1

1. In 2011, Toukanov and Hakova signed a treaty that contained a non-aggression pact between the two countries
with respect to the hotly disputed territory of Koukha, an area that lay right in the middle of the two states parties.
The region of Koukha had an ethnic population of primarily Hakovan ancestry. In 2010, with the aim of joining the
Federal Republic of Hakova, Koukha declared independence from the state of Toukanov after 2 years of bloody
revolution. Toukanov invaded Koukha and the bordering Hakovan City of Teria in 2012. The case was bought to the
ICJ by Hakova and Toukanov justified its act by alleging Hakovan intervention in the Koukhan Revolution.

A. Toukanov’s invasion of Teria was unjustified because the prohibition on use of force is jus cogens while the invasion
of Koukha was justified exercise of police power because the latter’s secession from Toukanov was invalid as the same
involved use of force, a prohibition on which is jus cogens.
B. Toukanov’s invasion of Teria was justified because it was done in the spirit of countermeasure to Hakova’s breach of
it’s customary obligation not to interfere with Toukanov’s internal affairs while the invasion of Koukha was
unjustified because of the prohibition on use of force is jus cogens.
C. Toukanov’s invasion of Teria was unjustified because it was not a proportionate countermeasure to alleged Hakovan
interference in the Koukhan revolution while the invasion of Koukha was justified because the latter’s secession from
Toukanov was invalid because it involved use of force, a prohibition on which is jus cogens.
D. Toukanov’s invasion of Teria was unjustified because the prohibition on use of force is jus cogens while the invasion
of Koukha was unjustified because Toukanov is bound to comply with its treaty obligations which it had to comply
with in good faith

Answer: D. Toukanov’s invasion of the Hakovan City of Teria, even assuming that it was done in the spirit of countermeasure,
will never find justification in contemporary IL because the prohibition on the use of force is jus cogens. Toukanov’s act of
forcibly reclaiming Koukha was not justified because even if the secession of the latter, insofar as contemporary IL was
concerned, was invalid for the reason that it involved use of force, Toukanov had a treaty obligation not to employ aggression
upon Koukha.

2. Swallow Republic is an island state with a territory as big as 3 football stadiums and a population as numerous as 3
football teams. One day, The Big D, a retired supervillain, illegally entered Swallowan territory and fired his frenzy
canon in all directions within a 900m radius, effectively killing everyone except the vice president, his wife, and their
3 dogs, who, according to Swallowan law, are all considered citizens of Swallow. A few days later, the Philippine Law
Journal, a college organization based in the Philippines, occupied swallow and declared themselves as Supreme
Rulers of the island. The Swallowan vice president delivered a speech to his citizens and was quoted saying, “We the
sovereign people called the Swallowers, will rabidly defend our homes and wage war against all foreign invaders,
including those who presently occupy our lands”. Which is the most correct answer?

A. Swallow Republic does not exist anymore, hence, the PLJ may validly claim it’s territory on the basis of discovery
B. Swallow Republic still exists, therefore, the PLJ may not validly claim it’s territory on the basis of discovery
C. The Philippines committed an internationally wrongful act when the PLJ occupied Swallowan Territory
D. The Philippines did not commit an internationally wrongful act because Swallow Republic no longer existed when the
PLJ occupied the island.

Answer: B. Swallow Republic still exists based on the Montevideo convention and the declarative theory of statehood.
Swallow had a permanent population (vice president and the other swallowan citizens), a defined territory, and government
(vice president succeeds the president), and capacity to enter into relations with other states (declaring war against the
Philippines.). Since there existed a State within the territory of Swallow, discovery is not a valid basis for the PLJ Claim.

3. Since 2012, there had been a civil war within the Republic of Syria. The armed conflict involves, among others, the
Syrian Government and the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF or “Kurds”). The Kurdish population within Syria
have been vocal about the persecution that it has been experiencing for decades in the hands of Syrian Nationals.
Meanwhile, there have been reports that the United States has been rendering aid to the Kurds by donating high
grade military weaponry and by deploying American military officers to assist in planning and coordination of the
attacks of the latter. If the SDF is subsequently made answerable for the war crimes that it had committed during the
strife, can the US be made answerable for the same?

A. No, because the SDF had validly exercised its right to self-determination.
B. Yes, because the effective control test has been satisfied.
C. No, because it has not been proven that the effective control test has been satisfied.
D. Yes, because the overall control test has been satisfied.

Answer: C. The controlling test is the effective control test because the what is being determined is state responsibility and
not the character of the armed conflict. The “agency” relationship between the Kurds and the US has not been proven. Such
test (alternatively called as the “agency test” or the “strict control test”) calls for a higher standard that is— the Kurds should
have acted under the direct supervision and control of the US. The mere fact that the Kurds have received weapons and
strategic aid from the US does not satisfy the Effective Control Test because such acts do not necessarily include direct
supervision and control of the Kurds by the US.

4. In 1969, Neil Armstrong planted the American Flag on the moon and declared it to be part of the United States of
America. Thereafter, the US designated the Moon as its 51 st state, with its own constitution, immigration system, as
well as military, and police force. In 1975, Superman died during his annual lunar vacation due to Kryptonite
Radiation brought about by the mountains of Kryptonite that were allegedly planted around his rest house. Smallville
 2

Republic, for which Superman serves as Head of diplomatic missions to Canada, went to the ICJ and imputed liability
upon the US for his death. The US alluded, as a defense, that Rodrigo Dutrenta, a Philippine National and a notorious
opponent of Superman, may have been the one who placed the Kryptonites around Superman’s rest house.

A. The United States is liable for the death of superman because, considering the totality of circumstances which include
the fact that the crime happened in US territory, that the US exercised total police supervision over the moon, and that
the Philippines does not have a stable space program, there could not have been any other way for a Military
Substance such as Kryptonite to find its way to Superman’s rest house than through the act or omission of US itself.
B. The United States is liable for the death of Superman because the rest house of superman and the area around it is
considered as part of the premises of the mission, and the US was duty bound as a receiving state to ensure that such
area was not violated.
C. The United States is liable for the death of Superman because the case of Corfu Channel which is in all fours with this
case and which calls for the examination of the totality of circumstances, is binding upon the ICJ. Therefore, no
derogation can be had from such decision.
D. The United States is not liable for the death of Superman because there is no more concept of terra nullius in today’s
international law. Therefore, the US never acquired territorial rights over the moon by discovery.

Answer: A. Although there is no concept of stare decisis in ICJ decisions, the case of Corfu Channel is persuasive as the present
case calls for the examination of the totality of circumstances to determine the liability of the state. In this case, the crime
happened in US territory over which it exercised total police control. Moreover, there could not have been any way that
Rodrigo Dutrenta, a primary suspect, would be able to go to the moon because the Philippines did not have the technology to
send him there.

5. Catalonia, albeit failing to secure membership in the UN, was constituted as a republic after it seceded from Spain in
2017. Catalonian intelligence officers were able to receive, from reliable sources, a “battleplan” made by the Spanish
Government wherein, on December 25, 2017, 2000 Spanish Hackers will hack into Catalonian military programs to
weaken the latter’s civil defense system. Catalonia, in an act of pre emptive self-defence, sent its own set of Hackers to
weaken Spain’s Civil Defense System on November 1, 2017. On December 25, 2017, the Spanish Hacking Battleplan
was carried out and was successful. Catalonia, in yet another act of self defence, released 500, 000 wasps towards the
neighboring Spanish cities. Spain went to the ICJ alleging that the cyber and wasp attacks by Catalonia were
internationally wrongful acts.

A. Catalonia is liable for the cyber-attack but it is not liable for the wasp attack because it was a valid self defense
measure after the successful Spanish Hack Attack.
B. Catalonia is not liable for the cyber attack and it is liable for the wasp attack because it was not a proportionate self
defense measure
C. Catalonia is liable for the cyber attack and it is liable for the wasp attack because it was a not a valid self defense
measure, the attack having ended before they released the wasps
D. Catalonia is not liable for the cyber attack and it is liable for the wasp attack because the cyber attack by china did not
constitute an armed attack, a requirement for the valid exercise of self defence

Answer: D. A Cyber attack is not (yet) considered as falling within the definition of use of force. Hence, it is not the kind of
attack that will give rise to the right of self defence as it is not (yet) treated as an act of war. Therefore, the cyber attack by
Catalonia against Spain cannot give rise to state responsibility for breaching the prohibition on use of force. However, the
wasp attack gives rise state responsibility against Catalonia because it was an armed attack hence the violation of the
prohibition on use of force.

6. The Philippines is the host of the 2017 ASEAN Summit. The police were scattered in almost all places to ensure the
safety of the public. On day one of the event, the activists burned a 13-foot effigy of US President Trump. The burning
effigy suddenly fell upon a US journalist who was covering the event, which caused his demise. Is there State
responsibility on the part of the Philippines?

A. Yes. The police failed to perform their duty to exercise due diligence.
B. No. The death of the US citizen was not due to the fault of the Philippines.
C. Yes. The negligence of the police is attributable to the Philippines.
D. No. The wrongful act, if any, is an act of private individuals and not of the State.

Answer: D. Under the ARSIWA, a State may only be responsible for an internationally wrongful act which constitutes a breach
of an international obligation (Art. 2(b)). Here, the burning of an effigy is not an internationally wrongful act but an exercise of
freedom of expression. Moreover, the conduct must be attributable to the State (Art. 2(a)). Here, the act of burning was made
by private individuals who were not acting on behalf of the State.

7. President Xi called President Duterte to inform him that he will not be able to attend the ASEAN Summit. During the
course of their telephone conversation, President Duterte was able to convince President Xi to temporarily stop the
constructions on the disputed areas in the Scarborough shoal for a period of five years. However, three years later,
the constructions continued after President Xi suddenly resigned. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. There is no breach because there is no treaty in the first place. Under the VCLOT, a treaty must be in written form.
B. There is a breach of treaty. Under customary international law, a treaty may be oral.
C. There was no treaty because President Xi was not granted authority by the Chinese Legislature to enter into an
agreement.
 3

D. None of the above.

Answer: B. The VCLOT commentaries provide that treaties may be written or oral. The VCLOT only applies to written treaties.
Nevertheless, an oral treaty is valid under customary international law, which is one of the sources of international law.

8. What are the modes of acquiring nationality in the Philippines?

A. Jus sanguinis only

B. Jus sanguinis and by naturalization only
C. Jus soli, jus sanguinis and by naturalization
D. None of the above.

Answer: C. All the three modes are provided for under our Constitution. Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that
the following are citizens of the Philippines ... (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines (jus
sanguinis); and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Article 2, Section 2 provides that the Philippines ...
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land ... The Commentaries of Art 4, ADP
provides that jus soli, jus sanguinis and naturalization are the most common modes of acquiring nationality in international
law.

9. As to matters of nationality, and in case of conflict, which law shall govern?

A. The International law must yield to the municipal law.

B. The International law must yield to the Constitution.
C. The Municipal law must yield to the international law.
D. None of the above.

Answer: D. Both laws are supreme in there own spheres. The question of which law, International law or municipal law, will
govern as to matters of nationality depends upon the character of the issue and which Court or plane the question is addressed
to. If the issue is addressed before an International Court, international law shall govern. If addressed before a municipal court,
then the Constitution governs. To illustrate, the question whether an individual is a national of the State in a matter within the
reserved domain, but if the issue involves the invocation of diplomatic protection, international governs as to WON a State has
the right to invoke the same.

10. Following a judicial decision of the ICJ, the States involved in a dispute may act on such decision according to how
they subsequently believed the Court has decided, the main factor for consideration being the intent of both parties. Is
the statement correct?

A. Yes. International relations depend heavily on agreement between States.

B. No. A judicial decision of the ICJ takes precedence over intention of parties.
C. Yes. The principle of pacta sunt servanda subsists between parties regardless of how the ICJ decides. Thus, they may
act in accordance to their intention despite a ruling that is somehow contradictory to such acts.
D. No. The interpretation of a judgment is a matter of ascertaining what the Court decided, not what the parties
subsequently believed it had decided.

Answer: D. As stated in Request for Interpretation of the Judgment concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v.
Thailand): A judgment of the Court derives its binding force from the Statute of the Court and the interpretation of a judgment
is a matter of ascertaining what the Court decided, not what the parties subsequently believed it had decided. The meaning
and scope of a judgment of the Court cannot, therefore, be affected by the conduct of the parties occurring after that judgment
has been given.

11. True or false: Between the rules on armed conflict which prohibits murder of civilians (jus cogens rule) and the
rule on State immunity (erga omnes obligation), the former prevails and the latter must give way.

A. True. The prohibition of murder of civilians involves human rights, hence, it cannot be undermined by State immunity
which can very well be used as a shield of impunity.
B. False. There is no conflict between the two, neither prevails over the other. The prohibition of murder of civilians
contemplates a substantive right, while the rule on State immunity involves a procedural right.
C. True. A violation of human rights trumps a State’s jurisdictional immunity.
D. False. Jurisdictional immunity is a right afforded to States by virtue of State sovereignty. Having a jus cogens rule
undermine such right is tantamount to disrespecting the same, thereby disrupting the harmony of international
relations.

Answer: B. According to the Jurisdictional immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) case: Assuming that the rules of law of
armed conflict which prohibit murder of civilians are jus cogens, there is no conflict between those rules and the rule of State
immunity. The two sets of rules address different matters. If there’s no direct conflict between a non-jus cogens rule (i.e., rule
on State immunity) and jus cogens rule (rule on armed conflict against serious crimes), then there is no reason that the former
cannot be applied in this case.
 4

12. As a general rule, “fault” (or intention) on the part of State officials is NOT required for State responsibility to
arise. What is/are the exception/s?

A. When a State directs and controls another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter and
the directing/controlling state did so knowing the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act.
B. When a State coerces another State to commit an act and the act would be an internationally wrongful act of the
coerced State (had it not been for the coercion). Also that the coercing State does so knowing the circumstances of the
act.
C. Both A and B.
D. None of the above.

Answer: C. As discussed in “International Wrongful Acts and the Legal Reaction Thereto” (Cassese, pp.241-251): Normally,
international courts do not inquire whether or not State officials acted intentionally. They only consider the question of fault if
the State objects that it did not act willingly and invokes, for instance, force majeure. The ILC Draft did not envision intention
or fault as a distinct subjective element of State responsibility. There are, however, exceptions as found in the said Draft: (a)
When a State directs and controls another State in the commission of an internationally wrongful act by the latter and the
directing/controlling state did so knowing the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act. (Article 17); (b) When a
State coerces another State to commit an act and the act would be an internationally wrongful act of the coerced State (had it
not been for the coercion). Also that the coercing State does so knowing the circumstances of the act. (Article 18)

13. When a treaty becomes invalid for being in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (under
Art. 53, VCLT), what should the parties therein do as a consequence of such invalidity?

A. Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which conflicts with
the peremptory norm of general international law.
B. Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of general international law.
C. Both A and B.
D. Neither A nor B. The invalidity of a treaty does not require any further actions from the parties therein.

