[IntLawProfessors] FW: INT'L LAW PRACTICE-ORIENTED MIDTERM

[Peter H. Sand]

Ian,

You may be interested in the enclosed "case study" exploring the 
(in-?)applicability of both conventions to Diego Garcia; see text at notes 
109-118.

With best regards,
Peter H. Sand

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henderson, Ian S WGCMD AUS" <henderis.aus at centcom.mil>
To: <intlawprofessors at mailman.anu.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: INT'L LAW PRACTICE-ORIENTED MIDTERM


> Bill,
>
> If you thought it suitable, the 1997 Ottawa Convention (Anti-Personnel
> Landmines) and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions are similar yet
> different enough to be an interesting comparison. Both are also quite
> different from the earlier 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional
> Weapons, particularly as far as the "interoperability" provisions. The
> history as to how each convention came into existence adds an
> interesting element to explaining why:
>
> a. the 1980 convention allows great interoperability
> b. the 1997 convention is very restrictive on interoperability
> c. the 2008 convention is more restrictive than the 1980 convention but
> less so than the 1997 convention
>
>
> Ian Henderson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: intlawprofessors-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:intlawprofessors-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Don
> Anton
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 6:51 PM
> To: intlawprofessors at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [IntLawProfessors] FW: INT'L LAW PRACTICE-ORIENTED MIDTERM
>
> Bill,
>
> I periodically use a "working the treaties" mid-term in my international
> environmental law course.  I have two variations.
>
> In one form, the exercise involves 5 treaties (not covered in class)
> that I select and requires students to submit: 1. A synopsis of each
> treaty explaining its objective(s); 2. The mechanisms established to
> meet the objective(s); 3. Analysis of the sufficiency of the mechanisms
> to meet the objective(s); 4. A comparison of similar clauses and
> provisions in each different treaty in the event of repetition; and 5. A
> description of unique provisions not found in other treaties.  Students
> are expected to succinctly and accurately describe the object and
> operation of each treaty article by article. In identifying similar
> provisions, students must provide an explanation for the repetition. In
> particular, students should consider the function served, the ecosystem
> being regulated, and the actors being addressed by the treaty
> obligations. In identifying unique provisions students should consider
> the applicability of these provisions in other contexts. Students should
> conclude their a!
> nalysis with any proposal(s) for the reform of specific treaties that
> might be warranted.
>
> In the other, more traditional form, the exercise involves 15 single
> issue problems that students must attempt to resolve by reference to a
> specified treaty or treaties.
>
> Kind regards,
> Don
>
>
>>>> William Slomanson <bills at tjsl.edu> 11/02/10 8:52 AM >>>
> I'm skillsifying my Public Int'l Law course. My missing link is a
> suitable midterm---maybe a take-home drafting exercise, based on
> documents/treaties I could provide? Would prefer multiple issue exercise
> (not bunches of issues), but less than "bunches" also doable.
>
> All suggestions welcomed,
> Bill
>
>
> Intlawprofessors is hosted by the Australian National University College
> of Law and moderated by Don Anton
>
> Intlawprofessors is hosted by the Australian National University College 
> of Law and moderated by Don Anton 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chagos - Environmental Policy and Law.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 407912 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/intlawprofessors/attachments/20101102/cc731c8b/attachment-0001.pdf