Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request this Honourable Court to adjudge
and declare as follows:
(1) The incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT is in violation of JMSA and
is accordingly in violation of international law.
(2) The secession and subsequent annexation of the territory of DRT is in violation of
international law and Kingdom of Rafale is responsible for the same; and
(3) The actions of Azazel in changing the depicted borders of Azazel by introducing a
worm into the servers of MapMyRafale are in conformity with international law, or in
any case the wrongfulness of these actions are precluded under customary
international law.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for Applicants
Contents
Statement of jurisdiction....................................................................................... 4
QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................ 6
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS...................................................................................... 7
A.
PLEADINGS............................................................................................................. 9
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.......................................................................................... 9
A.
a.
B. That the incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT amounts to
aggression or use of force, and is accordingly violation of international law. 12
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME...........................................................................15
A.
Index of authorities
Statement of jurisdiction
The Republic of Azazel and the Kingdom of Rafale have submitted the present dispute to this
Court by Special Agreement, sixteenth day of July in the year two thousand and
fourteen, pursuant to article 40(1) of the Courts Statute. Both parties have agreed to the
contents of the Compromis submitted as part of the Special Agreement. All States parties to
this dispute have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with article
36(2) of the Courts Statute. All parties shall accept the judgment of this Court as final and
binding and shall execute it in good faith in its entirety.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME?
3. THE ACTION OF AZAZEL IN CHANGING THE DEPICTED BORDERS OF
AZAZEL BY INTRODUCING WORM INTO THE THE SERVERS OF
MAPMYRAFALE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR IN
ANY CASE THE WRONGNESS OF THESE ACTIONS ARE PRECLUDED UNDER
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1
Azazel, a country situated in Eurasia, is divided more or less in two parts, from north
to south, by the spine mountains. Shortly after WW II it was ravaged by a bitter civil
war resulting into its partition into Republic of Azazel and Kingdom of Rafale.
In 1993, certain geographical changed took place along the spine mountains taking
advantage of which the Azazelian Army marched ahead towards Rafale and captured
the territory which later came to be known as DRT. Under the global pressure, both
countries signed Joplin Memorandum of Security Assurance, according to which both
countries were required to keep their armies along what came to be known as MaryKubis Line.
Meanwhile in 2012, the inhabitants of DRT started demanding secession of DRT from
Azazel, as result referendum of independence was held in DRT in which majority of
inhabitants of DRT ( 34% of of total voter) opted for independence.
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
A. That the JMSA is a valid treaty under international law
a. Parties have capacity to enter into a treaty
b. It is an international agreement
c. It is subject to international law
B. DRT is the lawful territory of the Republic of Azazel
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME.
A. That the secession of the DRT is not valid
B. That annexation of DRT by Kingdom of Rafale is in violation of international law
b.
i.
ii.
countermeasure.
it has observed all necessary procedural obligations of a lawful countermeasure
countermeasure is in proportion with the injury suffered by Azazel
PLEADINGS
2008) at 909
here it can be concluded that JSMA is a treaty because both the head of the state
have signed the treaty11 and therefore, it has come into force.
8. It is submitted that a treaty has a legal basis and that basis is the presence of
common consent12 and both of the states have freely given their consent 13 to be
bound by the terms of the treaty, and therefore the treaty does not suffer from
vice of prohibited means of entering into a treaty. Further it is given 14 that both
parties signed treaties after six months of bilateral talks. thus can be concluded
that both the parties have sufficient time to enter into the agreement. and thus it
is strongly established that both the parties had given consent to the treaty before
signing the treaty.
11 Annexure I compromis
12Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 32.
13Preamble of JMSA , also signature by the head of the states is evidence of their consent
Boundary treaty where a sovereign state has agreed to give a piece of its territory
to another state.16
10. It is submitted that by the time of conclusion of JMSA was signed, the Republic
of Azazel had already taken control over the Disputed Rafale Territory17 and
according to JMSA both states have expressly agreed to maintain their troops
only along the present borders which in the instant case is DRT..18
11. It is respectfully submitted that in order to determine the intention of the parties,
reliance can be placed on Article 31 and Article 32 of VCLT,1969. A treaty
should be interpreted in good faith19 and in accordance with the ordinary
meaning given to the terms of treaty in their context and in the light of its object
and purpose.20 Ordinary meaning of a term of the treaty should be determined in
the light of itsobject and purpose.21
12. It is respectfully submitted that in the instant case, the object and purpose of the
JSMA treaty is to maintain peace and security at the present border and to
respect the independence and sovereignty of states concerned.22 Therefore it can
easily be inferred that under JMSA, Kingdom of Rafale intended to give the
captured territory to Republic of Azazel.
