Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 1 of 15
The International
Court of Justice
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 2 of 15
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the International Court of Justice 3
1.2 General Overview of Case 1 4
1.3 Historical Background 5
1.4 Assessing the alleged violations 6
1.5 Relevant Legal precedents/ Previous UN action 9
1.6 Sources 8
2 General Overview of Case 2 9
2.2 Historical Background 10
2.3 Assessing the alleged violations 12
2.4 Relevant Legal precedents/ Previous UN action 13
2.5 Sources 14
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 3 of 15
1. Introduction to the International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
located in the Hague, Netherlands. The official languages of the Court are French and English.
Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only court of a universal character with general
jurisdiction. The Court has two roles:
(i) to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States –
its judgments are binding and are without appeal for the parties concerned. However,
this is only true in theory. Since the Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes
the Security council to enforce the court’s rulings, the enforcement of the court’s rulings
is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council. Thus, often
those countries with a veto power manage to veto their own condemnations, thus
managing to not comply with the court’s rulings.
(ii) to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations’
organs and agencies.
The Court is composed of fifteen judges that
are elected for a nine-year term by the
General Assembly and the Security Council of
the United Nations. Judges are never
representing their country’s views as they
have to be completely unbiased and are
chosen in such a way that minimizes any
national influence over the court’s decisions.
*The Security Council is responsible for
enforcing the court’s rulings However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the
five permanent members of the Council.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 4 of 15
Case 1: UKRAINE V. RUSSIAN FEDERATION: APPLICATION
OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM AND OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
1.2 General Overview of Case 1
On August 24th of 1991, Ukraine proclaimed its independence from the Soviet Union. At that
time, the Russian Federation made strong commitments to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and
independence within its settled borders. However, during the last decade, Russian leaders
have aimed to reclaim dominance over their Ukrainian neighbors. Following the Orange
Revolution of 2004 in Ukraine, Russia has been exerting increasing pressure over Ukraine,
neglecting its earlier commitment to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Ukraine.
In 2013 Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych rejected a trade deal with the European Union,
taking a bailout from Russia instead. At the time many people began protesting the move at
Kiev’s Maidan square as many saw a deal with the European Union as the way to achieve
economic success in their country. This led to the Revolution of Dignity of 2014 and the
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown. The Russian government did not
recognize the provisional government, stating that the revolution was a coup d’état. The
Russian Federation then carried out a series of military incursions into Ukrainian territory,
including the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula on 18 March 2014.
On 16 January 2017, Ukraine initiated proceedings against the Russian Federation before the
International Court of Justice regarding alleged violations of the International Convention for
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The Court must decide whether
Russia’s actions violate either one of the treaties, and, if so, to establish the due forms of
reparation.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 5 of 15
1.3 Historical Background
In order to understand the ongoing crisis in Ukraine, it is similarly important to understand
the geographical and ethnic differences between the different regions of the country. The
more western regions of Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk and Chernivtsi13 were historically part of the
Austrian partition of Ukraine which used to belong to the Austrian-Hungarian empire.
Historically these regions were more aligned to the west and even fought against the Soviets
during the Second World War, consequently giving rise to a long-lasting anti-Russian
sentiment in these particular areas. On the contrary, The South and East of Ukraine,
constituted a region that was historically called “New Russia”. In these regions, the Tsarist
Russian Empire populated these areas with Russians, Serbians, Greeks and even Germans.
These groups eventually came to identify themselves as Russian. Therefore, regions in these
areas are largely pro-Russian, Russian speaking and generally in favour of closer ties with
Russia.
This divide between the East and West of Ukraine was a crucial factor that led to the creation
of this conflict. This is evident through the large differences in the responses of the Ukrainian
people to the crisis. In different polls all over Ukraine this divide is clear. The percentage of
the population which blamed the escalation of the crisis on Yanukovych (the former president
of Ukraine) was 49% in total, but that is divided
with 80% in the West and 10% in the East. Those
who blame the opposition, 68% in the East versus
10% in the West14. These are polar opposites
which are bound to play a role in the ongoing
political crisis in Ukraine.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 6 of 15
1.4 Assessing the alleged violations
a) Regarding Russia’s Violations of the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
The International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism) is a 1999
United Nations treaty designed to criminalize acts of financing acts of terrorism. The treaty
has been ratified by 188 states, including both Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine claims that the Russian Federation has violated the 1999 International Convention for
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, which both parties have signed not only by not
being cooperative in the prevention of the financing of terrorism, but also by actively
promoting and sponsoring it.
