DOCSLIB.ORG

International Court of Justice Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
International Court of Justice Guide 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. Uganda) 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 Kinshasa, 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 Second Congo War. It was signed by not only the DRC and Uganda, but it was also signed by Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. 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 Luanda 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Interim Chairperson of the Commission of the African Union on the Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Drc)
    AFRICAN UNION UNION AFRICAINE UNIÃO AFRICANA P. O. Box 3243, Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA Tel.: (251-1) 513822 Fax: (251-1) 519321 Email: [email protected] EIGHTY SIXTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE CENTRAL ORGAN OF THE MECHANISM FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION 29 October 2002 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Central Organ/MEC/AMB/2 (LXXXVI) REPORT OF THE INTERIM CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION OF THE AFRICAN UNION ON THE SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (DRC) Central Organ/MEC/AMB/2 (LXXXVI) Page 1 REPORT OF THE INTERIM CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION OF THE AFRICAN UNION ON THE SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (DRC) I. INTRODUCTION 1. At the 76th Ordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers held in Durban, South Africa, from 4 to 6 July 2002, I reported on the development of the Peace Process in the DRC and on the efforts made by the OAU, the UN and the International Community to implement the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. In Decision CM/Dec. 663 (LXXVI) Council had, among others, urged the Parties to the Peace Process to fulfill their obligations issuing from the Lusaka Agreement, expressed its concern about the delay in the process of the withdrawal of foreign troops, encouraged the signatories to the Lusaka Agreement to continue their contacts in order to establish the conditions conducive to its implementation, requested the United Nations to strengthen the capacity and expand the mandate of MONUC to enable it carry out successfully the tasks assigned to it in Phase III of its deployment and appealed to the International Community to continue to support the Peace Process in the DRC.
    [Show full text]
  • S/2002/1005 Security Council
    United Nations S/2002/1005 Security Council Distr.: General 10 September 2002 Original: English Special report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo I. Introduction 3. Other developments since the issuance of my eleventh report on MONUC (S/2002/621) will be 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to the reflected in a further report, which will be submitted to statement of the President of the Security Council of 15 the Security Council in early October. August (S/PRST/2002/24), in which the Council requested me to put forward recommendations on how II. Provisions of the Agreements and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and, action taken to date through the Mission’s coordination, all relevant United Nations agencies can assist the parties in the fulfilment A. Pretoria Agreement of their responsibilities to implement the Peace Agreement between the Governments of the 4. In Pretoria on 30 July 2002, the Heads of State of Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda Rwanda on the Withdrawal of the Rwandan Troops signed the Peace Agreement on the withdrawal of from the Territory of the Democratic Republic of the Rwandan troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Dismantling of the ex-FAR and Congo and the dismantling of the former Rwandan Interahamwe Forces in the Democratic Republic of the Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe forces in the Congo (S/2002/914, annex), signed in Pretoria on Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    [Show full text]
  • From Resource War to ‘Violent Peace’ Transition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from Resource War to ‘Violent Peace’
    paper 50 From Resource War to ‘Violent Peace’ Transition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) From Resource War to ‘Violent Peace’ Transition in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) by Björn Aust and Willem Jaspers Published by ©BICC, Bonn 2006 Bonn International Center for Conversion Director: Peter J. Croll An der Elisabethkirche 25 D-53113 Bonn Germany Phone: +49-228-911960 Fax: +49-228-241215 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bicc.de Cover Photo: Willem Jaspers From Resource War to ‘Violent Peace’ Table of contents Summary 4 List of Acronyms 6 Introduction 8 War and war economy in the DRC (1998–2002) 10 Post-war economy and transition in the DRC 12 Aim and structure of the paper 14 1. The Congolese peace process 16 1.1 Power shifts and developments leading to the peace agreement 17 Prologue: Africa’s ‘First World War’ and its war economy 18 Power shifts and the spoils of (formal) peace 24 1.2 Political transition: Structural challenges and spoiler problems 29 Humanitarian Situation and International Assistance 30 ‘Spoiler problems’ and political stalemate in the TNG 34 Systemic Corruption and its Impact on Transition 40 1.3 ‘Violent peace’ and security-related liabilities to transition 56 MONUC and its contribution to peace in the DRC 57 Security-related developments in different parts of the DRC since 2002 60 1.4 Fragility of security sector reform 70 Power struggles between institutions and parallel command structures 76 2. A Tale of two cities: Goma and Bukavu as case studies of the transition in North and South Kivu
