Committee: Human Rights Council

Topic: Reform of the International Criminal Court

Chairs: Miranda Gershoni and Joe Williams
______________________________________________________________________________

I. Theme of the Conference

As you explore a new realm of opportunities in AGS, the AHS MUN team would like to
encourage you to delve into the idea of compromise in order to create effective solutions to the
challenges you find most important. We hope that FreshMUN will help you to harness the power
of diplomacy and teamwork to bring about innovative ideas wrought together through the force
of networking and collaboration. This conference will provide you with a better understanding of
the inner workings of the United Nations and improve your writing, negotiation, critical thinking
and diplomacy skills. The AHS MUN team is excited to meet you, the future leaders of your
world, and we hope that we will be able to effectively demonstrate how united, we are stronger
than we ever could be alone.

II. Rationale
The International Criminal Court (ICC) investigates and, where authorized, tries individuals
charged with the gravest crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity. The ICC is intended to supplement pre-existing national judicial
systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when particular requirements are met,
such as when national courts arent willing or able to prosecute criminals or when the United
Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court. The ICC has 18
judges that are elected by The Assembly of State Parties for their qualifications and their
impartiality; they serve 9-year nonrenewable terms. In the past, the ICC has convicted criminals
such as Joseph Kony, Slobodan Milosevic, and other war criminals. Unfortunately, as you will
read below in the contemporary evidence of the topic, there are many problems with the ICC.
We hope that you will research your country's position on this issue, and then propose a solution
to the unrest surrounding the ICC in your position paper. Remember, there is no correct answer,
just incorrect ones. Be accurate to your nations perspective, not what you think should be done.
You must turn in a position paper which includes: your countrys history with the ICC, their
current stance on the ICC, and what they think should be done about it (remain with the current
ICC structure, reform the ICC, completely replace it, or simply abolish it). We look forward to
hearing your proposals in committee.

III. Background of the Topic

In the aftermath of Second World War, the Geneva Convention was drafted and ratified by 196
countries for the purpose of establishing the standards of international law for the humanitarian
treatment in war. Using these agreed upon rules of war, many ad hoc (for a singular purpose
only) tribunals were created by Allied powers in order to prosecute Axis power leaders accused
of war crimes. The International Military Tribunal, which sat in Nuremberg, prosecuted German
leaders while the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo prosecuted Japanese
leaders. During the creation of these temporary tribunals (criminal courts), the United Nations
General Assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with atrocities
of the kind prosecuted after the Second World War. The complex political climate during the
cold war, however, made the establishment of such a court highly improbable. As the Cold War
came to an end, around 1990, members of the UN once again began calling for a permanent
international court to address severe war crimes. The International Law Commission began
drafting a statute for a permanent court. While work began on the draft, the United Nations
Security Council established two ad hoc tribunals in the early 1990s. The International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was created in 1993 in response to large-scale atrocities
committed by armed forces during Yugoslav Wars and the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda was created in 1994 following the Rwandan Genocide. The creation of these tribunals
further highlighted the need for a permanent International Criminal Court. Finally, the General
Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing the treaty to
serve as the court's statute, or founding document. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining.
The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the
United States, and Yemen. Following 60 ratifications, the Rome Statute entered into force on 1
July 2002 and the International Criminal Court was formally established. As of March, 2016,
124 countries have ratified the ICC. All of South America, most of Europe and Oceania, and
roughly half of Africa, are parties to the Rome Statute. A further 31 countries have signed but
not ratified, meaning they are under no legal obligation to comply to the laws of the ICC.

IV. Contemporary Evidence of the Topic

Many nations have recently pulled out of the ICC claiming that it takes precedence and
prosecutes unfairly. African nations have expressed increased opposition, pointing out that all
who have been prosecuted since the ICCs mandate have been African leaders. The
disproportionality of the prosecution of African nations has received increased attention recently,
moving some to consider a separate African Criminal Court. Because some of the most powerful
nations have not ratified the ICC, they arent being prosecuted for war crimes at the same rates as
countries who dont have veto power on the Security Council. Russia also recently pulled out of
the ICC, claiming that it was ineffective in achieving its goals of upholding international law in
an unbiased, trustworthy manner. Of recent concern is the role U.S. President Donald Trump will
play in the direction of the ICC, especially considering his isolationist approaches to foreign
policy and strong immigrant opposition that some UN leaders worry will be a threat to global
stability (The New York Times). Below our contact information is the country list. We have
included various links under each country with information on their involvement with the ICC.
We expect these links to act as starting points for your own personal research. When solidifying
your county's position, no one source will provide a straightforward outline of your country's
stance on the ICC. It is your job to view your research holistically in order to make an educated
guess on what exactly your country wants to do about the ICC, and how they would like to see it
happen.

