Return To: 2025 Handbook
2025 Handbook Cases Before the Court
Topics
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 5 December 1959. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
The Temple of Preah Vihear, a sacred site, sits on a plateau in the Dangrek Mountain chain. The Temple is most easily accessible from the North and has been the subject of numerous complex sovereignty disputes between Thailand and Cambodia. Cambodia filed a case on 6 October 1959, with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding ownership to this land and challenged Thailand’s claim of legal sovereignty over the area. Subsequently, on 5 December 1959, Thailand entered a preliminary objection, stating the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the application, arguing that Thailand had not consented to the universal jurisdiction of the Court.
The Temple of Preah Vihear served as a significant pilgrimage site for Cambodians prior to 1954, and Cambodia invoked historical considerations in support of its claim to sovereignty over the area. This context was central to Cambodia’s argument that it had long exercised cultural and historical ties to the site. In 1954, however, Thailand asserted control by deploying armed forces to occupy the temple grounds. The Temple of Preah Vihear, has been a long standing religious sanctuary for Cambodians predating the colonial period. In Cambodia’s written pleadings to the Court, Cambodia emphasized the temple’s historical significance within Cambodia’s cultural heritage and claims the temple as the foundations of its national identity. The border between Thailand and what is now Cambodia was negotiated over several treaties, the foremost being the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904. This treaty between Siam (now Thailand) and France delineated the border between Siam and the French protectorate Cambodia.
Cambodia asserted the final border for the area in question was established by the Mixed Commissions in 1907, with the Temple lying in Cambodia’s territory. Referencing the map found in the Application Instituting Proceedings, Cambodia further asserted the border was formally approved with the 23 March 1907 Treaty between France and Siam.
Thailand disputed this, stating the proposed border map could not have been presented to the Mixed Commissions and approved by both parties, because the last meeting of the Mixed Commissions was held on 19 January 1907. Thailand asserted the map presented by Cambodia could not have been completed at that time and therefore was not seen nor approved by all parties. Finally, Thailand posited that the border for the area in question should, as stated in Article I of the 1904 Treaty, follow the watershed.
To resolve the dispute, the Court must determine which country holds rightful sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It must also consider how Thailand acted in relation to the boundary line shown on the French-prepared map, even though that line was not included in the official treaty documents. Given that both parties published boundary agreements and used the map in official contexts, the Court must now decide whether the boundary line shown on the map was effectively accepted and upheld by both sides.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Does the Court have legal jurisdiction to settle this dispute?
- What are the legal and geopolitical implications of treaty enforcement under international law?
- In cases involving prolonged military occupation, how does international law assess the right to territorial repossession?
Bibliography:
- International Court of Justice (1962). Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962. I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6.
- International Court of Justice (1962). Preliminary Objections, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand).
- International Court of Justice (1962). Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment of 11 November 2013.
- The Far Eastern Quarterly (1946). The Treaty of March 23, 1907 Between France and Siam and the Return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia.
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (2016). Of Temples and Territory: The ICJ’s Preah Vihear Decision and Implications for Regional Dispute Resolution.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Palestine; Israel; Canada; Egypt) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Palestine; Israel; Canada; Egypt)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 8 December 2003. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
Israel and Palestine have experienced decades of tensions, with this particular issue stemming since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. This War followed the formation of the declaration of independence by the State of Israel and resulted in the permanent displacement of over half of the Palestinian population, referred to as “the Nakba.” The War concluded with the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, a series of bilateral treaties that marked the end of the British mandate and established the armistice demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line.
This case’s dispute arose in September of 2000 during the Second Intifada, a major uprising by the Palestinian people against Israel. Israel had partially constructed a barrier wall that extended beyond the Green Line and encompassed approximately 80 percent of settlers within Palestine, including significant portions of East Jerusalem. These territories were under the United Nations’ control according to A/RES/181(II), which was passed in 1947 as part of the partition of Palestine. This resolution had been passed to ensure that Jerusalem, a city sacred to multiple religions, would be protected from the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The General Assembly had passed ES-10/13, demanding Israel to dismantle and discontinue the barrier wall it was constructing in accordance with the General Armistice Agreements of 1949. Further, the General Assembly (GA) adopted resolution ES-10/14, which requested an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (“the Court” hereafter) in response to the question of the legal consequences of the construction of a barrier wall in Palestine.
