POL 309-800, International Law
SUNY Oswego | Spring 2021
Dr. Craig Warkentin
Ch. 7, International Legal Personality: States, International Organizations, Non-State Groups, Individuals, and Multi-National Corporations (335-361)
Articulate and discuss accepted legal requirements for statehood.
Recognize the legal bases for secession and self-determination.
Distinguish recognition of states from recognition of governments.
Describe a state's capacity to espouse claims on its citizens' behalf.
right of self-determination (341)
How do we know a state when we see one? Is Palestine a state? Is Kosovo? Is Taiwan? Explain your answers.
Could African-Americans legally secede from the U.S. if they all lived in one (U.S.) state? Why or why not?
Does it make sense that the right to secede is determined largely by the existing state's domestic law? Why?
How does recognition, or nonrecognition, affect a state's status? Given your answer, what should Taiwan do?
When might a citizen ask the U.S. to take up a claim on their behalf? When might the U.S. do so? Explain.
Was the Nottebohm court right to rely on "real and effective" connections rather than a factual one? Why?
How would you make a (strong) case for your relationship to the U.S. (or your home country)? Be specific.
In what circumstances did the Canadian Supreme Court conclude that "a people" had a right to unilateral secession from a state under international law?
What guidance did the Court give on the meaning of "peoples"?
What do you understand the Court to mean by the "effectivity principle"
Would a wider acceptance of the right to secession lead to political instab ility or help to preent the bloodshed of civil war?
Did the Court rule that Liechtenstein had illegally conferred citizenship on Nottebohm?
Why were Nottebohm's links with Liechtenstein insufficient to require Guatemala to recognize his Liechtensteinian nationality for the purposes of presenting an international claim before the Court?
If Nottebohm had possessed property in Switzerland (also a neutral country in World War II) but had never lived there, would the Court have ruled the same way if Liechtenstein presented a claim against Switzerland?
If this case had not arisen in the context of wartime allegiances, do you think the Court would have ruled the same way?