Law > STUDY GUIDE > Charles Sturt UniversityLAW 234CIBL-Midterm revision. (All)

Charles Sturt UniversityLAW 234CIBL-Midterm revision.

Document Content and Description Below

Midterm questions: Chapter 1: Q1 - Harvester Company x Country R Summary:  Both parties entered an international contract allowing Harvester Company to harvest lumber on the country’s land for 20 years (the contract provided that potential disputes would be resolved by arbitration, where the International Chamber of Commerce would appoint an arbitrator applying rules of international law, general principles of law and equity).  Two years later, the country told Harvester to stop operations and leave the country without any effort to recompense it for the breach of contract.  Harvester initiated an arbitration proceeding, but Country R claims that “contracts between a state and a private person can be broken any time by the state because to do otherwise would be to deny the state its sovereignty”. Discussion:  We have a right to bring the case to the International Chamber of Commerce, solely the sovereignty principle does not allow the state to dismiss the case with the corporation  Convention on settlement of international disputes  Pacta sunt servanda is a fundamental legal principle originating from Roman law and stating that contracts should be fulfilled. Without it, it would be impossible to trade as a party could decide anytime to ignore the contract and cheat the other party. The principle is also part of the international law following the “Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations”.  The argument about state sovereignty is false, because by entering in a contract with an international party, the country voluntarily gives up a part of its sovereignty and it must subordinate to the international law.  Also, the since Country R participated in the performance of the contract for 2 years, it ratified the contract in this way. Q4 – Armor Inc. x International Criminal Court Summary:  General Felix Raj is being prosecuted by the ICC for having committed crimes against humanity in the Republic of A He argues he was only an agent of Armor Inc. (his employer), where he had to act in such way, while implementing “development projects” financed by the company  ICC would like to make the company liable, but the Rome Statute (treaty giving ICC jurisdiction over core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression) is not applicable to corporations/artificial persons. Neither does Republic of A recognize corporate criminal responsibility in its national law. How can ICC prosecute Armor Inc. for violating just cogens norms instead of General Felix Raj? Discussions:

[Show More]

Last updated: 6 months ago

Preview 1 out of 10 pages

Buy Now

Instant download