Greetings Distinguished Judges of the International Court of Justice,

 

It is my utmost pleasure to welcome you to the first ever ICJ simulation in the history of MeMUNC. Our staff has been working hard to ensure that this experience is both challenging and fun for you all. International law is something that is both complex and fascinating, and so we felt that it is important to introduce you, our young leaders, to it.  Before I get into the specifics of the way this committee will work and you delve into your research, allow me to introduce myself.

My name is Julia Edwards and I am serving as the President of the ICJ. This will be my last MeMUNC, as I am graduating in May with a degree in International Studies and Political Science. Doing this conference has been by far the most rewarding experience of my college career, and it is entirely because of you, the students. So thank you for making the conference what it is.

So what is this ICJ all about? You must be wondering what you have gotten yourself into. The first thing you need to know is that this will be unlike any Model UN experience you may have had in the past. You will not be representing a country. Instead, you will be a Judge responsible for deliberating and deciding the outcome of the case before you: Iraq v. the United States.

The background guide will explain everything about what you need to do to prepare, how to think about the cases, what will happen when the ICJ convenes in May at USM, and how the committee will be run. All of this is completely new to MeMUNC, and so you should be excited to be a part of it!

If at any time you have questions about anything pertaining to the ICJ, the case, your research etc. please do not hesitate to drop me an email. I cannot stress this point enough: because the work that we do during the conference will be much more intense than typical committees, I want to make sure that you all are on track. My email address is julesed@maine.rr.com. Please don’t be afraid to ask questions as you prepare for the conference. I am extremely excited about this committee and cannot wait to meet you all. See you in May!

 

 

Best regards,

 

Julia M. Edwards

President, International Court of Justice

Under-Secretary General of External Affairs

MeMUNC 2004

 

 

 

HISTORY OF THE ICJ

 

            The ICJ is the judicial organ of the United Nations, and has two main purposes. The first is to settle disputes between states according to international law, with the second being to give advisory opinions when asked to by other organs of the United Nations such as the Security Council or the General Assembly. It is one of the means by which states are supposed to settle disputes, as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter. The headquarters is in The Hague, Netherlands.

            The court was created in 1945 at the same time as the United Nations. Its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was established in 1922 with the League of Nations. That framework was improved upon, thus enabling the International Court of Justice as it is today to remain functional. The ICJ has dealt with over 75 cases since its creation, and has issued more than 20 Advisory opinions. The make-up of the court is the following: there are fifteen judges that sit on the ICJ for nine-year terms. They are elected by UN member states, and other countries that are part of the ICJ Statute. To make the transition of judges smoother, five new judges are elected every 3 years. This ensures that the ICJ does not have to function with completely new Judges every nine years. In order to be fair, the national make-up of the Court is varied. Any country is allowed to make a nomination for a Judge, with the General Assembly and Security Council voting on the candidates.  

            The International Court of Justice differs from the kinds of courts you may think of. The most important difference is that the ICJ is not designed to hear cases concerning individuals. Instead, the ICJ hears cases brought before it by countries that have a dispute. The types of disputes can range between anything from disagreements over borders, cases involving diplomatic representation, the use of force, environmental issues or even economic disputes. Take time to look through the current Docket (list of cases that are before the ICJ right now) and the Decisions (judgments made by the Court in past cases) to see what kinds of things the court deals with.

           

THE BASICS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

In order to participate as a judge in the International Court of Justice, you must have at least a basic understanding of what international law is and what it is based on. More specifically, you need to know what the sources of it are, and how to apply it. I know that at first it may seem confusing; if you have done Model UN before as a delegate, you are used to a much more clear and defined way of thinking because you are following “set” policies of your country. However, in the realm of international law, you have to use your own intellect and judgment to interpret the various sources of international law that come before you in the case on our agenda, with the ultimate goal of reaching a decision either for the Applicant or the Respondent.

