IHL Exam

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN AFRICA
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
CLS 408


Instructions:
a) Should you find a mwakenya expedient, use it intelligently, sparingly and with due regard to your neighbour.
b) Marks will be lost for honesty. Creativity and application of knowledge gained is highly rewarded.
c) Expressions such as ‘si you know what I mean’ ‘as in’ ‘Nkt’ ‘Mscheew’ ‘WTF’ even though they convey feelings carry no marks and at best should be avoided.
d) Marks will be lost for legibility. The sketchier, the better.

1. All questions shall be answered under the assumption that the states involved in the scenario are parties to the UN Charter, the four Geneva Conventions as well as their two additional protocols, and to other treaties regulating means and methods of warfare.

The lecturer enters the classroom, face tight Combatant-style, and drones on for about one hour then announces a surprise quiz of 30 Marks. Everyone is quiet ( even Onyango). Then out of the blue the question is asked: “Recount the tale of Henry Dunant in his book “A Memory of Solferino” in the context of IHL”. Curses are heard within. One student exclaims “Ngai”. Even before you scream ‘footnote’, 30 minutes are over. You don’t complete the CAT.

Questions:

a) Is the lecturer a lawful combatant, unlawful combatant or a non-combatant? Quoting the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, why do you think so?
b) Based on your answer above, should the lecturer be granted a Prisoner of War (POW) status as provided for under the Third Geneva Convention? If no, why do you think so?
c) Assuming that the students refuse to take the exam, how would you categorise the war that will result:
i)Between the lecturer and the students
ii) Between the students and the administration
iii) Between the students themselves (assuming only Onyango does the paper)
iv) Does the act of the lecturer constitute perfidy or ruses of war. Explain.

2. Assuming that your legal mind was a battlefield and exams were High Contracting Parties, justify the position that Faculty of Law exams have been ‘dum dum bullets’ ‘causing superfluous injury’ to your mind. Quotation of the various treaties like St. Petersburg Declaration and Convention Banning Cluster Munitions will be rewarded.
3. “IHL and Human Rights unit is a well-calculated scheme by the Faculty of Law to lock fourth year law students from graduating and settle unnecessary scores (like when the lecturer owes you a K). Ironically, it seriously breaches the provisions of the Four Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols and Human Rights instruments in regard to humane treatment”
-Per Lorot Son of the Hills in ‘Compendium of Collective Grievances on IHL and Human Rights’ Oxford: Oxford Publishers
From this extract, elaborate the veracity of the statement. Keep it emotional and subjective, the sadder, the better, folks.

4. If IHL and HR was subjected to Referendum on whether it should remain in the syllabus or not, law students will vote it out and there will be a YES-YES vote and not a YES-NO vote. Do you support this? If no, why?
5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) just like other instruments is a romantic document and lovers should find wisdom in incorporating its provisions, for instance the preamble. Argue for and against this position.