16Ibid.
17Hereafter referred as DRT.
18Supra n. 13, Art. 3.
19 Art. 31, VCLT
20Supra n. 3, Art. 31.
21Supra 4, pp.839
22 Annexure 1 ,compromis
14. It is submitted that the the sovereignty of states is the basis of international law
and it is the right ofevery sovereign state to conduct its affairs, internal as well as
external, without interference of any other state23.
15. It is submitted that the United Nations Charter provides that all members shall
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. 24 This principle
is also a pre-emptory norm not to be violated by states.Thus all countries have
duty and obligation
17. It is submitted that the use of force cannot be justified on any ground except as
provided in the charter itself i.e. self-defence,25 participations in United Nation
enforcement action, or seemingly, in some cases of humanitarian intervention
with UN authorisation.26Therefore, it is clear that Kingdom of Rafale, by sending
the troops into the territory of the Azazel, has used the force and has thus
violated the territorial sovereignty of the Azazel, and it is therefore the violation
of the provisions of the charter of the United Nations.
18. It is further submitted that even if the claim of Rafale over Disputed Rafalean
Territory is accepted, then also Rafale will still be guilty of violating the
international law because use of force is against principles of international law.
19. It is submitted that the right of the people to self-determination is one of the
essential principles of international law.27 Article 1(2) of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1970 28 states that right to
self-determination is the right of every person and it is the responsibility of the
state parties to the covenant to promote the realization of right to selfdetermination in conformity with the UN Charter.29
20. It is submitted that in a case 30 it was held by international court of justice that
the right to self-determination of peoples was held to be part of customary
international law. In yet another case, court recognised its essential binding
obligation character.31 In view of some writers, principle of self-determination is
also jus cogens.32
21. It is submitted that the republic of Azazel, is a party to the ICESCR without any
reservation,33
when the territory is subject to decolonialization, or parent state has given its
consent, or people of the territory are subject to flagrant violation of human
rights etc.36 It is further submitted that here in the instant case, people of DRT are
neither under a colonial rule nor had parent state Azazel completed its process of
secession, as the final decision of secession is yet to be taken by the house of
representative and people of DRT are not subjected to flagrant violation of
human rights.
23. It is submitted that Legality of secession is subject to pre emptory norms i.e.
secession must not have taken place against any of the the principles of
international law i.e. breach of territorial sovereignty and use of force. 37
24. It is submitted that in the instant case an unlawful secession in violation of preemptory norms has took place because Rafale has violated jus cogens principles
of non-use of force and territorial sovereignty of a state under Article 2(4) of the
UN Charter. Also, since Azazel being a democratic state,therefore people of DRT
enjoys internal self-determination, and thus these people do not have any right to
secede fromrepublic of Azazel without the consent of azazel through its House
of Representative.
the leader of free DRT movement along with the monarch of Rafale
announced that DRT would again join Rafale. Thereafter, Rafale sent its troops
to DRT which was still a lawful territory of Azazel.42
27. It is submitted that the act of Rafale in sending the troops to the territory of
republic of Azazel amounts to annexation through use of force and therefore it
violates the jus cogens43 and the principles of international law.44further, the act
of annexing the DRT by kingdom of rafale violates the territorial integrity of
Azazel, and this is against the principles of international customary law.45
PART 2 TO 4, 700 (R. Jennings & A. Watts eds., 9th edn. 2005).
39It is contrary to UN Charter Art. 2(4).
40Article 2(4) of UN Charter.
41Supra n. 18.
42Compromis [29].
43Supra n. 3. pp 495
44Threat or Use of force is prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
45Under Article 2(4) of UN Charter.
46Ibid.
47Supra n. 30, p.773-4.
