniform international legal system.

What are the main problems with enforcing international law on doping in sports? Who is Rebagliati and do you think the judicial disposition of his case fair? Consider the new policies of the World Anti-Doping Agency and the International Association of Athletic Federations, and indicate they should be changed. Explain your reasoning. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In the Rebagliati case, a Canadian snowboarder tested positive for marijuana at the Olympics. The Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned his disqualification because marijuana was not banned out of competition and the testing procedures had irregularities. This case highlights inconsistent enforcement and unclear standards. Current WADA rules have improved but still allow uncertainty due to threshold levels and differing national attitudes toward banned substances. In my view, the policies should be revised to increase transparency, apply uniform sanctions, and limit the influence of politics. A more coherent enforcement structure would promote fairness and integrity without punishing athletes for unclear or inconsistently applied rules.

What paradigm shift is important to the current conceptualization of international disability rights? Explain the differing views of the potential impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the essays by Lord and Silechhia. How would disability rights advocates analyze the cultural rights of persons with disabilities in specific circumstances and also the relationship between cultural rights and disability rights more generally. Include the Wackenheim decision in your answer. - BACKGROUND

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities marks a shift from the medical model, which viewed disability as an individual defect, to the social model, which focuses on structural barriers and discrimination. Janet Lord argues that the CRPD creates strong obligations to dismantle exclusionary practices and promote autonomy. Lucia Silechhia is more cautious, claiming that the CRPD has flaws because it lacks clear enforcement mechanisms and may create unrealistic expectations. Disability rights advocates generally argue that cultural rights for persons with disabilities require assessing how social practices include or exclude them, and they emphasize dignity, participation, and accessibility across contexts.

What paradigm shift is important to the current conceptualization of international disability rights? Explain the differing views of the potential impact of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the essays by Lord and Silechhia. How would disability rights advocates analyze the cultural rights of persons with disabilities in specific circumstances and also the relationship between cultural rights and disability rights more generally. Include the Wackenheim decision in your answer. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In Wackenheim v France, a man with dwarfism challenged a French ban on dwarf tossing shows, arguing that it violated his right to work. The Human Rights Committee upheld the ban because it protected public dignity and prevented harmful stereotypes. The decision illustrates the tension between individual autonomy and societal interest in combating demeaning practices. In my view, disability rights advocates would support the ruling because it aligns with the CRPD emphasis on dignity, equality, and the removal of discriminatory cultural norms. The case also demonstrates that cultural rights must be interpreted through the lens of protecting marginalized groups from exploitation.

Although States have often attempted to protect populations from infectious disease through the use of quarantine, this approach may not prove to be effective. What are the criticisms offered of current strategies to control infectious disease by Dr. Bradley Stoner, Clarence Gravlee, Camila Strassle et al., and others? Analyze the relative success of attempts to control the spread of diseases within the frameworks of global health law and international human rights treaties. To what extent should global health law be harmonized with intellectually property law regimes, e.g., the Doha Declaration and TRIPS agreement? - BACKGROUND

Dr Bradley Stoner, Clarence Gravlee, and Camila Strassle argue that traditional quarantine methods often fail because they ignore structural determinants of health such as poverty, racism, and overcrowding. Gravlee shows that COVID 19 was a syndemic shaped by social inequity. Strassle critiques the exclusion of incarcerated people from vaccine trials and the lack of ethical inclusion frameworks. These scholars highlight that punitive or isolation focused approaches do not address underlying vulnerabilities. Global health law instruments such as the International Health Regulations require cooperation, transparency, and least restrictive measures, but states often fail to meet these obligations.

