Imagine it is December 2021. The global COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and exacerbated some of the short-comings of the international system.

This exam consists of two essay questions. Responses to Questions I and II should each include a thesis statement supported as appropriate by references to essential doctrines, laws and facts that we have covered this semester. Question III is a short-answer question for extra credit only; you may leave it blank.
This is an open-book and open-notes exam. In order to compose your responses, you may consult any written resource (including those on line). You may not discuss the substance of the exam with anyone. From the moment you open the attachment, you may work only three hours on this exam: this includes the time required for reading, thinking, outlining, drafting, revising, and proof-reading (as well as any breaks you may take).
Exam responses are due on Friday, December 17 at 4 PM. Graduating seniors must submit their responses by Wednesday, December 15 at 5 PM. A note from a doctor or a college dean will be expected with any late submissions. All submissions must be typed and include a header with your name. Please leave yourself enough time to allow for technical problems and to proofread for grammatical sense and spelling. Each exam must be submitted via MySLC with the affirmation at the end of these instructions. By submitting it, you are affirming its truth just as if you had signed it.
Questions
Question I (13 points).
Imagine it is December 2021. The global COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and exacerbated some of the short-comings of the international system. Unchecked development drives humans into environments hosting novel viruses. The World Health Organization (the “WHO”) has underperformed in its mandate to direct and coordinate international health preparedness, surveillance and response. International economic law does little to address rampant inequality between rich and poor. Strong property rights regimes and weak health systems prevent effective vaccines or treatments from getting to billions of people. The result is not a “natural disaster” but a man-made pandemic.
Presidents Xi Jinping of China and Joe Biden of the United States boldly declare “War on Disease” and propose a new bilateral treaty, The China-US Framework Convention on Defeating Deadly Diseases (the “FCDDD”). The FCDDD would require all states to accept WHO monitors stationed throughout their countries and all ministries of health to report outbreaks directly to the WHO. Any state that refuses would be subject to “enforcement action” by China and the US. The FCDDD would further require every state to ensure that there are adequately equipped hospital networks; if a country cannot afford such as system, then China and the US would finance it on “generous terms.” Finally, the FCDDD would require all patents for vaccines and treatments to be sold to the WHO so that the WHO could ensure adequate provision on a global basis.
Will it work? Does the FCDDD raise any problems under international law? Does the US Constitution allow it? If you spot any legal flaws, can you propose changes or clarifications that would improve the legality of the FCDDD?
Be sure to support your argument and to address relevant counter-arguments with specific references from our case studies in International Law Stories and other coursework.
Question II (12 points).
Imagine that the United Nations is discussing a proposal to create a new “Global Court” and that you are the ambassador from a member state leading negotiations on behalf of your country. (You may choose which state you represent, but it may not be a member of the Permanent Five: the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia or the United States.) This Global Court would have jurisdiction to decide cases arising from “violations of the law of nations” anywhere in the world. It would have a completely independent prosecutor appointed for one non-renewable ten-year term. The Global Court would have subject matter jurisdiction to decide criminal and non-criminal claims; it can sentence people to prison.
Negotiating on behalf of your country, do you support this proposal? Are there particular features of the Global Court’s Charter that you would insist on – or reject? Please be sure to address relevant counter-arguments and to support your argument with references from our readings and discussions.