A2 Memo

TEAM CODE: 669A
THE 2015 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT
THE PEACE PALACE, HAGUE
CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND ANNEXATION OF EAST AGNOSTICA
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA

(APPLICANT)
V.
STATE OF REVERENTIA
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

-FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA-
-PRELIMINARIESTABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. iv
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS ...................................................................................... iv
UNITED NATIONS, DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ......................... iv
I.C.J. CASES ............................................................................................................... vii
P.C.I.J CASES ............................................................................................................ viii
U.N.R.I.A.A. & MISCELLANEOUS CASES ..................................................................... ix
BOOKS ......................................................................................................................... ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... xiv
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................ xv
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .............................................................................................. xx
PLEADINGS ...................................................................................................................... 1
I.
REVERENTIAS
VIOLATED
AND THE
EAST AGNOSTICAN REFERENDUM
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE
AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY. ........................................................ 1
A. SUPPORT
FOR
THE
REFERENDUM
IS
ATTRIBUTABLE
TO
THE
REVERENTIAN
PARLIAMENT. ............................................................................................................... 2
1. REVERENTIAN PARLIAMENT IS A STATE ORGAN. .................................................... 2
2. THE REVERENTIAN PARLIAMENT
ACCEPTING
AND
RATIFYING
AGNOSTICA,
AND MOVING THE
THE
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PASSING THE
INTEGRATION AGREEMENT,
REVERENTIAN ARMY
RESOLUTION,
ANNEXING
EAST
UNITS INTO THE TERRITORY OF
AGNOSTICA. .............................................................................................................. 3
B. REVERENTIAS
SUPPORT FOR THE
TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
TERRITORIAL
INTEGRITY
OF
REFERENDUM
UN CHARTER
AGNOSTICA
AND
AND
STANDS IN BREACH OF ITS
C.I.L.
WITH RESPECT TO THE
THE
PRINCIPLE
OF
NON-
INTERVENTION. ........................................................................................................... 4
1. VIOLATION OF THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA. ................................. 4
2. REVERENTIA VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION BY INTERVENING IN
THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF AGNOSTICA .
.................................................................. 11
-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-
-PRELIMINARIESII.
THE
PURPORTED
AGNOSTICA
SECESSION
AND
SUBSEQUENT
ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE
REMAINS PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE F EDERAL
A. LACK
ANNEXATION
OF
STATE PRACTICE
AND
OPINIO JURIS
OF
EAST
EAST AGNOSTICA
REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA. ........ 15
ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO SECESSION.
................................................................................................................................... 15
1. CUSTOMARY BEHAVIOUR OF STATES FAILS TO SUPPORT A RIGHT OF SECESSION . ... 16
2. THE
SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION BY
REVERENTIA
OF
EAST AGNOSTICA
IS ILLEGAL.
............................................................................................................................... 19
3. THE
RECOGNITION OF
STATEHOOD
OF
EAST AGNOSTICA
OTHER STATES IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW .
BY
REVERENTIA
AND
......................................... 20
B. AGNOSTICA HAS RESPECTED THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION. .. 21

