Introduction Delegates, I Syed Irbazul Hasan, Chief Justice of the International Court, at Model United Nations Islamabad City

School, MUNiC welcome you on behalf of the Host team. To avoid losing your interest I would like to immediately proceed to the procedural rules which have been carefully designed to make this committee as unique and distinguishable as possible. There are some steps I would advice you to follow: 1. Read the rules carefully, the Procedure of Debating will be the same as mentioned by the Secretary General, only some basic amendments have been made in the Statute (rules on which ICJ operate) to make it easier for you to follow 2. Instead of topic Areas, there are Cases submitted to the Chief Justice along with Memorials, a sample format accordingly will be posted. There will be two Cases along with Memorials (A written statement of facts or a petition presented to a legislative body or an executive) posted by the Dias, but the delegates have full right to design up their own Memorial which will act as a Case under consideration of the Chief Justice to be discussed. 3. As there would be neither resolutions nor any working papers the delegates should familiarize themselves with all the material presented in the Research Guides. Best of Luck, Research well, Save the world, Shape the future. The International Court of Justice
Introduction

developments the importance of international law grew and it s relations between states and individuals, and the relations betw The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ ofconcerns itself only with questions of ri Public international law the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace innations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In contras The Hague (Netherlands). It began work in 1946, when it replaced the Permanent Court of International private persons arising out of situa with controversies between Justice, which had functioned in the Peace Palace since 1922. It more thanunder a relationship to operates one nation Statute largely similar to that of its predecessor, which is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations. Functions of the Court The Court has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies. Composition The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. 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 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. The composition of the Court has also to reflect the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world. When the Court does not include a judge possessing the nationality of a State party to a case, that State may appoint a person to sit as a judge the purpose of the case.

An introduction to International Law Overview

Historically, international law was only applied to regulate the relations and dealings of nations with each other. Throughout the years and political

International Law includes not only the basic, classic concepts of law in national legal system, namely status, property, obligation, and tort, but It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. As international Law is rooted in acceptance by the nation states, which constitute the system, the binding force of international law is often being questioned. Starting point for considering the binding force of international law is the famous decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice on the 7 September 1927, which concerned a dispute between France and Turkey over a collision between the French steamer, the Lotus, and a Turkish collier. In its judgment, the Court set out that the binding force of international law arose from the actual or tacit consent of states.

Case For topic A In the International Court of Justice Libya )

Applicant Versus. United States of America

Respondent

Memorial of the Libyan Government Comes Now the Memorial of the Libyan Government and for their Memorial states the following.

Statement of Law
1. International Law provides each country with the right to independently excise the rule of law and control within its own sovereign boundaries without interference from world community at large. Within the U.N. system, broad statements in support of democratic governance date back to 1948, when the U.N. adopted the Universal Declaration on Human Rights by consensus.23 Article 21 of the Declaration states that [t]he will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government, and that this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections.24 2. In recent years, the Security Council has authorized military intervention to restore democracy in Haiti, end the repression of Kurds in Iraq, curb famine in Somalia, stop ethnic cleansing in

Bosnia, and limit genocide in Rwanda. In each of these cases, the Council cited a threat to international peace as the principal legal justification for intervention. The existence of internal disorder in these cases, with the exception of Bosnia, did not entail the kind of aggressive use of force across a boundary traditionally understood to constitute a threat to international peace. None of the above Activities were taking place in Libya. 4. Article 39: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. 5. Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation), the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory requesting them to immediately inform the SecretaryGeneral of such measures. In that connection, the Council specified that the flight ban would not apply to flights that had as their sole purpose humanitarian aid, the evacuation of foreign nationals, enforcing the ban or other purposes deemed necessary for the benefit of the Libyan people. On the contrary NATO speeded up their bombing of Libyan cities and civilians. The No-fly Zone was a pretext for war. 6. Article 42: Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Other wise NATO interfered.

Statement of fact:

After spending around 750 million dollars the United States of America agreed to establish peace for a return of fair share of Oil. Such a demand turned down by its own revolutionist, it seemed amazing due to lack of concern for the compensation of the infrastructure damaged by the NATO forces. Various questions have been raised by the revolutionist who were tired of the dictators rule and dreamt of a new dawn but as the reality unfolds the darkness of the night still prevails. More stories uncover and the people of Libya feel like betrayal from the Western Powers. Below is the Copy of the Letter received by the UN Security Council by the Crisis Committee, and proposed as evidence the facts restate a matter otherwise. Open Letter to the UN Security Council on the Situation in Libya 16 Mar 2011 Excellency, In light of the grave situation in Libya, we urge Security Council Members to take immediate effective action aimed at achieving a ceasefire in place and initiating negotiations to secure a transition to a legitimate and representative government. This action should be backed by the credible

