[GA] ICJ Case 008

[Hollie]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY (EST 2010)​

ICJ DISPUTE RESOLUTION​ SECRETARY GENERAL​ COURT LOCATION​ # SERIAL NUMBER​ Mr. Gregory Figueroa​ The Hague, Netherlands​ ICJ​

​ [REFERRAL MEMBER]: Mr. Gregory Figueroa [JUSTICES AND SUMMONS]: @Naio90 / @JJSmithJr / @Fairhold / @Odinson / @Dutchy / @Owen [HEAD JUSTICE TO THE COURT]: Rolfe Olhouser of Norway (Odinson) [DATE]: 11/07/2019 (OOC) [LEGAL QUESTION]: Whether Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body should be considered LEGITIMATE? The International Court of Justice will only discuss Territory gained between 2001 to 2014 — Please do not refer to any Territory, that do not fall within this Period​ Please Refer to the Resolution on the Sovereignty of French Overseas Posessions for Reading Material.​ And on the outcome, those Territories be transferred to the Global Assembly where the Court shall Provide oversight to ensure these Referendum's are Free and Fair​ Depending on the outcome, the Sovereignty of the Southern and Antarctic French Territories will also be Concluded — These were Transferred to the Global Assembly, upon the Peace Agreement between France and Argentina​ The Dutch Representative to the Global Assembly will be Summoned to the Court Meeting, to discuss the French Guiana and the Caribbean Oversea Territories​ ​ [SIGNED BY]: ​ ​

 

[Naio90]

Argentina judge Guillermo O'Donnell would attend.

 

[Bruno]

Judge Lee Yang would arrive

 

[Owen]

Justice Michael Kirby would arrive and take his seat.

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Rolfe Olhouser arrived and took his seat. They were now only waiting on their Nigerian colleague to arrive. @JJSmithJr

 

[Dutchy]

The Legal Advisor to the Dutch Representative to the Global Assembly would be present in place of the Respresentative, the advisor would enter the court and take his place.

 

[JJSmithJr]

Justice Mary Odili of Nigeria would enter the chamber and take her seat.

 

[Moe]

Representative Juan Valdez would arrive.

 

[Odinson]

Once he saw that all of the judges were present, Chief Justice Olhouser banged his gavel three times. The only people in the room were the aforementioned people, effectively making the event private.

"I hereby call the International Court of Justice to order. The court reporter will begin the record..." he said, making sure the court reporter was typing before he continued. "We're here to decide 'Whether a territory gained diplomatically without the consent of the populations, or any electoral body, should be considered legitimate'. This is specifically within the scope of 2001 to present day. We are discussing this because of what has been proposed and discussed in the 'Resolution on the Sovereignty of French Overseas Possessions'... Who would like to begin?"

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Olhouser noticed that the Brazilian representative, Juan Valdez, was in the chamber. Olhouser spoke up, "Representative Valdez, I'm happy to see that you are eager to hear our discussion. However, this is a closed session. If you wouldn't mind vacating the chamber, it would be much appreciated. I'll see to it that you're the first person to receive a copy of the court reporter's transcript once we have finished," he said. Security would open the doors to the chamber and politely show the representative out before Olhouser continued.

"Now, who would like to begin?" he asked.

@Moe

 

[Naio90]

"If no one minds, I would like to make the opening statement by giving my position.

Transfer of sovereign control over territory on diplomatic mechanism is carried out through the signing of agreements between national Governments. Those Governments are understood as the legal representation of the citizenry that compose the society they emanate from. In most of those cases, just as the specific cases that will be overseed, we are talking of democracies. Representatives directly elected by the people.

Therefore my esteemed colleagues, in my opinion National Governments are entitled to discuss land transfers through diplomatic means, given they have the popular mandate for that."

