TCMUN 2021 Review - International Court of Justice
The Jadhav Case - India v Pakistan
The first edition of TCMUN was bound to be extraordinary, not only given the dedicated Secretariat and Organizing teams, the relevancy and freshness of the debated topics, but also its most spectacular location: Iași, considered one of the most beautiful and historically rich cities in Romania. I had the wonderful chance to be one of the International Court of Justice committee chairpersons, and I invite all of you now to see a glimpse of the amazing experience I had.
Introduction to the committee
As a committee that has only recently started to be simulated at MUN conferences, the International Court of Justice ( ICJ, for short) is still a mystery to many delegates, even those who already have some experience. In short, the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, dealing with settling legal disputes submitted by Member States (being the only international court to do so); its rulings serve as primary sources of international law. Unlike usual committees, the ICJ consists not of delegates, but of advocates, whose role is to uphold the interests of the side they are representing, and judges, who get to rule upon the case and offer a verdict.
With such a unique committee, you can’t really afford to go wrong with the topic, and I definitely think that the Jadhav Case complemented well the other exquisite topics that were debated at the conference. The Jadhav Case concerned India and Pakistan, with the former as the plaintiff, accusing the latter of denying consular access in the matter of the detention and trial of Mr Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national, concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights. To make matters even worse, Mr Jadhav was sentenced to death in Pakistan by a military court, hence the urgency of such proceedings to take place. To counter India’s claims, Pakistan moved forward with three arguments as to why they were not at fault, the main ones being that the Convention does not apply in espionage cases and that, even if it did, it had not been violated at all thanks to the 2008 Bilateral Agreement between India and Pakistan on Consular Rights. Given the already quite baffling facts and intrigue of legal procedures, this case was bound to challenge both the advocates and judges alike and provide some most interesting days of debate.
Day 1
The conference began at the Palace Amphitheatre, located near the magnificent Palace of Culture (I promise not to turn this into a tourist review of Iași, I swear), with some heartfelt speeches from the Secretariat and Organizing teams, which were then followed by speeches from the President of TC YouthEd Iași, Bianca Cojocaru (or Bibi, when the context is not so formal, and one of my amazing co-chairs) and two other extraordinary special guests: Ștefan Gherasim, founder of The Community initiative, and His Excellency, Doru Romulus Costea, a prolific Romanian diplomat, who kindly shared with us some of his insight into how the future of the world is going to be shaped given current threats. It was honestly such an incredible opportunity to hear an actual diplomat’s thoughts on how they believed the world would look like in the next decades, especially since the Crisis Committee was set in 2075. Following that and, without any further ado, the conference officially began.
Following a recap of ICJ procedure and supposed development of the committee, the committee started with the opening statements. While India’s advocates argued as to how Mr Jadhav had been denied his basic consular rights, having not even been informed of them, and was also gravely mistreated in prison, Pakistan’s advocates denied all allegations and pushed forward the idea that it is simply unreasonable to demand immediate consular access given the bureaucratic process involved, and that India was the one who refused to cooperate with Pakistan and may have even been responsible for the terrorist actions Mr Jadhav had been convicted of.
After such claim-filled expositions on both sides, the need for some cold, undisputed facts was certainly felt by everyone in the committee; it was time for the advocates to come up, together, with an agreed statement of facts to be submitted to the judges. Naturally, given the utterly clashing opinions of the sides, even a simple agreement was quite difficult to reach. However, after some negotiations, the advocates were able to put forward the statement, which shed a little more certainty upon the case.
At that point, it was time to enter the actual evidence, on which the advocates based their arguments. Although the entire process may have seemed quite tedious for those not so passionate about the law, I, for one, enjoyed the thorough work the advocates had put into finding relevant documents, meant to support their case, and they showcased great rhetoric which certainly made this part of the trial much more interesting. What I most appreciated was the team spirit they portrayed as each line of argumentation was connected to the next, something crucial in order to best present your case.
Once the advocates finished presenting the evidence, it was time for the first round of judge questioning. At first, it didn’t seem like there were going to be many questions, however, after the first few minutes, almost every judge had their placard raised. Questions ranged from generalities, such as the time between when Jadhav was arrested and Indian consular officials were announced, to specifics relating to key pieces of evidence, such as the 2008 Agreement. The questions were rarely repetitive and the judges most definitely showcased a great deal of critical thinking and creativity.
Day 2
The second day included what can be certainly regarded as the best part of the committee: the witness testimonies. A day prior to the conference, the advocates had to provide a list of witnesses they wished to question, who then came to life thanks to some amazing members of the Secretariat and Academic team. We started off with the man of the hour, Mr Jadhav himself. What was most interesting about the questioning was that, since he was called as a witness of Pakistan and was prepared by them, he appeared to actually agree with them for the most part but, thankfully for India, he admitted to not remembering being informed of his rights.
Following him came Pakistan’s next witness, none other than the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, who, funnily enough, was represented by the Secretary General of TCMUN. As one of the only witnesses that were fully impartial and also the highest-ranking official of the UN, he was asked many questions regarding statutes pertaining to consular rights. Curiously enough, even though he was brought as an expert witness, many objections were called on the grounds of competence, however, to the advocates’ disappointment, most did not pass.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, was called next, to testify not only on the procedures of granting consular access, but also to the conditions in which Mr Jadhav had been kept while in prison. By this point, it was clear that the advocates on both sides had gotten a better understanding of how to use objections most effectively, hence, only on rare occasions did Mr Qureshi manage to finish an answer before hearing the word ‘Objection’, often shouted from multiple advocates simultaneously. However, his testimony still achieved the main goals of the Pakistani bench: the certainty that one might have felt before that consular access had been gravely obstructed was now quite shaken and allowed for doubt.
