Case 1: Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995

Also, the CERD itself contains an article stating that any dispute over the interpretation or application of the CERD will be settled in the ICJ and gives jurisdiction to the ICJ for those disputes. Georgia and Russia clearly disagree on the application of the CERD so, therefore, the case falls in our jurisdiction.

In regards to the Russia vs Georgia case, on October 15 2008, the ICJ acting as the prinicple judical organ of the UN granted Georgia provitional measure which it applied for in August, thus ensuring its jurcidiction over the case. In a vote of 8 to 7, the "The Court, having established that such a dispute exists within the meaning of Article 22 of CERD, finally seeks to ascertain whether the procedural conditions set out in that article have been met."

Not jurisdiction within their country, they obviously have that, but whether the case even falls under the jurisdiction of the ICJ itself. It's most likely one of the arguments that the Russian Federation will make

Why would there be an issue of jurisdiction here? It's well within their own country, if they don't have jurisdiction there, then there is something seriously wrong.

I'm very excited to see everyone on Thursday as well!

As it concerns Russia v. Georgia, I think there is an issue of jurisdiction as well. The case as presented to the Court, is a dispute over the interpretation Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. However, it seems that the charges that Georgia claims seem to be more of a violation of humanitarian law than of interpretation or application of CERD.

Hey everybody, Justice Shi Jiuyong here from China, pleased to meet you all, and you, dsheikh, from my fellow delegates who attended the stevenson conference, I have heard much about you.

I'm not sure on the procedure that this committee will present, but I am eager to learn and I do hope that we all have a very successful conference!

Now onto business, it is china's belief that macedonia should not be able to enter the likes of NATO, but I'm assuming that most of you know why, *cough* *cough*, Taiwan! I really do not see the point in discussing the countries beliefs on the subject matter, primarily because that would take away from what all judges have pledged to do, uphold the law and enforce it, which does not usually transpire into setting ones political agenda. However, who am I to judge, I will, personally, view the trial as it progresses and make a decision based on that which is presented to the best of my ability.

This is going to be a blast!

I agree entirely with Morocco's view on the limits of jurisdiction over the FYR Macedonia issue. The court should remain focused on the central question, whether or not Greece has violated the Interim Accord. We do not have jurisdiction on the naming issue (as the delegate from Morocco mentioned,it is specified very clearly in the FYR Macedonia's actual application that neither parties have given the ICJ jurisdiction to discuss the naming dispute).

I am reserving my opinions of the actual cases until after hearing the oral proceedings. As judges, I think it is our job to maintain an open mind until we have heard and read all aspects of the case, even if the case may appear black and white at first.

Can not wait to meet you all on Thursday!!!
Regina
(Delegate from Brazil)

Hello everyone,

This is the delegate from Morocco. I would like present my views on the three cases as well as respond to some of the previous comments.
The case between former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYR Macedonia) and Greece revolves around the interpretation of the clauses of the Interim Accord that concern Greece’s consent to FYR Macedonia’s application and membership in international organizations, with exception to those not mentioned in UN Security Council Resolution 817, as well as precedents set by previous UN actions that may invalidate FYR Macedonia’s right to present this case to the ICJ.

The case over the application of CERD mainly concerns the interpretation of CERD General Recommendation XXI (1996, right to self determination).

While the case between Belgium and Senegal revolves around the interpretation of treaty norms in regards to Article 6 of the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as customary norms regarding international duty to punish perpetrators, co- operators or accomplices of crimes against humanities.

At this point, I would like to respond to some of the United Kingdom’s comments. In reality, the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the name of FYR Macedonia as stated by the Interim Accord. The two parties (FYR Macedonia and Greece) may present “any difference or dispute that arises…concerning the interpretation or implementation of [the] Interim Accord…to the International Court of Justice, except for the difference referred to in Article 5, paragraph 1,’ this being the difference concerning the name.” On case number 3, I agree that Mr. Habré should face the charges brought against him.

I look forward to resolving the presented cases this week and coming up with compromising resolutions that address each county’s opinions and concerns to the best of our abilities.

Best regards,
Shirley

Case #3:
Before I state my opinion, I remind that it does not matter what the accusations are against the former Chadian President, but the interpretation of the United Nations Convention against Torture.

