IBL exam answers
1. Case 1
Country X purchased property in Chicago, USA, for its embassy. After country X has merged with country Y to form country Z, the property was turned over to the new formed State. Country Z was represented by a single ambassador to USA. Few years later, country Z was dissolved and Country X and Y again became separate independent sovereign states. Country X then sought to reclaim its embassy, but the property was being occupied at that time by a diplomat of country Y (who had been country Z last ambassador) and he refused to return the property to country X. Subsequently, the property was used as the country Y embassy. Country X Ambassador to USA brought suit in the American Supreme Court against country Y Ambassador to USA seeking to reclaim possession of the property. No one of country Y diplomats formally appeared to answer the suit. What should the court say? Discuss.
1.1 Facts
Parties
Country X who purchased the property
Country Y who occupied the embassy after the dissolution of country Z
USA supreme courts
Events
Country X purchased property in Chicago, USA, for its embassy
Country X has merged with country Y to form country Z
After the merge , the property was turned over to Country Z which was represented by a single ambassador to USA.
Few years later, country Z was dissolved and Country X and Y again became separate independent sovereign states.
Country X then sought to reclaim its embassy, but the property was being occupied at that time by a diplomat of country Y (who had been country Z last ambassador) and he refused to return the property to country X and continued to use the property as country Y embassy
Country X Ambassador to USA brought suit in the American Supreme Court against country Y Ambassador to USA seeking to reclaim possession of the property.
No one of country Y diplomats formally appeared to answer the suit.
The problem now is about the court decision in this case
1.2- Legal problem
Sovereignty
Country X purchased property in Chicago, USA, for its embassy. After country X has merged with country Y to form country Z, the property was turned over to the new formed State. Country Z was represented by a single ambassador to USA. Few years later, country Z was dissolved and Country X and Y again became separate independent sovereign states. Country X then sought to reclaim its embassy, but the property was being occupied at that time by a diplomat of country Y (who had been country Z last ambassador) and he refused to return the property to country X. Subsequently, the property was used as the country Y embassy. Country X Ambassador to USA brought suit in the American Supreme Court against country Y Ambassador to USA seeking to reclaim possession of the property. No one of country Y diplomats formally appeared to answer the suit. What should the court say? Discuss.
1.1 Facts
Parties
Country X who purchased the property
Country Y who occupied the embassy after the dissolution of country Z
USA supreme courts
Events
Country X purchased property in Chicago, USA, for its embassy
Country X has merged with country Y to form country Z
After the merge , the property was turned over to Country Z which was represented by a single ambassador to USA.
Few years later, country Z was dissolved and Country X and Y again became separate independent sovereign states.
Country X then sought to reclaim its embassy, but the property was being occupied at that time by a diplomat of country Y (who had been country Z last ambassador) and he refused to return the property to country X and continued to use the property as country Y embassy
Country X Ambassador to USA brought suit in the American Supreme Court against country Y Ambassador to USA seeking to reclaim possession of the property.
No one of country Y diplomats formally appeared to answer the suit.
The problem now is about the court decision in this case
1.2- Legal problem
Sovereignty