International Court of Justice
The ICJ cases for AISMUN 2023 are:
Case #1: Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran vs United States of America)
- The Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran, vs United States of America) case was a dispute between the two countries regarding the freezing of $2 billion in Iranian assets in the United States, including financial assets, property, and bank accounts. It centered around the interpretation of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States. The assets in question were frozen by the US in order to enforce domestic sanctions that had been imposed on Iran by the US government, as it had linked Iran to a terrorist attack in Lebanon, where several US military members were harmed. Iran argued that the freezing of these assets violated a 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States, and brought the case to the international court of justice (ICJ) in order to seek a resolution. It also believes that the US did not respect its sovereign immunity, and failed to legally separate Iranian-owned companies and their properties from the Iranian government. The US argued that the Treaty of Amity was not applicable to the situation, as the sanctions were imposed in order to protect national security.
Case #2: Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)
- The Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo vs Uganda) case was a dispute between the two countries regarding Uganda's alleged military activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda was found to be responsible for extensive damages caused by its military activities in the DRC, including the occupation of an extensive area of DRC territory, the plundering of DRC natural resources, and the destruction of and damage to property, infrastructure, and the environment..The Democratic Republic of the Congo argued that Uganda had violated the territorial integrity of the DRC and had breached its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. The DRC specifically argued that Uganda had engaged in military and paramilitary activities against the DRC. Furthermore, the DRC claimed that Uganda committed and was unable to stop violations of human rights and humanitarian law, and was unable to stop illegal misuse of Congolese natural resources. Uganda argued that it had not violated any international law, citing article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows for self-defense against armed attack. Uganda argued that it had been subject to armed attacks from the DRC, including the presence of the ADF (Allied Democratic Forces) rebel group in the country, and as such, its actions in the DRC were justified as self-defense. Additionally, Uganda argued that its intervention was necessary to protect the rights of the citizens in the DRC and maintain the stability of the region. Uganda also argued that the DRC had failed to demonstrate any legal title to the territory it was occupying, and thus it was not in violation of international law, when it entered the DRC. Finally, Uganda also argued that it had not committed any war crimes or other violations of international humanitarian law in the course of its intervention in the DRC.