Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Afghanistan
Delegate Name: Shakir Khan
School: Fishers High School

Afghanistan believes that there should not be universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity because this invades the right of national sovereignty, which is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations

Afghanistan has no prior history in regards to this topic but would like to state that the United Nations interference with the domestic issues of other countries would hinder said countries right to national sovereignty. These issues are domestic and should be left at that. In order for the United Nations to obtain this universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity, they would have to obtain consent from each country to invade on their national sovereignty. Under the concept of national sovereignty, the nation is superior to the individuals of which it is composed. Thus, under this doctrine, each individual is part of the nation, but it is a whole based on something more than direct representation. Meaning that each person is a direct reflection of their country and the prosecute them, and then it would be like prosecuting the country.

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference, this is known as National sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations. By the United Nations employing this system of Universal Jurisdiction, it goes against the very concept that national sovereignty stands for, that being the right of the country to govern its own people. The delegation of Afghanistan believe that to employ such a system would be like employing a United Nations building in every country and invading on their privacy as well as the way they govern their of citizens. Afghanistan believes that this concept should not be passed and abolished from further discussions. Afghanistan strongly believes that this is a matter of domestic governing and not international, meaning that the government should be left to govern their own countries however they please and not watched over by the United Nations.

Afghanistan believes that a solution to this problem internationally would be to let the government handle this domestically and not intrude on a countries national sovereignty. There are very few, if any, countries in the United Nations that would agree to or even accept the right of the United Nations intruding on their country and invading on their national sovereignty. Countries do not take kindly to the United Nations meddling in their domestic issues or even telling them how to run their country.

References: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ , http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+sovereignty

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Australia
Delegate Name: Sarah Rusinowski
School: Royal Oak High School

Universal jurisdiction provides a nation the right to prosecute crimes on behalf of the rest of the international community. There are currently over a dozen nations that have exercised this right in the past. Universal jurisdiction is typically necessary when the crime cannot be prosecuted in the country it occurred, whether because of a conflict or incapable government.

The ICC can prosecute crimes against humanity as well, and is made up of an international council. According to the Rome Statute, the ICC is “complementary to national criminal jurisdictions,” and Australia strongly supports this aspect of the system. The ICC cannot control a case unless the state with jurisdiction is unable or unwilling to prosecute the crime.

National sovereignty is an important agent in Australia’s belief system, and it is the belief of Australia that national jurisdiction should take precedence over the jurisdiction of the ICC “where that national jurisdiction is able and willing to deal effectively with alleged crimes. Primary responsibility for investigation and prosecution should remain with the state.”

Trying a crime in the territory it occurred can also be the most effective option. The territorial state is often in the best position for collecting evidence, witnesses, and enforcing punishments. It also can grant relief to the communities that were affected.

Australia has exercised universal jurisdiction in the past, dealing with war crimes after World War II. However, Australia has never prosecuted crimes against humanity or tried a case during the existence of the ICC.

Australia believes that the problem lies in defining when a nation is able to prosecute a crime and when the national court system or government is incapable. Some of the requirements for a country wanting to take legal action should be an established court system in the national constitution. The nation should have a prison system, a judicial system, and law enforcement, among other basic needs.

As earlier stated, Australia fully stands behind the right of national sovereignty, but also supports the ICC’s intervention if a nation is incapable. Although Australia is already fully capable of prosecuting criminals, we all share equal moral responsibility in resolving this problem, and we have an obligation to actively protect the victims of crimes against humanity. Australia is fully committed to defining and securing government capability when it comes to jurisdiction in crimes against humanity. Above all else, we must support justice.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Brazil
Delegate Name: Nathan Flynn
School: Roeper School

Crimes Against Humanity are defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as “particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings…” These acts include the murder of humans, war crimes, and enslavement according to the Rome Statute of 2002 put forth by the ICC. The Rome Statute has been formally adopted by the United Nations as the governing charter for Crimes Against Humanity. Recently, it has been used to determine whether or not the conflict between Israel and Palestine are crimes or not. Brazil has ratified the Rome Statue and stands firmly in favor of using it as the official document, with one exception.

This exception is Article 98 of the Rome Statute. Article 98 is an article that prevents the ICC from requesting assistance or a transfer of a prisoner should it force a country to act unconstitutionally and thus infringe on its national sovereignty. Brazil doesn’t have an issue so much with the Article itself as it does with the United States’ interpretation of the Article. As a result, Brazil has yet to sign a bilateral immunity agreement. However, Brazil still recognizes the ICC as the facilitator of universal jurisdiction.

Brazil, after all, has had problems in its history regarding Crimes Against Humanity. During an era starting after a military coup deposed then-president Joao Goulart. This military government was known to be a particularly violent one. The military government suspended Habeas Corpus for “political crimes” and ‘death squads’ supposedly patrolled the streets looking for criminals. Many of the deaths during the 15-year reign of the military fall under the umbrella of Crimes Against Humanity, and many of them remain unsolved and unresolved.

Brazil has recently taken up newfound initiative into investigating the Crimes committed by its military government. According to the Washington Post, both Brazil and Uruguay have been sending further probing their files regarding Crimes Against Humanity that happened during the dictatorial reigns of the military in an attempt to undo some of the transgressions made. In this way, Brazil is furthering its initiative to uncover and end Crimes Against Humanity relating both to its citizens and to the rest of the world. This initiative is not because it disagrees with the ICC’s jurisdiction as the facilitator of jurisdiction, but because the ICC can’t judge cases occurring before 2002.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Canada
Delegate Name: Caroline Sawatzki
School: Saginaw Arts and Sciences Academy

As Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in a UN press release pertaining to the establishment of an International Criminal Court, “Without justice, there is no reconciliation, and without reconciliation, no peace.” According to Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, Any person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime is guilty of an indictable offense.

The Dominion of Canada believes that crimes against humanity are absolutely inexcusable and must be dealt with, if not within a nation, through the International Criminal Court. Canada is supportive of, and has ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and believes that, in maintaining an effective international court, many potentially devastating infringements of international humanitarian law can be avoided. However, it is important that no people are left to suffer or are killed as a result of unwillingness on the behalf of their government to assign repercussions to perpetrators of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes (as defined within the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, Offenses within Canada, subsection 3). While it is important to be mindful of national sovereignty in all cases, instances in which human life is at risk require special assessment and urgent response from the international community.

Utilizing the International Criminal Court to determine the consequences for criminals as well as derelict governments will ensure that justice is served properly. Working together as a collective group of nations to ensure adequate representation of varying ideals, as well as including Non-Governmental Organizations within the court ensures that the court will remain impartial and just. It is to be understood that the court would have inherent jurisdiction over such crimes, maintaining an unquestionable impartiality through its strong relationship with the United Nations. Through this court, just rulings may be made in cases where government is reluctant to impose sanctions on criminals. While governments in the process of apprehending or persecuting a criminal deserve a right to temporary secrecy for the purposes of uncompromised completion of the process of arrest and sentencing, it is the responsibility of each nation to report crimes against humanity to the international community. Nations which display gross inaction in response to the occurrence of crimes against humanity, or display a reaction which appears indolent to the international community can forfeit the opportunity to deal with the perpetrators of crimes against humanity within the nation, may be considered negligent in their protective duties to their populations, and will be dealt with accordingly through the established court system.

Canada would like to work with nations to creatively and innovatively foster their participation not only in signing, ratifying, and adhering to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but also in attaining their support and participation within the Court itself. Canada strongly believes in the ability of nations to work through differences to reach a consensus concerning legal standards for universal jurisdiction on crimes against humanity, and is willing to attempt to foster such an agreement within reasonable means.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Chile
Delegate Name: Lauren Williams
School: Mattawan High School

Chile has continuously placed an importance on maintaining its national sovereignty during periods of turmoil. Chile finds that it is essential for a country to take responsible for the actions transpiring its people. Within Chile’s constitution, it is stated that without prejudice to the other penalties established by the Constitution or by the law, persons who incur aforementioned violations shall not, for a period of ten years from the date of the Court's decision, be eligible for public duties or positions. This implementation is necessary to insure the safety of a nation’s community.

Chile finds it necessary that in the case of crimes against humanity that the implication of universal jurisdiction can be found beneficial. For example, former dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, was arrested in London in 1998; on Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon's, a Spanish jurist who served on Spain's central criminal court, demand. He was arrested on charges of human rights abuses, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction but rather on the grounds that some of the victims of the abuses committed in Chile were Spanish citizens. Spain then sought his extradition from Britain, again, not on the grounds of universal jurisdiction, but by invoking the law of the European Union regarding extradition; and he was finally released on grounds of health. Argentinian Alfredo Astiz's sentence is part of this juridical frame. Those opposed of Pinochet’s actions, and most modern day Chileans and officials, found the decisions made by the Spaniards and other universal parties, were much supported.

Chile finds a great necessity in the responsibility of individual government. There is a great importance in the relief that can be instituted by the assistance of universal jurisdiction.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: China
Delegate Name: Elizabeth Patterson
School: Mattawan High School

It has been nearly ten years since a small group of Falun Gong practitioners in Changchun (a large city in China's northeast) intercepted television broadcasts on March 5, 2002, replacing them with content about Falun Gong and about the Communist genocide of Falun Gong. Five Falun Gong practitioners involved have been tortured to death. Another, Mr. Sun Changjun, only 26 years old at the time, has been imprisoned at Jilin Prison for nine years for his involvement. At one point the cruel torture nearly took his life.

The Peoples Republic of China has been preventing gradually the violence and torture given off by this genocide. The peoples Republic of China as the ruling Communist Party is clamping down on the risk of unrest, particularly after online calls for “Jasmine” pro-democracy gatherings in the wake of civil unrest in parts of the Middle East. The Peoples Republic of Chinas court was sentences to punishment for the crimes committed against humanity. Claims have stated that, “The Chinese government must not be allowed to claim that China is a nation operating under the rule of law while persecuting those who try to ensure that it respects the law.” Also that, “And when the government silences dissent, the international community must speak up.” We as The Peoples Republic of China are willing to receive help from the UN.

The Peoples Republic of China is willing to work with the UN to prevent this problem only if the other governments are willing to meet to minimum international standards for due process. For, this elimination of standards and violation of international law is what is making the Peoples Republic of China revolt.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Colombia
Delegate Name: Natalie Ciocca
School: Fishers High School

Colombia feels as though universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity would be a significant help to countries in need of aid.

The people of Colombia have seen much civil unrest such as the uprisings of guerillas within the country. This has lead to significant problems in the past and possibly in the future. Colombia has done all it can to attempt to protect its citizens from crimes against humanity by attempting to put down guerilla revolts that have attempted to threaten and corrupt our republican form of government . Despite some mistakes that have been previously made, Colombia is working to rectify any problematic situations.

Universally, the Republic of Colombia has made an agreement with the United States in an attempt to settle some of this unrest.1 The delegation would like to see that more countries follow in this example. Extending the jurisdiction would only help countries such as Colombia to better govern the country and combat that which tries to deny the freedoms and safety of its citizens.

