[GA] ICJ Case #002

[Dutchy]

"It is my opinion that the Federal Republic of the Philippines is also in violation of the article for bringing a military vessel to a disputed zone. However, at this time we are reviewing China's role in the violation, I will take note to investigate the role of the Philippines once we have reached a verdict on this case. So it is of utmost importance that the court reaches a decision regarding this situation."

"While the Resolution is flawed, it is our task to come to a decision. To reach that decision we must review every aspect of the situation and I welcome your arguments, as they will be of help us and the Global Assembly in future Resolutions."

"I truly hope that upon the conclusion of this hearing, we can see multilateral dialogue initiated to resolve the situation of the disputed area."

 

[Centurius]

"Your honour, if you believe the Philippines are also in violation it is your obligation to find the prosecution to be in bad faith and dismiss this case with prejudice as is common legal doctrine. I also stand by the position that the Celestial Empire cannot be found guilty of something that does not and did not constitute international law. It is the duty of the International Court of Justice to apply the law as it stands to cases brought before it. it is the duty of the Global Assembly to rectify flawed resolutions. As is a common principle of the separation of powers" Harvey replied to the Dutch justice.

 

[Dutchy]

"I cannot in good faith rule against China, as the Resolution is too flawed to act upon. Though I am making these statements in hope that the Global Assembly reads the transcripts in order to bring to order the many issues. Any vessel equipped with armaments, other than small arms for personnel, should be constituted as a military vessel." Quickly looking at public specifications of the vessels she would continue, "the Chinese Type 055D-class Destroyer, carries not only a H/PJ-38 130 mm dual-purpose naval gun but also has surface-to-air_missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles and land-attack cruise missiles. The Philippine Gregoria del Pilar-class Frigate itself has a MK.75 Oto Melara 76mm Compact Cannon. That a armed vessel is operating under a Coast Guard umbrella cannot be used as an excuse to change its status. A warship remains a warship, a military vessel remains a military vessel."

"Any ship armed with a cannon should be identified as a military vessel and I call upon the GA to make a clear definition of what constitutes as a military vessel. Since we have no clear distinction of what a military vessel is, China cannot be prosecuted for their actions."

"It is our job to uphold the law to the best of our ability, but due to the too many flaws I call for this case to be dismissed, a temporary ruling made barring all armed vessels from disputed areas, until the Global Assembly has passed an amended Resolution for Laws of the Sea. Are there any justices in disagreement, or can I call upon the presiding Justice to call for a vote."

 

[Centurius]

"On behalf of my client I can state that the Celestial Empire will fully comply with such a ruling" Harvey stated after quickly consulting with some of his co-chairs.

 

[Odinson]

Olhouser adjusted himself in his chair and waited until his colleagues and the Celestial counsel had finished speaking.

"Last night, I was up with my staff reading the original transcripts from when The Law of The Sea was being debated. What we were able to find was quite remarkable, to say the least. Before going further, I would like to make it clear to the Celestial Counsel that - regardless of whether or not the Celestial Empire is doing this - the operation of military vessels in disputed waters is, without doubt, against the spirt of The Law of The Sea. In fact, I read the transcript different representatives from southeast Asia actually bringing up the Spratly Islands in the discussion with remarkable foresight. Their objections is why disputed waters were added to the resolution.

"The resolution itself was originally proposed by the Portuguese delegation. Their original draft did not mention disputed waters, but after the Vietnamese delegation brought up the possible complications with the Spratly Islands, the Portuguese ambassador said the following:
'Now for the delegations worried about their disputed claim, I would like to propose the following, Disputed waters should be left to the negotiations of the nations with whom the dispute arrives. And until each nation agrees on its claims, no Military Vessel from any nation in the dispute will not[sic] be allowed in the disputed zone. Any other nation may use it for passage.
Is it possible for this to be agreed on? We can at a later date solve the issue of Disputed Waters.'

"Because they faced no backlash from this proposal, the next draft by the Portuguese delegation included the first written phrasing we see in regard to disputed waters:
'4. Disputed Waters are left outside of the law, until the Nations disputing it resolve it. No Military Vessel from any nation in the dispute will not[sic] be allowed in the disputed zone. Any other nation may use it for passage."

"After some debate over the economic exclusion zone (EEZ), the Portuguese delegation stated that they and the Argentine delegation were probably in agreement, and that the Argentine delegation should propose their own draft with their own edits. The Argentinians were now de facto responsible for writing the next version of the draft. They did so, and Section 4 now read slightly differently.

"Disputed Waters are left outside of the preset Law, until the coastal sates disputing it resolve it. No military vessels from the coastal states involved in the dispute, with the exception of passage, are authorized to operate within the disputed zone. Third party ships are authorized to utilize the Disputed Waters as stated in Chapter II."

"The British and Dutch delegations say that they are happy with the current draft, and they move for it to be voted on. The Secretary General makes an official copy of the draft, and puts it up for a vote. However, the Secretary General actually changed the section which we are discussing. Look closely at the difference of the finalized version, and the version I just shared with you:
"Disputed Waters are left outside of the present Law, until the Coastal States disputing it resolve it. No military vessels from the coastal states involved in the dispute, with the exception of passage, are authorized to operate within the disputed zone."

"In case you are having trouble following, I've had the evolution of this section written out for everyone present." A white paper was handed to each justice and the defending counsel.