After a short recess, we moved onto our next witness which, ironically enough, had been requested by both sides: Anil Kumar Dashmana, joint secretary of India's Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), India’s primary foreign intelligence agency. Pakistan had accused Mr Jadhav of working for RAW, hence, it was only fitting for them to try to prove this in court. However, plans are often known to backfire: given how the witness had been requested by both sides, it wouldn’t have been fair for either of them to prep him, which meant he had to be prepped by the chairpersons. This, coupled with the fact that operatives of intelligence agencies tend to be quite evasive, meant that, despite the splendid efforts of the Pakistani bench, Mr Dashmana did not budge and admitted to effectively nothing. That is not to say India or the judges managed to get much either, as the one motivation this witness had was to protect themselves and divulge as little as possible.
Following a witness that might have been regarded as hostile in a real court and a well-deserved lunch break, the next committee session started with no one other than Mr Jadhav’s mother, Avanti Jadhav, called upon by the Indian bench. Her testimony, which got quite emotional at times, shed much light on the harsh conditions Mr Jadhav had been kept in and the bias Pakistani authorities seemed to hold against him. However, during cross-examination, Pakistan’s advocates managed to cast doubt upon the veridicality of her testimony, as she had often stated that she dearly wished for her son to come home, despite the harsh crimes he had been convicted of. Following her came the wife of Mr Jadhav, Chetankul Jadhav, whose testimony was very much in the same spirit as her mother-in-law’s, but also added a deeper layer to what she believed to be her husband’s impeccable character. As you can expect, objections were quite the regular part of this examination, however, the emotional impact it had could not be denied.
It was finally then time for the final witness, Mr Sohail Mahmood, a Pakistani diplomat who served as the High Commissioner to India when Mr Jadhav was arrested. Even though he was called by the Indian bench, he naturally sided more with Pakistan, pointing out a very important fact that had not been offered much attention before: granting consular access cannot be immediate due to real-world constraints. However, when the time came for the questions from the judges, it became apparent that some harmful delays may have occurred, especially given the resulting death sentence Mr Jadhav received.
Finally, the witness testimonies came to an end, opening the way for rebuttals and surrebuttals, which were meant to counter the points made by the other side. It was clear how much the advocates had paid attention to their opposition throughout their speeches, as they were able to make incredibly relevant points and carry a clear line throughout each of the three speakers, managing to destabilize some of the other side’s main points, despite the many, many objections that were raised throughout.
Following those speeches, it was time for the last round of judge questioning, the judges being allowed to pose five questions to each side, as a group. Given how everyone was quite sluggish due to the high temperature inside, we decided to take the example of the Crisis committee and moved outside, in the courtyard, where we not only got to enjoy some fresh air, but also relax the atmosphere of the committee, something much needed after the heated debates of the day.
Day 3
Just like that, the final day of the conference was here. The last committee session started with closing statements on each side, which, thankfully enough, did not admit any objections. Both beautifully captured the key moments of the trial and the true essence of the discussions that had gone on during the last couple of days, all while, naturally, explaining why their respective side should be the one whose claims are granted.
After the closing statements, it was time for the advocates to be kicked out of the room (quite literally) for the judges to come together and deliver a judgement. They first discussed the main points that had been brought and their perspective on what the judgement should be, for them to then come together and reach a compromise, which they put into writing. They all truly put in so much effort to deliver the judgement as fairly and objectively as possible and it was clear that they had paid very close attention to all the different arguments put forward by both sides.
Once the judgement had been finalized, the advocates were invited back in and we got to read it out loud - with a unanimous decision, India’s claims were granted, and, in regular MUN fashion, even though we stated clearly that clapping was not in order, everyone still clapped, as three days of hard work had finally come to a conclusion.
As all good things have to come to an end, it was then time for the closing ceremony of the conference, where we got to award the very best delegates of our committee. To be honest, it was no easy job to decide who should get which award, as we truly had some most spectacular delegates in our committee. It was honestly a great finale to such an amazing conference and the best way to congratulate the delegates who really made a considerable impact.
Closing thoughts
With the risk of getting a little bit emotional, I’m going to let you in on a little known fact: this might have been my last Romanian MUN conference and honestly, I could not have asked for a better conference, committee and people to mark such an occasion. Absolutely everything about this conference, from the organizational aspects to the quality of the debates to the socials exceeded all of my expectations and I can truly say that this has been my favourite MUN that I’ve ever attended. I’m really thankful for the Secretariat and the Organizing teams who took so much of their free time to organize this conference so beautifully, for the most amazing delegates I’ve had the chance to meet and chair in the ICJ committee and the members of the Academic team who took time out of their busy schedule to be witnesses in our committee. And, last, but most certainly not least, a special thanks to my fellow ICJ chairs, Ines and Bibi, who made this experience most spectacular.
*All photos featured in this article, unless specified otherwise, have been taken by Catană Ioana Amalia and Daria Ursu.
.png)
Comments