Although States have often attempted to protect populations from infectious disease through the use of quarantine, this approach may not prove to be effective. What are the criticisms offered of current strategies to control infectious disease by Dr. Bradley Stoner, Clarence Gravlee, Camila Strassle et al., and others? Analyze the relative success of attempts to control the spread of diseases within the frameworks of global health law and international human rights treaties. To what extent should global health law be harmonized with intellectually property law regimes, e.g., the Doha Declaration and TRIPS agreement? -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

Human rights treaties such as the ICESCR obligate states to ensure the right to health. The Doha Declaration clarified that TRIPS should not prevent states from protecting public health and allows compulsory licensing for essential medicines. Harmonizing global health law with intellectual property regimes remains controversial because strict patent protections can hinder equitable access to vaccines and treatments. In my view, public health obligations should take priority, especially in emergencies, because rigid IP protections undermine the universality of the right to health. A balanced approach requires flexible licensing, technology transfer, and stronger obligations on pharmaceutical companies to prioritize global welfare.

Describe two major decisions rendered by the International Criminal Court. What is their significance and do they set precedent for the international community? Discuss whether the CEO of Boeing or the CEO of Remington should be subject to prosecution. - BACKGROUND

In the Lubanga case, the ICC convicted a militia leader for conscripting and enlisting child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The decision established important precedent for prosecuting the recruitment of children as a war crime. In the Al Mahdi case, the ICC convicted a Malian rebel for intentionally destroying cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu. This decision affirmed that cultural heritage enjoys legal protection and that its destruction is a war crime. Both cases show that the ICC can provide accountability where domestic systems fail.

Describe two major decisions rendered by the International Criminal Court. What is their significance and do they set precedent for the international community? Discuss whether the CEO of Boeing or the CEO of Remington should be subject to prosecution. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS/REMINGTON CEO

Debates about prosecuting corporate actors like the CEOs of Boeing or Remington center on whether their conduct meets the gravity threshold and intent requirements of the Rome Statute. ICC jurisdiction generally applies to individuals who commit core international crimes such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Corporate negligence, even resulting in serious harm, usually falls outside the ICC framework unless it is connected to armed conflict or mass atrocities. In my view, extending ICC jurisdiction to corporate malfeasance could be valuable but risks stretching the statute beyond its design. Strengthening domestic criminal liability may be a more practical route for addressing corporate misconduct.

Explain which the reasoning in the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Offer your analysis of the conclusion. - BACKGROUND

The ICJ concluded that the use or threat of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction and unnecessary suffering. However, the Court could not definitively rule out the lawfulness of nuclear weapon use in an extreme circumstance of self defense where the survival of a state is at stake. This ambiguity reflects tensions between humanitarian principles and state security concerns.

Explain which the reasoning in the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Offer your analysis of the conclusion. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

The opinion highlights the limits of judicial authority when states retain control over nuclear arsenals. It also underscores the moral and legal conflict inherent in weapons that cause indiscriminate and catastrophic harm. In my view, the Court should have taken a stronger position recognizing nuclear weapons as incompatible with humanitarian law. The inability to reach a clear prohibition weakens normative pressure for disarmament, although the opinion still serves as an important platform for future legal development.

What are some of the challenges associated with the international law of the seas (UNCLOS). Analyze three specific examples of controversies in this branch of international law, including the Saiga case. - BACKGROUND

UNCLOS faces challenges such as disputes about territorial sea boundaries, competing claims over exclusive economic zones, and conflicts over resource extraction. Enforcement on the high seas remains difficult because only flag states have jurisdiction over their vessels. Piracy, hot pursuit, and environmental protection all raise additional complications. These issues show that maritime governance depends heavily on cooperation and consistent interpretation of UNCLOS provisions.

What are some of the challenges associated with the international law of the seas (UNCLOS). Analyze three specific examples of controversies in this branch of international law, including the Saiga case. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

The Saiga case involved the seizure of an oil tanker by Guinea for alleged customs violations outside its territorial waters. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ruled that Guinea acted unlawfully because it exercised jurisdiction beyond permitted limits. Other controversies include the Fisheries Case, where Iceland attempted to expand its exclusive fishing zone, and the Corfu Channel Case, where the ICJ addressed the right of innocent passage and Albania's responsibility for naval mines. These decisions underscore recurring tensions between state sovereignty and international navigation rights.