III.
THE MARTHITE CONVENTION CEASED TO BE IN FFFECT AS OF 2 APRIL 2012 AND,
IN ANY EVENT,
AGNOSTICA DID NOT BREACH THE CONVENTION. ................................. 23
A. AGNOSTICAS
TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL
INVOCATION OF THE
B. AGNOSTICAS
TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL
INVOCATION OF THE
C. TERMINATION
DOCTRINE OF ERROR. .................................................................. 23
DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ....... 25
OF THE
MARTHITE CONVENTION
OWING TO
REVERENTIAS
MATERIAL
BREACH. ..................................................................................................................... 28
1. REVERENTIAS ACTIONS RESULTED IN THE BREACH OF THE OBJECT AS ENSHRINED IN
THE PREAMBLE. ....................................................................................................... 28
2. REVERENTIA
VIOLATED PROVISIONS WHICH WERE INTEGRAL FOR ACHIEVING THE
OBJECT OF THE TREATY .
3. AGNOSTICAS
AS
.......................................................................................... 29
DECISION TO TERMINATE THE
REACTION
TO
REVERENTIAS
MARTHITE CONVENTION
MATERIAL
BREACH
OF
THE
IS JUSTIFIED
MARTHITE
CONVENTION. ......................................................................................................... 29
IV.
REVERENTIAS
REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE AT THE
MARTHITE
EXTRACTION
FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. ................................................................ 31
A. REVERENTIAS HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE V.C.L.T. ................ 31
ii
-PRELIMINARIESB. REVERENTIAS
HAS BREACHED
C.I.L.
RELATING TO PERMANENT SOVEREIGNTY
OVER NATURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................... 32
C. IN ARGUENDO, REVERENTIA
AND IS OBLIGATED TO MAKE
HAS BREACHED THE
LAW
OF
STATE RESPONSIBILITY
REPARATION IN AN ADEQUATE FORM TO AGNOSTICA. .. 34
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ............................................................................................ 37
iii
-PRELIMINARIESINDEX OF A UTHORITIES
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force on Oct. 21, 1986, 567
U.N.T.S. 435 ........................................................................................................................ 17
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on 26th Dec., 1933, 165
U.N.T.S. 19 .......................................................................................................................... 19
International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, entered into force
on 4th January 1969, 660 U.N.T.S. 195................................................................................ 22
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on 16th December
1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407 ........................................................................................................ 7
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force on Jan. 3,
1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 ............................................................................................................. 7
Statute of the International Court of Justice, entered into force on 26th June, 1945,
33 U.N.T.S. 993 ................................................................................................................... 15
The Marthite Convention, entered into force on 14th April, 1938, Compromis (Annex) ........ 24
U.N. Charter ............................................................................................................................. 13
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S.
331........................................................................................................................................ 23
UNITED NATIONS, DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N. Doc.
A/29/3281(1972) .................................................................................................................. 33
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.
2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) ................................................................................ 5
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UNGA Res.
1514 (XV), U.N. Doc. A/4684 (1960) ................................................................................... 5
Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, UNGA Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc.
A/RES/20/2131 (1965) .......................................................................................................... 7
Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res
50/6, U.N. Doc A/RES/50/6 (1995) ....................................................................................... 8
iv
-PRELIMINARIESDeclaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/61/295 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 6
Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974) ............ 7
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as
amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, entered into force on 3rd Sept, 1963, E.T.S. 5 (1962)
.............................................................................................................................................. 32
For Azerbaijan, UNSC Resolutions 882 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/882 (1993), 884 (1993) .. 10
For Georgia, UNSC Resolutions 971(1995), U.N. Doc. S/RES/971 (1995), 876 (1993), U.N.
Doc. S/RES/876 (1993) ....................................................................................................... 10
For Kosovo, UNSC Resolutions 1160 (1998), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1160 (1998), 1244 (1999),
U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (1999)............................................................................................. 10
Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance, UNGA Res. 48/182, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/46/182 (1991) ............................................................................................................ 6
I.L.C., Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA
U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) ..................................................................................................... 1
Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, UNGA Res. 60/228, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60
(2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
O.A.U. Resolution on Situation in Nigeria, AHG/Res.51 (IV) (1967) .................................... 17
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292............................ 6
OSCE, Interim Report of the CSCE Rapporteur Mission on the Situation in Nagorno
Karabakh,7-CSO/Journal No. 2, CSCE Doc. Annex 1, 4 (Feb. 1992) ................................ 12
Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources of Developing Countries, UNGA Res. 3016
(XXVII), U.N. Doc. A/3016 (1972) .................................................................................... 33
Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, UNGA Res. 1803 (XVII), U.N. Doc.
A/RES/ (1962) ..................................................................................................................... 33
Prevention of Armed Conflict, UNGA Res. 57/337, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/337 (2003) ........... 6
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn (1966) ................................................................. 24
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn 265 (1968) .......................................................... 32
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn 59 (1982) ............................................................ 26
Report of the Secretary General, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts,
Compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies, U.N. Doc.
A/62/62 and Corr.1 and Add.1 (2007) ................................................................................. 34
-PRELIMINARIESRight to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources, UNGA Res. 626 (VII), U.N. Doc.
A/2361 (1952) ...................................................................................................................... 33
Special Assembly of the League of Nations, Resolution adopted on March 11, 1932, Off. J.,
Special Suppl. No. 101, 8..................................................................................................... 20
Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UNGA Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262 (2014) ........ 10
The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by
the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106............................ 16
The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.S.C. Report, 677 (1900) (U.S.A.) ........................................... 15
U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993) ................................................................................................... 10
UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.
21, Right to Self-determination, 1996, U.N. Doc. A/51/18, annex VIII, 125, 6 (1996).... 16
UN Secretary-General U. Thant, Secretary-General's Press Conferences held in
Dakar,Senegal, U.N. Monthly Chron. 34-38 (1970) ........................................................... 16
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (Right to Self-determination), The
Right to Self-determination of Peoples (1984)..................................................................... 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of El Salvador U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/14/Add.5, 17-22 II Y.H.R.C.
241 (1983-4)......................................................................................................................... 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Iraq, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/Add.3, 29-30 II Y.H.R.C. 191
(1987) ................................................................................................................................... 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Lebanon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.60 17-22 II Y.H.R.C. 211
(1983-4)................................................................................................................................ 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Mexico, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/46/Add.3, 34-6 II H.R.C.O.R.
178 (1988-9)......................................................................................................................... 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.57, 11-6 Y.H.R.C. 213
(1981-2)................................................................................................................................ 12
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/6/Add.3m 11-6 II Y.H.R.C. 11
(1981-2)................................................................................................................................ 12
UNIDO, Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation
(Mar. 12-26, 1975), ..................................................................................................................
https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/media/images/1975Lima_Declaration_and_Plan_of_Acti
on_on_Industrial_Development_and_Cooperation_26.3.1975.pdf (January 10, 2014, 12.45
A.M.) .................................................................................................................................... 33
UNSC Res. 169/1961, U.N. Doc. S/RES/169 (1961) .............................................................. 17
UNSC Res. 1808 (2008), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1808 (2008) ....................................................... 17
vi
-PRELIMINARIESUNSC Res. 242 (1967), U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (1967) ........................................................... 19