The UN will be vital in the attempt to lessen the crimes against humanity. Not only is this a legal issue but one also for other committees. Finding that the UN should have universal jurisdiction will inevitably lead to the creation of another committee to oversee the aid the countries need. This is obviously an issue that the UN needs to be involved in as it is outlined in the Charter's Article 1 that all human beings are born free and equal. There should be no debate that the UN should have universal jurisdiction as all members of the UN have agreed to these human rights. Working with other committees on this topic to further the actions taken by he UN would be crucial in the success or failure of the universal jurisdiction proposition.

The delegation of Colombia would like to see that the UN and other members would look favorably upon the creation of a new committee to oversee the jurisdiction and put in any possible limitations that it may deem necessary, working in accordance with the powers of the UN and with committes such as Security Council, DISEC, LEGAL, etc.

References: "Colombia: Conflict Timeline." Insight on Conflict. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/colombia/conflict-profile/conflict-timeline/?gclid=CKnJ45egyawCFQrHKgodIn3hpg>.

"CIA – The World Factbook." Welcome to the CIA Web Site — Central Intelligence Agency. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html>.

""False-positives" Scandal in Colombia Widens | GlobalPost." International News | Breaking US and World News Headlines – GlobalPost. Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.globalpost.com/notebook/colombia/101021/false-positives-scandal-colombia-widens>.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Congo
Delegate Name: Sean Baas
School: Forest Hills Central High School

Throughout the years there have been many crimes committed against humanity. There are events such as the holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda. These events are devastating and need to be justified accordingly. In the past the world court has dealt with the people who committed these atrocities or special trials have been set up such as the Nuremberg Trials after World War Two. These strategies worked well and those found guilty were given fair punishment for their crimes against humanity. If any other major crimes against humanity were to occur it would be best to deal with it the way that it was done in the past seeing that it worked well then.

Congo believes that there definitely needs to be punishment for any kind of crime against humanity. These crimes cannot go un-justified and because of that there need to be a universal jurisdiction set up to keep criminals in check. The United Nations needs to set up a universal court or jurisdiction system to fairly try criminals accused of crimes against humanity. If this is done then the criminals who commit these crimes will be kept in check because of the punishment that will occur if they commit crimes against humanity. It is in the best interest for the people of the world to establish this jurisdiction system so that they will be safe from crimes against humanity.

The majority of the countries in the World would agree with the Congo’s point of view seeing as it is in the best interest for their people. Some major supporters would be the big powers of the world such as The United States, France, Russia and the United Kingdom. All of these countries support basic human rights and would be in full support of keeping atrocities such as crimes against humanity form occurring.

On the other hand some countries that would not support the creation of a universal jurisdiction system would be countries that do not support human rights and deprive their citizens of basic human rights. These countries would include Iran, Syria, and possibly China. There are crimes against humanity going on or have occurred in these countries and because of that they would not want a jurisdiction system to be set up because of the punishments that they would have to deal with. It is in the best interest of the people of the World to set up a universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity so that they can live their lives on a safer planet.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Cuba
Delegate Name: Blythe Bugg
School: Mattawan High School

The Republic of Cuba sees universal jurisdiction as an attack on the right of national sovereignty. The Republic of Cuba prides itself on the laws it executes towards its criminals and sees no reason for imposing others nations in its problems with crimes against humanity simply because these crimes rarely, if at all, happen. The Republic of Cuba recognizes that these crimes do occur in the world; however, the nations in which these crimes occur should take charge of what these criminals do, not have an outside source dictate what is an actual crime against humanity.

Furthermore, these nations would have to consent to the infringement of their right to national sovereignty, and what country who truly feels they are the most suitable to rule his or her nation would allow such a thing? As a nation that never signed the Rome Statue, the Republic of Cuba feels it necessary to take into its own hands the power with which it was given to successfully and honorably rule the nation.

Since the rise of Fidel Castro in 1976, the Republic of Cuba has successfully built up its reputation as a nation who implements its laws and achieves success over crimes against humanity as these rarely occur in the Republic of Cuba. If anything, other nations should try to replicate our approach to such crimes instead of concerning the United Nations in such an issue that varies from nation to nation.

The Republic of Cuba believes the best method to achieve justice for crimes against humanity would be to give the power of the government to carry out its laws to the nation’s government itself.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Czech Republic
Delegate Name: Connor Helakoski
School: Mattawan High School

The Czech Republic is a free democratic state that agrees that crimes against humanity should be punishable on an international level, not just within the country where the crime or crimes took place. This is a very serious issue and popular sovereignty must be maintained.

Crimes against humanity are crimes so horrible in nature that it can not be disputed that they should be illegal. Unfortunately there are many corrupt and damaged governments around the world that would be willing to encourage these crimes, or at least protect the ones committing them. Crimes against humanity need to be dealt with on a higher level, there should be no doubt that these criminals will be charged and punished for their crimes and not protected by any corrupt officials. Countries need to come to an agreement upon terms so that when these crimes against humanity occur they will be dealt with swiftly and harshly to ensure that everyone in the world is safe from horrible atrocity no matter where they call home.

It would be difficult for a single government to deal with some of these offenders especially if the crimes they commit are favorable to the advancement of the nation itself. This is when a higher power needs to step in and make sure awful situations such as the holocaust can never happen again. In some situations a government is unable to stop the crimes against humanity from occurring in their country and they need help. People like Joseph Kony, a man raising thousands of child soldiers in Africa, need to be stopped immediately. His technology is too far advanced for many of the poor African countries to contend with so other countries need to come in and help stop the violence.

Czech Republic feels that all nations should join together to stop crimes against humanity no matter who is committing them, even if they are being committed by governments themselves. These criminals have to stopped to not only create a better life for ourselves, but for every person all across the globe.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Denmark
Delegate Name: Paige Etchison
School: Fishers High School

The people of Denmark have a strong allegiance to protecting the people on a global level. They are members of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which “is an international tribunal empowered with the right to prosecute state-members' citizens for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as defined by several international agreement” and are a party of the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention, which state that any person(s) in the territories that have become parties of these agreements must turn over any suspected or proven criminals to their country of origin or to the country in which the crimes occurred. These international tribunals have helped to show the stance taken by the people of Denmark on the universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity, and how that has shown their stance in global powers. Because they have had a constitutional monarchy since 1953, they have civil law and judicial review of legislative acts, which allows for the common people of Denmark to have influence over laws. This shows that people have an influence over the laws that are made which in turn allows the laws to generally be more humane.

The people of Denmark have the position of a strong alignment with other world powers in the topic of universal jurisdiction of crimes against humanity. The people of Denmark believe, as shown by their signing of the Convention against Torture and the Inter-American Convention, that crimes against humanity should be strongly opposed.

Denmark is strictly opposed to crimes against humanity, and is willing to sign most peace treaties that involve the reduction and/or prevention of these crimes, or the capture of criminals who have committed these crimes by means of teaming up with other countries law enforcements to catch these criminals. This is the stance of the country of Denmark on the topic of universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Egypt
Delegate Name: Ryan Kerr
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

The Arab Republic of Egypt is setting an example in the fight against crimes against humanity with their revolution in January, 2011. Egypt believes the primary concern for investigating and prosecuting these crimes rest with the state in which they occurred. If an accused perpetrator travels out of that nation, then Universal Jurisdiction can be applied to ensure justice is carried out. Currently, jurisdiction is far too ambiguous; to ensure international justice, while maintaining cordial inter-state relations, the scope and limits of Universal Jurisdiction need to be more clearly defined. Under the current use of jurisdiction there are no provisions that practically avoid any selectivity, double standards, or politicization, in application of the principle. Debates have emerged supporting a variety of views on the existence and degree of Universal Jurisdiction, but no unifying interpretation of the principle exists; that’s Egypt’s goal. Now, in this formative period for the Middle-East, persistent commitment to the Roman Statute and the protection of human rights are more important than ever. In May, we took in active part in the regional conference on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Qatar in May of 2011, where the framework and workings of the ICC were explained. Since the conference, we have continued to constructively converse with the ICC to encourage its activity as a non-State party. In accordance with Article 16 of the Roman Statute, Egypt is calling to defer the ICC’s work in the Sudan and Kenya to begin investigating crimes against humanity in Palestine.

Egypt is currently prosecuting our former-President, Hosni Mubarak, for allegedly causing the death of some 300 protesters. Our trial can serve as an example of a nation investigating and enforcing justice on our own. Furthermore, we find it key to specifically define the scope of universal jurisdiction; preferably, ensuring no impunity of criminal acts by the perpetrator simply leaving the physical boundaries of the State where the crime occurred. When defining Universal Jurisdiction, we also find it important to ensure there are provisions to avoid any abuse, selectivity, double standards or politicization in application of the principle.

Our allies are other nations who understand the importance of following international law and see a need to better define the currently broad and varying application of Universal Jurisdiction. Nations such as Iran, Kenya, Chile, Qatar(speaking for the Arab group), Brazil, China, the Russian Federation, and the Sudan, all call for the preservation of international law when dealing with Universal Jurisdiction to ensure the principle isn’t misused (especially in regards to political motives and double standards). These nations all support justice, but mostly at a national level. The United States also understands a need to establish a scope for jurisdiction to retain an appropriate manner.

Nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Switzerland, also stress the importance of immunity, but they do not stress enough the importance of preserving international law in keeping cordial relations between nations. This lack of emphasis on the limits of jurisdiction will lead to continued abuse of the, ideologically good, principle. Kenyan representative, Macharia Kamau (speaking on behalf of the African group), expressed concern for such abuse by non-African States. “He said he recalled the view expressed by the International Court of Justice emphasizing that the ‘cardinal principle of the immunity of heads of States should not be put to question or re-examined’” (Principle).

Work Cited

"Principle of ‘Universal Jurisdiction’ Again Divides Assembly’s Legal Committee Delegates; Further Guidance Sought from International Law Commission." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/gal3415.doc.htm>.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: France
Delegate Name: Trevor Grayeb
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The issue of universal jurisdiction has long been considered a formality of international law, with little concrete grounding in legal practice. With the atrocities in the politically and socially unstable Congo Basin and Western Balkans bringing genocide and crimes against humanity into the forefront of humanitarian and judicial agendas, it became necessary to devise a method of reinforcing international criminal justice to ensure that those responsible for such atrocities did not escape with impunity. Though the international community has made great progress over the past two decades, the developments in international justice have been staggered and uneven, and to this day suspects charged with crimes against humanity and genocide are still at large. The framework was laid for a more resolute standard of international justice for such crimes by the creation of three United Nations-endorsed bodies: the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, working under the auspices of the UNSC, and the independently-operating International Criminal Court. Through these courts and others, many of those wanted for crimes against humanity and genocide have been successfully tried and convicted. However, the reach of these organizations is limited and the international community’s most reprehensible criminals continue to slip through the cracks. For this reason, nations around the world frequently seek to try such criminals, regardless of country of origin, on the grounds that their crimes are universal.

