International Court of Justice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Court of Justice Berkeley model united nations Welcome Letter Hello delegates! My name is Amanda Ostrom, and I will be your Head Chair for the Interna- tional Court of Justice (ICJ) committee this year. I am a Sophomore studying Political Science, with a concentration in International Relations. After graduation, I plan to attend law school. In my spare time, I love getting coffee with my friends, watching baseball (I’m a ride or die San Francisco Giants fan), spending time with my two Labrador Retrievers, Olive and Bailey, and traveling. I have been involved with Model United Nations for four years; two years as a delegate in high school and two years as a member of Berkeley Model United Nations. I love the possibilities and intellectual debate that MUN creates, and I am looking forward to providing an exciting and immersive atmosphere at conference this year! Annie Ren will be serving as one of your Vice Chairs for ICJ in the upcoming BMUN LXVIII. She is currently a Sophomore, studying Applied Mathematics and Economics at Cal, and this will be her second year in Berkeley Model UN. Her hobbies include playing volleyball and soccer, making repeated trips to Thailand, smothering her cat with unrequited love, and photographing her adven- tures. She is excited to meet all of you and witness the amazing things you are all capable of. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions! Ashwin Srikanth will be serving as your vice chair for the ICJ. He is currently a Junior at the University of California Berkeley studying Molecular and Cellular Biology and Public Health. Though his major may have little to do with international law, he has always been fascinated with law as a feld that is both precise and extremely far-reaching and he knew that the ICJ was the committee for him when he participated as a delegate. Outside of MUN, he sings bass in chamber choir, is an avid fan of basketball and football, and loves watching TV shows like Game of Thrones and Brooklyn 99. He is incredibly excited to be your vice chair this year and cannot wait to meet you! Peter Liu is a freshman studying data science at UC Berkeley. He has been involved with MUN for three years. He loves basketball, soccer, Game of Thrones and Ed Sheeran. He is very excited to meet you all in ICJ! “The crimes have never been atoned for nor have they been adequately addressed by the judiciary” -Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, 2012 berkeley model united nations 1 For sixty years after the end of World War II, Italian citizens who were affected by the confict sought reparations for the actions of the Nazi regime. The Italian court system permitted these citi- zens to bring lawsuits against the state of Germany, violating the unspoken understanding within the international community of jurisdictional immunity, which grants immunity to foreign countries within national courts of law. By allowing the German government to be charged and convicted for the actions of the Third Reich, Italy challenged the widespread acceptance of jurisdictional immunity and sparked a debate within the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding its legal foundation. This case is full of twists, from the Italian government seizing German-owned property on Lake Como, to the Greek government inserting itself in the case partway through the trial. The ICJ will replicate these events, while debating the nuances of treaties and dealing with the antics of European states, all while recognizing the fragile state of modern European politics. Ultimately, you will answer two questions pertaining to the issue of jurisdictional immunity: Should the average citizen be able to bring lawsuits against an entire nation? And should international law refect the age-old adage of “letting go of the past?” This case raises several broad questions, and accordingly, there are many avenues for debate within the committee. If Germany claims jurisdictional immunity, does that limit the Italian and Greek survivors’ right to justice? Furthermore, what does that mean for future victims of human rights abus- es? Conversely, if Italy allows its citizens to bring charges against Germany for government actions, what prevents individual citizens from suing foreign countries for every action they take? What would this mean for international relations long-term? This topic synopsis is not an exhaustive summary; it is up to you to formulate your own ver- dicts and research the nuances of the case. I have included what I believe are the most critical facts of the case and the strongest arguments in favor of both sides to assist you in your research. How- ever, I encourage you to independently study the various theories surrounding this case; there are many different opinions about the ruling in this case. The more you research your stance outside of the foundational information that the Topic Synopsis provides, the more passionate and confdent you will be about your verdict and in committee. I look forward to hearing from you throughout the next year through blog posts, emails, and more; the Dais is eagerly looking forward to BMUN LXVIII! berkeley model united nations 2 See you at BMUN 68! Amanda Ostrom Head Chair, Internation Court of Justice Topic A: Germany v. Italy (Greece Intervening): Jurisdictional Immunities of the State GLOSSARY OF TERMS Jurisdictional Immunity: “one sovereign state cannot be sued before the courts of another sovereign state without its con- sent. Put in another way, a sovereign state is exempt from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts” (Yang). • Jurisdictional immunity only applies to the actions of States, so individuals can still be held accountable for their actions in foreign courts of law. This allows States to prosecute for- eign nationals for crimes committed abroad. Acta Jure imperii: public acts of a government (Bianchi). Acta Jure gestionis: private, commercial acts of a government (Bianchi). • The distinction between the two above terms is important because actions considered acta jure imperii qualify for jurisdictional immunity, whereas actions which are acta jure gestionis do not. If a government is acting in an offcial capacity (for example, diplomat- ic relations) those actions are immune, whereas commercial activities (such as those by a state-owned enterprise) are not. berkeley model united nations 3 Universal Jurisdiction: the ability of a State to prosecute, regardless of the location of commission of the crime and the na- tionality of the defendant, based on violations of international law. Jus Cogens: “those rules which derive from principles that the legal conscience of mankind deem[s] absolutely essential to coexistence in the international community” (Parker); the spirit of the law; the ideals of basic human rights which most laws are founded upon. Measures of Constraint: enforcement of a legal judgement, such as seizing property or money from a defendant. Exequatur: a legal document issued by an authority that allows for a third party to exercise legal authority/en- force rights within the jurisdiction of the authority. Customary international law: Shared legal practices of States which, over time, becomes binding international law through repeti- tion and adoption (Parker). • Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ allows the Court to consider customary international law when formulating its verdicts. Accordingly, the Court can consider jus cogens principles, which are not codifed laws but rather human rights ideals, when deciding a case. Territorial Tort Exception: The idea that jurisdictional immunity does not apply to actions committed by the Respondent within the Applicant’s territory • The territorial tort exception is a developing theory of law, supported by Article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. While some legal scholars argue this exception applies in Germany v. Italy, most believe that the territorial tort exception berkeley model united nations 4 only applies to insurable accidents, such as traffc collisions. BACKGROUND ON THE ICJ History of the ICJ Following World War I, the need for an international authority to settle disputes and promote diplomacy was overwhelmingly apparent. World War I had sprung from long-standing tensions, caused countless deaths and injuries, and shaken the previous distribution of world power. From the view of many international leaders, particularly President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, a global organization was imperative to preventing another destructive war. The League of Nations was formed for this purpose in 1920; Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations estab- lished the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), a predecessor to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (“History”). The PCIJ was responsible for arbitrating international disputes and giving advisory opinions, which are the same responsibilities the ICJ carries out today. Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: “The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.” (“The Covenant”) The PCIJ held its inaugural sitting on February 15th, 1922, becoming the frst permanent international tribunal to have widely accepted jurisdiction. Throughout its existence, the PCIJ han- dled 29 contentious cases and issued 27 advisory opinions (“Permanent”). The League of Nations became less authoritative in the 1930s due to the rise of tensions in Europe and the lack of support from powerful nations such as the United States. Despite President Woodrow Wilson’s belief in the League of Nations, the United States Congress refused to authorize the nation’s participation in the League of Nations due to its international and power-sharing nature, instead preferring the United berkeley model united nations 5 States return to its isolationist policies.