DAY 1 : ICJ , UNSC
4. ICJ ( by Eliza Niculescu )
After a brief explanation of the rules and procedures, it was time for all of the judges to say their oaths. The attorneys followed suit, swearing to dutifully represent their party’s interest. Then, the process finally started, Ukraine’s memorandum opening it. In the document, Russia was accused multiple times of violating policy and avoiding their obligations to investigate or prosecute acts of terrorism. This reading was followed by a Q&A session with Ukraine’s attorneys, in which one of the questions was regarding the referendum for Crimea: attorney Rusu claimed that 90% of people voted for its annexation to Russia. Ukraine’s attorneys quickly reminded them that a good portion of the people were Russians. Later on, Ukraine’s party also declared that just because their citizens want to live in Russia, use Russian currency or “become Russian”, it doesn’t mean that Ukraine should be part of the country. Of course, attorney Rusu seemed perplexed at the suggestion: why wouldn’t the people of Ukraine want to be Russian?
After the Q&A session, it was time for the judges to ask the attorneys questions. By far the most daring answer was to judge Pavlov’s inquiry: why does Ukraine claim they only use diplomatic ways to communicate with Russia, since they have brought out weaponry in the past? Attorney Panait answered that they never claimed to use exclusively diplomatic ways: since Russia did not want to cooperate, they felt obliged to act accordingly.
When it was time for the attorneys to make their statements, the debate got heated quite quickly. Attorney Rusu accused Ukraine’s delegation of tackling the issue of Crimea more often than they should, avoiding the topic at hand and being more keen on getting revenge on Russia, rather than debating terrorism. Attorney Ungureanu dismissed their claims as untrue, since Russia’s side was the one who brought up the subject of Crimea, not them, adding that every time they asked for help from Russia, they never got an answer, and so continued to fight terrorism alone.
5. UNSC ( by Maria Ggrigorescu )
In the Security Council, international peace and security are being discussed and during this year’s edition the topic was The Conflict in the strait of Hormuz. Briefly, this conflict implies the threats of The Islamic Republic of Iran that it shall close the strait. This is a major concern, as the strait represents a key point for international trade because an important amount of oil and natural gas passes through it every day.
After the lunch break, the committee Session started with a Mock session, during which the delegates had to share their thoughts on the following question “How do you perceive drinking before committee sessions?”. Obviously, Islamic countries opposed drinking due to their religion and law, but others like The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of France and The Russian Federation recommended a glass of wine before the session to “relax the stressed delegates” (The Russian Federation).
On the other hand, the Iran delegate clearly declared that “whoever drinks alcohol goes to hell”, while the delegate of France said that the French do not get drunk easily, so they will not step aside from enjoying some wine before a session. After all, “a small amount does not hurt!” (The UK).
Following the Mock Session, the official conference started with the opening speeches. The popular opinion (strongly stated by The United States of America) was that Iran’s actions were threatening the global economy and peace. Alongside the US stood countries like France and The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whilst countries like The Sultanate of Oman, Federal Republic of Germany and State of Japan wanted to reach a diplomatic agreement, but preferred neutrality. Russia didn’t want to collaborate and China was not present. So far, each country stated its position regarding the conflict, but no actual conclusion was reached.