Public International and IHL MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Public International and IHL - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

Key Points

In the S.S. Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) indeed contributed significantly to the understanding of international law. However, the specific definition mentioned in option (A) as "principles which are in force between all independent nations" is a broad paraphrasing and simplification. The PCIJ's judgment mainly focused on the principles related to jurisdiction over offenses occurring on the high seas and did not provide a comprehensive definition of international law as such. The case underscored the principle that states have sovereignty and jurisdiction over their vessels on the high seas, which reflects on international law's consensual and cooperative nature among sovereign states.

The statement attributed to Professor Dias in option (B) simplifies a complex debate about the nature of international law. While it is true that some scholars, including John Austin, have been skeptical about categorizing international law as 'law' in the strict sense due to its perceived lack of a sovereign authority and a systematic enforcement mechanism, this view is not universally held. Many legal theorists and practitioners argue that international law does indeed meet the criteria of law due to its normative character, the obligations it imposes on subjects, and the mechanisms for its interpretation and enforcement, albeit different from domestic legal systems.

The quote attributed to Lord Halsbury in option (C), suggesting international law should be better described as a branch of ethics, captures a perspective held by some critics who view international law as lacking the force and direct enforceability characteristic of domestic law. However, it's important to note that Lord Halsbury was never the Prime Minister of England but rather served as Lord Chancellor. Despite this factual inaccuracy, the sentiment reflects ongoing debates about the nature of international law, emphasizing the challenges of enforcement and compliance in an international system without a centralized governing authority.

The definition of International Law by Russel in option (D) as "the aggregate of the rules to which the nations have agreed to conform in their conduct towards one another" is a widely accepted view. It encapsulates a crucial aspect of international law: it is a system of rules and norms that are created through the consent of states and other international actors. These rules govern the interactions between states, international organizations, and, to some extent, individuals and non-state actors, aiming at promoting peace, security, and cooperation on a global scale.

Option (E) reflects John Austin's positivist perspective, which argues that law is the command of a sovereign to whom people are habitually obedient, and that international law lacks such centralized authoritative command, thereby questioning its status as 'law' in the traditional sense. However, this view is contentious and does not account for the complex realities of international legal practice, where states regularly adhere to international laws and norms, not merely out of moral or ethical considerations but also due to legal obligations and the benefits of reciprocal cooperation.

In conclusion, option 2, consisting of statements (A), (C), and (D), presents the correct combination of statements concerning the framing, interpretation, and understanding of international law among scholars and legal traditions. This option encapsulates the nuanced and evolving nature of international law, recognizing its foundations in state consent and cooperation while acknowledging the debates around its legal status and enforcement mechanisms.

Key Points

The correct answer is option 4) November 3, 1950.

The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Uniting for Peace Resolution, officially known as resolution 377 A (V), on November 3, 1950. This resolution was adopted in response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in specific situations, thereby allowing the General Assembly to consider matters of international peace and security when the Security Council fails to act due to a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members.

Key Points

Re, Lynch: This pivotal case exemplifies the intricate ties between nationality, sovereign powers, and individual rights. In the context of international law and diplomatic relations, the case underscores a nuanced understanding of nationality beyond mere citizenship or legal identity. The British Mexican Claims Commission's definition highlights several key dimensions:

Nationality as a Legal Relationship: At its core, nationality is portrayed not just as a status but as a legal bond that connects the individual to the state. This relationship is imbued with rights and obligations, underpinning the individual's legal standing both domestically and internationally.

Sovereign State and Citizenship: The definition emphasizes the dual components of this relationship: the sovereign state on one side, representing governmental authority and territorial integrity, and the citizen on the other, as the bearer of nationality. This delineation underscores the state's role in recognizing and conferring nationality, as well as its discretion in governing the terms of this association.

Membership in an Independent Political Community: Here, nationality is fundamentally tied to the concept of belonging to a collective—a community that is independent and politically organized. This aspect highlights the societal dimension of nationality, where it serves as a marker of a person's connection to a wider community with shared governance and collective identity.

Implications of the Definition: By framing nationality through the lens of a continuing legal relationship and membership in an independent political community, this definition from the Re, Lynch case captures the layered and dynamic nature of the concept. It underlines the significance of nationality in determining an individual's legal rights, societal belonging, and international recognition.

In essence, the Re, Lynch case contributes a dense and multifaceted understanding of nationality to international jurisprudence, underscoring the key elements of legal ties, sovereign authority, and communal belonging that define the relationship between an individual and their state.

