LEVEL 1 QUESTIONS: emphasize basic knowledge and comprehension, as drawn from the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy. These questions are apt for a unit introducing concepts from international law.

1. What kinds of circumstances encourage national governments to cooperate with each other by signing treaties, coordinating their behavior, and/or creating international organizations? Please give examples.

2. Identify a prominent recent international "event" (e.g., war, humanitarian disaster, rebellion, conference). What policies, if any, did the US government pursue concerning the situation you chose? What reasons did officials offer for US policy?

3. What are "war crimes"? Please identify characteristics and current examples. How might current examples differ from or be similar to the Holocaust of WW2?

4. Compare and contrast "extradition" and "deportation". Why do governments authorize or attempt either? What situations and policy concerns affect policy decisions regarding extradition and deportation?

5. Are war crimes a special class of crimes in international law? Why or why not? Do war crimes result in special extradition or deportation consequences?

6. Are consultations over war crimes and war criminals appropriate subjects of international cooperation? Why or why not? Should individuals accused of war crimes be deported? Extradited?

7. Drawing from the focused examples we've considered, please define "international law". How does it seem to differ from national or local law?

LEVEL 2 QUESTIONS: emphasize the analysis of material and situations and the application of basic knowledge to problems, as drawn from the middle two levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The questions below are apt for a unit applying basic concepts, comparing and contrasting situations, formulating categories, and deriving a basic framework in international law.

Background context:

In 1976 John Demjanjuk, a naturalized US citizen since shortly after WW2, was accused of being a member of the Soviet Army before his emigration to the US. Evidence indicated that after his capture by Nazi troops, he served as a concentration camp guard at the Treblinka death camp. Camp survivors testified that Demjanjuk was the notoriously savage guard nicknamed "Ivan the Terrible". Demjanjuk claims that the incriminating evidence was forged and that the survivors had mistaken him.

American officials stripped Demjanjuk of his US citizenship and were preparing the necessary papers to deport him to the Soviet Union when the Israeli government formally requested that he be extradited to Jerusalem to stand trial. A federal appeals court with jurisdiction in Clevelend approved the request.

Questions:

1. On what basis does Israel claim jurisdiction over Demjanjuk and his criminal activities? More specifically, why didn't Germany or Poland request extradition of Demjanjuk, since the war crimes in question occurred in territory that is now within the borders of those countries? Is Israel claiming territorial jurisdiction?

2. Israel did not exist as a nation or government until 1948, yet WW2 occurred from 1939-1945. Since Israel didn't exist when the war crimes in question occurred, how can it claim jurisdiction over Demjanjuk? Is Israel claiming jurisdiction based on characteristics of the victims?

3. The Nuremberg Charter -- the agreement among the victors of WW2 that defines the jurisdiction and functions of the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried leading Nazi officers after the war -- specifies the characteristics of "war crimes". How can Nazi officers be tried for activities that were not legally recognized as "crimes" at the time the activities occurred?

4. Let's assume that the "crimes" occurred in Germany. If German national law did not forbid the "criminal" acts, and if German law prevails in the territory of Germany, then how can the acts be considered violations of law?

5. Can an activity be "criminal" if it becomes legally recognized as a crime only after the fact? How is this question related to the idea of "ex post facto" law? How is it related to the legal defense of "tu quoque"?

6. Are some acts so reprehensible that they do not need to be identified in the law as criminal? In your opinion, what kinds of acts are reprehensible in this way? What are the implications of such "unspoken, unwritten laws"?

LEVEL 3 QUESTIONS: emphasize analysis of material, creative synthesis of analytic elements, and evaluation of goals, process, and/or outcomes, as drawn from the top three levels of Bloom's taxonomy. The questions below are apt for applying basic concepts, comparing and contrasting situations, formulating categories, creating alternatives, evaluating arguments and judgments, and deriving a basic framework in international law.

A PBL Case: What to do with John Demjanjuk?

• to introduce you to group work, to case studies, and to problem-oriented teaching/learning
• to introduce you to several broad patterns that organize the international system

Facts of the Case

John Demjanjuk, a US citizen living in Cleveland, emigrated to the US after WW2, identifying himself as a Polish farmer on his citizenship application. The US Justice Dept began investigating him in 1976 after the discovery that he had been a member of the Soviet Army during WW2. Evidence indicated that after his capture by Nazi troops, he served as a guard at the Treblinka death camp. Further investigation in the Soviet national archives revealed a Nazi ID card in Demjanjuk's name indicating that he served as a "wachmanner", a captured soldier serving as a camp guard. Camp survivors testified that Demjanjuk was the notoriously savage guard nicknamed "Ivan the Terrible". Demjanjuk claims that the incriminating evidence was a forgery and that the survivors had mistaken him.

American officials stripped Demjanjuk of his US citizenship and were preparing to deport him to the Soviet Union when the Israeli government formally requested that he be extradited to Jerusalem to stand trial. A federal appeals court with jurisdiction in Cleveland approved the request. After a lengthy and celebrated trial in Israel, he was sentenced to death in 1988. He appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union at the same time, further investigation in the Soviet archives became possible. New information suggested that a different wachmanner, a captured Soviet soldier named Ivan Marchenko, was actually Ivan the Terrible. According to evidence collected by the KGB after the war, Demjanjuk has neither the proper age nor physical characteristics to be Ivan the Terrible. The most recently discovered information reveals that Demjanjuk was not at Treblinka, but was instead a brutal wachmanner at the Sobibor death camp.

In late 1992 the Israeli Supreme Court reached a verdict.

1. Why did the US extradite Demjanjuk to Israel? Why not deport him to the USSR in the early- or mid-1980s? Why not try him in the US?
2. What decision would you recommend to the Israeli Supreme Court?
3. What broad patterns or basic principles of global organization do you see? How are the patterns and principles related? How do they affect each other? Can you offer examples of the relationships and mutual effects?
4. How do these relations and effects complicate policymaking? Complicate efforts to address or resolve global problems?