View ICJ Cases

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) resolves international disputes between countries, and provides an opinion on legal issues of international law to requesting United Nation agencies. Thirty students are expected to abandon their national prejudices and become impartial judges of international law. Each of the Excellencies will be placed into teams of three or four members. Each team represents one side of a case and only four cases will be presented at the program for a total of eight teams.

Each Excellency 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 for presenting their side of the case. Since Excellency’s 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 must be served by December 10, 2005 to both your opposing counsel and 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.

France v. the People’s Republic of China

In April, 2006, French ambassador Edmond Villefort was driving in the People’s Republic of China when he violated a traffic signal which resulted in the death of Chinese citizen Chen Ping. Released from custody because France refused to waive his diplomatic immunity, Mr. Villefort claimed to have fallen asleep behind the wheel (not having adjusted to the jet-lag.) After he was recalled by the French government, Mr. Villefort boarded a Chinese commercial airplane bound for Moscow. Before entering Russia, the Russian government declared ambassador Villefort persona non grata, therefore not recognizing Mr. Villefort as a diplomatic official in Russia. Upon arriving in Moscow, the Russian government returned Mr. Villefort to Chinese officials.

France is now petitioning the International Court of Justice for permission to extradite Mr. Villefort back to France under terms of jurisdiction as well as under the terms of recall caused by Russia’s declaration of persona non grata. China, however, refuses to extradite Mr. Villefort under claims of jurisdiction.

Works Cited:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/index.html

Background Cases:
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
The case of Gueorgui Makharadze
The case of Christopher Van Goethem
The case of Andrei Knyazev

back to Cases

Saudi Arabia v. Iraq

In June 2006, Mr. Najaf, an Iraqi citizen, was recruited by the Jubail Industrial Organization and moved into Saudi Arabia as a labor worker. On the following 14th of July, after nearly twenty straight hours of work, Mr. Najaf left his post in a reportedly delirious state and searched for food and water. Although he was spotted by an supervising officer, Mr. Nasiriyah, and told to keep working, Mr. Najaf, in a state of delirium and in need of sustenance, hid and began to smoke a blunt of cocaine. When the officer found Mr. Najaf, he demanded that Mr. Najaf return to his post or else he would be killed. Mr. Najaf then attacked the officer, escaped his work, and then fled to Iraq in search of refuge and rest. Mr. Najaf is presently residing in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia asks that the International Court of Justice support their desire that Mr. Najaf be extradited back into their custody where he will be tried due to his violent offense as a worker against a supervising officer. Iraq, however, refuses any claim and wishes to keep Mr. Najaf in their custody, claiming that he is an Iraqi citizen and therefore should be prosecuted under Iraqi laws.

Works Cited:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/index.html

Background Cases:
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

back to Cases

The Holy See (Vatican City) v. Thailand

In November 2005, a Roman Catholic religious extremist, Mr. Odesa, fled from his homeland, a depressed area of Soviet-influenced Ukraine, to Thailand in search of religious refuge. He lived there peacefully until the 1st of the following January on which, after receiving a tip from a resident, local police attained a warrant to search Mr. Odesa’s apartment. In his residence, police found 5 kilos of smokable heroine. Upon learning of the warrant for his arrest, Mr. Odesa fled to the Vatican embassy in Bangkok. In an attempt to force the embassy to release Mr. Odesa, Thai police forces have surrounded the building and have been playing blaring music from stereos and shining powerful light from strong flood lights.

The Holy See (Vatican City) brings this affair before the International Court of Justice in an attempt to prevent further harassment. Thailand demands the release of Mr. Odesa so that it may prosecute him for his heinous crime. The embassy refuses to extradite Mr. Odesa to Thailand claiming that he will be persecuted and put to death due to his religion.

Works Cited:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/index.html

Background Cases:
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN Charter)
The case of Manuel Noriega

back to Cases

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. United States – Advisory Opinion

In April, 2006, Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá of Puerto Rico, having declared the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s Status fraudulent, a threat to democracy, and harmful to the relationship held between the commonwealth and the United States since 1952, announced Puerto Rico’s declaration of independence. Following the merging of the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP), the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, and the Boricua Popular Army, Puerto Ricans voted on another plebiscite in which the majority of votes were for independence. However, Congress has refused to recognize the declaration, claiming that Puerto Rico has no right to declare sovereignty and also that the government is working with a terrorist organization.

Claiming that it has the right to declare its sovereignty and independence from the United States under existing relations such as the Jones-Shafroth Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico brings this affair before the International Court of Justice. Puerto Rico asks that the Court offers its opinion so that a consensus may be reached.

Works Cited:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/index.html

Background Cases:
Situation of East Timor
Relationship between China and Taiwan