hey buddy we have about 4 days from now if you have any qustion let me know
ch2.pdf
ch2_answer_the_questions.docx
ch2_cases_brief.docx
ch3.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Questions
1. What type of acts made the Dutch occupation of the island of Palmas sufficient to
demonstrate sovereignty?
The Dutch (Netherlands) made direct and indirect acts of occupation of the island of
Palmas sufficient to demonstrate their sovereignty. Netherlands made direct and
indirect acts by their title of peaceful and an open and public continuous display of
State authority over the island of Palmas, especially in the 18th and early 19th
centuries. This continuous display of state authority was sufficient to demonstrate
Dutch sovereignty over the island and it was not necessary to demonstrate the precise
date which the display begun.
2. What does arbitrator Huber mean by the critical date?
The critical date refers to the date upon which the dispute related to sovereignty over
land crystallized. It is an important date because it distinguishes those acts that are
consistent with sovereignty as occurring prior to the date when the dispute crystallized
and not the acts that were done after that date.
3. What is meant by the application of intertemporal law?
The application of intertemporal law refers to the application of a different legal
systems prevailing at specific successive periods with regards to a particular case. It
refers to temporal applicability of a norm which the court uses in order to evaluate
changes in the international law.
4. Why was the U.S. claim not successful?
The U.S. claim was not successful because they based their claim on the titles of
discovery, of recognition by treaty and of contiguity relating to the acts or
circumstances leading to the acquisition of sovereignty. The title of contiguity had no
foundation in international law. The U.S. title of discovery could not prevail over the
display of sovereignty which the Dutch demonstrated.
Questions
1. What persuaded the Court that in 1844 the island of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
belonged to the Sultanate of Johor (which ultimately became part of Malaysia)?
The court was persuaded that the island of Pedra Branca belonged to Sultanate of
Johor because it was acknowledged that from the 17th century till early 19th century,
the Kingdom of Johor comprised the Malaya Peninsula, Straits of Singapore, and
islands and islets in the area of the Straits, which included where Pedra Branca was
located. Also, throughout the entire history of the old Sultanate of Johor, there was no
competing claim over the area of the Straits of Singapore. There was also a display of
state of State authority over the area.
2. What persuaded the Court that the island now belongs to Singapore?
The court was persuaded that the island belongs to Singapore because Singapore has
exercised continuous sovereignty over the island while Malaysia did nothing.
Singapore installed naval communication equipment and it did reclamation plans after
1953. Also, Johor authorities had no control over the island from June 1850 for the
whole century or more and when officials visited the island, they were subject to
Singapore permission. There were also Malaysian maps in the 1960s and 1970s which
indicated that Singapore had sovereignty which showed full consent of the situation
which the Court recalled. All these were relevant facts.
3. If State A has good title to territory at a particular point in time, what is the least it
must do to ensure the continuance of that good title into the future? What sort of
information would you need to discover to answer this question?
If a State A has a good title to territory at a particular point in time, it must do certain
things to ensure the continuance of the good title into the future. These include;
continuous public and open display of sovereignty of the territory in terms of quality
and quantity; for example by setting up security over the area or building
communication ports and other army camps. The information that would be needed to
answer this would be to establish the Effectivites. This includes legislative acts or acts
of administrative control relating to the application and enforcement of criminal or
civil laws. The State should also regulate immigration, economic activities, naval
ports and patrols, and even control rescue operations. This is to ensure no competing
claim in future.
Questions
3. What are the similarities and differences between the Falklands/Malvinas dispute
and the Island of Palmas case?
Both questions in second full paragraph.
Similarities
The international law seemed to agree for both Island of Palmas case and Falkland’s
dispute that discovery alone was not sufficient to confer title and sovereignty. Both
the Falklands dispute and the Palmas case were about ownership and sovereignty of
land by a particular state. Both the Falklands dispute and the Palmas case were good
examples of title to territory and formed a basis for modern national systems of law.
Differences
The Falklands/Malvins dispute was a territorial dispute that escalated into a war while
the Island of Palmas case did not result into a war. The claims of the main West
Falkland and East Falkland Islands were contained in quite old documents and were
difficult to prove while the Island of Palmas case documents of proof of ownership of
island by the U.S. were present. There were a number of visits to the Islands by the
British and Spanish sailors but these had no legal significance because there was no
title claimed on the expedition. For the case of Palmas, the visitors were subject to the
Dutch Government. The Island of Palmas case had disputes from only two parties
over the island; the U.S. and Netherlands. The Falklands dispute had several parties
concerning the ownership of the islands including 47 years Spanish occupation, 7
years British, 2 years French, and 11 years Argentines of claims. The islanders were
asked to vote as to whether or not they wished to remain as a British Overseas
Territory in the Falklands dispute while in the Island of Palmas, no voting was
required from the islanders. The dispute was not solved by a Court of Law while the
Palmas case was solved by a Court of Law. There was no application of intertemporal
law while in Palmas case there was application of intertemporal law.
Briefs
Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Baty Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
Briefs
Name of case: Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case
Parties involved: United States v. The Netherlands
Court or Hearing Body: The Permanent Court of Arbitration
Facts: This was a territorial dispute whereby the United States claimed ownership of the island
of Palmas and Netherlands also had a claim of ownership over the land. The United States
claimed that the island was granted by Spain through a treaty in 1898 in which they obtained the
rights of the land and the successor over the Philippines. United States also had a title in the first
place which was on discovery. Netherlands, on the other hand, claimed that they possessed and
exercised their sovereignty over the land for a period in which was from 1677 to the present
time.
