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 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