I must be completely honest with you and say that there is no way that I can precisely explain to you how to think like an international law scholar. I can tell you that it is hard, it is at times frustrating, and it most definitely will hurt your brain. This may be because unlike the kind of law you may be familiar with here in the United States, with clear precedents and definitions of things, international law is purposefully vague and sometimes extremely unclear. The reason for this is that international law evolved from morals – common, universal beliefs about what is wrong and write. Of course the conflict comes when two states have differing interpretations of what is right and wrong, hence there is an International Court of Justice to settle such disputes.

I suppose I should try to make an attempt to at least get you in the right mindset to begin thinking in terms of international law. First off, clear any pre-conceived notions that you may have about the case out of your head. It is imperative that you start with a clean slate in order to critically look at the case, and make a clear judgment based on interpretation of the law. I cannot stress this point enough. Your job at the conference is not to come and defend what side you think is right, even though deep down you may want to. Instead, your job is to look at the facts of the case, how the two sides make their argument, and then make a judgment based on the various sources of international law that the case brings up. Keep in mind that whatever you decide at the end of the case has to be specifically justified using the law. For example, you will not be allowed to just say “I think this side is right because that’s what I think.” No no. You will have to justify your stance through written and oral means throughout the days of the conference. So, make sure you come prepared to think more than you have ever thought before, and really push the debate in all directions.

There are five major sources of international law that Judges in the International Court of Justice can base their decisions on. They are stipulated in Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (get a copy of this – read it, know it, love it). Article 38 states that:

“The court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

a.                           international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

b.                          international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

c.                           the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

d.                          Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”

 

So, according to Article 38 there are essentially 5 sources of international law. The order in which they are listed in the Statute also suggests that there is a sort of hierarchy, meaning that the first few principles may carry more weight with the Judges of the ICJ than the last ones. I am not going to say one way or the other if that is true; because it is up to you to decide what you think is most important when deciding the case. Just to summarize though, the five general sources of international law are:

 

1.      Treaties

2.      Custom

3.      General principles

4.      Jurisprudence

5.      Scholarly writings

 

If you are anything like me, you are looking at this thinking what the heck did I get myself into. I almost passed out my first time on an ICJ because of these big scary words. But trust me; they are not as complicated as they look. Let’s go through them, one by one.

 

Treaty Law

 

Conventions, declarations, charters, statutes and resolutions are some examples of sources of treaty law. A fundamental way to think of it is anything that is a written agreement that has been ratified by governments. For example, the UN Charter falls under this heading, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Geneva Conventions, just to name a few of the major ones. These kinds of agreements and documents are binding on the states that agree to them. They degree to which they get specific varies with each treaty. For example, resolutions from the Security Council often contain more specific language on specific issues, whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for example, sets out the ideals for the international community to strive for. It doesn’t outline how to specifically attain those ideals. This is where interpretation is critical. Without sharpened legal minds such as yourselves, it would be impossible to determine when certain treaties or other documents apply, what context they are in, how important they are, and what they mean.

             It may help you to read or even print out a copy of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This document is sort of a “master guide” for how all treaties, conventions etc. are to be interpreted. It is basically a treaty about the rules of treaties. If you think that it will give you all the answers though, sorry. It is still a bit vague and general, but has some important points in it nonetheless. Take the time to do some independent research about treaty law, to try and gain a fuller understanding of it. It is probably the most straightforward of all of the sources.

 

Customary International Law         

 

            If there is no specific, tangible law that relates to a case in treaty law, or if more “evidence” is needed, custom is often a very useful source of international law. The easiest way to think about it is that it is not defined, it is not written. Instead, it is based exactly on what it is called: custom. Customary international law is something that evolves over time as state practice. This means that even though the “law” might not be written down, or some states may not be signed onto a specific treaty, there are still general principles, practices or ideals that are accepted by the entire international community as right or wrong. One example of this is the concept that genocide is wrong. Some states may not have signed and ratified the Geneva Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, but everyone in the world would agree that genocide is wrong and states should not do it. So, to break it down, even if a state perhaps has not signed onto a particular treaty, customary international law may still apply.

