PIL
A. Concepts – E. Jurisdiction of States
1. Statute of ICJ, Art. 32 (1) (a)
2. Charter of UN
3. Venna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Diagnostic Exam
Part I
10 MCQs (5 objective)
1. Which of the following is not a source of international law?
a. International convention
b. International custom
c. General principles of law recognized by civilized nations
d. Judicial decisions
e. Teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations
2. ______________ is a legal but deliberately unfriendly act directed by a state
against another in retaliation for an unfriendly though legal act to compel that state to
alter its unfriendly conduct.
a. Reprisal
b. Retorsion
c. Recognition
d.
e.
3. Which of the following crime(s) is(are) not among the universal jurisdiction of
International Court of Justice.
a. Crime against Humanity
b. Crime of aggression
c. War Crimes
d.
e.
a) The crime of genocide
b) Crimes against humanity
c) War crimes
d) The crime of aggression
Essay
I.
A German business corporation, Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellscaft, had owned
property in Warsaw when that city had been part of the Russian Empire. Warsaw
became the caital of a reconstituted Polish State in 1918, so the company's Warsaw
assets came to lie under Polish jurisdiction. The Versailles Treaty, Article 297,
allowed states damaged by Germany during the Great War to expropriate German
assets within their jurisdictions. Poland expropriated the Warsaw property of
Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellscaft in December 1923. The company sued, arguing
that, upon the date the Versailles Treaty went into effect (January 10, 1920), Russia
had not ceded, and thus had not recognizes Polish title over, the formerly Russian part
of Poland. Polish control, the company argued, had been recognized only over those
Polish lands formerly part of Germany. Accordingly, as the Versailles Treaty
provisions for restitutory expropriation reached only assets in the territory of the state
conducting the expropriation, Poland had no authority to seize the Warsaw assets of
Deutsche Continental. Rule on the expropriation.
Answer: The expropriation must be upheld.
The tribunal ruled that whether Russia recognized the Polish State was not
dispositive. Control, not recognition, is what mattered. (Deutsche Continental Gas-
Gesellschaft v. Polish State, 5 ANN. DIG. I.L.C. 11)