Existing rules of diplomatic immunity are widely perceived as obsolete. Compare and contrast two recent cases we discussed - Devyani Khobragade and Swarna v. Al-Awad in light of this critique. Explain whether you agree with the way courts resolved these matters and discuss how, if at all, you would reformulate policies. - BACKGROUND

Diplomatic immunity is criticized for being outdated because it sometimes protects individuals who commit serious abuses. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations grants broad immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Critics argue that this undermines accountability and allows exploitation of domestic workers, immigration fraud, and other misconduct.

Existing rules of diplomatic immunity are widely perceived as obsolete. Compare and contrast two recent cases we discussed - Devyani Khobragade and Swarna v. Al-Awad in light of this critique. Explain whether you agree with the way courts resolved these matters and discuss how, if at all, you would reformulate policies. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In the Khobragade case, a diplomat was charged with visa fraud for underpaying and mistreating a domestic worker. She claimed consular immunity and was later allowed to leave the United States. In Swarna v Al Awadi, a former diplomat was sued for severe abuse of a domestic worker but was immune while serving. After leaving office, only the individual could be sued, not the state. These cases show gaps in the immunity system. I believe reforms should narrow immunity for private acts and strengthen protections for vulnerable workers, while still preserving functional immunity for legitimate diplomatic activities.

On what grounds might one criticize the U.S. government’s posture toward international law? Give at least two illustrations to substantiate your points including one policy of the executive branch and one decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. - BACKGROUND

The United States is often criticized for selective engagement with international law, such as refusing to ratify key treaties like the Rome Statute or limiting participation in human rights instruments. One executive branch policy that draws criticism is the practice of targeted killing, which many scholars argue violates sovereignty norms and humanitarian law.

On what grounds might one criticize the U.S. government’s posture toward international law? Give at least two illustrations to substantiate your points including one policy of the executive branch and one decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

A Supreme Court decision illustrating US ambivalence is Medellin v Texas, where the Court refused to enforce an ICJ judgment requiring review of death penalty cases involving Vienna Convention violations. The ruling signaled that international decisions are not automatically binding domestically. In my view, this posture undermines the credibility of the United States in promoting rule based international order.

What is the current status of sovereign and state immunity? Compare and contrast decisions of the International Court of Justice with those of domestic tribunals. Be sure to include an analysis of Samantar v. Yousuf. - BACKGROUND

State immunity has shifted from the absolute theory to the restrictive theory, which distinguishes governmental acts (immune) from commercial acts (not immune). The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act codified this approach in the United States. Immunity serves to protect sovereign equality but often limits avenues for redress in human rights cases.

What is the current status of sovereign and state immunity? Compare and contrast decisions of the International Court of Justice with those of domestic tribunals. Be sure to include an analysis of Samantar v. Yousuf. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In Germany v Italy, the ICJ held that states retain immunity even for grave war crimes, emphasizing sovereign equality. Domestic courts sometimes diverge. In Samantar v Yousuf, the US Supreme Court held that a former Somali official was not protected by the FSIA for acts of torture. The decision emphasized individual accountability. In my view, domestic courts should continue carving out exceptions for serious human rights abuses to avoid allowing immunity to function as a shield for impunity.

Based on the cases and treaties we studied, to what extent does international law guarantee the protection of human subjects in experiments? (Hint: You might consider Abdullahi v. Pfizer.) What specific international instruments offer principles of law that afford those enrolled in clinical trials and other experiments the greatest protection? - BACKGROUND

International law protects human subjects through instruments like the Helsinki Declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Core principles include informed consent, non coercion, independent review, and the right to bodily integrity. These instruments emerged in response to historical abuses and are meant to ensure ethical research practices.

Based on the cases and treaties we studied, to what extent does international law guarantee the protection of human subjects in experiments? (Hint: You might consider Abdullahi v. Pfizer.) What specific international instruments offer principles of law that afford those enrolled in clinical trials and other experiments the greatest protection? -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In Abdullahi v Pfizer, Nigerian families sued Pfizer for conducting a drug trial on children without proper consent during a meningitis outbreak. The case raised the question of whether the Alien Tort Statute could be used to address violations of research ethics. Courts recognized that non consensual medical experimentation violates international law. This underscores the need for strong protections. In my view, international law must continue expanding enforceable standards because vulnerable populations remain at risk in global medical research.