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Descriptive Analysis of the Role of Track I and Track Ii Diplomatic Interventions: the Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo (1998-2002)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Stellenbosch University SUNScholar Repository i A CRITICAL DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF TRACK I AND TRACK II DIPLOMATIC INTERVENTIONS: THE CASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (1998-2002) Vanessa Roque de Carvalho Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in International Studies at Stellenbosch University. Supervisor: Mr. G. Swart March 2010 i ii DECLARATION By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the owner of the copyright thereof (unless to the extent explicitly otherwise stated) and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Date: 8 March 2010 Copyright © 2009 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved ii iii ABSTRACT The climate of the Great Lakes Region fostered desperate sources of insecurity which fed each other in a conflict-system which was also largely fuelled by the surrounding war economy. Consequently, the focus of this study was narrowed to providing only a descriptive analysis of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s peace processes of 1998-2002. Subsequently, the surrounding climate served to aggravate the DRC’s ethnic cleavages and the conflict grew so complex that the issues could no longer be clearly divided. The motivation for conducting a study of this nature was that amidst the twenty-three failed attempts for peace, the conflict persisted with no signs of abating, which suggests that a historical and discourse analysis of the peace processes is justified.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Support to the Democratic Republic of Congo
    PREMIER MINISTRE 2007 EU support to the Democratic Republic of Congo Hans Hoebeke, Stéphanie Carette and Koen Vlassenroot (IRRI-KIIB, Brussels) > EU SUPPORT TO THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO Hans Hoebeke, Stéphanie Carette and Koen Vlassenroot (IRRI-KIIB, Brussels) EU Support To The Democratic Republic Of Congo ABSTRACT Since 2001, the EU has become increasingly involved in the DRC. This is in line with the efforts of a number of its member states. The development of the EU as an actor in world affairs has been mirrored by the widening scope of EU interventions. From the ‘classic’ development cooperation and humanitarian relief to innovative ESDP operations such as Artemis in the summer of 2003 and a dedicated security sector reform (SSR) mission, EUSEC. The general framework for this evolution is the support to the Transition and the electoral process. Together with its member states, the EU is by far the largest donor in this process and is also assuming an important role in the measures to secure the electoral process. By its actions, the EU has supported the UN involvement in the DRC and as such its intervention can be considered an underpinning of the concept of ‘effective multilateralism. Whereas there is a large degree of convergence in strategic vision and objectives between the first and the second pillar in Brussels about the DRC, the financial means available define the difference of approach in the actions carry out. On the field, the reality urges the Council and the Commission to work hand in hand. Contrary to the headquarter in Brussels, where there is a formal coordination structure between the pillars, on the field, no coordination structure exists and an informal cooperation has taken place.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Redacted Annex A
    ICC-01/04-02/06-633-AnxA-Red 09-06-2015 1/7 NM T Public Redacted Annex A ICC-01/04-02/06-633-AnxA-Red 09-06-2015 2/7 NM T . CONTEXTUAL ELEMENTS AGREED FACTS RELATING TO CONTEXT 1. Ituri is a district within the Province Orientale of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“DRC”). Bunia is its capital. 2. Ituri borders Uganda to the East, and the Republic of South Sudan to the North. 3. Ituri is divided into territories, which are sub-divided into collectivités, themselves divided into groupements. 4. Banyali-Kilo and Walendu-Djatsi are collectivités in Djugu territory, Ituri district. 5. Kilo is located in Banyali-Kilo collectivité. 6. Mongbwalu is located in Banyali-Kilo collectivité. 7. Nzebi is located in Banyali-Kilo collectivité. 8. Pluto is located in Banyali-Kilo collectivité. 9. Sayo is located in Banyali-Kilo collectivité. 10. Avetso is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 11. Bambu is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 12. Buli is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 13. Camp P.M. is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 14. Dhepka is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 15. Djuba is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 16. Dyalo is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 17. Gogo is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 18. Gola is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 19. Goy is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 20. Gutsi is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. 21. Jitchu is located in Walendu-Djatsi collectivité. ICC-01/04-02/06-633-AnxA-Red 09-06-2015 3/7 NM T AGREED FACTS RELATING TO CONTEXT 22.