More precisely, Ukraine states that Russia is in violation of the purpose of the convention
stated in article 2 i.e. ‘to provide or collect funds directly or indirectly, unlawfully or willfully
with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used to
commit any act of terrorism.’ The Applicant pleads before the International Court of Justice
that the Russian Federation has upheld illegal armed groups in eastern Ukraine by supplying
them with cash and weapons. This would have then led to catastrophic events, such as the
shoot-down of the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukrainian territory and the
bombarding of civilians in Ukrainian cities. To support this claim, Ukraine contends that the
acts committed by the allegedly Russian funded- Ukrainian terrorist groups fall under those
described in Article 2(1) of the Convention, thus, constituting a violation of the convention on
Russia’s part.
Finally, Ukraine argues that it has
consistently protested the Russian
Federation’s attitude toward these
activities. Russia’s refusal to cooperate
in the investigation and prevention of
terrorist activities in Ukraine would
mean that Russia violated the
mandatory Article 18 of the ICSFT.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 7 of 15
b) Regarding Russia’s violations of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
The CERD was Adopted and opened for signature and ratification on 21 December 1965 and
was entered into force on the 4th of January of 1969, in accordance with Article 19. IT has been
signed by 88 countries, including Russia and Ukraine.
In its Application to the court, Ukraine argues that Russian occupation of the Crimean territory
has subjected Ukrainian citizens to a situation of mass intimidation and human rights
offences, thus violating the CERD.
More specifically, these offences
were committed against non-
Russian communities of the Crimean
Peninsula, such as the Crimean
Tatars (who constitute 12-13% of
Crimea’s population) and other
ethnic Ukrainian communities.
Minorities such as those
aforementioned , did not accept the
alleged illegal occupation by Russia,
and consequently the Russian regime considered the non-Russia communities of the region
as enemies of the authorities on the territory. According to the applicant, the Russian
Federation has opted to collectively punish such communities, aiming at suppressing and
erasing their cultural heritage, as well as imposing a regime of ethnic Russian dominance.
According to the Applicant, those acts violate articles 2, 3,4,5 and 6 of the CERD ,thus, violating
the convention.
Regarding article 2, Ukraine alleges that Russia’s policy of cultural erasure in the area violates
the purpose of the convention stated in article 2(a). Moreover, the Ukrainian state alleges
that the treatment of non-Russia groups as a threat to the Russian regime as well as the
suppression of these communities’ culture and identity constitute a clear violation of Article
3 which calls states to eradicate all practices of racial discrimination on its territory.
Regarding article 4, Ukraine states that Russian authorities, perpetrated and tolerated a
campaign of disappearances and murder targeting Crimean Tatars. Ukraine also alleges that
the Tatars were disproportionally subjected to arbitrary searches and detention which
constitutes harassment. Hence, the applicant argues that Russia did not comply with its
obligation under Article 4(c), as its own institutions spread and incited racial discrimination.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 8 of 15
Regarding article 5, Ukraine alleges that Russia violated Article 5(a) and (b) as it did not
provide equal access to organs administrating justice to the non-Russian ethnic groups.
Instead, as alleged by the Applicant, Russia, through its regime of dominance violated their
right to security and protection by the State,
which is expressed in Article 5(b).
This allegation is based on Ukraine’s
allegation that the environment of political
intimidation during the referendum did not
permit an equal participation of the non-
Russian communities in the public vote. The
referendum according to Ukraine was
designed to discriminate against non-
Russians, since the question at hand was not
neutrally framed and did not provide a clear
option for voters to maintain Crimea’s
political status at the time.
For this reason, Ukraine argues that the referendum is invalid under international law,
violating articles 5(a) and 5(b) of the convention.
