International Court of Justice
Karim El Shahawy, President
Sumayya Zewail, Chair
Synapses, in the brain, are the chief difference between, on the one hand, the individuality of neurons, and on the other, their interconnectedness. In a sense, HIAMUN in its fifteenth edition embodies the collective synaptic connections between the neurons, facilitating the conveyance of the unique ideas, arguments, and opinions that make up a delegate, from one nation to another in the shared consciousness that is the United Nations.
Similarly, the International Court of Justice, which was established as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, is the difference between, on the one hand, injustice in the international community, and on the other, the justice that has come about as a result of its establishment in 1945. The Court’s function is to adjudicate and resolve disputes submitted to it by its member states as a means of finding impartial arbitration in cases of legal uncertainty and contributing to the United Nations’ goal of maintaining justice between states.
This year’s session of the International Court of Justice, presided over by myself and my honorable chair Sumayya Zewail, sets in the docket of the Court two cases which we have chosen in the belief that they will challenge advocates and judges alike to balance proficiency in legal and historical understanding in order to adjudge the just verdict for each. First is the case of Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite between Belgium and Senegal, which aims to determine the extent of state responsibilities to contribute to the prosecution of individuals charged with committing crimes against humanity. Second is the case of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro, addressing a previous instance of the ever-present issue of genocide. Both of these cases, though passed, fundamentally surround acts that pervade our modern world every day, and the compatibility of these acts as performed with their relevant legal documents. At the outset, they may appear to be clear-cut cases of guilt on a nation’s part, but upon examination with the analytic and critical mindset typical of a member of the International Court of Justice, airtight arguments become dismantlable, irrefutable evidence becomes arguable, and opportunities for discussion sprout and flourish as the synapses that connect articles of law fire in what we hope to see become heated debate from all parties.
Sumayya and I are eager to see justice, as delivered by you, for the fifteenth time in the history of this conference, and cannot wait to serve as your Chair and President in every step of the way to achieving it. Together, this high Court, from its seat in the Hague, Netherlands to Cairo, Egypt, will grant for each nation its due judgment.
Karim El Shahawy, President of the International Court of Justice
Cases ICJ HIAMUN’24
Case 1: Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)
