INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 2011
Dear Delegates! It is an honour and a considerable pleasure to cordially welcome and
guide you in the commission of the International Court of Justice 2011.
This year The International Court of Justice is to be debating on the case from the
year 1995. The subject of our proceeding is: ¡§Was the Republic of France allowed to conduct
nuclear tests on the territory of French Polynesia in the years 1966-1995?¡¨. The case is also
connected with a well-known incident of sinking of the Rainbow Warrior ship in 1985.
We are looking forward to your substantial input in the debates that are to be
conducted on October 2011 and are sincerely hoping for a fruitful collaboration.
Genesis of the incident:
France, as one of the nuclear power possessors country was enhancing its national
prestige by trying to achieve positive nuclear outcomes during the arms race in the 20th
century. Since the 13th February 1960 the French government was conducting nuclear tests
at the Reggane firing ground in the Sahara Desert. After a series of underground nuclear
tests in Africa, the French government announced moving its tests centre to the Pacific
Ocean atoll of French Polynesia which is separated 7000 km From Australian¡¦s and 6000 km
from New Zealand¡¦s coast. In the period between year 1966 and 1972 the French triggered
about 29 explosions, all in the atmosphere. Although Australian government and public
opinion contempt the nuclear test series, Atomic Energy Commission failed to accept 3 notes
from years 1965, 1968 and 1971 which included strong opposition against nuclear testing.
In January 1973 the French government invited the Australian scientist to the French
Pacific Test Centre in order that they could view the situation at the Centre first hand. A visit by
three Australian scientists followed - but nothing sufficient enough was found to alter the
fundamental assumptions upon which the Australian position rested.
As a result, in 1973 an alliance of New Zealand and Australia submitted their
prosecutions against France at General Court in the Hague. The lawsuit filed by the
Australian government was successful but the further demands were postponed. As the
verdict stood, France were required to cease nuclear testing in order to bring its operations
in line with the stated guidelines as the nuclear testing was not completely discontinued but
instead moved underground. Although the settlement between Australia and New Zealand
was achieved in the proceeding, opposition against nuclear tests grew stronger.
In 1985 Greenpeace tried prevent France from bombing Polynesia by evacuating the
citizens in the nearest neighborhood. As the majority of the citizens had already come to the
Australian shores, the French government decided to resolve the ¡§ecologists¡¦ problem¡¨ by
destroying the Rainbow Warrior. During the operation one of Greenpeace photographers
died.
The tests continued until the year 1995.
Now, in 2011 the effects of bombing from the period of 1966 ¡V 1995 is becoming
visible. The settlement of Australia and New Zealand decides to submit their prosecutions
again.
Greenpeace and the sinking of Rainbow Warrior
In 1985 Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique was attempting to execute the next nuclear tests
on the Polynesia. In 1985 New Zealand was occurring in the position of the leader of the anti-nuclear
movement. As the ecological situation of the atoll of Muroroa was deteriorating (according to the
Greenpeace participants), an anti-nuclear campaign emerged. Having the experiences of the people
who lived in the neighborhood of nuclear tests handled out by the American government 25 years
before, the Greenpeace was aware of carcinogenic effect of the nuclear waste. The crew of the
Rainbow Warrior (the main Greenpeace ship) decided to evacuate the native Polynesia people.
On the 9th July 1985 Rainbow Warrior arrived at Auckland in New Zealand. It was the last
port-of-call before sailing to the atoll of Moruroa. Following evening three bombs were fixed on the
trunk of the ship by unknown perpetrators causing the sinking of the ship. During the action one of
Greenpeace activists ¡V photographer Fernando Pereira died not being able to escape from the ship.
After several days four people were arrested. It turned out that they own faked passports.
Interrogation showed that they were agents of the French intelligence.
This case will be the second matter of STETTIMUN 2011 proceeding.
What is the international Court of Justice?
The purpose of the ICJ is to answer legal questions posed by the United Nations. That
said, your role as Judges will be to answer the legality of an issue. You are encouraged to talk
about all the factors surrounding the case at hand (e.g., political, economic, cultural, etc),
but your overall objective is to come to a legal decision on the case.
