Dear Delegates,
Welcome to YMUN Taiwan and to the Advisory Legal Panel to the International Criminal Court! In this guide you’ll find a description of our committee’s structure and an introduction to the topics we’ll be discussing and debating in May. But first I’d like to introduce myself:
I’m a rising sophomore at Yale majoring in political science and math. I’ve been participating in Model UN conferences since sophomore year of high school, which has taken me to places as close to home as New Haven, and as far away as Madrid and Budapest (and now Taiwan!). I’ve also helped to run conferences for middle school and high school students, including this past January’s YMUN. Aside from Model UN, on campus I’m involved in the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank that works to ensure equal rights for all.
In my free time, I love watching sit-coms like Parks and Rec, obsessively tracking the Supreme Court, and arguing with my friends about the best song from High School Musical. But I also love to learn about the most important problems facing the world, and to think deeply and critically about them with others. That’s exactly what we’ll be doing in committee: debating issues of human rights, morality, fairness, sovereignty, and international law.
I’m excited to meet you all in just a few months! If you have any questions at all about committee, the topic, or want to weigh in on the High School Musical debate, please don’t hesitate to send me an email at benjamin.waldman@yale.edu.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Waldman
Committee History:
The International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 1998, is the highest judiciary in the world that deals with criminal matters. While the ICC operates as a traditional judicial body, with lawyers, witnesses, judges, and formal trials, our committee will be an ad hoc advisory panel under the purview of the United Nations Security Council that will be composed of judges from countries around the world. The judges will debate the cases of Bashar al-Assad and the United States’s use of drone strikes, both deeply divisive and complex topics.
Although you will not be members of the ICC, you will debate almost as if you are: using legal texts and standards that the ICC actually uses, and coming to conclusions that are intended for the ICC’s consideration. As such, you will have to scrutinize legal minutia and grapple with difficult and polarizing questions, which will require an understanding of the history of the ICC and its powers.
Since the end of the World War II, the international community entertained ideas of creating an international judicial body, much like the League of Nations and, later, the United Nations, represented super-national legislative bodies. In June 1998, that decades-long effort succeeded, and the United Nations adopted the Rome Statute, which lays out the goals and structure of the new International Criminal Court. Chief among the U.N.’s reasons for creating the ICC was a desire to prevent genocide, like that which had ravaged many countries in the U.N., by holdings their leaders accountable.
The ICC has the power to prosecute only a limited number of crimes, which are considered the most grave in the world; war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are the three most important. The ICC has jurisdiction to open an investigation into a country and/or its leader when a state party to the Rome Statute or the Security Council requests it.
Not all countries have ratified the Rome Statute, however. Doing so would mean agreeing to abide by warrants issued by the ICC and follow its judgment. That complicates the ICC’s equal-handed administration of justice, and, indeed, it has been criticized for seeming to focus its investigatory powers on African leaders. Additionally, the ICC has been plagued by allegations of ineffectiveness; it has only secured two convictions in more than 15 years of operation.
Ratification of the Rome Statute. Green countries are parties to the Statute; orange countries were signatories but did not ratify it; and grey countries never intended to sign it. 124 states are parties to the Statute. Note that Syria has not ratified the Statute yet.
Topic History:
Success in our committee will hinge on a thorough understanding of the Syrian Civil War, which has raged for five years and counting. But we should start with examining Bashar al-Assad’s rise to power in Syria.
Bashar al-Assad became president in Syria in 2000 after his father, the previous president, died. Many people hoped that al-Assad would be a reform-oriented leader of the country who would usher in economic and social progress after decades of stagnancy and hardliner rule. Yet al-Assad quickly showed signs of authoritarian tendencies, such as by suppressing dissent by blocking social media websites. Activist groups claim that Assad ordered or oversaw the killing of political enemies.
This conflict came to a head when the Arab Spring, sparked by a protester in Tunisia, erupted in the Middle East in 2011. The struggle for democracy was responded to by crackdowns by the military forces. Assad’s promises to enact reform to meet the protesters’ demands—such as by showing a commitment to civil rights—fell flat with inaction.