::::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::


1. ORIGINAL PORTUGESE REMARKS: "Now for the delegations worried about their disputed claim, I would like to propose the following, Disputed waters should be left to the negotiations of the nations with whom the dispute arrives. And until each nation agrees on its claims, no Military Vessel from any nation in the dispute will not[sic] be allowed in the disputed zone. Any other nation may use it for passage.
Is it possible for this to be agreed on? We can at a later date solve the issue of Disputed Waters."

2. NEW PORTUGESE DRAFT: "4. Disputed Waters are left outside of the law, until the Nations disputing it resolve it. No Military Vessel from any nation in the dispute will not[sic] be allowed in the disputed zone. Any other nation may use it for passage."

3. ARGENTINE DRAFT: "Disputed Waters are left outside of the preset Law, until the coastal sates disputing it resolve it. No military vessels from the coastal states involved in the dispute, with the exception of passage, are authorized to operate within the disputed zone. Third party ships are authorized to utilize the Disputed Waters as stated in Chapter II."

4. OFFICIAL SECRETARY GENERAL DRAFT: "Disputed Waters are left outside of the present Law, until the Coastal States disputing it resolve it. No military vessels from the coastal states involved in the dispute, with the exception of passage, are authorized to operate within the disputed zone."


::::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::


Olhouser waited until everyone was done reading. "I have to say, this resolution was handled very poorly. This section in particular, which has proven to be very important, was intended to prevent nations with disputed territories from sending in military vessels for purposes of intimidation. It is very important for the International Court of Justice to look at the original intent of the people who wrote, debated, and voted on the resolutions - AKA 'Original Intent' - however it is also vital for us to look at the Plain Text of the resolution that was passed. As neutral arbiters, it's our job to decide whether Original Intent, or the Plain Text is more important in each case, or if they both hold equal weight.

"All of that being said, in my judgement, I cannot hold the Celestial Empire accountable for violating Section 4 of Chapter 4 of the Law of The Sea. Not only because the Plain Text is poorly written, vague, and generally difficult to understand in its English translation, but also because Section 4 contradicts itself by saying that either "the law", "the preset law", or "the present law" do not apply. Regardless of which version was actually intended to be in Section 4, all three of those versions are either too vague to properly judge without taking exceptional liberty, or entirely contradictory to the remaining part of the section. Also, on top of that, the Secretary General may have made a mistake when proposing his version of the final draft for the vote by changing 'preset' to 'present' and omitting part of the section. Unless there are any other developments or significant evidence that we have not seen yet, my individual vote is that the Celestial Empire did not violate Section 4 of Chapter 4 for the reasons stated above.

"I can't stress enough, though, that if Section 4 had been properly written in coherent English in accordance with the original statements made by the Portuguese delegation, I do not think my vote would not be the same. The General Assembly, and its relevant officers, critically failed in passing a coherent resolution. I state for the record that an updated version of the Law of The Sea should be debated in the General Assembly as quickly as possible, and all efforts should be put forth to make sure it is: grammatically correct, coherent, and clear in meaning. Regardless of the outcome of this section in the resolution, it must at least be clear so situations like this do not happen again."

 

[Odinson]

"Justice Cuijpers has motioned that we vote to resolve this case. Unless the other justices feel that there needs to be more discussion, I have written out the two votes that I believe we should take. I think these are well-worded, but if they need to be changed, speak now or forever hold your peace."

One of the court's assistants handed another paper to each of the justices. There were two questions:

::::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::

"Vote 1: China is guilty of violating The Law of The Sea.

Vote 2: The International Court of Justice will issue an injunction stating: "All armed vessels are barred from entering or passing through disputed waters without the permission of all relevant parties until the General Assembly amends or reviews The Law of The Sea."

::::::::::
::::::::::
::::::::::

(OOC: Unless y'all want to discuss other things further or want to change the wording of the questions we're voting on, please simply indicate:
"Vote 1 Yea/Nay
Vote 2 Yea/Nay".
It'll probably make you look good if you provide your reasoning afterwards, but this isn't necessary).

 

[Naio90]

Vote 1: Nay
Vote 2: Yay

 

[JJSmithJr]

Vote 1: Aye
Vote 2: Aye

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

Vote 1: Yea
Vote 2: Yea

"I have made my thoughts on the issue very clear, and thus must vote in accordance with what I previously stated. I am also of the opinion that adding an injunction on top of this cannot hurt, as it would clear up the issue for those that would interpret it differently."

 

[Dutchy]

Vote 1: Nay, while China is in breach of the article, the law itself is too flawed to act as a foundation for prosecution.
Vote 2 Yea, in order to prevent the further rise of tensions, we call for all armed vessels to be barred from operating in disputed waters.

 

[John]

Vote 1: Nay
Vote 2: Yea

 

[Odinson]

Vote 1: Nay
Vote 2: Yea

"For the first vote, the outcome is two-to-four. The International Court of Justice finds the Celestial Empire 'Not Guilty' of violating the Law of The Sea.

"For the second vote, the outcome is unanimous. The International Court of Justice will issue an injunction stating: 'All armed vessels are barred from entering or passing through disputed waters without the permission of all relevant parties until the General Assembly amends or reviews The Law of The Sea.'"

Olhouser banged his gavel on the bench before him, "Case 002 of the International Court of Justice is now concluded. The court reporter will send a copy of the transcript to all of the justices and to the Secretary General."

 

[Centurius]

"The Defence thanks the Court for its ruling, the government of the Celestial Empire will issue its orders to the relevant assets immediately"

 

[Hollie]

#002 CASE CLOSED
THE CELESTIAL EMPIRE IS NOT GUILTY​