Please follow the instructions:
I – Expected topics to be covered: 1/ jurisdiction + admissibility + 2/ link to crime: individual criminal
responsibility / command responsibility / co-perpetration (art. 25) + 3/ different crimes : a) genocide? b)
crimes against humanity? c) war crimes? (in that case nexus with an armed conflict needed + define what
type of conflict).
II – This is a problem question, not an essay type CW: your must integrate the theory with the practical
aspects of the scenario straight away. I do not want to see large theoretical (textbook-like) explanations and
then an application to the case. This is NOT an essay. In addition, make sure that your analysis is directly
relevant to the OTP to determine whether there is a case against the 2 individuals you anlyse.
III – Use the correct legal sources :
+ read CW to see if states parties to a treaty or not.
State more than one source when possible (e.g. art. 8(2)(a) + GCs + CIL).
IV – No need for a big intro (but you should provide a CLEAR explanation how you will approach this CW)
or conclusion, but your analysis should be methodical, step by step, with linking sentences clearly explaining
the relevance of your focus on some legal issues. Make sure that there is no gap (i.e. some issues expected to
be covered which you failed to cover). Be thorough and efficient with the way you will use the 2500 words.
V – Reference correctly! See the Oscola Protocol. See Turnitin report when submitting. As you learned from
Phil in the Public Law annotated biblio, there are three types of sentences:
your own which does not require referencing;
direct quotations, when quoting an external source word for word, which requires quotation marks and a
footnote (with pinpoint);
paraphrases, when you take somebody else’s ideas but use your own words, which requires a footnote (with