Do not use long quotes. Cite the materials you use fully and completely in the test, including page numbers, providing full citation in footnotes. Incorporate multiple
sources into your answers.
Answer both questions!
Question 1: One of the fundamental principles of international law governing international relations is the principle of non-use of force in dispute settlement in the
international arena. With this in mind:
A) Discuss the use/non-use of force in international law from the standpoint of both customary and conventional law. Your discussion should address all of the
following points: (a) the evolution of thinking on the use of force in dispute settlement, particularly from circa the first world war; (b) the conceptualization and
codification of customs on the use of force in modern international legal instruments such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of
International Law and Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
(B-1) Discuss the use/non-use of force in the Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua(Nicaragua v. US). How did the Court justify its
jurisdiction in spite of the US opposition? Was the US justified in its position in the Nicaragua case? Why or why not? Was the International Court of Justice correct
in ruling against the United Stares and in its determination of the principles of international law it applied?
(B-2) Compare and contrast this case with the March 2011 US/NATO use of force in Libya against the Gaddafi regime, which led to the regimes demise. How did the US/NATO
justify their intervention in Libya? What role did the UN play or not play? Was the intervention justified under international law? Will need to research Libya case.
Question 2: Scenario
Jorge Salazar was a Colonel in the Guatemalan military and paramilitary functionary in the operation known as the “Operation Condor,” which terrorized Guatemala’s
indigenous Maya population in the 1980s during the civil war in Guatemala. Eyewitness testimonies proved without any doubt that he was a member of the force which
engaged in crimes against the indigenous population of Guatemala, crimes such as killing and raping , targeting Indigenous religious and cultural institutions,
destroying their villages and towns and forcibly removing them from their ancestral homelands, a policy that came popularly known as “ethnic-cleansing”. Eyewitness
argued that Salazar no only participated in indiscriminate crimes against indigenous communities, but also engaged in specific, well-planned, targeted crimes against
indigenous peoples whom Salazar accused of being a danger to the wee-being of the Guatemalan state by virtue of his belief that were part of a movement to establish an
Indigenous Maya state in Guatemala without the consent of the government of Guatemala.
After the war in the countryside subsided, Salazar found his way to Chicago as an illegal immigrant to live in a predominately Guatemalan community. As luck would have
it, Jantos Rodriguez, who had been tortured by Salazar in Guatemala, but had survived and eventually came to the untied States as a refugee, ran into Salazar in a bar.
Unaware that he had been spotted, Salazar slowly took the last sip from his wine, stood, up and went home. Rodriguez followed him home, noted the address, and. later
that week, his lawyer filed a suit before a US court, accusing Salazar of crimes against humanity, including the torture of one Rodriguez.
The court ordered the arrest of Salazar and he was brought before the court. The first thing that Salazar did was to argue that the United States has no jurisdiction
aver his case as events occurred in a territory other than the territory of the United States. Second, he held that whatever he had done he had done while executing a
war and under those orders of his superiors which absolved him of any responsibility for the crimes of which he is accused. “Things.” he said, “sometimes got out of
hand in the course of war.” He argued that he should not be held responsible for the developments beyond his control.Later, in the course of the deliberations of his
case, he would also indicate that he became a party to some atrocities against indigenous civilians for the fear that, if he had not done so, he would have been
executed by his superiors. Keeping these facts in mind and assuming that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decided not to get involved in the case,
please answer the following questions:
(a) Does a court in the United States have Jurisdiction over Salazar? If so, under what national and/or international principles and/or conventions apply?
(b) Does a court in the United States have Jurisdiction over Salazar under US domestic laws?
(c) If the US courts are determined to have Jurisdiction in this case, what in your opinion should the verdict be and why? Discuss in detail against the background of
the war in Guatemala?
discuss the questions with as much detail and specificity as you can by introducing relevant cases, principles, and customs of international law, as appropriate.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