7th AMUN - Building Bridges Across Nations

Since the foundation of the United Nations in 1945, a total of 126 countries, representing two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, have engaged in 291 interstate conflicts in which more than 22 million people have been killed. More recently, the debate on the situation in Iraq has focused worldwide attention on the appropriate use of military force in international relations.

Determining in which circumstances, if any, it is necessary and appropriate for a country or an international organization to employ the use of armed force has been a much-debated, but ultimately inconclusive, endeavor. There is much disagreement amongst scholars, diplomats, jurist-philosophers and international legal experts in general and, therefore, there is no easy answer.

Any debate over the legality of use of armed force must begin with the United Nations Charter. The Charter redefined interpretations on this regard by delineating circumstances under which it is permissible. Even though it repels the use of force in its Preamble and in Article 2(4), the Charter allows for it in two circumstances: 1) in “self-defense” against “armed attack” and 2) upon a determination by the Security Council that a threat to international peace and security exists which warrants military action for its suppression.

In addition, in February 2003, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that “when states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council” . Nevertheless, the question that may arise is whether the threat or use of force is legal in the face of failure of action by the Security Council due to, e.g., lack of consensus.
Hence, we shall imagine that the General Assembly has adopted a (hypothetical) resolution requesting for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice – ICJ on the legality of use of force by states and international organizations under the United Nations Charter. In this resolution the General Assembly decided to request the ICJ to urgently render its advisory opinion upon a question of whether the threat or use of force by states and international organizations is permitted under international law without prior Security Council authorization, and, if so, in which circumstances and in what manner it is legal.

To the ICJ it will definitely not be just a matter of delivering a judgment on another advisory case. It will be the opportunity to bring to light a new doctrine regarding the use of force in international relations, as well as to redefine the role of the Security Council and other UN and non-UN bodies and organizations on the maintenance and enforcement of international peace and security.

Topic Area B – Contentious Case
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The Yugoslav Republic, created after the First World War, fragmented in a gory 1990s conflict which severely tested all twentieth century efforts to promote the rule of law. The bloody carnage triggered memories of the Nazi genocide in the 1940s.

By 1992, the fall of the Yugoslav Federation had been initiated by internal tentions. Slovenia and then Croatia were the first to break away, but only at the cost of a conflict with Serbia. That same year, another conflict had broken out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had also proclaimed its independence on 6 March 1992. The Bosnian Serbs – supported by neighboring Serbia and Montenegro – took up armed resistance aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas to form a Greater Serbia. These republics of the former Yugoslavia entered the United Nations as newly independent states in 1992 while fighting continued between three ethnic groups (Serbs, Croats, and Muslins) over contested territory in the Balkans.

During a tenuous peace, the Bosnian government pursued its case against Yugoslavia in the International Court of Justice – ICJ and demanded reparations for genocidal crimes. Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed that the acts had been committed by former members of the Yugoslav People’s Army as well as by Serb military and paramilitary forces under Serbian direction. In its Application, Bosnia and Herzegovina request that the Court adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia, through its agents and surrogates, has, amongst other crimes, killed, murdered, wounded, raped, robbed, tortured, kidnapped, illegally detained, and exterminated the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that it must immediately cease the systematic practice of ethnic cleansing and pay reparations.

Furthermore, on 2 July 1999, Croatia also instituted proceedings before the Court against Yugoslavia, based on the same reasoning, i.e. the application of the Genocide Convention. Croatia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has an obligation to pay to Croatia reparations for damages to persons and property, as well as to the Croatian economy and environment caused by the foregoing violations of international law.

These are the ICJ’s first cases under the Genocide Convention. Maritime and territorial disputes have historically dominated the court’s workload. This is, therefore, a tough challenge that appears before the Court. During AMUN, Judges shall be facing very relevant questions as, inter alia, the status of the above mentioned countries as parties to the Genocide Convention, the qualification of the struggle as an international conflict or a civil war, the role of the Security Council, and, ultimately, the role of the ICJ itself in world conflicts.