Committee: ICJ Case: Nicaragua vs. United States / Senkaku Islands Delegate: James Dean Sebastian Vaillancourt By knowingly and willingly funding, arming, and encouraging rebel groups in Nicaragua, the United States is in complete violation of Article 2(4) of the UN charter, which states that, “​
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The United States used these rebel groups as a weapon to violate the political independence of Nicaragua. The Contras were intentionally destroying governmental buildings and committing human rights abuses in order to weaken the power of Nicaragua’s government. While the United State’s congress had placed legislation to block funding to the Contras, President Ronald Reagan willingly continued funds. As the United States president is the highest ranking military authority and has all military jurisdiction, the president’s actions reflect on the intention of the military as a whole. By funding the contras, President Reagan was giving military and executive support to the violation of Nicaragua’s political independence. The funding of the Contras was the United States’s attempts to instill a system of government that the United States approved of, not that of the Nicaraguan people. The rebels were intending to form a Nicaraguan government which was disposed of previously due to it’s blatant human rights abuses and mismanagement. The people of Nicaragua are in overwhelming support of this new government, and the rebels are attempting to violate the legitimacy of this new government. I urge the rest of the International Court of Justice to see the clear violations of Nicaragua’s sovereignty by the United States. Nicaragua has brought overwhelming proof to the court of the United States’s crimes, and we must see to it that justice is given. Senkaku Islands The Senkaku Islands dispute is based on contradicting treaties. Both China and Japan have documents that support their position that they have territorial rights to the islands. However, Japan has the most legitimate claims to the islands. China’s main argument is that a treaty from the first Sino war claims their territorial right. However, China had never asserted the authority of this treaty until oil was found in 1970. They also claim that due to the rest of Japan’s imperial conquests being relinquished in 1945 after World War II, the Senkaku islands should be relinquished to them also. This argument fails to consider the fact that the United States had administrative claim on the islands from 1945­1972, in which they used the islands as a military training site. The United States gave full control of the islands back to Japan in 1972. china’s Sino war treaty is null, as the islands have been completely under the control of Japan and the United States since at least 1885. Japan’s argument is also based on modern boundaries. When initially annexed in 1885, Japan considered the islands as an essential boundary of the country, not just an imperialist conquest. If China truly had a territorial claim, they would have called it into dispute well before oil was discovered in the islands. China is simply trying to take control of the islands due to the economic benefits, not actual territorial claim.