31. It is submitted that both the parties to the JSMA, being the member of the United
Nations,48 have certain obligations of respecting the territorial integrity and
political independence of each other. It is further submitted that if a state does
any act which violates international obligation 49, towards any other state, it will
be said to have committed an act recognised internationally to be a wrongful act
and it thus entails certain responsibility towards that state.50
32. It is submitted that an International wrongful act has been defined as any act or
omission attributable to states or other subjects of international law which
constitutes of breach of an international obligation. 51
33. Thus, there are two elements of international wrongful act, first that the conduct
in question must be attributable to the State under international law and
secondly,the conduct must constitute a breach of an international legal obligation
in force for that State at that time.52
48Compromis [33].
49Supra n. 3 pp 118.
50 S.S.Wimbladon., [1922] P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2,
51Draft Articles on state Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, 2 YILC 165
34. It is submitted that States are obliged to take measures to prevent harm which
affects the interests of another states that can be caused by public or private
activities53 conducted within its jurisdiction or control.54
35. It is submitted that in the instant case the kingdom of Rafale is a member of the
United Nations55 so it owes an duty and an obligation as well to respect the
territorial integrity of the Azazel. This obligation is originated from the UN
Charter itself.
36. It is submitted that the action of MyMapRafale Corporation of kingdom of Rafale
in falsely depicting the map of Republic of
unilateral enforcement which violates the rights of other states, and is justified
by the refusal of the state committing an internationally wrongful act, to honour
an obligation which arising under the rule of state responsibility. 59 In other
words, it refers to any act which is non-violent act and which are illegal in
themselves, but they become legal when done by one state in response to the
commission of an previous illegal act by another state towards the former. 60 this
justifies otherwise unlawful conduct taken in response to a previous international
wrongful act of another State and directed against that State.61
38. It is further submitted that the countermeasures are lawful to the extent they that
they have been taken in accordance with certain substantial and procedural
conditions,62 like it must have been taken in response to a previous international
wrongful act of another state and must be directed against that state, he injured
state must have called upon the state committing the wrongful act to discontinue
its wrongful conduct or to make reparation for it, it must be aimed to induce the
wrongdoing state to comply with its obligations under international law it must
be reversible, and its effects must be in proportion with the wrong done.
39. It is submitted that a countermeasure is said to be in proportion with injury
suffered if it commensurates with initial wrong taking in account the gravity of
the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question. Proportionality of
ciountermeasure must be assessed by taking into account not only the purely
59Supra n. .
60OSCAR SCHACHTER, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, 167
quantitative element of injury suffered, but also some qualitative factors such as
the and the seriousness of the breach importance of the interest protected by the
rule infringed.
40. It is submitted that in the instant case, all necessary substantive and procedural
conditions of a countermeasure should been fulfilled. It is to be taken as a
response to the earlier internationally wrongful act of Rafale which had, by
depicting false map, 63violated the territorial integrity of Azazel.
41. It is submitted that Azazel had also called upon Rafale to discontinue its
internationally wrongful activity,64 and countermeasure was not taken to punish
Rafale but to induce or compel it to abide by its international obligation of
respecting the territorial integrity of Azazel.
42. It is further submitted that the action taken by Azazel to introduce worm into the
servers of MapMyWorld65 was not irreversible, as it can easily be taken back by
Azazel and it does not hamper the permanent infrastructure of MapMyWorld.
43. It isfurther submitted that the countermeasure was in proportion to the right
breached. The effect of the countermeasure is equivalent to the effect of injury
caused i.e. it has restored the position prior to time when wrong was done. Also,
it is related with same right in question i.e. territorial integrity of Azazel.
44. It isfurther submitted that it is clear that countermeasure taken by Azazel was in
conformity with the international customary law of countermeasure.
63Compromis [22].
64Compromis [20].
65Compromis [23].
(5) The secession and subsequent annexation of the territory of DRT is in violation of
international law and Kingdom of Rafale is responsible for the same; and
(6) The actions of Azazel in changing the depicted borders of Azazel by introducing a
worm into the servers of MapMyRafale are in conformity with international law, or in
any case the wrongfulness of these actions are precluded under customary
international law.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for Applicants