Legal Committee

Dear Delegates,

My name is Aleksandar Stefanovski and I am a junior at Harvard College. I am concentrating in Social Studies, a unique interdisciplinary program in the social sciences that often causes me sleepless nights. I am still undecided whether to focus on a theoretical examination of modernity or engage in an empirical study of the relationship between feminism, Islam, and liberal democracy in present-day Western Europe. I am also pursuing a language citation in French, which I plan to use in fulfilling one of my main goals in life: reading all of Proust in the original French.

I was born and raised in Tetovo, a town in the mountainous landscape of northwestern Macedonia, but I went to high school in Skopje, the country’s capital. In rainy Cambridge, I have found the warmth of home in the beautiful Pforzheimer House, the North Pole of Harvard. This year, I am the Director of International Awareness and External Outreach in the Woodbridge International Society, which means that I lead the committee that organizes many awesome cultural events for the international students at Harvard and their American friends.

I am looking forward to this year’s HNMUN, especially because the two topics offered by the Legal Committee are directly related to the question of the authority of the United Nations and its role in affecting global affairs. The first proposed topic is on the principle of universal jurisdiction, whose aim is to strengthen and solidify the rule of international law. The second topic is on the future of international environmental law, which raises questions about the role of the international legal system in the response to global climate change.

I look forward to spending unforgettable four days with you in February! I hope that we will handle the cold winter in Boston with a heated debate in the confines of our MUN fortress. Until then, please send me an e-mail if you have any questions. And get excited!

Truly yours,

Alexsandar Stefanovski
Director, Legal Committee
Harvard National Model United Nations 2011

Topic Area A: Universal Jurisdiction

In response to modern high-seas piracy, international law has granted the courts of a state the right to exercise jurisdiction on behalf of the entire international community. The crimes that were punished were matters of international law that were considered an offense against humanity as a whole. Today, international law permits and, in some cases, requires states to exercise jurisdiction over persons who are suspected of grave crimes under international law, regardless of where the crimes in question occurred. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, states can persecute crimes that took place in another state, sometimes even involving suspects who are not nationals of the state or pose no threat to the state’s own security and national interests.

The principle of universal jurisdiction has featured more heavily in international media since the mid-1990s, with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (in 1993) and Rwanda (in 1994). However, these tribunals did not exercise universal jurisdiction; this principle is exercised by a state, not by an international organization, such a tribunal established by a group of states. Furthermore, the emergence of the International Criminal Court, established in The Hague in 2002, further marginalized the principle of universal jurisdiction as it claimed the right to exercise criminal jurisdiction as an international organization.

Even though the most famous case of universal jurisdiction can be said to date back to 1961, when the Supreme Court of Israel persecuted Adolf Eichmann for crimes against humanity, the question of the scope of universal jurisdiction remains a hotly contested issue even nowadays. As many developed countries have passed and enforced universal jurisdiction laws, the United Nations is compelled to answer some of the following questions: What should be the scope of universal jurisdiction? Which crimes should be persecuted under universal jurisdiction? How should universal jurisdiction laws be balanced against the existence and the work of international crime tribunals?

At the end of the day, the scope of universal jurisdiction is inherent to the question on the function of international law in the 21st century. Universal jurisdiction laws that are wider in scope and truly universally applicable can potentially strengthen the rule of international law. As such, universal jurisdiction laws are essentially related to the strength of the authority of the United Nations.

Topic Area B: Climate Change and International Environmental Law

One of the most controversial and yet most alarming international questions of the day concerns the negotiations for the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. While this protocol has been the defining legal framework of international environmental law since its adoption in 1997, the recent post-Kyoto negotiations demonstrate that international law has not yet managed to respond adequately to the potentially catastrophic consequences for life on our planet that could result from global climate change. In this way there arises the need to revisit and reevaluate the nature and the function of international environmental law.

In July 2006, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee made a progressive decision to adopt a world heritage strategy that takes into account and complies with climate change legislation. Two months later, in September 2006, the Group of 77 and China accused fifteen Annex I countries for noncompliance with the Kyoto Protocol. On the one hand, a UN specialized agency made a progressive decision to include climate change in their planning for the future, while, on the other hand, many developing countries decided to hold the developed world responsible for the incomplete enforcement of environmental legislation. This variety of responses to the issue at hand indicates that the future of international environmental law depends entirely on the choices that the global community will make in the years to come.

The biggest difficulty that the international legal system faces is the fact that climate change is not a problem that can be counteracted only through legal measures. Since the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions occurs at all levels of governance, many advocacy groups, states, and international organizations have already taken legal actions to combat the anthropogenic effect on the climate system. These legal conflicts have brought about the skepticism that international environmental law, in its present form, is not fully capable to deliver on its promise.

Any reform of international environmental law must take into account the following questions: is there such thing as a human right to a clean environment? To what extent should the principle of intergenerational equity influence future environmental legislation? What is the appropriate role of governments in the global response to climate change? What should be the role of international courts in environmental protection? The answer to these questions will indicate whether international environmental law will remain a broad collection of environment-related legislation or become a more uniform body of laws.