Answer: C. Art. 71 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly provides for the actions that parties must take as a
consequence of the invalidity of a treaty they entered into under Art. 53:
Art. 71. Consequences of the Invalidity of a Treaty which Conflicts with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law.
1. In the case of a treaty which is void under Article 53 the parties shall:
(a) Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance
on any provision which conflicts with the peremptory norm of general international law; and
(b) Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of
general international law.
xxx

14. What is/are the difference/s between diplomatic immunities and those of officials of international organizations?

A. A diplomat enjoys immunities against the receiving state, while for officials of international organizations, it is
important that they enjoy immunities against their own States of nationality.
B. A diplomat may be immune from legal process in the receiving state, but he will remain subject to legal process in his
sending state. For officers of international organizations, there is no such sending state, and so appropriate
procedures may have to be adopted (either a disciplinary procedure established by the international organization, or
through waiver of immunity).
C. The principle of reciprocity which is important for maintaining diplomatic law between States, cannot operate in the
same way in respect of international organizations.
D. All of the above.

Answer: D. As discussed in “Immunities Enjoyed by Officials of States and International Organizations” (Evans, pp. 395-419).
There are three (3) major differences between diplomatic immunities and those of officials of international organizations.
These three (3) are those mentioned in A, B, and C of the choices above.

15. The countries of Sidonia and Aremetheia have always been on good terms as regards trade and the sharing of best
practices and technological advances. The amicable relationship between these countries stretch far beyond into the
past and a number of history books are witness to this. The Governments of both Sidonia and Aremetheia, in their
efforts to preserve this relationship, decided to enter into a Treaty of Friendship and Technology Transfer which is
comprised of provisions that reflect their long-standing friendship. A trader of goods in Sidonia, who wanted to
increase profit, jacked up his prices, claiming that the new treaty did not contain provisions regarding market and
trade between the countries, hence, he is now free from charging preferential prices to Aremetheian markets. Is the
Sidonian trader's contention correct? Choose the BEST answer.

A. Yes, the Sidonian trader is correct because temporally, what should be followed now is the current treaty between
countries. The practices of Sidonia and Aremetheia have been superseded.
B. No, the Sidonian trader is incorrect because "technology transfer" should not be interpreted literally as this will defeat
the object and purpose of the treaty which is to promote and preserve the friendship between Sidonia and
Aremetheia.
C. Yes, the Sidonian trader is correct because the present treaty should be seen as regulating the relations between
countries and should therefore form the basis of mutual rights and obligations between the two states.
 5

D. No, the Sidonian trader is incorrect because the mere fact that the present treaty fails to embody certain multilateral
conventions does not mean they cease to exist as custom. Hence the treaty will not affect the binding effect of custom.

Answer: D. In the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Nicaragua vs US (1986), the ICJ held
that the fact that principles, recognized as such, have been codified or embodied in multilateral conventions, does not mean
they cease to exist and apply as principles of customary law, even as regards countries that are parties to such conventions.

16. After years of mutants being killed, exterminated and discriminated against, the United Nations finally passed the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Mutant Extermination (a.k.a. the Mutant Protection Convention or
MPC). The Philippines, a signatory to the MPC, objected against the reservations made by Singapore to some of the
MPC's provisions. Lastikman, while on vacation in Singapore, got into an altercation with Sabretooth, and destroyed a
number of properties in the process. Due to the mass demonstrations by Singaporeans after learning that mutants
were the cause of the destruction, the Singaporean Government sought to exterminate both Lastikman and
Sabretooth. You are the legal counsel of Lastikman; which of the following statements would be your BEST argument
against Singapore's claim that it may exterminate Lastikman as Singapore was not a party to the MPC in relation to
the Philippines who objected to their reservations?

A. The nature of the Mutant Protection Convention is unlike other conventions because protecting mutants is based on a
higher goal, thus, the reservations of Singapore are against the object and purpose of the convention.
B. The protection of mutants is a jus cogens norm which has to be upheld even without a treaty or convention in force
between countries.
C. An objection by a contracting State to a reservation does not preclude the entry into force of the treaty as between the
objecting and reserving States, unless a contrary intention is definitely expressed by the objecting State.
D. All of the above.

Answer: C. According to Article 20(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [VCLOT] – Acceptance of and
objections to reservations – the objection by a contracting state to a reservation of another State does not preclude the entry
into force of the treaty as between the objecting and reserving States, unless a contrary intention is definitely expressed by the
objecting state.

17. Dr. Emmet Brown, a US national, stole plutonium from Libyan terrorists stationed in France in order to power his
DeLorean time machine. Said plutonium was stolen by the Libyan terrorists from China and the said terrorists
perished due to the altercation. As a result of a mix-up, Dr. Emmet was detained by French police officers, believing
that he stole plutonium from a Nigerian Embassy in France. Marty McFly, Dr. Emmet's teenager friend, came to you for
legal advice. Which of the following statements is/are correct?

I: France may exercise enforcement jurisdiction over Dr. Emmet but is not a priority over the jurisdiction of Nigeria.
II: Nigeria has enforcement jurisdiction over Dr. Emmet because the crime was committed within the Nigerian
Embassy but is not a priority over the jurisdiction of France.
III: The United States has sole enforcement jurisdiction over Dr. Emmet because of the nationality principle, that is,
the national character of the person committing the offense should be followed.
IV: France has priority enforcement jurisdiction over Dr. Emmet.

A. Only I.
B. II and IV.
C. I and IV.
D. Only III.

Answer: B. [Harris 265-268] Where more than one state has jurisdiction on a basis permitted by IL, it seems that each state is
permitted to exercise prescriptive jurisdiction when it wishes. The priority to exercise enforcement jurisdiction then depends
solely on custody. Even a state with territorial jurisdiction (which is the form most firmly rooted in state practice) has no prior
claim over another state having custody of a person and relying on some extra-territorial basis for jurisdiction.

18. The Kingdom of Rohan and the Kingdom of Erebor have had an unspoken practice since time immemorial of
prohibiting the hunting and/or domestication of mearas (singular mearh) a breed of wild horses with extraordinary
intelligence and strength. However, a small hamlet in Erebor passed a decree that allowed the domestication of
mearas for disabled and old villagers who had no one to take care of them. When the Kingdom of Rohan heard of this,
they claimed that the Kingdom of Erebor incurred state responsibility. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Erebor
explained that the reason for their domestication was not against the object and purpose of the prohibition against
the customary law in place and only a small hamlet (negligible in size) was practicing the same. Who is correct?

A. Erebor is correct because their reason for the domestication is a jus cogens norm which must be upheld by all states.
B. Rohan is correct because even if only a small hamlet in Erebor went against customary law, it is still a state organ, thus
its act is considered an act of the Kingdom of Erebor.
C. Erebor is correct because the practice of the hamlet is almost negligible and will not affect the over-all purpose of the
custom in place which is to preserve the mearas species.
D. None of the above.

Answer: B. According to Article 4 of the Articles on the Responsibility of States in Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), the conduct of any
State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive,
 6

judicial or any other function, whatever position it holds in the State and whatever its character as an organ of the government
or territorial unit of the State.

19. The nations of Azeroth, Lordaeron, and Stormgarde agreed to enter into a treaty which prohibited any of the
citizens from the foregoing nations from setting up military camps in the Alterac Mountains. Azeroth and Lordaeron
ratified the treaty in 29 ADP and in 30 ADP respectively. Stormgarde has not yet ratified the treaty and, using this
reasoning, set up a military camp in the southern foot of the Alterac Mountains, but removed the same after a month
and eventually ratified the treaty. International law scholars from all three nations have the following contentions.
Which contentions are sound based on international law?

I: Stormgarde did not incur any responsibility since it has not yet ratified the treaty.
II: Stormgarde did not incur any responsibility because when it committed the act, such obligation to refrain from
setting up camp in the Alterac Mountains did not yet exist.
III: Stormgarde incurred responsibility because it has an obligation to refrain from acts which may frustrate the
object of the treaty before its entry into force.
IV: Stormgarde incurred responsibility because it has already expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty.

A. I and II.
B. III and IV.
C. II only.
D. All of the above.

Answer: D. All the statements are correct and have basis under the VCLOT, particularly Article 18 states that nations that have
expressed their willingness to be bound by a treaty have an obligation to refrain from acts which may defeat the object and
purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force. It may also be argued that since Stormgarde has not yet ratified such treaty,
Article 28 may apply which states that provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place and ceased
to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.

20. Which of the following statements is true regarding state recognition?

A. State recognition is one of the requirements for statehood.

B. A state’s political existence is independent of other states’ recognition.
C. As recognition is a unilateral act, a recognizing state can always alter its position and claim an entity’s lack of
statehood.
D. Recognition has neither legal effect nor evidentiary value on the international personality of an entity.

Answer: B. Art. 3 of the Montevideo Convention states that: “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by
the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its
conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services,
and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. …” [A is incorrect since state recognition is generally not a
requirement for statehood (Warbrick; Montevideo Convention Art. 1); C is incorrect since granting of recognition creates an
estoppel precluding the recognizing state from contesting the legal personality of a new state. (Cassese, 74); and D is incorrect
since recognition has evidentiary value in that it becomes important as evidence that the claim to statehood by an entity is
good in international law. (Warbrick)]

21. Which of the following grounds for invalidating a treaty is based on the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus?

A. Error
B. Fraud
C. Supervening impossibility of performance
D. Fundamental change in circumstances

Answer: D. Art. 62 VCLOT, under Art 59 of the commentaries

22. Forces of the Philippine National Police wanted to enter the premises of the US embassy to conduct an inspection.
Mr. Tramp, member of the diplomatic staff, expressly consented to them entering the area. May US hold the
Philippines liable for an internationally wrongful act?

A. Yes, because only the head of the mission can validly consent to the entry of agents of the receiving state to the
mission area.
B. Yes, because the consent of Mr. Tramp was obtained through the coercion of a representative of a state, thus invalid.
C. No, because the wrongful act of the police forces was precluded by the consent given by a state organ whose consent
is attributable to the US.
D. No, because the consent given by Mr. Tramp was clear and express and therefore valid.

Answer: A. Art. 22, VCDR: “The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them,
except with the consent of the head of the mission.” Therefore, a mere member of the diplomatic staff has no authority to give
such consent. Coercion of a representative of a state would be more relevant to an issue on invalidity of treaties and would
only be relevant in this situation if the state agent had the authority to give consent in the first place. Attribution only applies
 7

to internationally wrongful acts committed by a state organ and not to circumstances precluding wrongful acts. As mentioned,
the agent herein had no authority to give the consent thus it was not valid despite it being given in a clear and express manner.

23. Saudi Arabia conferred citizenship on Sophia, a robot built and owned by Hanson Robotics, a corporation under
Hong Kong law. While Sophia was in a Philippine-Saudi Arabian friendship convention in Sofitel as part of the Saudi
Arabian delegation, a bomb went off, incinerating Sophia’s right arm and corrupting half of her operating system
data. The assailant was later identified as a female Saudi Arabian national who was disgruntled with the fact that,
unlike Saudi Arabian women, Sophia can travel without a male guardian and get away with not wearing a hijab and
abaya. Saudi Arabia then immediately filed a claim for damages with the ICJ against the Philippines in behalf of
Sophia. Among the following, which is the best strategy for the Philippines to avoid liability to Saudi Arabia?

A. The Philippines is not liable because the assailant was not a Filipino but a national of Saudi Arabia, the claimant State.
Neither was the assailant acting as an agent of the Philippines. Thus, the Philippines has no responsibility towards
Sophia or Saudi Arabia.
B. The Philippines is not liable because under Saudi Arabian law, Sophia could not have validly attained citizenship. She
could not be citizen by birth (she had no Saudi parent), nor did she fulfill the 10-year residency requirement for
naturalization (she was activated in 2015).
C. The Philippines is not liable because international law has not yet recognized conferment of citizenship on robots. As
far as it is concerned, a robot is property, not a person upon whom citizenship can be conferred. No international
custom, convention, or principle of law requires the Philippines to recognize Sophia as a Saudi Arabian national.
D. The Philippines is not liable because Sophia did not exhaust local remedies.

Answer: D. In A, the Philippines could be held liable for not exercising due diligence in securing the safety of Saudi Arabian
nationals during the event regardless of the nationality of the assailant. B will not hold because Saudi Arabia has the power to
decide whom to confer citizenship and the Philippines cannot cite non-compliance with municipal law to assail her citizenship.
C is also not the answer because according to the ADP commentary, a legal system may confer legal personality on whatever
object or association it pleases. D, however, is a valid defense against liability even as against persons who are unquestionably
nationals of the claimant State.

24. The Kingdom of Sedona and the Republic of Galarah entered into a treaty whereby Galarah and Thais engaged in
tax-exempt trade of various products. At the time, slavery was widely accepted and practiced in the international
community, so Galarah supplied slaves, raw agricultural products, and minerals to Sedona in exchange for swords,
potions, and victuals. After a series of emancipations across the globe, Galarah outlawed slavery in its municipal law
and completely refused to trade with Sedona, the only country in the world which continued to engage in slavery.
Sedona now seeks reparation from Galarah for what it claims to be a breach of their treaty, but Galarah says that it
has the right to refuse to deal with a country that still practices slavery. Assuming that the countries have both
ratified the VCLOT, is Galarah justified?

A. Galarah is correct because the treaty was terminated when the outlawing of slavery became a peremptory norm of
general international law or jus cogens.
B. Galarah is correct because a State has the right to determine which States it will maintain diplomatic relations with,
and this includes economic relations such as trade and commerce. To direct Galarah to continue trade with Sedona
when the former refuses to condone the latter’s practice of slavery would violate State sovereignty.
C. Galarah is wrong because the treaty does not require that it send slaves to Sedona; hence, it is valid and subsisting.
D. Galarah is wrong because once a treaty has been validly concluded between States without any vice of consent,
nothing can terminate it except their mutual consent.

Answer: C. The treaty is one for tax-exempt trade and does not require that slaves be traded. Thus, the treaty is not in conflict
with the jus cogens norm of banning slavery and is not affected by its emergence (A). B is not the answer because Galarah,
having signed the treaty, must comply with it in good faith. D is also wrong because emergence of a jus cogens norm may
terminate a treaty although it was originally validly concluded.

25. The presidents of the republics of Thais and Veldarah concluded a mutual defense treaty whereby for a duration
of ten years, Veldarah was to allow the armed forces of Thais to set up base in its territory and conduct joint military
exercises with its own armed forces. Two years later, the signatory Veldaran president finished his term, and his
successor refused to recognize the treaty and destroyed the military camps built by Thais. Thais then brought the
case to the ICJ to ask for reparation, at least in the form of satisfaction if not compensation for the destroyed military
camp. Which of the following arguments is a defense Veldarah may invoke to avoid liability?

