1. No category

INTERNATIONAL COURT of JUSTICE
KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY MODEL UNITED NATIONS
CONFERENCE 2015
HANDBOOK
ROMANIA v. UKRAINE
HASMUN 2015
HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
ROMANIA v. UKRAINE
MARITIME DELIMINATION IN THE BLACK SEA
The Secretariat of HASMUN 2015 has decided to overrule the challenges against the
jurisdiction of the Court or the admissibility of the case. Both parties in the case are expected
to acknowledge of the Jurisdiction of the Court.
A. ADVOCATES
1. Memorial of the Applicant, Counter-Memorial of the Respondent
Written proceeding starts with the submission of the Memorial of the Applicant party to the
Secretariat. The Secretariat then sends it to the Respondent party in order to the write their
counter-memorial in accordance with the Article 38/4 of the Rules of Court. Details about the
writing process shall be announced by the responsible Under-Secretary General.
A memorial contains the pleadings by Applicant party which contains statements, relevant
facts, law and prayer; on the other hand, a counter memorial is a pleading by Respondent
which contains an admission or denial of the facts of the memorial of Applicant party,
additional facts, a statement pf law in answer, observation the statement of law in the
memorial and a prayer.
In HASMUN 2015, the form of pleading for both memorial and counter-memorial is
essentially same.
Sample Memorial:
MARITIME DELIMINATION IN THE BLACK SEA
ROMANIA v. UKRAINE
Memorial of Romania/Counter-Memorial of Ukraine
INTRODUCTION
In this section, parties requested to give brief summary of the dispute by giving the references
to key developments in the dispute.
JURISDICTION
As stated at the beginning of the Handbook, Secretariat is expected for both parties to accept
the Jurisdiction of the Court.
FACTS
Facts are relevant to the case will be mentioned in this section. Facts can be both political
and historical issues when they are related to the factual bases of legal arguments.
Respondent may challenge what is provided and propose own claims. The Secretariat
suggests using the facts which have relevance with the case before the Court for a better
judgment process.
APPLICABLE LAW
CLAIMS
PRAYER
Submitted respectfully, on behalf of the Government of Romania/Ukraine
by (names of the advocates)
2. Oral Proceedings
Both parties are expected to submit material evidence before the Court via mail. Detailed
information regarding the deadlines shall be announced by the responsible Under-SecretaryGeneral. Evidence materials may include article 38 sources of law, maps or other visuals such
as videos and the like. All judges will have the evidences on their own computers during the
conference time. Parties are not required to printed-out the materials.
Parties are allowed to addressed and bring two witnesses each regardless of the choice of the
Parties. Witnesses can be legal experts, scientists, diplomats or anyone whose expertise is
believed to be beneficial to their cases by the Parties.
Actors for witnesses will be chosen by the Secretariat. In order to be prepared before the
Conference, parties are expected to send the witness profiles to the Secretariat before the
Conference. While deciding the profiles of the witnesses, parties should keep in mind that
witnesses need to be non-fictional and authentic.
B. JUDGES
As the Secretariat, we recommend you to not to make additional research regarding to
material evidences. However, doing extra readings on the sources of law mentioned in the
Study Guide, the Memorial and Counter-Memorial is highly recommended.
Memorial and the counter-memorial will send to the Judges before the Conference. Judges
may print-it them out or keep them in their computers.
According to the Rules of Procedure of HASMUN 2015, electronic devices are in order to
ease the evidential procedure for all participants. Judges are required to bring their laptops
during the conference in order to use them in the sessions for making researches.
In the third day of the conference, Judges are required to come to end with a verdict and the
format of the verdict will as followed:
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Decision on
MARITIME DISPUTE IN THE BLACK SEA
(Romania v. Ukraine)
Date of the Verdict
In case concerning the legal status of the maritime delimitation in the Black Sea:
Romania represented by agents (names of the Advocates);
and
Ukraine represented by agents (names of the Advocates).
I.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
II.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT PARTY
III.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT PARTY
IV.
APPLIED LAW
V.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. STIPULATIONS
If there was a stipulation made by the state parties during the stipulation phase, judges need
to specify it in their verdicts.
B. COURT’S FINDINGS
VI.
DECISION
After the explanations, this part shall end in this format:
For these reasons,
International Court of Justice, with
JUDGES (surnames of the Judges in the Majority) and JUDGES (surnames of the Judges
Dissenting)/Unanimously
1. Finds
JUDGES (surnames of the Judges in the Majority) and JUDGES (surnames of the Judges
Dissenting)/Unanimously
3. Decides
JUDGES (surnames of the Judges in the Majority) and JUDGES (surnames of the Judges
Dissenting)/Unanimously
4. Rejects
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE 1
If there are Judges who disagree with the Court; he may write a dissenting opinion.
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE 2
If there are Judges who have arrived to the same conclusion with the majority but on
different grounds; he might write a concurring opinion.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE 3
The Judges in the majority may make a declaration on how they assume the Verdict should be
perceived and what should be kept in mind in the meantime; may write a declaration.