Furthermore, Ukraine alleges that Russia actively persecuted the Crimean Tatar’s community
leaders and banned its central institution called the Mejlis of the Crimean Tartar People.
Moreover, the Applicant argues that Russia breached Article 5(d) (i) and (ii) by exiling,
imprisoning, and otherwise persecuting the Crimean Tatar community’s leaders, leading to
a mass outflux of this community from Crimea. Russia also banned its central institution called
‘the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People’.
Ukraine alleges that Russia also violated article 5(e) and 5(v), since Russian authorities
deliberately reduced the supply of Ukrainian-language teachers and reduced the number of
hours dedicated to the Crimean Tatar language in schools, thus suppressing the minority’s
language education and cultural identity.
Finally, regarding article 6, Ukraine alleges that Russia was unwilling to achieve adequate
reparations or serve justice to the non-Russian minorities that suffered from racial
discrimination. Thus, Russia allegedly did not provide adequate ‘legal remedies’ as article 6 of
the convention requires. Ukraine stated that Russian officials did not conduct adequate
investigations and, in some cases, failed to even open investigations regarding the
disappearances or murders of the Non-Russian minorities.
Note: The full conventions and relevant articles can be found in the following websites:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx
http://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 9 of 15
1.5 Relevant Legal precedents/ Previous UN action
The examination of the following decisions is vital in order to indicate to the judges of the ICJ
the previous decisions they ought to take into account when deciding upon the verdict of the
dispute at hand:
a) Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from
the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)
b) Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with Inter- national Law of the Unilateral Declaration
of Independence in Respect of Kosovo
c) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation)
The following UN resolutions have been passed in an effort to resolve this issue:
• A/RES/68/262.
• S/RES/2166 (2014) on 21 July 2014
• S/RES/22021.6 Sources
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 10 of 15
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-
11&chapter=18&clang=_en*for*the*Judges
https://www.unian.info/politics/10052078-russia-provided-weapons-for-terrorist-attacks-against-ukraine-
s-top-leadership-prosecutor-general.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%93present)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/ukraine-caught-between-east-and-west
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-curran2/russian-ukrainian-conflict-explained_b_4909192.html
Case 2: Guyana vs Venezuela
2. General Overview of Case 2 Venezuela has long claimed a huge tract of land known as the Essequibo, which comprises nearly 40
per cent of Guyana’s current territory, much to the chagrin of the smaller nation. Venezuela has also
repeatedly warned off potential foreign investors in the region, costing Guyana billions of dollars in
potential oil, mining and hydroelectric projects since its independence in 1966. Guyana filed a claim
with the International Court of Justice, with the hope that the country’s current borders will be
enshrined.
After the Venezuela Crisis of 1895, half of the territory of the British colony of Guyana, was claimed
by Venezuela, a dispute that was settled by arbitration in 1899. A declaration made by Venezuela in
1962, stating that it would no longer abide by the arbitration decision, which ceded mineral-rich
territory in the Orinoco basin to Guyana. The disputed area is called Guyana Essequibo by Venezuela.
The setup of a border commission took place in 1966, with representatives from Guyana, Venezuela
and Great Britain, but failed to reach agreement. Venezuela vetoed Guyana's bid to become a
member of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1967. In 1969 Venezuela backed an abortive
uprising in the disputed area.
Venezuela finally agreed in 1970 to a 12-year moratorium on the dispute with the Protocol of Port-of-
Spain after being under intense diplomatic pressure. In 1981, Venezuela refused to renew the
protocol. However, with changes to the governments of both countries relations improved
In 2013 the Venezuelan navy seized an oil exploration vessel operating in disputed waters claimed as
Exclusive Economic Zones by both Venezuela and Guyana.
Over the years, historical and cultural dissimilarities between Venezuela and Guyana explained the
lack of compromise to some extent.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 11 of 15
2.2 Historical Background
Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, the
British Government felt it was necessary to demarcate
Guyana's borders. In 1840, the British Government in
1840 issued a commission to Robert Schomburgk, a
German surveyor, geographer and naturalist,
authorizing him to survey and mark out the boundaries
of British Guiana. It was the intention of that
Government, when the work was completed, to
communicate to the Governments of Venezuela and
Brazil the views of the British Government as to the
true boundary of the colony, and then to settle by
negotiation any details to which these Governments
might take objection.