    [Show full text]
  • Perpetuation of Instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: When the Kivus Sneeze, Kinshasa Catches a Cold
    Perpetuation of instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: When the Kivus sneeze, Kinshasa catches a cold By Joyce Muraya and John Ahere 22 YEARS OF CONTRIBUTING TO PEACE ISSUE 1, 2014 Perpetuation of instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: When the Kivus sneeze, Kinshasa catches a cold By Joyce Muraya and John Ahere Occasional Paper Series: Issue 1, 2014 About ACCORD The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD) is a non-governmental organisation working throughout Africa to bring creative solutions to the challenges posed by conflict on the continent. ACCORD’s primary aim is to influence political developments by bringing conflict resolution, dialogue and institutional development to the forefront as alternatives to armed violence and protracted conflict. Acknowledgements The authors extend their appreciation to all colleagues who supported the development and finalisation of this paper, including Daniel Forti, Charles Nyuykonge and Sabrina Ensenbach for their invaluable contributions to the paper’s structure and content and to Petronella Mugoni for her assistance in formatting the paper. The authors also appreciate the cooperation of colleagues in ACCORD’s Peacebuilding and Peacemaking units, for affording them the time and space to conduct the research necessary for writing this publication. About the authors Joyce Muraya holds a Master of Arts degree in International Relations from the United States International University in Nairobi, Kenya. Muraya served in Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a year and a half and participated in a nine-month internship programme in the Peacebuilding Unit at ACCORD. She has published on gender and women’s issues, with a focus on women’s reproductive rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Acts Adopted Pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union
    9.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 115/87 (Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union) COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2003/319/CFSP of 8 May 2003 concerning European Union support for the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and repealing Common Posi- tion 2002/203/CFSP THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION: Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in parti- cular Article 15 thereof, Article 1 Whereas: The objective of this Common Position is to support the imple- (1) The European Union considers that lasting peace in the mentation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and of the DRC can be achieved through a negotiated peace fair to various peace agreements, both internal and international, all parties, respect for the territorial integrity and achieved in 2002 and 6 March 2003, and the relevant United national sovereignty of the DRC and respect for demo- Nations Security Council Resolutions, and the overall peace cratic principles and human rights in all States of the process under way in the DRC. region, as well as for the principles of good neighbourli- ness and non-interference in domestic affairs, while taking account of the security interests of the DRC and its neighbouring countries. Article 2 (2) The Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed on 10 July 1999 by the DRC, Angola, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, The European Union will support action taken by the United Zimbabwe, and later by the ‘Mouvement pour la Libera- Nations and the African Union in support of the implementa- tion du Congo’ and the ‘Rassemblement Congolais pour tion of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, the Pretoria Agreement la Democratie’.
    [Show full text]
  • MA-Thesis in International Affairs Conflict in the Democratic Republic
    MA-thesis in International Affairs Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo A study of “new wars” Erna Sif Bjarnadóttir October 2017 Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo A study of “new wars” Erna Sif Bjarnadóttir MA thesis in International Affairs Advisor: Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir Faculty of Political Science School of Social Science University of Iceland September 2017 Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: A study of “new wars” This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in International Affairs at the University of Iceland. The thesis cannot be reproduced without the author’s consent. © Erna Sif Bjarnadóttir 2017 291089-2599 Reykjavík, Iceland 2017 Abstract The Congo Wars from 1996-2003 are known as the deadliest wars since World War II. Several attempts have been made to analyse the causes of the two Congo Wars with different theoretical aspects, however, few attempts have been made to explain and analyse the nature of the wars in the Congo from 1996-2003. The aim of this research was to test Mary Kaldor’s theory of “new and old wars” on the case of the Congo Wars 1996-2003. The central argument of Kaldor’s theory is that during the last decade of the twentieth century, organised violence and warfare changed dramatically vis-à-vis actors, aims, economy, and victims. In this thesis, I conduct a single case study analysis, and I find that in accordance with Kaldor’s theory, we do see in the case of the Congo Wars a new set of actors, new aims, new war economy, and new systematically targeted victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Rejoinder Submitted by the Republic of Uganda
