Class presentation (15%)

Pre-record a short Zoom presentation (maximum 8 minutes) that explains how a particular item of evidence which has been considered by the judges in the ICTY, ICTR, ECCC or ICC. Examples include (but are not limited to): footage posted on social media; a witness testimony; a piece of forensic evidence; a document or photograph; a phone or radio intercept. Your presentation should cover:

• What the case is about i.e. what charges, what country, what year(s);
• Which party or participant led the evidence;
• What fact(s) the evidence was led to establish;
• Why were those facts legally relevant?
• Was the evidence admitted? (why or why not?)
• Was the evidence was deemed reliable by the Court (why or why not).

Presentations will be screened during Days 3 & 4 of the unit (19 & 20 April 2022). After your presentation has been screened to the class, the lecturer will ask you one follow up question to answer ‘on your feet’. Your answer is expected to be brief (approximately 2 minutes).  These questions will not be difficult. The aims are mainly to enable you to put into practice your oral communication skills, and to dissuade plagiarism and contract-cheating.

The outcome of a successful Special Consideration application prior to the closing date is an extension, in which case, the presentation will be made to the lecturer only, outside of class-time.

Essay (35%)

Write an essay that compares:

• the excerpt (on Canvas) of the opening statement by USA Prosecutor Robert Jackson at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in 1945; and
• The opening statement given by one of the ICC Prosecutors (Ocampo, Bensouda, or Khan) at a trial in the ICC.

The instruction to ‘compare’ these two texts means that you must: identify at least one point of similarity and/or difference between them; and critically discuss what that point of similarity and/or difference shows about the ways in which international criminal law (ICL) has, or has not, changed over time.

Guidance

When writing your essay, be mindful that one of the aims of this assessment is to demonstrate your understanding of rules and principles of ICL. Therefore, it is not advisable to write an essay that could have been written without taking this unit (for example, an essay that focuses on courtroom attire, without explaining how this relates to any specific rules or principles of international criminal law, will not suffice).

The essay is also your opportunity to critically assess claims about international criminal law. Better essays will do this by engaging with critical scholarship on international criminal law, including (but not limited to) the critiques explored in Day 4 of the unit. ‘Engaging’ with a critique means relating that critique to your observations about the speeches under consideration. For example, you might argue that such observations support or contradict a particular critique of ICL; or that they reveal a gap in a particular critique of ICL.

The essay is also an opportunity to demonstrate your skills in written communication. You are advised to prioritise clear and accessible writing. To write clearly, you must first formulate your point clearly in your own mind, and then find words that will convey that meaning to your reader. It is never advisable to write sentences that you do not fully understand yourself, in the hope that the reader will be able to guess at your meaning.

A good essay will properly reference all sources that have shaped your thinking, including primary sources (e.g. the two speeches that you are analysing), and secondary sources (e.g. other people’s commentary on those speeches). References must be supplied for a direct quote, or when referring to someone else’s idea. Referencing gives you credibility. It shows that you have done your research and are well informed. Referencing is also necessity to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. For further details, please refer to the ‘plagiarism’ guidelines at: https://www.sydney.edu.au/students/academic-dishonesty.html#plagiarism

As part of the assessment, each student will have a 5-minute Zoom meeting with the lecturer, during the week of 23 to 27 May, in which they will answer two questions about their essay. These questions will not be difficult. The aims are mainly to enable you to put into practice your oral communication skills, and to dissuade plagiarism and contract-cheating.

Essay formalities

Due date

The essay is due on Wednesday 18 May 2022 at 6pm.

The outcome of a successful Special Consideration application prior to the closing date is an extension. Special consideration after that date will be determined by the discretion of the lecturer, taking into account advice from the Associate Dean (Education).

Work submitted late without an extension will incur a penalty of 10% off the total marks available to that piece of assessment. For example, an essay that would have received 30/35, but was submitted on 19 May 2022, will incur a penalty of 7 marks (2 days at 3.5 marks per day, noting that after 6pm on 18 May counts as one day), resulting in a final mark of 23/35 for this essay.

Word count

The word limit is 3,000 words including footnotes. Excess words beyond the initial 3,000 will not be read or assessed.

Citations

Please use Journal of International Criminal Justice style (see style guide on Canvas). This citation style uses footnotes only (no bibliography.

A hyperlink must be supplied for all judicial decisions, legal filings, and court transcripts. This enables the examiner to quickly retrieve and check the cited document. To insert a hyperlink into a footnote, you must select the relevant words, type “control + k”, and insert the URL. This process will be demonstrated on Day 1 of the Unit.

Exam (50%)

The final assessment will be a take-home exam, consisting of one problem question, which could cover any topic covered in the unit.  

Guidance

We will do a practice problem question in class, in accordance with the below advice.

When answering the problem question, the following structure is recommended for each legal issue that you identify.

1. Issue — Identify the legal issue, phrased as ‘whether [insert question]’
2. Law — Explain the relevant legal rule or principle. Always include a legal authority, for that rule or principle (e.g. an article of a treaty). If the law is ambiguous, it is your job to interpret it.  
3. Apply the law to the facts — Explain how the above legal rule of principle applies to the facts of your case. Here is where you would refer to the facts of other cases, and explain if those facts are distinguishable from those in your case.
4. Conclude — provide a short conclusion to the legal issue identified in Step 1.

You are advised to use sub-headings to make your analysis easy to follow. For example, if there are several legal issues relating to jurisdiction, it is wise to cluster these together under the sub-heading ‘jurisdiction’, and then follow steps 1-4 for each issue.

Better responses will identify, and will answer, the majority of questions raised on the facts.

Exam formalities

Due date

Students will have 48 hours to complete the exam (6am Friday 27 May until 6am Sunday 29 May). This 48-hour period includes a weekday and a weekend day, in order to accommodate students’ other professional, personal and academic commitments. 

In accordance with University-wide expectations, the exam is designed to be possible to complete in 7 hours (3 hours writing and 3-4 hours reading, research and preparation).

A grant of special consideration for this assessment will result in a replacement exam to be scheduled outside the formal exam period and replacement exam period

Word count

The word limit is 3,000 words (including footnotes) for your exam response. Excess words beyond the initial 3,000 will not be read or assessed.

Citations

When citing legal authorities in the exam, a short-form is sufficient. There is no set style. Just be sure to include enough details to allow a reader to identify the relevant source. For example,

• Article 7(b) of the Rome Statute can be cited as ‘RS Art. 7(b)’
• Paragraph 67 of the ICC Trial Chamber’s judgment in the Lubanga case can be cited as ‘ICC, Lubanga Trial Judgment, 5 April 2012, [67]).’
• Page 42 of the textbook can be cited as ‘Cryer, Robinson & Vasisliev 2019, 42’.

Assessment requirement to pass a unit of study:

A student must make a genuine attempt at all assessment tasks set out in this Unit of Study in order to obtain a Pass mark and grade (or above); otherwise an Absent Fail grade will be recorded as the student’s result for this Unit of Study.