The French Republic has always remained committed to the pursuit of international justice, especially in the case of those suspected of humanity’s most grievous offenses. To this end, France seeks to emphasize the importance of balance between the primary jurisdiction of national courts and the authority of international bodies charged with the enforcement of international law and the punishment of universal crimes. Since their inception, France has wholly endorsed the actions of the ICC and UN Special Tribunals, contributing to the arrest and indictment of countless criminals from Rwanda and other conflict zones before an international judiciary. But while supporting the actions of these courts whenever possible, France has also upheld its international responsibility where necessary, such as in cases where the limited jurisdiction of the ICC prevents international action. Article 689 of French Criminal Procedure Code established the right of French courts to try a range of internationally condemned crimes committed outside of French territory by a non-French citizen where the jurisdiction of the ICC would not apply, and simultaneously endorses cooperation with International Courts on all issues within their purview.

To fulfill the duty of the United Nations to combat impunity and uphold international law, the situation now calls for heightened action in order to “plug the leaks,” so to speak, in global justice. Primarily, in keeping with the spirit of General Assembly Resolution 64/117, the U.N. must endorse a much broader mandate to support the practice of universal jurisdiction in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity for all member states. A global standard of universal jurisdiction is a necessity to ensure that international law is evenly and fairly applied. Furthermore, drawing attention to the severe shortcomings of ICC jurisdiction in handling the most grave of cases, there is clear need for a limited expansion of ICC authority to comply with universal standards. Learning from the failures of Belgium’s 1993 Genocide Law in its overly unilateral approach, France places particular emphasis on procedural guidelines to balance the judicial authority of national and supranational courts.

In aiming to try and convict all those guilty of crimes against humanity, the international community must lay out these standards of universal jurisdiction, with extreme respect being paid to the multinational right of states to investigate such crimes as they pertain to them, and equal priority in such cases being established, as in the French judiciary, through the principle of *ne bis in idem.* The inability or unwillingness of states to confront such criminals may then be met by the expanded jurisdiction of the ICC, complemented by a U.N. effort to confront the harboring of those wanted for crimes against humanity. It is through this balance of international enforcement of justice and the empowerment of sovereign states, exemplified by the model developed in the French Republic, that a measured, global method can be employed to ensure that humanity’s most abhorrent criminals do not escape justice.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Gabon
Delegate Name: Kate Kelley
School: Royal Oak High School

Improving compliance and co-operation with the ICC is a matter of improving buy in and offering positive incentives for doing so. Attempting to coerce nations into accepting the universal jurisdiction of this body will only increase international resentment and limit the ability of the ICC to accomplish its goals. Instead, the Legal Committee needs to establish a framework incorporating truth commissions and the political expediency sometimes associated with amnesty into existing ICC policy.

International intervention, however, is a principle addressed by the ICC that should remain unchanged. In every historical case, international military involvement increased violence and instability, both of which are not conducive to the peace and stability the UN and ICC are meant to create and protect. It is key to remember that justice is not synonymous with revenge – it is fairness, reason, and righteousness. Moreover, though participation in international communities and systems is always encouraged, within the UN charter the rights of sovereignty are clearly defined as the ultimate defining force in inter-state diplomacy. If the Legal Committee attempts to define the ICC as a body unable to operate while respecting national sovereignty, interest in and cooperation with this court will decline dramatically.

In any resolution put forth by this committee, Gabon will be expecting a strong system of integration that incorporates work with existing UN organs and does not attempt to intimidate nations reluctant or unable to co-operate with the ICC at present. Connecting cooperation with the ICC to governmental legitimacy and economic support will increase willing participation, and with the incorporation of truth commissions and internationally defined amnesty will allow many nations facing regime change to participate without endangering the fragile peace won at such cost.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Germany
Delegate Name: Claire Fishman
School: Ann Arbor Community High School

In Article 1 of the German Basic Law, it is stated that, “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” We believe that we have a responsibility to protect all human rights, whether those of German citizens or others. It is important to prosecute those who commit human rights violations, especially crimes against humanity, to ensure that rule of law is maintained and justice achieved, and so a message is sent to those who violate human dignity, showing that what they are doing will not be tolerated by the international community.

Throughout the years, the international community, including the United Nations itself, has established many forms and exercises in universal jurisdiction. However, crimes against humanity still persist, a fact illuminated by events in places like the former Yugoslavia and the Congo Basin. Universal jurisdiction needs to be strengthened to prevent crimes against humanity. We believe in doing this by utilizing the concept of subsidiary universal jurisdiction.

One exercise in subsidiary universal jurisdiction is the International Criminal Court, or the ICC, which was created by the Rome Statute, and is a valuable tool in prosecuting crimes against humanity. We are party to the statute, and currently, are court’s largest contributor along with Japan, and are the largest contributor of voluntary payments to the court’s Trust Fund for Victims and Witness Protection Programme.

Internally, this concept can also be put into practice by supporting individual countries’ enactments of international criminal codes that work in harmony with such international standards such as the Rome Statute. We have done this with the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, or VStGB, which makes crimes against humanity, along with genocide and war crimes, subject to universal jurisdiction within the German court system.

The expansion of these existing measures, with a strengthening of the ICC, an issue currently before the Security Council, and encouragement to countries to enact their own international criminal codes, will follow the concept of subsidiary universal jurisdiction, and will help to stop crimes against humanity. We invite others in the international community to work with us to make the world safer for all.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Ghana
Delegate Name: Arica Jackson
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

Today’s world is not a perfect world. Yesterday the nations of the world were celebrating years of peace and times of great hope for the future. The nations of the world were paid in tribute by its citizens in legitimacy, because the nations protected its citizens. The crimes considered so heinous were then handled by the diplomacy and the common goals of the United Nations. However; as Wikileaks has brought to light; the nations of the world are the ones that should be feared, partially because the nations have neglected to protect the most significant feature of their governments: Human rights. The uprisings that have occurred in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, and many other transitional countries, acknowledge that fact because those citizens have informed us, the nations of the world, have been neglecting our duty, and the Republic of Ghana believes it is time for the nations of the world to issue a war against the crimes against humanity. The United Nations has, as of 2010, given additional Jurisdiction to the ICC to effectively fight the crimes against Humanity. With the Roman statute of the ICC, the ICC affirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation; the purpose of the ICC. Ghana agrees with the ICC when it states that the nations of the world must intervene when there is any knowledge of attacks against civilians, specifically in Genocide, enslavement, invasion, apartheid, or any other inhumane act that causes great suffering, or serious injury to physical or mental health. Ghana believes that the ICC’s goal greatly reflects the duties of peace that must be demonstrated by each United Nations member, which is why Ghana has signed the agreement in 1998 of July 18th.

The republic of Ghana does recognize the International Criminal Court. The compelling mission statement that greatly reflects the duties of the UN is responsible for the protection and prosecution of the crimes against humanity. Therefore Ghana will work with other countries that have ratified or have not ratified the Roman statute in hopes of efficiently and justly fighting the crimes against humanity. However; In accordance to the agreement signed between the United States and the Republic of Ghana, when the Government of Ghana extradites, surrenders, or otherwise transfers a person of the United States and only the United States to a third country, the Government of Ghana will not agree to surrender or transfer that person to the International Criminal Court by a third country, absent the expressed consent of the Government of the United States. The Republic of Ghana recognizes that the International Criminal Court is to complement and not supplement national jurisdiction. The Republic of Ghana suggests to process crimes against humanity using ICC because this will effectively eliminate violations of human rights and create a common law that will openly protect anyone in of the international community.

Many South American countries and much of the African Union understand the importance of a quick solution to the current jurisdiction issue. Ghana urges many of these countries to convince their neighboring allies to quickly ratify the Roman statute and reach a consensus on whether or not to implement the statute in their country to further stabilize the jurisdiction of the ICC or the effects on Universal jurisdiction.

These countries: Israel, The United States, and Sudan have not signed the treaty and have indicated that they will not be states under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal court, therefore; undermine the fight against the crimes against humanity. Supporting Universal Jurisdiction is what Ghana believes all nations of the international community strongly believe in, however; The ICC will provide a strong, strict judiciary statute that will quickly process all crimes against humanity within the International community.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: India
Delegate Name: Akash Premkumar
School: Forest Hills Eastern High School

A crime so vile and heinous and repulsive that it can de deemed not only a threat to one person, not to one group of peoples or a group of countries but the entire world is a crime against humanity. When crimes like this occur it is vital that they stop; however, one large question lies behind its regulation: who controls humanity? Behind this simple question lies a juggernaut of small and more convoluted questions. This is known as universal jurisdiction: the concept that any nation and every nation has a responsibility to control such crimes. In numerous instances, the problem is not what to do about crimes against humanity, but whether crimes against humanity are, in fact, occurring. Unable to judge the exigency of a situation, many countries find it politically inexpedient to involve them and will ignore its effects. Crimes against humanity however can occur at subliminal levels. An ethnic war or a cultural conflict can be categorized as genocide. “Aggression, the unprovoked invasion of other states, can be countered militarily, but holding the perpetrators responsible becomes a matter for international tribunals or the International Criminal Court (ICC).” It is imperative and vital that the United Nations work to encourage member states to intervene and cease instead of ignoring crimes against humanity. In addition, member states must actively pursue solutions to diplomatic impasses encountered while attempting to incriminate those responsible for the particular crime or crimes.

India’s history has an interesting relation to crimes against humanity. The events accompanying the partition of India may be classified as genocidal massacres. While there is no available evidence of the intent to annihilate entire ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups as such, the victims of the mass killings were clearly chosen by their killers on the grounds of their membership in such groups. For this reason, today India wishes to define persecution and violent forms of religious and ethnic discrimination as one form of a crime against humanity. While introduction of such a law will equip the Indian judicial system to accurately understand and prosecute cases of mass crimes, it will also provide an opportunity to bring Indian laws at par with recent developments in international human rights standards and international criminal law. The Indian goal is to mainly create a world that is rid of crimes against humanity – similar to the goal of almost every country in the world. However, India argues that it is not a certain country’s responsibility but humanity’s responsibility to create a peaceful world. Thus, India wholly supports universal jurisdiction due to its ability to allow all countries to regulate the happenings in the world. India largely supports the extraterritoriality of the Information Technology Act 2000 of India. This maintains that India contravention of the Act that affects any computer or computer network situated in India will be punishable by India – irrespective of the culprit’s location and nationality. Although this may not regard the concept of crimes against humanity, it exemplifies Indian’s firm belief in universal jurisdiction when contravening acts – in this case crimes against humanity – are dealt with. India argues that if water, air, and land can be shared throughout humanity and if humanity pollutes the earth as a whole and lives on earth together as a whole then what justification exists for regionalization and forms of regional jurisdiction.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Indonesia
Delegate Name: Eboni White
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity as “particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings.” Universal Jurisdiction is based on the belief that these criminals must be brought to justice. No country can deny that heinous acts cannot go unpunished. However the question becomes what does one interpret as heinous? Due to the fact that only piracy is currently specified under Universal Jurisdiction, it is the opinion of the Republic of Indonesia that the principle of Universal Jurisdiction be treaty based. Currently there is a treaty based on the Rome Statute.

