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!