A. The treaty was not ratified by the Senate as required by the Veldaran constitution. Although a violation of municipal
law as a general rule cannot be invoked to prove invalidation of consent, violation of the constitution of a State is
manifest and concerns a rule of fundamental importance.
B. A new president may undo or refuse to recognize acts of his predecessors because it is within his power as head of
state to represent the country with respect to foreign relations.
C. The foreign minister of Sedona had promised the signatory Veldaran president that Sedona would also sign a mutual
defense treaty with Veldarah if he concluded one with Thais, but Sedona then refused to do so.
D. Civilians of Dirkon, a State friendly to Thais, kidnapped the Veldaran president for four hours during negotiations and
threatened to cut off one of his fingers if he did not sign the treaty or if Veldarah afterwards to comply therewith.
 8

Answer: D. Unlike fraud in C, coercion of a representative of a State does not require that the elements performing such
coercion be agents of a negotiating State. A is wrong because violation of a constitution is not per se manifest and concerning a
rule of fundamental importance, and B is wrong because a change in head of state or even of government does not release a
State from compliance with its obligations under international law.

26. Ejindro successfully seceded from the Arishta Isles after years of harboring anti-Arisht sentiment on account of
the latter’s marginalization of Ejindro in its national development plans as well as its discrimination of Ejindro’s
indigenous peoples. During the events leading to the secession, Ejindro set up a insurrectional government that acted
as if Ejindro were a sovereign state. The insurrectional government killed all the nationals of Dreamland within the
boundaries of Ejindro because it believed that Dreamland, Arishta Isles’s greatest ally, supplied the latter with arms
and weapons to keep Ejindrans under its control. When Ejindro finally became recognized by the international
community, Dreamland sought reparation for the death of its citizens. Is Ejindro liable?

A. No, because at the time of the incident, Ejindro had not yet begun to exist as a state and so the acts of its insurrectional
government are akin to acts of any Arisht civilian.
B. No, because it is Arishta Isles that is liable for failing to curb the acts of the insurrectional government and guarantee
the safety of Dreamland’s nationals within its territory while Ejindro was still considered part of its territory.
C. Yes, because the insurrectional government of Ejindro became the new government thereof when it became a State.
D. Yes, because conduct of Ejindrans during an insurrectional movement is conduct that the new government is
answerable to as an act of Ejindro.

Answer: C. Under the ARSIWA, the conduct of an insurrectional movement which becomes the new government of a State
shall be considered an act of that State under international law.

27. Sam Juan is a citizen of State A. State A wishes to exercise diplomatic protection on Sam Juan for having been
issued an expulsion order by State B. State B contends, that failure of Sam Juan to exhaust local administrative
remedies against it makes State A’s claim against it inadmissible. It must be noted that the expulsion order is
unappealable to any judicial or administrative body in State B. The only possible recourse being a plea for
reconsideration filed with the Prime Minister which is only granted as a matter of grace. Is State B’s contention
correct?

A. Yes, exhaustion of local administrative remedies is an indispensable requisite before State A can validly exercise
diplomatic protection over Sam Juan.
B. Yes, the plea for reconsideration with the Prime Minister is an effective local remedy that Sam Juan or State A should
have first exhausted.
C. No, administrative remedies can only be taken into consideration for purposes of the local remedies rule if they are
aimed at vindicating a right and not at obtaining a favor, unless they constitute an essential prerequisite for the
admissibility of subsequent proceedings.
D. No, assailing expulsion orders are exempted from the observance of exhaustion of administrative remedies under
customary international law.

Answer: C. In Ahmahdou Sadio Diallo, the ICJ held that while the local remedies that must be exhausted include all remedies of
a legal nature, judicial as well as administrative, administrative remedies can only be taken into consideration for purposes of
the local remedies rule if they are aimed at vindicating a right and not at obtaining a favour, unless they constitute an essential
prerequisite for the admissibility of subsequent contentious proceedings. Here, the possibility open to Sam Juan of submitting
a request for reconsideration of the expulsion order to the Prime Minister, in the hope that he would retract his decision as a
matter of grace cannot be deemed a local remedy to be exhausted.

28. Ann Ada was a diplomatic agent of Yugoslavia in the Philippines for ten years. During that time, she enrolled her
daughter to Lodi University. Using her identification as a diplomatic agent, she claims that she should not be charged
value-added tax (VAT) on her daughter’s tuition fees because she is absolutely exempted from paying taxes, direct or
indirect. However, she does agree that after her tenure, she should pay VAT on services to be further rendered by the
school. Which of the following is the most correct?

A. Ann Ada is correct, she is absolutely exempted from paying taxes during her tenure and no longer exempt after it.
B. Ann Ada is wrong, under the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations all persons enjoying immunities and
privileges should respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state. In the Philippines, taxes are the lifeblood of
the government and are mandatory. Moreover, non-payment of VAT is an act of interference prohibited under said
Convention. She should pay VAT on tuition fees during and after her tenure.
C. Ann Ada is wrong, under Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations a diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues
and taxes, except indirect taxes like VAT. She should pay VAT on tuition fees during and after her tenure.
D. Ann Ada is wrong, payment of tuition fees are made by her under a strictly private capacity she should not be
exempted from paying VAT.

Answer: C. Art 34 par (a) VCDR provides that: “A diplomatic agent shall be exempt from all dues and taxes, personal or real,
national, regional or municipal, except: Indirect taxes of a kind which are normally incorporated in the price of goods or
services;”. VAT is an indirect tax, hence not under the exemptions in favor of diplomatic agents. Moreover, the VAT burden
when shifted to the consumer is not really a tax but is considered to be a part of the purchase price. Choice A is wrong,
diplomatic agents enjoy no absolute immunity from taxes as shown in Art 34 of VCDR. Choice B is also wrong, it overlooks the
first phrase of the Art. 41 VCDR. “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying
 9

such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere
in the internal affairs of that State.” Choice D is also wrong, as even though tuition fees are made under a strictly private
capacity diplomatic agents exemption from payment of taxes is based on ratione personae and not ratione materiae.

29. Nike Fense is the Secretary of Interior of State Lezx, during his incumbency he adopted a policy of discrimination
and violence against the Muslim minority. A warrant for Nike Fense’s arrest was issued by State Uzz for grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions which State Uzz punishes under its domestic laws. The Government of State Lezx
assails such act of issuing a warrant of arrest as violating customary international law on the absolute inviolability
and immunity in favor of Minister of Foreign Affairs, arguing that the same is may be enjoyed by Nike Fense because
both positions are in the same level of organizational hierarchy. Is State Lezx correct?

A. Yes, the since the main consideration in the grant of immunity in favor of the Minister of Foreign affairs is his position
in the cabinet. Since, a secretary of interior is also member of the cabinet they should enjoy the same immunities.
B. No, the main consideration in granting immunity in favor of the Minister of Affairs is the fact that the function of the
office involves travelling from one state to another in representation his state and that such function will be hampered
by the issuance of an arrest warrant. The immunity is inapplicable to a secretary of interior whose duties do not
primarily involve moving from place to place.
C. No, because the act of issuing an arrest warrant does not violate immunity, unless there has been actual restraint
D. Yes, because a secretary of interior is considered head of government.

Answer: B. In Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ recognized the rule under customary international law as to the inviolability and
immunity of an incumbent Minster of Foreign Affairs because if he is arrested he is thereby prevented from exercising the
functions of his or her office. Furthermore, even the mere risk that, by travelling to or transiting another State, a Minister for
Foreign Affairs might be exposing himself to legal proceedings could deter the Minister from travelling internationally when
required to do so for the purposes of the performance of his or her official functions. Here, a secretary of interior’s main
functions is diametrically opposed to that of a minister of affairs, the former being responsible for local government capability
and therefore not having as travel as an indispensable aspect of performing its functions.

30. The Paris Agreement is an agreement wherein 195 UNFCCC members signed, and 169 have become party to it. The
purpose of the agreement is to mitigate the effects of global warming and limit the temperature increase that the
world is currently experiencing. The United States of America withdrew from the agreement but several states such
as California still want to obligate itself to act in accordance with the agreement. Can California obligate itself and be a
party to the agreement?

A. No, the United States effectively withdrew itself from the agreement so California, a federal state, cannot be a party
nor can it obligate itself.
B. Yes, California can obligate itself and also be a party to the agreement.
C. Yes, California can obligate itself but it cannot be a party to the agreement
D. None of the above

Answer: B. Only states may unilateraly declare itself to be bound by an obligation according to Guiding Principles applicable
to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal obligations,.

31. The Paris Agreement was signed by the Philippines. However, there is no local legislation to comply with the
obligations set out by the treaty. May the Philippines use this as an excuse not to perform the obligations set out by
the treaty?

A. Yes, the Philippines cannot comply if there are no laws that would set out an obligation to follow.
B. No, the Philippines has the immediate obligation to adopt appropriate legislation into law as soon as it is bound by the
agreement or convention.
C. No, according to Art 18 of the VCLOT, the state has the obligation not to act against the object and purpose of the
treaty or convention.
D. Yes, the Senate of the Philippines has to concur before it is bound by a treaty according to the 1987 Constitution.

Answer: B. According to Belgium v Senegal, the court held that Senegal cannot use the excuse of having no local legislation for
failing to perform their obligations to extradite in the UN Convention against Torture.

32. Mongolia and China are neighboring states. The two countries are having a dispute with regard to the territory of
Ulan Bataar, a region leased by Mongolia to China in the 1900s but is now currently controlled by Mongolia. China
bases its claim from an oral treaty between rulers Mulan and Genghis Khan in the 12 th century wherein the latter,
ceded to the former the entire region of Ulan Bataar in exchange for fireworks. Mongolia, on the other hand, bases its
claim on the fact that Genghis Khan’s father, Kublai Khain, after discovering such land at the end of the steppes,
planted his sword and helmet on the ground the declared the region to be the capital of the Hun Empire. Decide.

A. Mongolia is the rightful owner of Ulan Bataar as the Oral Contract between Mulan and Genghis Khan did not comply
with the vclot
B. Mongolia is the rightful owner of Ulan Bataar by virtue of actual display of authority when it exercised patrimonial
rights over said region long after the said cession by treaty was perfected.
C. China is the rightful owner of Ulan Bataar because, following the intertemporal principle, the cession by treaty was
valid, although not governed by the VCLOT.
 10

D. None of the above.

Answer: B. Mongolia exercised patrimonial rights over the land when it leased the same to China. This, in effect, was an
implied recognition on the part of China which effectively belied it’s theory that the land was ceded by treaty to them during
the 12th century.

33. A civil war broke out in Czechoslovakia wherein Slovakia, which consisted mainly of Slovaks, aimed to secede
from the predominantly Czech Nation. The armed conflict eventually ended after 3 years of bloody fighting with the
both parties eventually forming their own States— the Czech Republic and Slovakia, respectively. There were reports
that after the armed conflict, there were several high ranking Slovak officers that committed genocide against Czechs
within the present Slovakian territory. The matter was referred by different people to three different tribunals
namely: the Slovakian Supreme Court, the Czech Supreme Court, and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The
matter was first taken up by the Czech Supreme Court.

A. The ICC is entitled to try the case because it’s jurisdiction includes crimes against humanity such as genocide, citing
the Rome Statute
B. The ICC is entitled to try the case because it was constituted specifically for heinous crimes such as genocide, and
because there existed a considerable chance that the Slovakian Supreme Court will protect fellow Slovakian
defendants.
C. The Slovakian Supreme Court is entitled to try the case because the crime of genocide was carried out within its
territory.
D. The Czech Supreme Court is entitled to try the case because it had concurrent jurisdiction over the genocide case,
along with the ICC and the Slovakian Supreme Court, and that it was the first court to admit the matter

Answer: D. The Slovakian Supreme Court is entitled to try the case because the crime of genocide happened within Slovakian
territory. Jurisdiction for crimes is territorial. Also, the principle of complementarity dictates that the Slovakian Courts should
try the crime first before the matter can be taken up by the ICC. The ICC is the court of last resort.

34. X is the Foreign Minister of Russia. While on an official state visit in Turkey, allegations of violation of human
rights by sending prisoners to Siberia to starve to death were pitted against him. President Donald Trump
surprisingly wants to prosecute X for the alleged crimes in the international courts. X then claimed that he cannot be
prosecuted as he enjoys full immunity, is he correct?

A. No, any violation of human rights is of transcendental importance and must be acted upon accordingly.
B. No, Foreign Ministers do not enjoy the same immunities and rights as diplomats.
C. Yes, by virtue of the function and importance of their position, they shall be immune from prosecution in international
courts.
D. Yes, the sending of prisoners to Siberia is not actually a violation of human rights as it is only a mere transfer of where
they are to be held.

Answer: C. According to the Arrest Warrant Case, current State practice, including the Pinochet and Gaddafi cases, did not
indicate the existence under customary international law of any exceptions to the immunity of incumbent Foreign Ministers. It
stressed that the non-applicability of such immunities before international criminal tribunals could not be extended to
national courts.

35. Bureau of Immigration promulgated Operation Order No. SBM-2015-025 disallowing foreigners in the Philippines
from joining any ASEAN protests. Leia Organa, an Iranian citizen doing business in the Philippines joined one of the
protests, protesting US President Trump’s presence in the country. She was arrested and sentenced without
informing Pakistan of the proceedings. Is the Philippines liable for its failure to inform Pakistan of the pending
proceedings?

A. Yes, pursuant to the ruling in the Avena case.

B. Yes, because it is an obligation erga omnes.
C. No, because Pakistan should not meddle in the Philippines internal affairs since Rey violated the Philippines’ internal
law.
D. No, because the Philippines had no obligation to inform Pakistan of any pending proceedings against the latter’s
nationals.

Answer: A. Philippines has the obligation to inform Pakistan of pending proceedings as provided by the VCCR.

36. Catalonia, an autonomous region of Spain, voted to separate from Spain. It has entered into several contracts with
other governments such as Japan and Vietnam. Is Catalonia considered a sovereignty despite the fact that Spain has
expressed that it does not recognize Catalonia’s referendum to be valid since it violated the Spanish Constitution?

A. Yes, because recognition from Spain is not necessary for Catalonia to be considered a sovereignty.
B. Yes, because self-determination is a jus cogens norm that must be respected and recognition is not one of the elements
for one to be considered a sovereignty.
C. No, since Spain does not recognize the validity of the referendum, Catalan is not a sovereignty.
D. None of the above.
 11

Answer: B. The constitutive theory has largely been abandoned. International jurists have opined that recognition is more of a
declaratory act.

37. Darth Maul is a French citizen, who was recently identified by American authorities in an Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) video beheading several Syrian soldiers and an American soldier in Syria. Can USA file a case against
France for the wrongful acts of Darth Maul?

A. Yes, because Darth Maul violated a jus cogens norm.

B. Yes, because France violated an obligation erga omnes.
C. No, because France had no obligation as required by treaty or by custom to treat foreigners such as the American
soldier in a state other than France such as Syria.
D. No, because Darth Maul’s acts cannot be attributable to France, since France did not adopt his acts.

