Dear
Delegates,
Welcome to the International Court of Justice at this year’s YUNMUN. My name is Stephanie Epstein and I will be your chair and the person whom you contact for the next few months as you prepare for the February conference.
I am a senior at Stern College graduating this May with a major in English Literature and a minor in Business. I am also involved in Stern’s Drama Society, English Honor’s Society and Dance Team. I have been involved in Model UN for many years and last year I was the chair of CEDAW. I spent a summer interning for Congressman Robert Andrews in Washington DC, and I am currently applying to law schools.
As you know, ICJ is not your typical Model UN committee. Unlike the other
committees, which debate issues and try to formulate resolutions regarding
international concerns, our committee functions more along the lines of a mock
trial. This unique structure enables us to take a different approach when
debating topics; however, in order for the two sides to try a case and for the
justices to reach a verdict, more work and research are expected from the
delegates. The distinctive format of ICJ is furthered by the fact that only one
case will be tried throughout the conference. This enables delegates to really
immerse themselves in the case and see the results of their labor.
I look forward to working with all of you over the next few months. Please be
sure to carefully read over the paper I have sent out to you and to contact me
regarding interest in specific positions as soon as possible. If you have any
questions please e-mail me at
anielaine@aol.com. Good luck to all of you.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Epstein
The International Court of Justice derives it authority from the Charter of the United Nations, which established the ICJ as the final world authority on international law. The ICJ, also known as the World Court, is located in the Hague, Netherlands, and has been at the center of many crucial international disputes since its inception. The ICJ is the successor to the Permanent Court of International Law, which existed prior to the formation of the United Nations at the close of the Second World War.
The International Court of Justice is designed to serve several functions on the international legal scene. Its primary and most publicized role is similar to that of the US Supreme Court. In this capacity, the ICJ hears cases brought by one state against another and renders a binding decision as to the legal issues of the case. Although the ICJ has enjoyed some effectiveness in this role, its ability to have any lasting effect is limited by the fact that some countries do not feel bound to appear when sued in the ICJ, and, aside from an appeal to the Security Council of the United Nations, it has little enforcement capability.
Another, lesser known, function of the ICJ is its role in rendering advisory opinions on important international issues. In this capacity, according to its charter, the ICJ has the power, if called upon by an international entity, to render an opinion on a theoretical legal issue that is not specifically under dispute by two international entities. In this way, the ICJ has the opportunity to establish international law without specifically judging against any specific state. Also significant is that any international entity -- not only a State -- can request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. And, although the Court is not bound to render such an opinion when called upon, once rendered, such an opinion is considered binding under international law. Decisions rendered in its first capacity also play the role of unofficially establishing various international conventions and ordinances.
The ICJ consists of 15 justices who are chosen, on a rotating basis, from the different member nations of the United Nations. The judges are elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. The panel of judges may not include more than one judge from a particular country. 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 not represent their governments, but are instead independent magistrates.
The judges must possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or be jurists of recognized competence in international law.
Judges of the nationality of each of the parties shall retain their right to sit in on the case. Yet, if the Court includes a judge of the nationality of one of the parties, any other party may then choose a person to sit as judge. This is something that actually occurs in our case.
The Case: aRMED
ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO- DEMORCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO V.
rWANDA
The Application:
On June 23, 1999, the Democratic Republic of Congo filed with the
International Court of Justice a request to institute proceedings against Rwanda
due to acts of armed aggression perpetrated by Rwanda on the territory of the
Democratic Republic of Congo. This aggression was claimed to be in violation of
both the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of African
Unity. It also involved violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with violations of international
humanitarian law and massive human rights violations. The Democratic Republic
of Congo asks the Court to secure cessation of the acts of aggression directed
against it. The country also seeks reparations for acts of intentional
destruction and looting, along with restitution of national property and
resources appropriated for the benefit of Rwanda.
The Facts:
On Sunday and Monday August 2 and 3, 1998, Rwandan army trucks carrying
heavily armed soldiers crossed the eastern frontiers of the Congo and occupied
the cities of Goma and Bukavu. As these events were taking place in the eastern
part of the country, 1,000 Rwandan soldiers who evaded the repatriation
operation ordered by the Congolese Government, with support of “Bunyamulenge”
units, attacked the military camps of Tshantshi and Kokolo. On the same night
in Kinsangani, another group of Rwandan soldiers awaiting repatriation open
fired on the garrison of that town.
On Tuesday August 4, 1998, three Boeing aircraft belonging to Congolese companies were forced to reroute from Goma to the military base of Kitona (Bas-Congo) with 600-800 Rwandan soldiers on board. Mr. James Kabarehe, acting on behalf of the Rwandan Government, was the principal instigator of this operation.
