RESPONDENT a) Attack on island of Segovia is NOT attributable to Rances

FACTS The Adarna Society for Independence and Liberty (ASIL), a radical right wing group, started to gain popularity among the citizens of Rances. The ASIL Special Forces serve as its military arm. ASIL is composed of ethnic Adarnas who subscribes to orthodox Adarna beliefs and insists that the government reclaim the temple that has been the home of their Gods and ancestors. Par 6 Newspapers in both Rances and Alquisada the next day reported that the President of Alquisada released a Statement to the effect that it does not recognize governments which came into power through illegal means. (Par14) Dabao Yao was arrested for charges of rebellion and King Kcram Hpesoj was reinstalled as the ruling monarch. (Par15)

DEFENSE A State only incurs liability for individual acts or omissions which can be attributed to it. Since the rebels are not acting on behalf or on the instructions of the government of Rances, the attack made by the ASIL Special Forces cannot in any way be attributable to the Kingdom of Rances.

DOCTRINES/JURISPRUDENCE Customary International Humanitarian Law, March 2005 Rule 149. A State is responsible for violations of international humanitarian law attributable to it, including: (a) violations committed by its organs, including its armed forces; (b) violations committed by persons or entities it empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority; (c) violations committed by persons or groups acting in fact on its instructions, or under its direction or control; and (d) violations committed by private persons or groups which it acknowledges and adopts as its own conduct. New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement Patrick Dumberry The European Journal of International Law Vol. 17 no.3 EJIL 2006 Page 606 There exists a well-established principle of international law according to which a state should not be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts committed by an unsuccessful insurrectional movement against other states in its struggle for independence. FOOTNOTE: This rule was upheld by an Italian municipal court (the First Instance Court, Brescia) in the context of the unsuccessful secession of the Italian Social Republic, the fascist Nazi puppet Republic of Sal, during the Second World War: Rainoldi v Ministero della Guerra, Court of First Instance, Brescia, 20 Feb. 1946 [1947] I Foro Italiano 151, in: Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, 1946, at 6. The rule is also set out at Sect. 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution enacted on 28 July 1868 after the failed attempt

Because the ASIL Special Forces was unsuccessful in its struggle for independence as their leader was arrested on 22 August 2009, the Kingdom of Rances cannot be held responsible for the acts committed by the ASIL Special Forces against the island of Segovia.

b) Rancess conduct, at all times, is consistent with International Law

of the Southern Confederate forces to secede during the American Civil War of 18611865. This provision has been interpreted by the USGreat Britain Mixed Claims Commission in John H. Hanna v United States, case no. 2, discussed in J.B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (1898), iii, at 2982. See also: Salvador Prats v United States, USMexico Mixed Commission, case no. 748, in ibid., at 2886; Alleghanian v United States, PeruUS Claims Commission in ibid., at 1615 ff. Another example arises from internationally wrongful acts committed by Filipino insurgents against British nationals in the context of the 1898 cession by Spain to the United States of sovereignty over the Philippines: Several British Subjects (Great Britain) v United States, Great BritainUS Claims Commission, Award of 19 Nov. 1925 at 20 AJIL (1926) 382384; in 6 United Nations Reports of International Arbitral Awards (UNRIAA) 158. Finally, another case involved internationally wrongful acts committed by Cuban insurgents in 1870 against the property of US nationals: Emma McGrady & Augustus Wilson v Spain in 59 Span Com (1871), 25 Apr. 1874, also discussed in Moore, supra, at 29812982. Upon the dissolution of It is clear from the facts Clipperton Island Case: Mercado, the temple was that Rances first declared It is beyond doubt that by immediately declared by that the Island of Segovia immemorial usage having the force Rances as a national is a part of their territory. of law, besides the animus cultural heritage site. occupandi, the actual and not the (Par4) Therefore, the Kingdom nominal taking of possession is a of Rances has the actual necessary condition of occupation, Rances protested right over the island as it this taking of possession consists in through diplomatic is part of the states the act, or series of acts, by which channels but did not sovereignty which dates the occupying state redues to its make any attempt to back from the time of possession the territory in question seize the island. (Par4) dissolution of Mercado. and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there. Strictly speaking, Again, Rances filed a The attack made by and in ordinary cases, that only diplomatic protest. (Par5) Rances in order to takes place when the state

reclaim the Island of Segovia thus is consistent with International Law.