Answer: D. Similar to the ruling of ICJ in the Tehran case, Iran was not liable for the acts of militants when the latter stormed
and seized the US embassy in Tehran. It was only when Iranian authorities lauded the militants’ efforts as seen in the Ayatollah
Kohmeini’s

1. State Y, State W, and State Z entered into a treaty to protect the endangered sea turtles in their shared coasts. One
year after, State Y convinced the Minister of Foreign Affairs of State X (the richest coastal state) to join the treaty by
stating that the turtles’ eggs in their shared coasts have magical properties and that they can be harvested and sold in
a few years’ time resulting in tremendous profits. Motivated by the idea of earning more money for the State, State X
willingly signed the treaty. After many years, State X realized that the turtles’ eggs have no magical properties and
would lead to no profits at all because they were just ordinary eggs, so it sought to have the treaty invalidated on the
ground of fraud. What is the consequence of such invocation on the treaty?
a. The treaty is invalidated by State Y’s fraud, so there is no treaty to speak of in the first place
b. There is no effect on the treaty because State X didn’t ratify it yet
c. The treaty remains valid and subsisting despite such invocation
d. The treaty cannot be invalidated on that ground because State X was motivated by its own greed
- The treaty remains valid among State W, State Y, and State Z because State X’s invocation is only a relative ground to
invalidate a treaty. It is when the treaty is bilateral that such relative ground can invalidate the treaty as a whole.

2. State X and State Y entered into a written agreement which incorporated a custom as one of its provisions and
provided for a period for which it was to take effect. Upon expiration of the period, State X stopped complying with
the obligations under the agreement, against State Y’s protests. State Y claimed that even though the agreement has
expired, State X should continue with its obligation. State X claims that their agreement was actually contrary to
custom, thus it cannot be forced to comply because the agreement was actually void. Which statement is the most
correct?
a. State X should continue with its obligations under customary international law because their agreement is evidence of state
practice and opinio juris that crystallized custom; if their agreement is contrary to custom, then State X would have an
obligation to comply with the agreement because their agreement changed customary international law
b. State X should continue to comply under customary international law; if their agreement is contrary to custom,
then State X would have no obligation to comply with the agreement because the period for its effectivity already
lapsed
c. State X should continue to comply under customary international law; if it is contrary to custom, then State X would have no
obligation to comply because the agreement is void for violating customary international law
d. State X should continue with its obligations under custom international law; if their agreement was contrary to custom, then
State X would still have an obligation to comply with the agreement because it is lex specialis
- In North Sea Continental Shelf, the Court held that when custom is codified into treaty provisions, they continue to
exist side by side, thus even if the treaty lapses, customary law doesn’t cease to exist and remains an obligation for
State X.

3. On March 6, 1939, the military overthrew the civilian government of State X and murdered members of the
rebellious tribes that sought to block it from attaining the seat of power. State Y, an adjacent state to State X, sued
State X in the ICJ for violating a jus cogens norm because it committed a crime against humanity. Does the ICJ have
jurisdiction to decide on the case?
a. Yes, the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case because State Y, as the adjacent state, has a right to bring the action because it is
affected by State X’s actions since refugees are seeking relief in State Y
b. No, the ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction because State Y is not the proper party to bring the action to the ICJ because the citizens
of State X are the are the real parties in interest
c. Yes, the ICJ has jurisdiction because State X violated a jus cogens norm that must be respected by all states and which cannot
be derogated even by the ICJ’s statute
d. No, the ICJ doesn’t have jurisdiction because State X didn’t agree that the ICJ would have jurisdiction over the case
- Under the ICJ statute, jurisdiction is always based on the consent of the parties.

4. Suppose in the previous number, the refugees of State Y sued the Supreme General of State X for giving the order to
kill their tribes in the Courts of State Y. Do the Courts of Y have jurisdiction to decide on the case?
a. No, the Supreme General is immune from suit because he is covered by diplomatic immunity
b. Yes, the Supreme General is not immune from suit because he isn’t one of the persons covered by diplomatic immunity
c. Yes, the Supreme General is not immune from suit because he committed violation against jus cogens norms
 12

d. No, the Supreme General is immune from suit because

- Because State X has turned into a military junta, the Supreme General is considered as the head of government who is
entitled to immunity from suit even if he violated jus cogens norms

5. After an earthquake in State Y, State X’s president announced in a press conference broadcasted in local news
channels that it would deliver chocolate (State X’s most abundant and delicious resource) to State Y as relief goods. 2
days after, Dr. Willy Wonka, the leading scientist of State X’s Department of Chocolate (DOC) was allowed to release
five-hundred thousand genetically modified cocoa pod borers (GMCPB) that helped in cocoa production instead of
harming it. Unfortunately, there was something wrong with the GMCPBs and they ended up causing more harm than
good. 3 days after the release, the GMCPBs spread to all of the cocoa fields and wiped out most of the cocoa plants in
State X. Which is the best defense that State X could invoke to justify its non-compliance with its obligation to deliver
chocolate to State Y?
a. The announcement was made to the people of State X only, thus it cannot be considered as binding because the people of
State Y wouldn’t have TVs because of the earthquake
b. There is no best defense
c. The non-compliance with the obligation was caused by force majeure
d. State Y didn’t give its assent to such donation, so State X has no duty to comply
- Among the 4, B is the best answer. In letter A, X’s unilateral declaration, although announced to the people of State X,
is considered to be publicly made and may be expected to reach other States, thus it will be binding. As for letter D,
even though State Y didn’t asset to State X’s declaration, in Nuclear Tests, the Court held that such unilateral
declarations need not address a particular state nor be accepted by any other state to be valid. As for letter C, force
majeure cannot be invoked because one of its elements - beyond the control of the state - is missing since it was
within the control of State X to prevent the release of the hybrid CBPs because Dr. Willy Wonka works for DOC, so his
actions were sanctioned by the State.

1.) Yumba and Monrosa, two adjacent States, entered into a treaty for the construction and operation of a jointly-run airport
within Monrosan territory. The runways had been completed when work stopped due to the sudden downfall of Yumba’s
government and the resulting civil war. Monrosa then incorporated the runways into its highway system. Has the treaty been
terminated?
A. Yes, impossibility of performance supervened since the runways could no longer be used for their original purpose.
B. No, neither party sought to terminate the treaty in question.
C. Yes, the sudden downfall of Yumba’s government was a fundamental change of circumstance which the State parties could
not have foreseen.
D. No, Monrosa did not commit a material breach.
Answer: B.
Ratio: The VCLT provisions on the termination of treaties require the invocation of the grounds:
Article 60(1): “A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground
for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.”
Article 61(1): “1. A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing
from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the
execution of the treaty….”
Article 62(1): “1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the
conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or
withdrawing from the treaty unless: …” (emphases supplied)
Thus, even when any of these grounds exist, if a State party does not invoke them, the treaty is not terminated.

2.) Hapti, a town of the Kingdom of Polastan is completely surrounded by the Republic of Maldibo, which formerly formed part
of Polastan. Hapti residents can pass through Maldibon to and from Polastan proper. In proving the existence of a local custom
granting free passage, which of these must Polastan first address?
A. Inconsistency in the situations of Hapti residents passing through
B. Lack of agreement between Polastan and Maldibo
C. Tolerance on the part of Maldibo
D. Pronouncements from Polastan that the passage is temporary in nature
Answer: A.
Ratio: In the Asylum case, the International Court of Justice ruled: “The Party which relies on a custom of this kind must prove
that this custom is established in such a manner that it has become binding on the other Party. The Colombian Government
must prove that the rule invoked by it is in accordance with a constant and uniform usage practised by the States in
question, and that this usage is the expression of a right appertaining to the State granting asylum and a duty incumbent on
the territorial State.” (emphasis supplied)
The constant and uniform usage must be proved first; second, the fact that such usage is an expression of a right pertaining to
the State in whose favor the local custom exists; and third, the fact that such usage is a duty incumbent on the State bound by
ensuring the usage.

3.) Olaho and Jijutsi entered into a treaty codifying their long-standing guidelines on the entry and exit of Olaho citizens to
Jijutsi for employment purposes and vice-versa. A few months after, Jijutsi’s Workers Party replaced the government after
winning a landslide election. The new government then argued that the term “employment purposes” should include all
aspects of employment, from hiring to firing. In response, Olaho asserted that “employment purposes” only means reporting
for work and nothing more. Which of the following shall be considered in interpreting the term “employment purposes”,
together with the context of the treaty?
 13

A. A publicized declaration by the President of Olaho, made during the treaty negotiations, that “employment purposes” would
cover recruitment, training, deployment, performance of functions required by the position, communication and liaison, and
supervision and control
B. Joint administrative orders issued by the Ministries of Labor of Olaho and Jijutsi in carrying out the treaty which excludes
prosecution of illegal dismissal cases in the term “employment purposes”
C. Minutes of a meeting between the two states conducted in connection with the conclusion of the treaty which states in the
end that “The parties are favorably considering the extension of the term “employment purposes” to include taking up
continuing education courses outside the workplace”
D. An Jijutsi law in effect before the signing of the treaty which states that “employment purposes” excludes “conducting
business for one’s own account”.
Answer: B.
Ratio: Article 31(3) of the VCLT states: “There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent
agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) any
subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its
interpretation; (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.” (emphasis
supplied). The joint administrative orders of the Ministries of Labor of Olaho and Jijutsi constitutes such subsequent practice.
Letter C would have constituted “any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or
the application of its provisions”, had the agreements contained words that bind the parties. The ICJ ruled in Maritime
Delimitation (Qatar v. Bahrain), “Accordingly, and contrary to the contentions of Bahrain, the Minutes are not a simple record
of a meeting, similar to those drawn up within the framework of the Tripartite Committee; they do not merely give an
account of discussions and summarize points of agreement and disagreement. They enumerate the commitments to
which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations in international law for the Parties. They
constitute an international agreement.” (emphasis supplied)

4.) Which of the following may be invoked as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness?

A. An Unjongian missile narrowly misses the coast of Dolandia, leading the latter State to bomb Unjongian missile launching
sites.
B. By virtue of an agreement, signed by Roada’s defense minister and Pingxi’s consul general assigned to Roada, the former
State allowed Pingxi’s forces to set up bases at Roada’s oil-rich uninhabited shoals
C. After radioactive material leaked out of a navy ship of Lopland while it was on the high seas, a small lifeboat containing its
crew enters the nearest port, which belongs to the Kelantan Kingdom
D. Opendi receives intelligence reports which estimated a high probability of war with Kukala and the superpower Reulit.
Thus, to retain Reulit’s good graces, Opendi suspended a trade agreement with Kukala.
Answer: C.
Ratio: Distress. The exception under Article 24(2) of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts (ARSIWA): “Paragraph 1 does not apply if: (a) the situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other
factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or (b) the act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril.”
(emphasis supplied) does not apply since the lifeboat, not the ship, entered the port of Kelantan.
Letters A. and D. are incorrect because the peril contemplated are not imminent, thus necessity cannot be invoked. Under
Article 25(1) of the ARSIWA, necessity must be “the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave
and imminent peril” (emphasis supplied). As the ICJ ruled in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros, “"Imminence" is synonymous with
"immediacy" or "proximity" and goes far beyond the concept of "possibility". As the International Law Commission
emphasized in its commentary, the "extremely grave and imminent" peril must "have been a threat to the interest at the actual
time" (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 49, para. 33)”
Letter B. is inapplicable because the requirement of valid consent under Article 20 of the ARSIWA was not met. Consular
functions does not include entering into agreements with the receiving State under Article 5 of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Functions.

5.) In 2010, a dispute arose involving four States which claim the island of Mendark, an uninhabited island teeming with
hundreds of endangered species and potentially housing a large gas reserve. Whose title to Mendark would be recognized
under international law?
A. Bleuaire’s, which has issued numerous decrees starting in the 19th century expressly to regulate fishing in islands
undisputedly belonging to it, and to nearby Mendark
B. Notran’s, whose territorial maps have included Mendark since the 18th century, and whose navy, in adherence to these
maps, has regularly patrolled the island
C. Yestan’s, whose scientists visit Mendark at least once a month since the 1950s to conduct researches
D. Pulopones’, who has entered into various agreements since the 17th century with the Juhulan tribe, whose members have
traditionally fished in Mendark
Answer: B.
Ratio: In Eastern Greenland, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated, “After the founding of Hans Egede's colonies
in 1721, there is in part at least of Greenland a manifestation and exercise of sovereign rights. Consequently, both the
elements necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty - the intention and the exercise - were present, but the
question arises as to how far the operation of these elements extended.” (emphasis supplied)
The intention is reflected by the maps, the exercise is reflected by the regular patrol of Notran’s navy.
Letter A. is incorrect. Here, there is no exercise of sovereign rights on the part of Bleuaire.
Letters C. and D. are incorrect. As the ICJ ruled in Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligutan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), “The Court observes,
however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official
regulations or under governmental authority.” Here, there is no showing that the scientists and fishermen were acting on such
bases.
 14

1. State A and State B entered into a treaty with a provision that all disputes will be settled by the ICJ. State A and State B’s
relationship gradually turned sour so much so that State B started accepted State C’s offer of ammunitions to attack State A.
State A filed a case against State C with the ICJ claiming the Court has jurisdiction to settle the dispute. Is State A right?
a. No. State C has not accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ and can invoke lack of jurisdiction.
b. Yes. State C violated the principle of non-intervention and as such, has made itself a party to the dispute which is under the
jurisdiction of the ICJ.
c. Yes. Art 36 of the ICJ statute states that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all contentious cases.

2. Presidential Candidate A of State A has immense hatred for the citizens of his neighbour State B, so much so that he made 2
promises if he were elected: 1) he was going to build a wall to keep their states apart and 2) he was going to nuke the other
side of the wall. Presidential Candidate A won the presidency and soon after he started building the wall to divide the states.
State B feared that Presidential Candidate A was a man of his word so it launched its nukes first and destroyed the alleged
nuke hubs of State A. State B invoked self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
a. State B can invoke anticipatory self-defense. Protection of “vital interests” justifies the use of force, particularly if they are
focused only to the source of aggression – in this case, the nuke hubs – and nowhere else.
b. State B can invoke self-defence because the legitimate use of self-defence in situations when an armed attack has not
actually occurred is still permitted. This is because not every act of violence will constitute an armed attack.
c. State B cannot invoke self-defence because there was no imminent threat such that it still had a choice of means and
moments for deliberation.
d. State B cannot invoke self-defence because the means they used was not proportional to the fear or alleged threat made by
the State A.

3. Consul B of State B was in State A when he was charged with serious physical injuries. He was detained by the municipal
police of State A to ensure that he would attend the proceedings. Consul B is claiming he is immune from the criminal
jurisdiction of State A and because of such immunity he shouldn’t be detained. Is he right?
a. Yes. Consuls enjoy absolute immunity from the jurisdiction of the local courts by reason of his positions and functions.
Appearing before the court to face charges will hamper the exercise of his duties.
b. Yes. Consuls enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State under the VCCR. Consuls shall not be
committed to prison or be liable to any other form of restriction on their personal freedom.
c. No. Consuls do not enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. However, the detention was
a breach of VCCR because serious physical injuries isn’t a grave crime and there was no judicial authority ordering his
detention.
d. No. Consuls do not enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State and he can be detained to ensure his
participation in the criminal proceedings. Under the VCCR, the receiving State’s obligation is that the proceedings shall be
conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position.