It is the opinion of the Republic of Indonesia that international treaties will not infringe upon the sovereignty of each state. For example the Republic of Indonesia is forced to face the gruesome reality of human trafficking. The Republic of Indonesia recognizes that human trafficking is a heinous crime and should count as a crime against humanity and therefor they are dealing with it as such. In 2007 the Republic of Indonesia cracked down on human trafficking by passing an Anti-Trafficking bill that punishes the offenders sufficiently. To have an international court over rule a country’s own court would be infringing on that nation’s sovereignty. The Republic of Indonesia is in favor of Universal Jurisdiction as long as it is treaty based. The Republic of Indonesia support the sentiment expressed by many other countries such as the United Kingdom, Algeria, Spain, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Israel, Burkina Faso, the United States of America, etc. at the 64th session of the a 2009 United Nations Conference. Universal Jurisdiction is favorable, but the scope of application must be more defined.

Therefor the Republic of Indonesia feels that the scope of application for Universal Jurisdiction cannot be left to ambiguity and interpretation. The Republic of Indonesia feels that Universal Jurisdiction for Crimes against Humanity should be enacted for cases of genocide, crimes of war, torture and those already specified. The resolution on the topic should also include immunity for state officials. However the Republic of Indonesia does encourage caution and that all sovereign states are equal.

The Republic of Indonesia incites that a treaty be forged so nations are not obligated to participate in a universal court, thereby respecting their independence as a nation. A number of treaties would be ratified to supplement the domestic provisions for a universal court. The treaty would treat all nations as equals and would allow the nation to handle the crime to their discretion. The treaty would force countries top act on any heinous crimes in its scope of application, with respect to international law.

Also it must be addressed how extraditing an offender of humanity will be handled. The treaty should address, for example if there is a criminal wanted for crimes against humanity hiding out in another country, would that country be compelled to extradite the criminal to the county in which the offense occurred?

Therefor the Republic of Indonesia is in favor of Universal jurisdiction through means of a series of treaties in place of a Universal Court. By having universal jurisdiction be treaty based it is ensured that the autonomy of each nation is respected. The Republic of Indonesia acknowledges that the scope of application must be better defined and that there need to be further inquiry in this matter. Also further discussions on international punishment need to be had.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Iran
Delegate Name: Raid ElKhawaja
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The idea of Human rights is strongly supported by the Islamic republic of Iran. Tehran, strongly disagree with any war crimes committed toward any human being.

War crimes against humanity had been committed all over the world, specifically in the Middle Eastern region. The Middle East lived under a very harsh crimes against humanity been committed by (A) Israel and western powers (B) Arabs regimes. In fact, Israel had been always the cause; Israel was responsible for most of the war crimes that had been committed in the region, the Sabra and Sahatil massacre in the 1982 by the Israeli Defends Minister Ariel Sharon , as well as Qana massacre by the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert during the war on Lebanon in the 2006,nevertheless Israel had been responsible for using illegal weapons against civilians, using Phosphoric bombs against the civilians in Gaza and Lebanon , moreover Israel has Nuclear weapons , which is a huge dangerous that’s able make drawl the region into a Nuclear war, which was about to happen during the ( 6 October war) in 1973 .

The Islamic Republic of Iran, respect all races and ethnic groups, and give everyone an equal human right. According to Article 19 in the constitution “All people of Iran, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; and color, race, language, and the like, do not bestow any privilege.”

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Iraq
Delegate Name: Elizabeth Caldwell
School: Ann Arbor Community High School

The Republic of Iraq is invested in the idea that crimes against humanity have the ultimate judicial freedom of prosecution from any nation against any citizen. This belief stems from the fact that these crimes are part of a universal jurisdiction system, so any country may try a criminal who has committed crimes against humanity as stated by The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the 5th Article of Part 2 “The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:(a) The crime of genocide;(b) Crimes against humanity;(c) War crimes;(d) The crime of aggression.” The fact that crimes against humanity even exist appalls Iraq. Iraq firmly believes in justice dealt to any of the world’s citizens from crimes that harm any of the people of a sovereign nation.

The fact remains, however, that universal jurisdiction is no longer used in the manner for which it was intended. The stage of international politics has affected universal jurisdiction in a negative fashion, which prevents these issues from coming to the attention of the world.

One of Iraq’s recent attempts to seek justice for crimes against humanity was brutally dismissed under the political influence directed towards The Kingdom of Spain by another sovereign nation. We do not blame Spain for its inability to act but Iraq does insist that matters of universal jurisdiction of crimes against humanity be an aspect of The International Criminal Court that is unaffected by outside influence from other nations.

If the courts that seek justice can become so affected that they are unable to perform their duties, than the very idea of universal jurisdiction is a moot point. Iraq stands firmly behind the idea of universal jurisdiction of crimes against humanity in the untarnished and uninfluenced political stance of being capable of bringing such heinous criminals to justice without the influence of outside influences upon the courts.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Israel
Delegate Name: Matthew Suandi
School: Williamston High School

There are some crimes, that are so heinous, vile, and despicable, that their perpetrator, no matter the circumstances, must be caught and brought to justice. One of the greatest criminals of all time was brought to justice by the State of Israel following the basic principle of universal jurisdiction. His name was Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann facilitated and managed the logistics of the deportation of the Jewish people to ghettos and concentration camps in Europe. After the war, he was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina, and brought to justice in an Israeli court. The acts committed by Eichmann can be classified as crimes against humanity, and these are what the International Criminal Court should concern itself with when considering cases of Universal Jurisdiction.

However, there are times in which Universal Jurisdiction extends itself too far, to a point at which it interferes with a state's right to its national sovereignty. Many have called upon Israeli officials, wrongly convicted of war crimes to be persecuted when they travel to non-Israeli territory. Israel believes that there is a line between what constitutes a state's national security, and the commitment of war crimes.

An often cited case of war crimes committed by Israeli officials is the 2002 assassination of Salah Shehade, a former senior Hamas commander. During his leadership, he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Shehade, who went into hiding following his release from prison, was then eliminated by the Israeli Defense Forces. Though it is unfortunate that others had to perish with him, his killing cannot be classified as a war crime. Shehade, as a member of a terrorist organization, provided for a serious threat to the national sovereignty of Israel and thus he had to be dealt with, no matter how unfortunate the resulting circumstances were.

Israel has deep sympathy with the goals of the ICC. However, it has great concerns that it will reinterpret international law, and in doing so invent new crimes. Israel cannot agree with the inclusion of the clause that "the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory" is a war crime. This clause is why Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute.

Israel is rapidly growing nation. Despite this, it has not constructed any new settlements in the West Bank. It is quite simply impractical to withdraw hundreds of thousands of Israelis from their homes and be forced to resettle them. If all Israeli authority is those territories were to be removed instantaneously, there is no telling as to who would take over, and if it were such radical organization such as Hamas or Hezbollah, the consequences would be degrading towards Israeli national sovereignty. Therefore, Israel cannot ratify the Rome Statute so long as this unjust clause is included.

Israel believes that there must be a certain threshold between what the ICC has the right to incite Universal Jurisdiction in, and what it does not. The ICC must create a clearly defined line between what constitutes war crimes, and what constitutes the national sovereignty of a nation. So long as this is not done, and the language of the the ICC allows for new "crimes" to be created that could not possibly defined as war crimes or crimes against humanity, then Israel will not ratify the Rome Statute. Israel sees many problems with the Rome Statute that must be addressed before the ICC may be authorized with universal jurisdiction, and for Israel to ratify the statute.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Italy
Delegate Name: Rebecca Michelson
School: Roeper School

It is a priority of the Italian Republic’s to put an end to harsh, unspeakable crimes against

humanity that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is working so diligently to control. Italy

believes that in the case of crimes that fall under the classification of the most cruel and harsh, it is the right of other nations to intervene in the nation where the crime is taking place, and it is the duty of all nations to put an end to the cruelty.

The Italian Republic views universal jurisdiction as key in protecting Italian, European Union, and international interests. Italy provides for jurisdiction over a set of offenses against national interests, such as against the state, counterfeiting, or an attack against state symbols. Italy still holds to its sovereignty in the case of its own unconditional jurisdiction. Italy maintains the right the hold trial for a convicted criminal within the boundaries of Italy, even if the crime took place outside of Italy, as long as Italy’s sovereign interests are involved.

Italy holds its own jurisdiction in the case of foreigners where a political offense was committed, as well as ordinary crimes involving an Italian citizen or the request of the Minister of Justice. Italy holds that it alone shall deal with issues of crimes involving its own citizens. Italy supports that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as, stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is the duty of nations to respect these rights of every person, no matter their nationality, but dealt with depending on the crime and the degree of severity.

As for progress made toward crimes against humanity, the Italian Republic, as a ratifying

member of the Rome Statue, supports the ICC and its efforts to handle the most severe cases of crimes against human rights. Italy believes that with encouraged support from all nations, the ICC will be most able to perform its duties in making the world a safer and more aware place. Italy is ready to work with other nations to define Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes Against Humanity, in order to protect human rights on a global scale, and at the same time, assure that the legitimacy of national sovereignty be maintained.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Japan
Delegate Name: Cinoo Lee
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

Although history saw some unnecessary bloodsheds and regretful scenes, there is no need now to repeat the history’s mistakes and condone the most heinous crimes of all: crimes against humanity.

Japan believes Universal Jurisdiction to be an important instrument that can bring international justice. Accordingly, Japan outlined the universal jurisdiction regarding crimes against humanity in the Penal Code 2006. Japan is also a party to the Convention against torture as well as the Geneva Conventions, Protocol I and the 1954 Hague Convention Second Protocol. In addition, during the Rome Conference, Japan was actively involved and voted in favor of the Rome Statute. Although initially there was a concern that the ICC might weaken Japanese national sovereignty, as a country committed to international peace, Japan acceded to the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court in 2007. Japan highly recommends other countries to do the same. As the UN’s second largest financial contributor, Japan shows its support by contributing significantly toward the ICC as well.

Nevertheless, Japan would like to address that universal jurisdiction still has many obstacles that include, but are not limited to, inadequate definitions of crimes and principles of criminal responsibility; political control over decisions to investigate, prosecute or extradite; and statutes of limitation. In the light of these possible weaknesses, Japan emphasizes that the Universal Jurisdiction only applies when a country is ‘unwilling’ or ‘unable’ to indict a criminal. If a sovereign nation is capable, the nation’s law should govern crimes such as those committed by people of its national or those committed within its boundary.

Despite the possible limitations of the Universal Jurisdiction and the ICC’s scope, Japan wants to ensure that every nation would have the chance and the right to endorse international peace, and would like to work as a international community to come up with a measure to complement the limitations to do so.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Jordan
Delegate Name: Charles Blair
School: Fishers High School

The Kingdom of Jordan understands the short-falls of the current system of Universal Jurisdiction and believes that the Rome Statue needs to be enhanced to strengthen the power of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We signed the original Rome Statue in 1998 and ratified it in 2002. If the ICC had more power, Jordan does not understand why that would discourage ratification of the statue. And since nations have had years to ratify the document, it is time for further action. This action begins with strengthening the ICC and spreading its jurisdiction to other nations, whether they ratified the Rome statue or not. As it has developed, the International Criminal Court has uncovered many hindrances in the fight for justice. With persecuting criminals and other functions, the nation of Jordan believes that the ICC should be uninhibited in any way. In addition, since the issue of Universal jurisdiction directly involves the ICC, we must discuss methods and pass reforms to the current system. The main issue of course is universal jurisdiction, but again this point is pivotal to the discussion.

