Question

Ukraine filed the application excerpted above concerning “a dispute . . . relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of ” an international convention (the “Convention”), whose name has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the excerpt above. What is the full name of the Convention?

• A. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979
• B. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948
• C. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
• D. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
• A. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
• B. Any State not party to the dispute
• C. The Secretary-General of the United Nations
• D. Any of the parties to the dispute
• A. Killing members of the group
• B. Promoting the cultural activities of the group
• C. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• D. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
• A. It appeared before the ICJ, and also submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter
• B. It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and did not submit any written pleadings either
• C. It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter
• D. It appeared before the ICJ, but chose not to submit any written pleadings
• A. Jus gentium
• B. Jus ad bellum
• C. Jus in bello
• D. Jus cogens
• A. Jeremy Bentham
• B. Baruch Spinoza
• C. Hugo Grotius
• D. Mohamed ElBaradei
• A. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by the contesting states
• B. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law
• C. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations
• D. All the above
• A. The thing speaks for itself
• B. According to the right and good
• C. By that very fact or act
• D. Towards all
• A. The International Law Commission
• B. The International Court of Justice
• C. The International Criminal Court
• D. The World Trade Organisation
• A. Hersch Lauterpacht
• B. Judge Radhabinod Pal
• C. Raphael Lemkin
• D. Mirjan Damaska

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

The correct option is (B): Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Answer 2

The question asks for the full name of the convention referred to as '[1]' in the excerpt, given that Ukraine's application concerned a dispute over its interpretation, application and fulfilment. The passage's own content, genocide, military action justified by alleged genocide, and Russian officials invoking the legal term genocide, points directly to the relevant treaty.

1. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979: This convention addresses discrimination against women, an entirely different subject from the passage's focus on genocide as the basis for Russia's claimed military justification.
2. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948: The excerpt is built entirely around allegations of genocide and Russia's invocation of genocide to justify military action. Ukraine's actual application before the ICJ in 2022 was filed under this convention, arguing that Russia's misuse of the term genocide, without any factual basis, to justify aggression against Ukraine amounted to a dispute over the convention's interpretation and application. This matches the passage precisely.
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966: This covenant protects civil and political rights generally, such as freedom of expression and fair trial rights, and has no specific connection to the genocide-based justification described in the excerpt.
4. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984: This convention concerns torture and ill treatment, a different subject matter from the genocide allegations that are the entire basis of the dispute described here.

Only the Genocide Convention matches the subject matter of the excerpt and the actual case Ukraine brought before the ICJ.

So the correct answer is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

Answer 3

The correct option is (D): Any of the parties to the dispute.

Answer 4

Article IX of the Genocide Convention sets out how disputes between Contracting Parties over the Convention's interpretation, application or fulfilment are to reach the International Court of Justice. This question asks who is entitled to bring such a dispute to the ICJ.

1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: UNHCR is a UN agency focused on protecting and assisting refugees, and it has no role under Article IX in referring disputes between States to the ICJ.
2. Any State not party to the dispute: Article IX is concerned with the actual parties to the dispute being able to bring it to the Court, not with third States that are not involved in the dispute at all.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations: the Secretary-General has various functions under the UN Charter and other treaties, but referring a dispute under Article IX of the Genocide Convention to the ICJ is not one of them.
4. Any of the parties to the dispute: Article IX allows either side of a dispute over the Convention's interpretation, application, or fulfilment to submit that dispute to the ICJ, without needing the other party's separate consent to bring the case, since the Convention itself is the source of jurisdiction. This matches the actual text of Article IX, and is how Ukraine was able to bring its case against Russia unilaterally.

Article IX gives either party to a dispute the standing to approach the ICJ, which is exactly why Ukraine alone could initiate proceedings against Russia.

So the correct answer is any of the parties to the dispute.

Answer 5

The correct option is (B): Promoting the cultural activities of the group.

Answer 6

Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as certain listed acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. The Convention's drafters set out a fixed, closed list of such acts, and this question asks which of the given options is not on that list.

1. Killing members of the group: this is the first act listed in Article II, the most direct form of physical destruction of the group, and is included in the Convention's definition.
2. Promoting the cultural activities of the group: Article II's list does not include anything resembling promoting a group's culture. In fact, during the drafting of the Convention, a proposal to include so called cultural genocide, meaning the destruction of a group's culture and identity rather than its members, was specifically debated and ultimately left out of the final text. Promoting culture is the opposite of destroying it, and it is not one of the five listed acts.
3. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: this is one of the five acts listed in Article II, aimed at preventing the group's continuation through its members' offspring, and is included in the definition.
4. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: this is also one of the five listed acts, targeting the group's ability to pass on its identity to the next generation, and is included in the definition.

