This is an assignment instruction for the International Human Rights Law course at the School of Law, University of Leeds. The assignment is due on 12 May 2023, and it has a word limit of 2,500 words. The submission must be done through Turnitin via the Minerva VLE, and the Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet must be completed and inserted at the beginning of the document. The penalty for late submissions is 5 marks for every 24 hours or part thereof up to 14 days. Extensions can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and should be obtained from the Student Support Officers. The work must be original and properly cited, and plagiarism or cheating will not be tolerated. The assessment criteria for the assignment are also provided, which includes five main criteria: Content, Understanding, Analysis, Research, and Presentation, each with a list of key aspects.
________________________________
International Human Rights Law LAW2142
Assignment – Semester 2 – 2022/2023
Submission Date: 12 May 2023 Word Limit: 2,500
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The assessment will count for 100% of your total marks for this module.
2. Your completed assessment must be submitted electronically to Turnitin through Minerva VLE
by 12 noon on 12 May 2023. To do this, you must log into Minerva Portal & VLE and click on the
‘Modules’ tab. Select the appropriate module title (named at the top of this template), then click on
‘Submit My Work’ in the module menu. Select the link to the relevant assessment then upload
your work. By submitting your assessed work through the VLE you are accepting the
Declaration of Academic Integrity, extending to a declaration that the work is not plagiarised
and that the word count is accurately stated.
3. You should complete an Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet with details of your Student ID
number, Module Code & Title and Declared Word Count and insert this at the beginning of your
assessment before uploading to Turnitin.
4. Work which is submitted after the deadline will be penalised in accordance with University rules as
follows: you will be deducted 5 marks for every 24 hour period or part thereof that your assessment
is overdue, up to 14 days. If your work is more than 14 days late, or if the deduction is larger than
the mark you receive, you will receive a mark of 0.
5. Extensions of the deadline for submission can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and
can only be obtained from Student Support Officers (StudentSupportLaw@leeds.ac.uk).
6. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have submitted the correct version of your work. If, after
making a submission, you claim that you mistakenly submitted a draft, the wrong version or a
different assessment, the original version, which was submitted by the deadline, will still be treated
as your submission.
7. You should obtain your digital receipt of submission. You are also required to keep an additional
copy of your work for your own reference. In addition you must keep your notes and draft copies of
the work.
8. You should ensure that you do not include your name anywhere on your assessment in
order that it remains anonymous for marking – however, you should include your Student ID
number, module code, module title and state the word count on the header of each page and
as the file name of your document.
9. The length of your work should not exceed 2,500 words (excluding footnotes, endnotes,
bibliography, and restatement of the assessment question). If you exceed the maximum by
less than 10% no penalty will be applied. However, if the total is 10% above the maximum or more
then you will be penalised in accordance with following School rules:
10% and over – 5 mark penalty
2
20% and over – 10 marks
30% and over – 15 marks
40% and over – 20 marks
50% and over – a maximum of 0 marks would be awarded.
10.Plagiarism and Cheating
It is essential that your assessed work represents your own work and that it has not been
produced in collusion with any other party. Text and ideas derived from written sources
(including electronic sources) must be acknowledged by way of appropriate citation. If you are
not aware of the University’s rules on plagiarism and academic malpractice, please familiarise
yourself with the relevant regulations as set out on the secretariat website. You should also refer
to the Academic Integrity Handbook on Minerva VLE under
Organisation/Law/Undergraduate/Academic Integrity.
3
School of Law Undergraduate Assessment Criteria
These assessment criteria are intended to be used by staff and students. Staff should use them when
marking essays to (a) assess the level of the essay across the five main criteria (taking into account whether
it is a Level One, Two or Three module) and (b) when preparing feedback. For students their purpose is two fold. First, they should be used when preparing the essay, in particular when assessing an early draft.
Second, they provide some indication of why an essay has been placed in a particular category for each of
the five main criteria by the marker. Key aspects for each of the five criteria are listed in italics.
Content
Coverage
Relevance
Understanding
Analysis
Extent
Level
Evidence
Structure
Introduction
Conclusion
Argument
Research
Range of sources
Type of sources
Use of sources
Presentation
Writing style
