|
INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE
ABOUT MODEL ARAB LEAGUE?
E-MAIL PROGRAM COORDINATOR
MEGAN GEISSLER
|
ARAB COURT OF JUSTICE
The Arab Court of Justice (ACJ) is a moot court created to provide Model Arab League (MAL) student delegates an exercise in
international law. No such court exists within the structure of the League of Arab States. The ACJ is a unique experience for new and experienced
MAL participants. Updated rules of procedure for the Court can be found in the MAL Handbook.
The ACJ convenes at the Northeast, Southeast, Michigan, Southwest, and National University MALs. Every delegate assigned to the Court presents arguments as an Advocate for one of five cases (this includes drafting and submitting a Memorial or Counter-Memorial before the Model), and sit as a Justice on the Bench to hear, deliberate, and help draft Opinions on the other four cases.
Student must apply to participate in the ACJ, and the National Council will assign particular individuals to each case based on their qualifications. Students participate in the ACJ apart from and in place of representing their school's country on a Council at the Model Arab League.
Students can apply for the ACJ as a single individual or as a pair of students. A single individual will be the sole Advocate for his assigned country's case, and serve as a Justice for each of the other four cases. A pair of students will both serve as Advocates for their assigned country's case, but only one can serve as a speaking and voting Justice on each of the other four cases (the other individual is welcome to provide support to the Justice but cannot participate in the proceedings for that case -- pairs are encouraged to switch the Justice role in different cases). Pairs should apply separately but clearly indicate they wish to work as a team on their application.
2012 Cases
DOCKET 1: Southeast Regional Model Arab League &
National Model Arab League |
| 1. Iraq v. Kuwait: On the legality of the construction of the Mubarak Al-Kabeer port. Iraq claims the Mubarak Al-Kabeer port encroaches on its maritime borders which were laid out and affirmed in UN Security Council Resolution 833. |
| 2. Libya v. The League (as represented by Palestine): As to whether the League’s failure to create a consistent pan-Arab foreign policy regarding the recognition of the Transitional National Coalition prolonged the conflict, sent mixed signals to the international community, and therefore added further harm to the Libyan people. |
| 3. Egypt v. Sudan: On whether Sudan's commitments to Egypt in the Nile Waters Treaty prevent Sudan from entering into a Nile waters agreement with South Sudan which would violate the spirit of the Nile Waters Treaty. |
| 4. Tunisia v. Morocco: Charging that Maroc Telecom’s potential acquisition of Arab telecoms, similar to recent acquisitions of telecoms in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Benin, is a violation of the principle of economic cooperation as set out by the Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation Treaty. |
| 5. Syria v. Al-Jazeera (as represented by Qatar): Charging that Al-Jazeera coverage of political instability violates Syrian law and harms the security of the state by encouraging further unrest and violence. |
| DOCKET 2: National Model Arab League only |
| 1. Comoros v. The League (as represented by Jordan): Charging that the League and its members’ maintenance of favorable relations with France in light of French claims to Mayotte undermines the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Union of the Comoros. |
| 2. Djibouti v. League, as represented by Somalia: Charging that failure of the league to advance the Maputo protocol by its African-Arab member states and failure for it to draft its own protocol is a violation of human rights and a challenge to Arab and Islamic cultural traditions and standards the League charter envisions and protects. |
| 3. Yemen v. Members of the GCC (as represented by Oman): Charging that they violated standards of international law and the League Charter when they called for the resignation of President Saleh. Yemen further charges that said actions emboldened militant groups in Yemen and thus caused political, infrastructural, and financial harm to the state. |
| 4. Mauritania v. Saudi Arabia: On whether Saudi policies establishing requirements, including visa requirements, for the Hajj are an unfair burden upon poorer members of the League. Under the cultural provisions of the charter, Mauritania further claims Saudi Arabia has willfully or inadvertently violated the Arab League charter and customary rights of citizens of other Arab League member states. |
| 5. UAE v. Algeria: On whether Algeria’s requirement that every business in Algeria must be at least 51% Algerian owned violates the economic cooperation principle of the Joint Defence and Economic Co-operation Treaty. |
|