UNSC Resolution 541(1983), U.N. Doc. S/RES/541 (1983); UNSC Resolution 550(1984),
U.N. Doc. S/RES/550 (1984) ............................................................................................... 21
UNSC Resolution 662(1990), U.N. Doc. S/RES/662 (1990) .................................................. 20
Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the
Rights of Peoples to Self-Determination, UNGA Res. 52/112, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/112
(1998) ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993) ................ 8
I.C.J. CASES
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect
of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22) ................................................................................... 21
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), 1978 I.C.J. 3 (Dec. 19) .............................. 27
Appeal Related to the Jurisdiction of the I.C.A.O. Council (India v. Pakistan), 1972 I.C.J. 3
(Aug. 18) .............................................................................................................................. 28
Asylum Case (Colom. v. Peru), (Merits) 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20) ....................................... 15
Case Concerning Armed Activities of the Territory of Congo (Demr. Rep. of Congo v. Ugd.),
2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19) ..................................................................................................... 33
Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22) ........... 8
Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), (Merits) 1962 I.C.J.
Rep. 6 (June 15) ................................................................................................................... 24
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) .................................................. 1
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nica.), (Judgment) 2009
I.C.J. 213 (July 13)............................................................................................................... 27
East Timor (Port. v.Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 104 (June 30) ................................................................ 7
Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25) ................................................... 25
Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9)................................... 1
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Camr. v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea
intervening), (Judgment) 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10) ............................................................. 26
Land, Island and Maritime Dispute Case (El Sal. v. Hond.), (Merits) 1992 I.C.J. 351 (Sept.
11) .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16
(June 21)................................................................................................................................. 7
vii
-PRELIMINARIESLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9).......................................................................................................... 7
Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8) ........................... 9
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14
(June 27)..................................................................................................................................... 1
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Den., F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 26 (Feb.
20) .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), (Judgment) 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr.
20) ........................................................................................................................................ 27
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), (Merits) 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 10 (Sept. 7) ............................ 4
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16)
................................................................................................................................................ 1
Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J.12 (Oct. 16) ................................................................................... 7
P.C.I.J CASES
Advisory Opinion No. 22, Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932 P.C.I.J.
(ser. A/B) No. 46 (Aug. 19) ................................................................................................. 25
Advisory Opinion No. 23, Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin
or Speech in Danzig Territory, 1932 P.C.I.J. 4 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4) ........................... 3
Advisory Opinion No. 6, Settlers of German Origin in Poland, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 6
(Sept. 10) ................................................................................................................................ 2
Case Concerning Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B)
No. 53 (Apr. 5) ..................................................................................................................... 24
Case Concerning the Adaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions 1925 P.C.I.J.
(ser. A) No. 11 (Mar. 26) ..................................................................................................... 24
Chorzow Factory Case (Germ. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A), No. 17 at 47 (Sept. 13) ........... 1
German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. 19 (ser. A) No. 6
(Aug. 25) ................................................................................................................................ 3
Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory (U.K. v. Fr.), 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No.
49 (Aug. 11) ......................................................................................................................... 26
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14) ...................... 3
viii
-PRELIMINARIESU.N.R.I.A.A. & MISCELLANEOUS CASES