The General Assembly requested the Court answer the following question: “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
Palestine argued the Court has jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court to answer the question referred to it by the General Assembly. Palestine urged the Court to deem the construction of the wall a violation of the General Armistice Agreements of 1949 as well as a violation of the rights of self-determination and self defense of the Palestinian people, as protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Further, Palestine urged the Court to consider the construction of the barrier wall as a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and the Hague Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907).
Israel refuted these claims and posited that the Court does not have jurisdiction on this matter since it has not ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention. Additionally, it argued that an advisory opinion would be ultra vires, or beyond the legal authority of the Court. Israel believed the matter should be addressed by the Security Council, which has been limitedly involved. Furthermore, Israel urged the necessity of the barrier wall to ensure the safety and security of its people due to ongoing terrorist threats by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Lastly, Israel argued that these acts of terrorism violate all established customary and conventional international law, especially the United Nation Conventions on Terror, and requests the Court consider the legal consequences of these actions.
Canada submitted a memorandum opposing the Court’s involvement in the case, stating that the General Assembly is encouraging the Court to legally mediate a politically contentious issue, which would be outside the Court’s jurisdiction. While Canada opposed the expropriation of land by Israel to construct the wall, it did not believe that the Court’s involvement was the correct remedy. Instead, Canada encouraged Israel and Palestine to pursue “the Roadmap,” a series of benchmarks designed to move Israelis and Palestinians, over three years, to a state of peace.
Egypt also submitted a memorandum to the Court and strongly supports the position of Palestine. It supported the Court’s jurisdiction in the case and emphasized the violations of humanitarian and human rights law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention, by Israel. Finally, it disputed the security concerns mentioned by Israel as the basis for building a wall in violation of the General Armistice Agreements (1949).
Therefore, the Court must consider the obligations of each party under the current customary and adopted international law to address the question brought before them by the General Assembly.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Can the Court establish jurisdiction in a legal matter of international peace and security, traditionally reserved for the Security Council, particularly considering arguments of political interference between sovereign territories?
- What are the implications for human rights, self-determination, and diplomatic negotiations by the construction of this barrier wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?
- How might the Court apply customary law and the findings of external human rights organizations to this request?
- What obligations does a state have to international conventions it has not ratified? Does it become exempt? Does it have similar obligations under other laws it has adopted?
Bibliography:
- Council on Foreign Relations (2005). The Roadmap.
- General Armistice Agreements of 1949 (1949).
- Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949).
- Hague Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (the Hague Regulations) (1907).
- International Court of Justice (2003). Overview of the Case, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (1945 ). Statute of the Court.
- International Court of Justice (2003). Written Statement submitted by Palestine, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (2003). Written Statement submitted by Israel, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (1945 ). Statute of the Court.
- United Nations (1949). The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
- United Nations. United Nations Conventions on Terrorism.
- United Nations. UN Charter.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A/RES/ES-10/13.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A/RES/ES-10/14.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/13. A/ES-10/248.
- United Nations General Assembly (29 November 1947). Resolution Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. A/RES/181(II).
- United Nations, The Question of Palestine. About the Nakba.
La Grand (United States of America v. Germany) La Grand (United States of America v. Germany)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 2 March 1999. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
On 2 March 1999, the Federal Republic of Germany filed an application instituting proceedings against the United States of America before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Germany alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, in connection with the arrest, detention, and execution of two German nationals, Karl and Walter LaGrand, in the state of Arizona. The LaGrand brothers had been arrested in 1982 and sentenced to death without being informed of their rights under Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention, which guarantees that a detained foreign national be informed without delay of the right to communicate with and receive assistance from their consulate.
Germany argued that the failure to provide this notification prevented consular officials from intervening on behalf of the LaGrands at critical stages of their trial and appeals. Although the brothers eventually raised Vienna Convention claims in United States federal court with consular assistance, the court declined to hear the claims due to the “procedural default” doctrine. This rule bars federal review of claims not raised during state level proceedings in the United States, effectively preventing the LaGrands from exercising their consular rights. Germany asserted that this domestic rule, when applied in this context, obstructed the full effect of Article 36 and thereby violated Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention.
Germany sought provisional measures from the ICJ on an urgent basis to effectively prevent the scheduled execution of Walter LaGrand on 3 March 1999. On 3 March, the ICJ issued provisional measures ordering the United States to “take all measures at its disposal” to prevent the execution until the Court could render a final judgment. However, the state of Arizona proceeded with the execution unencumbered by the United States, marking the first time a state party actively disregarded an ICJ provisional measure.