Legal Issues: Was the island of Palmas (or Miangas) in 1898 a part of the territory under
Netherlands sovereignty?
Did this sovereignty actually exist in 1898 in regard to Palmas (or Miangas) and are the facts
proved which were alleged on this subject?
Holding (and Judgement): The Arbitrator held decided that the Island of Palmas or Miangas
forms in its entirety a part of Netherlands territory.
Reasoning:
1. The Court held that the Netherlands had direct and indirect display of sovereignty at
Palmas island in the 18th and 19th century, though they were not numerous.
2. It is not necessary as to when the display of sovereignty begun as long as it suffices that it
had existed at the critical period preceding the year 1898 of the dispute.
3. There was no claim or dispute over the island since 1666 till the contestation by the U.S.
in 1906.
4. The exercise of authority by Netherlands was not under a derived or precarious title and it
was considered as fulfilled.
5. The title of discovery of the U.S. could not prevail over a definite title founded on
continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty.
6. The Netherlands title of sovereignty acquired by continuous and peaceful display of
authority during a long period of time going back beyond 1700 was held as good.
Analysis or comments:
The important thing about this decision is that it informs any individual, State, or organization
that the ownership of a piece of land or territorial integrity is as good as having a peaceful and
continuous exercise of authority over the land. The argument was sound and it fits with the
decision of the court as it was right to declare that Netherlands was the true owner of the island
since it had exercised its authority over Palmas Island for a long time without any claim of
ownership or dispute. The implication of this decision and its bearing on the future similar cases
is to warn and inform people that they need to ensure that they take control over the land that
they claim to own because ownership does not rely on a title.
Briefs
Name of case: Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Baty Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge
Parties involved: Malaysia v. Singapore
Court or Hearing Body: International Court of Justice
Facts: This was a territorial dispute over a small island and other small islands but it focuses
more on Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh Island. The Sultanate of Johor claimed that it had
possession over the Pedra Branca Island. Throughout the entire history of the old Sultanate of
Johor which was established following the capture of Malacca by the Portuguese in 1511, there
is no evidence that any competing claim had ever been advanced over the islands in the area of
the Straits of Singapore. Singapore also claimed possession over Pedra Branca. During the first
hearing, the Court concluded that the Sultanate of Johor had original title to Pedra Branca/ Pulau
Batu Puteh.
Legal Issues: Whether, in the light of the principles and rules of international law it stated earlier
and of the assessment it has undertaken of the relevant facts, particularly the conduct of the
Parties, sovereignty over Pedra Branca/ Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Malaysia or Singapore?
Holding (and Judgement): The Court decided by twelve votes to four that sovereignty over
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to the republic of Singapore.
Reasoning:
1. The court decided that the conduct of Singapore of recalling their investigation of marine
accidents, their control over visits, installation of naval communication equipment, and
its reclamation plans were all acts of title of sovereignty.
2. Malaysia and its predecessors did not display in any way to that conduct or the other
conduct with that character identified earlier in this judgement, only the installation of
naval equipment.
3. The Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh from June 1850 for the whole of the century or more.
4. The official visits in the island were made and were subject to Singapore permission.
5. Malaysia’s official maps of the 1960s and 1970s also indicate an appreciation that
Singapore had sovereignty.
6. Johor did not claim ownership of Pedra Branca/ Pulau Batu Puteh as stated in the position
of the Acting Secretary of State of Johor in 1953.
Analysis or comments:
The important thing about this decision is that it is similar to the case of the Island of Palmas
United States v. Netherlands whereby it was shown that a state ought to display a peaceful
continuous exercise of authority and sovereignty over a land which they claim ownership. I
believe the decision of the Court was just because Singapore had exercised their authority over
the Pulau Batu Puteh Island and the argument that it provided concerning the case was sound and
it fits with the final decision of the Court. The implication of this decision and its bearing on the
future similar cases is also to inform and educate other states that they need to ensure that they
exercise their territorial integrity over the land which they claim to have ownership.
SAMPLE BRIEF
(International Law Version)
Parties and/or case name
Who are the parties to the case?
Somebody v Somebody
Court or Hearing Body
For international law this is important as not every “case” is decided by a specific court or body.
Facts
• A general overview of the relevant case facts.
• A one-sentence description of the nature of the case, to serve as an introduction.
• A statement of the relevant law—that is, what statute of constitutional provision is at issue
(this may be abstract).
Legal Issue(s)
• What exact question does the Court want to answer in this case?
• Cases often have multiple issues, and your job is to figure out what issue is the main one
presented in the excerpt you have read.
• If a constitutional provision/statute is involved, include it in the question if possible.
Holding (and Judgment)
• How does the Court answer? It is often easiest to write the legal question as “yes/no” so that
the answer is easy to determine.
• What is the vote in the case?
Reasoning
• What is the logic behind the decisions (cite relevant arguments, precedents, etc.).
• Follow the order of the opinion, and number your arguments point by point.
Analysis/Your Comments
• What is important about this decision?
• Is the argument sound? How does it fit with previous decisions of the Court?
• What are the possible implications for this decision?
• If the case is narrowly decided, what are the differences noted by the dissenters and what
bearing might they have on future cases?
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
