1 / 17

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

herne
Download Presentation

International Court of Justice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


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

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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.

  5. 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.”

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

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

  11. 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.

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

More Related