History of The ICJ:
The ICJ is the judicial organ of the United Nations, and has two main purposes. The
first is to settle disputes between states according to international law, with the second
being to give advisory opinions when asked to by other organs of the United Nations such as
the Security Council or the General Assembly. It is one of the means by which states are
supposed to settle disputes, as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter. The headquarters is
in The Hague, Netherlands.
The court was created in 1945 at the same time as the United Nations. Its
predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was established in 1922
with the League of Nations. That framework was improved upon, thus enabling the
International Court of Justice as it is today to remain functional. The ICJ has dealt with over
75 cases since its creation, and has issued more than 20 Advisory opinions. The make-up of
the court is the following: there are fifteen judges (in our edition there will be presumably
abort 15 judges) that sit on the ICJ for nine-year terms. They are elected by UN member
states, and other countries that are part of the ICJ Statute. To make the transition of judges
smoother, five new judges are elected every 3 years. This ensures that the ICJ does not have
to function with completely new Judges every nine years. In order to be fair, the national
make-up of the Court is varied. Any country is allowed to make a nomination for a Judge,
with the General Assembly and Security Council voting on the candidates.
The most important difference is that the ICJ is not designed to hear cases concerning
individuals. Instead, the ICJ hears cases brought before it by countries that have a dispute.
The types of disputes can range between anything from disagreements over borders, cases
involving diplomatic representation, the use of force, environmental issues or even
economic disputes.
The Basics Of International Law.
In order to participate as a judge in the International Court of Justice, one must have
basic understanding of international law and its cornerstones. More specifically, one needs
to know what the sources of it are, and how to apply it. If you are an experienced Model UN
delegate, you are used to a much clearer and defined way of thinking because you are
following ¡§set¡¨ policies of your country. However, in the realm of international law, you have
to use your own intellect and judgment to interpret the various sources of international law
that come before you in a case, with the ultimate goal of reaching a decision either for the
Applicant or the Respondent.
There are five major sources of international law that Judges in the International
Court of Justice can base their decisions on. They are stipulated in Article 38 of the
International Court of Justice. Article 38 states that:
¡§The court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as
are submitted to it, shall apply:
1. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;
2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
4. Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of
rules of law.¡¨
The order in which the five sources are listed in the Statute suggests that there is a
hierarchy, therefore the first principles may carry more weight with the Judges of the ICJ
than the last ones.
1. Treaties
2. Custom
3. General principles
4. Jurisprudence
5. Scholarly writings
AD 1.Treaty Law
Conventions, declarations, charters, statutes and resolutions are examples of sources
of treaty law. For example, the UN Charter falls under this heading, as does the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Geneva Conventions.
These kinds of agreements and documents are binding on the states that agree to them.
Resolutions from the Security Council often contain more specific language on
specific issues, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, sets out the
ideals for the international community to strive for. It does not however outline how to
specifically attain those ideals. This is where interpretation is critical.
In order to understand treaties profoundly reading the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties may be advisable.
AD 2. Customary International Law
If there is no specific, tangible law that relates to a case in treaty law, or if more
¡§evidence¡¨ is needed, custom is often a useful source of international law. The easiest way
to think about it is that it is not defined, it is not written. Instead, it is based exactly on what
it is called: custom. Customary international law evolves over time as state practice. This
means that even though the ¡§law¡¨ might not be written down, or some states may not be
signed onto a specific treaty, there are still general principles, practices or ideals that are
accepted by the entire international community as right or wrong.
One example of this is the concept of genocide. Some states may not have signed and
ratified the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, but
everyone in the world would agree that genocide never justified. Therefore, even if a state
has not signed a particular treaty, customary international law may still apply.
Customary law is inaccessible to any lay individual. The difficulty arises in trying to
define it. Because it is not written down like treaty law, past decisions or scholarly work, it
can be hard to prove that something exists as part of customary international law. In order
to ¡§prove¡¨ that a custom exists, the following two criteria must be shown:
1. The general or continuous acts of a state or states.
A state should be able to show that it has acted in a certain way repeatedly in similar
situations or that other states have acted in similar ways, thus showing that the principle is
one of custom, since it has been done and accepted by the international community.