Key Points

To address the question of the chronological order in which the cases were decided, let's examine each case individually:

Island of Palmas Arbitration case (B): This case was decided in 1928. It was between the United States and the Netherlands, concerning sovereignty over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas), located in the Pacific Ocean. The case was arbitrated by Max Huber, who decided in favor of the Netherlands.

SS Lotus case (E): The Permanent Court of International Justice decided this case in 1927. It involved a dispute between France and Turkey regarding jurisdiction over a collision on the high seas. The court ruled that Turkey did not violate international law by instituting criminal proceedings against a French citizen.

Nuremberg Judgement (C): This refers to the trials held in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War II, from 1945 to 1946, where leading Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The most famous is the judgment against the major war criminals in 1946.

Right of Passage over Indian Territory case (D): Decided by the International Court of Justice in 1960, this case involved a dispute between Portugal and India regarding the right of passage for Portugal over Indian territory to reach its enclaves.

Fisheries Jurisdiction (Merits) case (A): Decided by the International Court of Justice in 1974, this case involved a dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland concerning fishing rights in the North Atlantic.

With this information, let's arrange the cases in chronological order:

1.SS Lotus case (E) - 1927

2.Island of Palmas Arbitration case (B) - 1928

3.Nuremberg Judgement (C) - 1946

4.Right of Passage over Indian Territory case (D) - 1960

5.Fisheries Jurisdiction (Merits) case (A) - 1974

Hence, the correct answer is option 3 (E, B, C, D, A)

Key Points

Here's a detailed explanation for each match from List I to List II, corresponding to option 1 (A - II, B - I, C - IV, D - III):

A. Rule of specialty - II. Extradition

The rule of specialty is a principle in extradition law that stipulates a person who has been extradited to a requesting state to face criminal charges can only be tried for the crimes for which extradition was granted. This ensures that the extradited person is not subjected to charges that were not disclosed to the surrendering state, maintaining fairness and transparency in international legal proceedings related to criminal matters.

B. Paquete Habana - I. Importance of the works of jurists

The Paquete Habana case is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1900, which established that customary international law is part of U.S. law. This case highlighted the importance of the works of jurists in identifying and interpreting principles of international law, as the decision was significantly influenced by legal writings and precedents. It underscored the role of scholarly work in shaping and recognizing the norms that govern international relations.

C. Barcelona Traction case - IV. Equity and Justice

The Barcelona Traction case was a judgment by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1970, which involved issues of corporate nationality and the rights of shareholders. This case is often cited for its discussions on the principles of equity and justice, particularly in the context of protecting the rights of minority shareholders and the obligations of states toward foreign investors. It illustrates how international law seeks to balance interests and ensure fair treatment across borders, embodying principles of equity and justice.

D. Nicaragua v USA - III. Sources of International Law are not hierarchical but complementary and interrelated

The case of Nicaragua v. United States (1986) before the ICJ is a seminal case that addressed the illegal use of force and intervention in the affairs of another state. One of the key takeaways from this case is the understanding that sources of international law, such as treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law, are not hierarchical but complementary and interrelated. This case illustrated how different sources of law work together to form a coherent legal framework for resolving disputes and establishing norms at the international level.

This explanation provides a comprehensive understanding of each match, illustrating how each case or principle contributes to the broader context of international law and its foundational concepts

Key Points

Statement A: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) is also called the World Bank.

This statement is correct. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) is one of five member institutions that compose the World Bank Group. IBRD is the part of the World Bank that works with middle income and creditworthy low income countries.

Hence, Statement A is correct.

Statement B: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) is also called the International Monetary Fund.

This statement is incorrect. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) or World Bank are two distinct entities providing different services. The IMF focuses primarily on monetary issues and the balance of payments, while the IBRD offers loans and financial products to countries.

Hence, Statement B is incorrect.

Statement C: The Dunkel Draft Act embodies the results of the Tokyo Round.

This statement is incorrect. The Dunkel Draft is actually associated with the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), not the Tokyo Round. The draft, named after Arthur Dunkel, the then Director General of GATT, was a comprehensive proposal to conclude the Uruguay Round negotiations.

Hence, Statement C is incorrect.

Statement D: The WTO provides for a Secretariat headed by a Director General.

This statement is correct. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has a Secretariat, which is headed by a Director General. The Secretariat is responsible for the organization's administrative functions and its technical support for the various councils and committees and for the Ministerial Conferences.