            Customary law is actually very complicated, as you may be starting to think. The difficulty arises in trying to define it. Because it is not written down like treaty law, past decisions or scholarly work, it can be very hard to prove that something exists as part of customary international law. In order to “prove” that a custom exists, the following two criteria must be shown:

            1. The general or continuous acts of a state or states.

                        What this means is that a state should be able to show that it has acted in a certain way repeatedly in similar situations or that other states have acted in similar ways, thus showing that the principle is one of custom, since it has been done and accepted by the international community.

            2. Opinio juris

                        This is just a fancy legal term describing the belief that states have that certain ways of acting are compulsory. This is sometimes difficult to prove because a state may not be legally bound to a treaty or other document, but they may still feel bound to that document. How do you prove this? For example, if a president of a country says that he/she feels bound by the UN Charter, it is safe to say that this shows the opinion juris of that country. So, to recap, opinio juris is just a fancy word that refers to those things that states feel bound by or compelled to act by.

 

Don’t get too bogged down in the details of customary law. As you get familiar with the sources in the case and the evidence that the two sides give, the goal is for you to begin to look at those sources and be able to say “oh that could be classified as a source of customary international law” or “that is definitely treaty law.” Customary international law will get you thinking about what things there are in the international community and in international law that are just accepted as law because they are custom, and thus not clearly defined.

 

General Principles

 

            Again, this source of international law is vague, if not the vaguest to say the least. However, it can serve a purpose. General principles, like customary international law, are not clearly set out. Therefore, there is room for a lot of interpretation when it comes to establishing whether something is a general principle of international law or not. Rarely do these principles have much effect oh the decisions of a court, but it is possible that they can fill in a gap. An example of one of these vague principles is the concept of states acting in good faith, meaning that states are supposed to act in a manner that does not hurt anyone else, just because it’s nice to be nice. If a state has violated a general principle such as this, it may play some role in the judges overall decision but typically is not a strong enough argument to stand alone.

 

Jurisprudence

            You may have heard this term before – its one that is a very integral part of the American justice system, but not really the international legal world. Jurisprudence refers to the decisions made by the ICJ in past cases that may relate to a current one. There is a lot of debate in the legal world as to whether precedent or past decisions can or should be used in order to make a decision in the present about a different case. Article 59 of the ICJ Statute deals with this issue, stating that, “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.” This means that the decision made about a case between certain states will only affect those states. From this it can be interpreted as meaning that previous cases will not have an effect or bearing on the ruling of another case. While this is true and necessary, past decisions can be helpful in understanding the application of certain kinds of law. It is imperative that you explore the ICJ website. There is also a list of all cases that the ICJ has heard, as well as what decisions or rulings it has made. Feel free to get acquainted with some of the cases. They will most definitely help you see how the real ICJ operates and what kinds of arguments states really use. Just remember that precedent is not really acceptable in the court as a basis for a judgment. This is because each case is individual and unique because the stats in each case are individual and unique. Because of this fact, international law cannot be clearly defined and applied to each case in the same way. Where would the fun in that be?

Scholarly Writings

            Another term for this source of international law, as cited in the ICJ Statute, is doctrine. This source is secondary in relation to the weight that the various sources have in deciding a case. However, the writings of the most highly respected scholars of international law can be useful in shedding some light on the application of a certain treaty, custom, principle etc. You will find a list of some reputable scholars and their writings that might be helpful. I definitely encourage you to explore these sources for yourself. It will only help you understand the vastness of international law.

Other Things to Think About

 

            A final major principle that you may want to become familiar with (because it may be an issue for you as Judges when deciding the case), is the concept of jus cogens. Again, this is a fancy word (Latin I think?) that is used in the international legal world. The basic concept of jus cogens is that there are some things in the international legal community that are universal, supreme and untouchable as far as international law goes. Something that is accepted as “jus cogens” is something that the international community feels cannot be superceded. It does not have to be written down, and states do not have to specifically agree to it. It is so high up the ladder of international relations and law, that it doesn’t need to be said. It just “is.”

