People's Court International Law Competency Examination

Question 1 — Sources of Law (5 marks)

Identify and explain the principal sources of international law.

For each source, explain:

what it is;

how it becomes legally relevant; and

how a court should determine whether it applies to a particular case.

Question 2 — Treaties (5 marks)

A State signs an international treaty but has not yet ratified it.

Explain:

a. What legal significance does the signature have?

b. What changes after ratification?

c. Can a State simply ignore a treaty after becoming legally bound by it?

Give reasons for your answer.

Question 3 — Customary International Law (5 marks)

Explain what is meant by customary international law.

Your answer must address:

a. State practice;

b. the belief that the practice is legally required or permitted; and

c. how a court should determine whether a claimed customary rule actually exists.

Question 4 — Interpretation (5 marks)

A treaty provision states:

"States Parties shall take all necessary measures to prevent the intentional killing of protected civilians."

A State argues that "necessary measures" means only measures expressly listed elsewhere in the treaty.

Explain how a court should approach interpretation of this provision.

Question 5 — Jurisdiction (5 marks)

A person who is a national of State A commits a serious international crime entirely within State B.

State A is a State Party to the People's Court Treaty.

State B is not.

Explain what jurisdictional questions the Court should consider before opening proceedings.

Question 6 — Multiple States (5 marks)

An organised criminal group operates in five countries.

The planning occurs in State A.

Victims are transported through State B.

The principal offences occur in States C and D.

The group's financial assets are held in State E.

Explain how a court could determine which States have jurisdiction and whether more than one State can legitimately exercise jurisdiction.

Question 7 — State Responsibility (5 marks)

A State's military forces commit an internationally wrongful act.

The government later argues:

"The individual soldiers acted without our permission, so the State has no responsibility."

Explain the legal issues a court should examine before accepting or rejecting that argument.

Question 8 — Officials and Immunity (5 marks)

A serving senior government official is accused of a serious international crime.

The official argues:

"I cannot be prosecuted because I hold public office."

Explain what the Court must consider concerning official status and immunity.

Question 9 — Individual Criminal Responsibility (5 marks)

Explain the difference between:

a. directly committing a crime;

b. ordering another person to commit a crime;

c. assisting or facilitating a crime; and

d. attempting to commit a crime.

Explain why the distinction matters when determining criminal responsibility.

Question 10 — Crimes Against Humanity (5 marks)

Explain what makes conduct potentially amount to a crime against humanity rather than an ordinary domestic criminal offence.

Your answer must address the broader contextual element required for such crimes.

Question 11 — Genocide (5 marks)

A military commander orders the destruction of a protected group.

The prosecution proves that thousands of members of the group were killed.

Explain what additional legal issue must be established before the conduct can properly be classified as genocide.

Question 12 — War Crimes (5 marks)

During an armed conflict, a military unit deliberately attacks a civilian population despite knowing that civilians are the intended targets.

Identify the principal international-law issues that should be examined.

Question 13 — Distinction (5 marks)

Explain the principle of distinction in armed conflict.

Why is it legally important to distinguish civilians from lawful military targets?

Question 14 — Proportionality (5 marks)

A legitimate military target is located inside a heavily populated civilian area.

The commander believes attacking the target will provide a significant military advantage but knows civilians are likely to be killed.

Explain the legal analysis required before the attack can lawfully proceed.

Question 15 — Fundamental Rights (5 marks)

An accused person is held in custody for a serious international crime.

The prosecution argues:

"Because the accusation is extremely serious, ordinary fair-trial protections should not apply."

Explain why this argument is or is not legally valid.

Question 16 — Evidence (5 marks)

A witness tells investigators:

"I heard from three other people that the accused committed the murder."

The witness did not personally see the murder.

Explain:

a. what evidential problems arise;

b. whether the information can automatically be treated as worthless;

c. what further investigation should be undertaken; and

d. what a court should consider when determining its weight.

Question 17 — Fair Trial (5 marks)

An accused person cannot afford a lawyer.

The prosecution argues that the trial should continue immediately because delaying the trial would be inconvenient.

Explain what the Court should consider before allowing the trial to proceed.

Question 18 — Full Legal Analysis (15 marks)

Prepare a reasoned legal assessment.

Your answer should address:

a. potential international crimes;

b. applicable international humanitarian-law principles;

c. possible individual criminal responsibility;

d. whether General R's position as a commander is legally relevant;

e. possible command or superior responsibility;

f. jurisdiction;

g. the significance of State X refusing to investigate;

h. the significance of State Y's limited investigation;

i. the legality and importance of State Z's arrest;

j. evidence that investigators should obtain;

k. rights of General R during proceedings;

l. possible victims and their rights;

m. potential defences or alternative explanations;

n. what further facts must be established before conviction; and

o. whether the available information is sufficient for conviction or only sufficient to justify further investigation.

Important: You must distinguish allegations from facts established by evidence.

Question 19 — Competing Legal Arguments

You are a judge.

The prosecution argues:

"The accused should be convicted because the conduct was obviously morally wrong and caused enormous suffering."

The defence argues:

"The accused should be acquitted because the prosecution has failed to prove every element of the offence."

Explain why neither moral outrage nor sympathy alone can replace legal analysis.

Your answer must explain the relationship between:

evidence;

legal elements;

burden of proof;

presumption of innocence;

judicial reasoning; and

a final verdict.

BONUS COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT

Not included in the 100 marks

Oral Examination

A candidate seeking judicial or prosecutorial authority may additionally be required to complete an oral examination.

The examiner may present an unfamiliar international-law problem and ask the candidate to reason through it without preparation.

The candidate may be asked:

What law applies?

What is the source of that law?

What facts do you actually know?

What facts remain unproven?

What evidence would you need?

What jurisdiction exists?

What competing legal interpretation could the defence raise?

What is the strongest argument against your own conclusion?

What would change your conclusion?

Are you certain that the law is settled on this point?

The purpose is to determine whether the candidate can think like a legally competent decision-maker rather than simply repeat memorised legal language.

ASSESSMENT STANDARD

A candidate should demonstrate:

Knowledge — understands the relevant principles of international law.

Application — can apply those principles to unfamiliar facts.

Reasoning — can explain why a legal conclusion follows.

Evidence awareness — distinguishes allegation, evidence and established fact.

Jurisdictional competence — understands when and why a court may exercise jurisdiction.

Procedural fairness — understands the rights of accused persons, victims and witnesses.

Independence — reaches conclusions based on law and evidence rather than political, emotional, religious, national, financial or personal considerations.

Intellectual honesty — recognises uncertainty where international law is unsettled or disputed.

Ethical judgement — understands that judicial and prosecutorial authority carries responsibilities beyond simply knowing legal rules.

Recommended competency classifications

90–100: Exceptional competency

80–89: Advanced competency

75–79: Professional competency

65–74: Developing competency — supplementary assessment recommended

Below 65: Does not presently demonstrate the required level of competency

A candidate seeking appointment as a judge or prosecutor should additionally be required to pass the practical case study and oral competency assessment to the minimum standard established by the Court.

No candidate should pass solely through memorisation.