What is crucial to the nation of Jordan is that we need to uncover ways to encourage nations to intervene when crimes against humanity are committed and also how to maintain a nation’s sovereignty while attempting to acquire perpetrators. The most viable option of encouragement is a method of pressure from nations surrounding the area of concern that could be harboring criminals. Thus, negotiations can be held with a country that struggles with apprehending any perpetrators.

While we recognize the crucial aspect of apprehending criminals even in areas outside of “universal jurisdiction,” we do not support surrounding countries encroaching on that nation. The only venue that is feasible is for the United Nations to have that power to apprehend the criminal. That way there is no retaliation on any single country and thus, no war or conflict will break out because a nation fulfilled their duty. Instead, many nations formed an action that even though it is disapproved by one or a few nations will be permissive by other nations. To exemplify, the United States of America went after Osama Bin-Laden on Pakistani soil without their government knowledge. If this same tactic was done by the U.N., then this would be ideal. The second point to emphasis is to encourage that nations intervene when criminals are on the loose. Of course negotiations should be held between the countries of concern in turning over the criminal if one has ratified the Rome Statue. If the criminal is responsible for different crimes in many nations then it is indeed their responsibility to bring the individual to justice. If countries ask for help, then the United Nations should have the power to do so.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Kuwait
Delegate Name: Esperanza Cirilo
School: Saginaw Arts and Sciences Academy

The country of Kuwait is essentially in favor of the ICC ( International Criminal Court). The Kuwaiti Coalition for the International Criminal Court (KCICC) was formed in Kuwait City in May, 2007 and is one of 10 ICC Coalitions in the Middle East and Africa region. However, although Kuwait signed the Rome Statute on September 8, 2000, we have yet to ratify it. Understandably the ICC is gaining legitimacy but until certain issues are met Kuwait cannot be apart.

Cases like the investigation of former interior minister Ahmad Muhammad Harun in 2005 who was accused of mass rape, looting, murder, and torture but was not handed over to the ICC because Sudan had not signed the ROME Statute and rejected the ICC, are an issue. In this instance, Kuwait feels that universal jurisdiction would have better ensured justice.

Inaction for crimes against humanity can happen for many reason that include corruption and inability of a government to identify and prosecute said persons. For this reason, Kuwait believes the UN should have universal jurisdiction over certain crimes against humanity such as mass genocide. There should be specific numbers or percents and listed crimes that would be punishable. However, national sovereignty is something Kuwait is adamant about retaining in these cases. Sometimes the government knows what’s best for its people; but there is also a limit.

The only countries that should have a problem with universal jurisdiction would be ones harboring possible candidates for crimes against humanity. If this is the case, then countries of the UN should instate universal jurisdiction, especially during this time when transitional governments, such as Egypt and Libya, are arising and may not have the resources to prosecute and investigate crimes against humanity they are facing within their borders. Kuwait would even be in favor of only instating universal jurisdiction in those cases until a government becomes stable to sign

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Lebanon
Delegate Name: Julia Rugg
School: Mattawan High School

The vile acts by government and political entities on their own people have been defined as crimes against humanity. Throughout history there have been questions concerning the handling of these acts. It is a very sensitive issue on when and how the international community can be involved.

During the Cedar Revolution, Lebanon experienced the affects of crimes against humanity. Through the years of Syria’s occupation of Lebanon and the subsequent revolution, numerous political assassinations occurred, the pinnacle being the death of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. As soon as the events transpired, questions were raised about how the crimes connected and who was responsible. On 1 March 2009 the Special Tribunal for Lebanon opened to determine the people associated with the assassination of Hariri. Before the tribunal opened, the UN investigative commission worked on the case in conjunction with the Lebanese authorities. Initially the crime was attributed to high-level pro-Syrian Lebanese officers, but on 30 June 2011 four confidential arrest warrants were given to Lebanese officials.

Lebanon has experience with the international involvement in war crimes, and although it caused tension within Lebanon, the tribunal was beneficial. While Lebanon supports the action of UN investigation and international tribunals, the country has elected to accede to the Rome Statute and not accept the establishment of the International Criminal Court. Lebanon feels the establishment of such a system would create excess of outside interference. It would also produce scenarios of international interests overriding that of the country in question.

Lebanon would support the influence of UN investigations and international tribunals. They should only be enacted either upon request of the country or if there is overwhelming evidence of crimes against humanity and an international outcry for action

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Libya
Delegate Name: Rachel Nichols
School: Roeper School

With the National Transitional Council (NTC) recently assuming power, Libya has yet to set up a fully operational legal and court system. As result, the trial of Moammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, is to be run by the International Criminal Court (ICC) due to an obligation from a recent Security Council resolution. The NTC agreed that there is overwhelming evidence of the guilt of Saif al-Islam and that he should be charged with crimes against humanity. In late February 2011 al-Islam took part in the Gaddafi government policies that attacked peaceful protesters. He is also accused of corruption, abuse of state funds, and committing torture. Libya currently has not yet approved trial by the ICC mainly because the new government has not signed onto any claim of a world court. However the NTC feels that it is ready to prosecute other defendants from the Gaddafi regime, having adopted enough legal and judicial procedures to be capable enough to ensure a fair trial.

Several weeks ago, officials from Western governments, such as the United States and Britain, agreed with Libya wanting to try its former leaders at home. This created problems in the international community because Libya faces numerous obstacles: its existent court system does not meet international standards; the death penalty is still part of the legal code; and the questionable death of Gaddafi at the hands of his captors. Because of this, some nations do not feel that Libya is ready to handle the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi trial in its own court.

Libya also faces the problem of pro-Gaddafi forces launching terror attacks against civilians. On November 17, 2011, the Independent Civil Society Mission to Libya began to work. The mission is organized by both the Arab Organization of Human Rights and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights to examine violations of international law and investigate potential violations of international human rights law, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The mission consists of a training team that focuses on law enforcement officials and introducing humanitarian law, transitional justice, prosecution of war criminals and universal jurisdiction, the rule of law, separation of powers, guarantees of fair trial, and the role of the lawyers and judiciary. The participants in this program showed interest in the subjects that were relevant to the Arab world as well as crimes against civilians. Libya strongly suggests that other nations follow similar programs to either improve or create an appropriate system to handle crimes against humanity.

Libya’s goal is to work on an international system that will ensure fair trial and prosecution of those who have committed crimes against humanity. This way, countries can have trials at home without the intervention of organizations such as the ICC and be independent. It is a nation’s duty not to ignore crimes against humanity and instead pursue resolutions in order for the criminals are brought to justice. A possible cause in the inaction in the face of crimes against humanity is an inefficient legal system that does not know their own rights and boundaries. By having a set system, nations would be encouraged to take action. Intervention by international organizations should only take place if a nation does not plan to hold a trial on those accused of committing a crime against humanity. This is because sovereignty does not apply when crimes against humanity are not handled. Yet, Libya does not believe that intervention is justified when countries’ legal procedures are automatically assumed to be insufficient and the ICC is called in to replace a country’s legal system. To ensure justice is met, immediate action, fair trials, and appropriate prosecution must take place.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Mexico
Delegate Name: Sarah Hinkel
School: Mattawan High School

The United Mexican States believe in international intervention when crimes against humanity are involved. Countries, developing or developed, take part in crimes against humanity. The international community needs to do its best to prevent and stop these heinous crimes.

Mexico signed the annexed Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in December 1948. Since then Mexico has made strides for protecting Human rights encouraging international cooperation. Mexico has established thirty two autonomous bodies for the promotion and protection of human rights. The Permanent Representation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights was established in Mexico at Mexico’s request. On the national scene, Mexico drafted a National Human Rights Program, introduced Constitutional amendments in favor of human rights, and abolished the death penalty. Mexico agrees with the decisions made by the Human Rights Council.

Crimes against humanity include violating basic human rights for example the right to life, liberty, equal treatment before the law among others. It is the state’s responsibility to protect these rights. However, if a state implement laws that violate human rights, international intervention should be determined by the severity of the crisis. The prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide states that genocide is trying to eliminate a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. There is a fine line between a war and genocide. Genocide is a type of war with a purpose of eliminating a specific group of people. A war, not including genocide, is fought for a cause or ideology that cannot be resolved diplomatically. A specific group of people is not targeted directly unless involved in the conflict.

The country that was victim should have the choice of trying the criminal. The International Criminal Court should try the criminals if they violated human rights in multiple countries or if the country gives jurisdiction to the ICC.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Netherlands
Delegate Name: Edie Jiang
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The United Nations has been working on handling criminals acting against humanity and crimes so abominable that they must be brought under universal jurisdiction for a long time. The International Criminal Court has been established as a permanent tribunal in efforts to solve this problem, and has long since been trying criminals too reprehensible to be under one country’s responsibility. The development of the I.C.C was considered a real breakthrough on the issue of universal jurisdiction, considering that crimes against humanity that that country has proven unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate or prosecute will finally face justice. The question then becomes whether or not the lawfulness of universal jurisdiction pertains to states that will not recognize the I.C.C., and still remains a major obstacle to achieving the full implementation of universal jurisdiction.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands fully supports the practice of universal jurisdiction, with the I.C.C. actually having its official seat in The Hague, Netherlands, although its proceedings may take place elsewhere. Dutch courts have the power to exercise universal jurisdiction over the most heinous crimes, given that the country recognize that the I.C.C. does in fact hold the power of universal jurisdiction. As such, the Netherlands believes that to such criminals must be dealt with so that they no longer place a threat to the international community, which could even mean overstepping the sovereignty of the territorial state.

It is the firm belief of the Netherlands that universal jurisdiction in cases of crimes against humanity should be mandated by all Member States of the United Nations, as that would be the system to procure the least chance of a criminal being exempted from punishment. The Netherlands holds that the existing establishment of international law and dispute settling mechanisms are adequate in allowing further disputes over universal jurisdiction to be resolved.

The Netherlands wishes to continue working with the European Union to intervene in the face of crimes against humanity, as both the national state and association acknowledge the importance of legal action under such crimes. The member states of the E.U. have displayed a willingness to achieve the fulfillment and further practice of universal jurisdiction, and the Netherlands plans on continuing joint work with the E.U. toward the progress of universal jurisdiction.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Nigeria
Delegate Name: Rebecca Manack
School: Williamston High School

Crimes against Humanity are considered so vile and heinous that if there is a special court in which for them to be prosecuted on an international scale, in the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is Nigeria’s view that Crimes against Humanity are needed to be prosecuted in this manor because of the unreliability of the Nigerian judicial system today.

Human Rights are a large issue for many Nigerians the major subjects are illogical arrests; prolonged pretrial detention; judicial corruption and executive influence on the judiciary. These problems make it easier for criminals to slip through the cracks. They may wait an obscene amount of time for a trial, while evidence becomes stale. The ICC can be more thorough in their examination of those on trial, because they are not in a corrupt system. We are currently helping draw up a draft to state our complementarity and co-operation to the ICC.