Germany grounded its jurisdictional claim in Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court and Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that disputes arising from the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice. By pursuing proceedings with the Court, Germany aimed to prevent the brothers’ executions, potentially facilitate their repatriation and ultimately challenge the broader issue of capital punishment being carried out in violation of international law.
The United States challenged the Court’s jurisdiction along with the admissibility of Germany’s claims, arguing that the International Court of Justice lacked authority to intervene in what it considered to be domestic proceedings. Additionally, the United States proceeded with the executions of LaGrand despite the provisional measures placed on it by the Court. The United States posited that such provisional measures are not legally binding and adherence to these measures undermined its sovereign right to enforce its domestic criminal laws and procedures. The United States maintained that its domestic judicial system and procedural rules took precedence over international law, particularly given the gravity of the crimes for which La Grand was convicted.
The Court must determine whether the United States breached the Vienna Convention by failing to inform foreign nationals of their consular rights. Further, the Court must also consider the binding nature of provisional measures and the consequences for Member States that violate them.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Does Article 36 of the Vienna Convention confer individually enforceable rights, or are those rights exercisable solely by the national State of the detained individual?
- Are the provisional measures issued under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute legally binding on States Parties, and if so, does a failure to comply constitute a breach of international law?
- Does a failure to inform foreign nationals of their consular rights constitute a breach of the Vienna Convention?
- Do domestic procedural rules, such as the procedural default doctrine, lawfully bar the enforcement of consular rights?
- What is the binding nature of ICJ provisional measures and the consequences of non-compliance? Finally, what are the legal implications of a State’s remedial efforts in the aftermath of a violation?
Bibliography:
- International Court of Justice (2001). LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) International Court of Justice Overview.
- International Court of Justice (2001). Press Releases.
- International Court of Justice (1999). Provisional Measures.
- Statute of the International Court of Justice (1946).
- Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).
Topics
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 5 December 1959. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
The Temple of Preah Vihear, a sacred site, sits on a plateau in the Dangrek Mountain chain. The Temple is most easily accessible from the North and has been the subject of numerous complex sovereignty disputes between Thailand and Cambodia. Cambodia filed a case on 6 October 1959, with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding ownership to this land and challenged Thailand’s claim of legal sovereignty over the area. Subsequently, on 5 December 1959, Thailand entered a preliminary objection, stating the Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the application, arguing that Thailand had not consented to the universal jurisdiction of the Court.
The Temple of Preah Vihear served as a significant pilgrimage site for Cambodians prior to 1954, and Cambodia invoked historical considerations in support of its claim to sovereignty over the area. This context was central to Cambodia’s argument that it had long exercised cultural and historical ties to the site. In 1954, however, Thailand asserted control by deploying armed forces to occupy the temple grounds. The Temple of Preah Vihear, has been a long standing religious sanctuary for Cambodians predating the colonial period. In Cambodia’s written pleadings to the Court, Cambodia emphasized the temple’s historical significance within Cambodia’s cultural heritage and claims the temple as the foundations of its national identity. The border between Thailand and what is now Cambodia was negotiated over several treaties, the foremost being the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904. This treaty between Siam (now Thailand) and France delineated the border between Siam and the French protectorate Cambodia.
Cambodia asserted the final border for the area in question was established by the Mixed Commissions in 1907, with the Temple lying in Cambodia’s territory. Referencing the map found in the Application Instituting Proceedings, Cambodia further asserted the border was formally approved with the 23 March 1907 Treaty between France and Siam.
Thailand disputed this, stating the proposed border map could not have been presented to the Mixed Commissions and approved by both parties, because the last meeting of the Mixed Commissions was held on 19 January 1907. Thailand asserted the map presented by Cambodia could not have been completed at that time and therefore was not seen nor approved by all parties. Finally, Thailand posited that the border for the area in question should, as stated in Article I of the 1904 Treaty, follow the watershed.
To resolve the dispute, the Court must determine which country holds rightful sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It must also consider how Thailand acted in relation to the boundary line shown on the French-prepared map, even though that line was not included in the official treaty documents. Given that both parties published boundary agreements and used the map in official contexts, the Court must now decide whether the boundary line shown on the map was effectively accepted and upheld by both sides.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Does the Court have legal jurisdiction to settle this dispute?
- What are the legal and geopolitical implications of treaty enforcement under international law?
- In cases involving prolonged military occupation, how does international law assess the right to territorial repossession?
Bibliography:
- International Court of Justice (1962). Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962. I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6.
