Get Cheapest Assignment in Australia, UK, US, UAE, Canada and NZ Order Now

HI5015 T1 2020 Legal Aspects

0 Comments

HI5015 Legal Aspects of international trade & enterprise

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
TrimesterT1, 2021
Unit CodeHI5015
Unit TitleLegal Aspects of International Trade & Enterprise
Assessment TypeGroup Assignment
Assessment TitleInternational Law – Case Research Assignment
Purpose of the assessment (with ULO Mapping)Students are required to research an International Law Case of your choice from the list provided in this document and explain in a report format, the background of the dispute, the facts, the legal issues and doctrines, individual parties’ arguments, the relevant court’s decision and the overall importance of the case in international law. The following learning outcomes are applicable in this assessment:   Understand the overall structure of the global legal environment in which business operates today.Apply an understanding of national and international legal practices to international business law issues.Critically examine the effect the diversity in the international business and legal environment.Critically analyse the social political and economic aspects of global business link and impact on the law.Critically evaluate the diversity and similarity of how firms are currently regulated and governed by global regulatory bodies around the world.Achieve a firm understanding of global legal issues in intellectual property, foreign investment, money and banking, sales, transportation and financing.
Weight30% of the Total Assessment
Total Marks30 marks
Word limit3,000 words (Maximum)
Due DateWeek 9 – Friday 21st May, 2021 – 11.59pm
Submission GuidelinesAll work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page.The assignment must be in MS Word format, no spacing, 12-pt Arial font and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings and page numbers.Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
   Adapted Harvard Referencing Holmes has now implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing:   Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources which provide full text access to the source’s content for lecturers and markers. The Reference list should be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled: References.It should include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged alphabetically A-Z by author surname. In addition, it MUST include a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source. For example; P Hawking, B McCarthy, A Stein (2004), Second Wave ERP Education, Journal of Information Systems Education, Fall, http://jise.org/Volume15/n3/JISEv15n3p327.pdf All assignments will require additional in-text reference details which will consist of the surname of the author/authors or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of content, paragraph where the content can be found. For example; “The company decided to implement an enterprise wide data warehouse business intelligence strategies (Hawking et al, 2004, p3(4)).”   cid:image001.png@01D70919.7D6E4510 Non – Adherence to Referencing Guidelines Where students do not follow the above guidelines: Students who submit assignments which do not comply with the guidelines may be required to resubmit their assignments or incur penalties for inadequate referencing.Late penalties will apply per day after a student or group has been notified of a resubmission requirements.Students whose citations are fake will be reported for academic misconduct

*Note: Students are required to form and self-enroll into groups – a maximum of 4 students per group. You will not be able to submit your group assignment unless you are OFFICIALLY enrolled into a designated group in Blackboard (even if it is a solo-group of 1). Submit the group assignment as a single document, including the Holmes official COVER SHEET. Once formed, the group membership should not be changed for the duration of the trimester.

For help with any group assignment matters, please address your email to bbhelpdesk@holmes.edu.au ensuring that your full details (Name, student ID, unit name and number) are included.

Group Assignment Specifications

Purpose:

This group assignment aims to evaluate students’ legal research skills by familiarising themselves with their selected International legal case. Students will need to critically evaluate the background of the case matter (dispute), identify the facts, state the legal issues, put forward both individual parties’ arguments, examine the tribunal’s decision and consider the importance of the case in international law.

Details:

Please organise yourselves into groups of 4 students. The assignment consists of the following:

Group Report – worth 30% and must be submitted on Week 9 Friday 21st May, 2021 at 11.59pm.

  1. Select a case from the list of International Law Cases below or refer to the ICJ or WTO websites.
  • One member of each group will need to post a message to the discussion board advising all of the other students about which case has been selected. This is very important.

NOTE – NO DUPLICATION OF CASES IS ALLOWED! Each group MUST select a unique case.