 

PRONUNCIATION GUIDE FOR THESE CRAZY LEGAL WORDS

 

Opinion juris – op-in-yo  yur-is

 

Jus cogens – yoos cogens (with this one, you can either pronounce the “g” in “cogens” like a g or like a j, it’s up to you. The Court will not be picky)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RULES OF PROCEDURE

 

All general rules of MeMUNC 2004 as set out by the Under-Secretary General of Internal Affairs shall apply to this court, except those specifically designed to govern the ICJ.

 

Rule 1. Language

            The working language of the court shall be English

 

Rule 2. Courtesy

            Judges will show the utmost respect and courtesy to the Chair, the MeMUNC staff and other judges. The Chair will call any Judge to order who is not in line with this rule.

 

Rule 3. Speeches

            Judges must be recognized by the Chair before speaking. There are no time limits on speeches, unless the Judges motion for a speaking time and pass it. The Chair has the right to call a Judge to order if he or she is making a speech that is unreasonably long, irrelevant or repetitive.

 

Rule 4. Phases of Procedure

            The ICJ will be run according to the distinct phases outlined in the background guide. They are:                             

a) Written Proceedings

                                    b) Preliminary Deliberations

                                    c) Oral Arguments

                                    d) Deliberations

                                    e) Notes

                                    f) Formal Deliberations

                                    g) Opinions

 

Rule 5. Moderated Caucus

            A moderated caucus allows the body to debate a specific issue of question in a more free-form way. A motion for a moderated caucus must contain the specified length and purpose. Judges must stick to the purpose and the Chair will bring those to order who diverge from that purpose.

 

Rule 6. Round Robin

            Moving into a round robin allows each judge to answer a specific question in turn. If a judge wishes to pass the first time around the table, he/she may and answer at the end.

 

Rule 7. Straw Poll Votes

            If the court wishes to get an unofficial consensus concerning a particular issue or question, a straw poll may be taken. The “vote” is non-binding.

 

Rule 8. Closing of Deliberations

            Once Judges have gone through enough formal debate and feel ready to make a decision and write opinions, a motion can be made to close deliberations. This vote requires unanimity to pass, meaning every judge must be in favor of ending discussion.

 

 

PHASES OF DEBATE

 

            The way that our ICJ is going to work differs from the typical Model UN committee. The debate is much more informal than regular committees, because the type of debate really works better in a round table type of format. It is crucial that everyone actively participates for the committee to be a success. Below is a breakdown and description of each phase of debate.

 

v     Written proceedings

As a judge on the ICJ, you will write a position paper before you arrive at the conference. However, this will be a different kind of position paper than the typical one for Model UN. Instead of writing about your country’s position on certain issues, your paper for the ICJ will be about how you understand the legal issues about the case, Iraq v. the United States. You will discuss what your rough ideas are so far, and what questions you think still need to be answered in order to make a judgment. The position paper is not a commitment to ruling a certain way. It is just to help you organize your thoughts so that when you get to the conference, you will know what major issues you think the Court needs to deal with.

 

v     Preliminary Deliberations

Once the first session of the ICJ begins, you will begin debating the issues outlined in your position papers. As a group you will want to work toward formulating a rough list of questions that need to be answered in order to work towards a decision. This is a time to present what your major concerns or opinions are, and help other judges work through their questions. This committee depends on you all working together to understand the complexity of international law, even if you may not all agree on the final decision.

 

v     Oral Arguments

During this phase of debate, Agents from each side will make brief presentations of their cases. Afterwards, at the discretion of the Chair, Judges will be allowed to ask questions of the Agents.

