Mock exam 2010

Method / the « law -approach » : • Specify the question : what is the essence (question)

• Use legal sources– as a basis for the rules ( legal reference)– in order to find out whether the facts fit the rules (fit)

• Pro et contra discussion if needed ( arguments)( either what the rules are , or how the facts fit the rules)

• Conclusion at the end

Question 1 - Qualify the situations

• Question : does IHL apply to the different situations ( armed conflict), and which regime of IHL applies to each situation.

• Legal ref : GCart2, GCart3, APII 1(1)+(2)• Fit the facts : OAG, threshold, attribution for

classification ( link Omega – Beta), intervention of forces, two parallell conflicts,

A) BEFORE N.Y 2008

• Is there a NIAC?– « armed conflict »?

• Organization : OAG• Intensity : «Beyond riots and internal disturbances» APII +

ICC, « protracted armed violence » ICTY

• Which type of NIAC ?– GCart3 « armed conflict of a non-international

character » (« territory » no restriction)– APII3 «in territory », « territorial control » – API1(4) ( always last)

B) BETWEEN N.Y 2008- 10 Jan 2009

• If done by Beta soldiers– Is there an IAC ?• GCart2 threshold ? • GCart2 « between » the HCP ?

– Commentary « intervention of the armed forces of states »

• If done by Omega rebels– Can the acts be attributable to Beta ? • overall controll ( Genocide) or effective controll

(Nicaragua)– Does it reach the threshold for GCart2 ?

C ) AFTER 10 January 2009

• Is there an IAC?– GCart2 « between the HCP »– GCart2 « declaration of war » ?

• If straight forward – keep it short and to the point

Classification - advice• Identify the different pairs of conflicts

• Classify each pair. Question : « does IHL apply to this conflict ? » – 4 possibilities + no armed conflict

• Always start with the legal basics/ source : This is the point of departure for the legal assessment :– GCart2 «armed conflict between HCP » ( States)

• Mere intervention by armies ( Commentary to GC), Tadic– GCart3 « armed conflict not of an international character »

• organization ( party) • intensity ( protracted, more than riots and internal disturbances )(Tadic and Haradinaj)

– APII art 1(1) « armed conflict between armed forces and …on its territory…territorial control, – If API1(4) ( only the last question, only if relevant!)

• If a given conflict may not be determined because of a factor X – assume the alternatives, and conclude for all.

• If straight forward – be brief !

Question 2)

• Question :status - is the decree in line with the principle of distinction : are the drug traffickers and drug producers lawful targets under IHL ?

• Legal ref. : DPH in NIAC ( custom / ICRC guidance) : – continuous combat function ( member of armed forces of

OAG)– civilian DPH.

NB : two parallell conflicts. This question under the NIAC.(Is the question of ‘combatant’ in case of an IAC relevant?

Does it change anything here ?)

• Do the producers and traffickers « take a direct part in hostilites »? If they are not , they are provided with targets immunity under IHL, and the decree will be unlawful.

• Are the drug producers / trafficers directy participating in hostilites according to APII 13(3)?– Continuous combat function ?

• Custom / ICRC : War effort in very narrow sence NO– Civilian DPH

• War -sustaining effort ? NO– Criteria for DPH :

• Threshold of harm• Direct causation (link) : But does this include war- sustaining effort such as drug

trafficing ? – Production trafficking – closeness in link ?

• Belligerent nexus (so designed) No necessary threshold of harm/ no sufficient link

• The decree breaches the principle of distinction unlawful

• Is this a ” war – crime ”?

Question 3 Legality of bombing of Delta

• Question : is this an indiscriminate attack ?• NOTE : the question is NOT whether the bombing was a military necessity,

or whether it complied with military necessity! No such general assessment exist under IHL.

• Legal ref. : API art 51(5) a and b

Question 3• (« armed attack » under the UN Charter ?) ad

bellum• Indiscriminate attack ?

– Indiscriminate Method API art 51(5) a)or– Disproportionate API art 51(5) b)NOTE ! : actual casualty- figures are IRRELEVANT for the

assesment « anticipated » + « expected »

• Military necessity not assesed by IHL !• Military objective API art 52(2) : only objects– Object objective– Almost any civilian object can become a military

objective !

Other sources:

• API art 85 (3) / ICC : war-crime• Manual on Air and Missile Warfare ( custom)

Question 4

• Question: is the method used to free the hostages lawful ?

• Legal ref.: APII 12, custom

• Is this hostage-taking ? GCart3 , APII 4(2)– if Beta attacked ?– If Omega attacked?

• If it is hostage-taking ( unlawful), can this be belligerent reprisal ?– Can NEVER breach the principle of distinction in

belligerent reprisal!

• Abuse of protected emblems APII art 12, ICC 8(2) e) ii)• Absolute prohibition

• Is this perfidy ? – Ruses of war (APIart37, custom) not prohibited– Perfidy ( API art 37(1), custom) – prohibited• Objective : to protect principle of distinction• BUT IS THIS THE SAME IN NIAC ?

GENERAL ADVICE

• Avoid repeating facts without linking it either to the question, to the legal sources or to an argument.

• Do not speculate in facts, but feel free to suggest necessary parameters ( ex. who shot down the plain), if it has important implications