Presidents Report

International Court of Justice

Committee: The International Court of Justice
Issue: Certain Iranian Assets (The Islamic Republic of Iran v. The United States of
America).
Name: Mohammad Nafis Mahboob
Position: President
Introduction:
The United States of America (the USA) was sued by the Islamic Republic of Iran
(Iran) on the 14th of June in 2016 through the International Court of Justice (the ICJ)
for allegedly taking measures which violated the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations,
and Consular Rights (the Treaty of Amity) that have significantly reduced the control
that Iran and Iranian companies have over their assets; such actions include the
freezing $100 billion worth of Iranian assets by the signing of an executive order by then
President Barack Obama to impose stricter sanctions on Iran in light of the deceptive
practices of the Central Bank of Iran to conceal transactions of sanctioned parties1.

The Treaty of Amity is a bilateral agreement between the USA and Iran that was signed
at Tehran on the 15th of August in 1955 to strengthen relations by increased trade. Iran
believes that the following parts of the treaty have been breached by the USA:
Article III, Sections 1, 2;
Article IV, Sections 1,2;
Article V, Sections 1;
Article VII, Sections 1;
Article X, Sections 1.
The terms of these articles and paragraphs can be located from pages 3 to 5.
The USA believes that freezing Irans assets was necessary in order to prevent them
from supposedly sponsoring terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

1
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-assets-urgent/obama-signs-executive-order-freezing-iran-asse
ts-in-u-s-idUSTRE81519Q20120206
Definition of Key Terms:

Term Definition

Freeze assets The restriction of access to economic

goods belonging to either an individual or
a nation.

Bilateral agreement An agreement affecting both sides.

Timeline of events

15th of August, 1955 - Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights is
signed in Tehran by Iran and the USA.

11th of February, 1979 - The Shah Reza Pahlavi and his USA supported
government is overthrown in the Iranian revolution.

29th of November, 1979 - Iran is sued by the USA through the ICJ over Diplomatic
and Consular Staff in Tehran.

23rd of October, 1983 - Beirut Marine Barracks are bombed.

2nd of November, 1992 - The USA is sued by Iran through the ICJ over Oil
Platforms.

5th of February, 2012 - Barack Obama signs the executive order 15399 to freeze
Iranian assets.
 14th of June, 2016 - The USA is sued by Iran through the ICJ over Certain Iranian
Assets.

Important terms of the treaty:

Article III, Section 1: "Companies constituted under the applicable laws and regulations
of either High Contracting Party shall have their juridical status recognized within the
territories of the other High Contracting Party. It is understood, however, that recognition
of juridical status does not of itself confer rights upon companies to engage in the
activities for which they are organized. As used in the present Treaty, "companies"
means corporations, partnerships, companies and other associations, whether or not
with limited liability and whether or not for pecuniary profit."

Article III, Section 2: "Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall
have freedom of access to the courts of justice and administrative agencies within the
territories of the other High Contracting Party, in all degrees of jurisdiction, both in
defense and pursuit of their rights, to the end that prompt and impartial justice be done.
Such access shall be allowed, in any event, upon terms no less favorable than those
applicable to nationals and companies of such other High Contracting Party or of any
third country. It is understood that companies not engaged in activities within the
country shall enjoy the right of such access without any requirement of registration or
domestication."
Article IV, Section 1: "Each High Contracting Party shall at all times accord fair and
equitable treatment to nationals and companies of the other High Contracting Party, and
to their property and enterprises; shall refrain from applying unreasonable or
discriminatory measures that would impair their legally acquired rights and interests;
and shall assure that their lawful contractual rights are afforded effective means of
enforcement, in conformity with the applicable laws."

Article IV, Section 2: "Property of nationals and companies of either High Contracting
Party, including interests in property, shall receive the most constant protection and
security within the territories of the other High Contracting Party, in no case less than
that required by international law. Such property shall not be taken except for a public
purpose, nor shall it be taken without the prompt payment of just compensation. Such
compensation shall be in an effectively realizable form and shall represent the full
equivalent of the property taken; and adequate provision shall have been made at or
prior to the time of taking for the determination and payment thereof."

Article V, Section 1: "Nationals and companies of either High Contracting Party shall be
permitted, within the territories of the other High Contracting Party: (a) to lease, for
suitable periods of time, real property needed for their residence or for the conduct of
activities pursuant to the present Treaty; (b) to purchase or otherwise acquire personal
property of all kinds; and (c) to dispose of property of all kinds by sale, testament or
otherwise. The treatment accorded in these respects shall in no event be less favorable
than that accorded nationals and companies of any third country."
Article VII, Section 1: "Neither High Contracting Party shall apply restrictions on the
making of payments, remittances, and other transfers of funds to or from the territories
of the other High Contracting Party, except (a) to the extent necessary to assure the
availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and services essential to the
health and welfare of its people, or (b) in the case of a member of the International
Monetary Fund, restrictions specifically approved by the Fund."

Article X, Section 1: "Between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties there
shall be freedom of commerce and navigation."

