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
• 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
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)
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.
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.”
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
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.
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
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
Witness Testimony
• Order
– Direct examination
– Cross examination
– Re-Direct examination
– Re-Cross examination
– Judges’ Questioning
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.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
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