South Africa AZAPO Republic of South Africa Case Brief
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
South Africa AZAPO Republic of South Africa Case Brief
1. What is your opinion on the dilemma between peace and justice, between reconciliation and prosecution of offenders, between the (practical) chance of the victims to know the truth and their (theoretical) right to see their victimizers punished? In which sense is the South African solution a compromise between the two positions?
2.
a. Which acts are covered by Art. 6(5) of Protocol II? Does it also cover violations of the law of non-international armed conflict? Why should Protocol II deal with prosecutions for violations only from the standpoint of amnesty, while it does not prescribe their punishment? [See also Colombia, Constitutional Conformity of Protocol II [Paras 41-43]]
b. In the cited provisions (concerning international armed conflicts) of the Geneva Conventions, does the obligation to prosecute grave breaches exclude amnesty or pardon for such acts? Are Arts 51/52/131/148 respectively of the four
Conventions relevant to the answer? Assuming that IHL does not prohibit grants of amnesty, also for persons who have
committed grave breaches, which criteria could be brought forward to circumscribe an admissible amnesty?
c. Is the explanation of the Court as to why impunity for violations of IHL is more necessary and acceptable in non-international armed conflicts than in international ones convincing? Is the dilemma between peace and justice, between
reconciliation and punishment greater within a State than between States? In international armed conflicts, does the obligation to punish violations only concern officers of a hostile power?
d. In granting amnesty, would a distinction between violations of IHL committed in defense of the old order and thosecommitted in resistance of it be acceptable from the point of view of IHL? Does such a distinction violate IHL? At least in international armed conflicts? Which principles of IHL are involved?
3. Does South Africa have to respect IHL or only to have regard to it? Why must the Court only have regard to IHL?
Would the Court have invalidated the Act if it had come to the conclusion that it violated IHL?
4. How does the decision qualify the situation prevailing in South Africa before the end of apartheid? Does the Court refer to Art. 1(4) of Protocol I? Is that provision applicable? On what substantive point does the definition of a national
liberation war by the Court differ from that given in Art. 1(4) of Protocol I? Is that difference understandable in view of the philosophy of the South African Constitution and the reasoning of the Court? What is left of Art. 1(4) if a South
African court deems that the situation in South Africa under apartheid did not fall under its provisions? Does this result support or weaken the US criticism of Art. 1(4)? [See United States, President Rejects Protocol I]
South Africa AZAPO Republic of South Africa Case Brief
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow South Africa AZAPO Republic of South Africa Case Brief
South Africa AZAPO Republic of South Africa Case Brief