 

v     Deliberations

Judges will continue to debate the central issues that arose from the preliminary deliberations. You also should be on the same page when it comes to the facts of the case, and the major points that the case depends on. Judges are allowed to express which side they may or may not be leaning towards, but it is not binding and judges need to remain open to seeing other arguments and interpretations.

 

v     Notes

This phase of debate in the ICJ is one of, if not the most important steps. Judges are given time to write down what their preliminary opinion is, and why they feel that way. The actual written note should discuss and highlight the following points: whether or not there are certain questions that should not be discussed further or are not relevant to the discussion; what specific questions the ICJ should decide; what you think the tentative answers to those questions are and why, and finally, what your individual decision might be concerning the case and whether the use of force was legal or not. It is crucial to keep in mind that what is written in the Notes is not binding. It is a way for each Judge to organize their thoughts after having gone through intense discussion. Once each Judge has completed their Notes, they will be presented to the entire committee so that everyone can be on the same page.

 

v     Formal Deliberations

Once notes are presented, formal deliberations begin. It is during this time that Judges have to answer the remaining questions posed by the notes. Through discussion, Judges need to try and come to a more unified understanding of each other’s opinions to try and reach a solid judgment. Before this phase can end, each Judge has to make a final decision about which party to vote for: either in favor of the applicant of the respondent. Judges must also have a clear justification for why they rule the way they do.

 

v     Opinions

After you have gone through all of the above phases, it is time for the court to make a final decision and write opinions. The side that has the majority of votes is called the majority opinion, and has to write their opinion together.  The opinion covers what the ruling is, and what the reasoning is based on international law. If a Judge that is part of the majority opinion doesn’t agree with a certain aspect of the decision but agrees with the decision as a whole, he/she can write a separate opinion that explains why they disagree. For those judges who find in favor of the other side, they must write dissenting opinions. They can choose to do this separately or as a group. For the majority opinion, each judge in favor of it must sign the document. Judges who are on the dissenting side must also sign an opinion, and may only sign one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case: Iraq v. the United States of America: The Use of Force

 

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.                  This memorial is submitted to the court in pursuance of an Application submitted on March 20th, 2005 in accordance with Articles 38 and 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

 

2.         This case is in regards to the use of force by United States and other allied forces in the sovereign state of Iraq on March 20th, 2003. Based on the various sources of international law, the Court will have to decide whether or not this use of force was legal under international law.

 

PART I: JURISDICTION

 

3.         Pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice which states that “The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force,” the Republic of Iraq accepts the jurisdiction of the court over this case.

 

PART II: THE FACTS OF THE CASE

 

4.         Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq and the United States have had troubled relations, and Iraq has been under the close watch of the United Nations. It was in this year that a UN-authorized, US-led coalition defeated the Iraqi army and drove them out of Kuwait. The US maintained a sort of presence in Iraq, enforcing no-fly zones and conducting periodic bombing runs on radar stations and other military targets.

 

5.         Following the Gulf War, UN Weapons Inspectors were sent into Iraq to verify that biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were not being produced. Their relationship with Iraq was definitely rocky, since Iraq felt that the US was using the UN inspectors as a cover to spy on Iraq. This and other tensions made Iraq less co-operative than desired.

 

6.         In 2002, the United States, based on intelligence reports, began strongly alleging that Iraq was developing and stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). UN Weapons Inspectors had pulled out of Iraq in 1998, and the US called for their return. There was a lot of support from many countries, and because of the intense pressure, Iraq agreed to allow inspectors to return to see once and for all that Iraq had nothing to hide. 

 

7.         UN inspectors, while coming into conflict with reported obstructions by Iraqi officials, said they needed more time to conduct their investigations. This conflicted with the United States and the ultimatum they gave to Iraq to disarm or face consequences. The UN inspectors had thus far found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, but were not given more time and the United States had given more time than it wanted to. The time for the ultimatum expired.

 

8.         On March 20th, 2003 the United States along with allied forces, invaded the sovereign state of Iraq. In doing so, the United States violated one of the fundamental principles of international law: the illegality of the use of force except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The Republic of Iraq will proceed to show that the US acted illegally and had no justification for the use of force.