V. References and Research Resources

The following link contains a helpful map that outlines which countries are signatories and have
ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

https://www.icc-cpi.int/
https://tinyurl.com/l7cvsrh

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11809908

https://www.britannica.com/topic/law-of-war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Crimina
l_Court

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-many-troubles-the-icc-7822

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/world/africa/africa-international-criminal-court.html

http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1446716/replace-icc-african-criminal-court

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/judicial-divisions

VI. Note to the Delegates

This committee will provide unique opportunities for all. None of us have chaired a room before
and we look forward to learning from you during the simulation, and hopefully, through the
process of answering any questions you have regarding position papers, parliamentary
procedure, or the ICC in general. Please let us know of any reservations that you have regarding
public speaking or writing. Unless we are contacted before the simulation, we expect each
member of this committee to actively participate in the simulation through the speakers list,
participation in moderated/unmoderated caucuses, drafting working papers, and passing notes.
Delegates, keep in mind that, although it is essential to remain accurate to your country's
position, compromise will be integral in reaching this committee's underlying goal: to reach one
or more resolutions regarding the possible reform of the International Criminal Court.

Your chairs,

Joe Williams
joewlimms1221@gmail.com
(512) 912-6055

Miranda Gershoni
mirandagershoni@gmail.com
(512) 450-8518

P.S. If one of us does not respond to you in a timely manner please just text or email another
chair and let the first one know that you have done so.
Country List
1. Iraq: A non-party non-signatory state. Hesitant to join ICC because they fear it could be
used to prosecute state leaders. Also has an unique position because they have been
subject to various war crimes from Western powers. Should be a loud voice against the
ICC but must do so without drawing attention to inhumane actions from their own
government.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/300420151
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/08/international-criminal-court-investigates-human-rights-
abuses-by-british-forces-in-iraq/
http://www.rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/300420151
http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/iraq

2. Russia: Recently withdrew their ratification of the ICC, declaring it to be one sided and
inefficient. Might consider re-ratification if major reform was instituted. Explore ways
to make the ICC more impartial and efficient and propose them in your position paper.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/russia-withdraws-signature-from-international-
criminal-court-statute
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/19/why-russia-quit-international-criminal-
court.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/world/europe/russia-withdraws-from-international-
criminal-court-calling-it-one-sided.html

3. Israel: a non-party non-signatory state. Israel is against the ICC. Many of their actions
against Palestine constitute violations of the Rome Statute and therefore might be eligible
for trial in the ICC. Will most likely be heavily against the ICC but must do so without
drawing attention to various questionable activities involving Palestine and Turkey.
http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/INSS.StrAss19.2.July16.10LevyRozenzweig.p
df
http://www.newsweek.com/israels-settlement-train-will-only-stop-one-station-hague-554554
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/israel-put-trial-war-crimes-160904084237369.html
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.739905
https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/05/is-the-international-
criminal-court-biased-against-israel/?utm_term=.cbeb9edd129e
4. South Africa: Tried to withdraw but declared invalid. Democratic party is fully in
support of ICC. The presidents decision to withdraw highlights increasing tension in the
area. Strong reforms should be suggested to settle division in the country.
https://asp.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/asp/states%20parties/african%20states/Pages/south
%20africa.aspx
http://citizen.co.za/news/news-africa/1439777/fidh-lauds-gambia-sa-remaining-international-
criminal-court/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/22/516620190/court-blocks-south-africas-
withdrawal-from-international-criminal-court
https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2017-02-24-groundup-why-south-africa-can-still-
withdraw-from-the-international-criminal-court/
 5. Ukraine: Did not ratify due to complex legal reasons. Has since agreed with the EU to
change constitution so that they can ratify Rome Statute. Should be in favor of ICC, but
check recent news on the country's status with the ICC to confirm.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/ukraine
https://www.justsecurity.org/37167/ukraine-v-russia-international-court-justice/
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?
toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2016/11/20/international-criminal-
court-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-is-a-crime-not-a-civil-
war/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2016/08/ukraine-and-the-international-criminal-court-
implications-of-the-ad-hoc-jurisdiction-acceptance-and-beyond/

6. Libya: Non-party, non signatory state.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/26/gaddafi-in-libya-hague-icc
http://theconversation.com/how-libya-became-the-international-criminal-courts-latest-failure-
45389
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/QA_Libya_ICC_May_2013.pdf