When combatants bomb hospitals or museums or vessels while trying to attack suspected terrorists, what are the international law implications? Be sure to cite specific provisions of the treaties we studied. If you were advising Mr. Karim Khan, how would you recommend he handle these attacks? - BACKGROUND

Humanitarian law prohibits attacks on hospitals, museums, and civilian vessels. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I require distinction and proportionality, while Article 53 protects cultural property. Attacks on these sites constitute violations unless they are being used for military purposes.

When combatants bomb hospitals or museums or vessels while trying to attack suspected terrorists, what are the international law implications? Be sure to cite specific provisions of the treaties we studied. If you were advising Mr. Karim Khan, how would you recommend he handle these attacks? -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

If advising Karim Khan, I would recommend conducting independent investigations, gathering satellite evidence, interviewing witnesses, and issuing warnings to parties engaging in unlawful conduct. The ICC should emphasize that intentional attacks on protected sites can constitute war crimes. In my view, consistent enforcement is essential to maintaining the credibility of humanitarian law.

Analyze how hate speech and incitement are interpreted in treaties we studied, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Race Convention (ICERD). Discuss controversies associated with this matter that we studied. Consider the Media case (Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiz and Ngeze), the Bikindi case (Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi), “Zwart Piete”, and Jersild v. Denmark. - BACKGROUND

The ICCPR allows restrictions on advocacy of hatred that incites violence or discrimination. ICERD requires states to criminalize racist hate speech. These instruments balance free expression with the protection of vulnerable groups. There is debate about where to draw the line between protected speech and criminal incitement.

Analyze how hate speech and incitement are interpreted in treaties we studied, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Race Convention (ICERD). Discuss controversies associated with this matter that we studied. Consider the Media case (Prosecutor v. Nahimana, Barayagwiz and Ngeze), the Bikindi case (Prosecutor v. Simon Bikindi), “Zwart Piete”, and Jersild v. Denmark. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In Prosecutor v Nahimana (Media Case) and Prosecutor v Bikindi, broadcasters and musicians were held responsible for speech that contributed to the Rwandan genocide. Jersild v Denmark showed a contrasting approach when the European Court found that punishing a journalist who interviewed racists violated media freedom. These cases illustrate tension between public order and free speech. In my view, hate speech regulation must remain carefully tailored to prevent incitement while avoiding suppression of legitimate reporting or dissent.

How do scholars such as John Merryman and Lyndel Prott justify the legal protection of cultural heritage? In your view, is it better to rely on general notions such as the Common Heritage of Mankind principle, or do you prefer to invoke the UNESCO Convention on Natural and Cultural Heritage. Discuss the main challenges the international community faces when trying to protect cultural heritage, including intangible cultural heritage, with instruments designed to address them. Describe two attempts to apply international law to protect “traditional culture” or folklore, and offer your critical reflections on these controversies. - BACKGROUND

John Merryman emphasizes cultural internationalism, arguing that heritage belongs to all humanity. Lyndel Prott emphasizes cultural nationalism, stressing state control to protect identity and prevent exploitation. Instruments such as the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the UNIDROIT Convention seek to preserve both tangible and intangible heritage.

How do scholars such as John Merryman and Lyndel Prott justify the legal protection of cultural heritage? In your view, is it better to rely on general notions such as the Common Heritage of Mankind principle, or do you prefer to invoke the UNESCO Convention on Natural and Cultural Heritage. Discuss the main challenges the international community faces when trying to protect cultural heritage, including intangible cultural heritage, with instruments designed to address them. Describe two attempts to apply international law to protect “traditional culture” or folklore, and offer your critical reflections on these controversies. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

Examples include efforts to protect indigenous cultural practices under UNDRIP and cases such as the Al Mahdi prosecution for destruction of cultural property. Disputes over folklore, traditional medicine, and sacred objects illustrate the tension between preservation and cultural appropriation. In my view, a combined approach is best. The Common Heritage of Mankind principle is morally compelling, but the UNESCO regime provides clearer obligations for states.

