International Law Essay Assignment: Topics and Guidelines

Unilateral reforms to international law

There is no need to provide citations for basic doctrinal content (eg. the stages of treaty development; the two components of customary law; characteristics of a state, etc.) but you should cite to specific articles, page numbers, or paragraph numbers when referencing specific treaties, readings, cases, or when drawing on individuals’ original work and ideas. When in doubt, cite. Chicago Manual of Style (Notes-Bibliography) is preferred. However, no particular citation style is required so long as you provide the appropriate information. You may copy directly from the syllabus when citing from the assigned readings. You are welcome to consult or draw on other materials than those used in the course, but this is not required and should not be for the purpose of finding answers in a manner that replaces your own analysis and work. You may discuss this assignment with your colleagues if you wish, but you must do your own work and adhere to University of Toronto policies regarding academic integrity. Advice for doing well on this assignment: Do not simply repeat and summarize the course materials. Use them as a foundation for reflection and analysis. Give enough information that the reader knows what principle or law you are referring to, but do not waste space on unnecessarily detailed explanations of the law. Use most of your word count on your ideas. It may be helpful to include real-world examples, but don't use excessive or very lengthy examples that use up your word count on description rather than analysis. Sometimes there is one "right" answer, but much of the time there is not. Except for instances where treaty law or customary law only allow for one correct answer, you will be graded primarily based on how well you demonstrate your understanding of the concepts, themes, and theories covered in the readings, and on the overall quality of your analysis. If relevant, a strong analysis considers arguments that can be made on both sides of the issue, and then justifies why one side should prevail. Good luck! 1. If you had authority to make unilateral reforms to international law as it currently stands, what is one of the things that you would consider changing (eg. a component of a legal test, change to a doctrine or rule, amendment to some aspect of treaty law, powers of some international legal actor, gap in the law, etc.)? What benefits do you believe could arise from this reform? What risks or problems could this reform create? What are some of the likely political obstacles to achieving such a reform through regular, state-driven processes of international lawmaking today? Please limit your answer to aspects of international law that we studied in Weeks 1-4 2. Comment on the role of state sovereignty in international law. What are some benefits and risks of allowing state sovereignty to trump other factors in the development and application of international law? What are some benefits and risks of constraining or disregarding state sovereignty in the development and application of international law? 3. Describe how climate change could impact state territory and jurisdiction.  4. How does the ongoing development of international law governing outer space compare with the earlier development of international law, particularly during the colonial era? What seems to have changed, and what might be history repeating?  5. Scenario (not a real one!): All of the countries in Africa except Algeria negotiate, adopt, and sign a multilateral treaty intended to promote free trade of all agricultural products between the state parties, to come into force 60 days after 2/3 of the signatory states express their consent to be bound by it. The treaty stipulates that, in the absence of a specific provision saying otherwise, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties shall apply to all necessary matters of treaty law. Shortly after the treaty is adopted, Algeria elects a new government, led by a President who had declared on national television days before the election that Algeria should accept the treaty, except as it applies to citrus fruits. Malawi, South Africa, and Cameroon promptly ratify the treaty, with no reservations. Some weeks later, Kenya and Senegal ratify the treaty, with reservations. Kenya enters a reservation relating to tea, and Senegal enters a reservation related to rice. Cameroon objects to Kenya's reservation, and South Africa objects to both Kenya's and Senegal's reservations and states in writing that it considers the treaty "all or nothing." Following bilateral diplomatic discussions, South Africa then withdraws its objections and notifies Kenya, but not Senegal. Some time after this, Liberia ratifies the treaty, and enters a reservation saying that it will not be bound by a term of the treaty prohibiting trade of agricultural products grown with the use of slavery. No states object to this reservation. Over the next year, many other states ratify or approve the treaty without reservations, bringing the total to 80% of signatory states. A few days later, the Prime Minister of Egypt approves the treaty in writing, despite there having been a recent Supreme Constitutional Court decision declaring that the constitution requires Parliament to ratify international treaties. Around the same time, the newly-elected Prime Minister of Somalia accepts the treaty. He had campaigned on a protectionist platform, but days after his election, Al-Shabaab, which is funded partly by illegal levies on agricultural sales and believed the treaty could increase agricultural revenues, had threatened to harm his family if he opposed the treaty. After this, all of the other signatory states except Zimbabwe ratify the treaty. The ruling party of Zimbabwe was an early promoter of the treaty, had consistently expressed an intention to ratify the treaty promptly, and had initiated many of the administrative changes necessary to implement the agreement. However, before it could ratify the treaty, the government was overthrown in a coup and replaced with a new, protectionist government. This new government publicly condemns the free trade agreement, and begins reinstating the internal administrative processes that enforce the tariff system. Which African states are bound by the treaty upon its coming into force, how, and to which other states? Are any African states in violation of international law at any point in this scenario? Are any African states not parties to the treaty at the end of this scenario?