Hence, Statement D is correct.

Statement E: The WTO provides for a Secretariat headed by Secretary General.

This statement is incorrect. As mentioned, the WTO's Secretariat is headed by a Director General, not a Secretary General. The use of "Secretary General" might be confused with the title used in other international organizations, such as the United Nations.

Hence, Statement E is incorrect.

Conclusion:

The correct statements among the options given are A and D, which corresponds to option 4) A and D only

The "Estrada Doctrine" is a principle in international law that was developed by Genaro Estrada, who served as the Foreign Minister of Mexico in the early 20th century. This doctrine is a significant aspect of Mexico's foreign policy and bears important implications for diplomatic recognition in international relations.

Key Points

Key Aspects of the Estrada Doctrine:

Non-Recognition of Governments: The doctrine argues against the practice of granting or withholding diplomatic recognition to governments that come to power through revolution or coups. According to this principle, a state should not judge the legitimacy of other nations' governments.

Sovereign Equality and Non-Intervention: Central to the Estrada Doctrine is the idea that all states are equal and should not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. This principle respects the sovereignty of nations and promotes non-interventionist policies.

Automatic Recognition: Instead of formal recognition, the Estrada Doctrine suggests that diplomatic relationships should continue with the new government of a country, assuming it controls the state effectively. This stance avoids the politicization of recognition and maintains neutrality.

Critique of Traditional Recognition Policies: Before the Estrada Doctrine, the act of diplomatically recognizing governments was often used as a political tool. Estrada's approach was a critique of this practice, aiming to establish a more neutral and principled stance in international law.

Influence on International Relations: The Estrada Doctrine has influenced the foreign policies of various nations, especially those in Latin America. It is seen as a move towards a more equitable international system where the sovereignty and internal matters of nations are respected.

Historical Context: Developed in 1930, the Estrada Doctrine was a response to the frequent changes in government occurring in various countries, particularly in Latin America, during that era. Mexico, under Estrada's guidance, sought a more stable and respectful approach to international diplomacy, moving away from the interventionist policies common at the time.

The Estrada Doctrine continues to be a reference point in discussions on diplomatic recognition and international law, highlighting the importance of non-intervention, respect for sovereignty, and the principle of treating states as equals in the international community.

Key Points

"International Law or the Law of the Nations is the name of the body of rules which according to the usual definition regulate the conduct of states in their intercourse with one another," has been stated by Kelson.
His definition emphasizes the regulatory framework that governs the interactions between states, highlighting the importance of a structured set of rules to maintain order and cooperation in the international community.

The correct answer is the Second Geneva Convention

Key Points

• Second Geneva Convention:
  • The Second Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949, specifically deals with the protection of wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea.
  • It stipulates that hospital ships, which are dedicated to medical purposes, must be respected and protected under all circumstances.
  • These ships cannot be attacked or captured, ensuring they can perform their humanitarian functions without interference.

Additional Information

• First Geneva Convention:
  • Deals with the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field.
  • It does not specifically address the protection of hospital ships.
• Third Geneva Convention:
  • Focuses on the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs).
  • It ensures humane treatment and establishes rights for POWs but does not cover hospital ships.
• Fourth Geneva Convention:
  • Concerns the protection of civilian persons in times of war.
  • It does not include provisions specifically related to hospital ships.

Key Points

Statement A: All international conventions - This statement is correct in the sense that international conventions or treaties are indeed recognized as a source of international law. But international conventions or treaties establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states are specifically included under Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice. Therefore it is not correct.
Statement B: International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law - This statement is also correct. International custom, which consists of practices that are accepted as legal obligations by states, is acknowledged as a source of international law. It reflects the actual behavior and belief of states regarding those practices as legally binding.
Statement C: The general principles of law recognized by the United Nations - This statement is incorrect. The correct formulation, as per Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, refers to "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations," not specifically by the United Nations. The United Nations can contribute to the development and recognition of these principles, but the phrasing in Article 38 does not mention the UN specifically.
Statement D: The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations - This statement is correct. It points to a source of international law that encompasses the fundamental principles of law shared by the major legal systems of the world. These principles provide a foundation for the application and interpretation of international law in situations where treaties and customary law might not offer clear guidance.
Correct Option: 2) B, D only
Hence, the correct answer is option 2 (B, D only), as these are the statements that accurately represent the sources of international law as enumerated in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.