Creative analysis on the basis of question - can be dissenting opinion as long as based on facts - 4 to 5 questions, answer all - TIME MANAGEMENT, answer according to marks - topic-centric focus on exams - can argue from two different angles, but WRITE FROM THE POSITION/PERSPECTIVE REQUIRED - OPEN BOOK - bigger topics on diplomatic immunity, human rights situations, sanctions, mixed situations --> CREATIVE ANSWERS

Modern Foreign Relations Law and Diplomacy SAMPLE EXAM Question 1 20 points Mr. and Mrs. Egleen Wasterdeen, the ambassador of Westland in Eastland and his wife, hire Happy Face, Inc. to cater their daughter’s wedding reception. Emily, their daughter, is getting married to the older son of ambassador Turgis Maturgis of Northland, Macklem. The costs are estimated at approximately CHF 150,000, and ambassador Wasterdeen signs the estimate, with the handwritten addendum: “If it is a little more, that’s fine.” Some 250 guests attend the reception at a lovely resort by a lake in Eastland’s lake district, 80% of them members of the diplomatic corps. Ambassador Wasterdeen uses the opportunity for a lot of talks with his colleagues, including preliminary negotiations on a trade agreement with Northland. After the event, Happy Face, Inc. presents ambassador Wasterdeed with a bill totaling CHF 189,000. The cover letter states that “consumption of alcoholic beverages has exceeded estimates, and several expensive pieces of china have been damaged.” Ambassador Wasterdeen calls Happy Face, Inc. and says: “I am paying you CHF 150,000 as agreed. If you want more, sue me.” This is exactly what Happy Face, Inc. does. The suit for CHF 39,000 is handled by the local District Court. You are the legal advisor to the Eastland Foreign Ministry. Draft a brief to the District Court advising the court whether it should entertain the suit against ambassador Wasterdeen. [Since the countries above are imaginary, feel free to use judicial and other sources from other countries.] Question 2 20 points Consider the same scenario as in question 1. However, during the wedding reception, Labo, the younger son of ambassador Maturgis of Northland, has what he calls a “little romantic encounter” with 15-year old server Lilly Marloon. Lilly sees it differently, and files a criminal report with the local police the following morning, charging Labo with rape. The Eastland criminal code provides that “sexual relations with a person 16 years of age or less is rape and shall be punished by a prison term of three to seven years and a fine”. The local police contact the Eastland Foreign Ministry and ask the following questions: “(a) Should we file charges against Labo Maturgis?

(b) Should we arrest Labo Maturgis?” You are the legal advisor to the Eastland Foreign Ministry. Give answers. Question 3 40 points You are a judge at the District Court in the capital of Questionitallistan (Q). It is December of 2007. Q has ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Q’s constitution provides as follows: “Article VII. The international treaties on human rights which Q has ratified shall form part of the Constitution and are to be directly applied by all courts of the country.” The Questionallistanian Human Rights Violations (Global) Suppression Act (HRVGSA) of 2004 provides in its Section 102: “(1) Financial transactions that benefit foreign citizens, enterprises, organizations, governments or other entities [henceforth: foreign entities] that engage in or contribute to a practice of gross or continuous violations of human rights are prohibited. (2) The courts shall have the powers to … (iii) order citizens or entities of Questionallistan not to engage in business or conduct financial transactions with foreign entities, either in person or through corporations or financial institutions, if such actions would be contrary to para. (1).” Q’s National Badminton Federation (NBF) and the Surfing League of Q (SLQ) intend to send teams to the Olympic Games in Beijing, China in 2008 [badminton and surfing are the only sports Q is competing in internationally]. A NGO, Question All for Justice (QAJ), files the following lawsuit against NBF and SLQ, which is assigned to you: “The Peoples’ Republic of China engages in constant and widespread human rights violations. This fact has been shown conclusively by independent assessments by both inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, and is well documented also in statements and actions by governments. NBF and SLQ intend to send athletes and officials to Beijing who will pay monies for transportation, visa, housing, food, and facilities to entities there. Since China is a communist, centrally controlled state with direct government control of any and all business activities, in particular those associated with the Olympic Games, NBF and SLQ will pay these monies to entities of the Chinese government which is engaged in said human rights violations.

