International Law

The first issue presented in this scenario is whether or not there is a treaty. Ordinarily, a treaty must be in writing for it to be enforceable. However, under certain circumstances, a normal course of conduct may establish a treaty between the two countries. This is because countries need to know how to interact with each other, and a normal course of conduct is often information enough for the country to know how to act. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any sort of express treaty. The facts do not suggest that the two countries had any formal agreement, any negotiations, or any memorialized written agreement establishing the right of Oompaland to pass its ships through Loompaburg. However, it is likely that there was a customary law between the two countries that established on obligations for each.

Assuming that there was a treaty, however, there is a question of whether there was a violation of the treaty. For them to be in violation of the treaty, one of the countries must not meet its obligations under the treaty. The putative treaty would be bilateral because both countries have obligations: Oompaland would provide aid to Loompaburg, and Loompaburg would allow the neighboring country’s ships to pass freely through its harbors. There is an argument, however, that the “help” is insufficiently specific to constitute a bilateral treaty and instead there was a unilateral treaty allowing Oompaland to travel through Loompaburg’s waters.

Whatever the interpretation, however, it is clear that Oompaland was allowed to travel through Loompaburg’s waters. Therefore, whether the treaty was unilateral or bilateral, Loompaburg violated its obligations under the putative treaty. Therefore the next issue is whether the treaty was terminated. Treaties can be expressly modified or modified by a change in circumstances. There is no evidence in the fact pattern to suggest that the treaty was expressly modified by either of the two parties. However, there is an argument that the treaty was modified by a change of circumstances.

Port for you to be modified by changed circumstances, the change of circumstances must place a different burden on one of the two parties. The analysis of this circumstance turns on the party attempting to enforce the treaty. Loompaburg has no legitimate argument that there was training in circumstances that caused an increased burden as it relates to the original treaty. Oompaland did not do anything like increase the number of ships going through the waters or stop helping Loompaburg. A political change in one of the subject countries is insufficient evidence to modify the treaty by “changed circumstances.”

However, there is a secondary issue which Oompaland’s invasion of Loompaburg. Clearly, this is a violation of Oompaland’s obligations under the treaty. Invading a country is necessarily not helping the country. The question then becomes whether changed circumstances applies to an act of war. Obviously, Loompaburg committed an act of war when it sank all of Oompaland’s ships that were in the harbor. Ordinarily, merely being at war does not invalidate the treaty. Instead, the question is whether the treaty is compatible with the circumstances, and it is at the discretion of the subject countries to decide what to do.

In these circumstances, the treaty was not compatible with the behavior. First, Loompaburg directly violated its obligations under the treaty because it sank the ships in the harbor. This act of war was clearly in violation of its obligations under the treaty. Therefore, Oompaland is absolved of its responsibilities under the treaty to provide aid to Loompaburg. Furthermore, Oompaland has an obligation to protect its citizens. Therefore, the international court would very likely find that it had a right to invade the violating country.

This leads to the issue of jurisdiction. There is a question of whether or not Loompaburg is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Ordinarily, as a member of the UN, Loompaburg should be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. However, it placed a caveat in its acceptance to the jurisdiction, stating that it was not subject to jurisdiction during a national emergency. There is some argument that it created its own national emergency which means that it should still be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Furthermore, it is unclear whether there is a national emergency in Loompaburg. Although it was invaded by Loompaburg, there is nothing to suggest an emergency. As a matter of fact, Oompaland is not doing anything other than protecting its own citizens and preventing Loompaburg from attacking. Therefore, the ICJ should resolve any disputes between the current two countries.

The issue presented for the Kosovo citizen is what remedies are available for an act of war perpetrated against a tourist. Ordinarily, tourists are not supposed to be targeted in acts of war. Targeting civilians during a war is considered a war crime at best, and terrorism at worst. However, there are very few facts in this scenario to explain what happened. First, there is a question of whether the tourist chip was identified as a tourist ship. If it was not, and instead looked like a regular ship, then it is likely that the remedies available to the citizen are limited to the remedies of Oompaland, not Kosovo.

In addition, the fact specifically states that the citizen “illegally” left one country to go to another. Furthermore, she filed a complaint not in her home country but a foreign country. Therefore, she is most likely limited to the remedies available to that country. However, Kosovo is able to file an action against Loompaburg for war crimes if there was actually a war happening at the time of ships being sunk. However, because Kosovo is not a party to the treaty between the two countries, it cannot enforce the treaty. It would have to rely on general principles of international law, in particular, the custom civilians are not involved in the war.