establishes in the territory itself an organization capable of making its laws respected. But this step is, properly speaking, but a means of procedure to the taking of possession, and, therefore, is not identical with the latter. There may also be cases where it is unnecessary to have recourse to this method. Thus, if a territory, by virtue of the fact that it was completely uninhabited, is, from the first moment when the occupying state makes its appearance there, at the absolute and undisputed possession of that state, from that moment the taking of possession is considered accomplished and the occupation is formally completed. There is no reason to suppose that France has subsequently lost her right by derelictio, since she never had the animus of abandoning the island, and the fact that she has not exercised her authority there in a positive manner does not imply the forfeiture of an acquisition already definitively perfected. Hague Convention of the Protection of Cultural Property Article 1. Definition of cultural property For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "cultural property" shall cover, irrespective of origin or ownership: (a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above; (b) buildings whose main and effective purpose is to preserve or exhibit the movable cultural property defined in sub-paragraph (a) such as museums, large libraries and depositories of archives, and

c) Alquisada violated International law when it destroyed the west wing of the Temple of Agua Viva

However, one mortar team was hit by ASIL sniper fire and responded by firing a final round aimed at the ASIL Special Forces going out of the Temple. The mortar hit the temple and destroyed its western wing. (Par10)

The Temple of Agua Viva is protected under the Hague Convention of the Protection of Cultural Property.

The damage made by the Alquisadan forces to the Temple is a violation of the respect and protection that should be accorded to protected cultural properties under the Hague Convention.

refuges intended to shelter, in the event of armed conflict, the movable cultural property defined in subparagraph (a); (c) centres containing a large amount of cultural property as defined in subparagraphs (a) and (b), to be known as "centres containing monuments". Article 2. Protection of cultural property For the purposes of the present Convention, the protection of cultural property shall comprise the safeguarding of and respect for such property. Article 4. Respect for cultural property 1. The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect cultural property situated within their own territory as well as within the territory of other High Contracting Parties by refraining from any use of the property and its immediate surroundings or of the appliances in use for its protection for purposes which are likely to expose it to destruction or damage in the event of armed convict; and by refraining from any act of hostility directed against such property. P2 Article 7 Precautions in attack Without prejudice to other precautions required by international humanitarian law in the conduct of military operations, each Party to the conflict shall: a. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are not cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention; b. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention; c. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the

Convention which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; and d. cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent: i. that the objective is cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention ii. that the attack may be expected to cause incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. P2, Article 8 Parties to the Convention must, to the maximum extent feasible, either move cultural property away from military objectives or avoid placing military objectives near such property Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict The Hague Article 15 Serious violations of this Protocol 1.Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Protocol if that person intentionally and in violation of the Convention or this Protocol commits any of the following acts: a. making cultural property under enhanced protection the object of attack; b. using cultural property under enhanced protection or its immediate surroundings in support of military action; c. extensive destruction or appropriation of cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol; d. making cultural property protected under the Convention and this Protocol the object of attack; e. theft, pillage or misappropriation of, or acts of vandalism directed against cultural property protected under the Convention.

d) Alquisada must pay Rances reparations for the damage done to the Temple

Upon the dissolution of Mercado, the temple was immediately declared by Rances as a national cultural heritage site. (Par4) However, one mortar team was hit by ASIL sniper fire and responded by firing a final round aimed at the ASIL Special Forces going out of the Temple. The mortar hit the temple and destroyed its western wing. (Par10)

The Temple of Agua Viva belongs to the Kingdom of Rances. Hence, Alquisada must pay for the damage done by them to the Temple.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Part II, Article 2 Par 3 Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.