View ICC Cases

In 1992 the General Assembly directed the International Law Committee to prepare a draft statute for the International Criminal Court; a permanent international court to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. The treaty to establish the court is currently being ratified. For the Model UN Program the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a chamber, which will hear and prosecute historical people for the alleged crimes they have committed. The judges (attorneys) that make up this chamber will render a decision on each of the four cases being heard. Thirty students will act the role of attorneys/judges who are expected to abandon their national prejudices and become impartial judges of international crimes. Students will be placed into teams of three or four members. Each team presents one side of the case. Four cases will be presented at the program for a total of eight teams. When a team is not presenting their case they act as impartial judges to the teams that are presenting and as such must render a majority and minority decision for the case.

Each attorney will be assigned to a case as a team. Case assignments will be provided as the students request their roles. Once your role has been assigned students should immediately begin familiarizing themselves with the case and potential arguments. In order to adequately prepare for the conference each team is required to prepare a brief and necessary evidence for presenting their side of the case. Since attorneys will be working in teams whose members may live far away from each other, Mock Session will be a working session for teams to outline their arguments and exchange contact information. A copy of all-final briefs and evidence needs to be served by December 10, 2005 to both opposing counsel and to the program staff. Each attorney will receive a copy of the submitted briefs and evidence at the conference.

Realizing the importance of teamwork in this chamber, all ICC delegates must attend the Mock Session. If a delegate is unable to meet these mandatory dates it is highly suggested that another delegate replace him/her. The ICC delegate should possess the following qualities: hard working, able to work in a long distance team environment, demonstrate leadership skills, quick to respond or question on their feet, great speaking technique, dedicated to the project at hand, and preferably a second year delegate.

Case 1: ICC vs. Martin Van Buren

The following is to be accepted as the standard fact pattern of the case; additional research is compulsory. These facts may not be challenged:

Martin Van Buren took office as the eighth president of the United States of America in 1837, and continued to hold the office of president until 1841, when he retired.

In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, a law that authorized the President to negotiate the purchase of tribal lands from the Native Americans currently inhabiting the United States east of the Mississippi River. The tribes would then be reimbursed with land to the west of the Mississippi, allowing the American population to grow in the east.

In 1832, the state of Georgia became involved in a jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, resulting in the Supreme Court case of Worcester v. Georgia. This case sided with the Cherokees and ruled that they had the right to remain on their land and had the protection of the federal government from the actions of the state. However, Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, still wanted to move the Cherokees west, and negotiated the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, which provided for the emigration of the Cherokees to Oklahoma. It is disputable whether this treaty was made with the leader of the Cherokee Nation; since many Cherokees stated that the treaty was made with only a small faction that was not recognized as the leaders. This caused many of the Cherokees to protest the treaty, calling it illegitimate.

In 1938, Martin Van Buren sent troops into Georgia to enforce the Treaty of New Echota. Approximately 17,000 Cherokees were forced to move, along with 2,000 slaves, at gunpoint. This force migration was called the "Trail of Tears", due to the mourning of the Cherokee. The Cherokee were forced to travel 1,200 miles to relocation camps. The conditions of the trails were harsh, and disease plagued the Cherokees. The harsh weather conditions, disease, lack of food, and over exertion forced on the Cherokees led to the deaths of approximately 4,000 people.

The International Criminal Court charges Martin Van Buren for the deaths of thousands of Cherokees in the "Trail of Tears." Through his forced movement of the Cherokee, he placed the people in dangerous conditions that allowed for the deaths of 4,000 innocent people. These actions result in the charges of Genocide under the Rome Statute - Articles 6(a) and 6(b). The International Criminal Court also charges Martin Van Buren with Crimes Against Humanity under the Rome Statute – Articles 7(1) (a) and 7(1) (d).

Works Cited:
Trail of Tears. Stan Hoig. Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Ed. Dinah
Shelton. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. p1043-1045. 3 vols. 

Trail of Tears. Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History.  Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk. Detroit: Gale Group, 1999.

"The Trail of Tears." About North Georgia. 2006. Golden Ink. 25 Apr. 2007 <http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html>.

back to Cases

Case 2: ICC v. Paul Kagame

The following is to be accepted as the standard fact pattern of the case; additional research is compulsory. These facts may not be challenged:

Paul Kagame became the effective ruler of Rwanda 1994 and formally became president in 2000. He is still the president of Rwanda today. Kagame led the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a guerrilla army mainly made up of Tutsis in Rwanda. After the assassination of President Habyarimana, the Rwandan genocide began, in which the Hutus attacked and slaughtered thousands of Tutsi civilians. The genocide ended in 1994 when Kagame overthrew the government and took power.