AIR Service Agreement Case (France v. United States), 1978, 18 R.I.A.A 306, 337 ............ 34
Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1025 ...................................................... 34
Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) (Bel. v. Neth.), 2005, 27
R.I.A.A. 35, 64 ..................................................................................................................... 26
Case 162/96, A. Racke GmbH&Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 E.C.R. I-3655, 37057 ... 25
Conference on Yugoslavia, 1992, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 2, 92 I.L.R. 167,
168-9 (Jan. 11) ..................................................................................................................... 18
Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire, Commn. No. 75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R. (2000)
A.H.R.L.R. 72 (8th Ann. Activity Rep.) ............................................................................... 17
Rainbow Warrior Affair (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1985/1986, R.I.A.A.1904 ........................................... 28
Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217 (1998) (Can.) .................................... 8
The Chechnya Case, 1995 Second Russian Constitutional Court, Decree No. 10-P, 31:5
Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1995) 48, 52 (July 31)
(Russia) .................................................................................................................................. 8
The Tatarstan Case, 1992 First Russian Constitutional Court, 30:3 Statutes and Decisions of
the USSR and its Successor States (1994) 32, 41 (Mar. 13) (Russia) ................................... 8
BOOKS
ANTONIO CASSESSE, SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL 116
(1995) ........................................................................................................................ 22
ARECHAGA, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MANUAL
OF
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
545 (1968) .................................................................................................................... 3

AUST, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE 216-17 (2013) .......................................... 26
BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 553 (2008) ............................... 7
BRUNO SIMMA, THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, A COMMENTARY 80 (2002) ....... 5
CAHEIR, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERTO AGO 163 (1987)............................................ 26
CHRISTIAN J TAMS AND JAMES SLON, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY
THE LNTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 317 (1958) .................................................. 11
CHRISTINE GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 58 (2004) ................... 18
CRAWFORD, ALLAIN PELLET, SIMON OLLESON, THE LAW
OF
STATE RESPONSIBILITY 237
(2010) .......................................................................................................................... 2
CRAWFORD, CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 415 (2006) ............................ 9
ix
-PRELIMINARIESCRAWFORD,
THE
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
COMMISSION'S
ARTICLES
ON
STATE
RESPONSIBILITY: INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 210 (2002) ..................... 1

EAGLETON, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL 66 (1928) ....................... 3
FRAUKE METT, THE CONCEPT
OF THE
RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
OF
PEOPLES 150
(2004) ........................................................................................................................ 18
GNANAPALA WELHENGAMA, MINORITIES CLAIMS,
FROM
AUTONOMY
TO
SECESSION 308,
312 (2000) .................................................................................................................. 18

HARASZTI, SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE LAW OF TREATIES 229-425 (1973) 23
HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 69 (1947) .......................................................................... 11
I.A. SHEARER, STARKES INTERNATIONAL LAW 94 (1994) .............................................. 11
J. N. SAXENA, SELF DETERMINATION: FROM BIAFRA TO BANGLADESH 14 (1978) ............. 5
JAMES SUMMER, PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 34 (2007)...................................... 12
KELSEN, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 62-4 (1952) ............................................ 11
L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, A TREATISE 305 (1955) ....................................... 11
LAUTERPACHT, RECONGITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 420 (1947) ................................. 20
LEE C. BUCHHEIT, SECESSION: THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF-DETERMINATION 89 (1978) ... 16
LORD MCNAIR, LAW OF TREATIES 405-8 (1961) ............................................................. 24
LOWE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 74 (2007) .......................................................................... 26
M GOMAA, SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF TREATIES ON GROUNDS OF BREACH 32
(1996) ........................................................................................................................ 29
M. N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 786, 68 (2008) ......................................................... 15
M.D. EVANS, INTERNATIONAL LAW 196 (2010) .............................................................. 29
NICO SCHRIJVER, SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES (1997) ............................. 32
O DRR AND K SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A
COMMENTARY 544 (2012) .......................................................................................... 28
O.Y ELAGAB, THE LEGALITY OF NON-FOCIBLE COUNTERMEASURES IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW (1988) ................................................................................................................ 34
RAIC, STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 316-72 (2002) ................... 13
SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 193 (1984) ................. 24
-PRELIMINARIESARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES

