FINAL ANNOUNCEMENTS: International Law Class A and Class B

Assalaamu’alaykum warahmatullaahi wabarakaatuh.

Dear beloved and respected students of international law, both Class A and B. Through this blog post I wish to announce both the answers and achieved scores of the final exams of our class. I have submitted your final grades to the IUP office today (June 17^th) at around 3pm, which consists of many components including the mid semester exams and assignments. What I will announce below would just be your final exam scores from a maximum of 100 points.

You will have your chance to meet me shall you have any protests or need for further clarification. As per usual, you are expected to read the answers below first if you wish to protest, and then send me an email (fajri.matahati@gmail.com) by July 3^rd the latest to make an appointment with me. Generally, by default, I will be available everyday (starting on Saturday, June 20^th) except on 8.00-9.30 am, 1.00-2.30 pm, and after 5pm. However, it is very likely that I will only be in campus upon request of appointment, which means that it is less likely for you to randomly show up and find me in my office. It is very likely that I will be leaving Jogja at July 8^th, though, so maybe if you wish to meet me make sure it is before that day.

So, this is the end of our course. I will really appreciate it if any of you can provide feedback for my lectures, which you can send through email at any time. Many of you have not achieved good scores, and some of you even got really low ones. Honestly, it does not please me at all to give low scores, but I have to be fair. If I can find a fair and just reason to add your marks I will do it, but what I have given below is the best I can do. Really, please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the way I teach if I share any portion of fault in it.

And you too, please, evaluate your way of studying or even your intentions to study in the first place. Some answers were seriously incoherent, which is beyond incorrect, which makes me seriously think you may need some help. I say this without any anger or hatred, rather it is with compassion and concern, because I have met and dealt with students who needed extra help before so I know how difficult it can become.

Thank you very much for your participation and efforts (or lack thereof, but thank you anyways), and I on behalf of myself alone would like to apologize for any inconveniences or mistakes I may have committed. I hope you have learned something from my lectures, because I myself have learned a lot from you guys. Good luck for other exams.

For those who are Muslims, happy Ramadhan everyooonneee I hope we all improve our relations with each other and especially with Allah Ta’ala during this month!

Jazakumullaahu khayran katheera, wassalaamu’alaykum warahmatullaahi wabarakaatuh!

EXAM ANSWERS

Question 1: Succession of States

Treaties of Ukraine concerning Crimea will terminate for Ukraine. Border agreements between Ukraine and Russia will terminate if it includes Crimea. Treaties of Russia will apply to Crimea. Treaties of Ukraine concerning Crimea will apply to Russia (not to Ukraine anymore) and therefore apply to Crimea, except if it will then defeat the objects and purposes of that treaty.

Common mistakes:

• Crimea is not a state! Crimea was part of Ukraine. Those who answer “treaties entered into by Crimea” or anything along those lines either don’t read enough (you are a law student!) or did not listen properly in class
• Some mention “past treaties” but do not mention treaties applicable to whom, or mention “will terminate” but does not mention to whom. Because as you can see above, there are treaties that terminate only for Ukraine but continue to apply to Crimea through Russia.

Question 2: Reservation

Reservation is basically a State excluding certain provisions of a treaty, therefore not bound by those certain provisions. It is prohibited when the treaty prohibits reservations (either in whole or in a particular part[s]) or if such a reservation will defeat the objects and purposes of the treaty.

PS: not all human rights treaties are package deals. For example, you can make reservations to CEDAW!

Common mistakes:

Many of you managed to answer correctly. Those who didn’t answer correctly simply didn’t study enough (or at all)

Question 3: Legal Personality of International Organizations

One can refer to the basic instrument/charter of that IO, if it specifically and explicitly confers legal personality. Failing that, legal personality may be implied if the objects and purposes of that IO cannot be achieved without legal personality or through the practice.

Common mistakes:

• Some of you just say “if there are rights and responsibilities”. Well, we know that. How do you determine that, that is the question.
• Some of you answer with the characteristics of an IO. That was not the question

Question 4: Difference of role in 3^rd party

In mediations, a third party facilitates, assists, and actively participates in the negotiations between the disputing parties, while any decisions are to be agreed only between the parties. In conciliation, a third party also mediates while also conducting a fact finding mission, then providing a non-binding proposal to settle the dispute. Arbitration is when the third party provides a legally binding decision to settle the dispute.

Common mistakes:

Many of you simply lack in explaining your answers.

Question 5: Immunity and Inviolability

Immunity is exemption from the receiving state’s laws and jurisdiction (e.g. criminal jurisdiction), while inviolability means that the diplomatic agent may not be harmed or disturbed in any way (e.g. arrests).

Common mistakes:

Many did this one correctly, some simply either did not study enough or got mixed up between the two

Question 6: President Wirant.. I mean, Winarto

At the very least, this is a situation of non-international armed conflict. An air force is definitely a military operation, while the FPO is a non-State armed group fighting against the state. This is a breach of IHL due to the lack of precaution or recklessness causing non-combatants to be killed. It may also be a breach of IHRL because it is a massive violation of the rights of life. However, whether IHRL applies in this situation is subject to your argument. If you can prove that IHRL does not apply in times of armed conflict, then I can mark you for saying so. You can also say that IHRL also applies in times of armed conflict, if you can prove it.

Both Winarto (individual) and Indonesia (state) are responsible. We have learned how individuals can be responsible under international criminal law including in cases of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Further, you have also learned how acts of the head of state can be attributable to the state, thus creating state responsibility.

Common mistakes:

• Claiming IHL without establishing the situation of armed conflict. Just saying that “because there is a war” is not enough. I mean, where is the war? Just because the government is showering a part of it’s territory with bombs, it does not mean that it is an armed conflict. If you cannot prove the existence of armed conflict, all the principles of distinction precaution proportionality etc will not apply.
• Claiming that IHRL applies and not IHL, but without dismissing the existence of an armed conflict there. The existence of the FPO as the target of attack is a very important legal fact.
• Claiming State Responsibility without dismissing individual responsibility (or otherwise). You cannot simply say that “Since I have proven that it is State responsibility, it simply cannot be individual responsibility”. This is because there is a possibility (which turns out to be the answer) that both are responsible.
• The fact that Winarto is a former military general is totally irrelevant!!!!!

Question 7: Individuals as Subjects of International Law

Entities can be considered as subjects of international law if they have legal personality, i.e. having rights and obligations under international law. Students are expected to prove this by providing evidence of rights and obligations under international law attached to individuals. E.g. rights rising out of human rights treaties, and legal standing to make claims against states, also obligations to respect other human rights, obligations in IHL, etc.

Common mistakes:

• Why did so many of you put the “because states are imaginary” argument?

First, this argument has been refuted by the fact that individuals and states have separate legal personality (since we are talking about legal personality, right? And we have discussed this in class!).

Second, even if we were to accept the “states are imaginary” argument, you have only eliminated states from the list of subjects of international law. You have yet to prove that individuals are the subjects of international law. How do you do this? You need to prove that individuals have rights and obligations under international law. But then by doing this, you wont even need to discuss the “states are imaginary” in the first place!

• Quite a lot of you mention “because they have rights and obligations” but that claim is not substantiated by evidence.

GRADES OF FINAL EXAM

PS: for those who did not attend the final exam (marked with – ), your final grade will not be released by the IUP office. Please talk to them about it.