Click here to read the NHSMUN 2011 ICJ Background Guide

The ICJ blog is now available

Topic 1: Advisory Opinion on UNHCR Involvement with IDPs and the Institution of Asylum

Though the Statute of 1950 gives a clear definition of the competence of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) by deliberately and explicitly excluding internally displaced persons (IDPs), today nearly half of the people assisted by UNHCR are IDPs. This involvement with IDPs rests in part on what some see as the restrictive and impractical nature of UNHCR's original Statute, which necessitated a mandate extension. Additionally, UNHCR's reorientation in the field is a product of underlying post-Cold War political and international sociological factors, in particular the emergence of international humanitarianism, the erosion of the principle of absolute sovereignty, the emergence of ‘new wars’, and asylum fatigue. Undoubtedly, UNHCR's involvement with IDPs is contentious.

Proponents of the UNHCR’s involvement with IDPs argue that the distinction between people who have and have not crossed borders is not one of normative importance and that the agency ought to act pragmatically to address humanitarian concerns regardless of the status of the people in question. The UNHCR also points out that refugees and IDPs are poorly segregated groups and that attempting to distinguish between them in an emergency situation is difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, people are seldom able to self-identify in a way that would place them clearly in one category or the other.

Critics claim that UNHCR’s involvement with IDPs lacks an adequate legal backing and undermines the institution of asylum and, therefore, the agency itself. UNHCR’s involvement with IDPs undermines the purpose Guiding Principles of Internal Displacement and the responsibility of the International Committee of the Red Cross (Red Cross), the agency officially charged with responsibility for IDPs. Critics further point to case studies such as the Yemeni refugee crisis, in which UNHCR is actively involved in aiding both the massive refugee population (95% of whom are Somali and fleeing political violence) and Yemenis displaced by the increasingly violent civil war. Lumping the two groups together, as the UNHCR’s “cluster approach” dictates, creates a conflict of interest between the two groups, who are competing for the same jobs, housing, aide, etc.

This raises the question of whether there is a meaningful distinction between refugees and IDPs and, if such a distinction exists, if it is one of normative importance. This topic would be proposed as an advisory opinion from the General Assembly as to whether UNHCR is in violation of GA 48/116 (and tangentially GA 49/169) in its involvement with IDPs.

Topic 2: Ecuador v. Colombia

On March 1, 2008, Colombia attacked members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) located within Ecuador, killing the group's second highest-ranking member and 21 other FARC militants. Ecuador has accused Colombia of violating international law in launching the attack. Colombia justified military action under the right to use force in self-defense. Colombia's use of force against a non-State actor located within the territory of another sovereign State joins similar actions taken by other States (e.g., Israel, United States, and Turkey) in the global war against terrorism. This topic examines the Colombia-Ecuador dispute in light of the controversies in international law about the legality of the use of force by States against non-State actors that enjoy safe haven or refuge in the territory of other sovereign States.

*Please note that this committee is a legal simulation of the International Court of Justice. Delegates will not be simulating countries, but rather non-biased judges sitting on the court. For more information about this committee, please contact Director-General Chris Talamo at dg.nhsmun@imuna.org.