9B - Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

xxv III. THE COURTS OF USM HAVE JURISDICTION OVER MR NEVILLE REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD BY WHICH HE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT (10) The method by which Mr Neville was brought before the court does not influence in any form the jurisdiction of USM as a result of the principle of male captus bene detentus. (11) The principle of male captus bene detentus is a recognised principle of law as state practice led to the development of opinio juris, therefore meeting the required criteria for the establishment as a principle of general international law. (12) Even if, arguendo, the principle of male captus bene detentus would not be recognised, international law permits extraterritorial abductions in certain situations pursuant to the efficient breach doctrine or when concerned with crimes considered jus cogens. (13) USM was obliged to take action and acted in conformity with the efficient breach doctrine in order to exert its jurisdiction over Mr Neville’s acts of instigation to genocide, punishable by international law, under the principle of universal jurisdiction. (14) RNM can not claim the breach of its territorial sovereignty. (15) RNM can not claim the breach of its sovereignty as an effect of Mr Neville’s ministerial capacity as the acts that he performed are punishable under international law and the State is obliged under international law to deny its sovereign immunity.
(g) Jurisdiction of the Court xxvi Both the Republic of North Manconia and the United States of Merseystan are members of the United Nations and parties to the Statute of the ICJ. They both have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ under Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the ICJ, with no relevant reservations. On March the 3 rd 2012, the Republic of North Manconia brought proceedings before the ICJ.
Page 1 and 2: TELDERS INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COUR
Page 3 and 4: ii C. EVEN IF, ARGUENDO, MR NEVILLE
Page 5 and 6: ILC - International Law Commission
Page 7 and 8: (c) List of Sources 1. Internationa
Page 9 and 10: viii 2.4 International Criminal Tri
Page 11 and 12: 3.3 Other x United Nations Diplomat
Page 13 and 14: xii Adam C. Belsky et al “Implied
Page 15 and 16: (d) Statement of Relevant Facts xiv
Page 17 and 18: xvi One of the most important actor
Page 19 and 20: xviii that condemns the crime of in
Page 21 and 22: (e) Issues xx USM asks the honourab
Page 23 and 24: xxii C. Does the method by which Mr
Page 25: xxiv II. USM HAS NOT VIOLATED THE I
Page 29 and 30: 2 RNM has not only refused to prose
Page 31 and 32: 4 It shall be proven further on tha
Page 33 and 34: 6 The United States protests on the
Page 35 and 36: 8 demonstrated a world belief that
Page 37 and 38: 10 II. USM HAS NOT VIOLATED THE IMM
Page 39 and 40: 12 In the case of General Shaul Mof
Page 41 and 42: 14 to this draft article notes that
Page 43 and 44: 16 "eliminated”. At that time he
Page 45 and 46: 18 III. THE COURTS OF USM HAVE JURI
Page 47 and 48: 20 One of the most debated moves of
Page 49 and 50: 22 3. Customary international law i
Page 51 and 52: 24 after the diplomatic negotiation

9B - Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?