 

[Owen]

"I concur with Justice O'Donnell, if we are looking at this question from the perspective of centuries of expectations when it comes to sovereignty, if two governments agree on terms then that simply makes the transfer legitimate. It may not be particularly popular with the population of that territory, but we elect and create governments for a reason and if the government of that country has the constitutional or legal mandate to do such an act as transferring sovereignty then it has the right to do that. The United Kingdom did so numerous times with Australia, transferring places like the Cocos Islands, Christmas Island and Papua New Guinea to Australian sovereignty. Now in the terms of our international laws, the laws that we have passed in the Global Assembly, I cannot find one mention or any particular clause that indicates that sovereignty transfer is illegitimate. As long as the laws which we have passed as the Global Assembly are upheld by the new government of that particular territory, then I see no precedence for it to be deemed illegal. Most importantly to be upheld should be Article 13 and Article 14 of the Human Rights Declaration which allows people to leave that country if they please and I believe that's fundamental to any situation where sovereignty is transferred that a citizen gets the right to determine whether they want to live under that new country or seek asylum elsewhere.

I do believe however that particular cases of sovereignty transfer can be as a result of ill intentions, whether it be blackmail, bribery, threats of economic or military action and that ultimately this question needs to be determined on a case by case basis and I think such a matter should be left to the Assembly if they determine whether or not a sovereignty transfer that has taken place was done under the pretenses of ill intention and I believe all states reserve the right to place sanctions on countries they believe have done that. This is not a simple one size fits all question, but I do believe and I would strongly recommend to the Assembly that they pass laws in regards to sovereignty matters, taking into account community expectations, so we can have a much more clearer legal definition of what is right and what is wrong in this realm of international law."

 

[Odinson]

Chief Justice Olhouser, noting a period of silence, took his turn to speak up. "I agree entirely with Justice O'Donnell. I couldn't have put it better myself. Part of the sovereign rights of a nation is the transfer of territory. Peoples themselves are not sovereign, which is why governments make decisions on their behalf. Territory gained by one country without the consent of that territory's population may not be ethical or moral if done by force, but it is legal. Therefor, territory gained in this manner by treaty or agreement is also legitimate... If there is no other discussion, we will go to a vote."



Whether Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body should be considered LEGITIMATE?

VOTE:
Justice Name:
Justice Country:
YES Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.
NO Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body should NOT be considered legitimate.


@Naio90
@Fairhold
@Owen
@JJSmithJr

 

[Odinson]

VOTE:
Justice Name: Rolfe Olhouser
Justice Country: Kingdom of Norway
YES Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.

 

[Owen]

VOTE:
Justice Name: Michael Kirby
Justice Country: Australia
YES Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.

 

[Naio90]

Justice Name: Guillermo O'Connell
Justice Country: Argentina
YES Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.



"Although I would like to reafirm that an Agreement signed by a Government that emanates from a demoratic society means that the Population gave the Consent throught the election of representatives. With the vote resulting in a YES, I would suggest we tell the GA to dismiss the presented draft Resolution, considering the issue that sparked the Resolution has been settled."

 

[Bruno]

Justice Name: Lee Yang
Justice Country: China
YES, Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.

 

[JJSmithJr]

VOTE: YES Territory gained Diplomatically without the Consent of the Population(s), or any Electoral Body SHOULD be considered legitimate.
Justice Name: Mary Ukaego Odili
Justice Country: Nigeria

Justice Mary Ukaego Odili would like to note that while she has issued her vote, she does not believe that this issue should have been settled here. She urges the General Assembly to work towards consensus and the building of hard international laws and standards. Current International Law is weak and extremely murky. She urges the delegates of the General Assembly to strengthen the Assembly and work towards the goals of a strong geopolitical body full of diverse opinions, rather than a politically factional toothless chamber.

 

[Odinson]

"The vote stands at 5 For the statement and None Against… It carries. I will ensure that the General Assembly is informed of our Declaratory Judgement," Olhouser said, before banging his gavel once to conclude. The court reporter, after finishing the minutes, transcribed them on computer and quickly delivered a copy to the Ambassador from Brazil as promised by the Chief Justice. The transcript was then made available for any ambassador to the GA, justice, or the Secretary General to access.