A. Olafsson, International Status of the Faroe Islands, 51 NORDIC J.
OF INTL
L. 29 (1982)
.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Allott, State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law, 29 HARV. INT'L L. J. 1,
10 (1988) ................................................................................................................................ 1
Angelika Nuberger, South Ossetia, 9 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of INTL. L. 487 (2012) . 17
Antonello Tancredi, Secession and Use of Force, Self Determination and Secession in
International Law 79 (2014) .................................................................................................. 6
Arie E. David, The Strategy of Treaty Termination, 24 Am. J .Comp. L. 350 (1976); J.L.
Brierly, The Law of Nations 256 (1955) ............................................................................. 23
Borchard, Responsibility of States, 24 AM. J. INTL L. 517 (1930) .......................................... 3
Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-Determination, Secession, International Law
Perspectives 27 (2006) ......................................................................................................... 18
Crawford, Bodeau, I.L.C.'s Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Towards Completion of a
Second Reading, 94 AM. J. INTL L. 637, 660 (2000) ........................................................... 2
Crawford, Revising the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, 10 EUR. J. INT'L L. 435, 500
(1999) ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Fitzmaurice, First Report on the Law of Treaties, 1 Y.I.L.C 93-94 (1956) ............................ 32
Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of
the Rule of Law, 92 Recueil des Cours 61 (1957)................................................................ 11
Gyorgy Haraszti, Treaties and Fundamental Change of Circumstances, 146 RECUEIL
DES
COURS (1975) ...................................................................................................................... 24

International Commission of Jurists, Report of the International Commission of Jurists
Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of giving an Advisory
Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, 1 League of Nations O.J.
Spec. Supp. 3, 5635 (1920) .................................................................................................. 16
J. Garner, The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination of Treaties, 21 AM. J.
INT'L L. 409 (1927) .............................................................................................................. 24
James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69
B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998) ......................................................................................................... 18
Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 12 INTL COMP. L. Q 1051
(1963) ................................................................................................................................... 12
xi
-PRELIMINARIESJimnez De Archaga, International Law in the Past Third of a Century, 159 RECUEIL
DES
COURS 9 (1978) ................................................................................................................... 11

Jimenez De Arechaga, State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign Owned
Property, 11 N.Y.U.J.INT'L. L. & POLY. 179-80 (1978) .................................................. 33
John Dugard, The Secession of States and their Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo, 357
RECUEIL DES COURS 70 (2011) ........................................................................................... 20
Kohen, Introduction, Secession: International Law Perspectives 7 (2006) ............................... 9
Krueger, Implications of Kosovo, Abkhazia and south Ossetia for International law the
conduct of the community of states in current secession conflicts, 3(2) CAUCASIAN REV.
INT'L. AFF. 126 (2009) ......................................................................................................... 18
Lawrence S. Eastwood, Jr., Secession: State Practice And International Law After The
Dissolution Of The Soviet Union And Yugoslavia, 3 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L. L. 303 (1993)
.............................................................................................................................................. 16
Lea Brilmayer, Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation, 16 YALE J.
INTL L. 185 (1991) ............................................................................................................. 22
Manley O. Hudson, Working Paper, Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law
Commission, 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N 24 (1950), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/16 .......................... 15
Meinhard Schroder, Principle of Non-intervention, Encyclopaedia of Public Intl. L. 619
(1984) ................................................................................................................................... 11
Philip Kunig, Intervention, 6 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law 289 (2012) .. 11
Poch De Caviedes, De la clause rebus sic stantibus la clause de rvision dans les
conventions internationals, 118 Recueil des Cours 109-204 (1966) ................................... 25
Preuss, Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic
Jurisdiction, 74 Recueil des Cours 554 (1949) .................................................................... 11
Rainer Hoffman, Annexation, 1 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Intl. L. 411 (2012) .............. 19
Robin C.A.White, Expropriation of the Libyan Oil Concessions-Two Conflicting
International Arbitrations 30 INTL. COMP.L.Q. 11-12 (1981) ......................................... 33
Rosenstock, The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly
Relations: A Survey, 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 713, 730 (1971) ........................................................ 6
Samuel K.N. Blay, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, 9 Max Planck
Encyclopaedia of International Law, 860 (2012) .................................................................. 4
Thornberry, Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International
Instruments, 38 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 867 (1989) ................................................................ 21
xii
-PRELIMINARIESVed P. Nanda, Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede, 13

