Topic Area A

8/3/2019 Topic Area A

1/9

Introduction

Delegates, I Syed Irbazul Hasan, Chief Justice of the International Court, at Model United Nations Islamabad

City School, MUNiC welcome you on behalf of the Host team.

To avoid losing your interest I would like to immediately proceed to the procedural rules which have been

carefully designed to make this committee as unique and distinguishable as possible.

There are some steps I would advice you to follow:

1. Read the rules carefully, the Procedure of Debating will be the same as mentioned by the Secretary Gener

only some basic amendments have been made in the Statute (rules on which ICJ operate) to make it easier

for you to follow

2. Instead of topic Areas, there are Cases submitted to the Chief Justice along with Memorials, a sample

format accordingly will be posted. There will be two Cases along with Memorials (A written statement of

facts or a petition presented to a legislative body or an executive) posted by the Dias, but the delegates hav

full right to design up their own Memorial which will act as a Case under consideration of the Chief Justic

to be discussed.

3. As there would be neither resolutions nor any working papers the delegates should familiarize themselves

with all the material presented in the Research Guides.

Best of Luck, Research well, Save the world, Shape the future.

The International Court of Justice

Introduction

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UnitedNations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). It beganwork in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice,which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922. It operates under aStatute largely similar to that of its predecessor, which is an integral part ofthe Charter of the United Nations.Functions of the Court

The Court has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law thelegal disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions onlegal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs andagencies.Composition

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by

the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sittingindependently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of anynationality. Elections are held every three years for one-third of the seats,and retiring judges may be re-elected. The Members of the Court do notrepresent their governments but are independent magistrates.The judges must possess the qualifications required in their respectivecountries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or be jurists ofrecognized competence in international law. The composition of the Courthas also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legalsystems of the world.

When the Court does not include a judge possessing the nationality of a State

party to a case, that State may appoint a person to sit as a judgethe purpose of the case.

A i t d ti t I t ti l L

developments the importance of international law grew relations between states and individuals, and the relatioPublic international law concerns itself only with questionations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In cwith controversies between private persons arising out orelationship to more than one nation


2/9

International Law includes not only the basic, classic concepts of law innational legal system, namely status, property, obligation, and tort, but Italso includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies.As international Law is rooted in acceptance by the nation states, which constitute the system, the

binding force of international law is often being questioned. Starting point for considering the

binding force of international law is the famous decision of the Permanent Court of International

Justice on the 7 September 1927, which concerned a dispute between France and Turkey over acollision between the French steamer, the Lotus, and a Turkish collier. In its judgment, the Courtset out that the binding force of international law arose from the actual or tacit consent of states.

Case For topic A

In the International Court of Justice

Libya )

Applicant )

Versus.

United States of America )


3/9

Respondent )

Memorial of the Libyan Government

Comes Now the Memorial of the Libyan Government and for their Memorial states the

following.

Statement of Law

1. International Law provides each country with the right toindependently excise the rule of law and control within itsown sovereign boundaries without interference from worldcommunity at large. Within the U.N. system, broad statementsin support of democratic governance date back to 1948, when theU.N. adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by

consensus.23 Article 21 of the Declaration states that [t]he will ofthe people shall be the basis of the authority of government, andthat this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuineelections.24

2. In recent years, the Security Council has authorized militaryintervention to restore democracy in Haiti,end the repression ofKurds in Iraq, curb famine in Somalia, stop ethnic cleansing in


4/9


5/9

After spending around 750 million dollars the United States ofAmerica agreed to establish peace for a return of fair share of Oil.Such a demand turned down by its own revolutionist, it seemedamazing due to lack of concern for the compensation of theinfrastructure damaged by the NATO forces.Various questions have been raised by the revolutionist who weretired of the dictators rule and dreamt of a new dawn but as thereality unfolds the darkness of the night still prevails. More storiesuncover and the people of Libya feel like betrayal from the WesternPowers.Below is the Copy of the Letter received by the UN Security Councilby the Crisis Committee, and proposed as evidence the facts restatea matter otherwise.Open Letter to the UN Security Council on the Situation inLibya16 Mar 2011

Excellency,

In light of the grave situation in Libya, we urge SecurityCouncil Members to take immediate effective action aimed atachieving a ceasefire in place and initiating negotiations tosecure a transition to a legitimate and representativegovernment. This action should be backed by the credible


6/9

threat of appropriate military intervention, as a last resort, toprevent mass atrocities.

We welcome the steps taken thus far by the Security Council,including an asset freeze, arms embargo and the threat of

prosecution for war crimes. These were adopted in responseto widespread abuses against civilians and were meant toprevent a humanitarian disaster. But the situation has nowevolved into a full-scale civil war. The most urgent goal nowmust be to end the violence and halt further loss of life, whilepaving the way toward a political transition, objectives thatrequire a different response.