Before I state my opinion on extradition, Senegal should be ordered to submit to arbitration because of the unresolved dispute between the two states, as demonstrated in Article 30 from the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

While former President Habré has been indicted, he has not yet been prosecuted for any alleged crimes. After reading Article 7, paragraph 1, it is clear if a person has not been prosecuted, the alleged must be extradited to the proper authority to face charges. Therefore, I believe Senegal should be ordered to prosecute former President Habré by a certain date, or the court should order Senegal to extradite former President Habré to Belgium, where charges are currently filed.

Hello there again,

I found an interesting article today that I thought I would share with all of you:

http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/11/19/818026_serbia-speaks-on-macedonia-na...

I suggest everyone read it and keep up to date with the information proceedings as relations between FYROM & Greece develop.

- Enjoy your weekend,
Germany

I apologize profusely for not having had the time to reply to such messages,

I believe that Case 1 is very clear to me and I will present my opinion in a few bullets & later describe them at the conference as well as on here.

1. I agree with the United Kingdom upon the application of the Interim Accord's articles and clauses as specified within UK's post (Article 11, par. 1).

2. I believe that we should instigate an investigation as per the number of Macedonians currently living within Greece. I have already submitted such a request. FYROM has a 64.2% population of Macedonians so if they have a higher percentage of Macedonians, they should be allowed to retain the name.

3. The land mass of the original Macedonia that is now occupied by FYROM is bigger than the portion occupied by Greece.

I will post on topic 2 shortly. I'm wondering as to what other delegates think upon this issue. I thank the UK for his/her post.

- Germany.

My opinion, before discussion, on Case #2:

In my opinion, the Russian has violated CERD. The purpose of Russia’s interest in both the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions is based upon the ethnic groups. In South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the majority ethnic groups are the Ossetians and the Abkhaz, respectively. Both groups have received support from Russia since 1989. However, there is a significant minority of Georgians, about 20 to 25% of each area’s population, living in these political entities. Russia has confirmed it has supported the region with both money and military aid. Furthermore, with the offer of citizenship upon the non-ethnic Georgian populations and accusations of ethnic cleansing in the regions, the evidence given leads me to the aforementioned conclusion that Russia has violated CERD.

Hello everyone,
I am the delegate representing Mexico, as you might have guessed. I see that there are already some great ideas. I am also open to hear any more thoughts, discussions, and each country's views on the topics. I agree with the United Kingdom on keeping one thread (if we deem later that one thread is not enough we can try having one for each topic).

Hello Germany, Jordan, Brazil, and United States so far,

I represent the United Kingdom and thought it would be kind to somewhat introduce myself for the time being.

I'm not quite sure why we are supposed to dicuss the cases before the trial because that seems against the point of a trial, but however...

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia vs. Greece simply seems to be an issue of interpreting and applying the Interim Accord made between the two. I believe the solution we should strive for is to create a "resolution" solving the name dispute between the two so the actions that occured at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest will not happen again. Greece does not want the word Macedonia in the name of FYR Macedonia while FYR Macedonia wants to be refered to as the Republic of Macedonia. Observing that Greece has already agreed to refer to FYR Macedonia as that name in the Interim Accord and it is a right of a state to chose its own name for international purposes, Greece has violated the Interim Accord. As FYR Macedonia wanted an invatation to NATO, Greece denied FYR Macedonia because of the name, which is in direct violation of Article 11, Paragraph 1. FYR Macedonia fufilled NATO requirements and Greece challenges the acceptance based upon speculation of changing the name and nationalist propaganda.

While the United Kingdom did report to be neutral about the dispute, I feel this solution is the best for the time being until other negotiations are made between the two parties and a final agreement is affirmed.

PS. Does everyone want all the information on one thread (such as this one) or each topic deserving of their own? I would personally prefer one thread and everyone keep their information rather organized.

Hello,
I represent the US, and I'm interested in a possible coalition and hearing everyone's opinion on the case.

Thanks!

Hi Germany,

I would love to hear your's and other countries' ideas about Case #1.

-Brazil

Sure . I'll post some important info once we have at least 4-5 people on here. On the other hand, some basic info wouldn't be a bad idea - I'll get on that this weekend.

- Germany.

I'm the delegate from Jordan, and I'd be interested in forming a coalition. After all the spirit of the United Nations is working together.