By June 2012, the conflict had escalated into a civil war, according to the U.N. And this civil war has been complicated ever further by the presence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a terrorist organization that pledges to violently overthrow Western civilization and establish a caliphate in its extremist image.
The fact that Syria is a breeding ground and a fighting ground for ISIS has ushered in involvement by international forces in the conflict, leading many to call the civil war a “proxy war” for international interests. For example, the United States has intervened to bomb ISIS, in part by working with the rebels against Assad. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened to prop up al-Assad’s regime.
The result is an extremely divided and complicated map of control by various groups, as we can see below. Some, in fact, claim that Syria has become a “failed state,” a term in political science for a former nation-state whose government no longer controls the territory it claims.
The human toll of the Civil War, which pits rebels, al-Assad, terrorist groups, and splintering ethno-national groups, against each other, has been almost immeasurable.
This picture of a little boy in Aleppo, Syria, was a stark reminder to the world last August that this Civil War has been bloody beyond belief. Some estimates put the death toll at 470, 000 death. In total, 11.5 percent of the Syrian population has been wounded or killed since the conflict began, and millions have fled the country.
We will focus on the conflict as it relates to the issue of human rights: specifically, whether Bashar al-Assad has violated international law during the Syrian Civil War, specifically by ordering mass killings, targeting civilians, using chemical weapons, and the like. All of these acts are prohibited by the Rome Statute and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Summary of Key Points:
❖ The Syrian Civil War has embroiled the world in a long, bloody conflict that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions more displaced.
❖ Bashar al-Assad is fighting for control of Syria against rebel forces, ISIS forces, and a U.S.-led coalition. He is supported by Vladimir Putin of Russia.
❖ He has been accused of violating international law and human rights during this war. That is the first question this committee will attempt to answer.
Current Situation
This committee takes place in the future; imagine we are holding our advisory panel on the case of Assad in mid-2018. To make research possible, we will restrict discussion of the case to events that occurred before May 2017, and we can similarly discuss legal precedent that was released through May 2017 (the “real-life” date of the YMUN Taiwan conference).
In December 2016, the situation in the rebel-controlled Aleppo became even more dire. A U.N. spokesperson said there was a “complete meltdown of humanity,” with the alleged execution of 82 civilians and the systematic rape of many more by Assad forces. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon denounced the “atrocities against a large number of civilians,” and U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power said that “Aleppo will join the ranks of those events in world history that define modern evil, that stain our conscience decades later.” Finally, the human rights chief of the U.N. noted that the devastations in Aleppo likely constituted war crimes, and the General Assembly voted to create a task force to investigate evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In January 2018, suppose that the task force recommended the U.N. Security Council refer the situation in Syria to the ICC, in accordance with Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute and Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. While the Security Council had been unwilling to take that step until then, due to the veto powers of Russia and China, a resurgence of international scrutiny after late 2016 was responsible for an increased emphasis on international human rights. Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China, currently fending off discontent in their countries due to what critics argue are their autocratic tendencies, allowed the referral to proceed in order to placate dissenters.