4. Z of State A was arrested and detained without charges and without trial. Despite his several attempts in State A’s Courts, his
liberty is still curtailed. He filed his case with the International Court of Justice. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the case?
a. No. Only States may be parties in contentious cases before the ICJ.
b. Yes. A private individual may seek redress from the ICJ after exhausting his remedies with his state.
c. Yes. A private individual may simultaneously seek redress from the ICJ and the courts of his state.
b. No. A private individual’s should have approached an international organization so that they may file in behalf of him.

5. State A decided to terminate diplomatic relations with State B. Consul Z of State A was in State B trying to conclude
agreements to strengthen economic partnerships. He was harassed by citizens of State B for overstaying his welcome. Consul Z
argues that consular relations were not terminated. Is the Consul right?

a. No. When State A cut diplomatic ties, the consular ties were also severed by implication, the latter being inferior to the
privileges and duties of the former.
b. Yes. Although consuls are subsumed under diplomats, they given a reasonable time to finish any agreement that has
already been started.
c. Yes. Consuls belong to a class of state agents distinct from that of diplomatic officers.
d. No. A consul derives its powers from the State which sent it. He cannot act on his own.

1. Ms. Jetsetter is a national of States A, B, and C; presently, she is residing in State C. While on vacation in State D, Ms.
Jetsetter became a victim of police brutality. Assuming that all local remedies have been exhausted by Ms. Jetsetter,
which state/s is/are entitled to exercise diplomatic protection against State D?

a. States A, B, and C jointly

b. Either State A, State B, or State C individually
c. Both a. and b.
d. State C only

Answer: C.
Ratio: Art. 6 of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection provides that “1. Any State of which a dual or multiple national is a
national may exercise diplomatic protection in respect of that national against a State of which that person is not a national”
and “2. Two or more States of nationality may jointly exercise diplomatic protection in respect of a dual or multiple national.”
In this case, since Ms. Jetsetter is a national of States A, B, and C, either of the said states, or all of them jointly may exercise
diplomatic protection. The fact that Ms. Jetsetter resides in State C is irrelevant.
 15

2. Within the EEZ of Fiore, Zeref, a national of Alakitasia, shot down a passing merchant aircraft incorporated under the
laws of Anima which was on its way to bring cargoes of medical supplies to Mavis; the vessel sank and its cargo was
totally lost. Zeref was captured and is currently in the custody of Natsu. Which States may exercise prescriptive
jurisdiction over Zeref?
I. Fiore
II. Alakitasia
III. Anima
IV. Natsu
V. Mavis

a. II, III, and IV only

b. II and III only
c. I, II, and III only
d. I, II, III, IV, and V

Answer: B.
Ratio: Alakitasia may exercise jurisdiction over Zeref on the basis of National Principle while Anima may exercise jurisdiction
over him on the basis of Passive Personality.

The others cannot exercise jurisdiction for lack of tbasis. Fiore cannot exercise jurisdiction on the basis of territorial principle
because a state’s EEZ does not form part of its territory. Natsu cannot exercise jurisdiction because there is no showing that
the act was heinous or which is serious and which may otherwise go unpunished as to have the Universal Principle as basis.
Mavis cannot exercise jurisdiction because it is not shown that its national interest was injured or its vital interests are
threatened as to use Protective or Security Principle as basis.

(1) States A, B, C and D entered into a multilateral treaty. State A made a valid reservation not to be bound by Article 11 of the
treaty while State D made a valid reservation not to be bound by Article 15. All the parties accepted the reservations. Which of
the following statements is wrong?
(a) A is not bound by Articles 11 and 15 vis-à-vis D
(b) D is not bound by Articles 11 and 15 vis-à-vis A
(c) C is not bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis A but is bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis D.
(d) C is not bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis D but is bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis A.

Answer: (d). C is bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis D but is not bound by Article 11 vis-à-vis A. VCLOT Article 21 par. 1 and 2,
which govern the legal effects of reservation, provide that:
1. A reservation established with regard to another party in accordance with articles 19, 20 and 23:
{a) Modifies for the reserving State in its relations with that other party the provisions of the treaty to which the reservation
relates to the extent of the reservation; and
(b) Modifies those provisions to the same extent for that other party in its relations with the reserving State.
2. The reservation does, not modify the provisions of the treaty for the other parties to the treaty inter se.
Applying paragraph 1, the reservation of A not to be bound by Article 11 is binding with B, C, and D; and reciprocally, B, C and
D are not bound by Article 11 as to A. As between and among States B, C and D, they are bound by Article 11 as indicated in
paragraph 2 of Article 21. The same rule applies as to the reservation made by State D. Therefore, C is actually bound by
Article 11 vis-à-vis D. Only when C deals with A, that C and A are reciprocally not bound by Article 11.

(2) US Diplomat Sam expressed concerns over the PH President’s drug war. The President’s supporters, believing that the
diplomat is interfering in the internal affairs of PH, called the Government to take action against Sam. Can the PH take any
action against Sam?
(a) No. PH should seek first the waiver of US.
(b) No action can be taken as Sam is immune from the jurisdiction of the PH.
(c) Yes. PH can declare Sam persona non grata but PH needs to explain the reason for its declaration.
(d) Yes. PH can declare Sam persona non grata.

Answer (d). VCDR Article 9 (1) states that “the receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision,
notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata
xxx.” Thus, the PH, as the receiving State, may declare Sam persona non grata without the need of stating the reason for its
decision. Also, the waiver of immunities is not needed for PH to be able to declare Sam as persona non grata as such
declaration simply amounts to a State withdrawing its consent.

(3) German citizen King Bradley was charged with 3 counts of rape in the Philippines. Bradley, however, was able to return to
Germany. He then went to Spain, married a Spanish woman, and after a year, had a daughter with her. Upon the request of the
Philippines, Bradley was arrested in Spain by the Spanish police and extradited to the Philippines, where he is currently
detained. Which of the following statements is wrong?
(a) The Philippines has jurisdiction over the case regarding the legality of the arrest.
(b) Spain has jurisdiction over the case regarding the legality of the arrest.
(c) Germany and Spain have concurrent jurisdiction over the case regarding the legality of the arrest.
(d) All of the above are wrong.

Answer (a). The Philippines has no jurisdiction over the case as the act being questioned is the arrest of a German national in
Spain by the Spanish authorities. Germany may claim jurisdiction on the basis of Bradley’s nationality. Spain, on the other
 16

hand, given that the arrest was made in Spain and by its own agents, may invoke territory and nationality as bases for the
exercise of its jurisdiction. The Philippines has no basis to claim jurisdiction.

(4) A week after Vietnamese Diplomat Nguyen was replaced by Mr. Lu, Nguyen left the host State Indonesia to go back to
Vietnam. His flight, however, was diverted back to Indonesia as Vietnam’s International Airport was temporarily closed down
because of an earthquake that struck Vietnam. The earthquake damaged the airport’s runways and facilities. Nguyen decided
to stay in Jakarta Hotel, got drunk that afternoon, and later got involved in a fistfight with Susilo, an Indonesian. Can a case of
slight physical injuries be filed against Nguyen?
(a) Yes. Nguyen is no longer protected by diplomatic immunities.
(b) Yes. Nguyen acted in his own private capacity.
(c) No. Nguyen is still protected by diplomatic immunities.
(d) No. Nguyen acted in his official function.

Answer (c). VCDR Article 39 (2) provides: “When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an
end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country, or on expiry of a reasonable
period in which to do so, but shall subsist until that time, even in case of armed conflict xxx”. Nguyen’s immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State has not yet ceased and still extends for a “reasonable period” after the cessation of
his diplomatic functions. A reasonable period is given to Nguyen within which to make all the necessary arrangements to leave
the country and actually leave the country. Given that Nguyen has not left Indonesia, that his function as a diplomat has just
ceased 7 days ago, and not to mention the natural disaster that struck his country, the “reasonable period” provided for by
VCDR can be deemed, under the current circumstances, to have not yet expired.

(5) Shikamaru, a citizen of State Konoha, alleged that Kabuto, a diplomat sent by State Otagakure, punched him. State
Otagakure allowed State Konoha to initiate a criminal proceeding against Kabuto to determine whether the latter is guilty of
slight physical injuries. Which of the following is correct?
(a) He can be found guilty by the court.
(b) He can be found guilty by the court, and be ordered to reimburse Shikamaru for the latter’s hospitalization expense.
(c) He can be found guilty by the court. Afterwards, Shikamaru can file a suit against Kabuto to recover his hospitalization
expense.
(d) None of the above.

Answer (a). Letter (b) is wrong as Kabuto cannot be found civilly liable to Shikamaru as what was only waived by State
Otagakure is the immunity from criminal prosecution. For the same reason, letter (c) is also wrong. Kabuto, therefore, is still
immune from civil prosecution. VCDR Article 32(2) states that waiver must be express. The express waiver of immunity in
respect of criminal prosecution does not mean that there is also a waiver of civil immunity.

1. Mr. D, a diplomat of State X based in State Y, made a comment during one of his interviews that State Y’s president should
focus on improving Y than promoting extra-judicial killings. Because of this, the supporters of the President decided to barge
in the residence of Mr. D and were successful in entering the garden but were stopped before they entered the house. Mr. D
now alleges that State Y breached its obligations under the VCDR. Is the allegation correct?
a. No, the acts of the supporters of the President is not attributable to State Y.
b. No, the residence of Mr. D is not part of the premises of the mission described in the VCDR that is
considered as inviolable.
c. Yes, the residence of Mr. D is part of the premises of the mission protected by the VCDR.
Ratio: Article 30(1) states that: The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the
same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.
d. Yes, the act of the supporters are attributable to the State and constituted a breach regardless of whether
or not the residence is protected by the VCDR.

2. Mr. X, a diplomatic agent assigned in State B, was partying at Pool Hub, when he got into a fist fight with Mr. Y because
they approached the same girl at the club. Mr. X, being very drunk at the time, got his knife and stabbed Mr. Y multiple
times, causing his death. The next day, Mr. X was arrested for murder. Was the arrest valid?
a. Yes, Art. 41 of the VCDR states that “…it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities
to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”. Murder is a punishable act in State B therefore,
the arrest was valid.
b. No, Mr. X enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
i. Ratio: Article 29 of the VCDR states that: The person of a diplomatic
agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or
detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and
shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any attack on his person,
freedom or dignity.
c. No, Mr. X was just acting in self-defense when he stabbed Mr. Y.
d. Yes, murder is a grave crime that is included in the exemptions from immunity of a diplomatic agent.

3. Mr. X, a diplomatic staff of State A but a national of State B, was partying at Pool Hub, when he got into a fist fight with
Mr. Y because they approached the same girl at the club. Mr. X, being very drunk at the time, got his knife and stabbed Mr.
Y multiple times, causing his death. The next day, Mr. X was arrested for murder. Was the arrest valid?
a. Yes, Art. 41 of the VCDR states that “…it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities
to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State”. Murder is a punishable act in State B therefore,
the arrest was valid.
b. No, Mr. X enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
 17

c. No, Mr. X was just acting in self-defense when he stabbed Mr. Y.

d. Yes, Mr. X is a national of State B and therefore only enjoys immunity from acts performed in the
exercise of his functions.
i. Ratio: Article 38 of the VCDR states that: Except insofar as additional
privileges and immunities may be granted by the receiving State, a
diplomatic agent who is a national of or permanently resident in that
State shall enjoy only immunity from jurisdiction, and inviolability, in
respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions.

4. President D of State P, signed a treaty with States A, B, and C on a drug-rehabilitation program organized in order to
lessen the number of drug addicts in the two States. President D later said in a press conference that he does not believe in
rehabilitation and upon hearing this, a number of his male supporters established a “drug-fighting” group that aims to
eradicate all the drug addicts in State P, to show President D that they support him.
State A claims that the internationally wrongful acts of the group are attributable to State P and presented proof that the group
was acting under the control of the wife of President D. President D claims that it was all a joke and that he is not aware of any
of these killings. Who is correct?
a. State A. The conduct of the group is attributable to President D, in accordance with the ARSIWA, for they
acted based on what President D said in the press conference.
b. State A. The wife is considered agent of the President, therefore, it is attributable to the State.
c. State P. The conduct of the group is not attributable to the President because it was not shown that
they were acting under the instructions of President D or State P.
i. Ratio: Article 8 of the ARSIWA states that: The conduct of a person or
group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under
international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on
the instructions of, or under the direction or control of that State in
carrying out the conduct.
d. State P. The acts of the wife should not be attributable to President D.

5. After meeting with President A of State Y and President C of State Z, Prime Minister B of State X announced that the
three State leaders have agreed to enter into an agreement that Island S, currently claimed by the three States as part of
their territory, will be handed to State X for it is the State nearest the Island. He added that President A and C promised to
remove all their troops and stop all the developments in the Island. A week later, Prime Minister B receives a memo from
the Armed Forces that State Y resumed their oil operations in the Island.
Prime Minister B claims that the act constitutes a breach of the international obligation of State Y. Is he correct?
a. Yes, because State Y is bound by the act of entering into an agreement by President A to Prime Minister B.
b. No, because the act of President A does not bind the State unless it is ratified.
c. No, because State Y is not yet bound by the obligation at the time the act occurred.
i. Ratio: Article 13 of the ARSIWA states that: International Obligation in
force for a State – An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an
international obligation unless the State is bound by the obligation at
the time the act occurs.
ii. In case, the States have yet to enter into an agreement but it was not
yet in force when the oil operations occurred.
d. Yes, because although State y is not yet bound by the obligation at the time, their act is already shows
their intent to disregard the obligation.

1. There is an ongoing dispute between State A and State B as regards to the interpretation of a provision in a bilateral
treaty. State B filed an Application to the ICJ regarding the dispute. Subsequently, State B entered into negotiations
with State A to settle the said dispute, which State A acceded to. State A raised the objection that ICJ cannot exercise its
powers over the dispute because of the negotiations has been initiated by the Applicant. Is State A correct?

a. State A is not correct because the fact that negotiations are being pursued during litigation does not bar to the
ICJ exercising its powers.
b. State A is not correct because the negotiations will only bar the ICJ from exercising its power if it was initiated
before the initiation of the judicial proceedings.
c. State A is correct because negotiation is a bar to the ICJ exercising its power over the dispute subject of the
negotiation, irrespective of when negotiations were initiated.
d. State A is correct because in dispute settlement, there is a primacy placed on negotiations, and the ICJ can
only exercise its powers once negotiations have been shown to be futile.

Answer: A
Ratio: In the case of Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, the ICJ held that “negotiations and recourse to judicial settlement have been
pursued pari passu… Judicial proceedings may be discontinued when such negotiations result in the settlement of the dispute.
Consequently, the fact that negotiations are being actively pursued during the present proceedings is not, legally, any obstacle
to the exercise by the Court of its judicial function.” Thus, the initiation of the negotiations by the Applicant to the ICJ does not
prevent the ICJ from hearing and deciding the dispute; the negotiations and the judicial proceedings may both proceed
simultaneously.