threat of appropriate military intervention, as a last resort, to prevent mass atrocities. We welcome the steps taken thus far by the Security Council, including an asset freeze, arms embargo and the threat of prosecution for war crimes. These were adopted in response to widespread abuses against civilians and were meant to prevent a humanitarian disaster. But the situation has now evolved into a full-scale civil war. The most urgent goal now must be to end the violence and halt further loss of life, while paving the way toward a political transition, objectives that require a different response. Imposing a no-flight zone, which many have been advocating, would, in and of itself, achieve neither of these. It would not stop the violence or accelerate a peaceful resolution. Nor would it materially impede the regime from crushing resistance. Government forces appear to be gaining the advantage mainly on account of their superiority on the ground, not air power. In short, a no-flight zone under existing circumstances would not address the threat of mass atrocities it purports to tackle. The debate over this issue is inhibiting the necessary reflection on the best course of action. If the objective is, as it should be, first and foremost to end the killing, there are only two genuine options. One is an international military intervention explicitly on the side of the revolt with the avowed goal of ensuring its victory or, at a minimum, preventing its defeat. Given widespread lack of knowledge of the situation on the ground, it is unclear what it will take to achieve this. At a minimum, however, this would involve providing the rebel forces with substantial military assistance and taking action against Qaddafis forces. Should those measures not suffice, it could well require direct military involvement on the ground. It is incumbent on those pressing this view to think through its logical implications; it would be reckless to enter a military confrontation on the optimistic assumption that it will be ended quickly, only to see it turn into a bloody, protracted war. Although there are legitimate arguments for a swift and massive military intervention on the opposition's behalf, it presents considerable risks. Besides the obvious downsides entailed in what could well come to be viewed as another Western military engagement in a Muslim country and the

Middle East and North Africa region, it could also lead to large-scale loss of life as well as precipitate a political vacuum in Libya in which various forces engage in a potentially prolonged and violent struggle for supremacy before anything resembling a state and stable government are reestablished. Such a situation could lead to wider regional instability and could be exploited by terrorist movements, notably Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The alternative option, which Crisis Group has advocated, is to engage in a vigorous political effort to achieve an immediate ceasefire in place to be followed by the prompt opening of a dialogue on the modalities of a transition to a new government that the Libyan people will accept as legitimate. To that end, we urge the Council to delegate a regional contact group composed of officials or respected personalities drawn from Arab and African countries, including Libyas neighbours, to initiate discussions with the regime and the opposition without delay. Their mandate would be to secure agreement on: An immediate ceasefire in place, which respects international humanitarian law; Dispatch of a peacekeeping force drawn primarily from the armed forces of regional states to act as a buffer, operating under a Security Council mandate and with the support of the Arab League and African Union; Initiation of a dialogue between the regime and opposition aimed at definitively ending the bloodshed and beginning the necessary transition to representative, accountable and legitimate government To enhance the credibility of the threat to use all necessary means including military steps beyond the imposition of a no-flight zone to protect against mass atrocities, member states should begin planning for such an eventuality. The Security Council has a responsibility to live up to its commitments, even and especially if a member state does not. Crisis Groups proposal addresses head-on the overwhelming priorities of stopping the bloodshed and initiating the necessary political transition in a way that avoids the dangerous prospect of a political vacuum and is in line with both the African Unions proposal for African mediation and the Arab Leagues recognition that Arab countries have a role

to play. It further backs up the vital and long overdue political effort we have called for with the only kind of military deployment that can help end the violence rather than aggravate it. We urge the Security Council to adopt this proposal and to take immediate steps to put it into effect. Sincere regards, Louise Arbour President and CEO International Crisis Group The United States and NATO -- with little discussion and less fanfare -- have effectively abandoned the old U.N. Charter rules that strictly limit international intervention in local conflicts. They have done so in favor of a vague new system that is much more tolerant of military intervention but has few hard and fast rules. What rules do exist seem more the product of after-the-fact rationalization by the West than of deliberation and pre-agreement. "Moammar Gadhafi has a choice. The [U.N.] resolution that passed lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agree that a ceasefire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop," the president said today. "Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya." "These terms are not subject to negotiation," Obama said. "If Gadhafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action." Through Indirect Statements the United States made it clear that Qadhafi must resign immediately or they would suffer a fate similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Arguments:
1. United States and Member fulfill the promises made to the Revolutionist leaders. A fine compensation must be paid and infrastructure development programmes initiated that would rehabilitate the refugees displaced and re-constructs the nation largely funded by those who were part of the treaty. Moreover a Substantial Aid must be provided to help Libyan economy function and recover from the blows the economy faced during the crisis era. 2. Obama must be tried by the Court and involvement of U.S in the Crisis be testified. 3. The Embargos placed on Libya be removed immediately.

Summary and prayer for Relief: Although Moammar Qadhafi was an enemy, a dictator a figure disliked by the Libyans of today, yet he was a Libyan National and his murder was not expected. Later the claims have been diverted and branded with the revolutionists. The new regime prays that a trial must be conducted and the plight of Libyans be heard.