International Court of Justice

International Court of Justice SEOMUN XV Ad-Hoc Nov. 1-3, 2012 President – Peter Park Assistant President - Joanne Lee Registrar – Alice Moon

Structure • President / Assistant President (2, 1 presiding) – in charge of leading the session smoothly • Registrar (1) – organizes the evidence and witnesses; takes notes during judges’ deliberation • Advocates (4) – lawyers of ICJ; a counsel of two advocates represents each nation • Judges (15) – make the final verdict after listening to the cases made by each side

Parties in Dispute • Moving Party (Applicant) – The nation that sues another nation for breaching international law by bringing their case to the ICJ. The moving party has the burden of proof. • Nicaragua • Responding Party (Respondent) – The nation that is being sued. Does not have the burden of proof, and has to prove that the Applicant’s claims are not true. • Costa Rica • Case: Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

Burden of Proof • The Applicant has the ultimate burden of proof. Which side wins depends on whether Applicant meets burden of proof or not. • Applied when examining the evidence and making the final decision • Applicant has to persuade a simple majority of the judges that its position carries weight or is persuasive by at least 51% (preponderance of the evidence) • Note to Judges: If 51% or more of the total evidence supports the Applicant’s case, then vote for the Applicant. Otherwise, vote for the Respondent.

What is International Law? • Listed out in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the ICJ • "(a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by 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) … judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”

Evidence and Testimony • Advocates will support their cases by presenting two different types of evidence: • Real Evidence: consists of objects of any kind (in SEOMUN ICJ, these will mostly be written documents) • Testimony: statements of witnesses, people who have first-hand knowledge of the events relevant to the case

Presentation of Real Evidence • Each counsel will be presenting 8-15 pieces of real evidence. • Each evidence will be collected by the registrar and labeled Applicant #1, 2, 3... or Respondent #A, B, C..., according to whether the evidence is from the moving party or the responding party. • Judges are responsible for weighing each evidence in regards to the following factors: • Authenticity • Reliability • Accuracy • Relevance • Advocates may object to the other counsel’s evidence based on the above four criteria.

Admission of Evidence • Judges will be assigned one or two pieces of real evidence to examine closely. • The judges will decide… • 1. Whether each evidence will be admitted into the court record (i.e. whether it will influence the verdict or not) • 2. “Weight” (value of importance, from 1 to 10) of the evidence, based on authenticity, reliability, accuracy, and relevance • Must bring into account! • Objections previously made by the advocates • The four major requirements that evidence must meet

Witness Testimony • A witness is an ambassador of a nation or NGO who is pulled out of his or her committee. • Witnesses provide a testimony of their role in the case in front of the entire court. • must be first-hand, may not testify about second-hand information • Whatever the witnesses say is testimony, and testimony is evidence. • except when the question or answer is struck out by an objection • Advocates are recommended to call three witnesses.

Witness Testimony • Order • Direct examination • Cross examination • Re-Direct examination • Re-Cross examination • Judges’ Questioning

Witness Testimony • Direct Examination – An advocate questions his counsel’s own witness. • Leading questions are not allowed. • Cross Examination – Advocates questioning the opposing side’s witness. • Must relate to the content of the previous direct examination • If properly done, every question should be a leading question • Judges’ Questioning - The judges ask questions to witnesses for clarification/additional information only, not for arguing or attacking.

Leading Questions (Objection!) • Leading questions are those questions which suggest the answer by the very nature of the question, cannot be asked during direct-exam • Yes or No questions • Ex. “You ate the chocolate, didn’t you?” • Questions that Make Unestablished Assumptions • Ex. “What did you talk about in your dialogue with Mr. Smith?” (when it has not been established by evidence that such a dialogue ever occurred)

Hearsay Questions (Objection!) • Second-hand information • When a witness testifies that he heard someone else, who is not before the court, say something pertaining to the case • For the hearsay objection to be sustained, • must be a statement (declarative, not imperative or exclamatory) • must be offered for the truth of the matter (e.x.: “I heard Mr. Wang say ‘The car is red’” may be offered not to prove that the car is indeed red, but to prove that Mr. Wang isn’t color blind. • Ex. “Mrs. Boush, what did Mr. Boush say about the Secretary-General?” • Only acceptable if Mr. Boush is in the courtroom to verify the answer given. • Otherwise, the opposing counsel may object.

Speculation (Objection!) • A witness cannot be asked a question to which he/she doesn’t have the specific knowledge to answer • To avoid a speculation objection, the direct • Examples • “What do you think they meant by this?” • “So who’s guilty?” • This is a blatant example of speculation. A skilled lawyer would object to this question using ‘speculation’. • Without an objection, though, the question is valid and remains in record, and the witness may answer it.

After Witness Testimonies • Rebuttals • Each counsel addresses the arguments made by the opposing counsel, and counters them • Closing Statements • wrap up all the points that were discussed during the trial • The “Prayer for Relief” must be stated • Advocates can only interpret/comment on the facts and laws during this time. • Before closing statements, you may only state facts and laws, not comment on or discuss them

Judge’s Deliberation • Judges list out and prioritize the major points of contention (“issues”) • Judges, based on their knowledge of the evidence, will deliberate on which side won each of these clashes • Judges will vote on each one of the major points of contention • Resources to use during deliberation: • real evidence • your notes • the Registrar’s notes

Writing the Judgement • Verdict – Majority Opinion; Decision of the court • Separate, but Concurring – opinions of the judges who agree with the decision on who won but differ on the reasons why (i.e.: points of contention) • Dissenting – opinions of the judges who disagree • Separate, But Dissenting – opinions of the judges who dissent but differ on the reasons why

International Court of Justice