50 MCQs | Focus: Landmark International Law & IHL Cases
SECTION A – SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW & GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. The Paquete Habana case established:
a) Treaties override customs
b) Customary international law is part of domestic law
c) UN Charter supremacy
d) Diplomatic immunity
2. The Lotus Case (1927) established which principle?
a) Territorial sovereignty is absolute unless prohibited
b) Universal jurisdiction
c) Pacta sunt servanda
d) Jus cogens
3. The landmark case North Sea Continental Shelf clarified:
a) Definition of war crimes
b) Formation of customary international law
c) Recognition of states
d) Extradition process
4. Asylum Case (Colombia vs Peru) dealt with:
a) Diplomatic protection
b) Interpretation of customary law
c) Law of the sea
d) Immunity of warships
5. Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) is famous for:
a) Genuine link theory of nationality
b) Freedom of seas
c) Treaty interpretation
d) War crimes
SECTION B – USE OF FORCE, SELF-DEFENCE & UN CHARTER
6. The Nicaragua v. USA case reaffirmed:
a) State immunity
b) Prohibition of use of force under customary IL
c) Legality of nuclear weapons
d) Diplomatic protection
7. The Corfu Channel Case is related to:
a) Territorial sea delimitation
b) State responsibility for mine-laying
c) Humanitarian intervention
d) Asylum
8. The Legality of the Use or Threat of Nuclear Weapons Case (1996) held:
a) Nuclear weapons are always illegal
b) Completely legal
c) No general prohibition under IL but humanitarian law applies
d) Allowed for all states
9. Oil Platforms Case (Iran v. USA) concerns:
a) Extradition
b) Diplomatic immunity
c) Lawful use of force and self-defence
d) Climate change
10. Wall Advisory Opinion (Israel/Palestine) held that:
a) Settlements are legal
b) Separation wall violates international law
c) Wall is justified under UN Charter
d) States must not cooperate with UN
SECTION C – STATE RESPONSIBILITY & ATTRIBUTION
11. Rainbow Warrior Case (New Zealand/France) deals with:
a) Law of sea
b) State responsibility and obligations
c) Diplomatic corps
d) Airspace violations
12. Bosnian Genocide Case (2007) established:
a) Responsibility for genocide only for individuals
b) States cannot commit genocide
c) States can commit genocide and must prevent it
d) Only UN can prosecute genocide
13. LaGrand Case (Germany v. USA) deals with:
a) ICJ jurisdiction
b) Consular access under Vienna Convention
c) Maritime boundaries
d) Asylum
14. Avena Case (Mexico v. USA) relates to:
a) Diplomatic immunity
b) Consular relations and fair trial rights
c) Use of force
d) Extradition
15. Trail Smelter Arbitration concerns:
a) Environmental transboundary harm
b) Nuclear liability
c) Diplomatic immunity
d) Piracy
SECTION D – LAW OF THE SEA CASES
16. Fisheries Case (UK v. Norway) clarified:
a) Innocent passage
b) Historic rights and baselines
c) EEZ rights
d) Continental shelf
17. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case held that:
a) Only straight baselines allowed
b) Straight baselines can be used in special geographical conditions
c) Continental shelf rights
d) Piracy rules
18. South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China) held:
a) China has full rights in 9-dash line
b) 9-dash line has no legal basis under UNCLOS
c) China owns entire region
d) EEZ does not exist
19. Bangladesh v. Myanmar (ITLOS) involved:
a) Territorial sovereignty
b) Maritime boundary delimitation
c) Use of force
d) Diplomatic relations
20. Qatar v. Bahrain concerned:
a) Human rights
b) UCC
c) Territorial and maritime disputes
d) Nuclear disarmament
SECTION E – IHL (GENEVA & HAGUE LAW)
21. Tadić Case (ICTY) is known for:
a) Environmental law
b) Definition of armed conflict (IAC & NIAC)
c) Statehood
d) Treaty interpretation
22. Prosecutor v. Akayesu (ICTR) defined:
a) War crime of pillage
b) Crime of genocide in modern terms
c) Crime of aggression
d) Maritime crimes
23. Nuremberg Trials established that:
a) States are liable
b) Only treaties bind
c) Individuals can be held criminally liable under IL
d) War crime immunity exists
24. Korematsu v. United States (US Supreme Court) concerns:
a) State recognition
b) Internment and discrimination during war
c) Law of sea
d) POW treatment
25. Hostages Case (ICJ) established:
a) War crimes are illegal
b) Taking hostages is permissible
c) POWs have no rights
d) Cyber law
SECTION F – HUMAN RIGHTS CASES
26. Barcelona Traction Case deals with:
a) Diplomatic immunity
b) Obligations erga omnes
c) EEZ limits
d) Extradition
27. Soering v. UK (ECHR) is related to:
a) Freedom of expression