Three of the four options are drawn directly from the Convention's actual list of genocidal acts, while promoting cultural activities is not part of that list at all.

So the correct answer is promoting the cultural activities of the group.

Answer 7

The correct option is (C): It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter.

Answer 8

This question asks what Russia actually did in relation to the ICJ hearings on Ukraine's request for provisional measures, held on 7 March 2022, shortly after the invasion began.

1. It appeared before the ICJ, and also submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ's jurisdiction over the matter: Russia did not send representatives to appear at the oral hearings on provisional measures at all, so this option is inaccurate on the appearance point.
2. It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and did not submit any written pleadings either: Russia did not stay entirely silent. It did communicate its position to the Court in writing, arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction, even though it declined to appear in person at the hearing.
3. It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ's jurisdiction over the matter: This matches what actually happened. Russia stayed away from the oral hearings but sent a written communication to the Court setting out its position that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures in the case, essentially raising a jurisdictional objection without physically appearing.
4. It appeared before the ICJ, but chose not to submit any written pleadings: This gets both facts backward. Russia did not appear, but it did submit something in writing, the reverse of what this option describes.

Russia's actual conduct combined non-appearance at the hearing with a written jurisdictional objection sent to the Court.

So the correct answer is it chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ's jurisdiction over the matter.

Answer 9

The correct option is (B): Jus ad bellum.

Answer 10

This question asks which Latin term describes the body of law governing the conditions under which States may resort to war or the use of armed force in general, as distinct from other related Latin terms used in international law.

1. Jus gentium: this is a broad, older term meaning the law of nations or law of peoples, historically used to describe rules governing relations between different peoples generally. It is not specifically about the conditions for resorting to war, but a wider label for what later became international law as a whole.
2. Jus ad bellum: this term translates to the law on going to war, and it refers specifically to the rules governing when a State may lawfully resort to the use of armed force against another State, such as self defence or Security Council authorization. This is exactly the subject the question describes.
3. Jus in bello: this term translates to the law in war, and it governs how hostilities are conducted once a war has already begun, such as the treatment of civilians and combatants, rather than whether resorting to force was lawful in the first place. It concerns conduct during war, not the conditions for starting one.
4. Jus cogens: this term refers to peremptory norms of international law, rules so fundamental that no State can contract out of them, such as the prohibition on genocide. It is a category of binding legal norms generally, not specifically about the conditions for resorting to armed force.

Only jus ad bellum specifically addresses the conditions under which a State may lawfully turn to war or armed force.

So the correct answer is jus ad bellum.

Answer 11

The correct option is (C): Hugo Grotius.

Answer 12

This question asks who wrote Mare Liberum and is often called the father of modern international law, a title given to a jurist whose work shaped how relations between States and the use of the seas came to be legally understood.

1. Jeremy Bentham: Bentham was an English philosopher known for founding utilitarianism, and he is credited with coining the term international law itself, but he did not write Mare Liberum and is not the jurist usually given the father of modern international law title.
2. Baruch Spinoza: Spinoza was a philosopher known for his work on ethics, metaphysics and political theory, not for writing on the freedom of the seas or for founding international law as a discipline.
3. Hugo Grotius: Grotius, a Dutch jurist writing in the early seventeenth century, authored Mare Liberum, meaning The Free Sea, arguing that the sea was international territory open to all nations for trade. His broader body of work on natural law and the law of war and peace earned him the widely used title father of modern international law, or sometimes father of the law of nations.
4. Mohamed ElBaradei: ElBaradei is a modern diplomat and former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a contemporary figure with no connection to Mare Liberum or to founding the discipline of international law.

Grotius is both the author of Mare Liberum and the jurist traditionally honoured with the father of modern international law title.

So the correct answer is Hugo Grotius.

Answer 13

The correct option is (D): All the above.

Answer 14

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists the sources of law the Court applies when deciding disputes submitted to it. This question asks which of the given sources is or are actually included in that list.

1. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by the contesting states: this is the first source listed in Article 38(1), covering treaties between States as a primary source of the rules the Court applies. This is included.
2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law: this is the second source listed in Article 38(1), covering customary international law, meaning consistent State practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation. This is also included.
3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations: this is the third source listed in Article 38(1), covering broad legal principles common to national legal systems that can fill gaps where treaty and custom are silent. This too is included.
4. All the above: since conventions, custom, and general principles are each genuinely part of Article 38(1)'s list of sources, and Article 38(1) additionally treats judicial decisions and the teachings of publicists as subsidiary means for determining rules of law, none of the first three options can be excluded from the answer.

Because all three named sources genuinely appear in Article 38(1), the comprehensive option is the correct one.

So the correct answer is all the above.

Answer 15

The correct option is (B): According to the right and good.

Answer 16

Article 38(2) allows the ICJ to decide a case ex aequo et bono if the parties agree to it, meaning the Court is not confined to strictly applying the sources of law listed in Article 38(1) and can instead decide based on fairness. This question asks for the actual meaning of the Latin phrase ex aequo et bono.

1. The thing speaks for itself: this is the translation of a different Latin maxim, res ipsa loquitur, used in the law of negligence when the very fact of an accident implies fault. It is unrelated to ex aequo et bono.
2. According to the right and good: this is the accurate translation of ex aequo et bono, describing a decision made on the basis of what is equitable and fair, rather than strictly by applying formal rules of law. This matches how Article 38(2) uses the phrase, letting the Court decide based on fairness when the parties agree.
3. By that very fact or act: this is the translation of ipso facto, a different Latin phrase meaning something follows automatically from a particular fact, unrelated to the equitable decision-making concept in Article 38(2).
4. Towards all: this loosely resembles the idea behind erga omnes, a term describing obligations owed to the international community as a whole, not the concept of deciding a case on the basis of fairness.

Ex aequo et bono specifically means deciding according to what is equitable and good, matching the second option.

So the correct answer is according to the right and good.

Answer 17

The correct option is (A): The International Law Commission.

Answer 18

Article 13(1)(a) of the UN Charter directs the General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. This question asks which body the General Assembly established in 1947 to carry out that specific mandate.

1. The International Law Commission: the General Assembly established the International Law Commission in 1947 by resolution, specifically to undertake the work of progressively developing and codifying international law under Article 13(1)(a). The Commission, made up of legal experts, has since prepared draft treaties and reports on many areas of international law, including the law of treaties and state responsibility. This matches the mandate described.
2. The International Court of Justice: the ICJ was established in 1945 under the UN Charter itself as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, to decide disputes between States, not to conduct studies and draft codification proposals. It predates 1947 and serves a different function.
3. The International Criminal Court: the ICC was established much later, in 2002, under the Rome Statute, to prosecute individuals for international crimes such as genocide and war crimes. It has no connection to the 1947 codification mandate under Article 13(1)(a).
4. The World Trade Organisation: the WTO was established in 1995 to administer international trade rules and resolve trade disputes between member States, an entirely separate function from progressively developing and codifying general international law.

Only the International Law Commission was established in 1947 for the specific purpose described in Article 13(1)(a).

So the correct answer is the International Law Commission.

Answer 19

The correct option is (C): Raphael Lemkin.

Answer 20

This question asks who first coined the term genocide, a word combining the Greek genos, meaning race or tribe, with the Latin cide, meaning killing.

1. Hersch Lauterpacht: Lauterpacht was an influential international lawyer whose work helped shape the modern legal concept of crimes against humanity, and he played a significant role in the Nuremberg trials. He is associated with crimes against humanity, not with coining the word genocide.
2. Judge Radhabinod Pal: Pal was the Indian judge on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the Tokyo war crimes tribunal, known for his dissenting opinion questioning the tribunal's legitimacy. He did not coin the term genocide.
3. Raphael Lemkin: Lemkin, a Polish jewish lawyer, coined the term genocide in his 1944 book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, combining the Greek genos and the Latin cide to describe the systematic destruction of national, ethnic, racial or religious groups, drawing on his study of Nazi policies. He later campaigned tirelessly for the term to be recognized in international law, which led to the 1948 Genocide Convention. This matches the question.
4. Mirjan Damaska: Damaska is a modern comparative law and evidence scholar, known for his work on legal systems and procedure, with no connection to coining the term genocide.

Only Lemkin is credited with actually coining the term genocide.

So the correct answer is Raphael Lemkin.