  • The Unit Co-Ordinator will respond to each group’s post on the discussion board and grant

approval of the selected case, provided that it has not already been selected.

  • Research, read and understand your selected International Legal case in groups of four (4) students.
  • Prepare and submit a written report discussing the following points as part of the IRAC* method:
    • background of the dispute
    • brief facts of the case
    • the legal issues presented
    • the individual parties’ arguments / defenses / perspectives
    • the tribunal’s decision / Judgement handed down
    • the importance or significance of the case in international law (i.e. why the case is important in the development of international law). You can also discuss any other developments

following the court or tribunal’s decision.

  • 10 mins Power-point presentation during the interactive tutorial session from weeks 9 – 12.

(Note – the details of this assessment will be outlined in a separate document and made available on Blackboard)

Group Assignment structure is to be in a report format. It must include:

  • Holmes Cover Page
    • Executive summary
    • Table of contents
    • Section headings
    • Paragraphing
    • Page numbers
    • Reference list at the end of the report

(IRAC Method = Issues + Rules (Regulations) + Analysis + Conclusion)

Submission:

  1. All group report submissions must be done online and run through SafeAssign. No hard copies are to be submitted. Only one group member needs to submit for the whole group.
  • Please fill in the “Group Report cover sheet” (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due

dates) and attach as a cover sheet to your group report and upload on Blackboard.

  • Each group must include the “Peer Evaluation of Individual Participation in Group

Assignment” sheet (available in Blackboard under “Assignments and Due dates) in the report.

  • Non-submission of the group report on Blackboard or group reports which have not been submitted through SafeAssign is equivalent to a non-submission, which will mean a mark of 0 (zero) for the group assignment.
  • This is a group assignment and is meant to be worked on in groups of four students only.
  • Reports must be submitted via Safe-Assign on Blackboard and show a similarity percentage figure. Any group report that does not show a Safe-Assign similarity percentage will not be marked and be required to re-submit.
  • Late submissions will be subject to Holmes Institute policy on student assessment submission and late penalties (please refer to subject outline and Student handbook).

Citation and Referencing:

  1. The group report must have a minimum of six (6) scholarly, academic references, which are appropriate for a Masters Level assignment.
  • Assignments are expected to observe proper referencing in accordance with a generally accepted system of citation (e.g. Harvard System). A properly referenced assignment showing in-text citation is critical to passing and obtaining a good mark in the group assignment.

Safe-Assign Similarity Percentage:

  1. Plagiarism in any form, shape or manner is unacceptable under any circumstances and will be dealt with according to Institute policy on plagiarism. Refer to the section below on Academic Integrity.
  • In general, for written reports, a LOW Safe-Assign similarity percentage of 25% or below is acceptable. Regardless of the similarity figure, all group reports must use the correct in-text citation protocols and proper referencing rules.

Academic Integrity

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding Academic Integrity, as Academic Integrity is integral to maintaining academic quality and the reputation of Holmes’ graduates. Accordingly, all assessment tasks need to comply with academic integrity guidelines. Table 1 identifies the six categories of Academic Integrity breaches. If you have any questions about Academic Integrity issues related to your assessment tasks, please consult your lecturer or tutor for relevant referencing guidelines and support resources. Many of these resources can also be found through the Study Skills link on Blackboard.

Academic Integrity breaches are a serious offence punishable by penalties that may range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Table 1: Six Categories of Academic Integrity Breaches

PlagiarismReproducing the work of someone else without attribution. When a student submits their own work on multiple occasions this is known as self-plagiarism.
CollusionWorking with one or more other individuals to complete an assignment, in a way that is not authorised.
CopyingReproducing and submitting the work of another student, with or without their knowledge. If a student fails to take reasonable precautions to prevent their own original work from being copied, this may also be considered an offence.
ImpersonationFalsely presenting oneself, or engaging someone else to present as oneself, in an in-person examination.
Contract cheatingContracting a third party to complete an assessment task, generally in exchange for money or other manner of payment.
Data fabrication and falsificationManipulating or inventing data with the intent of supporting false conclusions, including manipulating images.

INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES (ICJ) AND ADVISORY OPINIONS

Students are to choose a case from one of the following listed below or students may select another international legal case (e.g. from the WTO) with the specific approval and permission of the Unit Co-Ordinator.

Note: Where possible, groups are expected to refer to the text of the original cases and conduct additional research. Do not rely merely on the textbook case summaries because it is not possible to compose a 3,000-word report based solely only on these case summaries. Students will need to access the International Court of Justice website for more detailed information about each case as provided: (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases)

1Corfu Channel Case
2Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations
3Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations
4Fisheries Case
5Case Concerning the Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt
6Asylum Case
7Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
8Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations
9International Status of South West Africa
10Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco
11Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
12Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case
13Haya de la Torre
14Ambatielos Case
15Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.
16Minquiers and Ecrehos Case
17Nottebohm Case
18Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943                                                                                                                 
19Electricite de Beyrouth Company Case
20Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
21Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States (United States v. Hungary)
22Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States (United States v. Soviet Union)
  23Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa
24Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953
25Antarctica (UK v. Argentina)
26Antarctica (UK v. Chile)
27Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952
28Certain Norwegian Loans
29Judgements of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints made against UNESCO
30Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa
31Right of Passage over Indian Territory
32Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants
33Interhandel Case
34Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955
35Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land
36Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906
37Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954
38Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company
  39Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and Société Radio-Orient (France v. Lebanon)
  40Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization
41Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954
42Preah Vihear Temple
43South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa)
44South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa)
45Northern Cameroons
46Certain Expenses of the United Nations
47Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited(Second Application: 1962)
48North Sea Continental Shelf cases
  49Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276
50Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council
51Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v. Iceland)
52Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)
53Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
54Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France)
55Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France)
56Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War
57Western Sahara
58Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case
59Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
60United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran
61Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt
62Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
63Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area
64Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)
65Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)
66Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua
  67Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
68Application for Review of Judgement No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
69Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
70Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)
71Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute
72Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI)
  73Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947
74Maritime Delimitation in the Area Between Greenland and Jan Mayen
75Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988
76Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru
  77Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
78Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989
79Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad)
80East Timor
81Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal
82Passage through the Great Belt
83Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
  84Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom)
  85Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)
86Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America)
  87Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)
88 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project
89Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict
90Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria
91Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
92Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada)
  93Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests
94Kasikili/Sedudu Island
95Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America)
  96Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights
97Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998
98Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
99Ahmadou Sadio Diallo
100LaGrand
101Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium)
102Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Canada)
103Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. France)
104Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Germany)
105Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Italy)
106Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Netherlands)
107Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Portugal)
108Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom)
109Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain)
110Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)
111Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi)
112Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)
113Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)
  114Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia)
115Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999
116Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
117Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000
  118Application for the Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
119Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany)
120Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
121Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)
  122Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)
  123Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island And Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua Intervening)
124Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
125Certain Criminal Proceedings in France
126Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
127Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
128Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea
129Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights
130Status vis-à-vis the Host State of a Diplomatic Envoy to the United Nations
131Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay
132Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
133Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)
134Aerial Herbicide Spraying
  135Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
136Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
137Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo
138Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995
139Jurisdictional Immunities of the State
140Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite
141Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
142Judgment No.2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization
143Certain questions concerning diplomatic relations
144Whaling in the Antarctic
145Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Niger)
146Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
147Request for Interpretation of Temple of Preah Vihear Case
148Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
149Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean
150Delimitation of the Continental Shelf
151Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights
152Seizure of Certain Documents and Data
153Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean
  154Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)
  155Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan)
  156Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom)
157Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean
158Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala
159Immunities and Criminal Proceedings
160Certain Iranian Assets
161Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos
  162Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
  163Application for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)
164Jadhav
165Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965
  166Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)
167Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899
  168Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
  169Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
  170Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement
171Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights
172Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem
173Guatemala’s Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim
  174Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cases)

