Case 1
In the context of State A’s claim to Neverland made during an international conference, State B’s Minister for Foreign Affaires made the following oral statement in response to a question of State A’s diplomatic representatives: “the State A’s government would not make any difficulties in the settlement of this question”. In other words, the Minister agreed State B would not oppose to A’s claims to the whole territory of Neverland. Under the Constitution of State B the Minister was not empowered to make the above statement.
However, State B continued to occupy the East Neverland which led State A to take the case before ICJ.
How should ICJ rule on this point?
Case 2
Prohibition of racial discrimination is a rule recognized and respected in many UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions (including Universal Declaration of Human Rights). South Africa expressed its objection to this rule, introduced and continued to develop of system of racial segregation and discrimination (the most illustrious acts included Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949 or Population Registration Act, 1950).
Would you agree South Africa became a persistent objector to the principle of non- discrimination? Can the principle in question be treated as peremptory norm (jus cogens)?
Case 3
In 1904 the boundary between Cambodia (then a French protectorate) and Thailand (then Siam) was determined by a treaty between France and Siam, The treaty stated that it was to follow the watershed line and surveys were conducted by experts on the basis of which the map was prepared. The map placed the temple called Praeh Vihaer in Cambodia and Cambodia relied upon it for its claims. In the 1960s Thailand argued the map embodied a material error in that it did not follow the watershed line as agreed in the treaty (in consequence the temple’s territory should belong to Thailand). The map had been received and accepted by the Siamese beforehand, nevertheless it indeed did contain a technical error.
Is the Thailand’s argument acceptable?
