HERBERT CHITEPO LAW SCHOOL

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

TAKE HOME TEST SUBMISSION COVER SHEET

STUDENT NUMBER M198069

MODULE NAME AND CODE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

LLB224

NAME OF SUPERVISOR / MR. B MOYO

MODULE CO-ORDINATOR

DATE SUBMITTED 21 June 2021

1|Page
UNDERTAKING:

1. I declare that this research paper is my own work and that I have not copied the
work of another student or author.
2. I declare that the written work is entirely my own except where other sources are
acknowledged.
3. I declare that I understand that collaboration in the writing of this assignment or
the copying of another student’s work constitutes cheating for which I may be
excluded from the University.
4. I certify that this research paper has not been submitted in this or similar form in
another module at this or any other University.

NAME: BRIAN MAZETESE

SIGNATURE: __MAZETESE____________________________

DATE: _16 JULY_2021

2|Page
 HERBERT CHITEPO LAW SCHOOL
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

TAKE HOME TEST SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

NOTE: A completed copy of this checklist must accompany the cover page
for each assignment submission. All 3 boxes must be ticked.

I hereby certify that before submission of this assignment I have checked that:
1 The Test is not more than 4__ pages long, excluding the Bibliography. 

2 The test is typed in Arial font; the font size for the main text is 12; the line 
spacing for the main text is 1.5; 1.0-line spacing on footnotes; and the main text
has been justified on the page.
3 I have complied with the referencing guide. 

3|Page
Article 92 states that the International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations.1 Judge Lachs as according to Shaw states that it is ‘the
guardian of legality for the international community as a whole, both within and without
the United Nations’.2 It decides cases on the basis of international law as it exists at the
date of the decision.3 Thus, International court of Justice is the judiciary of the United
Nations that is it have got judicial roles and settles international disputes. This paper
seeks to discuss the jurisdiction and competence of the International Court of Justice.

The ICJ only have got the jurisdiction to decide cases which parties involved are states.
Article 34 of the ICJ statute supports this point, “only states may be parties in cases
before the Court.”4 This shows us that that the International court of justice only have
got the competence to decide cases between states and not natural persons.

In addition to the above, the International Court of Justice in disputes between states
have got the jurisdiction to adjudicate contentious cases. The Court of Justice between
states where there is disagreement on a point of law or fact. In the South West Africa
Cases, the ICJ held that a dispute submitted for adjudication must amount to a
disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests and that it
‘must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other’.5 Thus
there is need to prove that there is a conflict of legal views or conflicts for the Court of
Justice to have jurisdiction, it is this dispute which gives the court jurisdiction.

The International court of Justice is also competent to advice on any legal question. In
international relations, legal questions are often intertwined with political questions or
have political dimensions6. Thus court have jurisdiction to give advice on every matter
which is capable of legal analysis despite the fact that it has arisen in a political context,
has been informed by political motivations or has political ramifications.

1
Charter of the United Nations Article 92
2
MN Shaw International Law (2008) 1065
3
Shaw (note 2 above) 1064
4
Charter of the United Nations and ICJ Statute Article 34
5
H Strydom etal International Law (2016) 191
6
Strydom (note 5 above) 191

4|Page
QUESTION 2

Damages for violation of international law are damages which are claimed from a state
which have breached international law. Compensation due an expropriated alien under
customary international law refers to the compensation which is claimed by the
aggrieved party from the government which have taken its property and there claim is
being governed by customary international law. In this question there is need to
distinguish the two with reference to the Chorzow Factory case and the ADC Affiliate
case.

Firstly in the Chorzow factory case the essential principle contained in the actual notion
of illegal act is that reparation must do away with all consequences of the illegal act and
the to reestablish the situation which would have existed if the breach hadn’t transpired.
The compensation is made for the damage caused by the breach of international law.

In terms of expropriation as according to the ADC Affiliate Case the standard is that
payment should be of the exact value of the goods expropriated or taken. In damages
arising from expropriation of property of an alien investor Market value is to be
considered. The compensation must also include losses encountered by the foreign
investor or alien as a result of the expropriation.

5|Page
QUESTION 3

International customary law provides that every state have right to self-defense. The
International Court of Justice establishes the above mentioned customary law right in
the Nicaragua case.7 This paper however seeks to discuss the controversial issues
pertaining to anticipatory self-defense. Pre-emptive self-defense and it is usually meant
to prevent future attacks or attacks which haven’t commenced.

The first controversy arises from there question as to whether or not preemptive self-
defence is allowed under international law. Those in support of anticipatory self-defence
argue that that since that since article 51 incorporates the customary law position on
self-defence which allows for anticipatory action, it must also be possible under article
51. The Caroline incident is also used to justify preemptive self-defence. After the British
sunk the American ship the American government wrote that the British government
was to prove necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of
means of deliberation. According to the American government if this factors are proved
the strike is justified. According to Strydom it wasn’t disputed that that the British
government was entitled to anticipate further attacks and to prevent them.8

Those against anticipatory self-defence are of the view that the requirements for a
preemptive strike shown in the Caroline incident are incompatible with article 51. Article
51 supports self-defence only ‘if an armed attack occurs’.9 Thus it is not compatible with
the Charter and not internationally legal.

In the DRC v Uganda case the International Court of Justice only applied Article 51
within its strict confines. The court made it clear that Article 51 of the Charter may justify
a use of force in self-defence only within the strict confines there laid down. 10 This case
is used against preemptive self-defence as it is outside the confines of Article 51.

7
Shaw (note 2 above) 1112
8
Strydom (note 5 above) 217
9

10
Strydom (note 5 above) 217

6|Page
Question 4

There is need to make the parliamentarians must be made aware of the general
principles of interpretation in order to convince them that the powerful nations will not
undermine the Republic of Sebtar when interpreting the treaty. Thus the principles of
interpretation will be brought out as the paper progresses.

The general rule is that the point of departure is to take the actual text of the treaty as it
is and to interpret it in good faith. According to Strydom this rule have gained
recognition as customary international law and comprises three elements: the text, the
context and the object and purpose of the treaty.11 Thus the treaty will be interpreted as
it is and the more powerful nations won’t be able to undermine the Republic of Sebtar.

Adding to the above, Strydom states that the text includes the preamble and any
annexes to the treaty and these are to be given their natural meanings. 12 It can be noted
that this ensure that no state is undermined as the preamble which gives the purpose of
the treaty is given its natural meaning.

In the interpretation of the treaty supplementary means of interpretation will also be

taken into account. In case of conflict there might be need to establish the purpose of
the treaty. According to article 32 preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances
of its conclusion13 will be put to consideration in interpreting the treaty. Thus in
establishing the purpose of the treaty the stronger states won’t be able to undermine the
Republic of Sebtar as this won’t be the object of the treaty and the object will bring forth
the intended meaning.

It must also be noted that if the treaty is in two or more language every language is
equal except if in the treaty it was agreed otherwise. This is supported by article 33 14
and it reveals that no state will be undermines as all languages in the treaty are
authoritative and this levels the ground in interpretation.

Bibliography
11
Strydom (note 5 above) 107
12
Strydom (note 5 above) 107
13
Convention on Law of Treaties Article 32
14
Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 33

7|Page
BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTERNATIONAL STATUTES

 Convention on the Law of Treaties

 Charter of the United Nations Article

BOOKS
 H Strydom etal (2016) International law Oxford Press
 M Dixon et al (2011) Cases and Materials on International Law Oxford Press
 MN SHAW (2008) international law 6th Ed Cambridge Press

8|Page
9|Page