Question 1

Parallels between international and domestic law, particularly criminal law, sometimes may be misleading or inappropriate.

Accepted Answer

International and domestic law may have different sources, actors, and methods of enforcement, which influence their substance and effectiveness. Additionally, the diversity of legal systems, cultures, and priorities across borders and within states may complicate the comparison or harmonization of legal regimes. As a result, caution should be exercised when drawing parallels between international and domestic law, especially in the context of criminal law where issues such as jurisdiction, extradition, human rights, and procedural fairness are highly controversial and contested.

Question 2

Which of the following factors may encourage a state to obey international law?&#10;A) Fear of coercion&#10;B) Perceptions of self-interest&#10;C) Perceptions of legitimacy&#10;D) All of the options given are correct.

Accepted Answer

All of the options given can encourage states to obey international law. Fear of coercion can lead states to comply with international law in order to avoid potential punishment or retaliation. Perceptions of self-interest can motivate states to comply with international law if they believe that it will benefit them in some way. For example, adhering to trade agreements can lead to increased economic benefits. Perceptions of legitimacy can also lead states to comply with international law if they believe that it is a legitimate and important part of the international system.

Question 3

When states break international law, they only very rarely&#10;A) completely repudiate the validity of international law.&#10;B) seek to justify their actions in terms of the law.&#10;C) argue that exceptional circumstances or the existence of a competing legal principle necessitate breach.&#10;D) completely repudiate the validity of international law and seek to justify their actions in terms of the law.

Accepted Answer

States rarely completely repudiate the validity of international law because doing so could undermine their own interests and international standing. Instead, they often seek to justify their actions within the framework of international law.

Question 4

What is the function of the concept of jus in bello?&#10;A) It limits the circumstances in which states may use force in international relations.&#10;B) It limits the use of pre-emptive military action.&#10;C) It governs the conduct of hostilities and seeks to prevent war crimes.&#10;D) It guarantees the right of states to individual and collective self-defence.

Accepted Answer

Jus in bello is a concept of international law that governs the conduct of hostilities during armed conflicts. It aims to prevent war crimes such as the killing of civilians, torture, and the use of excessive force. It sets limits on the methods and means of warfare that can be employed and also establishes rules for the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.

Question 5

Today, the jus ad bellum is founded primarily upon Article 2(3)-(4) and Chapter VII (Articles 39-51) of the UN Charter.

Accepted Answer

The jus ad bellum (law concerning the use of force) is based on the provisions of Article 2(3)-(4) and Chapter VII (Articles 39-51) of the UN Charter, which require that states settle their disputes peacefully and authorize the use of force only in certain circumstances, such as in self-defense or with the approval of the UN Security Council. This is reflected in international law and practice, which generally requires states to abide by these principles when deciding whether or not to use military force.

Question 6

In which cases is use of force allowed by jus ad bellum?&#10;A) Collective self-defence by states&#10;B) Individual self-defence by states&#10;C) Actions to restore international peace and security by the UN Security Council&#10;D) All of the options given are correct.

Accepted Answer

All of the options given are correct. Jus ad bellum allows the use of force in cases of collective and individual self-defence by states as well as actions to restore international peace and security by the UN Security Council.

Question 7

Which body of law often is divided into 'Hague' law and 'Geneva' law?&#10;A) Jus ad bellum&#10;B) Jus in bello&#10;C) Jus cogens&#10;D) International law as a whole

Accepted Answer

The body of law that is often divided into 'Hague' law and 'Geneva' law is Jus in bello, which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The Hague law refers to the laws and customs of warfare on land, while the Geneva law refers to the laws and customs of warfare at sea and in the air.

Question 8

'Hague' law is no longer operative; it was entirely superseded by the four 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Accepted Answer

While the four 1949 Geneva Conventions have superseded some provisions of Hague law, Hague law remains a body of law relevant to the conduct of armed conflict.

Question 9

'Geneva' law protects victims of armed conflict, while 'Hague' law addresses methods and means of warfare.

Accepted Answer

Geneva law, also known as international humanitarian law, governs the protection of victims of armed conflict, including civilians and prisoners of war. This law includes the Geneva Conventions and other treaties. Hague law, on the other hand, focuses on the methods and means of warfare, including rules on weapons, targeting, and tactics. It includes the Hague Conventions and other agreements.

Question 10

Which group considers international law to be a futile endeavour?&#10;A) Liberal internationalists&#10;B) Realists&#10;C) Constructivists&#10;D) Isolationists

Accepted Answer

Realists believe that international law is a futile endeavour because they view the international system as anarchic and that states rely on their own power and self-interest to pursue their goals. They see international law as weak and ineffective in restraining powerful states from taking actions that serve their own interests, and that states will only abide by international law if it is in their own self-interest to do so.

Deck 6: Law, Politics, and the Use of Force, Justin Morris