 

PART III: THE LAW

 

9.         Under Article 2, clause 4 of the United Nations Charter, states are to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Not only is this principle set down in writing in the UN Charter, but it is a fundamental principle of international law. It could be seen as a part of customary international law, or even further, a principle of jus cogens. As a reminder, jus cogens is the term for principles, ideas or ways of behaving that are above any written law – the international community just knows that they are most important than anything. It is Iraq’s argument that the rule against the use of force is higher than any law or other obligation, and the United States violated it. 

 

10.       The United States has also violated United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2625, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. This document, while not binding upon states because it is a General Assembly resolution, serves as a re-affirmation of important principles of international law. It clearly restates that states have a duty not to intervene within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. It also stresses the importance of sovereignty, and the rights that are related to sovereignty that cannot be infringed upon.

 

11.       At the time of the invasion, the United States was not citing any other justification besides self defense for using force against the sovereign state of Iraq. The argument that their actions were taken for humanitarian reasons is both invalid and unjustified. This was not part of their reasoning at the time of the invasion. Instead, the reasoning was that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was going to use them on the United States. This was completely untrue and unproven. UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, and to this day have found no evidence that they existed. The United States lied to the international community and worst of all, took illegal action against a sovereign state without reason or authorization.

 

11. After the fact, the United States also came out with another justification: there was a potential link between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Under this argument, the United States could advocate that they have the sovereign right to protect itself from any sort of terrorism. The attacks of September 11th could serve as evidence of an armed attack, thus giving the US the right to respond. However, this is not valid. The United Nations Charter is very explicit and precise when it comes to the use of force, stipulating that it is only allowed when an armed attack occurs. Once armed conflict breaks out, the Security Council must be notified and should handle the situation. This did not occur in Iraq. There since has been no evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda together, which makes this argument null and void as well.

 

12.       The United States of America has also violated international law by using the doctrine of pre-emption to justify its invasion of Iraq. Pre-emptive self-defense, which means taking action before something actually happens because there is a perceived threat of something happening, is not dealt with in the UN Charter; therefore it is not legal under international law. In order to use self defense as an argument, an armed attack would already have had to occur, as laid out in Article 51 of the UN Charter. As stated before, no armed attack occurred. The US acted pre-emptively and unilaterally, without consent from the UN Security Council.

13.       The United States is also in violation of Article 33 of the UN Charter, which stipulates the means by which a conflict is to be resolved, before resorting to the use of force. It explicitly states that: “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” The US government did not exhaust all of the above methods of settlement.

 

PART IV. SUBMISSIONS

 

14.       According to the contents of Parts I, II and III of this Memorial, we ask that you, the Judges of the International Court of Justice find the following things:

           

a.       That the United States acted illegally in its use of force against the sovereign Republic of Iraq; and

b.      That the United States had no justification under international law to use force.

 

COUNTER-MEMORIAL SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.         This memorial is submitted in response to the Application filed by the Republic of Iraq against the United States of America.

 

2.         The United States’ Memorial is based on the fundamental principal of the sovereign right to self defense, as well as obligations under international law to intervene in humanitarian crises. Iraq posed a threat to the security of the United States and the international community, and the humanitarian situation was one which warranted intervention. The United States also had implied authorization from previous UN Security Council resolutions.

 

PART I: JURISDICTION

 

3.         The United States of America consents to the jurisdiction of the Court over this case under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.  

 

PART II: THE FACTS OF THE CASE

 

4.         Iraq posed a threat to the peace and security of the international community for more than a decade before the United States and its allied forces decided to take the initiative to act. Saddam Hussein’s regime had a history of hostile action which included invading neighboring states (i.e. Kuwait) and using chemical and biological weapons on its own citizens. Iraq also posed a threat to the security of the United States as a sovereign nation, which served as the basis for US military action against Iraq in March 2003.