With his reports Schomburgk submitted maps of his surveys, on which he indicated the line which
he would propose to the British Government for adoption. He also called attention to the fact that
the British Government might justly claim the whole basin of the Cuyuni and the Yuruari (a tributary
of the Cuyuni located in Venezuela), on the ground that the natural boundary of British Guiana
included any territory through which flowed rivers, themselves tributaries of the Essequibo.
It was at this period that the discussions with Venezuela about the boundary commenced. The first
approach made by the Venezuelan Government was in January 1841 when, in reply to the British
announcement of the boundary, it proposed the negotiation of a Treaty of Limits, and expressed a
desire that this Treaty should precede the survey and demarcation of the frontier.
Lord Aberdeen, a distinguished diplomat and British statesman, stated that Great Britain was willing
to concede out of friendly regard for Venezuela, a part of the British extreme claim in the upper
Cuyuni area, providing that the Amerindian tribes living there should be properly protected.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 12 of 15
The Venezuelan Government, failed to appreciate the large concession of British rights which had
been proposed solely as a means of facilitating a satisfactory adjustment of the boundary question.
No reply was sent to Lord Aberdeen's Note, and it was consequently decided by the British
Government in 1850 that as the proposal had remained for six years and still not accepted, it might
be considered as having lapsed.
Venezuela's first acts of violation were the occupation of fresh
positions to the east of its previous settlements, and the founding in
1858 of the town of Nueva Providencia on the right bank of the
Yuruari. In consequence of this latter action, the Governor of British
Guiana, Philip Wodehouse, was sent in 1858 to Caracas to negotiate
for a settlement of the boundary, but he found the Venezuelan State
in so disturbed a condition (as a result of civil disturbances) that it
was impossible to commence negotiations, and eventually he came
away without having effected anything. For the next nineteen years
the civil disturbances in Venezuela prevented any resumption of
negotiations.
The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 occurred over Venezuela's longstanding dispute with the United
Kingdom about the territory of Essequibo and Guayana Esequiba, which Britain claimed as part of
British Guiana and Venezuela saw as Venezuelan territory. As the dispute became a crisis, the key
issue became Britain's refusal to include in the proposed international arbitration the territory east
of the "Schomburgk Line", which a surveyor had drawn half a century earlier as a boundary
between Venezuela and the former Dutch territory of British Guiana. The crisis ultimately saw
Britain accept the United States' intervention in the dispute to force arbitration of the entire
disputed territory, and tacitly accept the United States' right to intervene under the Monroe
Doctrine. A tribunal convened in Paris in 1898 to decide the matter, and in 1899 awarded the bulk
of the disputed territory to British Guiana.
The dispute had become a diplomatic crisis in 1895 when Venezuela's lobbyist William L. Scruggs
sought to argue that British behaviour over the issue violated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, and
used his influence in Washington, D.C. to pursue the matter.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 13 of 15
2.4 Assessing the alleged violations
a) Regarding the ongoing oil exploration which violates the Geneva agreement
of 1966
The Guyana government carried out the expansion of oil prospecting operations in May 2015, in
which Exxon-Mobil reported a discovery at the Liza-1 well on the Stabroek and Block. The Energy and
Petroleum Commission in Venezuela has rejected the oil operations in Guyana’s Essequibo region.
According to a report in El Nacional, a Venezuelan
newspaper, the Energy and Petroleum Commission of
its National Assembly said that it is convinced that the
ongoing oil exploration violates the Geneva agreement
of 1966 and Article 10 of The Bolivarian Constitution of
Venezuela, “which clearly establishes the Venezuelan
territory”. Venezuela has been claiming Guyana’s
territory for several decades although the issue was
settled since 1899.
According to the report, vice-president of the parliamentary body, deputy for Zulia, Elías Matta,
tabled the draft agreement, explaining that, “As stipulated in Article 5 of the Geneva Agreement, no
resource can be exploited if there is no agreement between both nations”.