What is the status of the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under international law (both customary and conventional)? When misconduct occurs, to what extent is it possible to hold individuals and corporations accountable for acts of this kind? Discuss two significant legal interpretations of this matter as, for example, in Selmouni v. France Aydin v. Turkey, El Masri v. Tenet, Mohammad v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Doe v. Nestle. After you discuss how judges interpret the central issue at the crux of the matter, offer your own analysis of the reasoning. - BACKGROUND

The prohibition of torture is both a customary norm and a treaty based obligation through instruments like the Convention Against Torture and the ICCPR. It is widely considered a jus cogens norm that cannot be derogated. States must prevent, investigate, and punish torture.

What is the status of the prohibition against torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under international law (both customary and conventional)? When misconduct occurs, to what extent is it possible to hold individuals and corporations accountable for acts of this kind? Discuss two significant legal interpretations of this matter as, for example, in Selmouni v. France Aydin v. Turkey, El Masri v. Tenet, Mohammad v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Doe v. Nestle. After you discuss how judges interpret the central issue at the crux of the matter, offer your own analysis of the reasoning. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In Selmouni v France and Aydin v Turkey, the European Court found states responsible for severe mistreatment in detention. El Masri v Tenet and Mohammed v Jeppesen Dataplan involved claims against US entities for extraordinary rendition and complicity in torture. Doe v Nestle concerned corporate liability for violations abroad. These cases show uneven accountability. In my view, international courts should continue strengthening avenues for victims because torture persists despite universal prohibition.

Based on what you have learned about principles of international law, what do you recommend for settling the conflict in Gaza. Discuss at least two assigned readings and offer your assessment of their ideas. - BACKGROUND

Relevant principles include distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition on collective punishment. Authors such as Toebes emphasize state obligations to protect health and welfare even in conflict. Gravlee and others highlight structural inequities affecting civilian harm. A lawful approach to the Gaza conflict begins with the core rules of international humanitarian law: distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition of collective punishment under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows self-defense, but only in a manner consistent with these humanitarian obligations.

Based on what you have learned about principles of international law, what do you recommend for settling the conflict in Gaza. Discuss at least two assigned readings and offer your assessment of their ideas. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

Two assigned readings guide how these principles should shape a settlement.

Mary Ellen O’Connell argues that international law’s primary purpose is to limit force and channel disputes into peaceful resolution. She emphasizes that continued military action rarely produces lawful or durable security outcomes, making ceasefires and negotiated solutions essential legal duties when civilian suffering becomes excessive.

Richard Falk, writing specifically on Gaza, stresses the deep asymmetry of force and the vulnerability of civilians. He argues that repeated large-scale operations cannot satisfy proportionality or basic humanitarian protections. Falk maintains that any legal settlement must address underlying structural issues such as blockade conditions, occupation, and the absence of political rights, or else violations will continue.

A settlement consistent with international law and informed by these readings should begin with a monitored ceasefire and secure humanitarian access, reflecting O’Connell’s view that the law requires halting hostilities when civilian harm outweighs any military justification. Next, international observers should supervise compliance with humanitarian rules to ensure that both proportionality and civilian protection are taken seriously.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations has been at the center of a number lawsuits. Analyze the issue at the crux of this litigation in the context of at least two landmark cases. - BACKGROUND

The central issue involves Article 36, which requires states to inform detained foreign nationals of their right to contact their consulate. Violations raise questions about whether domestic courts must provide new review or remedy.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations has been at the center of a number lawsuits. Analyze the issue at the crux of this litigation in the context of at least two landmark cases. -SIGNIFICANCE/ANALYSIS

In the Avena case, the ICJ ruled that the United States had breached Article 36 by failing to notify dozens of Mexican nationals of their rights. In Medellin v Texas, the US Supreme Court held that the ICJ judgment was not automatically enforceable domestically without congressional implementation. These cases show tension between international obligations and domestic federalism. In my view, stronger compliance mechanisms are needed to preserve the credibility of treaty obligations.