- to secure the support of Congolese units training in Kitona;
- to paralyze Kinshasa by seizing the maritime ports of Banana, Boma and Matadi. Riverine access from the south-west is vital to the capital’s supply of staple goods and petroleum products;
- to take control of the Inga hydroelectric dam, which supplies electricity to the province of Bas-Congo, the city of Kinshasa and the Katanga mines, as well as to a number of other central and southern African countries;
- to capture Kinshasa through Bas-Congo, in order to overthrow the Government of National Salvation and assassinate President Laurent Desire Kabila with the object of establishing a Tutsi regime or a regime under Tutsi control.
STATEMENTS OF VIOLATIONS BY RWANDA
The Democratic Republic of Congo cites the following incidents as evidence of the deliberate policy and violations against the Democratic Republic of Congo by Rwanda.
1. Massacres: On Monday August 3, at around 4PM, 38 officers and some 100 soldiers of the Congolese Armed Forces, having previously been disarmed, were murdered in Kavumu airport. On August 24, more than 856 persons were massacred in Kasika, in Lwindi chieftaincy and in the territory of Mwenga, all being localities situated in the Province of Sud-Kivu. The bodies, which were found scattered over a distance of 60 kilometers between Kilungutwe and Kasika, were largely those of women and children- defenseless persons incapable of bearing arms. On the night of December 31, 1998 to January 1, 1999, 633 persons were massacred in Makobola.
2. Rape: Two thousand Rwandan soldiers suffering from AIDS or HIV-positive were dispatched to the front in Orientale Province with express orders to rape Congolese women in order to spread the disease. There have been numerous cases of rape of women and children, particularly on August 29, 1998 in Kasika, on September 22 in Bukava, etc.
3. Abductions and murders of human rights activists: During the first three months of the invasion of Sud-Kivu, numbers of opinion-formers and activists of the Associated Movement of Sud-Kivu were abducted and/or murdered. Further, a total of 16,487 persons have been forcibly deported to Rwanda.
4. Arrests, arbitrary detentions, inhuman and degrading treatment: On August 8, 1998, operations were commenced in Bukavu for the deportation of the civilian population to concentration camps in Rwanda for massacre and summary execution. During the first three months of aggression in Sud-Kivu, in excess of 178 persons were arbitrarily arrested and held in places of detention in Sud-Kivu.
5. Systematic looting of public and private institutions, theft of property of the civilian population: On September 15, 1998, the Mumba health Center was looted by Rwandan soldiers. In Bukavu, the Provincial Headquarters of Customs and Excise, the Office of National Inspectorate, and the Provincial Taxation Office, all revenue-generating public undertakings, had their safes ransacked. The looted items were deposited in a branch of the Banque commerciale du Rwanda in Cyangungu. In Kalemie, Rwandan troops sabotaged port installations and various other undertakings, looting and carrying of handling and loading equipment and certain privately owned items of floating plant.
6. Human rights violations committed by the invading Rwandan troops and their “rebel” allies in the major cities of Orientale Province: To ensure that there would be no witnesses to their actions, Rwandan troops forced all international humanitarian organizations, in particular HCR, ICRC, UNICEF, the WHO and MSF, to leave the area, obliging them to pass through Kigali so that they could be systematically searched. Rwandan troops systematically destroyed or disconnected all telecommunications facilities, so as to ensure that their actions would not come to the notice of national and international public opinion; at the same time they confiscated the passports of human rights activists.
PRESS RELEASE
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda
The two cases are removed from the List at the request of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The cases that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) brought on 23 June 1999 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Burundi and Rwanda in respect of disputes concerning "acts of armed aggression perpetrated by [those States] on the territory of the [DRC], in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity" have been removed from the Court's List at the request of the DRC.
YUNMUN’S ICJ PROCEEDINGS
It is because this case was removed from the court docket, which seemingly would leave the ICJ without a case, that we are able to try this case in February. While the Democratic Republic of Congo ultimately decided to drop this case against Rwanda, the issues involved afford our court a fascinating situation to rule on. Issues include national sovereignty, citizens’ civil rights, and other complex issues of conflict facing many areas of the world. The complex history between the DRC and Rwanda only further blurs the issues existing in this case.
A third of our court’s delegates will assume the role of justices, who will ultimately be deciding on these matters. Your opinion(s) will impact upon the two aforementioned issues to a great extent. The procedures for writing opinions will be outlined at the conference sessions.
Our
justices’ opinions, however, will be influenced by the case that is presented
before them in the first 2 ½ - 3 committee sessions at this year’s conference.
The remaining delegates will be putting on that case, as attorneys, witnesses,
etc. A third of our delegates will be representing the Democratic Republic of
Congo as you continue the proceedings that your country initiated before this
International Court of Justice, and one-third of the delegates will take on the
Rwandan defense before the court.
Thus, the first challenge with which you have been presented is to decide whether you would like to serve on our court as a justice, or play the crucial role of presenting one of the two sides before our court.