In August of 1998, Paul Kagame ordered troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo to help a small rebel group overthrow the government. Rwanda instigated the rebellion stating that the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo were historically Rwandan lands and were needed for the protection of Rwanda. This attack led to the Second Congo War. With the help of Rwanda and Uganda, the rebels took the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In the ensuing war, twelve African nations fought amongst themselves. These nations supporting the rebels were Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. The nations opposing them were the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Chad, Libya, Sudan, and Mai-Mai. The war took a turn similar to the Rwandan genocide, causing Hutus to fight Tutsis.

In this war, over 3.4 million people were displaced. In addition, there were over 40,000 rape cases reported. U.N. investigations have also shown that Rwandan officials looted the Democratic Republic of Congo and made millions of dollars, mostly off illegal mineral trading. Finally, the Rwandan army killed thousands of unarmed civilians for no reason other than they were Hutus.

The International Criminal Court charges Paul Kagame with the murder of thousands of Hutus in his unprovoked invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The International Criminal Court also charges Kagame for the rape of thousands of women, and the displacement of millions of people. Kagame is charged of genocide under the Rome Statute – Articles 6(a) and 6(b). In addition, Kagame is charged with crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute – Articles 7(1)(a), 7(1)(b), 7(1)(d), and 7(1)(g). Finally, Kagame is charged with war crimes under the Rome Statute – Articles 8(2)(a) and 8(2)(b).

Works Cited:
Kagame, Paul (1957-present). Newsmakers.  Laura Avery. Detroit: Gale Group, 2001.

Kagame, Paul, President of Rwanda (1957-present). Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations World Leaders.  Mary Rose Bonk. Detroit: Gale, 2003.

Nzongola-Ntalaja, Georges. "The International Dimensions." United Nations Development Programme. 25 Apr. 2007 <http://www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs05/The%20International
%20Dimensions%20of%20the%20Congo%20Crisis.pdf>.

back to Cases

Case 3: ICC v. Slobodan Milosevic

The second Yugoslavia was ruled by Josip “Tito” Broz, who had carved out a socialist Yugoslavia composed of six republics: Slovenia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Macedonia following foreign occupation in World War II. After Tito died in 1980, ethnic unrest toppled the government which led to a series of civil wars. Yugoslavia remained intact as a republic, however until 1991.

In the late 1980s, Slobodan Milosevic rose to power by his childhood friend Ivan Stambolic, the President of Serbia. Stambolic soon regretted as Milosevic toppled his reign and assumed power as President of Serbia in 1988 (“Serbia and Montenegro…”). Once President, Milosevic rescinded the autonomy of the quasi-states Vojvodina and Kosovo and then captured Montenegro. Ousting the three autonomous governments ensured that Serbia would have greater support in the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, or the LGY. The LGY, originally created to check the power of any one republic, soon turned into Milosevic’s tool to power. In April 1990, Slovenia and Croatia held free elections and, in 1991 declared complete independence from Yugoslavia in protest ("Bosnia-Herzegovina Gains EC…”).

Bosnia-Herzegovina followed suit in 1992, effectively bringing the Yugoslav region into pro- and anti-Milosevic groups. Serbian minorities in Bosnia balked at this. With support from Milosevic, they instigated a civil war which continues today. In Croatia, after declaring independence, the Yugoslav National Army composed of Croatian-Serbs supporting Milosevic, fought against the new republic.

During the War in Croatia, Milosevic allegedly had links to a criminal organization called the Republic of Serbian Krajina that aimed to exterminate Croats within the land that Milosevic sought to conquer (“Serbia and Montenegro…). Milosevic denies being connected with this organization and insists that political secessions left him with little control over regional Serbs.

During the War in Bosnia, Bosnian Serbs still loyal to Milosevic’s ethnic Serbian party fought against the Bosnian government troops following its secession. As the war dragged on, civilians throughout the country were raped and slaughtered and saw their homes destroyed; by 1995, 250,000 were dead and 2.5 million were refuges. Many factions of the Bosnian civil war were guilty of aggression and some atrocities, but in 1992, Western observers released reports of a Serbian policy of “ethnic cleansing” and Serb-run concentration camps where thousands of Muslims and Croats were detained and killed. These allegations have yet to be proved (“Key Issue: Bosnia”).

We charge Slobodan Milosevic for genocide under articles 6(a) and (c) and crimes against humanity under articles 7 (1) b, 7 (1) d, and 7 (1) e of the Rome Statute.

