May it please the honourable Court, this is Agent No.1 on behalf of the Applicant.

I will be dealing with the first two issues and my co-agent will be dealing with the third issue. If Your Excellencies are well versed with the facts of the case, the Agent would like to proceed with the issues. If Your Excellencies permit, the Agent would like to proceed to the 1st issue. The 1st issue Ill be dealing with is the entire Elin River up to the Eastern bank of the river belongs to Nimroth. Mr. President as already stated in the facts, in the year 1924, the Raja of Gundustan ceded the territory of Winroth to Acadia through an agreement. A map of the region that was attached to the said agreement clearly showed the Eastern bank of the Elin river marked with a green ribbon which signified the boundary between Gundustan and Acadian Nimroth.

Even after both the countries gained independence, there has been no agreement to redefine the border demarcation. All attempts to have bilateral talks and agreements regarding the same have been to no avail. It has been established in International Law that once a State has ratified a treaty, the parties to the treaty have an obligation to adhere to it. Your excellencies, since there has been no agreement on the demarcation of boundary between the countries after they gained independence, effect should be given to earlier agreements, i.e., the agreement entered into by the colonial Acadia and the Raja of Gundustan. By challenging the title of Nimroth on the Elin river, the State of Winroth has violated one of the oldest principles of International Law, Pacta Sunt Sevanda, which dictates that agreements once entered into must be kept . Your Excellencies, this rule has also been codified in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties in Art. 26 which clearly states that Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. Your Excellencies, my second contention is that Winroth is a continuing entity as the Kingdom of Gundustan and should not be considered as a separate legal entity.

Mr. President, all through history, its been proven over and over that once a State is either annexed or gains independence, the new state is not a totally separate creature from its predecessor but just its continuation. The same has been the case in the scenario of British India and the present day Indian State. It is accepted that both the entities have the same legal standing and any agreement entered into by British India shall hold good for the present Indian state as well. The same is also evident wherein upon the demise of USSR, the Russian Federation took the position of continuation of the State. Even the Baltic states of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were recognized as continuing legal entities in International Law upon their proclamation of freedom from USSR in 1991.

Keeping in mind the above enunciated practices, it can be very well held that Winroth is not a successor of the Kingdom of Gundustan but a continuing state, therefore, it has to give effect to the agreements entered into by the Kingdom of Gundustan. Your Excellencies, my 3rd contention is though there has been an unforeseen fundamental change in circumstances in the geography and the flow of the Elin River, it is maintained that the agreement on the boundary demarcation should be respected by Winroth.

Article 62(2) of the Vienna Convention, 1969, stipulates that even though there might be a fundamental change in the circumstances, it is not to be invoked as grounds for terminating or withdrawing a treaty that establishes a boundary. As already established, boundaries made by treaties remain untouched by the mere fact of succession. For international stability, adherence to boundary agreements is given utmost importance. The practice of established principle in USA confirms that when a European colony in America becomes independent, it succeeds to the territorial limit of the colony as it stood in the hands of the present colony. Even in the Organisation of African Unity in 1964, all member states pledged themselves to respect the colonial borders. The principle of uti possidetis juris which states that a State shall have jurisdiction only over the territory that it possesses under law, has been adhered to in the case of Burkina Faso/Mali, wherein it was noted that the principle has developed into a general concept of contemporary International Law. In the execution of the agreement between Acadia and Gundustan, there is clear demarcation of the boundary between the two states and it is accepted international practice should not be interfered with or challenged. Now coming to the 4th contention, the practice of usage of water from the river to facilitate various activities in both the countries has emerged out of agreement. This does not facilitate the claim of jurisdiction over the river put forth by Winroth