2. Opinio juris
Stating that certain ways of acting are compulsory. This is difficult to prove because a
state may not be legally bound to a treaty or other document, but they may still feel bound
to it. It may be proven for instance by giving the example of a president of a certain state
saying they feel bound by the UN Charter, therefore showing the opinion juris of that state.
The intricacies of the customary law here is not important. it should rather be the
case that the spirit of these laws are adhered to as their literary meaning may result in
miscarriages of justice. As one gets familiar with the sources in the case and the evidence
that the two sides give, the only aim is to start looking at certain sources and being able to
classify them.
AD 3. General Principles
However ambiguous this legislation may appear its intentions should be evident from
the spirit of the words. It is this spirit that should be used in the interpretation of these
guidelines rather than the literal meaning of words and phrases. General principles, like
customary international law, are not clearly laid down. Therefore, there is room for a lot of
interpretation when it comes to establishing whether something is a general principle of
international law or not. Rarely do these principles have much effect oh the decisions of a
court, but it is possible that they can fill in a gap. An example of one of these vague
principles is the concept of states acting in good faith, meaning that states are supposed to
act in a manner that does not hurt anyone else. If a state has violated a general principle
such as this, it may play some role in the judges overall decision but typically is not a strong
enough argument to stand alone.
AD 4. Jurisprudence
One has most likely had many chances to hear this term before ¡V it is an integral part
of the American justice system, but not necessarily the international legal world.
Jurisprudence refers to the decisions made by the ICJ in past cases that may relate to a
current one. There has been much debate by experts in the field of law as to whether the
use of precedent is the most effective means of passing judgement on conteprary cases.
Article 59 of the ICJ Statute deals with this issue, stating that, ¡§The decision of the Court has
no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.¡¨ This
means that the decision made about a case between certain states will only affect those
states. From this it can be interpreted as meaning that previous cases will not have an effect
or bearing on the ruling of another case. While this is true and necessary, past decisions can
be helpful in understanding the application of certain kinds of law. It is imperative that you
explore the ICJ website. There is also a list of all cases that the ICJ has heard, as well as what
decisions or rulings it has made. It is strongly recommended to get acquainted with some of
the cases. They will most definitely help you see how the real ICJ operates and what kinds of
arguments states really use. One needs to remember that precedent is not really acceptable
in the court as a basis for a judgment. This is regarded as such, because the states in each
case are acting individually and uniquely, which, therefore, makes each case individual and
unique. Given the aforesaid fact, international law cannot be clearly defined and applied to
each case in the same way.
AD 5. Scholarly Writings
Another term for this source of international law, as cited in the ICJ Statute, is doctrine. This
source is secondary in relation to the weight that the various sources have in deciding a case.
However, the writings of the most highly respected scholars of international law can be useful in
shedding some light on the application of a certain treaty, custom, principle etc. You will find a list of
some reputable scholars and their writings that might be helpful. It is strongly believed that exploring
the aforesaid sources may prove helpful during your debates on the conference. It might also be of a
great importance while understanding the vastness of international law.
Finally, it is paramount that you should be aware of jus cogen, when going about
legal judgement. This intails recognising that on paricular matters of law, international rule
should supercede any decision made by an indivual state, and the concept of "jus cogens"
allow international bodies such as the UN to assume that certain legislative concepts do not
need to be dictated in legislation but are already recognised by all individual states
3.1. International Court of Justice Committee Procedure
¡E Motion to open debate
¡E Advocates are introduced
Prosecution ¡V opening statement
Defense ¡V opening statement
¡E Judges question the advocates
All questions are in round robin form
¡E Witnesses for the prosecution are presented in the following format:
1. Swearing in ¡V witness is introduced and sworn in
2. Initial questioning ¡V prosecuting lawyer is allowed to initial questioning of the witness
3. Cross examination ¡V defense lawyer cross examines the witness
4. Redirect ¡V prosecuting lawyer is allowed to address any new points that have arisen
during the cross examination
5. Judges questioning ¡V judges are allowed the opportunity to question the witness and the
lawyers in round robin form; a justice may pass if he/she does not with to ask a question
6. After each witness is excused, the judges may then caucus to discuss the witness¡¦s
testimony.