- International Court of Justice (1962). Preliminary Objections, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand).
- International Court of Justice (1962). Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment of 11 November 2013.
- The Far Eastern Quarterly (1946). The Treaty of March 23, 1907 Between France and Siam and the Return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia.
- University of the District of Columbia Law Review (2016). Of Temples and Territory: The ICJ’s Preah Vihear Decision and Implications for Regional Dispute Resolution.
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Palestine; Israel; Canada; Egypt) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Palestine; Israel; Canada; Egypt)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 8 December 2003. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
Israel and Palestine have experienced decades of tensions, with this particular issue stemming since the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. This War followed the formation of the declaration of independence by the State of Israel and resulted in the permanent displacement of over half of the Palestinian population, referred to as “the Nakba.” The War concluded with the General Armistice Agreements of 1949, a series of bilateral treaties that marked the end of the British mandate and established the armistice demarcation line between Israel and the West Bank, also known as the Green Line.
This case’s dispute arose in September of 2000 during the Second Intifada, a major uprising by the Palestinian people against Israel. Israel had partially constructed a barrier wall that extended beyond the Green Line and encompassed approximately 80 percent of settlers within Palestine, including significant portions of East Jerusalem. These territories were under the United Nations’ control according to A/RES/181(II), which was passed in 1947 as part of the partition of Palestine. This resolution had been passed to ensure that Jerusalem, a city sacred to multiple religions, would be protected from the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
The General Assembly had passed ES-10/13, demanding Israel to dismantle and discontinue the barrier wall it was constructing in accordance with the General Armistice Agreements of 1949. Further, the General Assembly (GA) adopted resolution ES-10/14, which requested an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (“the Court” hereafter) in response to the question of the legal consequences of the construction of a barrier wall in Palestine.
The General Assembly requested the Court answer the following question: “What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?”
Palestine argued the Court has jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 of the Statute of the Court to answer the question referred to it by the General Assembly. Palestine urged the Court to deem the construction of the wall a violation of the General Armistice Agreements of 1949 as well as a violation of the rights of self-determination and self defense of the Palestinian people, as protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter. Further, Palestine urged the Court to consider the construction of the barrier wall as a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) and the Hague Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907).
Israel refuted these claims and posited that the Court does not have jurisdiction on this matter since it has not ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention. Additionally, it argued that an advisory opinion would be ultra vires, or beyond the legal authority of the Court. Israel believed the matter should be addressed by the Security Council, which has been limitedly involved. Furthermore, Israel urged the necessity of the barrier wall to ensure the safety and security of its people due to ongoing terrorist threats by the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Lastly, Israel argued that these acts of terrorism violate all established customary and conventional international law, especially the United Nation Conventions on Terror, and requests the Court consider the legal consequences of these actions.
Canada submitted a memorandum opposing the Court’s involvement in the case, stating that the General Assembly is encouraging the Court to legally mediate a politically contentious issue, which would be outside the Court’s jurisdiction. While Canada opposed the expropriation of land by Israel to construct the wall, it did not believe that the Court’s involvement was the correct remedy. Instead, Canada encouraged Israel and Palestine to pursue “the Roadmap,” a series of benchmarks designed to move Israelis and Palestinians, over three years, to a state of peace.
Egypt also submitted a memorandum to the Court and strongly supports the position of Palestine. It supported the Court’s jurisdiction in the case and emphasized the violations of humanitarian and human rights law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention, by Israel. Finally, it disputed the security concerns mentioned by Israel as the basis for building a wall in violation of the General Armistice Agreements (1949).
Therefore, the Court must consider the obligations of each party under the current customary and adopted international law to address the question brought before them by the General Assembly.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Can the Court establish jurisdiction in a legal matter of international peace and security, traditionally reserved for the Security Council, particularly considering arguments of political interference between sovereign territories?
- What are the implications for human rights, self-determination, and diplomatic negotiations by the construction of this barrier wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?
- How might the Court apply customary law and the findings of external human rights organizations to this request?
- What obligations does a state have to international conventions it has not ratified? Does it become exempt? Does it have similar obligations under other laws it has adopted?
Bibliography:
- Council on Foreign Relations (2005). The Roadmap.
- General Armistice Agreements of 1949 (1949).
- Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949).
- Hague Regulations annexed to Hague Convention IV on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (the Hague Regulations) (1907).
- International Court of Justice (2003). Overview of the Case, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (1945 ). Statute of the Court.
