POSITION PAPERS
ICJ
HKISMUN
Angela Daniel
The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Position Paper – Angela Daniel
Subject: Addressing the Dispute of South West Africa
Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice
Namibia, earlier known as South West Africa, plays an important role in this case.
It is an important historical issue that involving state responsibilities, international
law, and justice.
South Africa's role is in the centre as the administering authority under the League
of Nations Mandate System, which was considered by the International Court of
Justice in the mid-20th century.
South Africa was given the Class C mandate to manage South West Africa after
World War I had ended, to support the local population and prepare them for self-
governance. However in a shocking turn of events, South Africa's approach was
completely different. A series of concerns and queries raised as a shocking contrast
was found when, instead of promoting growth and empowerment, South Africa
enforced policies of racial segregation and exploitation showing questionable
commitment to fulfilling its responsibilities to the people of South West Africa.
Ethiopia and Liberia, argued that South Africa had not fulfilled its obligations
under international law and had done a rather shoddy job at sticking with what the
Mandate had stated. Of course the representatives then expressed deep concern,
saying that South Africa's policies were undermining the fundamental principles of
the mandate, putting the rights of South West Africans at risk. They both then
called upon the ICJ to hold South Africa accountable for its actions and in
response, South Africa argued that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction, claiming that the
mandate system had effectively ended with the dissolution of the League of
Nations.
This dispute raises important legal questions about whether the administering
authority still has obligations under the mandate system after the League of
Nations' dissolution. It also asks how accountable states are under international law
for violating individual rights and self-determination.
The outcome will resolve the current dispute and hopefully set a precedent to
influence other state obligations, showing how this case is crucial towards
international law, outlining values like justice and fairness.
This conflict undermines the importance of upholding international laws which the
ICJ must consider in each argument to promote justice and equitable application of
the law.
Position Paper for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – Angela Daniel
Topic: The Chilean - Peruvian Maritime Dispute
Justice Ronny Abraham
Heard by the ICJ on the 27th of January 2014, this case is crucial to the interpretation
of marine borders and international legal principles. The issue revolves around Chile
and Peru's maritime boundary with consequences for sovereignty, resource
distribution, and the rule of law in regional conflicts.
Peru states that there isn't a clear maritime border agreement, and they want a legal
ruling under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They
believe the current setup limits access to ocean areas with tons of marine resources
and that it doesn't align with the modern international maritime boundary law. On the
other hand, Chile views the existing arrangement as an accepted boundary. Peru also
states that past agreements, like the 1952 Santiago Declaration and the 1954 Maritime
Zones Agreement, were meant for fishing rights, not a permanent maritime border.
On the other hand, Chile states that these agreements created the maritime boundary,
which both sides have upheld for many years, as well as having acknowledged it.
Chile says that Peru's assertions are baseless accusations and are trying to derail a
long-standing and stable order. Chile argues further that Peru's stance risks causing
unnecessary ambiguity and violates the pacta sunt servanda principle, which basically
states that agreements are binding under international law.
In this case, the ICJ must address important legal questions, including how to interpret
past agreements and the impact of state practices on border disputes. They also need
to decide if the agreements Chile referenced create a legally binding maritime
boundary or if current legal standards should require a new delimitation.
It's important to grasp the broader significance of this case, especially for those
looking at it without bias. With the ever-changing global marine law,this decision is a
chance to see how historical agreements line up . The ruling also sets a good example
for how similar disputes are handled across the globe helping ensure fairness and
consistency when it comes to defining maritime borders.
Seeing validity and facts in the arguments from both countries is important to the ICJ
guiding them to reach a fair decision.
A peaceful resolution to this dispute would emphasize the value of legal processes
when addressing tough international issues. It would be great to see both countries
committed to resolving their differences through legal channels, reinforcing how vital
the ICJ is in promoting global peace and stability.