 

5.         US Intelligence reports prior to March 20th, 2003, strongly indicated that Iraq was developing and stockpiling WMDs. The United States endeavored to solve the problem peacefully, exhausting all possible channels of solution. Sanctions were imposed on Saddam’s regime, having little to no effect. Diplomacy was used through the United Nations, and Security Council pressure was applied. Inspectors were also exhaustively used to try and bring Iraq in line with international demands.

 

6.         Seeing no other means of alleviating the threat that Iraq posed to the United States and the international community as a whole, the US government issued an ultimatum to Iraq: disarm within the given timeframe or face the consequences. Iraq did not comply, and as a result, the US and its allies took the necessary action.

 

7.         Saddam Hussein’s forces were rapidly defeated and once the actual military campaign ended, the US and its allies were able to focus on giving total governmental control back to Iraq. With Saddam gone, Iraq could now enjoy establishing a fair and democratic government, and take care of its citizens: something Saddam had strongly neglected.

 

PART III: THE LAW

 

8.         Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the United States has the right to take action for reasons of self defense. While the UN Charter specifies that this applies only in cases where an armed attacked takes place, the Charter was written and adopted in a time that was very different than the present. Given the serious threats posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction and the unstable climate of terrorism that exists in the world today, the United States had the right to act.

 

9.         The UN Security Council gave implicit authorization for the US to take action in Iraq. Security Council Resolution 1441 served as the major resolution in the months before the military action. The US is also of the opinion that resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War in 1991 serve as implicit authorization for the use of force, to force Iraqi compliance. Specifically, Resolutions 678 provides such justification. In it the Security Council states that Member States are authorized “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.” Later on, Resolution 687 created a cease-fire, which depended on Iraq’s acceptance of and compliance with several terms. One of these was the complete destruction of all WMDs – chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The use of force had been authorized by the Security Council for the first Gulf War, to make sure that Iraq complied with Security Council demands. Specifically, force was to be used to ensure the maintenance of peace and security. To achieve peace and security, Iraq needed to comply with all of the demands of the Security Council. They did not do so, thus making it necessary for action to continue. Because there were no resolutions that cancelled the Security Council’s call for Iraq to comply, the US had the right and duty to continue its actions, especially since Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire.

 

10.       The United States’ use of force in Iraq is also justified under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. It was evident to the international community that Saddam’s regime had committed gross human rights violations against Iraqi citizens. This alone could be reason enough for forcefully intervening. Since the NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999, the debate has increased around whether or not humanitarian intervention is a justification for the use of force. This is especially true since the ICJ is currently hearing cases between the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and the 10 NATO countries that were involved in the intervention. 

 

11.       The United States also had the right to use force under the doctrine of pre-emptive self defense. While the Charter of the United Nations does not expressly deal with the issue of pre-emptive action, it has evolved as an accepted practice in the international community and under international law. With the new kinds of threats that face nations, especially from Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism, countries cannot expect to be able to sit and wait for something to happen. Pre-emptive action is necessary, and it was in this case. Iraq posed a grave threat to the security of the United States and the international community as a whole. The United States decided to address and eliminate the threat.

 

PART IV. SUBMISSIONS

 

12.       In light of what has been discussed in Sections I, II and III, the Respondent asks that the honorable Judges of the International Court of Justice find the following:

 

a.       That the United States did not act in violation of international law in its action against Iraq;

b.      That the United States of America was justified in its actions given the severe threat that Iraq posed to the US’s sovereignty, the international community, and the people of Iraq.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY & HELPFUL SOURCES

 

The United Nations Charter

            This document is one of if not the most important document governing states in international law. It is virtually universal in its application, and is a core source for both the Applicant and Respondent in this case. http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

 

The International Court of Justice

            The website for the ICJ is one that you should spend a LOT of time on. There is an abundance of information. Explore other cases, read past decisions of the Court, learn about its composition and how it works. It will help you. http://www.icj-cij.org/