Oregon Model United Nations 2021

“Model United Nations – Oregon’s oldest youth organization – offers high school students a chance to partake in a simulation of the UN, exploring contemporary world issues related to security, economics, human rights, health and the environment.”

International Court of Justice Guide

Table of Contents 1. Rules of Procedure for ICJ 2. Agenda Topics 3. Background Research 4. Member States in Committee 5. Committee Location

International Court of Justice: Rules of Procedure

*Rules Follow A Chronological Order For every case which the ICJ hears: 1. Let there be representation from both the Applicant and Respondent nations. 2. The Applicant gives an opening argument. (During this time, refrain from questions by the Justices. Clarification should be kept to a minimum and should be done after the speeches. The opening and response should not exceed 15 minutes each). 3. The Respondent responds. 4. The Applicant gives a rebuttal 5. The Respondent gives a closing argument. (The rebuttal and closing should not exceed 10 minutes each). 6. Justices then begin a questioning period. They may question amongst themselves (so comment upon a comment) and question the Advocate and Defendant. 7. The ICJ must first establish jurisdiction in the case by a simple majority before engaging in substantive debate. If jurisdiction is denied, the ICJ may vote on whether or not to draft an advisory opinion on the issue.2 a. If jurisdiction is denied, an advisory opinion represents the majority opinion of the court, but does not actually make a ruling. b. The drafting of such an advisory opinion follows the same format as the debate and drafting of a formal Court opinion/ruling that would ensue with jurisdiction, but simply doesn’t carry the classification of an actual court ruling, and must include a clear statement of this fact. 8. After jurisdiction is established, a questioning period begins in which Justices may ask questions of the Applicant and the Respondent, give speeches, and cite treaties which are relevant to the case. 9. Rules of substantive debate are identical to those of other committees and assemblies. 10. The Applicant and Respondent may not participate in substantive debate and may not provide new information. They are allowed to clarify, but are not allowed to bring new material to the table. The Justices, however, can bring forth whatever information they choose. 1 In case either or both the Applicant and Respondent nations are not present in the ICJ, one of the Justices may act as an Advocate for either the Applicant or Respondent nation. 2 An advisory opinion represents the majority opinion of the Court when the Court has no jurisdiction in the case. 11. To end substantive debate, a Justice must move to begin an opinion period. This must be seconded by another nation and approved by a majority vote. 12. During the opinion period, the Justices draft opinions to present to the Court (for the sake of efficiency this can be done in like-minded groups). 13. After this opinion period, the Justices present their opinions to the Court. 14. There exists a limit of five comments or questions on each presented opinion, unless determined inappropriate by a majority vote. 15. After every opinion has been heard, Justices may enter into further substantive debate. 16. To end substantive debate, a Justice must move to a vote on each opinion. This movement to vote must be seconded and approved by a simple majority. 17. Rounds of substantive debate and voting continue until the Court reaches a unanimous decision. Periods of debate, amendment, and questioning may ensue to ensure a unanimous opinion is reached. Merging of opinions and other such amendments are all permitted. 18. The prevailing opinion of the Court must be approved, in the form of a final opinion statement, by a unanimous vote.

Additional Information:

1. In the final opinion paper- like the actual ICJ- all Justices must be in consensus. 2. Justices are required to uphold international law above all else. However, when such an action or opinion would not contradict the law, the opinion and position of one’s country can be considered. 3. Caucus procedures can be motioned by a country at any time during substantive debate periods, and have to be seconded by another. The caucus takes place as free debate between the Justices for clarification and acts as an additional time for research and for drafting/revising of opinions 4. Provided is an example of an Advisory Opinion under a case of non-jurisdiction. 5. The final verdict is presented to the General Assembly, but the opinion, once achieving full consensus, is final. 6. The International Crew of Justice wishes you the best of luck.

Federal Republic of Somalia v. Republic of Kenya In a unanimous decision, the International Court of Justice has ruled in the case of Federal Republic of Somalia v. Republic of Kenya in favor of Somalia. The court ruled that the existing Memorandum Of Understanding between the two nations did not constitute a “separate method of agreement” due to its lack of specificity regarding a pertinent solution. Pursuant to Kenya’s admission of compulsory jurisdiction, the ICJ does have jurisdiction in this case. This Court concludes that according to article 15 of the Law of the Sea, which both parties are signatories to, an equidistant line shall be drawn and followed by both countries. Therefore, resolving the suite. In addition, both countries’ current claims are in violation of article 76 section 1 of the Law of the Sea and shall not be followed. For any dispute extending more than 200 nautical miles article 76 section 4 and 5 shall apply to the equidistance line drawn.

Signed, The International Crew of Justice

Agenda Topics & Background Information

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar)

On November 11, 2019, The Gambia requested the ICJ to do more to protect the rights of the Rohingya from irreparable harm. The Rohingya are an ethnic and religious minority that predominantly live in the Rakhine State of Myanmar. The Gambia accuses the Myanmar government of adopting and condoning practices against the Rohingy that are genocidal in nature and violate the Genocide Convention, and thus, accuses Myanmar of committing genocide. These practices include mass murder, torture, rape, and denying food, water and shelter to the Rohingya. Myanmar denies accusations that it has violated the Genocide Convention, which includes the obligation to prevent genocide from occurring. The ICJ must determine who is at fault here, and what role they have in protecting the Rohingya. Background Information

● “The Court begins by recalling that, on 11 November 2019, The Gambia filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Myanmar concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

1 Genocide of 9 December 1948 (hereinafter the “Genocide Convention ”​ or the ​ “Convention”). The Application contained a Request for the indication of provisional measures, submitted pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court with a view to preserving the rights The Gambia claims under the Convention, pending the Court’s final decision in the case.