7. The deliberations - after the closing statements the judges meet privately to reach a final
verdict on the case, to reach an agreement there has to be a majority of votes regarding the
defendant¡¦s guilt. After the division the parties will be able to state the arguments for and
against their opinion. Within their parties the judges may submit their written opinion with
an explanation. After the opinions have been submitted the chairman of the meeting will
give the verdict and the punishment following the decision of the larger party.
Role of the following in the deliberations:
Judges - their task is to deliver the verdict of the hearings, they must listen closely to all the
testimonies and after the closing statements reach a verdict based on what they have heard
and seen in the courtroom, they must decide whether each of the witness¡¦ testimonies were
true.
Attorneys - the task of the attorneys is to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant, it is
necessary for the lawyers to have a wide range of information concerning the case, they
must work together with the witnesses to prepare the testimonies before the trial. The
lawyers are the ones that will have to find the evidence. The first thing the attorney must do
is give an opening statement.
Witnesses - witnesses play the part of a real person who took a significant part in the case,
the most important thing is for the witness to know the case and the events very well and
his/her part in it. They must work alongside the lawyers to prepare credible testimonies.
During the trial the witnesses must answer questions asked by both parties (prosecution and
defense lawyers). It is up to the witnesses or their lawyers to decide who in the case they
will play. For further information on the characters check the links provided on the last page.
Vocabulary
Opening statement - An introductory statement made by the attorneys for each side at the
start of a trial. The opening statement, although not mandatory, is seldom waived because it
offers a valuable opportunity to provide an overview of the case to the jury and to explain
the anticipated proof that will be presented during the course of the trial.The primary
purpose of an opening statement is to apprise the trier of fact, whether jury or court, of the
issues in question and to summarize the evidence that the party intends to offer during the
trial.
Evidence - Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in
the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be
admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a
particular issue in a lawsuit.
Swearing in - an oath said by a witness before his/her testimony
¡¨I swear
That the evidence I give
Shall be the Truth
The Whole Truth
And nothing but the Truth¡¨
Cross-examination ¡V the opportunity for the attorney (or an unrepresented party) to ask
questions in court of a witness who has testified in a trial on behalf of the opposing party.
Closing statement ¡Vthe concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an
attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often
the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A
closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence
introduced at trial.
Deliberations ¡V is the process in which a jury in a trial in court discusses in private the
findings of the court and decides by vote with which argument to agree of either opposing
side. legal deliberation is a form of communication which emphasizes the use of logic and
reasoning (as opposed to power, coercion or emotion) to make sound decisions. Typically, a
jury must come to a unanimous decision before delivering a verdict; however, there are
exceptions. When a unanimous decision is not reached and the jury feels that one is not
possible, they declare themselves a 'hung jury', a mistrial is declared and the trial will have to
be redone at the discretion of the plaintiff.
Letter rogatory - a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial
assistance.
Useful links:
http://stetimun.lo2.szczecin.pl/ - The official website
http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/The-Boat-and-the-Bomb - Short documental about
Sinking of the Rainbow warrior.
http://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl&tab=wT# - It translates the whole sentences! ļ
http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en ¡V Official ICJ website
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nzfr&case=97&k=cd
Description of the case from year 1995.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nzf&case=59&k=6b Description
of the case from year 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing - Some things about nuclear
weapons.
Any problems? Feel free to mail us!
Micha. Kubisa ¡V miju11@wp.pl
Joanna Robaczewska ¡V joannaa.rdm@gmail.com
Tomasz Bartkowiak - tomasz.bartkowiak94@gmail.com
Jakub Mat.awski ¡V kuba_pol@vp.pl
Klaudia S.owakiewicz ¡V cynamonowapalemka@gmail.com
See You on STETIMUN 2011
Dear Delegates! It is an honour and a considerable pleasure to cordially welcome and
guide you in the commission of the International Court of Justice 2011.