2. For years, the government of State A has been in a constant struggle against extremist rebel groups. State B has been
found to be providing aid and support for these rebel groups by providing them shelter, medical assistance, as well as
 18

weapons and artillery along the border it shares with State A. May State A exercise its right against self-defense
against State B?

a. Yes, State B’s act is considered an armed attack that would trigger State A’s right to self-defense.
b. Yes, State B’s act is considered as use or threat of force that would trigger State A’s right to self-defense.
c. No, State A can only exercise its right to self-defense once it is shown that the Security Council refuses to
measures to address the issue.
d. No, State B’s act is considered as an unlawful intervention which is not sufficient to trigger State A’s right to
self-defense.

Answer: D.
Ratio: Art. 51 of the UN Charter provides that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Thus, the right of self-defense is only triggered when there
is an “armed attack” done against a member-State. Also, there is nothing in this provision that provides that the right to self-
defense may be used only when the Security Council refuses to act.

In the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the ICJ held that “The Court sees no reason to deny
that, in customary law, the prohibition of armed attacks may apply to the sending by a State of armed bands to the territory of
another State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack rather than
as a mere frontier incident had it been carried out by regular armed forces. But the Court does not believe that the concept of
"armed attack" includes not only acts by armed bands where such acts occur on a significant scale but also assistance to rebels
in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support. Such assistance may be regarded as a threat or use of
force, or amount to intervention in the internal or external affairs of other States.” In this case, the acts of State B are not of
grave scale and effect as to consider it as an armed attack; at most, they could be considered threat or use of force or unlawful
intervention, both of which are insufficient to trigger the right of self-defense.

3. In 2010, State A and State B entered into a treaty wherein they agreed to remove the visa requirements for the entry
of the nationals of one country to the other (Visa Treaty). In 2016, after the election of the new members of its
Legislature, State A enacted and enforced a law (Visa Law) requiring nationals of States B, C, and D to obtain visa
before they could be allowed to enter State A. Assuming all procedural requirements have been complied with, which
of the following can State B validly do in response to the enactment and enforcement of Visa Law?

a. State B may terminate the Visa Treaty and resort to countermeasures

b. State B may suspend the operation of the Visa Treaty and resort to countermeasures
c. State B may only resort to countermeasures
d. State B may only terminate or suspend the operation of the Visa Treaty

Answer: B.
Ratio: The right to terminate or suspend treaties under the VCLOT and the right to resort to countermeasures under the
ARSIWA are separate and distinct. Suspension of a treaty and resort to countermeasures are also not mutually exclusive; but
termination of a treaty and resort to countermeasures are mutually exclusive since countermeasures are meant to induce the
breaching party to comply with the treaty.

Suspension or termination of the treaty may be resorted to when there is a material breach of the treaty, as in this case the
enactment and enforcement of the Visa Law is in violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or
purpose of the treaty (Art. 60 (3) (b), VCLOT). While the VCLOT requires a material breach, resort to countermeasures may be
done in response to any breach, which includes a material breach. Thus, in this case, State B has the following options: 1)
terminate the treaty, 2) suspend the treaty, 3) resort to countermeasures, or 4) suspend the treaty and resort to
countermeasures.

1. State A and State B entered into a treaty wherein they obliged themselves to provide for medical expenses
contracted by overseas workers assigned within their respective states. Which among the following is an
instance when the ground of supervening impossibility of performance under Article 61 VCLOT may not be
invoked by State A for terminating or suspending the treaty?
A. If all the nationals of State A working in State B terminate their employment contracts in State B
B. If State A refuses to provide State B nationals medical financial assistance due to financial difficulties within State A
C. If State A stops sending nationals to work in State B due to a civil war in State B that may endanger its nationals
D. If State B cancels all employment contracts with overseas workers that are nationals of State A

Answer: B. Paragraph 2 of Article 61 VCLOT states that impossibility may not be invoked as a ground for terminating,
withdrawing from, or suspending the operation of a treaty if the impossibility is a result of the breach by that party either of an
obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty. A & D may be a
ground for terminating the treaty, while C may be a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

2. Which of the following is not a difference between force majeure and countermeasures?
A. Requisite of proportionality
B. Brought about by human acts
C. Prior conduct of another State
 19

D. Voluntariness of the act

Answer: B. Like countermeasures, force majeure may be caused by human acts, as long as they are unforeseen and render the
performance of the obligation materially impossible.

3. Dimitri, a French national, was caught selling drugs in a buy-bust operation by the Filipino police in the Philippines.
Afterwards, the police brought him to the station for questioning. In exchange for his freedom, the police asked him to
turn over the proceeds of his sales to them. Dimitri refused, so the police shot him and took the proceeds. Is the State
responsible for the acts of the police?
A. No, because Dimitri is not a legally protected person.
B. No, because they acted beyond the scope of their authority.
C. Yes, because the State is obliged to protect foreigners within its territory
D. Yes, because they acted with apparent authority.

Answer: D. Under Article 7, a State is responsible for the conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity empowered to
exercise elements of governmental authority even though such organ, person or entity exceeds its authority or contravenes
instructions. In this case, similar to the Caire case, the police were on duty and acted with apparent official authority.

4. Which among the following is not considered a true reservation to a treaty?

A. Reservations made subsequent to signing a treaty
B. Reservations that exclude application of only certain provisions of a treaty
C. Reservations made in a bilateral treaty
D. Reservations made when signing the treaty

Answer: C. Modifications made in a bilateral treaty are mere counter-offers, which, if accepted, may result in an entirely new
treaty. These are not considered “reservations,” which are in the context of multilateral treaties.

5. Which among the following is not a binding unilateral declaration?

A. A unilateral declaration that is not addressed to any State
B. A unilateral declaration that is not in writing
C. A unilateral declaration that is not accepted and is objected to by a State
D. A unilateral declaration issued by the UN General Assembly

Answer: D. UN GA resolutions are not binding on States, except only on certain UN organizational matters. The other unilateral
declarations mentioned above are still binding, as there is no requirement that they be addressed to a particular State and
accepted by that State, or that they be in any particular form.

1. Freddie is a Filipino student and is part of the “ Anti-America movement.” He believes that the American President is
the root cause of the poverty in the Philippines. During a visit of the American president to the Philippines, Freddie was able to
successfully assassinate the president. However, days later he was caught by the American secret service in the Philippines.
Philippines now wants to claim jurisdiction over Freddie. Can the Philippines do so?

A. Yes, the accused is Filipino and the crime was done in is territory.
a. PH may claim jurisdiction based on the Territoriality Principle and the Nationality Principle
B. No, only the US can claim jurisdiction since the person killed was a US citizen
C. No, only the US can claim jurisdiction since it was the US secret service who arrested Freddie.
D. No, since it was the US president who was killed it must be the ICC who must claim jurisdiction

2. King Frederick of State A entered into an agreement with Queen Agnes of State B to prohibit the hunting of unicorns.
However, in State B, citizens continued to hunt unicorns. State A started hounding State B to comply with this obligation. State
B now claims that it has only signed such treaty and have not ratified it, therefore it is not yet bound by such. Is State B
correct?

A. Yes, simply signing the treaty means that the state is interested in being part of such treaty, it does not mean it is
bound by it.
B. No, unicorns are an endangered species, so it must be protected at all costs
C. No, there is no difference between signing the treaty and ratification. Simply signing the treaty means State B is bound
by it.
D. No, the state has the obligation to respect the treaty even if it is not ratified
a. ART 18 of the VLCOT: A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a
treaty when:
(a) it has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification, acceptance or
approval, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty;
(b) it has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and provided that
such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

3. Bill is a citizen of Gravity Falls committed a crime in Adventure Land, where he murdered Finn. Luckily, he was able
to escape the jurisdiction of Gravity falls and Adventure Land by flying to another state. Jake, a police officer in Adventure land,
having much investment in the murder of Finn, went on a mission to locate and capture Bill. Finally, he was able to arrest Bill
in Zoolandia. Bill was taken back to adventure land to face the courts. Was Finn’s acts legal?
 20

A. No, the powers of Jake as a police officer is limited only to Adventure land.
a. Jake’s power as a state organ is limited to the territory of his state. He is simply an ordinary citizen beyond this.
Therefore, Jake cannot arrest Bill as an officer of the State of Adventure Land. Enforcement jurisdiction may not be
exercised in the territory of any other State without the consent of that State.

B. Yes, Bill in an international criminal thus any Jake may arrest Jake even in a foreign country
C. Yes, since the crime was done in Adventure land then any officer from that state may arrest Bill in any state
D. No, since Bill is a citizen of Gravity Falls, only officers of Gravity Falls may arrest him

4. Elmo of the State of Sesame was tasked to enter negotiations with Kermit of the state of Muppets. Upon arrival in his
hotel in Muppets, he was greeted by Piggy, the secretary of Kermit. Piggy, being a good host, toured Elmo, paid for his meals
and upgraded his hotel room. Upon his arrival back to his hotel room, Piggy gave Elmo an envelope containing a significant
sum of money and a note saying, “More will follow if you will agree with my proposal”
Later on, the State of Muppets found out what Kermit and Piggy did. May they invalidate the treaty?
A. Yes, as a sign of good faith, the State of Muppets may invalidate the treaty
B. Yes, in fact the treaty was void from the beginning
C. No, only Kermit as the representative of the State of Muppets may invalidate the treaty
D. No, only the state of the corrupted official may invoke such ground
a. Art 50 of the VCLOT states that “If the expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured
through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke
such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.”

5. The Embassy of State A is a lessor of Mr. Charlie. Unfortunately, there is an ongoing civil war in State A, making them
unable to pay rents. It has already been 2 years since the Embassy paid rent. Mr. Charlie filed a collection suit against the
Ambassador of State A as representative of the Embassy. Will the action prosper?

A. Yes, since the embassy is in Charlie’s state, Charlie has a right to institute the action against them.
B. Yes, when the embassy became a lessor of Charlie, it has waived it immunity.
C. No, it will not prosper since the premises embassy is protected by the jurisdictional immunity embodied in the
VCDR
a. The situation above is not one of the exceptions provided in art 31 of the VCDR. It fits the exception to the
exception provided for in 1.A of Art 31, “ he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission.”
Hence it is immune.
D. No, it will not prosper since State A is immune from paying rents.

1. State X and State Y’s diplomatic relations have been on fairly good terms in recent years such that State X decided to
send a mission to State Y for talks of goodwill and trade possibilities. During the duration of its mission, reports
surfaced in the local news of State Y that certain high-ranking officials of the mission went on a drinking spree after a
day of meetings with agents of State Y wherein they agreed to several treaties that were proposed. The officials were
in such an impaired state that they had to be sent home by the bar they were drinking in but in the process, they left
some documents that they were carrying which State Y eventually ended up obtaining. A few days later, State Y
released a statement that they were ending diplomatic relations with State X on the ground that the documents that
were left by the diplomatic agents contained transcripts of conversations between high-ranking officials of State X
who were discussing the possibility of using State Y to hide illegally-smuggled cars to which State X protested. Which
State has the best argument?
a. State X is correct. It can invoke the provisions of the VCDR enforcing the inviolability of the archives
and documents of the mission.
b. State Y is correct. State X cannot invoke the provisions of the VCDR because the inviolability of the archives
and documents of the mission does not extend to outside of the mission’s premises.
c. State X is correct. It can invoke the inviolability of the documents seeing as the seizure of these by State Y was
illegal.
d. State Y is correct. State X cannot invoke the provisions of the VCDR regarding inviolability of the documents
because it observed because it had observed the diligence required to prevent the infringement of these
documents by other parties.
Answer: A
Ratio: State X may invoke Art. 24 of the VCDR which states that: The archives and documents of the mission shall be
inviolable at any time and wherever they may be. The article extends the inviolability of the documents outside the
mission’s premises and therefore the receiving state (State Y) is obliged to respect this.
2. Which of the following is not considered a breach consisting of a composite act?
a. State P, which has been under the dictatorship of Pres. M for several decades, has employed torture against
oppositors to get them to confess to being enemies of the state.
b. In certain parts of State T, several reports of racism were reported spanning months following the
death of a latino man at the hands of the police.
c. All over State G, a war-torn state for almost a decade, military officials rape the women of every town they
conquer as they seem as their “prizes of conquest”.
d. State X, wherein a predominantly white majority is ruling, has continuously ordered the summary executions
of those of mixed race due to their being infused with “inferiority”.
Answer: B
Ratio: B is not covered by Art. 15 of the ARSIWA. Composite acts covered by this article are limited to breaches of
obligations which concern some aggregate of conduct and not individual acts as such. It is necessary to distinguish
 21

these from simple obligations breached by a composite act which is the situation in B (individual acts of racial
discrimination)
3. Near the state of Urkbekistan, frequent earthquakes jolt the region such that the state has had trouble recovering from
these. The state of Kornea, which maintains amicable diplomatic relations with Urkbekistan such that it has joint
military exercises with the latter state, responded to the calls of distress of Urkbekistan by sending a medical mission
to aid in the recovery which was spearheaded and under the control of the medical division of its military. However,
while treating the victims of the earthquake, several cases of medical malpractice by the Kornean unit were reported
to have occurred. Urkbekistan claims that Kornea, through the unit, committed an internationally wrongful act in
breach of its legal obligations while, Kornea, on the other hand, disclaimed any liability, arguing that by sending the
medical unit in Urkbekistan to help the earthquake victims, it had no liability for any acts that the unit may commit.
Which State is correct?
a. Kornea is correct. It had no liability for the acts of the medical unit because the reports of medical malpractice
had yet to be verified and were mere allegations.
b. Kornea is correct. The acts of the medical unit are attributable to Urkbekistan as the medical unit’s acts
occurred while they were in Urkbekistan.
c. Urkbekistan is correct. The acts of the medical unit are attributable to Kornea as the unit sent by it
was not under the control and disposal of Urkbekistan.
d. Neither State can make a claim against each other.
Answer: C
Ratio: Urkbekistan has claim against Kornea for the internationally wrongful acts that its medical unit had committed
while in the former state. Under Art. 6 of the ARSIWA, the conduct of an organ placed at the disposal of a State by
another state shall be considered an act of the former state. This depends on whose control the organ is under and in
this case, Kornea’s medical unit was spearheaded and by the medical division of its military.
4. State V and the State G held a bilateral meeting at the 2010 ASEAN summit which was held in State A and during the
meeting, both were in agreement that the relations of both should be strengthened even further through a treaty
which would provide for the joint cooperation between the two states for environmental protection through the
preservation of certain rainforests in the two states. State G stipulated that the provisions of the new treaty should
retroact to 2002, the year wherein the previous treaty which provided for the same joint cooperation was
discontinued to which State V did not respond to and thereafter the treaty was entered into by both states. In 2012,
State G alleged the violation of the treaty by State V in 2009, when through the orders of the government of the latter,
a certain rainforest protected by the treaty was chopped down to accomodate private logging companies. State V
disclaimed liability, arguing on the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties (VCLOT). Which State is correct and has the best argument?
a. State G is correct. The general rule of non-retroactivity under the VCLOT has an exception when the
intention of the parties is to give it that effect.
b. State V is correct. A treaty does not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation
which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.
c. State V is correct. When State G stipulated that the treaty should retroact to 2002, State V did not respond to
this which meant that it had not acquiesced and therefore did not have any intention to be bound to this
stipulation.
d. Both States are correct. State G may claim liability under the exception to the non-retroacitivity principle and
State V may disclaim liability by arguing that it was doing its obligation in good faith from the time the 2010
treaty was entered into.
Answer: A
Ratio: While the VCLOT provides for the general rule that treaties between parties privy to them are not to be given
retro-active effect, this principle admits to the exception when there is an intention by the parties to do so or when it
is implied from its terms. In this case, State G stipulated the retroactivity of the treaty dating back to the year it was
discontinued which was not rejected by State V - a clear expression of the parties to be bound thereby.
5. Han Solo, a consular agent for state of Naboo, was re-assigned to the state of Tatooine and during his tour of duty, he
enjoyed the night life so much that he took drugs because almost every citizen did that anyway. One night, while on a
drug-induced high, he was driving on his way to see a national of Naboo who requested assistance from Han due to
the former being arrested on drug-related charges (ironically). On a sharp left turn, he did not see Luke and Leia,
nationals of Tatooine, who were having a fight on the sidewalk, and hit them, resulting in their deaths a few days later
due to injuries suffered from the collision. Naboo was claiming that Han was not liable. Which of the following is
correct?
a. Han, as a consular agent, enjoys personal and functional immunities.
b. Han, as a consular agent, enjoys personal immunities only.
c. Han, as a consular agent, enjoys functional immunities only.
d. Han, as a consular agent is liable to arrest or detention pending trial.
Answer: C
Ratio: Under the VCCR, consular agents do not enjoy personal immunities due to the character of their functions. As
such, they are only immune from the civil/criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state for acts done in the official
exercise of their consular functions. Aside from this, they are also not liable to arrest or detention pending trial except
in case of a grave crime pursuant to a decision by a competent judicial authority.