Universal Jurisdiction is good in many cases but has to be limited. Nigeria believes that internal affairs should always be kept out of the control of Universal Jurisdiction. When President Obasanjo was planning to extend his tenure longer than the amount stated in the constitution Nigerian parliament wrote a letter of concern to the Joint Committee of the National Assembly. This letter only concerned the affairs of Nigeria, why then did British parliament read it and only after all members had heard decided that it was a Nigerian affair and we not for them to deliberate upon.

Nigeria’s long trend of poor human rights and corrupted system shows the main purpose of the ICC. It is essential for all countries with the same problems to be a part of the system so that justice may be served to them as promised. However Universal Jurisdiction must be given strict rules in order to protect the national sovereignty of those nations. This will in turn allow the justice system to work as it was intended, while still continuing to give a sense of national sovereignty.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: North Korea
Delegate Name: Amit Khandhadia
School: Roeper School

Established in 2002 by the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has had limited success in truly prosecuting individuals. Recently issues have arisen on the harboring of fugitives responsible for crimes against humanity and their hiding in nations that do not concede to the ICC. The Court, in response, argues that it requires universal jurisdiction, which would allow the Court to put any man on trial for perpetrating international crimes. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea opposes any such measures.

Although the ICC seeks to serve justice, the Court does so at the expense of national sovereignty as they would force a nation to give up their own people for the judgment of outside nations. These nations, perhaps self-interested, could have ulterior motives for the prosecution. Furthermore, an international entity with such power would have no ballast and could easily become intertwined in international disputes and disagreements. Moreover, the ICC can claim universal jurisdiction over Crimes against Humanity through proposal of the Security Council where developed nations have the power to veto any proposals that do not suit their ends showing the court has already fallen under the petty influence of certain members of the international community.

The Democratic People’s Republic refuses to support any resolution giving the ICC the power to intrude on the dealings of nations. If the Court asks for the extradition of a national, the Korean People’s Democratic Republic holds they must show undeniable proof that, the pursued individual has a connection to a crime and then, only with the countries willing, the Court may then prosecute the individual.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reminds all nations to consider their national sovereignty and to ask whether universal jurisdiction will truly lead to peace and prosperity or competition and strife.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Pakistan
Delegate Name: Erica Pincumbe
School: Williamston High School

The ICC has set up a system for international Justice. The official seat of the court is located in the Netherlands but the proceedings of the court may be carried out in any country that has signed the Rome Statute. The goal of the ICC is to set up international jurisdiction over crimes such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, and will soon include crime of aggression.

Pakistan has supported the views of the International Criminal Court, and, in 1998, voted for the Rome Statute. However the country did not sign the agreement. However the Pakistani government did not sign the agreement on the basis of four major reservations.

The idea of provisional arrests is against the Pakistani legal system, and because it is part of the Rome Statute agreement, Pakistan was not willing to sign. A provisional arrest warrant allows other countries to detain a criminal until he or she can be extradited to the country that has jurisdiction over that criminal.

Pakistan also does not agree with the lack of immunity for heads of state that is provided in the agreement, the fact that the Statute does not provide for reservations by individual countries and the subjective nature of the proceedings of the ICC.

Pakistan agrees with the idea of International Jurisdiction when it comes to crimes against humanity but is not in agreement with some of the regulations and proceedings of the International Criminal Court.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Portugal

The UN must be prepared to confront crimes against humanity as they affect the international community. One of the possible causes of a nation’s inaction in the face of crimes against humanity is that the nation in which the crimes were committed potentially could not afford an investigation and trial to convict the perpetrators. These circumstances are often exacerbated when a nation suffers from a great conflict or war.

A second possible cause of inaction to stop crimes against humanity is that the rulers of the nation have no incentive to prosecute the perpetrators. The ruling leaders could have party or familial relations with the criminal, so they might halt the investigation to prevent their ally from losing power.

When crimes against humanity occur, the international community has a responsibility to intervene to stop these crimes when the nation in which the atrocities occur does not act. To justify intervention, a crime must be so detestable that it violates humanity, not just the laws of a particular nation. However, different states have different ideas of when intervention is necessary, and the guidelines that should govern intervention must be that the state with the official right to try the accused is not acting and there must be sufficient evidence that the crimes in question are being committed.

If a state is harboring the person accused of committing crimes against humanity, the state in question has the duty to prosecute the perpetrator. When a state is inadequately equipped or unwilling to protect its people and the people of neighboring nations, the international community should help with the costs of the investigation and prosecution. It is inexcusable to not prosecute human rights abuses due to insufficient financial resources in a state.

As a member of NATO, we support international organizations intervening to stop massive human rights abuses. However, we do not support unilateral human rights interventions, as this could lead to nations pursuing their national interests marauding under the banner of human rights interventions. The international community must balance a respect for national sovereignty with the responsibility to protect against large-scale human rights abuses. In cases like Kosovo, international organizations like NATO had to step in to protect national sovereignty, and this is the way that we believe situations under these circumstances should be handled. International organizations, organizations such as the UN, NATO, the African Union, and the European Union, should all be used to protect the balance between national sovereignty and assisting in the prevention of human rights abuses. By utilizing these organizations, the intervention will carry an international mandate that will lend legitimacy to the operation and hold the nations providing troops and supplies accountable to the larger community.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Qatar
Delegate Name: Julia Heenan
School: Royal Oak High School

Universal jurisdiction is international law that allows the courts to have power over people whose crimes were committed outside their home country. The home country supports the claim or charge, meaning the crime committed is to be considered a crime against all people, and the criminal’s punishment is authorized to every country. The criminals are tried in the international criminal court (ICC) which deals with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Its judgment is based on the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute was influenced by the Nuremberg trials of 1945. The trials initiated various treaties that led to the drafting of the Rome Statute; the document wasn’t finished until July 17, 1998.

Qatar is one of seven countries that didn’t vote in favor of the Rome Statute jurisdictions. The other countries include Iraq, Israel, Libya, People's Republic of China, the United States, and Yemen. We deny support the Roman Statute because of several factors. Justice, which is defined by the Court and Prosecutor, doesn’t necessarily always have to be consistent with resolutions for major political and military arguments. Also the ICC’s work could conflict with the Council’s work. Lastly we can’t ensure that ICC's officials will remain free of corruption. Unfortunately a crime vs. humanity is a case meant for the ICC, an organization we don’t support.

As defined by the Rome Statute crimes against humanity are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. The serious attacks involve instances like murder; extermination; enslavement and many more serious injuries to either mental or physical health. We believe the instigators of these crimes should be punished but we do not have faith in the system currently in place.

Qatar would like to suggest an amendment to the Rome Statute so that the ICC would have a system of checks and balances in place so as to keep it free of corruption. Any amendment to the Rome Statute requires the support of a two-thirds majority of the states parties. With adjustments, the nation of Qatar would agree to ratify the Rome Statute, allowing universal jurisdiction, and we would provide our countries support during cases of crimes against humanity.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Russia
Delegate Name: Jacob Pope
School: Forest Hills Central High School

It is the position of the Russian Federation that issues of Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity and the Legitimacy of Government during Popular Uprising are inextricably linked, given that many cases in which the legitimacy of government is called into question generate claims of crimes against humanity. Therefore, the delegation must reiterate Russia’s determined stance on preserving national sovereignty, and avoiding the conflation of legitimate humanitarian concerns with corrupt desires to impose political change in other countries for economic or other reasons. When we consider the issue of universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity, some basic assumptions must be called into question. We have fairly well defined precedence by which to establish what precisely is a crime against humanity. However, how might an organization or nation/state become aware of whether such crimes are taking place? Is it the role of an outside body, such as the United Nations, to determine where and whether such crimes take place? How might we do so? And if we discover that such crimes have taken place, what jurisdiction does the International Criminal Court have to prosecute criminals? These are the fundamental questions which our committee hopes to answer.

Russia is currently a signatory of the Rome Statute, but it has yet to be ratified in our country’s legislation. The concern which generally accompanies a movement to ratify the Rome Statute is one, again, of national sovereignty. The Russian Federation is, by all means, in favor of swift international condemnation of crimes against humanity, but the standards by which we judge crimes against humanity, how we determine whether such crimes have taken place, and what jurisdiction the International Criminal Court has to go after criminals in countries which do not recognize its authority are all matters of separate and important consideration. It is, in the opinion of the Russian delegation, well defined and self-evident as to what comprises a “crime against humanity.” Therefore, we must move onto the matter of determining whether such crimes take place. Human rights observation groups are well established NGOs which have shown themselves valuable in gathering information in countries in conflict. However, they have also shown themselves vulnerable to outside influence based on political or economic motivations. A country like the United States, for example, which may have a vested interest in a nation’s oil supply, might choose to manipulate the verdict of such groups for their own ends. The motivation to act in such a way is present in all nations and cannot be avoided. Therefore, it falls to each individual country to report crimes against humanity to the United Nations that occur within its borders. However, this method of report obviously falls victim to the problem of when crimes against humanity are perpetrated by those who would ordinarily be tasked with such reporting. That seems to be the primary cause of inaction – self-indictment. Outside groups which would attempt to uncover crimes against humanity independently of a nation’s sovereign government have admirable intentions, but, as already discussed, are susceptible to corruption and mismanagement. To avoid, therefore, complete and utter inaction on the part of the international community, a standard must be set to which claims of crimes against humanity can be tested. However, to avoid the infringement of national sovereignty, that standard must be high. That is, only when precise, demonstrable, unambiguous evidence can be brought forward of repeated human rights abuse and crimes against humanity, is any international body, such as the ICC, justified in taking action against any individual, organization, or country. Furthermore, empowering the ICC with universal jurisdiction, enabling it to pursue criminals even in countries which do not recognize its authority, is contrary to the very idea of an international body of willing governments which act together in accordance with the common good. When the United Nations begins to impose its authority on nations which are not willing and which do not acknowledge its right to do so, that is an automatic attack on that nation’s sovereignty, which must, above all else, be preserved if the United Nations is to avoid falling into utter disrepair and inefficacy.

Many other nations share Russia’s legitimate concerns about the implications of allowing an international body unrestricted access to go after criminals in countries which do not recognize its authority. China and India, for example, have expressed their own concerns about the Rome Statute, and have, like Russia, refused to ratify. Ultimately, their complaints with the Rome Statute fall to the same issues of the violation of national sovereignty, which is of the utmost importance and which cannot be violated. Russia hopes to work with these countries toward ensuring a fair and open dialogue between all countries of the international community about crimes against humanity, and to take swift and harsh actions upon any found to have committed such.

To those nations who refuse to acknowledge the delicate balance between preventing or prosecuting on crimes against humanity and the infringement of national sovereignty, the Russian delegation would hope to remind those nations in our discussions in the upcoming week of its duty by the United Nations Charter to adhere to the principle that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” It is paramount that sovereign equality be upheld, and any nation which seeks to impose upon that sovereignty against other nation must be shown that such efforts are counter-productive, ineffective, and contrary to what the United Nations stands for as an organization.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Saudi Arabia
Delegate Name: Hayley Kord
School: Fishers High School

Universal jurisdiction has been considered simply a formality of the United Nations which is never enforced. One individual can easily avoid going to a particular country that might charge them with crimes against humanity, however this does of course lower the opinion of the person being charged in their country. Though this adds a certain incentive to end crimes against humanity, for some it is not enough to stop the crimes completely. Saudi Arabia believes that the United Nations needs to take a more active role when it comes to crimes against humanity. The United Nations can offer up money for countries who take an active role in protecting human rights, therefore adding and incentive for the countries to make sure that rules are followed.