The ICC quickly issued an arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad, citing reasonable suspicion that he has been complicit or directly ordered “murder, rape, or other forms of sexual violence, torture, imprisonment, enforced disappearance and other inhuman acts.” Additionally, the ICC found reasonable suspicion that Assad has ordered or been complicit in targeted chemical attacks, including using sarin gas. See, for example, Ben Taub’s “Assad Files.” These allegations, if proven, would amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The arrest warrant for Assad, which lays out the legal mechanism and accusations against him in more detail, has been partially reproduced below (wording adopted mainly from the ICC’s arrest warrant of Muammar Gaddafi, 27 June 2011):
HAVING examined the information and evidence ("Materials") provided by the Prosecutor in his Application in light of the standard set out in article 58 of the Statute to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bashar al-Assad has committed the crimes alleged by the Prosecutor, and that his arrest appears necessary;
NOTING articles 7(l)(a), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (k), 8(2)(a)(i)-(iv), (vii), (viii), 8(2)(b)(i)-(vi), (ix), 19, 25(3)(a)-(c) and 58 of the Statute;
CONSIDERING that the Chamber finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, following the events in Tunisia and Egypt which led to the departure of their respective Presidents in the early months of 2011, a state policy was designed at the highest level of the Syrian State machinery and aimed at deterring and quelling, by any means, including by the use of lethal force, the demonstrations of civilians against Assad's regime which started in March 2011;
CONSIDERING that there are reasonable grounds to believe that in furtherance of the abovementioned State policy, from 15 March 2011 until at least 2 November 2016 the Syrian Arab Army, following a consistent modus operandi, carried out throughout Syria an attack against the civilian population taking part in demonstrations against the Assad's regime or those perceived to be dissidents;
CONSIDERING that, although the exact number of casualties resulting from the attack cannot be known due to a cover up campaign implemented in order to conceal the commission of crimes by the Army, there are reasonable grounds to believe that, as by November 2016, the Syrian Arab Army killed and injured as well as arrested and imprisoned many thousands of civilians;
CONSIDERING therefore that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a systematic and widespread attack, in furtherance of a State policy, targeting the civilian population which was demonstrating against Assad's regime or those perceived to be dissidents to the regime, occurred within the meaning of article 7(1) of the Statute;
CONSIDERING also that there are reasonable grounds to believe that, from March 2011 until at least November 2016, in various localities of the Syrian territory and in particular in Aleppo, Damascus, Ghouta, Homs, and other neighboring towns, inhuman acts that severely deprived the civilian population of its fundamental rights were inflicted on it by the Army because of this civilian population's political opposition (whether actual or perceived) to Assad's regime;
CONSIDERING that, in light of the Materials, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bashar Al-Assad, as the recognised and undisputed leader of Syria had, at all times relevant to the Prosecutor's Application, absolute, ultimate and unquestioned control over the Syrian State apparatus of power, including the Arab Army, and that, by virtue of that position and in coordination with his inner circle he conceived and orchestrated a plan to deter and quell, by all means, the civilian demonstration against his regime;
CONSIDERING further that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Bashar al- Assad (i) intended to bring about the objective elements of the foregoing crimes; (ii) knew that his conduct was part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population pursuant to the State policy, set up by him in coordination with his inner circle, of targeting civilians perceived to be political dissidents; (iii) was well aware of his senior leadership role within the structure of the Syrian State apparatus and of his power to exercise full control over his subordinates and (iv) was aware and accepted that implementing the plan would result in the realisation of the objective elements of the crimes;
CONSIDERING that, under article 58(1) of the Statute, the arrest of Bashar al-Assad Assad appears necessary at this stage to (i) ensure his appearance before the Court; (ii) ensure that he does not continue to use his power to obstruct or endanger the investigation, in particular by orchestrating the cover-up of crimes committed by the Army; and (iii) prevent him from continuing to use his power and absolute control over the Syrian State apparatus to continue the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court;
FOR THESE REASONS, the Chamber
HEREBY ISSUES a warrant of arrest for Bashar al-Assad, whose photograph is attached, born in 1965 in Damascus, Syria, Commander-in-Chief of the Syrian Arab Armed Forces and, as such, acting as the Syrian Head of State.
Shortly after the warrant was issued, Assad was delivered to ICC headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands based on the cooperation of the international community.
The job of this Advisory Panel is to answer several complicated legal questions that arise from Assad's prosecution, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Is Assad responsible for any illegal actions by his military inferiors? In other words, is Assad punishable even those crimes which he did not directly order?
2. What allegations are reliable? How do we distinguish between substantiated and unsubstantiated evidence? Did the alleged crimes against humanity and/or war crimes actually take place?
3. Should Assad’s positive contributions to Syrian society, if any, be considered when deciding if he is guilty of the charges?
