Treaty Law: Preah Vihear Case Overview

The arbitral tribunal in the Rainbow Warrior case found France accountable for breaching the 1986 agreement by forcibly removing a Greenpeace activist, Mafart, from New Zealand.

France argued that the removal of Mafart was justified by a 'force majeure' emergency. The tribunal rejected this defense, clarifying that force majeure must involve an immediate and unavoidable threat.

The Rainbow Warrior case affirms that states have a legal responsibility to follow the terms of treaties they have signed, even during crises.

The Rainbow Warrior ruling illustrates the importance of good faith negotiations and cooperation between states when addressing international disputes.

The Rainbow Warrior Case highlights the principle of state responsibility, meaning states are accountable for the actions of their officials, even if they are not directly ordered by the government.

The outcome of the Rainbow Warrior case underscores the critical role of international law in upholding the integrity of treaties and ensuring order in international relations.

The Rainbow Warrior ruling demonstrates that defenses like force majeure must meet strict legal standards to be accepted, preventing their misuse to evade accountability.

The Island of Palmas case involved a territorial dispute between the United States and the Netherlands concerning the small island of Palmas.

The Temple of Preah Vihear is an ancient temple on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. Its ownership was disputed, with both countries claiming it as their own based on different interpretations of a 1904 treaty.

A legal document signed in 1904 between France (on behalf of Cambodia) and Siam (now Thailand) that aimed to establish the border between the two countries.

The highest point dividing rivers, which is the dividing line mentioned in the 1904 Treaty for the border.

A map created after the 1904 Treaty, depicting the border and showing the Temple of Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It became a central point of contention in the dispute.

The International Court of Justice, a judicial body responsible for settling international legal disputes between countries.

The ICJ’s task in this case was to interpret the 1904 Treaty, the Annex I Map, and the actions of both countries over time to determine who had ownership of the Temple and the surrounding land.

In the Temple of Preah Vihear Case, the ICJ decided in favor of Cambodia, recognizing its ownership of the Temple and ordering Thailand to remove its troops.

A part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which allows for a treaty to be invalidated if there was a mistake in its creation.

The legal principle that protects foreign ministers from criminal prosecution in foreign courts while in office.

A country's power to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed outside its territory, even if the perpetrator and victim are not its nationals.

The Belgian law granting universal jurisdiction to Belgian courts for severe violations of international humanitarian law, regardless of location of crime or nationality of parties.

The DRC argued that Belgium violated international law by issuing an arrest warrant against its foreign minister, claiming it interfered with his diplomatic duties and sovereign equality.

Belgium argued that the arrest warrant was justified under universal jurisdiction, claiming immunity ratione personae does not exempt officials from international criminal law.

The legal principle that states that a country's laws apply to crimes committed within its territory or by its citizens, even if those crimes occurred abroad. This principle allows nations to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by foreign nationals within their borders.

The legal principle that a country has jurisdiction over crimes committed by its citizens, regardless of where those crimes occur.

The legal principle that a country has jurisdiction over crimes that affect its national interests, even if those crimes occur outside its borders. This principle allows nations to exercise jurisdiction over crimes that threaten their security or economy.

A legal principle allowing states to protect their national interests, even if those interests extend beyond their territorial borders. This can include protecting their citizens, even if those citizens are abroad.

The principle that if a state's right to prosecute is challenged, the burden of proof lies on the challenger to demonstrate that a specific rule of international law prohibits that state from acting.

The prosecution of Eichmann in Israel, despite the fact that the crimes were committed outside of Israel, and Eichmann was not an Israeli citizen.

A defense strategy used by Eichmann, arguing that he was merely following orders from his superiors, and thus not personally responsible for his actions.

The argument that Eichmann’s abduction from Argentina violated international law, as it interfered with the sovereignty of Argentina.

The principle that a state can prosecute offenses if the crimes are so grave and universal that they transcend territorial boundaries.

The argument that the legality of an arrest does not necessarily determine the legality of a subsequent prosecution, especially for grave offenses.

The Eichmann trial established that states can legally apply their laws retroactively to prosecute international crimes, even for acts committed in the past.

The Eichmann trial solidified the international legal norm of holding individuals accountable for international crimes like genocide and crimes against humanity. It established that individuals are not exempt from justice for their actions, irrespective of their position or authority.

The principle that states are not allowed to interfere in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states. It was challenged in the Eichmann case, as Israel abducted Eichmann from Argentina to stand trial in Israel. The court ruled that procedural violations like Eichmann's abduction do not necessarily invalidate jurisdiction over serious crimes.

The Eichmann case sparked ongoing debate about the legality of extraditing or abducting individuals to face charges, particularly when it involves actions by foreign governments.

This legal principle limits the actions and immunities of state officials, preventing them from evading prosecution for international crimes. The ruling in the Arrest Warrant Case reiterated that state officials, regardless of their position, are not immune from international law.

The case highlighted the tension between the right of a state to prosecute crimes within its jurisdiction and a country's ability to claim sovereign immunity for its officials. The case involved the arrest warrant issued in Belgium for the Congolese Foreign Minister over alleged crimes committed outside Belgium.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the United States violated international law by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. The case reinforced the prohibition on the use of force and non-intervention, demonstrating the power of customary international law, even when treaties are excluded. It highlighted the difficulty of enforcing international law against powerful states.

The ICJ ruled that the United States violated customary international law by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, even though the U.S. had not signed a treaty agreeing to abide by the ICJ's jurisdiction. This case established the principle that customary international law applies even if a state has not agreed to it in a treaty.

The Nicaragua case demonstrated the enduring strength of customary international law, even when states violate it. The ICJ held that even if a state's actions sometimes contradict the rules, the rules still apply if states generally accept them.

The Nicaragua case showed the ICJ's ability to uphold international law, even against powerful states like the US, which refused to comply with the ruling. It demonstrated that international justice can be upheld despite resistance.

The ICJ's ruling in the Nicaragua case confirmed the prohibition on the use of force as a fundamental and non-negotiable principle of international law. This principle, known as jus cogens, is considered a universal rule that cannot be violated.

The Nicaragua case highlighted the importance of practice and belief in the formation of customary law. Both need to be present for a rule to be considered customary law, even if violations occur.

The Nicaragua case highlighted the challenge of enforcing international law against powerful states unwilling to comply with ICJ rulings. The US refused to pay reparations as ordered by the court.

The ICJ in the Nicaragua case took a flexible approach to customary law, focusing on preserving the strength of international rules rather than strict adherence to state actions. It demonstrated a modern understanding of customary law.