- International Court of Justice (2003). Written Statement submitted by Palestine, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (2003). Written Statement submitted by Israel, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
- International Court of Justice (1945 ). Statute of the Court.
- United Nations (1949). The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
- United Nations. United Nations Conventions on Terrorism.
- United Nations. UN Charter.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A/RES/ES-10/13.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. A/RES/ES-10/14.
- United Nations, General Assembly (2003). Report of the Secretary-General prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution ES-10/13. A/ES-10/248.
- United Nations General Assembly (29 November 1947). Resolution Adopted on the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question. A/RES/181(II).
- United Nations, The Question of Palestine. About the Nakba.
La Grand (United States of America v. Germany) La Grand (United States of America v. Germany)
This is a historical case. In accordance with AMUN rules and procedures, please note that the historical timeline for this case will stop on 2 March 1999. Any and all updates to this case after that date will not be relevant to the AMUN simulation nor considered in hearing the case. While actual Court documents and Memorials can be useful in building foundational knowledge of the case, the American Model United Nations (AMUN) Justices should form their written opinions based on Memorials and Oral Arguments presented by AMUN Advocates.
On 2 March 1999, the Federal Republic of Germany filed an application instituting proceedings against the United States of America before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Germany alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963, in connection with the arrest, detention, and execution of two German nationals, Karl and Walter LaGrand, in the state of Arizona. The LaGrand brothers had been arrested in 1982 and sentenced to death without being informed of their rights under Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention, which guarantees that a detained foreign national be informed without delay of the right to communicate with and receive assistance from their consulate.
Germany argued that the failure to provide this notification prevented consular officials from intervening on behalf of the LaGrands at critical stages of their trial and appeals. Although the brothers eventually raised Vienna Convention claims in United States federal court with consular assistance, the court declined to hear the claims due to the “procedural default” doctrine. This rule bars federal review of claims not raised during state level proceedings in the United States, effectively preventing the LaGrands from exercising their consular rights. Germany asserted that this domestic rule, when applied in this context, obstructed the full effect of Article 36 and thereby violated Article 36(2) of the Vienna Convention.
Germany sought provisional measures from the ICJ on an urgent basis to effectively prevent the scheduled execution of Walter LaGrand on 3 March 1999. On 3 March, the ICJ issued provisional measures ordering the United States to “take all measures at its disposal” to prevent the execution until the Court could render a final judgment. However, the state of Arizona proceeded with the execution unencumbered by the United States, marking the first time a state party actively disregarded an ICJ provisional measure.
Germany grounded its jurisdictional claim in Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court and Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention, which provides that disputes arising from the Convention shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice. By pursuing proceedings with the Court, Germany aimed to prevent the brothers’ executions, potentially facilitate their repatriation and ultimately challenge the broader issue of capital punishment being carried out in violation of international law.
The United States challenged the Court’s jurisdiction along with the admissibility of Germany’s claims, arguing that the International Court of Justice lacked authority to intervene in what it considered to be domestic proceedings. Additionally, the United States proceeded with the executions of LaGrand despite the provisional measures placed on it by the Court. The United States posited that such provisional measures are not legally binding and adherence to these measures undermined its sovereign right to enforce its domestic criminal laws and procedures. The United States maintained that its domestic judicial system and procedural rules took precedence over international law, particularly given the gravity of the crimes for which La Grand was convicted.
The Court must determine whether the United States breached the Vienna Convention by failing to inform foreign nationals of their consular rights. Further, the Court must also consider the binding nature of provisional measures and the consequences for Member States that violate them.
Questions to consider from your country’s perspective:
- Does Article 36 of the Vienna Convention confer individually enforceable rights, or are those rights exercisable solely by the national State of the detained individual?
- Are the provisional measures issued under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute legally binding on States Parties, and if so, does a failure to comply constitute a breach of international law?
- Does a failure to inform foreign nationals of their consular rights constitute a breach of the Vienna Convention?
- Do domestic procedural rules, such as the procedural default doctrine, lawfully bar the enforcement of consular rights?
- What is the binding nature of ICJ provisional measures and the consequences of non-compliance? Finally, what are the legal implications of a State’s remedial efforts in the aftermath of a violation?
Bibliography:
- International Court of Justice (2001). LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) International Court of Justice Overview.
- International Court of Justice (2001). Press Releases.
- International Court of Justice (1999). Provisional Measures.
- Statute of the International Court of Justice (1946).
- Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).