The International Court of Justice is a body of law, which handles all international affairs taken to court on the behalf of the UN. Their main focus is to settle conflict and strife within other countries. The process allows two different countries to present their sides of the problem, rule on the issue like any other court, except their majority opinions are called ‘Memorials’ and their counter opinions, ‘Counter Memorials’. Today’s case of focus is one of border conflict and accused terrorism between plaintiff Morocco and defendant country Algeria. Morocco accuses Algeria of prolonging conflict, and a violation of peace, by supporting the palogian rebel front within Sahara. The palogian front is a group of rebels who want to declare the independence of Western Sahara, and whose acts lend to general insecurity of the region.
Morocco levies such accusations of turning refugee camps on the borders of Morocco into training camps for terrorists. They bring into their argument several torture cases under supervision of government. Delegate Ethan from Morocco speculates that Algeria’s supposed actions are made to gain a political and financial advantage in maintaining the force, as Morocco already has a large military presence in the area. One possible strategic reason could be good relations with West Sahara rebels, could lead to a free port to the Atlantic Ocean, whereas Algeria is normally blocked from access to the Atlantic by its neighbor, Morocco.
Algerian delegate Elise insists that Algeria’s accusations and speculations are merely that, and there arguments hold no true water. She finds the thought of their responsibility of refugee camps on the edges of their border to be farcical, and challenges their opponents to come up with any recognized cases of torture of any camp under Algeria’s supervision. Both sides hold convincing arguments and the debate between the two looks promising. The ruling will be decided later, and the verdict will be available tomorrow.