This year The International Court of Justice is to be debating on the case from the
year 1995. The subject of our proceeding is: ¡§Was the Republic of France allowed to conduct
nuclear tests on the territory of French Polynesia in the years 1966-1995?¡¨. The case is also
connected with a well-known incident of sinking of the Rainbow Warrior ship in 1985.
We are looking forward to your substantial input in the debates that are to be
conducted on October 2011 and are sincerely hoping for a fruitful collaboration.
Genesis of the incident:
France, as one of the nuclear power possessors country was enhancing its national
prestige by trying to achieve positive nuclear outcomes during the arms race in the 20th
century. Since the 13th February 1960 the French government was conducting nuclear tests
at the Reggane firing ground in the Sahara Desert. After a series of underground nuclear
tests in Africa, the French government announced moving its tests centre to the Pacific
Ocean atoll of French Polynesia which is separated 7000 km From Australian¡¦s and 6000 km
from New Zealand¡¦s coast. In the period between year 1966 and 1972 the French triggered
about 29 explosions, all in the atmosphere. Although Australian government and public
opinion contempt the nuclear test series, Atomic Energy Commission failed to accept 3 notes
from years 1965, 1968 and 1971 which included strong opposition against nuclear testing.
In January 1973 the French government invited the Australian scientist to the French
Pacific Test Centre in order that they could view the situation at the Centre first hand. A visit by
three Australian scientists followed - but nothing sufficient enough was found to alter the
fundamental assumptions upon which the Australian position rested.
As a result, in 1973 an alliance of New Zealand and Australia submitted their
prosecutions against France at General Court in the Hague. The lawsuit filed by the
Australian government was successful but the further demands were postponed. As the
verdict stood, France were required to cease nuclear testing in order to bring its operations
in line with the stated guidelines as the nuclear testing was not completely discontinued but
instead moved underground. Although the settlement between Australia and New Zealand
was achieved in the proceeding, opposition against nuclear tests grew stronger.
In 1985 Greenpeace tried prevent France from bombing Polynesia by evacuating the
citizens in the nearest neighborhood. As the majority of the citizens had already come to the
Australian shores, the French government decided to resolve the ¡§ecologists¡¦ problem¡¨ by
destroying the Rainbow Warrior. During the operation one of Greenpeace photographers
died.
The tests continued until the year 1995.
Now, in 2011 the effects of bombing from the period of 1966 ¡V 1995 is becoming
visible. The settlement of Australia and New Zealand decides to submit their prosecutions
again.
Greenpeace and the sinking of Rainbow Warrior
In 1985 Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique was attempting to execute the next nuclear tests
on the Polynesia. In 1985 New Zealand was occurring in the position of the leader of the anti-nuclear
movement. As the ecological situation of the atoll of Muroroa was deteriorating (according to the
Greenpeace participants), an anti-nuclear campaign emerged. Having the experiences of the people
who lived in the neighborhood of nuclear tests handled out by the American government 25 years
before, the Greenpeace was aware of carcinogenic effect of the nuclear waste. The crew of the
Rainbow Warrior (the main Greenpeace ship) decided to evacuate the native Polynesia people.
On the 9th July 1985 Rainbow Warrior arrived at Auckland in New Zealand. It was the last
port-of-call before sailing to the atoll of Moruroa. Following evening three bombs were fixed on the
trunk of the ship by unknown perpetrators causing the sinking of the ship. During the action one of
Greenpeace activists ¡V photographer Fernando Pereira died not being able to escape from the ship.
After several days four people were arrested. It turned out that they own faked passports.
Interrogation showed that they were agents of the French intelligence.
This case will be the second matter of STETTIMUN 2011 proceeding.
What is the international Court of Justice?
The purpose of the ICJ is to answer legal questions posed by the United Nations. That
said, your role as Judges will be to answer the legality of an issue. You are encouraged to talk
about all the factors surrounding the case at hand (e.g., political, economic, cultural, etc),
but your overall objective is to come to a legal decision on the case.