Guidelines:
Attorneys will be preparing a case from scratch. Of course, the case history that has been included with this briefing is a key start. The information sources in the final section will serve as the primary starting points for your research in the two areas that you will focus on – the facts of the case and the pertinent international law. The rest will be detective work. You will have to use the information that you find regarding these two cases to prepare opening statements, witness requests, direct and cross of witnesses and closing arguments.
Justices will be doing much less research during the months preceding the conference. Your research will almost exclusively focus on the international law (statutes and treaties). Justices should not be investigating the facts of this particular case at all. Your findings regarding the application of the law that you research and that is presented at the trial should depend entirely upon the case tried before you by your peers – DRC and Rwanda.
In addition to the disparity between your roles before the conference, at the conference different sessions will focus on different delegates. The bulk of the sessions will focus on the case put on by the two teams of attorneys. Justices will have questioning time, etc. (as we will outline during the trial procedure rules at our first session). The final session will involve the deliberation of the justices and the writing of their opinion(s).
When making your decisions, bear in mind these different roles. They involve different skills and different levels of time devotion. Both will require a real commitment on your part.
Please email me or call me and let me know what your preference would be:
(a) Democratic Republic of Congo Case (Legal Representation)
(b) Rwanda Defense (Legal Representation)
(c) ICJ Justice
Attorneys: After having submitted your preference requests to me, you’ll be sent a list of the breakdown of our delegates and their respective roles. You will have been chosen to serve as Attorneys for one of the two sides.
The information included in Section II of this briefing serve to highlight the known facts of the case. Because the ICJ never ruled on this case, it leaves a lot of room for fact finding. Historical context could be very important to the arguing and/or defense of this case and research is key.
Shortly after we divide our committee delegates amongst the three different teams of delegates, I will send the attorneys for each side a list of facts that will be assumed entirely true for purposes of the case. Many of the facts will be based upon what we know, or what seems to be factual. Other pieces of evidence, however, will be created and included on the fact-finding sheet. Each piece of evidence will be in the form of an affidavit, video evidence, and the like. You will work your cases from those facts and issue into evidence the relevant facts in court to our committee. Obviously, there currently are and therefore will ultimately be two legitimate sides to arguing this case even after those facts are issued. You must use the facts to your advantage – The Democratic Republic of Congo’s attorneys must paint a case that should indicate Rwanda’s violation of international law and use the facts to support that claim. Rwanda’s attorneys must be able to respond to those claims and get their country acquitted. It will be your ability to paint the facts in the proper light, to respond to the claims of the other side, and to detect the nuances that will be latent in the fact-findings that I send you to your advantage. That’s where your detective skills will play a role. Your attorney skills will kick in at the conference.
Your roles will be divided into three stages after having been assigned to one of the attorney teams.
Immediately: Research, along with the 3-4 other members of your team the facts of the case. Any essential facts that you find that you think are unique, send me periodically. If I confirm them, then they will play a big role in establishing my facts sheet. Cater your sides to your line of anticipated argumentation.
After receiving the fact-finding sheet: Study the facts. Put together your case – work individually and then try to make some preliminary inter-delegate contact. Any evidence not touched on the fact-finding sheet is fair game. You can bring whatever you can find that does not contradict the accepted evidence. Think about what witnesses and materials you will need and speak to each other.
At the conference: We will go through procedure at our first session
Justices: After having submitted your preference requests to me, you’ll be sent a list of the breakdown of our delegates and their respective roles. You will have been chosen to serve as ICJ justices. This might be tough, but it’s key: Avoid research on the facts. You will not get copies of the fact-finding sheets. A key skill in your ability to carry through on your mission will be evidenced from how much weight you give to the case presented before you in your decisions. Any evidence upon which you will base your decisions must be presented in the ICJ this February. Law, however, is important for you to know. The more you know, the better you will be able to direct your questions and deliberations (e.g. what needs to be established for a violation of international law in an international aerial shooting).
At the trial, you will be required to think fast and come together in deliberations with a solid handle on the facts and an even more solid handle on the law relevant to the case. You will have opportunities to question the witnesses and attorneys. You will have the option of requesting witnesses toward the end of the trial. But, it is the job of the attorneys to use the fact sheets to present their sides of the case and your job to judge who does a better job presenting, responding to opponents’ arguments, and interpreting facts.
Please contact me within a week of receiving your booklets to submit your requests (the faster you get it in, the better chance you’ll have to be assigned to your requested slot). If you have any further questions about the different roles, I’m here for you. The ICJ website is www.icj-cij.org. There you can get further information about the ICJ, its history and function, the case at hand, the history of the strife between DRC and Rwanda, and relevant international law from links on the site. More will come with the fact-finding briefs and information packets. Best of luck!