The border line that must be established is when to intervene in a country, or when to simply turn your head. Saudi Arabia believes that if the acts are part of religious events in that country, then it is up to that country to decide how to handle it, but if the crimes that are being committed are simply being used for either money or power then the United Nations must take a stand, and have the ICC charge them. Saudi Arabia believes that in order for more people to become acceptant of the ICC and their ability to have universal jurisdiction, the definition of crimes against humanity needs to be clearer to allow countries to know what exactly they can be charged for and also what they need to be looking for in their own country.

With every positive idea, there are negative aspects that accompany it. With imposing universal jurisdiction, disagreements can come between countries and cause issues that might not have been there if the United Nations had decided to turn a blind eye towards crimes against humanity. The best way to approach the idea of universal jurisdiction is to listen to each country and their opinion towards it and then decide what is not only best for the leaders of these countries but also for the people that reside within those countries boundaries, doing what is required of the United Nations

Overall, universal jurisdiction would be a positive course for the United Nations to take if all preliminary actions are taken. The best thing for the United Nations to do is to apply their rules on universal jurisdiction, and to make sure that these rules are clear to every country and that each and every country has their say on these rules and vows to protect them. Saudi Arabia believe that if the United Nations can take in the opinions of countries, than universal jurisdiction will not just be a formality, but will be something that is actually taken seriously at the United Nations.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Serbia
Delegate Name: Graham Agee
School: Forest Hills Northern High School

The issue of universal jurisdiction has always been a global issue, especially with the military trials following World War Two and the atrocities committed by the Third Reich regime. More recently, the actions of the United States of America and the assassination of Usama bin Laden when they invaded the nation of Pakistan and took justice into their own hands. In the recent uprisings of Libya, Muaamar Kaddafi became wanted by the international community for crimes against humanity when he killed members of his own nation. Unfortunately, before the International Criminal Court could try Kaddafi fairly, he was killed by a rouge rebel force on the spot where he was captured.

The Republic of Serbia has had firsthand experience with war criminals. . The people of Serbia expressed their dismay with the unlawful actions of Milosevic by half a million people marching on Belgrade. Milosevic was sent to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or ICTY, for accusation of sponsoring war crimes during the breakup of Yugoslavia. He was held there until his death in 2006. Serbia continues to maintain confidence in the international community to fairly judge and punish those that have committed crimes against humanity, specifically the International Criminal Court.

The Republic of Serbia recommends that an international criminal is wanted by the international community for crimes against humanity, the crimes be recognized by the majority of the United Nations. Additionally, nations that have a grievance with a citizen or citizens of another nation take the issue up with the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a valuable resource that should be utilized by the international community to bring justice. No one is above the law, regardless of position of power, and the United Nations must keep that in mind when making resolutions to the world.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Sierra Leone
Delegate Name: Amelia Berg
School: Williamston High School

Universal Jurisdiction in crimes against humanity has been debated for quite a while. Sierra Leone believes that in certain circumstances force is required for citizens to obey laws. Other ways such as jail or community service is too laid back for some people to understand the severity of what they did and is too relaxed to be an effective punishment.

Sierra Leone has been a country for nine years. That is a very short period of time. Sierra Leone is still trying to figure out what they should or should not do. At this point Sierra Leone believes that force is the best what to get citizens to respect and obey laws the government has put into place. Sierra Leone believes it is acceptable for certain crimes to have a physical punishment.

Since Sierra Leone uses physical force as a punishment Sierra Leone's citizens have learned to obey the laws that are set.It is a very effective punishment that is why Sierra Leone does it. Sierra Leone's citizens want to obey the law, isn't that what each country want? All of it's citizens to want to obey the law? Sierra Leone recommends it to all the countries. Sierra Leone believes that if all countries had the same punishment laws as Sierra Leone than the world's crime rate will drop by a major amount. All the countries that use jail time or community service as a punishment have higher amounts of crime rate. Sierra Leone looked at this and decided that there is a better more affective way to punish people for the crimes they have committed.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: South Africa
Delegate Name: Emma Holcomb
School: Royal Oak High School

As a member of the African Union, the Republic of South Africa supports the principles of universal jurisdiction, particularly in the case of crimes against humanity and other such atrocities. When there are no other means of bringing an alleged criminal to trial, universal jurisdiction is an excellent tool to have. South Africa advocates regional rather than immediate international involvement in such cases, and hopes that eventually all nations will have the resources and systems necessary to bring such criminals to trial on their own.

When crimes against humanity occur, the international community usually rushes to bring those accused of committing these crimes to trial. How to bring the accused to trial and ensure that they receive a fair trial is something that the international community has struggled with, considering the power those who are accused often wield. Universal jurisdiction has been used in several cases as a way to hopefully try these people in a fair manner, particularly when the home nation of the accused is unable to bring him or her to trial. When faced with such situations, the world needs an agreement regarding when and how these trials can occur.

Many non-African nations have recently tried Africans accused of committing crimes against humanity in African nations, without gaining the consent of the accuseds’ nation of origin or the nation where the crimes were committed. South Africa is deeply troubled by this. If a state wishes to claim the application of universal jurisdiction, should the state not first consult with these nations? Additionally, the fact that these cases were dealt with by nations so disconnected from the crime itself is an issue. When regional bodies like the African Union exist, they should be the first to consider such cases- not nations without the understanding that comes from those of the same region. Those are some of the primary reasons why South Africa advocates for dialog between those seeking to use universal jurisdiction and the nation of the accused and the nation where the crime was committed, and for regional solutions first.

One of the most important tools we have is dialog. When a nation cannot bring an accused criminal to trial, for whatever the reason, one of the first avenues it should take is dialog with regional bodies, in order to find a solution. South Africa hopes that, in most situations, the region will have the resources available to assist the nation in some way. However, when the region agrees that something more must be done, it could become necessary to bring in international bodies, such as the International Criminal Court. South Africa, as a signatory of the Rome Statute, supports the ICC and its goals. However, concerns have been raised that the ICC may be taking the cases of a disproportionate number of Africans. South Africa hopes to see this addressed in debate, so that the ICC, still a young institution, can continue to grow as an important international institution.

Of course, even when including international bodies such as the ICC, it is important to continue dialog with the nations involved in the case and the region. As a nation committed to human rights, peace, and stability all over the world, South Africa hopes that such dialog would address these issues, considering that they are so often disrupted by crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity are often so horrendous that they leave lasting negative impacts on nations. Any discussion of crimes against humanity in any context must include the dialog that is necessary in such situations.

The issue of national sovereignty has been raised before in such discussions. South Africa believes that we must respect the sovereignty of all nations involved when addressing crimes against humanity. However, sovereignty is never a reason to allow crimes against humanity to occur without any legal action. This is an issue of particular importance when such crimes are committed by those in who exert large amounts of influence over a nation. The fine line between respecting sovereignty and not tolerating any such crime lies only in regional action and dialog.

Universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity is an intrinsic issue with many complicating points, but clear action must be taken by this committee. South Africa hopes that, through debate and compromise, the committee will pass a resolution that emphasizes the importance of regional bodies in such issues and the assistance that dialog can lend.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: South Korea
Delegate Name: Yasmeen Farran
School: Mattawan High School

The Republic of Korea feels that crimes against humanity must be addressed by international forces. It has watched the horrors of the crimes in North Korea. People have been willing to die in order to escape the oppression they receive in North Korea.

The Chinese have not been cooperative in helping these oppressed. It was reported by BBC that a pregnant woman had tried to escape to into China she was sent back to North Korea by the Chinese and forced to receive an abortion. This force by the government should be viewed as a crime against humanity. It should be added in the reason for International Court to intervene, if a country forces unneeded unethical medical attention the International Court must step in on this crime. If a government ignores its duties to protect its people and hurts its people deliberately the ICC must step in. National Sovereignty does not apply when a country does not listen to its people’s interest and human rights.

Korea feels that the ICC must step up on crimes outside of genocide. There are many countries that hurt many people and have no consequences. Many countries do not have the funds, or the political relations position to enter the country, help the people all on their own. This is why the UN and the ICC can work to get countries to come together and give consequences to these unethical actions. If the ICC had more power involved more countries would feel the need to follow the Rome Statute and be better towards their people because they can then recognize that their crimes will not go ignored.

Korea is willing to work with the UN and ICC to reestablish the definition of a crime against humanity and how the ICC goes about to prosecute these crimes. The average citizen would want this but cannot always force

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Spain
Delegate Name: Tristen Mejias-Thompson
School: Fishers High School

Being a free state with democratic principles, the Kingdom of Spain has no problem with crimes against humanity. However, there are many states where this is not the case. This issue is too serious to worry about infringing on popular soveirgnty.

Spain has been involved in mutliple international cases involving crimes against humanity, and believes very strongly that some acts are too vile to observe laws of countries protecting these criminals from answering for their actions.

Crimes against humanity are as their name suggests; too broad to be governed by a single country’s laws. They need to be punished by international laws agreed upon by all countries. These acts deserve retribution of a most severe kind, and cannot be lessened or pardoned by a corrupt or flawed government. To be sure, people cannot be accused of this for any crime, nor should other sins merit international court justice and thereby infringing on national soveirngty.

Acts vile in nature and devastating in consequence merit special, solemn attention. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, crimes against humanity "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy…” Spain sees the distinction in isolated incidents and government or organizational crime. This is why Spain has taken action in several international Nazi crime cases, because it was “grave humiliation” directed against a specific ethnicity by a government. While the kindom of Spain recognizes that Germany is compleatley different today and would never repeat such actions, the individuals who participated in these crimes need to answer for their crimes.

How then, can a government objectively and fairly punish the criminals if they are the criminals? International Courts must have jurisdiction if we want the world to be free of places where events like the holocost can occur unpunished. The issue behind the ICC (International Crime Court) is the lack of authority. They can only persecute criminals delivered to them by member nations, but nations comminting crimes against humanity would not likely be member nations, rendering the court almost useless. However, the United Nations can hand cases over to them, giving them a much broader jurisdiction.

As the Legal Comitee, Spain feels that we should be dedicated to locating and apprehending governments who are condoning or committing crimes against humanity. For, if we do not do this, there is no one to protect oppressed citizens from cruel governements and harsh regimes. Popular soveirgnty is not worth the lives of the people, especially when ruled by an authoritarian government.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Switzerland
Delegate Name: Austin Pittsley
School: Fishers High School

The Swiss Confederation believes that the strengthening of universal jurisdiction and the extension of justice to those who deserve it is of utmost importance. Our commitment to this ideal has been reflected in many ways. Legal measures have been adopted that allows the Swiss Confederation to extend its jurisdiction into areas where traditional jurisdiction may not be effective. [1] In addition, we have contributed much to the United Nations advancement of universal jurisdiction by supporting the creation of the International Criminal Court and participating actively in deliberation between the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee and the International Law Commission. [2]

Article 1 of the Charters of the United Nations states that the purpose of the United Nations is to advance international peace and security, develop respect for the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, encourage respect for universal human rights, address international problems of various character, and facilitate cooperation among Member states to achieve these ends. [3] In accordance with our support for the Charter, the Swiss Confederation believes that impunity in crimes so egregious they are considered in offense to all of humankind is an obstacle to the purposes mentioned before. Article 2 Sections 2 and 6 further instill in the United Nations the task of insuring the purposes of Article 1 are carried out. [4] For these reasons, the Swiss Confederation supports the advancement and empowerment of international courts, such as the ICC, and the principle of universal jurisdiction.