Case W. RES. J. INT'L L. 264 (1981) ..................................................................................... 4
xiii
-PRELIMINARIESSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to the Joint Notification and the Compromis concluded on 2nd September 2014,
agreed to therein, between the Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of
Reverentia (Respondent) (hereinafter referred to as the Parties), and in accordance with
Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Parties hereby submit to
this Court its dispute Concerning the Secession and Annexation of East Agnostica. In
accordance with Article 36(1) of the I.C.J. Statute and Article 5(a) of the Compromis, each
party will accept the judgement of the Court as final and binding. In accordance with Article
3 of the Compromis, the Court is hereby requested to adjudge the dispute.
xiv
-PRELIMINARIESQUESTIONS PRESENTED
I.
WHETHER
REVERENTIAS
REFERENDUM VIOLATED
ENCOURAGEMENT
AGNOSTICAS
OF
THE
EAST
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY , THE
AGNOSTICAN
PRINCIPLE
OF
NON-INTERVENTION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY.
II.
WHETHER
THE PURPORTED SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF
AGNOSTICA
ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE, WHETHER
AGNOSTICA
REMAINS A PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE
EAST
EAST
FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF
AGNOSTICA.
III.
WHETHER
THE
MARTHITE CONVENTION
CEASED TO BE IN EFFECT AS OF
APRIL 2,
2012 AND, WHETHER IN ANY EVENT, AGNOSTICA BREACHED THE CONVENTION.
IV.
WHETHER REVERENTIAS
MARTHITE
EXTRACTION FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW.
xv
-PRELIMINARIESSTATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
The Kingdom of Credera, conquered the Thanatosian Plains and incorporated the
region into its global empire as two separately-administered colonies, Reverentia and
Agnostica. The Crederan authorities demarcated the two territories based upon their
observations of linguistic, cultural, and religious differences between their respective
inhabitants. The colony of Reverentia was located in the eastern half of the Thanatosian
Plains. The colony of Agnostica was located in the western half of the Thanatosian
Reverentia functioned as a manufacturing and urban trading centre. A large number of ethnic
Reverentians migrated to Agnostica, settling in East Agnostica and are known as Agnorevs.
Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of Reverentia (Respondent) were
established on 1 August 1925.
-The Marthite Convention2.
Within the territory of East Agnostica were the only areas in the world that contain
deposits of Marthite, a naturally-occurring mineral salt which was known to possess mildly
restorative properties Marthite has always been a core ingredient in Reverentian traditional
medicine but is virtually unknown outside the Thanatosian Plains.
On 14 April 1938, Agnostica and Reverentia concluded a bilateral treaty, called The
Marthite Convention. The facilities in East Agnostica produced between 200 and 250 tonnes
of Marthite per year, and the Reverentian Marthite Trust (RMT) sold the entire output to
traditional medicine practitioners in Reverentia and East Agnostica. In late 2011 it was found
that high doses of Marthite were over 90% effective in treating a broad range of previously
untreatable infant and early-childhood autoimmune disorders. RMT shifted its focus to the
international market, selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to
xvi
-PRELIMINARIESpharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under
the Marthite Convention.
3.
On 1st February 2012, Agnostican Prime Minister Maxine Moritz contacted the
President of Reverentia, Antonis Nuvallus, proposing to terminate the Marthite Convention

by mutual consent. The President of Reverentia did not agree to terminate the treaty. On 2nd
April 2012, Agnostica declared the 1938 Marthite Convention to be terminated and without
further effect. The Prime Minister also disclosed that Agnostica had agreed, once it was no
longer subject to the Convention, to lease all rights to the existing East Agnostican Marthite
facilities to Baxter Enterprises, Ltd. (Baxter). Following this, all the Reverentian Engineers
engaged at the facility were called back.
-Turmoil in East Agnostica4.
On 1st October 2012, the Agnostican Parliament passed the Marthite Control Act
(MCA), under which an Agnostican citizen possessing Marthite without a Government