4. If found to have committed these atrocities, does the militarization of the rebel forces justify his actions?
5. If found guilty, what should the penalty imposed by the ICC be? See Rome Statute Article 77.
6. Rebel forces have also been accused of violating international norms of human rights. Can they be charged with crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute? Do they need a leader to be held responsible?
In order to answer these questions, it will be important to research the relevant legal framework, including the definitions of "crime against humanity" and “war crime” in the Rome Statute, Articles 7 and 8.
And to evaluate whether any actions Assad may have ordered or been aware of fall into those definitions, you should research reports of killings, torture, imprisonment, chemical warfare, etc., in Syria from 2011 to 2017. Also try to read defenses of Assad; we want to explore both sides of this divisive and important issue. See the “Further Research” section below for a few suggestions of sources to read first.
Bloc Positions:
The cornerstone of many democratic states is their independent judicial system, which is designed to protect against abuses of power against a politically powerless minority. However, in order to guide our debate during committee, you will be representing the justice system of a particular country. You should research that country's position on the topic—whether Assad is guilty of crimes against humanity—and be prepared to convey that position in committee.
However, since the ICC’s judges technically are not beholden to any country (see Rome Statute, Article 41), you do not need to agree with your country in all respects. There is substantial room for you to present your own ideas—as long as they are guided by legal text, precedent, and evidence.
That said, here is a broad outline of bloc positions for this topic:
United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan
These countries form two sub-blocs: Western democracies and Arab League nations, the latter of which fears actors in the Syrian civil war are attempting to tip the scales of power in the Middle East. Many have accused Assad directly of crimes against humanity, and the ones that have not are certainly not willing to give Assad the benefit of the doubt.
Syria, Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea
The countries argue that only Assad can guarantee stability in the region, or that Assad’s image has been manipulated by Western media and propaganda. They would seek to refute allegations of Assad-ordered crimes against humanity by attacking the reputation of the source or claiming all evidence is merely circumstantial evidence. For example, when asked about the picture of the boy in the ambulance above, Assad (representing, by extension, Syria) responded that the picture had been faked and its context manipulated by Western media.
Further Research:
Please read the warrant for Assad's arrest, found above, closely. It gives the reasons for his arrest and prosecution, including, in the bolded paragraph, references to the specific charges against him. To understand those charges, you’ll need to read sections of the Rome Statute, especially Articles 7 and 8.
To understand more thoroughly the legal framework of the ICC, including the precedent for interpreting terms like "crimes against humanity" and “war crimes,” you may want to read summaries of ICC decisions, both finding defendants guilty and innocent. For example, here is the judgement of the ICC in 2014 finding Germain Katanga, former leader of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, guilty of multiple counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. (It’s a very long document; feel free to skim only the most important sections.) And here is a sample decision that found Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, also of the DRC, innocent of similar charges. Think about how the Court decided on a precise definition of the terms, how it applied them to each case, and why it reached different conclusions regarding the guilt (or innocence) of Katanga and Chui.
As you craft your position on the topic, you’ll want to research various aspects of the allegations. Here are some links to sources that detail evidence for the charges against him:
U.N. detailing evidence of alleged crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, on multiple sides of the Syrian conflict.
The Guardian, another source, detailing the same allegations. How do these source differ in their coverage of the same incident?
Collection of pictures of alleged victims of Assad’s crimes. WARNING: some pictures are graphic.
The Guardian describing the alleged Ghouta chemical attack of 21 August 2013. BBC News source describing the same. Again, how do they differ?
CNN alleges regime-led airstrike of civilian hospital in Aleppo.
U.S. accuses Assad of war crimes.
Germany accuses Assad of crimes against humanity.
RT.com, an arm of the Russian government, contradicts claims of Assad-sanctioned war crimes.
Go further than these links; search for individual dates during the Civil War, and try to find multiple accounts of the same event, whether that be an alleged use of chemical weapons, killing of civilians, etc. Does the narrative stand up to scrutiny?
While writing a position paper, it is important to take a stand: do you think Assad is guilty or not, at this point? But it’s equally important to be open-minded; you might change your opinion during debate with other delegates.
