PSPA 225 Midterm, Fall 2003

PSPA 225 Professor Nawaf Salam Mid-Term Exam / Fall 2003-4 * when (a 1 Part 1 (35%): 1- Discuss: Is International Law jrue Law? Lo often Ta ternattonal low iS wot (1 Tue law \ e CAUSE i L. dsAcons role fee (OS ott! layin that PE Fragile ancl a alow subject te challenge. for exanp? she yur wsaltcronal Scope 1S not necessaril univer | applicable p mm thet natton—s tare ; | ein colelign Q, equal, have +he Want oO not Sin hale ruectiona | : cy there by leav\ "9 them outstde the. jarsdict Ie Vv Tevnortionetl law hel tt has not subscribed ) wx b/c a lec hey ave Upivetsal UU \selicl fe oo nN Bay EAST LAST y Livny RY . ww, 0? BERET 2- Explain and Compare monism and dualism. Montsin \s derived from natural Vey Aer MEAMIng that State law & url law are reqaroled ak insepem bl According to Kelson, there. exists a hierarchy of laws whereby intl. law takes prececle nce over ther ber lan$ such aS Const ru 7 stttechoned lau . . Le 7 nus decrees, etc, thas the 1 lationch: . ere NSINDP be fecen Stole l(a. 2 + iS that Stace. state | & Mtl "ro ™ inte Phoatone | law, Pealism araues that ckate law % inte crcctloner | ted, pre canod exclusive anol that intetnationa| Lice meee oe | \nto \ state. leu rast trerere be TRAUS Rrmee{ la iw” au Must be DELEGATE. ~— we GAS RB OX Nn, ene “hE n Hayy OT Esser rh an ee [> 3- Define and illustrate: material and psychological elements of customary rules Hatectal elements of ¢ US homary cul 25 consis of traditional practices in internattonal relate KS thot have beew iabrally vat lord consistent employed unttorm] 7 & couststen | B has wits bere the Scope of Hme in +d vecec} & the more. haHans Coacticular|y culliserl rattous) thect have emphyn it lw the Wann ep scribe \ the more vealbA te becomes OS A Seateeaet material source of law ihe Rectuette Haloana, illustrates this case. in That the customary (uth tale of nett lly, aperni \ Ay . WAAC their abla oem ator uhen their respective county iS atwar YS ante CO arty, . P sycholegice. | elements involve the “AWingess of nation States to reared cstv betetiona | aS paving Same give bt effect wb this. [.W STY Lin LARY ae PAMERTOA Sy ar « OF selRCT Part IT (65%): SN lilustrate each of the following concepts or rules with a relevant example: 1- Law-making treaty ¢ henevn, Convention, Acta tat Au <Kample OF a malt-lateral COMENAONY ted Seborberewel Creates inter nalora| law avd 3 of universal application as opposed to a treaty Contact A_hewe “sigretoty—s AeA to ccthete te |p v 2- Rights of individuals under Int'l Law against rt own States. United Nations aleclamHon of umon Rahs sets standards from clich sktes a expected + _Meough i te a (6 f , J le Ww Mer hav hey Signe gees sahy/ partes ave expected to Hela pate : subject the tecly to popular congewt, oF a the party has given He Consent 10 uphold! tls right & ablations & it & ok his Pewk a treaty becones legally bind’ wr , . / . 4- Concurrent jurisdiction - \ 7 laut “w strick lea! TRONS, Serusalem is cousiclered as an litt euclue ia Her beth Esiae| & RWh lave jeredichon ove (> LS = 5 “Fixed” territory not being an essential element of statehood ; x ihe tetrttor al Lounclatves ota wattwu-secte aie sot necessarily Lixeh tM thet teretonal €luc tuations cles sot neceesserily dev stnkeken| prardecd that the handames temain more or less cousistentd over rime & \ . . ”) 6- cone iples of Law as a material source of Int’! Law ; J Kenly) ‘accepted behav to thich is locytceal ly Sound. Subbbout've 1 Galues & woims applied under special Cases 3 \nw wit. lon _ omedural- values &rworms whose a licli its Ace not questoued herause rhey are Sy ita” 4 So TT t ER i . SIT ; Lig, ‘RY ney, woe, VEIRUT TY 7+ Direct responsibility of individuals under Int’] Law 3) \rec Naren Tray) pexecutect Mchuidwals for beiws A respon ji le for commit Tug, may COMES 4S opposed to + e\t esp State. Varina 4 eee ve piese wh them iM an ¢ ut. trehue, 3 % 8- Treaty-contract N\ As opposed to a law A treaty) a tracly connect confe £ Ne rights & obltaahwns “pon Sayfa ty states only @ ark parties must provicle LIT Consent th they are to be con! reel the Seame igs. ob haations a> non-parnes. Ty thus een Vave universal agplicabil 10- Compatibility of a reservation Co. Pp bape, fa SIANES reservecttors tO Cevtleln provic wus gf a levee the cect @ purpose of the treaty ttelt, it isetousiclered” as a Pat’ to the trecdy- : : aA do net court or sap on SPH eSB lew with Riahts & oblige. tons Aut : ' \pefere an tutes atowal tribunal £ The & xt tok inl@ Roe Gra A) pee he 12- State violation of its duty not to perform acts of sovere@nton the territory of a . another State sae et PEROT 7 : i mn Gaawens < SESE SOT EH +- ised —checp = o~etfe lotus Case, the pric ot territorial FOE OM ; peed clewe over principe ot nadir No fore & | MAYO v nore, ; Otten f Caste dd a a .13-Judicia¥ de ‘ pera St i isiong as subsidiary means for the determimation of rules of Int’| Law A volo cal ts Aa suborths ary hat ~ ye strawent jo a conenton vu + iK prardes- for in DT clauses oF proviswms of a Wealy Created tw a convention