United States United States Noriega Case Study essay
Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
United States United States Noriega Case Study essay
. Jurisdiction
1.a. Was the US intervention in Panama an international armed conflict? Even if Noriega was not, according to the Panamanian Constitution, the lawful leader of Panama? Even if the freely elected leader of Panama, Endara, called for
the intervention of US troops? (GC III, Art. 2)
b. Was Noriega a prisoner of war? Although he belonged to armed forces not depending on (and not accepting orders
from) the freely elected leader of Panama, Endara? (HR, Arts 1-3; GC III, Art. 4(A)(3); P I, Arts 43-44)
c. Has the Court sentencing Noriega necessarily the competence to determine his POW status? Has it an obligation to
determine that status? (GC III, Arts 5, 82, 84, 85, 87 and 99)
d. Did Noriega remain a POW even if he is sentenced in the US for drug-related offences? (GC III, Art. 85; P I, Art. 44(2))
e. Was the deportation of Noriega to and his internment in the US lawful under IHL? Even if the US invasion in Panama
violated international law? (GC III, Art. 22)
2.
a. Is a POW subject to the penal legislation of the Detaining Power for acts committed prior to capture? Even for acts
committed in his own country? Even for acts unrelated to the armed conflict? (GC III, Arts 82, 85, 87 and 99)
b. What limits would you suggest from the point of view of IHL to the application of extraterritorial legislation of the Detaining Power to acts committed by a POW prior to capture? May a Detaining Power apply legislation protecting its
security and territorial integrity to POWs for acts committed in the service of their own country before capture? (GC III,
Arts 82, 85, 87 and 99(1); P I, Art. 75(4)(c))
3. May civil courts of the Detaining Power sentence a POW? Does the POW status divest civil courts of jurisdiction ove
the defendant? (GC III, Arts 84 and 102)
B. Place of detention
4. May a POW be detained in a penitentiary? While in pre-trial detention? Once sentenced? Must a POW, once sentenced
and held in a penitentiary, be treated in conformity with the prison regulations or with Convention III? (GC III, Arts 22(1),
95, 97, 98(1), 103(3) and 108)
5. Are the provisions of Convention III on the conditions of confinement self-executing? If not, what methods are there
of enforcing compliance with the Conventions if they are violated, e.g., with regard to the conditions of captivity? Do
such methods suggest anything about the strength or weakness of IHL?
6. Does IHL state whether it is lawful to wage a war to capture a drug trafficker who could not be extradited? Does IHL
apply to such a war? Is it the purpose of Convention III to protect drug traffickers? Why was it important for IHL and for the US that the Court qualified Noriega as a POW?
C. Extradition
7.
a. How long do POWs retain their status? Does IHL say anything about the status of POWs after they have served their
sentence in the Detaining Powers territory? (GC III, Arts 118 and 119)
b. Do you think that, if extradited to France, Noriega should retain POW status? From an IHL point of view, what are the
arguments in favour of his retaining POW status? The arguments against it? (GC III, Arts 118-119)
c. According to IHL, does France have an obligation to grant Noriega POW status? (GC III, Arts 2, 4 and 12)
d. According to IHL, does the US have an obligation not to extradite Noriega to France if France is not willing to grant him POW status? (GC III, Art. 12)
e. Since active hostilities have ceased and Noriega has served his time in jail, does GC III require his immediate
repatriation? Is repatriation automatic once the sentence has been served? (GC III, Arts 118-119)
8.
a. Does the Convention on extradition between France and the US prevail over GC IIIs provisions? (GC III, Art. 6(1))
b. In your opinion, does POW status shield Noriega from extradition? If not, can a POW be extradited to be tried for acts
committed prior to the armed conflict and not related to it? Does the fact that GC III does not mention extradition of
POWs mean that it is prohibited? (GC III, Arts 12, 82, 85, 118, 119)
c. Do you agree with the reasoning of the Court on filling the silence of GC III with provisions of GC IV? Can Art. 45 of GC
IV apply by analogy to the transfer of POWs?
d. Do you agree with the Court that the term transfer was intended to include extradition in the mind of the States
concluding the Geneva Conventions? Can the definition provided for a term in GC IV apply to the same term in GC III?
e. Do you agree with the Court that it would be absurd that a civilian facing criminal charges would be subject to
extradition when a POW facing identical criminal charges would not, particularly when the charges have no relation
whatsoever to the latters POW status?
f. Are Art. 45 of GC IV and Art. 12 of GC III parallel provisions?
9.
a. Does Art. 12 of GC III only apply to transfers between allied powers during war? Or does it also apply once the armed
conflict is over, as in the present case? (GC III, Arts 85, 119)
b. How must the conditions of Art. 12 of GC III ( the Detaining Power [must satisfy] itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention) be interpreted? Are they considered to be a formal obligation?
c. What are the consequences for the US of GC III, Art. 12? Does it have the duty to reject extradition if France does not
grant Noriega POW status? If it denies him POW status but grants him POW treatment? If it rejects POW treatment for
him? Does it make a difference for Noriega whether he is considered as a POW or only treated as a POW?
10.
a. What is the Courts reasoning in favour of authorizing the extradition? Would it give the same order if France did not
grant him the rights guaranteed in GC III?
b. What are Noriegas advantages in retaining the privileges of POW status in France?
c. Does his status change anything in his relations with the ICRC? If Noriega is extradited to France, will the ICRC have a
right to visit him? If yes, on which basis? If Noriega is still considered as a POW by France? If he is not considered as a
POW? (GC III, Art. 126)
d. Is the US obliged to inform the ICRC about the extradition procedure? What would the consequences be if it did not
do so? (GC III, Art. 104)
e. If Noriega is extradited to France, will the US retain any responsibility as to his treatment by the French authorities?
Does the US, as the Detaining Power, retain responsibility until his final repatriation to Panama, or does US responsibility end with his extradition? Does your answer change according to whether Noriega is still considered as a POW after his
extradition to France? (GC III, Art. 12(3))
f. (Decision of September 7, 2007) Do you agree with the Court that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the defendants claims regarding potential future circumstances involving his treatment in France? Who should have jurisdiction over such a claim? Can Art. 45(4) of GC IV apply by analogy when there is fear of persecution?
United States United States Noriega Case Study essay
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 United States United States Noriega Case Study essay
United States United States Noriega Case Study essay