Legal Committee

Dear Delegates,

My name is Eddie Grom and I will be your Director for Legal Committee during HNMUN 2010 (get pumped!). I can’t tell you how excited I am to be working with all of you next year!

Just a little about me: I’m a sophomore at Harvard. I’m from Connecticut. I plan to concentrate in Government, because I find international relations fascinating. But I’m also pre-med, so when I’m all grown up I want to be a doctor. I love to travel and would really enjoy doing something like Doctors Without Borders, helping people in developing countries around the world. I had never done Model UN before my freshman year, but I got actively involved here and I love it. Last year, I was an Assistant Director for both HNMUN and our high school conference, HMUN. I will also be doing WorldMUN next year, so maybe I will see some of you there as well!

I’m extremely excited about the topics that our committee has to choose from this year. Our world’s ideas about what is and is not acceptable on the intervention front are extremely hazy in modern times. I think it’s vital that we address this problem before it develops into an uncontrolled free-for-all, where nations either don’t ever intervene where they should, or where nations always intervene where they shouldn’t. I’m excited about the debate and the resolutions that can arise from this topic. On the other hand, the issue of head of state immunity is especially pertinent to the world today. I think we can use Sudan as an example, watching as the consequential events of al-Bashir’s indictment unfold. Once again, the actual lines surrounding this issue are shadowy. We, my friends, are the Legal committee, and we are here to make those lines clearer.

Thank you so much for joining my committee. I know already that you will be representative of the bright minds that our generation has produced. I can’t wait to see all of you in February of 2010. Please do not hesitate to email me at egrom@fas.harvard.edu if you have any questions at all.

“Our defense is not in our armaments, nor in science, nor in going underground. Our defense is in law and order.”
-Albert Einstein

Let’s do this.

Sincerely,

Edward Grom
Director, Legal Committee
Harvard National Model United Nations 2010

Topic Area A: Comprehensive Review of Peacekeeping Operations

The United Nations defines peacekeeping as “a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace.” There is a long history of the United Nations sending peacekeeping forces into different countries in order to carry out this mission. This started as far back as 1948, when the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) was formed in order to maintain peace in the Middle East due to the Israeli War of Independence. Since then, there have been UN peacekeeping organizations on every continent. To this day, the United Nations remains actively involved in the maintenance of existing operations and the deployment of new ones. However, especially in more recent decades, the United Nations is not the only body that feels a duty to enforce peace around the world. Examples are the NATO intervention in Kosovo, the Multinational Force and Observers on the Sinai Peninsula, and countries such as the United States acting unilaterally in different places around the world.

These non-UN operations are somewhat different than the traditional peacekeeping operations that mark the United Nations’ history. Using the example of the NATO intervention in Kosovo, such activity was more of a peacemaking mission rather than a peacekeeping one. This distinction deals with the methods that the bodies use. Peacemaking is often associated with the use of force, while peacekeeping is married to the idea of rehabilitation and presence. It is worthwhile to note, however, that the ultimate aim is the same in all cases: peace.

Surely there is not an exclusive distinction between these two types of methods. During the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s, peacekeeping forces were powerless to stop the brutal murders occurring around them, and most nations agree that they should have been authorized to use force to prevent such atrocities. But at the same time, arguments crop up about the sovereignty of nations and the right of outside states to enter and change policies within a country. The concept of peacekeeping is closely tied with the idea of intervention. To what extent are humanitarian intervention and peacekeeping different? Are countries such as the United States justified in acting unilaterally to enforce peace? What exactly needs to be occurring in a country to call for a peacekeeping mission? All these questions arise from the shadowy lines that divide the different ideas about intervention. In the Legal Committee, the delegates will address these questions and many others, and hopefully endorse policies that get rid of the uncertainties surrounding this issue.

Topic Area B: Immunity for Heads of State

Historically, officials and heads of governments have enjoyed the concept of personal immunity. This means that they cannot be indicted for crimes while they are in office, to ensure the smooth running of the state. This immunity applies especially to officials that are carrying out acts of the state. This creates a respect for state sovereignty and dignity. However, Charles Taylor was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2003, while he was an incumbent head of state. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia was indicted while he was a sitting president by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. These indictments were explained by the specific statutes of the courts involved, and they helped develop the idea that crimes against humanity are not official acts of the state. This allows a head of state to suffer prosecution for committing such acts, even if he or she is currently in office.

More recently Omar Hussein al-Bashir of Sudan has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, the first time this international court has attempted to prosecute a head of state. The consequences of this indictment are vast. Many nations do not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. What acts must be committed in order to justify infringing upon the sovereignty of a nation by removing its leader? Do we simply use the standard list of internationally recognized crimes, such as genocide? This brings many questions to the forefront of our committee. The question is not simply whether heads of state should receive immunity. We must look carefully into the question of responsibility. Superficially, heads of state have accountability for their states. But to what extent are they responsible if they really are only a small link in the chain of command of a statewide pressure for genocide? How is it possible to prosecute an entire nation of people? We must look carefully at the consequences that arise from indicting (and eventually removing) heads of state. Will a genocide continue? Is the court responsible if the country breaks out into civil war? This issue must be though through very carefully, and the Legal Committee will look at it from as many aspects as possible.