license would be subject to a mandatory prison term of from 18 months to four years. On 23rd
November 2012, Gohandas Sugdy, a 19-year-old Agnorev miner, was found to be in
possession of two pocketfuls of Marthite, and was arrested and charged under the MCA. He
wanted the Marthite for his sick grandfather and later on committed suicide in prison cell
when he was unable to do so.
Hailing Mr. Sugdy as a martyr to the Reverentian cause, the leading East Agnostican
newspaper denounced the Marthite ban as denying Reverentians in Agnostica the fruits of
our own labour, the product of our own lands, and the lifeblood of our ancient traditions.
Through the remainder of 2012, demonstrations across East Agnostica increased in number,
frequency, and intensity.
xvii
-PRELIMINARIES5.
On 2nd January 2013, with clashes between the authorities and protesters continuing,
Mr. Bien, the Agnorev head of the East Agnostican, proposed a resolution before the
Agnostican Parliament, calling upon the Prime Minister to de-escalate the police and
military presence in East Agnostica. On 5 January 2013, Mr. Bien presented a resolution to
the Agnostican Parliament proposing the dissolution of the nation. This resolution was
defeated.
-Referendum on the question of secession6.
On 10th January 2013, the Reverentian Parliament adopted a resolution titled On the
Crisis in East Agnostic which dealt with the secession of East Agnostica from Agnostica.
The East Agnostican provincial parliament voted on 16 January 2013 to schedule a plebiscite
open to all Agnostican citizens resident in East Agnostica on the question of secession. On
29 January 2013, the plebiscite was held, and 73 percent of voters cast their ballots in favour
of secession. The next day, the members of Agnorev Peoples Parliament (APP), ratified
the secession of East Agnostica and voted unanimously to send a delegation headed by Mr.
Bien to enter into talks with Reverentia.
7.
On 6th February 2013, the President of the Security Council expressed concern over
what he termed the question of the continued territorial integrity of Agnostica, and the
possibility that recent events might constitute an unjustifiable and illegal interference in
Agnostican domestic affairs. On 18th February 2013, five of the largest international
pharmaceutical manufacturers jointly announced that they were suspending purchases of
Marthite until the legal status of East Agnostica and of the Marthite itself is conclusively
resolved.
8.
President Nuvallus announced on 22nd February 2013 that he and Mr. Bien had signed
an Integration Agreement that would make East Agnostica a semi-autonomous province of

xviii
-PRELIMINARIESReverentia, with the APP as its provincial legislature. Prime Minister Moritz denounced the
annexation.
-Dispute Settlement9.
Agnostica and Reverentia sent their Foreign Ministers to New York on 10th May
2013. Reverentia expressed willingness to submit the dispute over East Agnostica to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but Agnosticas Foreign Minister insisted
that it would agree only if the Court were seized also of the inextricably related disputes
over the Marthite Convention.
The parties subsequently negotiated and concluded this Special Agreement.
xix
-PRELIMINARIESSUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. Reverentian Parliament is responsible for passing the Resolution titled On the Crisis in East
Agnostica, accepting and ratifying the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica and
moving the Reverentian Army units into the territory of Agnostica. This act of Reverentia is
in breach of its international obligations with respect to territorial integrity of Agnostica and
the principle of non intervention. Agnostica is entitled to maintain its Territorial Integrity as it
respects the principle of self-determination. As matters relating to self determination fall in
the domain of the concerned State, Reverentias intervention in the domestic affairs of
Agnostica is prohibited under international law. Reverentia is also in breach of its obligations
of prohibition of use of indirect military force and for granting premature recognition to East
Agnostica despite Agnosticas denunciation of the plebiscite.
II. Secession and subsequent annexation of East Agnostica are illegal and without effect as there
is lack of state practice establishing a right to secession in international law. Agnorevs cannot
exercise external self-determination as Agnostica has respected the right of internal selfdetermination of Agnorevs. State practice and opinio juris in favour of ethnic groups seeking
secession has not been visible in the practice of states and therefore the secession of East
Agnostica and its subsequent annexation by Reverentia is illegal and without effect. Also, the
recognition of Statehood of East Agnostica by Reverentia and other states is a violation of
international law.
III. The Marthite Convention has ceased to be in effect as of April 2012, thereby giving validity
to Agnosticas agreement with Baxter International. Agnosticas invocation of the doctrine of
error, doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances is valid and the termination of the
Marthite Convention is lawful. In any case, it is Reverentia which has committed a material
xx
-PRELIMINARIESbreach of the convention by selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to
pharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under
the Marthite Convention after discovering the commercial significance of Marthite, thereby
giving Agnostica a right to claim termination of the said treaty as per the law of treaties.
IV. Reverentias removal of software at the Marthite extraction facilities is an apparent violation
of international law. The Marthite Convention itself states the right of Agnostica over the
facilities and Reverentia also breaches its obligations post termination of the treaty under the
Vienna Convention. The act claimed to be a counter measure by Reverentia is invalid as it
does not arise in response to an unlawful act by Agnostica and does not commensurate the
rule of proportionality in law of counter measures.
xxi
-MERITSPLEADINGS
I.
REVERENTIAS
ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE
AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL
INTEGRITY ,
EAST AGNOSTICAN REFERENDUM

PRINCIPLE
OF
VIOLATED
NON-INTERVENTION
AND THE
UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY.