Imposing a no-flight zone, which many have been advocating,would, in and of itself, achieve neither of these. It would notstop the violence or accelerate a peaceful resolution. Nor

would it materially impede the regime from crushingresistance. Government forces appear to be gaining theadvantage mainly on account of their superiority on theground, not air power. In short, a no-flight zone underexisting circumstances would not address the threat of massatrocities it purports to tackle. The debate over this issue isinhibiting the necessary reflection on the best course ofaction.

If the objective is, as it should be, first and foremost to endthe killing, there are only two genuine options. One is an

international military intervention explicitly on the side of therevolt with the avowed goal of ensuring its victory or, at aminimum, preventing its defeat. Given widespread lack ofknowledge of the situation on the ground, it is unclear what itwill take to achieve this. At a minimum, however, this wouldinvolve providing the rebel forces with substantial militaryassistance and taking action against Qaddafis forces. Shouldthose measures not suffice, it could well require directmilitary involvement on the ground. It is incumbent on thosepressing this view to think through its logical implications; itwould be reckless to enter a military confrontation on the

optimistic assumption that it will be ended quickly, only tosee it turn into a bloody, protracted war.

Although there are legitimate arguments for a swift andmassive military intervention on the opposition's behalf, itpresents considerable risks. Besides the obvious downsidesentailed in what could well come to be viewed as anotherWestern military engagement in a Muslim country and the


7/9

Middle East and North Africa region, it could also lead tolarge-scale loss of life as well as precipitate a politicalvacuum in Libya in which various forces engage in apotentially prolonged and violent struggle for supremacybefore anything resembling a state and stable government

are reestablished. Such a situation could lead to widerregional instability and could be exploited by terroristmovements, notably Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, isto engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve animmediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the promptopening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to anew government that the Libyan people will accept aslegitimate. To that end, we urge the Council to delegate aregional contact group composed of officials or respected

personalities drawn from Arab and African countries,including Libyas neighbours, to initiate discussions with theregime and the opposition without delay. Their mandatewould be to secure agreement on:An immediate ceasefire in place, which respects internationalhumanitarian law;Dispatch of a peacekeeping force drawn primarily from thearmed forces of regional states to act as a buffer, operatingunder a Security Council mandate and with the support of theArab League and African Union;Initiation of a dialogue between the regime and opposition

aimed at definitively ending the bloodshed and beginning thenecessary transition to representative, accountable andlegitimate government

To enhance the credibility of the threat to use all necessarymeans including military steps beyond the imposition of ano-flight zone to protect against mass atrocities, memberstates should begin planning for such an eventuality. TheSecurity Council has a responsibility to live up to itscommitments, even and especially if a member state does

not.

Crisis Groups proposal addresses head-on the overwhelmingpriorities of stopping the bloodshed and initiating thenecessary political transition in a way that avoids thedangerous prospect of a political vacuum and is in line withboth the African Unions proposal for African mediation andthe Arab Leagues recognition that Arab countries have a role


8/9

to play. It further backs up the vital and long overduepolitical effort we have called for with the only kind ofmilitary deployment that can help end the violence ratherthan aggravate it. We urge the Security Council to adopt thisproposal and to take immediate steps to put it into effect.

Sincere regards,

Louise ArbourPresident and CEOInternational Crisis Group

The United States and NATO -- with little discussion and less fanfare -- have

effectively abandoned the old U.N. Charter rules that strictly limit international

intervention in local conflicts. They have done so in favor of a vague new system

that is much more tolerant of military intervention but has few hard and fastrules. What rules do exist seem more the product of after-the-fact rationalization

by the West than of deliberation and pre-agreement.

"Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The [U.N.] resolution that passed lays out very

clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France

and Arab states agree that a ceasefire must be implemented immediately. That

means all attacks against civilians must stop," the president said today.

"Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya."

"These terms are not subject to negotiation," Obama said. "If Gadhafi does not

comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences

and the resolution will be enforced through military action."

Through Indirect Statements the United States made it clear that Qadhafi must resignimmediately or they would suffer a fate similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Arguments:

1. United States and Member fulfill the promises made to the Revolutionist leaders.

A fine compensation must be paid and infrastructure development programmes initiated

that would rehabilitate the refugees displaced and re-constructs the nation largely funded

by those who were part of the treaty. Moreover a Substantial Aid must be provided tohelp Libyan economy function and recover from the blows the economy faced during the

crisis era.

2. Obama must be tried by the Court and involvement of U.S in the Crisis be

testified.

3. The Embargos placed on Libya be removed immediately.


9/9

Summary and prayer for Relief:

Although Moammar Qadhafi was an enemy, a dictator a figure disliked by the Libyans

of today, yet he was a Libyan National and his murder was not expected. Later the claimshave been diverted and branded with the revolutionists. The new regime prays that a trial

must be conducted and the plight of Libyans be heard.

Topic Area A

Documents

Transcript of Topic Area A