Advocates of Iran should try to find evidence which:

Disproves allegations that Iran is a sponsor for terrorist organizations;
Shows that the USA were unjustified in freezing Irans assets.
Advocates of the USA should try to find evidence which:
Proves allegations that Iran is a sponsor for terrorist organizations;
Justifies the USAs freezing of Iranian assets.

Resources for further reading/Bibliography

1979 Diplomatic Consular Staff in Tehran case - http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/64
1992 Oil Platforms case - http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/90
2016 Certain Iranian Assets case - http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/164
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-usa-assets-urgent/obama-signs-executive-order-f
reezing-iran-assets-in-u-s-idUSTRE81519Q20120206
http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-in-irans-100-billion-in-frozen-assets-2015-7
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20284/v284.pdf
Committee: The International Court of Justice
Issue: Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)
Name: Mohammad Nafis Mahboob
Position: President

Introduction:
The French Republic (France) was sued by the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
(Equatorial Guinea) on the 13th of June in 2016 through the International Court of
Justice (the ICJ) over a dispute that concerned the immunity from criminal jurisdiction
of the Second Vice-President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea in charge of Defence
and State Security [Mr. Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue], and the legal status of the
building which houses the Embassy of Equatorial Guinea in France.

According to Equatorial Guinea, this case traces back to the criminal proceedings
instituted against Obiang in 2007 under French jurisdiction due to the usage of public
funds from Equatorial Guinea to invest in his personal life in France. Though a crime
indeed, Equatorial Guinea argues that by instituting these criminal proceedings against
Obiang, the diplomatic immunity which Obiang is entitled to has not been given to him,
therefore violating Frances obligations under international law. They also assert that
France has interfered in the affairs of Equatorial Guinea, and has failed to respect their
sovereignty.

Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (Obiang) is the son of the president of Equatorial
Guinea: Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mbasogo (Obiang Sr.), and serves as the countrys
vice president. He is known for spending large sums of money on luxuries in France
such as cars, a mansion, and a $120 million yacht. According to his lawyer, his annual
salary is $100,000, which is miniscule compared to the assets he is in possession of.
He has been accused of money laundering, and embezzling public funds from
Equatorial Guinea, and was therefore on trial in France, since the 19th of June, 2017.
Timeline of events:
2007:
A complaint against Obiang is filed by SHERPA, a Paris based organization. The
complaint alleged that Obiang was using Equatoguinean funds for his personal
benefit. This led to a police investigation.

2008
Transparency International joins the investigation to file a formal complaint with
an investigating magistrate. However, the case is dropped as the Public
Prosecutor rules that NGOs are not eligible to be civil parties to criminal
investigations.

2010
After an appeal from the NGOs, Frances Cour de Cassation authorises
Transparency International and SHERPA to proceed with their investigation
against Obiang, marking the first time in French history that a foreign leader has
been investigated for corruption.

2011
September: Obiang sells his mansion on 42 Avenue Foch to the State of
Equatorial Guinea, so that it can be used by the diplomatic mission of Equatorial
Guinea.
Several cars belonging to Obiang are confiscated by the French authorities.

2012
July: France issues a warrant for Obiangs arrest, accusing him of misuse of
public money and company assets, breach of trust and money laundering, the
proceeds of which were used to buy French property, and seizes his mansion.
25 September: Equatorial Guinea asks the ICJ to guarantee Obiang immunity
from the French courts.
2013:
The Paris Appeals court upholds the decision to issue Obiangs arrest warrant.

2014
Obiang is officially indicted by the French court for embezzlement.

2016
23 May: The French Public Prosecutor rules that 42 Avenue Foch is not
protected by immunity as it did not form part of the diplomatic mission of
Equatorial Guinea when the case started.
13 June: Equatorial Guinea starts proceedings against France in the ICJ (the
actual case which we are debating).

NOTE: The proceedings will happen as if it is the 13th of June 2016, nothing from after
that date may be used as evidence or referred to.

Definition of Key Terms:

Term Definition

SHERPA An organization based in Paris,

committed to defending victims of
economic crimes.

Transparency International In international NGO committed to fighting

corruption.

Cour de Cassation The French Supreme court

Money laundering Placing illegally earned money in

legitimate businesses so the money
appears to have been earned legitimately.

Embezzlement Using public funds for personal spending.

In summary, Equatorial Guinea is trying to argue that France does not have the right to
put Obiang on trial as his position as vice president of Equatorial Guinea should entitle
him to diplomatic immunity. France, on the other hand, is trying to argue that the trial
should happen in France because his familys influential position in Equatorial Guinea
would prevent any justice from being achieved.

Resources for further reading/Bibliography

http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/163

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/23/africa/france-trial-teodoro-nguema-obiang-mangue/in
dex.html

https://qz.com/1023038/france-wants-to-jail-the-luxury-loving-playboy-son-of-africas-lon
gest-serving-president/

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/on_trial_for_corruption_teodoro_obiang_son
_of_the_president_of_equatorial_g

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/world/africa/teodoro-nguema-obiang-mangue-guin
ea-looting-trial.html