2016 Telders uluslararası hukuk farazi dava yarışması (Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi takımının dava dilekçeleri)
MetadataShow full item record
CitationKaraduman, S., Anlar, S., Şenoğlu, İ. ve Schmid, C. (2016). 2016 Telders uluslararası hukuk farazi dava yarışması (Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi takımının dava dilekçeleri) / Telders internatıonal law moot court competition 2016. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi. 15(1), s. 111-150.
Also violated the right of navigation of the yacht. The interception of msy plutarchus was unlawful because there was no reason for a lawful right of visit. Mr. Clark did not comply with his duty to rescue boats in distress as an international obligation. The 84 oenotrians searching for protection should be considered as refugees under the refugee convention. These oenotrian refugees are protected by the non-refoulment principle. The exception of the nonrefoulment principle is not applicable to the 84 oenotrians because they cannot be seen as a danger for the security or community of Ionia. Refoulment of the refugees constitutes a violation of their access to fair and effective procedure with respect to the claim of their refugee status. The right to seek and enjoy asylum of the oenotrians in the msy plutarchus was not recognized or granted by Ionia as Mr. Clark does not even consider to verify their claims. Ms. Amarigi has been subjected to the iniction of severe pain and suering by the punching and locking away in her room through Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark had the intent to commit the crime of torture for making sure that the yacht will return to esperya. Mr. Clark committed the crime of torture in order to intimidate, coerce and discriminate ms. Amarigi. Mr. Clark is the perpetrator of the crime of torture by punching ms amarigi and locking her into her room. Ms. Amarigi can be regarded as the victim of the crime of torture by being punched. Ionia does not enjoy state immunity with regards to the acts of mr. Clark, also the discplinary process and suspension is insucient. Mr. Clark does not enjoy immunity of state ocials, neither personal nor functional immunity. Esperya is entitled to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the acts of Mr. Clark in accordance with its universal jurisdiction because torture is an international crime.
SourceMaltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi
- Makale Koleksiyonu