1. According to the Articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which of the following is not a
consequence of State responsibility?
A. It does not affect the continued duty to perform the obligation thus breached
B. If the breach is continuing, the State is under an obligation to cease its conduct, and if circumstances so require, to
offer appropriate assurances of non – repetition
C. Partial reparation reparation
 22

D. The domestic law of the responsible State is irrelevant as an excuse for failure to comply with obligations coming from
the responsibility

Answer: C. In accordance with Article 31 of the Articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, the responsible
State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act. ‘Injury’
would include any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act of a State.
2. The -----act of genocide has been characterized as an internationally wrongful act governed by international law.
However, State A claims that it is not bound by that characterization because genocide is lawful in accordance with their
internal laws. Is State A correct?

A. Yes, State A is allowed to plead that its conduct conforms to the provisions of its internal law.
B. Yes, because Genocide is not an internationally wrongful act.
C. No, because conformity with the provisions of internal law in no way preclude conduct from being
characterized as internationally wrongful.
D. No, because Genocide is not an internationally wrongful act.

Answer: C. In accordance with Article 3 of the Articles on Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, the
characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is governed by international law. Such characterization is
not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law. A State, ab y pleading that its conduct
conforms to the provisions of its internal law, escape the characterization of conduct as wrongful by international law.

3. Countermeasures are one of the circumstances, which would validly preclude the wrongfuless of an act, However, there
are certain conditions that must be met for countermeasure to be validly used. Which of the following is not one of those
conditions as reiterated in the case of GabCikovo – Nagymaros (Hungary vs. Slovakia):
A. The effects of the countermeasure must be commensurate with the injury suffered, taking account of the rights in
question.
B. It must be taken in response to a previous international act of another state and must be firected against that State.
C. Any State must have called upon the state committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or
to make reparation for it.
D. That its purpose must be to induce the wrongdoing state to comply with its obligations under international law, and
that the measure must therefore be reversible.

Answer: C. It is not true that any state call upon the state committing the wrongful act to discontinue its wrongful conduct or to
make reparation for it, it is only the injured state that must have called upon the State to do so.
4. State A and State B enter into a treaty wherein a “Friendship Bridge” is to be built between the two adjacent countries as a
symbol of their friendship and successful diplomatic and international relations between the two as there has been a long
history of political turmoil between them. Unfortunately, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit State B, a week before construction of
the bridge was scheduled to begin affecting areas in State B where the construction of the bridge was to begin. State B
expressed its intention to withdraw from performing their obligations under the Treaty, as the area had been badly damaged
and construction has become impossible. Which ground for a valid termination of the Treaty may State B invoke?
A. Termination or suspension as a consequence of its breach
B. Fundamental change of circumstance
C. Supervening impossibility of performance
D. Emergent and exigent circumstances

Answer: C. State B may validly invoke the supervening impossibility of performance as a ground for terminating and
withdrawing from it in accordance with Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This is because the bad
condition of the area where the bridge is to be built shall be considered as a permanent disappearance or destruction of an
object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. Fundamental change of circumstance is not applicable in this case because
the earthquake is not a circumstance, which occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty,
which was not foreseen by the parties, which is required according to Article 62, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.

5. Which statement is not true regarding the withdrawal of reservations and objections to reservations of Treaties?

A. Unless otherwise provided, a reservation may be withdrawn at any time and the consent of a State, which has accepted
the reservation is not required for its withdrawal.
B. The withdrawal of an objection to a reservation becomes operative only when notice of it has been received by the
State, which formulated the reservation.
C. The withdrawal of a reservation becomes operative in relation to another contracting State regardless of if
notice has been given or received.
D. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, an objection to a reservation may be withdrawn at any time.

Answer: C. According to Article 22, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the withdrawal of a reservation becomes
operative in relation to another contracting State only when notice of it has been received by that State.

1. Which of the following is false?

a. A negotiating state is a state which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty.
b. A treaty, as defined under the VCLOT, is a generic term that covers all forms of international agreement,
whether written or oral.
 23

c. The general rule as regards third parties is that of the principle of “pacta tertiis nec noccent nec prosunt”—
agreements neither impose obligations nor confer right upon third parties.
d. If an act or situation which arose prior to the entry into force of a particular treaty continues to occur or persists
even after the said treaty has come into force, it will be caught by the provisions of said treaty.

B. Under Article 2 of the VCLOT, a treaty is defined as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form
and governed by International law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and
whatever its particular designation.”

2. Countries A and B are involved in a territorial dispute over a particular island. Which of the following is false?
a. A may invoke as basis of its claim a prior decision of the ICJ which ruled in favor of A (against country C) the
sovereignty over the same island in question.
b. Absent a claim from any particular title, B may claim sovereignty over the island through a showing of effective
occupation.
c. If A’s claim over the island rests solely on the ground of discovery, it will not win over B’s claim that shows the latter’s
effective occupation.
d. B’s acts of legislation over the island may be considered as an exercise of sovereignty.

Art. 59 of the ICJ statutes expressly rules that the decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties to it
and in respect of that particular case only.

3. In an ambush interview with the media, the Minister of Internal Affairs of the government of Kijuju stated that the country
will pursue its territorial claim over a particular island. Prior to that, a secret, two-man meeting transpired between the
President of Kijuju and the Foreign Minister of Molas, a country which also has claims over the island, wherein the former
orally stated that his country will cease its pursuit over the island in question. Which of the following statements is correct?
a. The declaration of the President of Kijuju cannot bind the country for only the Foreign Minister of Molas heard it.
b. The declaration of the President of Kijuju cannot bind the country for oral declarations are not allowed.
c. The declaration of the Minister of Internal Affairs cannot bind the country absent any showing that he was
authorized to do so.
d. None of the above.
C is correct. A unilateral declaration binds the state only if it is made by an authority vested with the power to do so. By virtue
of their functions, head of state, heads of government, and ministers for foreign affairs are competent to formulate such
declarations (they are deemed representatives of their countries merely by virtue of their office). Also, it does not matter if the
declaration was made only between two individuals or was solely addressed to another.

4. In 1994, Country A and Country B entered into a bilateral treaty with each other wherein each country maintained that it
will not allow any logging concessions to operate within the primeval forest shared between the two countries for 3 years. In
1995, Country B allowed a logging company to operate within the said forest, prompting Country A to protest the said act. In
1997, the bilateral treaty ended. Which of the following statements is true?
a. Country A’s protest is rendered moot by the end of the bilateral treaty between the two countries.
b. The Intertemporal Principle does not allow for a retroactive application of International Law. Hence, Country A’s
claim cannot prosper.
c. It is the prerogative of Country B whether or not to compensate for its breach of the treaty, considering that the same
has already ceased.
d. The responsibility of Country B for the breach of its obligation is not affected by the subsequent termination of the
treaty.

D is correct. As mentioned in the drafts pertaining to ARSIWA, Art. 13, once responsibility has accrued as a result of an
internationally wrongful act it is not affected by the subsequent termination of the obligation

5. In a bilateral treaty between the Philippines and Singapore for the improvement of employment conditions for OFWs in the
latter country, Singapore made a reservation regarding the provision on wages of the workers. Which of the following is true?
a. If the Philippines objects to the reservation, the treaty enters into force between the two countries minus the
provisions which the reservation relates to.
b. The reservation modifies the treaty, even if objected by the Philippines.
c. As a bilateral treaty, the said reservation requires the acceptance of the Philippines.
d. None of the above.

C is correct. Art. 20 (2) of the VCLOT states: “When it appears from the limited number of the negotiating states and the object
and purpose of a treaty that the application of the treaty in its entirety between all the parties is an esential condition of the
consent of each one to be bound by the treaty, a reservation requires acceptance by all the parties.” As mentioned in the drafts
of the VCLOT, a reservation in a bilateral treaty amounts to a new proposal which reopens the negotiations between the
parties.

1. Duwende Medical, a private Philippine company, entered into a contract with China. The contract provides that
Duwende Medical is to supply China with a certain amount of fentanyl for $42,000. If China fails to pay, can Duwende
Medical sue China for specific performance in Philippine Courts?
a. NO, because China is a state and therefore absolutely immune from suit.
b. YES, because China entered into a contract with a private person and is therefore deemed to have waived
its immunity.
c. YES, because the contract involves acta jure gestionis.
 24

d. NO, because China was in pursuit of a sovereign activity.

Explanation: Under the restrictive theory of immunity, immunity is only required with respect to transactions involving the
exercise of governmental authority (acta iure imperii), as distinct from commercial or other transactions which are not unique
to the state (acta iure gestionis).

2. The two states Shinovar and Alethkar entered into a treaty providing reciprocal tax exemptions for citizens of one
state who are domiciled in the other. In Shinovar, a foreign national is considered as domiciled in the country if he has
lived there for more than 170 days of the taxable year. In contrast, Alethkar considers a foreign national as domiciled in
the country if he has lived there for at least 183 days of the taxable year. Shinovar claimed that the treaty was invalidated
by error, since it thought the term ‘domicile’ in the treaty came under its own legal definition. Is Shinovar correct?
a. YES, because all kinds of error vitiate the consent of a State party to a treaty.
b. NO, because there must be mutual error for the treaty to be invalidated.
c. YES, because error formed an essential basis of Shinovar’s consent.
d. NO, because error must relate to a fact or situation.

Explanation: Art. 48(1), VCLOT: A State may invoke an error in a treaty as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty if
the error relates to a fact or situation which was assumed by that State to exist at the time when the treaty was concluded and
formed an essential basis of its consent to be bound by the treaty. Here, the error is one of law.

Art. 48 of the VCLOT applies to an error made by only one party no less than to a mutual error made by both or all the parties.

3. In 2010, Canada and the Philippines entered into a bilateral treaty. The treaty provides that Canada can dump a
maximum of 1,000 tons of garbage per year in Philippine landfills for an annual payment of P1 billion. In 2013, Canada
secretly dumped 2,500 tons of garbage in the Philippines. After the Philippines found out, it consented to the dumping. Did
Canada’s act entail its international responsibility?
a. NO. The Philippines’ consent precluded the wrongfulness of Canada’s act.
b. NO. The Philippines’ consent annulled the obligation.
c. YES. Consent, as a circumstance precluding wrongfulness, must be given by a State in advance or
at the time it is occurring.
d. YES. The act was internationally wrongful.

Explanation: Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. However, the
existence of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness provides a shield against an otherwise well-founded claim for the breach
of an international obligation.

Circumstances precluding wrongfulness do not annul or terminate the obligation; rather they provide a justification or excuse
for non-performance while the circumstance in question subsists.

Consent to the commission of otherwise wrongful conduct may be given by a State in advance or even at the time it is
occurring. Consent given after the conduct has occurred are a form of waiver or acquiescence, leading to the loss of the right to
invoke responsibility. Thus, in this case, Canada was internationally responsible. The Philippines merely lost its right to invoke
such responsibility.

4. Borat Sagdiyev, a Kazakh diplomat, entered into a contract with Pamela Anderson, a Filipina singer, which provided
that the latter was to perform at a family gathering in exchange for P15,000. After her performance, Borat raped her.
Pamela Anderson was impregnated and gave birth to his child. Pamela Anderson then filed: (1) a criminal case for rape,
(2) a civil case for collection of the P15,000, and (3) a petition for compulsory recognition of an illegitimate child against
him. In which cases will the court have jurisdiction?
a. 1 only
b. 2 only
c. 2 and 3
d. 1, 2, and 3

Explanation: Art. 31(1) of the VCDR: a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving
State.

Art. 31(1) of the VCDR also confers immunity on the diplomatic agent from local civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in
the case of:
(a) A real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on
behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
(b) An action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a
private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
(c) An action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State
outside his official functions.

Immunity covers not only direct claims against the diplomat and his/her property, but also family law claims, including
proceedings to protect children and other family members.

5. The Mekong river constitutes part of the border between Laos and Thailand. To produce hydroelectricity, Laos and
Thailand decided to enter into a treaty for the construction and operation of a System of Locks by the parties as a joint
investment. However, Laos subsequently abandoned works on the project due to “a state of ecological necessity.”
Assuming a state of necessity is found to exist, which is true?
 25

a. There is also a supervening impossibility.

b. Laos can still be made to pay compensation for committing an internationally wrongful act.
c. There will be a ground for termination of the treaty.
d. Laos can be exonerated from responsibility for failing to implement the treaty.

Explanation: Circumstances precluding wrongfulness do not annul or terminate the obligation; rather they provide a
justification or excuse for non-performance while the circumstance in question subsists.

Under Art. 46 of the ARSIWA, the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate
for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution. However, if necessity exists, it may be
invoked by the state as a ground for precluding wrongfulness of the act. There will accordingly be no obligation or restitution
or compensation.

1. France entered into a Treaty of Friendship with Catalonia, after the latter proclaimed its independence from Spain through a
referendum. Later, France contended that the treaty is void for not having been entered into between two States. Is France
correct?
a. Yes, France is correct, because Catalonia is not a State until Spain has recognized its independence. It thus had no
capacity to enter into a treaty.
b. Yes, France is correct, because Catalonia had no right of self-determination, and is thus not a State. A treaty must be
concluded between States. However, France is estopped from denying that Catalonia is a State for purposes of
recognition.
c. No, France is wrong, because a treaty may be concluded between a State and non-state actor, but such treaty
would not be governed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Moreover, France is estopped
from denying that Catalonia is a State for purposes of recognition.
d. No, France is wrong, because Catalonia validly exercised its right of self-determination, so the treaty is valid and
governed by the VCLT.