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO V. UGANDA REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA VOLUME V ANNEXES 6 DECEMBER 2002 VOLUME V ANNEXES - INDEX OF ANNEXES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER VOLUME V 14 Dec. 2001 United Nations Security Council, Record of Meeting Annex 73: Regarding the Situation Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, S/PV.4437 and S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1), 14 December 2001 2002 USAID: Congo FY 2002 Congressional Budget Annex 74: Justification, 2002 1 Feb. 2002 Continued Deteriorating Security Situation in Eastern Annex 75: Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex to the Letter dated 1 February 2002 from the Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United Nations), S/2002/141, 1 February 2002 14Feb. 2002 Letter dated 5 February 2002 Regardîng Increased Annex 76: Deteriorating Security Situation in Northeastem Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex to the Letter dated 13 February 2002 from the Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations), S/2002/170, 14 February 2002 4Mar. 2002 U.S. Department of State, 2001 Country Report on Annex 77: Human Rîghts Practices: Democratic Republic of the Congo, 4 March 2002 (excerpts) 22Mar. 2002 Testimony of Ms. Adele (Lotsove) Mugisa before the Annex 78: Porter Commission, 22 March 2002 (excerpts) 27Mar. 2002 Letter dated 26 March 2002 from Permanent Annex 79: Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2002/314, 27 March2002 25 April 2002 "DRC: Focus on· the Results of the Inter-Congolese Annex 80: Dialogue," U.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Compellence in Peace Operations: United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)*
    Compellence in Peace Operations: United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)* OHNISHI Ken** Abstract Contemporary peace operations are activities that could involve the proactive use of force to restore security and protect civilians in areas where peacekeepers are deployed. However, these peacekeepers are not necessarily on course to accomplish their missions. Thus, this paper examines under what conditions the proactive use of force in peace operations tend to succeed by analyzing the case of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) from the perspective of compellence. MONUC can be deemed as a case of successful compellence as it succeeded in inducing a large portion of armed groups in Ituri to accept disarmament by repeatedly carrying out proactive military operations from 2003 through 2007. In order to find out the reasons behind the success, this paper considers whether factors related to the success of compellence discussed in previous studies have been satisfied in the case of Ituri, especially focusing on the three pertaining to the fundamental constituent elements of compellence. Introduction Unlike traditional peacekeeping operations that follow the principle of non-use of force except for self-defense, contemporary peace operations, deployed to where a civil war is going on, are activities that may involve the proactive use of force for the purpose of restoring security and protecting civilians. However, such proactive use of force does not always go smoothly. Even in missions which are authorized to use force proactively beyond self-defense, peace operations are faced with a variety of problems, including the inability to restore the security of their operational areas or to prevent a massacre of civilians, and peacekeepers themselves suffering casualties from attacks against them.
    [Show full text]
  • Export Agreement Coding (PDF)
    Peace Agreement Access Tool PA-X www.peaceagreements.org Country/entity Democratic Republic of Congo Uganda Region Africa (excl MENA) Agreement name Communiqué conjoint du sommet consultatif entre les chefs d’Etat S.E. Joseph Kabila de la RDC et S.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni de l’Ouganda Date 10/02/2003 Agreement status Multiparty signed/agreed Interim arrangement No Agreement/conflict level Interstate/intrastate conflict(s) ( Congo Civil Wars (1996 - ) ) Stage Implementation/renegotiation (Addresses new or outstanding issues) Conflict nature Government Peace process 28: DRC: Second Congo war process Parties [unsigned] Their Excellencies Joseph KABILA of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Yoweri K. MUSEVENI of the Republic of Uganda Third parties - The Government of the Republic of Angola was represented by Joāo MIRRANDA, Minister of Foreign Affairs; - ... thanked His Excellency Benjamin W. MKAPA, the government and the people of Tanzania for their warm welcome and hospitality. Description This document seems to follow a re-escalation of violence in ITURI region a few months after the Luanda agreement. The presidents of DRC and Uganda met to evaluate the application of the Luanda Agreement of 06/09/2002. It notes the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in ITURI north east DRC. The heads of states reaffirm their commitment to apply the Luanda Agreement. They agreed to establish an Ituri Peace Commission and look at the political aspirations of the actors in ITURI. Agreement document CD_UG_030210_Communique Conjoint du Sommet Consultatif Entre les Chefs d'Etats S E Joseph Kabila de la RDC et S E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni _tr.pdf [] Agreement document CD_UG_030210_Communiqué conjoint du sommet consultatif entre les chefs d’Etat S.E.
    [Show full text]