However, there exist barriers to universal jurisdiction that must be addressed. Currently only two-thirds of nations have some form of legislation permitting universal jurisdiction, and in most of these cases, the legislation is incomplete and ineffective. [5] The existence and acceptance of statutes of limitation gives those accused of crimes a way to avoid being duly processed. [6] Ineffective arrest procedures hamper local police forces from apprehending those accused and convicted of crimes. [7] Recognition of amnesties, pardons, and other measures, which extend impunity to those accused of crimes against humanity, impede and defy international laws and universal jurisdiction. [8] The extension of immunities retained by government officials, for the purpose of protection from civil suits or criminal prosecutions under national laws, into international law, where they are not intended to apply and further impede universal jurisdiction. [9] In order to remove the obstructions mentioned above, and thus advance universal jurisdiction, the Swiss Confederation advocates the following changes: encouragement for the improvement of national legislation permitting universal jurisdiction and the effectiveness of domestic police powers to carry out law and discouragement of any statutes of limitation, amnesties, pardons, measures of impunity, and extensions of immunities beyond the national jurisdiction, that interfere with the universal jurisdiction in crimes against humanity.

Bibliography

[1] Switzerland. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. The Scope and Application of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. <http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/intorg/un/redeun/6th.Par.0059.File.tmp/20111011%20e%20Statement_Universal_jurisdiction.pdf>.

[2] Switzerland. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. The United Nations and International Law. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intorg/un/intlun.html>.

[3][4] "Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. United Nations. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml>.

[5][6][7][8][9] Hall, Christopher K. DOCUMENT – UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: THE CHALLENGES FOR POLICE AND PROSECUTING AUTHORITIES. Rep. Amnesty International. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/IOR53/007/2007/en/92d0721c-d388-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/ior530072007en.html>.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Syria
Delegate Name: Mace Ranazzi
School: Forest Hills Central High School

At this point in time, the nation of Syria has not signed the Rome Statue and therefore is not aligned with the International Criminal Court. By not signing the Rome Statue, Syria has withheld from allowing itself to be open to the jurisdiction of the ICC. While Syria finds the ICC honorable in its tasks of bringing war criminals to justice, Syria does not appreciate the idea of its own national sovereignty being challenged in order for such individuals to be tried.

The ICC is legally and functionally independent of the United Nations, unlike the International Court of Justice. Therefore, member nations of the United Nations have the choice whether or not to allow themselves to be open to the jurisdiction of the ICC. If a country so chooses this path, such as Syria and many other nations, then that should be it. However, if the ICC is separate from the United Nations, then why is the Security Council allowed the power to refer cases to the ICC? No body of power should have the right to try individuals outside of their home countries unless given that power by the country in question.

Syria’s wish is that since it has not signed the Rome Statue and withheld itself from the ICC’s jurisdiction, then the UN and the ICC will respect these wishes and never pressure or push Syria into having its citizens tried in the ICC. Syria is more than able to deal with its own criminals in Syria’s own juridical court system. If Syria deals with a truly heinous individual accused of horrifying charges against his fellow mankind, then yes, Syria may then be open to allowing this individual to be charged in the ICC, if his crimes were on a more global scale. If his crimes were only to affect Syria and its citizens, then it is in Syria where he should be tried and given his sentence, not in the ICC.

Any nation who does not wish to see their national sovereignty fringed upon would agree very much with the outlook of the Syrian government in this regard. It is not that Syria does not find the methods of the ICC honorable, but the way of going about things and lording over national sovereignty of nations is something Syria will never comprise upon. What is a nation if its national sovereignty is taken from it? Does it then not cease to hold its own power? How can it protect its citizens if the ICC can step in and extradite them to a foreign land for crimes that can be tried in its own country?

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Thailand
Delegate Name: Connor Renckly
School: Fishers High School

There has recently been a global movement among many different countries to establish a system by which one can be detained in any participating nation for what is considered to be a Crime against Humanity. The nation of Thailand hesitantly agrees that this could be a potentially successful endeavor but we would also like to point out that it would be a massive and very difficult task. It would be very wise to consider this project from all angles before taking any corse of action. Thailand also feels that it is import ant to point out that in order for this project ti be worth the risk many different countries must wholeheartedly participate. In addition there are many other potential risks and problems that must be considered and analyzed before we take any action.

While it may be obvious the nation of thailand feels that it is important to point out that there are many areas in which universal jurisdiction may prove problematic. Firstly it is necessary that the United Nations specifies exactly what is considered to be a "crime against humanity". Equally as important we also need to decide which countries will be participating in this agreement. Another problem we must face is the possibility that this will affect our relations with countries that do not participate. These concurs are a small portion of many that may become serious issues if this is passed

There are many decisions that would need to be made if this plan were put into action. It should also be decided how one is labeled as having committed crimes against humanity for one thing. Another important variable to consider is who has the right to take action against these offenders for this is a very large potential problem. Also there would have to be much cooperation and sharing of information sharing involved for this to be effective, Thailand for one is prepared to participate if necessary.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Turkey
Delegate Name: Rachel Jacobi
School: Ann Arbor Community High School

The Republic of Turkey has not signed the Rome Statue and is therefore not subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, under Turkish law, prosecutors are required to investigate any accusation of crimes against humanity if it is filed to the Republic of Turkey. If a prosecutor deems that there is enough evidence against the defendants, a more in-depth investigation could take place that may eventually lead to formal charges. The Republic of Turkey asserts that their own courts have universal jurisdiction to put on trial any individual regardless of nationality, if they are accused of crimes against humanity.

As of February 2009, the human rights organization Mazlum-Der, filed an official complaint against several senior Israeli officials for crimes against humanity specifically against the people of Gaza. Mazlum-Der requested that if any of these officials including: Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Gabi Ashkenazi enter the Republic of Turkey, they should be detained.

While Turkey recognizes the success of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) in regard to prosecuting those involved in the Rwandan genocide, The Republic of Turkey fears that under international courts, universal jurisdiction could become corrupted as heads of states or other government officials are prosecuted for political reasons instead of for actual crimes.

The Republic of Turkey believes that committing any crime against humanity is an absolute horrendous and appalling act deserving of punishment. However, Turkey also believes that holding citizens of other nations’ accountable for their crimes should be promoted through the use of individual sovereign nations judicial systems.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: United Kingdom
Delegate Name: Stuart Wilson
School: Fishers High School

The United Kingdom believes that the national sovereignty of each nation must be respected and upheld. That being stated, the UK beliefs that there are circumstances in which outside intervention from other nations and The UN may be necessary. If it is determined that the nation in question is taking actions or enforcing laws or regulations that are directly oppressive or abusive to its people or to other nations, without just cause, then that nation’s sovereignty may be put aside for the good of its people or other nations.

The United Kingdom firmly supports the defense of human rights. If it is determined that a nation is violating these rights and that action must be taken to stop it, then the UK believes that the UN has the right and responsibility as an international entity to intervene and take command of the situation. For example, if a nation is abusing its people or performing crimes against humanity to the point that the UN has outwardly expressed disapproval, the United Kingdom believes that the United Nations may obtain jurisdiction over that nation. With this jurisdiction, the UN may responsibly and collectively mediate the situation in that nation. The appointed jurisdiction may take president over the current governing body if necessary to insure the protection of human rights and the end of humanitarian crimes.

Because the UN is an international organization, the UK believes that international laws and restrictions for nations, especially those concerning the protection of the rights of humanity shall be held in a higher position of authority than the individual laws of any nation that may be in violation of these international laws. While the United Kingdom believes that this jurisdiction over individual nations is a possible and legitimate course of action, the UK still stresses the importance of each nation’s sovereignty. To explain, the UK believes that each nation’s laws must first be observed and respected before they may be overridden. If it is determined through a due process of examination and determined by the UN that the nation’s laws must be over-ridden, however, the UK respects this as a method to insure international law.

Crimes against humanity and oppression of human rights are serious issues that the UK believes it is the right and duty of the UN to combat and correct. Therefore, universal jurisdiction may be necessary if so determined as an action against a nation’s violations.

Topic: Universal Jurisdiction in Crimes against Humanity
Country: Yemen
Delegate Name: Alexandra Dulin
School: Royal Oak High School

The Republic of Yemen deeply regrets any crimes against humanity or any violence against the human race. We are not, however, party to beliefs supporting universal jurisdiction in the cases of crimes against humanity. While Yemen has not yet ratified the Rome Statute, we do believe that the principles and guidelines set down by the ICC for dealing with criminals are strong enough foundations to build a policy for dealing with crimes against humanity without having to compromise nations’ sovereignty.

If the U.N. subscribes to a policy of universal jurisdiction impartiality and fairness will cease to exist within its body. More powerful countries could choose to seize or force the extradition of so-called criminals for any crime they deem fit to prosecute for. They could invade countries simply for the reason of securing criminals (such as the United States recent sojourn into Pakistan to secure Osama bin Laden). Smaller and less able governments would find themselves having to unnecessarily defend themselves against nations seeking to secure prisoners. Universal jurisdiction would cause more harm than good, and so we must seek to rectify current problems within existing procedure in order to persecute those who have committed crimes against humanity.

The Rome Statute and ICC have already set down the rules for when ICC jurisdiction applies. Yemen believes that if the U.N. simply defines the procedure for seizing jurisdiction in cases of crime against humanity more thoroughly, cases can be effectively tried within nation states or the ICC without damaging national sovereignty. A state’s legitimacy is of the utmost importance. If the nations claiming jurisdiction are all legitimate governments the involvement of the ICC or U.N. must be carefully controlled and regulated so the U.N. is prevented from interfering in sovereignty. First off we must foster and dictate the necessary cooperation between states with conflicting jurisdiction in order to assure that criminals are tried in the appropriate environment. We must define the appropriate method of communication needed between states and the appropriate setting for such communication when they are embattled over jurisdiction. We must create a set of standards for time that can pass between such communications. To ensure impartiality we must promote the use of third party observers agreed upon by all parties in order to ensure that our new policies are being followed while claims on jurisdiction are being made. Any resolution passed on this issue should have well defined requirements on involved parties claiming jurisdiction.

Again, Yemen is deeply saddened by the many crimes against humanity occurring across the world. However, Yemen is also concerned with protecting the interests of legitimate nations and the sanctity of national sovereignty, especially in less powerful nations. We need only look at the regrettable and illegal invasion of Pakistan, where a more powerful nation sought to promote only its interests, and not the interests of the people of Pakistan or its government, to see why universal jurisdiction would only end in corruption and violence.