7. Yemen: Signed but not ratified the statute. Recently, there has been various instances of
human rights violations and acts of war committed in Yemen that could possibly be
prosecuted under the ICC, particularly a few interesting ones involving US weapons. In
2007, the Yemeni parliament voted to ratify the Rome Statute, but, when members of
parliament called for re-count, the vote was called back. Currently, Yemen is not for the
ICC, but in the case of various reforms, their stance could change. Yemen is a country
that could potentially benefit from the ICC. Ideally, you should look into what must be
done to make ratifying the Rome Statute feasible for them.
www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/yemen
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/06/q-conflict-yemen-and-international-law
https://www.justsecurity.org/32910/intl-criminal-court-jurisdiction-war-crimes-allegedly-
committed-saudi-led-coalition-yemen/
https://ciccglobaljustice.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/yemen-western-arms-being-used-for-icc-
crimes/

8. France: For ICC. France, like its Western European counterparts Germany and the UK,
believe that the ICC is still the most effective way to counteract war crimes and crimes
against humanity. France will do what they have to to ensure that the ICC remains a
pillar in international justice. If a couple of reforms are instituted along the way then no
big deal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-russia-syria-idUSKCN12A0J3
www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/france
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/27/burundi-icc-withdrawal-major-loss-victims

9. United Kingdom: For ICC. A great case could be made for impartiality of the ICC
because they investigated UK prime minister for inhumane actions in the Iraq war.
Should be a loud voice in favor of the necessity of the ICC, but should also be wary of
 other delegates citing alleged violations of war crimes from british soldiers during their
occupation of Iraq.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_Act_2001
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/03/uks_first_investigatory_powers_commissioner_lord_ju
stice_fulford/
http://theconversation.com/how-investigating-britain-for-crimes-in-iraq-can-save-the-
international-criminal-court-33330

10. Germany: Party of the Rome Statute for the ICC. Was a strong voice in the
implementation of the ICC in the 90s and has had a unique history in international
justice due to the Nuremberg trials. Should be heavily in favor of the ICC and could
propose/support various reforms to make the ICC more efficient.
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/InternatRecht/IStGH/Hintergrund_node.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lkerstrafgesetzbuch
www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/germany
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-droit-penal-2005-1-page-97.htm

11. Mali: Party of the Rome Statute for the ICC (signed and ratified). Ongoing humanitarian
crisis including war crimes and the destruction of UNESCO World Heritage sites have
provided the ICC with an investigation to crimes against humanity, etc. Should be in
favor of the ICC and can cite their own tragic situation as why an international court is
necessary.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/mali
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Mali
http://www.dw.com/en/international-criminal-court-sentences-mali-jihadist-to-9-years-for-
destroying-timbuktus-cultural-heritage/a-35899688
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/africa/3-things-you-should-know-about-mali-and-the-international-
criminal-court/
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/27/burundi-icc-withdrawal-major-loss-victims
12. Democratic Republic of Congo: Reaffirmed support alongside other African countries
in order to control violence in the region that stem from the Congo Wars and the
Rwandan genocide that influenced the original creation of the ICC. Should be an
important perspective in the defense of the ICC against African and Middle Eastern
countries that accuse the body of impartiality and ineffectiveness.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc
http://citizen.co.za/news/news-africa/1439777/fidh-lauds-gambia-sa-remaining-international-
criminal-court/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_the_Democratic_R
epublic_of_the_Congo
https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/icc-
investigations/28595.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/27/burundi-icc-withdrawal-major-loss-victims

13. Croatia: Party of the Rome Statute for the ICC. Croatia is a perfect example of the
inability of domestic governments to perpetrate war criminals following times of mass
unrest and turmoil. This is critical in illustrating the need for an impartial, internationally
 controlled judiciary. Additionally, many Croatian citizens have been tried by the ICC and
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Meaning that Croatia will
be an important voice in this committee because they have witnessed firsthand the
benefits and pitfalls of the ICC and other criminal tribunals. Basically, they're on thin ice
with the international community because a lot of important Croatians are guilty of
genocide in Bosnia Herzegovina. Due to this, they can't express dis-support for the ICC
so they're just hoping that the ICC leaves them alone and stops arresting all their
politicians.
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatia-hopes-for-exoneration-in-bosnia-war-crimes-
appeal-03-17-2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the_International_Criminal_Tribunal_f
or_the_former_Yugoslavia
www.coalitionfortheicc.org/country/croatia
https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_josipovic.pdf

