Contents

• This report is based on the following requirement -
• Part one: International and Comparative Law (15 Marks) Maximum word length is 1500 words
• With regard to the relationship between treaties and Australian law, Campbell JA in Samootin v. Shea [2012] NSWCA 378 made the following observation (at [33] citations omitted):
• “International treaties that have been ratified by the Australian government do not as such form part of our domestic law or operate as a direct source of individual rights and obligations under that law. “
• Explain this statement and give particular examples of treaties ratified by the Australian government which have become part of domestic or municipal law.
• Part two: State Responsibility and Environmental Regulation (15 Marks) Maximum word length is 1500 words
• Ecks Company was incorporated in State X, but has its headquarters, operating plant, most of its employees, and most of its shareholders in State Y. In 1980, a small branch office of Ecks Co. in State Z hired an industrial spy, Mr. O. O. Seven, to obtain secrets from a large competitor in State Z. The spy was successful. For more than a year he supplied the branch with the competitor’s most important industrial secrets, which the branch in turn passed on to Ecks Co. The competitor was a contractor of State Z, and many of the secrets the spy uncovered related to State Z’s national defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Seven was caught red-handed in 1981. He was arrested and convicted of espionage. In bargaining for a reduced sentence, he agreed to testify against the Ecks Co. and its branch office’s manager.
• As a consequence, State Z prosecuted both the Ecks Co. and its branch office’s manager for espionage. The manager was found guilty, fined, and sentenced to a prison term. The Ecks Co. did not hire a lawyer to represent it in court, and it did not appear to answer the charges against it. The court entered a default judgment and confiscated all of the assets of the branch as punishment. Ecks Co. never appeared to appeal this decision to State Z’s appellate courts.
• Subsequent efforts by Ecks Co. to set up a new branch in State Z were disallowed. Ecks Co. has long fumed over the loss of its State Z branch and the sentence handed down by the State Z court.
• Finally, this year, it was able to persuade State X to bring a suit on its behalf before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Both State X and State Z have recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ to resolve this dispute. State X alleges that the Ecks Co. was denied justice.
• Are there any objections to the ICJ’s jurisdiction that State Z may be able to raise?

Description

N/A