History of The ICJ:
The ICJ is the judicial organ of the United Nations, and has two main purposes. The
first is to settle disputes between states according to international law, with the second
being to give advisory opinions when asked to by other organs of the United Nations such as
the Security Council or the General Assembly. It is one of the means by which states are
supposed to settle disputes, as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter. The headquarters is
in The Hague, Netherlands.
The court was created in 1945 at the same time as the United Nations. Its
predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was established in 1922
with the League of Nations. That framework was improved upon, thus enabling the
International Court of Justice as it is today to remain functional. The ICJ has dealt with over
75 cases since its creation, and has issued more than 20 Advisory opinions. The make-up of
the court is the following: there are fifteen judges (in our edition there will be presumably
abort 15 judges) that sit on the ICJ for nine-year terms. They are elected by UN member
states, and other countries that are part of the ICJ Statute. To make the transition of judges
smoother, five new judges are elected every 3 years. This ensures that the ICJ does not have
to function with completely new Judges every nine years. In order to be fair, the national
make-up of the Court is varied. Any country is allowed to make a nomination for a Judge,
with the General Assembly and Security Council voting on the candidates.
The most important difference is that the ICJ is not designed to hear cases concerning
individuals. Instead, the ICJ hears cases brought before it by countries that have a dispute.
The types of disputes can range between anything from disagreements over borders, cases
involving diplomatic representation, the use of force, environmental issues or even
economic disputes.
The Basics Of International Law.
In order to participate as a judge in the International Court of Justice, one must have
basic understanding of international law and its cornerstones. More specifically, one needs
to know what the sources of it are, and how to apply it. If you are an experienced Model UN
delegate, you are used to a much clearer and defined way of thinking because you are
following ¡§set¡¨ policies of your country. However, in the realm of international law, you have
to use your own intellect and judgment to interpret the various sources of international law
that come before you in a case, with the ultimate goal of reaching a decision either for the
Applicant or the Respondent.
There are five major sources of international law that Judges in the International
Court of Justice can base their decisions on. They are stipulated in Article 38 of the
International Court of Justice. Article 38 states that:
¡§The court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as
are submitted to it, shall apply:
1. International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;
2. International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
4. Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most
highly qualified publicists of various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of
rules of law.¡¨
The order in which the five sources are listed in the Statute suggests that there is a
hierarchy, therefore the first principles may carry more weight with the Judges of the ICJ
than the last ones.
1. Treaties
2. Custom
3. General principles
4. Jurisprudence
5. Scholarly writings
AD 1.Treaty Law
Conventions, declarations, charters, statutes and resolutions are examples of sources
of treaty law. For example, the UN Charter falls under this heading, as does the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Geneva Conventions.
These kinds of agreements and documents are binding on the states that agree to them.
Resolutions from the Security Council often contain more specific language on
specific issues, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, sets out the
ideals for the international community to strive for. It does not however outline how to
specifically attain those ideals. This is where interpretation is critical.
In order to understand treaties profoundly reading the Vienna Convention on the Law
of Treaties may be advisable.
AD 2. Customary International Law
If there is no specific, tangible law that relates to a case in treaty law, or if more
¡§evidence¡¨ is needed, custom is often a useful source of international law. The easiest way
to think about it is that it is not defined, it is not written. Instead, it is based exactly on what
it is called: custom. Customary international law evolves over time as state practice. This
means that even though the ¡§law¡¨ might not be written down, or some states may not be
signed onto a specific treaty, there are still general principles, practices or ideals that are
accepted by the entire international community as right or wrong.
One example of this is the concept of genocide. Some states may not have signed and
ratified the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, but
everyone in the world would agree that genocide never justified. Therefore, even if a state
has not signed a particular treaty, customary international law may still apply.
Customary law is inaccessible to any lay individual. The difficulty arises in trying to
define it. Because it is not written down like treaty law, past decisions or scholarly work, it
can be hard to prove that something exists as part of customary international law. In order
to ¡§prove¡¨ that a custom exists, the following two criteria must be shown:
1. The general or continuous acts of a state or states.
A state should be able to show that it has acted in a certain way repeatedly in similar
situations or that other states have acted in similar ways, thus showing that the principle is
one of custom, since it has been done and accepted by the international community.
2. Opinio juris
Stating that certain ways of acting are compulsory. This is difficult to prove because a
state may not be legally bound to a treaty or other document, but they may still feel bound
to it. It may be proven for instance by giving the example of a president of a certain state
saying they feel bound by the UN Charter, therefore showing the opinion juris of that state.
The intricacies of the customary law here is not important. it should rather be the
case that the spirit of these laws are adhered to as their literary meaning may result in
miscarriages of justice. As one gets familiar with the sources in the case and the evidence
that the two sides give, the only aim is to start looking at certain sources and being able to
classify them.
AD 3. General Principles
However ambiguous this legislation may appear its intentions should be evident from
the spirit of the words. It is this spirit that should be used in the interpretation of these
guidelines rather than the literal meaning of words and phrases. General principles, like
customary international law, are not clearly laid down. Therefore, there is room for a lot of
interpretation when it comes to establishing whether something is a general principle of
international law or not. Rarely do these principles have much effect oh the decisions of a
court, but it is possible that they can fill in a gap. An example of one of these vague
principles is the concept of states acting in good faith, meaning that states are supposed to
act in a manner that does not hurt anyone else. If a state has violated a general principle
such as this, it may play some role in the judges overall decision but typically is not a strong
enough argument to stand alone.
AD 4. Jurisprudence
One has most likely had many chances to hear this term before ¡V it is an integral part
of the American justice system, but not necessarily the international legal world.
Jurisprudence refers to the decisions made by the ICJ in past cases that may relate to a
current one. There has been much debate by experts in the field of law as to whether the
use of precedent is the most effective means of passing judgement on conteprary cases.
Article 59 of the ICJ Statute deals with this issue, stating that, ¡§The decision of the Court has
no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.¡¨ This
means that the decision made about a case between certain states will only affect those
states. From this it can be interpreted as meaning that previous cases will not have an effect
or bearing on the ruling of another case. While this is true and necessary, past decisions can
be helpful in understanding the application of certain kinds of law. It is imperative that you
explore the ICJ website. There is also a list of all cases that the ICJ has heard, as well as what
decisions or rulings it has made. It is strongly recommended to get acquainted with some of
the cases. They will most definitely help you see how the real ICJ operates and what kinds of
arguments states really use. One needs to remember that precedent is not really acceptable
in the court as a basis for a judgment. This is regarded as such, because the states in each
case are acting individually and uniquely, which, therefore, makes each case individual and
unique. Given the aforesaid fact, international law cannot be clearly defined and applied to
each case in the same way.
AD 5. Scholarly Writings
Another term for this source of international law, as cited in the ICJ Statute, is doctrine. This
source is secondary in relation to the weight that the various sources have in deciding a case.
However, the writings of the most highly respected scholars of international law can be useful in
shedding some light on the application of a certain treaty, custom, principle etc. You will find a list of
some reputable scholars and their writings that might be helpful. It is strongly believed that exploring
the aforesaid sources may prove helpful during your debates on the conference. It might also be of a
great importance while understanding the vastness of international law.
Finally, it is paramount that you should be aware of jus cogen, when going about
legal judgement. This intails recognising that on paricular matters of law, international rule
should supercede any decision made by an indivual state, and the concept of "jus cogens"
allow international bodies such as the UN to assume that certain legislative concepts do not
need to be dictated in legislation but are already recognised by all individual states
3.1. International Court of Justice Committee Procedure
¡E Motion to open debate
¡E Advocates are introduced
Prosecution ¡V opening statement
Defense ¡V opening statement
¡E Judges question the advocates
All questions are in round robin form
¡E Witnesses for the prosecution are presented in the following format:
1. Swearing in ¡V witness is introduced and sworn in
2. Initial questioning ¡V prosecuting lawyer is allowed to initial questioning of the witness
3. Cross examination ¡V defense lawyer cross examines the witness
4. Redirect ¡V prosecuting lawyer is allowed to address any new points that have arisen
during the cross examination
5. Judges questioning ¡V judges are allowed the opportunity to question the witness and the
lawyers in round robin form; a justice may pass if he/she does not with to ask a question
6. After each witness is excused, the judges may then caucus to discuss the witness¡¦s
testimony.