14. Sudan: Tried to withdraw, but the Court declared invalid. Has a unique perspective due
to its indictments for the 2003-2010 genocides that led to investigations against Omar Al-
Bashir, Sudanese president. Sudan believes that the ICC has only contributed to more
instability in underdeveloped countries, and doesnt fairly prosecute. This argument is
shared with other African nations who believe that the ICC is ineffective because the
system allows for developed countries to avoid prosecution while underdeveloped
countries are prosecuted at a disproportionate amount. Although their withdrawal was
stopped, the Sudanese are clearly not satisfied with the ICC and must support reform to
strengthen the ICCs role as an impartial judicial body. Research ways this can be done
and propose various reforms in your position paper.
http://newafricanmagazine.com/icc-failure-keeps-failing/
https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur
https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-02-22-court-declares-withdrawal-from-
international-criminal-court-invalid/
http://www.africanews.com/2016/10/21/sudan-urges-mass-african-withdrawal-from-the-icc//

15. United States: Signatory that subsequently withdrew its signature. The US is against the
ICC because they do not want to be held accountable to a global standard and indicted for
military actions overseas. The US has great concern of the prosecution of US nationals,
and through several administrations has strongly opposed any jurisdiction of the ICC over
its military. They have even threatened terminating economic aid and withdrawing
military assistance to countries who refused to negotiate treaties that would make the US
immune to prosecution. In committee, the US would most likely stand by their position
that westernized countries with stable judicial bodies do not require foreign interference
in criminal investigations. The US, in all probability, supports the ICC in concept but
would never ratify for the reasons listed above. Therefore, in the interest of compromise,
it would be wise for this delegate to push for a radical reform giving immunity to
countries with strong domestic court systems.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/the-international-criminal-court/us-opposition-
to-the-icc.html
https://www.state.gov/j/gcj/icc/
https://thehumanist.com/news/international/the-international-criminal-court-why-is-the-united-
states-not-a-member

16. Gambia: Under former administration, Gambia wanted to withdrawal, saying the court
was biased against African nations. A government minister even described it as the
International Caucasian Court. With the election of a new leader, they have canceled
their withdrawal as a proactive human rights measure, joining many other African nations
who claim the same humanitarian reasons. Gambia doubtlessly shares the same
reservations that many of their African neighbors do, and, in all likelihood, is simply
using loyalty to the ICC as a means of repairing their badly damaged foreign relations
(reuters). Keeping this in mind, press for reforms, but make sure to reaffirm Gambias
support for the ICC and their loyalty to the international community.
http://citizen.co.za/news/news-africa/1439777/fidh-lauds-gambia-sa-remaining-international-
criminal-court/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gambia-justice-icc-idUSKBN15S2HF
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/14/515219467/under-new-leader-gambia-
cancels-withdrawal-from-international-criminal-court
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/27/burundi-icc-withdrawal-major-loss-victims

17. Burundi: The first country to ever withdraw from the ICC. Burundi withdrew shortly
after the United Nations intervened in the country to allegedly control protest movements
as they viewed it as a violation of their sovereignty. Is a loud voice against the ICC but
must not overstretch themselves in fear of being called out for their own inability to
handle crimes domestically. Burundi is a critical leader in the African movement to
withdraw from the ICC and, in all likelihood, will not ratify the Rome Statute until
drastic reforms are made reaffirming the impartiality of the ICC and ensuring that the
national sovereignty of member countries is respected.
http://newafricanmagazine.com/icc-failure-keeps-failing/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/burundi-moves-quit-international-criminal-court-
161012132153065.html
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/27/burundi-icc-withdrawal-major-loss-victims
https://www.icc-cpi.int/burundi
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-burundi-icc-idUSKCN12Q287

18. Kenya: Signed and ratified Rome Statute. Kenya is, at best, displeased with the ICC after
the ICCs arduous, and ultimately failed investigation into Kenyas president, Uhuru
Kenyatta, and his deputy, William Ruto, for allegedly masterminding deadly post-
election violence in 2007-09 in which about 1,200 people died. Kenya, like South Africa,
Sudan and many other African Nations, must make their stance clear that the ICC is a
flawed judicial body and is in dire need of reform. Citing your own history with the ICC,
propose various reforms that Kenya would support going forward and present them in
your position paper.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/kenya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_investigation_in_Kenya
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001233363/kenya-should-not-pull-out-of-icc-for-the-
sake-of-peace-says-kabogo
https://www.theguardian.com/law/international-criminal-court+world/kenya