Any payment of monies to entities in China violates Section 102 (1) of the HRVGSA. NBF and SLQ would, while in China, engage in business with foreign entities within the meaning of that Section “in person” as envisaged in Section 102 (2) (iii). The District Court is thus requested to rule: That NBF and SLQ are enjoined from sending teams of athletes and officials to participate in the Olympic Games pursuant to Section Section 102 (2) (iii) of the HRVGSA.” You have jurisdiction to decide this matter. All formal requirements are met. NBF and SLQ are not government entities to whom any special status or any form of domestic immunity would apply. Draft a judgment in the case. Question 4 40 points You are the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Mifsud. Mifsud’s Constitution provides inter alia: “Article III. International law is the law of the land. … Article XII. The criminal courts of Mifsud shall exercise universal jurisdiction in accordance with established principles of international law. … Article CXII. The President of the Republic, the Lower and Upper Houses of Parliament, and any Provincial Parliament may submit requests for advisory opinions on the scope and meaning of constitutional law as well as the constitutionality of legislation or (proposed) government action to the Constitutional Court.” The Republic of Nimrod is a newly independent state created after the violent dissolution of the Union of Sowol and Nimrod (USN) in 2000. In the struggle for independence (1999-2000), Colonel Rigor Rigassow stood out as a leader of the National Patriotic Army (NPA) of Nimrod. It is alleged that in the fight against the Sowol forces, Colonel Rigassow was frequently taking both military personnel and civilians hostage, several of whom were executed when Sowol refused to negotiate for their release; during the March 2000 attack on the capital of what is now Nimrod, Colonel Rigassow’s unit captured some 2500 civilians of Sowol ethnicity and, it is alleged, had them transported to a wooded area and shot. The NPA turned into the National Patriotic Party (NPP) after the end of the hostilities, and has ruled Nimrod ever since. In March 2012, Colonel Rigassow is appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nimrod. An international conference is scheduled in Mifsud for September 2013, which Minister Rigassow intends to attend. In April 2013, the Coalition for Human Rights (CHR), a NGO in Mifsud, files criminal charges against Minister Rigassow, alleging that he

committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Sowol – Nimrod stuggle. They ask the local criminal court to issue an arrest warrant against Minister Rigassow. Concerned about a possible diplomatic crisis, the President of the Republic of Mifsud requests the Constitutional Court to render an advisory opinion on the following questions: “(a) Do the criminal courts of Mifsud have jurisdiction to try Minister Rigassow? (b) If the answer to question (a) is yes, would the arrest, trial, and conviction of Minister Rigassow violate international law?” While the Constitutional Court is considering the matter, the Embassy of Nimrod in Mifsud files a motion as an interested party asking the Court not to entertain the request for an advisory opinion. It argues as follows: “According to the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the case of The Republic of Congo v. Belgium, acting Ministers of Foreign Affairs enjoy unlimited immunity from criminal prosecution in a foreign country. The request for an advisory opinion treats the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nimrod like a person who is charged under Mifsud’s criminal law, which is impermissible under international law. As Congo v. Belgium shows, even criminal proceedings concerning Ministers of Foreign Affairs that are very unlikely to produce any practical effect are inconsistent with the comity amongst nations and violate international law. Any action by the Constitutional Court that would, even theoretically, treat Minister Rigassow as anything other than a person enjoying absolute immunity, would likewise violate international law. This includes an affirmative answer to question (a). We thus request that the Constitutional Court reject the request for an advisory as inadmissible.” How would you suggest the Constitutional Court should rule on the petition of the Embassy of Nimrod? [The application of the Embassy of Nimrod to appear as an interested party is formally admissible. No procedural hurdles exist that would render the request for an advisory opinion or the petition of the Embassy of Nimrod inadmissible. No criminal charges are pending against Minister Rigassow in any country except Mifsud. The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.]