Marking Criteria

Group Report AssessmentMarksWeighting
Introduction to the selected case517%
Facts of the case620%
Identification of the relevant legal issues and doctrines620%
ICJ, Court or Tribunal’s decision620%
Formatting, Structure and Report organisation413%
Referencing and in-text citation310%
TOTAL Weight30 Marks100%

Marking Rubric – Group Assignment Report

 ExcellentVery GoodGoodSatisfactoryUnsatisfactory
Introduction of the case including: the background information and the important case-point. (5 marks)Demonstration of a thorough knowledge of the chosen case with a clearly stated case-point. (5 marks)Demonstration of a very good knowledge of the chosen case with a very well stated case- point. (4 marks)Demonstration of a good knowledge of the chosen case with a well stated case- point. (3 marks)Demonstration of satisfactory knowledge of the chosen case with a case- point stated. (2.5 marks)Demonstration of little or no knowledge of the chosen case and discussion has little or no relevance to the case chosen. No case point. (< 2.5 marks)
Facts of the case have been stated in a summary paragraph.   (6 marks)Accurately and succinctly identified all of the key facts in relation to the dispute or action brought to the court. (6 marks)Identification of the main facts in relation to the dispute or action brought to the court. (5.5 marks)Identification of most but not all of the facts in relation to the dispute or action brought to the court. (4.5 marks)Identification of some of the facts in relation to the dispute or action brought to the court.Failure to identify any of the facts in relation to the dispute or action brought to the court. (<3 marks)
   (3 marks)
Identification ofAccurately and succinctly identified all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (6 marks)Identification of all of the issues and sub-issues confronting the parties so as to resolve the problem. (5.5 marks)Identification ofIdentification ofFailure to
the legal issuesmost but not allsome of theidentify any of
presented andof the issuesissues and sub-the issues and
The individualand sub-issuesissuessub-issues
parties’confronting theconfronting theconfronting the
arguments, withparties so as toparties so as toparties so as to
equalresolve theresolve theresolve the
consideration ofproblem.problem.problem.
both sides’(4.5 marks)(3 marks)(<3 marks)
arguments.   
(6 marks)   
Explanation ofAccurately andExplained all of the ICJ, Court or tribunal’s decision and the significance of the case in international law. (5.5 marks)Explained mostExplained someFailure to
the ICJ, Courtsuccinctlybut not all of theof the ICJ, Courtexplain any of
or tribunal’sexplained all ofICJ, Court oror tribunal’sthe ICJ, Court
decision andthe ICJ, Court ortribunal’sdecision and theor tribunal’s
significance oftribunal’s decisiondecision and thesignificance ofdecision and
the case inand thesignificance ofthe case inthe significance
internationalsignificance of thethe case ininternationalof the case in
law. (6 marks)case ininternationallaw.international
 international law.law.(3 marks)law.
 (6 marks)(4.5 marks) (<3 marks)
Overall presentation and quality of report 4 marksReport is exceptionally structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (4 marks)Report is well structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (3.5 marks)Report is somewhat structured with clarity, use of paragraphs and subheadings. (3 marks)Report is structured with some clarity, and use of some paragraphs and subheadings. (2 marks)Poorly presented. Report is not structured with any clarity, and does not use of paragraphs and subheadings. (< 2 marks)
Referencing 3 marksClear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 6 relevant references were used from good sources. All in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (3 marks)Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 5 relevant references were used from good sources. All in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (2.5 marks)Clear systematic referencing using Harvard style for all sources. At least 4 relevant references were used from good sources. Most in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (2 marks)Limited attempt at formatting references. References largely unrelated to the topic area. At least 3 references were provided. Most in-text referencing done correctly and relevant. (1.5 marks)Poorly presented, no apparent structure. No use of Harvard referencing style. References were unrelated to the topic area. Only 0 r 1 relevant reference given (0 – 1.5 marks)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *