Topics
Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom, Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America, and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom
Committee Type
Court
Committee Size
Small
Committee Description
Delegates in the International Court of Justice serve as either the prosecution or defense for their team’s case. Delegates will also participate in a jury, asking questions and deliberating the cases they are not representing. Delegates will be grouped into teams of four by delegation, and will work together to research their case, develop their arguments, and write a case brief, a legal document with a written argument submitted to the court. The research and brief will serve as a tool for the team to use to organize their arguments and win the jury’s votes.
Topic Intros
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)
On June 23rd, 1999, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Uganda violated international law by occupying eastern Congolese territory, where Uganda became involved in local conflicts with armed groups during the Second Congo War (1998-2003). Throughout the conflict, Ugandan military forces were accused of committing unlawful killings, torture, detention, forced displacement, and destruction of villages against civilians in eastern Congo. Nevertheless, Uganda argued that its military actions within Uganda were necessary due to security concerns in Eastern Congo. As the second Congo War destabilized the region, the DRC lost effective control over much of the country's east, with various armed groups asserting control over patches of territory, creating a significant threat for neighboring Uganda.
Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom)
On April 24th, 2014, the Republic of Marshall Islands filed suit against the United Kingdom in the International Court of Justice. The Republic of the Marshall Islands alleged that the United Kingdom violated Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by not properly meeting its disarmament obligations and by refusing to negotiate in good faith to give up its nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because no legal dispute existed between the two states before the case was filed.
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)
On November 2nd, 1992, the Islamic Republic of Iran brought forward a case against the United States of America arguing that the destruction of Iranian oil platforms by the United States Navy during the war violated the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights signed in Tehran on August 15th, 1955 by the United States of America and the the Imperial State of Iran. In 1997, The United States brought a counterclaim against Iran that argued that Iran had also violated Article X(1) of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights by attacking mining vessels in the Persian Gulf from 1987 to 1988 (Such as the USS Samuel B. Roberts).
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom)
On March 3rd, 1992, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya brought a case against the United Kingdom in the ICJ arguing that the United Kingdom’s persistent demands for the two nationals to be extradited violated the Montreal Convention. Libya also claimed that the United Kingdom's refusal to share evidence with the Libyan judicial authorities also violated the Montreal Convention. The two Libyan nationals were also found to be members of the Libyan intelligence service by the FBI. Because of this, the United Kingdom maintained that, given the international severity of the event, and due to the fact that there was credible evidence to prove that the Libyan government under Muammar Gaddafi orchestrated the attack, any Libyan investigation into their own affairs would be insufficient, and therefore the two nationals should promptly be extradited to the governments of the United States or Scotland.