1 ● ​ Article IX of the Genocide Convention reads:

“Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”” ● Helpful Links ○ Summary of the Order of 23 January 2020 of The Gambia v. Myanmar from the ICJ: https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/178/178-20191111-APP-01-00-EN.pdf ○ Questions and Answers on Gambia’s Genocide Case Against Myanmar before the International Court of Justice ○ What Does the ICJ Decision on The Gambia v. Myanmar mean?: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/2/what-does-icj-decision-gambia-v- myanmar-mean

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. ) In 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) alleged in a claim to the ICJ that acts of armed aggression were being carried out by Uganda on DRC soil. The DRC claimed that, amongst other things, Uganda had violated international law pertaining to the non-use of force, human rights, respect for sovereignty, and the principles of non-interference in domestic matters. In response, the country of Uganda claimed that the DRC used force against Uganda in violation of the U.N. charter, allowed attacks on the Ugandan embassy and its personnel in , and that the DRC violated the 1999 Lusaka agreement. The ICJ must determine the validity of the DRC’s claims and Uganda’s claims, and then the ICJ must decide whether or not reparations for crimes are needed. Background Information: ● The 1999 Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was an agreement that attempted to end the . It was signed by not only the DRC and Uganda, but it was also signed by , , , , and . The ceasefire called for a halt of all military operations within 24 hours. Article III, Clause XII calls for the removal of “all foreign forces,” but Uganda claims that they were not a part of this. ● The 2002 agreement was a ceasefire in 2002 between the DRC and Uganda. It was made to directly modify the 1999 Lusaka Agreement. It also calls for Uganda to remove their troops.

Helpful Links: ● Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement ● Luanda Agreement ● https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/10/issue/1/case-concerning-armed-activities-territor y-congo-icj-finds-uganda-acted#:~:text=The%20Court%20held%20that%20the,rights%2 0and%20international%20humanitarian%20law. ​ ● Latest developments | Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)

Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

On July 16th of 2018, the nation of Iran filed a lawsuit against the nation of the United States of America over sanctions over sanctions placed upon them by the U.S. After withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA, more commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal), the United States made “unilateral plans” to re-impose nuclear sanctions that were lifted under the JPCOA. Iran believes that these sanctions violate the U.S.’ international agreements, specifically the 1955 Treaty of Amity, and calls for the sanctions to be lifted. On the other hand, the U.S. believes that because the Treaty of Amity was signed before the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the change in government, the treaty holds no weight in dealings with the current government.

Background Information: ● The Treaty of Amity was made after the 1953 Coup in Iran, strengthening the monarchy by overthrowing the democratically-elected leader. The Coup was orchestrated by the U.S. and the U.K., as they feared that Iran would become Communist. ● The treaty was invoked during the Iran Hostage Crisis after the Iranian Revolution. The U.S. invoked Article II, Clause IV, which called for the protection of citizens of both countries, and brought it to the ICJ. The ICJ ruled in favor of the U.S. ● Iran sued the United States in the ICJ after the shooting of the Iran Air Flight 655. The case was settled out of court. The plane was shot down by the USS Vincennes. The ​ ​ Vincennes believed that it was an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and did not receive any response, ​ even after 10 attempts at contacting the plane on both military and civilian frequencies. Iran believes that the plane was negligently shot down, as the plane was emitting IFF squawks in Mode III, the signal used by civilian aircraft, not Mode II, the signal used by Iranian military aircraft. The U.S. paid 61.8 billion USD on an ex gratia basis in ​ ​ compensation. Helpful Links: ● Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights A PROCLAMATION ● How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days : Throughline ● CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran ● Iranian Revolution | Causes, Effects, & Facts ● Iran hostage crisis | Definition, Summary, Causes, Significance, & Facts ● https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655

Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)

In 2014, the Crimean peninsula was occupied by Russian forces. In 2017, a representative of the Ukraine filed a lawsuit to hold Russia liable for terrorism and discrimination against the Ukraine. The International Court of Justice ruled that Russia should refrain from racial descrimination and political and cultural suppression of the Crimean Tatar people, including suspending restrictions on Ukrainain-language education and suspending the ban on the Mejlis, the representative body of the Tatar. The ICJ reminded Russia of these obligations a year later. However, as of 2020, the Ukranian language is still banned in occupied regions of Ukraine (including Crimea), and the Mejlis has not been reinstated. The Ukraine maintains that Russia has systematically discriminated against ethnic Ukranians and the Crimean Tatar. Ukraine also accuses Russia of failing to prevent the financing of terrorism in Ukraine by refusing to investigate “offenders within its territory brought to its attention by Ukraine”. The Russian Federation however, denied committing any of the above violations. Russia raised a number of preliminary objections to the Ukraine’s in 2019, but the ICJ rejected most of these objections. Russia is expected to file a counter-memorial.

Background Information ● In January 2019, Ukraine alleged that Russia had violated two international treaties; one on financing of terrorism, and the other on racial discrimination. ● Ukraine claimed that Russia supplied funds, training, and weapons to illegal armed groups that engaged in acts of terrorism and that Russia caused the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MHI7 in 2014. ● Ukraine has accused Russia of discrimination of ethnic Ukranian communities in Crimea (which was annexed by Russia in 2014), including the Crimean Tatar. ● In September, Russia raised five preliminary objections, questioning the Court’s Jurisdiction to entertain Ukraine’s claims. ● In the latest development, the ICJ found that the Court can entertain Ukraine’s allegations regarding the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. ● The ICJ also found that the court could entertain Ukraine’s claims concerning the violation of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

● Useful Links ○ Latest developments | Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) | International ○ [Clean] Judgment