Questions:

• Does the tragedy at Srebrenica qualify as an act of genocide? Can this be properly linked to Milosevic?
• Can the actions of the Republic of Serbian Krajina be linked by evidence to Milosevic?
• Are these crimes justifiable under the condition of war?
• Did Milosevic have the right as leader of Yugoslavia to instigate wars against the seceding nations?
• Did Milosevic have knowledge or purposeful intent of the Bosnian massacre?
  

Works Cited:
"Bosnia-Herzegovina Gains EC, U.S. Recognition; U.S. Recognizes Croatia, Slovenia;
Other Developments." Facts On File World News Digest 9 Apr. 1992. Facts On File World News Digest @ FACTS.com. Facts On File News Services. 10 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com>.

“Key Issue: Bosnia.” Facts On File World News Digest @ FACTS.com. Facts on File
News Services. 10 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com>.

“Serbia and Montenegro (Formerly Yugoslavia): Facts on Slobodan Milosevic.” Facts On
File World News Digest 16 Mar. 2006. Facts ON File World News Digest @ FACTS.com. Facts on File News Services. 10 Feb. 2007 <http://www.2facts.com>.

back to Cases

Case 4: ICC v. Suharto

During the aftermath of World War II, there was a massive increase in communist paranoia. Consistent with Cold War policies, much of Asia was spilt between communism and democracy, especially after the American failure in Vietnam. The People’s Republic of China, a major proponent of communism, and the United States were often at odds.

President Suharto of Indonesia, an ally of the United States, soon criticized East Timor for its communist intentions. East Timor, one of the poorest nations in Southeast Asia, was more inclined to turn to communism because of its failing social system. The Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor, or Fretilin, was a resistance movement that first fought for the independence of East Timor from Portugal. Fretilin received support from the People’s Republic of China. The United States, fearing that Chinese communist influence would spread throughout the region, supported Indonesia’s campaign into East Timor (Barsamian).

With military support from the United States, Indonesia invaded East Timor on December 7th, 1975. Too weak to defend itself, East Timor fell to Indonesia and was claimed, in July 1976, to be the 27th province of Indonesia.

Indonesian rule in East Timor was marked by extreme violence and brutality, such as the Dili massacre and the Liquiçá Church Massacre. From 1975 until 1993, at least 200,000 Timorese were killed by the Indonesian military—nearly a third of the population. Many more were tortured and imprisoned without trial. The population was forcibly resettled into camps. Thousands starved to death. Later, they were forced to work on army-run plantations growing cash crops for export. The army unleashed a final murderous assault after the independence vote. A scorched-earth campaign destroyed nearly 80 percent of all property: 400,000 people were displaced from their homes; many were marched at gun point into West Timor ("Justice After Genocide").

On November 12, 1991 several East Timorese student-protesters were shot in the San Cruz cemetery in the Dili Massacre (also know as the Santa Cruz Massacre). The Liquiçá Church Massacre in 1999 was sponsored by pro-Indonesian paramilitary troops. Whether these events can be traced back to the Indonesian government is unclear; nevertheless, in the midst of Indonesia’s rule, violence appears to be perpetuated without any government effort to fight against it. Editorials throughout the world claimed that the Indonesian government had done nothing to “rein in” the militias (Brahney).

It is often noted that President Suharto’s agenda against communism was violent and criminal; however, his defense has primarily been unnecessary, due to his failing health conditions, such as stroke, heart, and intestinal problems. It could be said, however, that his actions were simply in line with the desires of the Indonesian people, who supported him vigorously until his resignation in 1998. Thanks to Suharto’s powerful agenda, the nation of Indonesia prospered more than it had ever before.
The International Criminal Court charges President Suharto of crimes against humanity under articles 7 (1) a, 7 (1) b, 7 (1) e, 7 (1) h, and various war crimes of the Rome Statute.

Questions:

• Are the accounts of Suharto’s brutal rule in East Timor widespread enough to be pursued as a crime against humanity?
• Does the popular support for Suharto change anything about the crises?
• Did Suharto have intent to kill the victims in both massacres?
• Can the massacres be directed tied to Suharto?
• Was he knowledgable of the violent situation leading to the massacres?

Works Cited:
Barsamian, David, comp. "East Timor: the Tragedy Continues." Z Magazine July-Aug. 1992: 33-40. SIRS Knowledge Source. 24 Feb. 2007.

Brahney, Kathleen J., ed. "East Timor: "a Nightmare That Cannot Be Ignored"" 7 Sept. 1999. SIRS Knowledge Source. SIRS. Hunterdon County. 17 Feb. 2007.

"Justice After Genocide." New Internationalist Dec. 2005. SIRS Knowledge Source. SIRS. 23 Feb. 2007.

back to Cases