7. The deliberations - after the closing statements the judges meet privately to reach a final
verdict on the case, to reach an agreement there has to be a majority of votes regarding the
defendant¡¦s guilt. After the division the parties will be able to state the arguments for and
against their opinion. Within their parties the judges may submit their written opinion with
an explanation. After the opinions have been submitted the chairman of the meeting will
give the verdict and the punishment following the decision of the larger party.
Role of the following in the deliberations:
Judges - their task is to deliver the verdict of the hearings, they must listen closely to all the
testimonies and after the closing statements reach a verdict based on what they have heard
and seen in the courtroom, they must decide whether each of the witness¡¦ testimonies were
true.
Attorneys - the task of the attorneys is to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant, it is
necessary for the lawyers to have a wide range of information concerning the case, they
must work together with the witnesses to prepare the testimonies before the trial. The
lawyers are the ones that will have to find the evidence. The first thing the attorney must do
is give an opening statement.
Witnesses - witnesses play the part of a real person who took a significant part in the case,
the most important thing is for the witness to know the case and the events very well and
his/her part in it. They must work alongside the lawyers to prepare credible testimonies.
During the trial the witnesses must answer questions asked by both parties (prosecution and
defense lawyers). It is up to the witnesses or their lawyers to decide who in the case they
will play. For further information on the characters check the links provided on the last page.
Vocabulary
Opening statement - An introductory statement made by the attorneys for each side at the
start of a trial. The opening statement, although not mandatory, is seldom waived because it
offers a valuable opportunity to provide an overview of the case to the jury and to explain
the anticipated proof that will be presented during the course of the trial.The primary
purpose of an opening statement is to apprise the trier of fact, whether jury or court, of the
issues in question and to summarize the evidence that the party intends to offer during the
trial.
Evidence - Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in
the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be
admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a
particular issue in a lawsuit.
Swearing in - an oath said by a witness before his/her testimony
¡¨I swear
That the evidence I give
Shall be the Truth
The Whole Truth
And nothing but the Truth¡¨
Cross-examination ¡V the opportunity for the attorney (or an unrepresented party) to ask
questions in court of a witness who has testified in a trial on behalf of the opposing party.
Closing statement ¡Vthe concluding statement of each party's counsel (often called an
attorney in the United States) reiterating the important arguments for the trier of fact, often
the jury, in a court case. A closing argument occurs after the presentation of evidence. A
closing argument may not contain any new information and may only use evidence
introduced at trial.
Deliberations ¡V is the process in which a jury in a trial in court discusses in private the
findings of the court and decides by vote with which argument to agree of either opposing
side. legal deliberation is a form of communication which emphasizes the use of logic and
reasoning (as opposed to power, coercion or emotion) to make sound decisions. Typically, a
jury must come to a unanimous decision before delivering a verdict; however, there are
exceptions. When a unanimous decision is not reached and the jury feels that one is not
possible, they declare themselves a 'hung jury', a mistrial is declared and the trial will have to
be redone at the discretion of the plaintiff.
Letter rogatory - a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial
assistance.
Useful links:
http://stetimun.lo2.szczecin.pl/ - The official website
http://www.factualtv.com/documentary/The-Boat-and-the-Bomb - Short documental about
Sinking of the Rainbow warrior.
http://translate.google.pl/?hl=pl&tab=wT# - It translates the whole sentences! ļ
http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en ¡V Official ICJ website
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nzfr&case=97&k=cd
Description of the case from year 1995.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nzf&case=59&k=6b Description
of the case from year 1973.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing - Some things about nuclear
weapons.
Any problems? Feel free to mail us!
Micha. Kubisa ¡V miju11@wp.pl
Joanna Robaczewska ¡V joannaa.rdm@gmail.com
Tomasz Bartkowiak - tomasz.bartkowiak94@gmail.com
Jakub Mat.awski ¡V kuba_pol@vp.pl
Klaudia S.owakiewicz ¡V cynamonowapalemka@gmail.com
See You on STETIMUN 2011
Комментарии
Отправить комментарий