Proof reading
Referencing
Excellent
Essays
should
demonstrate
some of the
following as
well as
those
specified
under Very
Good
Exceptional
understanding of
complex material
Identification of less
obvious issues not
widely discussed in the
literature
Exceptional level of
analysis
Demonstrates
excellent evaluative
skills when using
sources
Imaginative and
innovative argument
Almost faultless
structure
Considerable
evidence of
independent
scholarship
High level of
synthesis
Close to
reaching the
expectation for
an academic
publication
Exceptional
attention to
detail
Very Good Complete answer
which displays an in depth understanding of
the key issues;
discussion always
related to the question
Highly analytic answer
which draws upon –
and evaluates a range
of sources – to reach
own conclusions
Engaging introduction
which lays out a
structure for the answer
and demonstrates a full
understanding of the
issues raised by the
questions; robust
conclusion which
consolidates the
argument advanced in
the main body of the
essay; discussion flows
effectively as argument
is developed
throughout.
Draws upon a wide
range of both primary
and secondary
sources (including
those not listed in
module materials)
and uses them
effectively to support
points made; very
good synthesis of
sources to convey
understanding of
relevant literature.
Fluent and
precise writing
style with only
minimal errors;
academically
appropriate
language; full,
consistent and
accurate
referencing.
Good Full answer (only minor
omissions) which
displays a good
understanding of the
key issues; discussion
predominantly related
to the question.
Analytic approach
adopted throughout
the answer making
appropriate use of
evidence to support
the analytic points
made.
Introduction lays out a
structure for the answer
and identifies key
issues; conclusion
consolidates the
argument built up in the
main body of the essay
but both may benefit
from further
development; answer is
generally well organised with clear
progression.
Draws upon a range
of both primary and
secondary sources
(relying
predominantly on
those listed in module
materials) and uses
them to support
points made; good
synthesis of sources
to convey
understanding of
relevant literature.
Fluent academic
writing style with
only minor
errors;
occasional
minor
referencing
errors.
Satisfactory Solid answer but some
omissions and may be
lacking in detail;
understanding of the
key issues is variable
and may be shallow at
times; discussion
typically related to the
question but may be
some digressions
Some level of analysis
but answer is likely to
be overly descriptive
at times; analysis may
be confined to the
final section of the
essay and points
made may not be
explored in-depth or
substantiated
Introduction may be
pedestrian, simply
outlining what will be
discussed; brief
conclusion which does
not consolidate the
argument presented in
the body of the essays;
evidence of planning
but answer would
benefit from some
reorganisation of
material to improve the
flow of the argument.
Draws upon primary
and secondary
sources (relying
predominantly on the
latter) and uses them
to support points
made; discussion
tends to focus on
individual sources.
Clear writing
style on the
whole but some
errors and areas
of confusion; no
serious
referencing
errors.
4
Limited Partial answer with a
number of omissions;
displays a reasonable
understanding of the
material but may be
superficial at times;
discussion frequently
strays away from the
focus of the question.
Primarily descriptive
with only limited
analysis, which is
likely to be superficial
and without reference
to any sources.
Introduction may be
pedestrian, simply
outlining what will be
discussed; conclusion
may be asserted rather
than following on
logically from the
argument advance in
the essay; answer
would benefit from
reorganisation of
material.
Draws on a limited
range of sources,
predominantly
secondary sources;
not all points made
are supported by
reference to the
sources used;
discussion focuses on
individual sources.
Writing style
sometimes lacks
clarity and
precision and
may not be
academically
appropriate;
referencing may
also be
problematic (e.g.
inconsistent
approach) but
not indicative of
plagiarism.
Below pass
standard
Answers in
this category
may be
considerably
under length.
Unsatisfactory answer
due to failure to identify
and/or understand the
key issues, and/or
limited relevance to the
question
Overly descriptive
answer with little, if
any, analysis
Introduction, if present,
offers little more than a
list of issues to discuss;
conclusion, if present,
does not answer the
question; disorganised
answer.
Minimal use of
sources; points made
are generally not
accompanied by
reference to sources.
Difficult to read
due to frequent
errors and/or
problematic
(possibly non academic)
writing style;
problematic
referencing
which may raise
concerns about
academic
integrity.
5
Deadline: 12 May 2023 Word Count: 2,500
Answer ONE question ONLY:
1. ‘Socio-economic rights are not enforceable under International Human Rights Law’.
Critically discuss with reference to one socio-economic right of your choice.
OR
2. When does an act of ill-treatment fall within the scope of the prohibition of torture,
inhuman or degrading treatment under International Human Rights Law?
Critically answer with reference to case-law from the European Court of Human Rights.

Published by

Study Bay

View all posts