Marking criteria for written examination
This guide is used by examiners for grading elective courses at the Faculty of Law. The guide is common to all elective courses at the bachelor’s and master’s degree levels and individual legal courses.
Note that the required prerequisite knowledge for courses at the bachelor’s level is different from elective courses at the master’s level. All criteria are to be included in the overall assessment. Each candidate is assessed individually with regards to the course's learning requirements; the active normal distribution curve is not implemented.
Marking Criteria Guide
Course information
| Course code and name |
JUS5503 – Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism: Striking a Balance? |
| Syllabus/achievement requirements |
Autumn 2023 |
| Formal prerequisite knowledge |
Masters Level course
Students must fulfill one of the following requirements:
Passed 1st - 3rd year of the 5-year degree Master of Laws (Master i rettsvitenskap at UiO) (or exams that qualify for exemption for these) or hold a 5-years Master’s degree in Laws (Master i rettsvitenskap at UiO) or equivalent.
|
| Examination |
Two written individual memos:
1000 and 2500 words
Compulsory activities:
Class Debate participation on the scope of freedom of expression in the context of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism (40%). Students will present arguments either in favor or against restriction of speech. Some of the students will write in favor of restriction of speech and other against. Students should demonstrate knowledge of the concept of hate speech and incitement to violence. Each student will write 1000 word memo.
Group presentation with individual memos delineating recommendations for how to incorporate human rights within counter-terrorism/counter-extremism practice (60%). 6 students per group, each group should select a different human rights topic to be approved by Professor Bailliet on the first day of class. Each group can give a ten minute presentation on the last day of class. Students will submit individual memos which may be based on interviews with police or intelligence officers, human rights NGOs, and/or desk study of reports or international, regional, or national case law, and reference to relevant human rights instruments. Each student will hand in 2,500 word memo.
|
| Last updatet |
14.11.2023 |
Assessment criteria for the written examination
| Grades |
Overall guidelines for setting grades |
F?rsteinntrykk, lesbarhetF?rsteinntrykk, lesbarhetF?rsteinntrykk, lesbarhetOverall impression and readability, knowledge and content, reflection and Independence.
F?rsteinntrykk, lesbarhetF?rsteinntrykk, lesbarhet
|
Struktur, juridisk metode og fremstillingsevneStructure, legal methodology and reasoning |
Language and formal skills
|
A: Excellent
B: Very good |
A: An excellent performance, clearly outstanding. The candidate demonstrates excellent judgment and a high degree of independent thinking.
B: The candidate demonstrates sound judgment and a very good degree of independent thinking
Kandidaten viser meget god vurderingsevne og selvstendighet
|
The exam answer:
- gives clear and precise answers to the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
- demonstrates excellent/very good knowledge and overview of the topic of the exam question and learning outcomes of the course.
- distinguishes in an excellent/very good manner between what is essential compared with what is unessential/irrelevant, and distinguishes in an excellent/very good manner between what is certain and what is doubtful.
- demonstrates a high degree of independence in ability to reason critically and independently based on the literature and teaching of the course.
- demonstrates an excellent/very good awareness of the legal-political dimensions of the topic of the question.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- excellent/very good ability to find and formulate legal issues, including distinguishing between various problems and principal and subsidiary questions, as well as an ability to put these questions into their correct context.
- excellent/very good ability to discuss questions in a professionally sound and judicious manner, and utilise available legal materials and facts in accordance with professional methodological principles.
- excellent/very good ability to dimension the answer sensibly.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- excellent/very good command of language, exposition skills and level of accuracy
|
| C: Good |
A good performance in most areas. The candidate demonstrates a reasonable degree of judgment and independent thinking in the most important areas.
The exam answer gives clear and precise answers to the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
|
The exam answer:
answers the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
demonstrates good knowledge and overview of the topic of the exam question and learning outcomes of the course.
distinguishes well between what is essential in relation to what is unessential/irrelevant, and distinguishes well between what is certain and what is doubtful.
demonstrates to some degree an independent ability to reason critically and independently based on the literature and teaching of the course.
demonstrates a good ability to see legal-political dimensions of the topic of the question.
The exam answer gives clear and precise answers to the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).The exam answer:
- answers the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
- demonstrates good knowledge and overview of the topic of the exam question and learning outcomes of the course.
- distinguishes well between what is essential in relation to what is unessential/irrelevant, and distinguishes well between what is certain and what is doubtful.
- demonstrates to some degree an independent ability to reason critically and independently based on the literature and teaching of the course.
- demonstrates a good ability to see legal-political dimensions of the topic of the question.
- The exam answer gives clear and precise answers to the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).Eksamensbesvarelsen gir klare og presise svar p? sp?rsm?lene som stilles i oppgaven(e).
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- good ability to find and formulate legal issues, including an ability to distinguish between various problems and principal and subsidiary questions.
- good ability to discuss questions in a professionally sound and judicious manner, and utilise available legal materials and facts in accordance with professional methodological principles.
- good ability to dimension the answer sensibly.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- good command of language, exposition skills and level of accuracy
|
|
D: Satisfactory
E: Sufficient
|
D: A satisfactory performance, but with significant shortcomings. The candidate demonstrates a limited degree of judgment and independent thinking.
E: A performance that meets the minimum criteria, but no more. The candidate demonstrates a very limited degree of judgment and independent thinking.
|
The exam answer:
- gives inadequate/vague answers to the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
- demonstrates moderate/some knowledge and overview of the topic of the exam question and learning outcomes of the course.
- demonstrates moderate/little ability to distinguish between what is essential in relation to what is unessential/irrelevant.
- demonstrates moderate/little ability to reason critically and independently based on the literature and teaching of the course.
- demonstrates moderate/little ability to see legal-political dimensions of the topic of the question.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- moderate/little ability to find and formulate legal issues, including an ability to distinguish between various problems.
- moderate/little ability to discuss questions in a professionally sound and judicious manner, and utilise available legal materials and facts in accordance with professional methodological principles.
- moderate/little ability to dimension the answer sensibly.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- satisfactory/relatively poor command of language, exposition skills and level of accuracy
|
| F: Fail |
F: A performance that does not meet the minimum academic criteria. The candidate demonstrates an absence of both judgment and independent thinking. |
The exam answer:
- does not answer the questions posed in the examination question paper(s).
- lacks knowledge and overview of the topic of the exam question and learning outcomes of the course.
- lacks the ability to distinguish between what is essential in relation to what is unessential/irrelevant.
- lacks the ability to reason critically and independently based on the literature and teaching of the course.
- lacks the ability to see legal-political dimensions of the topic of the question.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- an inability to find and formulate legal issues, including an ability to distinguish between various problems.
- an inability to discuss questions in a professionally sound and judicious manner, and utilise available legal materials and facts in accordance with professional methodological principles.
- an inability to dimension the answer sensibly.
|
The exam answer demonstrates:
- poor command of language, exposition skills and level of accuracy
|
Published Nov. 14, 2023 5:34 PM
- Last modified Nov. 14, 2023 5:36 PM