b) Non-refoulement (risk of torture/death penalty)
c) Maritime piracy
d) Diplomatic asylum
28. Velásquez Rodríguez Case (IACHR) established:
a) Universal jurisdiction
b) State’s duty to investigate human rights violations
c) Diplomatic immunity
d) Military tribunals
29. Ireland v. UK dealt with:
a) Maritime zones
b) Torture and inhuman treatment
c) State succession
d) Piracy
30. Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) held:
a) No statehood criteria
b) Illegal occupation has no legal effect
c) Colonies are independent
d) UN is dissolved
SECTION G – RECOGNITION, SUCCESSION & NATIONALITY
31. Tinoco Arbitration relates to:
a) Government recognition
b) Use of force
c) Piracy
d) Genocide
32. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion held:
a) Territory was terra nullius
b) Territory was NOT terra nullius
c) Morocco has full rights
d) Spain controls it
33. Reparation for Injuries Case clarified:
a) ICJ cannot sue
b) UN has international legal personality
c) UN cannot claim damages
d) Only states sue
34. Factory at Chorzów Case established:
a) Restitution principle: reparation must wipe out consequences
b) No state responsibility
c) Environmental law
d) Inheritance rights
35. Nottebohm Case is relevant to:
a) Extradition
b) Genuine link in nationality
c) Use of force
d) Treaty law
SECTION H – JURISDICTION & IMMUNITY CASES
36. Pinochet Case (UK) held:
a) Heads of State have absolute immunity
b) No immunity for torture; universal jurisdiction possible
c) Immunity is unlimited
d) Geneva law does not apply
37. Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium) held:
a) Foreign ministers always immune from prosecution
b) No immunity for diplomats
c) No immunity for heads of state
d) Immunity does not apply in war
38. Belgian Linguistic Case concerns:
a) Self-defense
b) Equality and non-discrimination
c) Maritime boundaries
d) Diplomatic law
39. Rainbow Warrior Case also clarified:
a) Treaty succession
b) State responsibility & good faith
c) Immunity
d) UNEP powers
40. Jurisdictional Immunities Case (Germany v. Italy) held:
a) States have no immunity
b) States retain immunity even for war crimes in civil suits
c) No immunity for individuals
d) Only ICJ decides war crimes
SECTION I – ENVIRONMENTAL INTERNATIONAL LAW
41. Trail Smelter Arbitration established:
a) No liability for pollution
b) States must prevent transboundary harm
c) No duty of care
d) Ocean pollution only
42. Pulp Mills Case dealt with:
a) Noise pollution
b) River pollution & environmental impact assessment
c) Air space
d) Nuclear testing
43. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France) held:
a) Oral declarations can create binding obligations
b) Treaties only are binding
c) No environmental law exists
d) States are immune
44. Minors Oposa Case addressed:
a) Marine piracy
b) Intergenerational equity
c) State immunity
d) Cyber warfare
45. Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Case dealt with:
a) Maritime piracy
b) Sustainable development & treaty performance
c) Diplomatic immunity
d) Terrorism
SECTION J – MISCELLANEOUS HIGH-YIELD CASES
46. Reparations Advisory Opinion states:
a) UN is not a person
b) UN can bring international claims
c) UN cannot be sued
d) UN has no powers
47. Kiel Case deals with:
a) Piracy
b) Citizenship
c) Jurisdiction on ships
d) War crimes
48. Furundzija Case (ICTY) is important for:
a) Torture as jus cogens norm
b) Piracy rules
c) Environmental law
d) Nuclear testing
49. Eastern Greenland Case relates to:
a) Binding unilateral declarations
b) Recognition of governments
c) War crimes
d) Innocent passage
50. Aland Islands Case dealt with:
a) Neutralization & demilitarization
b) Self-defence
c) Maritime delimitation
d) Immunity
#️⃣ ANSWER KEY + EXPLANATIONS
Section A – Sources & Principles
1–5 → 1-b, 2-a, 3-b, 4-b, 5-a
Explanations
- Paquete Habana → customary IL part of U.S. law
- Lotus → states free unless prohibited
- North Sea → opinio juris required
- Asylum → no general rule binding
- Nottebohm → genuine link needed for nationality
Section B – Use of Force
6–10 → 6-b, 7-b, 8-c, 9-c, 10-b
Section C – State Responsibility
11–15 → 11-b, 12-c, 13-b, 14-b, 15-a
Section D – Law of Sea
16–20 → 16-b, 17-b, 18-b, 19-b, 20-c
Section E – IHL (War Crimes)
21–25 → 21-b, 22-b, 23-c, 24-b, 25-a
Section F – Human Rights
26–30 → 26-b, 27-b, 28-b, 29-b, 30-b
Section G – Recognition & Nationality
31–35 → 31-a, 32-b, 33-b, 34-a, 35-b
Section H – Jurisdiction & Immunity
36–40 → 36-b, 37-a, 38-b, 39-b, 40-b
Section I – Environmental Law
41–45 → 41-b, 42-b, 43-a, 44-b, 45-b
Section J – Miscellaneous
46–50 → 46-b, 47-c, 48-a, 49-a, 50-a