Ratio: Article 1 of the VCLT provides that the Convention only applies to treaties between States, but does not provide that
treaties between States and non-State actors are void. While it is disputable that Catalonia has validly exercised its right of
self-determination as it was not part of a colonial empire, the treaty would thus be binding whether Catalonia is a State or not.
France’s consent to be bound by such treaty could also be used by Catalonia as proof of its statehood, as it constitutes
recognition by the former State.

2. A Treaty on Mineral Exploration was concluded between the States of Asgard and Wakanda, whereby Wakanda was to
establish mining facilities on Asgard and the two States would share in the minerals found therein. However, unbeknownst to
Wakanda, Asgard’s Constitution provided that activities involving mineral exploration could be undertaken exclusively by
Asgard and its people. Asgard later used this to contend that its consent was invalidated by the fact that the violation
committed was one against its fundamental law. Is Asgard’s contention valid?
a. Yes, Asgard’s contention is valid, because the violation of its internal law was manifest, as Wakanda was expected
to have familiarized itself with Asgard’s Constitution.
b. Yes, Asgard’s contention is valid, because the Constitution of a State prevails over any treaty.
c. No, Asgard’s contention is not valid, because the violation of an internal law cannot be used as a justification for
invalidation of consent under any circumstances.
d. No, Asgard’s contention is not valid, because the violation in question does not relate to its internal law
regarding competence to conclude treaties. Hence, Asgard may not invoke the provisions of its internal
law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Ratio: Under Article 46 of the VCLT, a State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed
in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that
violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. The violation in this situation
involves a prohibition on mineral exploration by non-Asgardians, and does not have to do with competence to conclude
treaties. The general rule under Article 27 thus applies, which provides that a party may not invoke the provisions of its
internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

3. Russia was discovered to have actively funded individuals within the United States to act as “trolls” on the Internet, whereby
they were tasked to engage in online discussions in order to skew the public perception in favor of Donald Trump in the last
presidential election. Before the election was conducted, a treaty was entered into between Russia and the United States,
whereby the former agreed to stop funding these “trolls” and the latter agreed to stop spying on Russia through PRISM and
other similar programs. Despite this treaty, Trump won the election, and it was shown that this was due in large part to
Russia’s intervention. Did Russia commit an internationally wrongful act?
a. No, because Russia was not under any obligation not to hire “trolls” before the treaty was entered into.
The election result was merely an effect of the act, which was completed prior to the treaty, and does not
therefore constitute a continuing wrongful act.
b. No, because Russia’s act of funding “trolls” was a valid countermeasure against the United States, as the latter had
been spying on the Russia.
c. Yes, because the conduct of the “trolls” can be attributed to Russia, as they were acting under its direction or
control. Trump’s victory was the direct result of such conduct, so this was a continuing act putting Russia in
breach of its obligation.
d. Yes, because this was a violation of the sovereignty of the United States, so there need not have been a specific
treaty under which Russia could be held responsible for an internationally wrongful act.
 26

Ratio: This is not a continuing wrongful act under Article 14 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), because the act was completed prior to the existence of the treaty. An act does not have a continuing
character merely because its effects or consequences extend in time. It must be the wrongful act as such which continues.

4. Genovia is part of an organization that requires State parties to adhere to a particular procedure in the settlement of
disputes. First, parties must endeavour to negotiate with each other. Second, if they fail to resolve the matter through
negotiations, they may request a panel constituted by the organization. Third, if the dispute remains unsettled, they may
appeal to a higher body, also within the organizational framework. When another State Party violated an obligation it owed to
Genovia, Genovia contended that the procedural requirements did not preclude the taking of countermeasures. True or false?
a. True, because States have an absolute right to take lawful countermeasures whenever another State commits a
breach of an obligation owed to it.
b. True, because while States do not have an absolute right to take lawful countermeasures, countermeasures and
negotiations are not mutually exclusive.
c. False, because by becoming a member of the organization, Genovia bound itself to the obligation of
following its procedural requirements regarding the settlement of disputes, thereby precluding
countermeasures.
d. False, because negotiation and countermeasures are mutually exclusive under any circumstances.

Ratio: This situation is akin to that of the World Trade Organization, which limits the free choice of means, and requires parties
to settle disputes by its own procedures. Parties may request a panel, then may take recourse to the Appellate Body, and
implementation is thereafter supervised by the Dispute Settlement Body. This procedure forgoes the remedy of self-help.

5. Sekovia is a remote island within the Bermuda Triangle with small nomadic tribes inhabiting it. Official expeditions from the
State of Jamalia led to the establishment of a continuing trading system between Jamalia and the peoples of Sekovia. Some
tribal rulers paid with portions of land. Jamalia later asserted that it had title of over Sekovia. Does Jamalia have any claim over
Sekovia?
a. No, because the establishment of a continuing trading system is not a method of acquisition of territory,
and small cessions of land do not constitute title.
b. Yes, it has title by discovery, because Sekovia was not yet a State when Jamalia discovered it.
c. Yes, it has title by occupation, because the establishment of a continuing trading system equates to possession.
d. Yes, it has title by cession, thus constituting derivative title.

Ratio: Such sales of land do not constitute sufficient derivative title over the whole of Sekovia.

1. Ever since the Republic of Manguestan and Sastreet were formed as a result of the decolonization of a colony which
once encompassed them both, the two States have always contested the ownership over the island of Asple, located within the
Daza Straight, a navigable river which cuts between both territories. Manguestan’s claim is that it has consistently
administered to the island of Asple, patrolling it, taxing its inhabitants, and resolving local disputes. Sastreet’s argument was
that it presented geographical studies and maps predating independence which tended to place the boundary such that Asple
was within its territory. Which country has the better claim?
a. Sastreet, since Mangestan’s administration prior to independence could not have been done in the belief
that they were acting “as of right”, as they were only performing a public function on behalf of the
colonial region as a whole, and any post-independence actions cannot affect the uti possidetis juris
boundary.
b. Manguestan, since post-colonial effectivités may be taken into account in indicating the parties’
belief as to the location and extent of the uti possidetis juris boundary.
Ratio: Even if such effectivités took place after independence, the Court held in Benin v Niger that continuous reliance
on such a border could be sufficient evidence of a State’s belief that such was the accurate boundary between both
States.
c. Sastreet, since geographical, topographical, and hydrographic studies can be relied upon in determining
the boundary line.
d. Manguestan, since maps cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of a frontier, as such would be
irrefutable and tantamount to legal title.

2. Neighboring states Pandaria and Helveticum are located in the Esfasha continent, an arid land where water is scarce
and both States import water from their neighbors to get by. They share a transboundary aquifer, the Ekwe, which was
discovered in 2001 by the joint effort of both States, who had appointed Special Ministers for Subterranean Hydrology to
administer to the project and coordinate with the other State. On March 22, 2004, during UN World Water Day, the
Ministers of both States spoke in behalf of their State and made televised statements in large providing that their States
undertook “to preserve and protect the water resources for future generations”. However, due to a drought which
prevented any importation of water, Pandaria started extracting water from the Ekwe at a rate projected to deplete the
aquifer within 15 years. Helveticum protested such, and called on Pandaria to cease, based on the unilateral obligation
allegedly incurred by its unilateral declaration. Is Helveticum correct?
a. Yes, since according to Armed Activities, Ministers who hold technical ministerial portfolios who exercise
powers in their field of competence in the area of foreign relations may be authorized to create legally
binding statements on behalf of their State.
b. No, since the drought created a fundamental change in circumstance – preventing the importation of
water – which radically transformed the obligations of Pandaria, and such change was not a result of any
act or breach by Pandaria.
c. No, since the declaration was not accepted by Helveticum, and thus such an obligation to preserve or
protect the aquifer never arose.
 27

d.No, since a unilateral obligation may only have the effect of creating a binding legal obligation if it
is stated in clear and precise terms, and in this case, the obligation was vague – and when a
statement purportedly limits a State’s freedom, it must be interpreted strictly.
Ratio: Unilateral declarations must be clear and precise to create an obligation. In Armed Activities, since the
Rwandan Minister did not indicate a precise time-frame to operationalize the withdrawal of its reservations, the ICJ
found such declaration was merely one of intent, and not binding. In this case, all that was declared was a general
intent to preserve and protect water resources – not specifying which in particular, or the means and methods by
which Pandaria was binding itself to preserve and protect it.

3. In 2012, Aspersia, Belligera and Harroundi entered into a treaty to preserve the pristine Andulan mountain range
from all forms of industrialization. Belligera, however, entered a reservation against the treaty’s prohibition of
government-only small scale mining operations, as it wanted to exploit the trace amounts of adamantium, a rare earth
metal, that existed within its part of the mountain range, and neither Aspersia nor Harroundi objected to such reservation.
In 2017, Harroundi protested the mining operations of Belligera, after discovering that there were several private
corporations committed to mining operations, after an expose revealed a massive corruption scandal in Belligera proving
that top government officials had accepted bribes in order to allow the private operations to proceed under the guise of
government sanction. Is Belligera liable for having breached the treaty?
a. Yes, because the acts of the officials can be attributed to Belligera.
Ratio: Art. 7 of ARSIWA provide that the conduct of organs of a State or entities empowered to exercise elements of
governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State, even if it exceeds authority or contravenes
instructions. Thus, even if the acts were illegal, since the government officials were acting as officials in authorizing
and giving imprimatur to the operations to proceed, even if such was in excess of their authority, they are considered
State acts, as other States are not expected to know the allocation of power to any entity.
b. Yes, because the reservation under the treaty was not accepted by the other States, and thus any mining
by Belligera was in breach.
c. No, because the officials, by committing crimes, were acting in their private capacities and thus could not
bind the State.
d. No, because as the operations were attributable to the State, they came under the coverage of the
reservation.

1. In response to numerous typhoons, flashfloods, and other calamities that recently occurred in their region, Aegon
Targaryen, Prime Minister of Valyria tweeted proposed terms for a multilateral agreement addressing the issue of disaster
preparedness. Torrhen Stark, Prime Minister of Winterfell and Garth Greenhand, President of Highgarden, replied to his
tweets and thereafter made their own proposals for terms of the treaty. Thereafter, Aegon posted the amended terms on
Facebook. Torrhen and Garth both liked and commented their assent on the Facebook post. Is there a treaty?
a. No, because it did not go through proper negotiations between the state parties.
b. Yes, because all agreements are treaties.
c. No, because the post in Facebook does not fulfill the requisite in the VCLT that it be written.
d. Yes, the VCLT does not require that a treaty be in any particular form.

Answer: D, the VCLT does not require that a treaty be in any particular form. The agreement fulfills the requisites in Art. 2 of
the VCLT, that it be concluded between States, in written form, governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.

2. Andalasia, an island nation spread across the Western Pacific Ocean, has experienced rising sea levels as a result of
global warming. During the time period from 2000 to 2017, it is estimated to have lost over 70% of its original land
mass. As a consequence, many of its inhabitants have emigrated to neighboring states, its government even carried
out a mass evacuation of its peoples, to which many citizens acceded. As of now, it is estimated that only 30 people
remain, compared to its year 2000 population of 104, 937. Which of the following is true about Andalasia?

a. Andalasia is no longer a state because its changing and undefined land mass can no longer be considered territory.
b. Andalasia is still a state because it still has a population, territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations
with other states.
c. Andalasia is no longer a state because 30 people do not constitute a permanent population.
d. Andalasia is still a state because the international community still recognizes it as a state.

Answer: B, Andalasia is still a state because it still has a population, territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations
with other states. Art. 1 of the Montevideo Convention does not require a permanent territory, nor does it require a specific
number of people to constitute a population. With respect to the last choice, there is some debate about the recognition of the
international community, but the general consensus is that it is only declaratory. Moreover, it is not a requisite under Art. 1.

3. Braavos and Pentos are parties to a bilateral trade agreement. In order to facilitate trade between the two states,
each state allowed the other entry to its waters. Relations between the two states flourished, until in 2010, the
Braavosi government systematically began killing Pentoshi peoples living near the border of the two states. Pentos,
claiming that such act constituted an internationally wrongful act, closed off its waters to Braavosi trading ships
contrary to its obligations under the abovementioned bilateral trade agreement. Is the act a valid countermeasure?

a. Yes, the countermeasure need not be directly related to the internationally wrongful act committed.
b. No, the countermeasure should be directly related to the internationally wrongful act committed.
c. Yes, because the termination of trade relations between the two states will force Braavos to cease its internationally
wrongful acts, and it is thus directly related to the internationally wrongful act.
 28

d. No, because the termination of trade relations only deals with economic sanctions and has nothing to do with the criminal
acts committed by Braavos.

Answer: A, the countermeasure need not be directly related to the internationally wrongful act committed. There is no such
requirement in the ARSIWA because it is possible that countermeasures may affect the performance of several obligations at
any one time.

4. Through the years, Myanmar has killed and displaced thousands of Rohingya. In response, several states mounted a
case against Myanmar in the International Criminal Court (ICC). Myanmar argues that the ICC does not have
jurisdiction over it since it is not party to the Rome Statute. Is Myanmar correct?

a. Yes, because the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over state parties.
b. Yes, because the nature of the crime does not mean that a court without jurisdiction will be vested with
jurisdiction, and the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over state parties.
c. No, because genocide is a jus cogens international crime and therefore the ICC has the obligation to prosecute regardless of
whether the perpetrator is a party to the Rome Statute.
d. No, because the ICC can exercise jurisdiction even over non-state parties.

Answer: B, because the nature of the crime does not mean that a court with jurisdiction will be vested with jurisdiction.
According to Armed Activities, the fact that a dispute relates to compliance with a norm having such a character, which is
assuredly the case with regard to the prohibition or genocide, cannot of itself provide a basis for the jurisdiction of the court to
entertain that dispute. The Rome Statute provides that it may exercise its jurisdiction in situations where the perpetrator is a
state party.

5. Astapor and Meereen entered into a trade agreement, wherein both states lifted tariff rates over certain products
of the other. The parties authenticated both the High Valyrian and English versions of the text. It was found that the
word there was a discrepancy between the two versions; the High Valyrian version lifted tariff rates over “hemp”,
while the English version lifted tariff rates over “oil”. Meereen, a country known for its rich oil reserves, claims that
the English version should be followed, while Astapor insists that the High Valyrian version is authoritative. Assuming
that general rules of interpretation and supplementary means of interpretation were already used to no avail, which
of the two states is correct?

a. Meereen is correct, because High Valyrian is the official language of Astapor and Meereen.
b. Both are correct, because the parties did not designate any language which would prevail over the other.
c. Astapor is correct, because official languages of the United Nations are more authoritative than non-official languages.
d. Neither is correct, the text must first be reconciled.

Answer: D, neither is correct, the text must first be reconciled. According to Art. 33, VCLT, except where a particular text
prevails as agreed upon by the parties, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the
application of the tools of interpretation does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the text, having regard to the
object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.