Likewise, on November 17, 2016, the commercialisation of the same was announced, estimating its
recoverable resources between 800 million and 1.4 billion barrels of high quality crude oil belonging
to the coastal waters of the Essequibo”, the report noted.
The Commission wants the Venezuelan government to send this “agreement” to the new UN Good
Officer for the Guyana/Venezuela conflict. The Venezuelan Parliamentary Commission also wants the
UN official “to immediately suspend all operations carried out within the maritime area
corresponding to the territory in claim until the dispute is resolved.” The UN Good Officer has no such
powers, according to local officials familiar with the process.
Venezuela has consistently been raising its voice about the border controversy since the
announcement of the oil discovery in Guyana’s territorial waters. Two years ago, the Venezuelan
President had issued a decree claiming Guyana’s territorial waters, where the oil exploration was
taking place but that decree was eventually recalled.
Assess the official document of the Geneva Agreement 17/02/1966:
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/GB-
VE_660217_Agreement%20to%20Resolve%20Controversy%20over%20Frontier%20British%20Guia
na.pdf
b) Regarding Venezuela weakening the legal validity and binding effect of
the Award of Arbitration of 1899
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 14 of 15
Secretary-General António Guterres meets
with Carl Greenidge, Vice-President and
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guyana
On Thursday 29 March 2018, the Co-operative Republic of Guyana filed an application against the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with the International Court of Justice. In its Application, Guyana
requests the Court “to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the Award Regarding the
Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, of 3 October
1899. The Applicant claims that the 1899 Award was “a full, perfect, and final settlement” of all
questions relating to determining the boundary line between the colony of British Guiana and
Venezuela.
Guyana affirms that, between November 1900 and June
1904, a joint Anglo- Venezuelan Boundary Commission
“identified, demarcated and permanently fixed the
boundary established by the Arbitrary Award” before
the signing of a Joint Declaration by the Commissioners
on 10 January 1905 (referred to by Guyana as the “1905
Agreement”).
Guyana contends that, in 1962, for the first time, Venezuela contested the Award as “arbitrary” and
“null and void”. This, according to the Applicant, led to the signing of the Agreement to resolve the
controversy between Venezuela and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over
the frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana at Geneva on 17 February 1966, which “provided
for recourse to a series of dispute settlement mechanisms to finally resolve the controversy”.
Guyana submits that the Geneva Agreement authorized the United Nations Secretary-General to
decide which appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to adopt for the peaceful settlement of the
dispute, in accordance with Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
Assess the official document of the Arbitral Award of 3/10/1899:
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/331-340.pdf
2.5 Relevant Legal precedents/ Previous UN action
Geneva Agreement in 1966, an effort was made to resolve the controversy over the frontier
between Venezuela and British Guiana. Signed at Geneva, on 17 February.
Arbitration agreement between Guyana and Venezuela 3rd of October 1899.
Treaty of Washington signed by Venezuela and Great Britain on 2 February 1897, both Great
Britain and Venezuela agreed that the decision of the arbitration tribunal would be a "full,
perfect, and final settlement" of the border dispute.
Mediterranean Model United Nations XIV 2019
Research Report | Page 15 of 15
1.6 Sources
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/171
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/02/venezuela-crisis-violence-guyana-
border
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/americas/un-refers-guyana-venezuela-border-
dispute-to-icj
https://news.un.org/en/tags/guyana
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/06/21/world/venezuela-s-claim-to-most-of-guyana-is-
alive-again-as-moratorium-ends.html
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/venezuela/dispute.htm
http://guyanachronicle.com/2018/06/18/venezuela-opts-out-of-border-case-at-icj
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/guyana-and-venezuela-in-bitter-
border-dispute-after-oil-discovery-a6668651.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/a-secret-weapon-on-venezuelan-
oil-guyana
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/19/the-country-that-wasnt-ready-to-win-the-lottery-
guyana-oil/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghh2CNzpugk&t=1721s
Note: It’s vital to remember that you do not have to limit yourself to the given information
but perform extensive research of your own where you might find useful points that may
have not been mentioned… Good luck!