A State entails responsibility when its acts or omissions constitute a breach of international
obligations1 and the breach is attributable to it.2 The support for the East Agnostican
Referendum (hereinafter, Referendum) is attributable to the Reverentian Parliament which
is a Reverentian State organ3 [A.]. The Reverentian Parliaments adoption of the
Resolution, On the crisis in East Agnostica (hereinafter, Resolution) recognising the
Referendum as valid4, its acceptance and ratification of the Integration Agreement annexing
East Agnostica,5 and its decision of the movement of Reverentian Army thereafter breached
Reverentias treaty obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law
(hereinafter, C.I.L.) obligations with respect to the territorial integrity of Agnostica and the
principle of non-intervention [B.].
1
I.L.C., Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA
U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001), art.1 [hereinafter A.R.S.I.W.A.]; Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project
(Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9) [hereinafter Gabcikovo]; Corfu Channel (U.K. v.
Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) [hereinafter Corfu Channel]; Chorzow Factory Case
(Germ. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A), No. 17 at 47 (Sept. 13) [hereinafter Chorzow];
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14
(June 27) [hereinafter Nicaragua].
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 2; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran
(U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16); Crawford, Revising the Draft Articles on State
Responsibility, 10 EUR. J. INT'L L. 435, 500 (1999); Allott, State Responsibility and the
Unmaking of International Law, 29 HARV. INT'L L. J. 1, 10 (1988); CRAWFORD, THE
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION'S ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY:
INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 210 (2002) [hereinafter CRAWFORD, STATE
RESPONSIBILITY).
3
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 4.
Compromis, 35.
Id., at 41.
-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT -
-MERITSA. SUPPORT
FOR THE
REFERENDUM
IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
REVERENTIAN
PARLIAMENT.
For a conduct to be internationally wrongful, it must be attributable to the State.6 The State
is an abstraction7, and can act only by and through its agents.8 The conduct of the organs of
the State,9 irrespective of its functions10 is attributable to the State.
1. Reverentian Parliament is a State Organ.
The International Law Commission (hereinafter, ILC) Articles11 define State organ as
any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.12
The reference to a State organ covers all the entities which make up the organization of the
State and act on its behalf13 exercising legislative, executive, and judicial or any other
function.14 Thus, the Reverentian Parliament, which exercises legislative function, is a State
organ of Reverentia.
CRAWFORD, STATE RESPONSIBILITY, supra note 2.
CRAWFORD, ALLAIN PELLET, SIMON OLLESON, THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY 237
(2010) [hereinafter CRAWFORD, PELLET & OLLESON].
8
Advisory Opinion No. 6, Settlers of German Origin in Poland, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 6
(Sept. 10); CRAWFORD, PELLET & OLLESON, supra note 7.
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 2, 12, 13; Crawford, Bodeau, I.L.C.'s Draft Articles on
State Responsibility: Towards Completion of a Second Reading, 94 AM. J. INTL L. 637, 660
(2000).
10
11
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1.
12
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 4, 2.
13
CRAWFORD, STATE RESPONSIBILITY, supra note 2.
14
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 4, 1.

-MERITS2. The Reverentian Parliament is responsible for passing the Resolution, accepting and
ratifying the Integration Agreement, annexing East Agnostica, and moving the
Reverentian Army units into the territory of Agnostica.
Judicial decisions,15 writings of publicists16 recognise the customary rule of a State being held
responsible for positive acts of legislation contravening international law. The Reverentian
Parliaments adoption of the Resolution, subsequent secession of East Agnostica,17 accepting
and ratifying the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica18 are legislations
contravening international law and are attributable to Reverentia. The decision to move
Reverentian Army into the territory of Agnostica19 is attributable to the Reverentian
Parliament.
15
German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. 19 (ser. A) No. 6
(Aug. 25); Advisory Opinion No. 23, Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of
Polish Origin or Speech in Danzig Territory, 1932 P.C.I.J. 4 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4);
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14).
16
EAGLETON, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL 66 (1928); Arechaga,

International Responsibility, MANUAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 545 (1968);
Borchard, Responsibility of States, 24 AM. J. INTL L. 517 (1930); CRAWFORD, PELLET &
OLLESON, supra note 7.
17
Compromis, 35.
18
Id., at 41.
19
Id.
-MERITSB. REVERENTIAS
OBLIGATIONS
SUPPORT FOR THE
UNDER
THE
REFERENDUM
UN CHARTER
AND
STANDS IN BREACH OF ITS TREATY
C.I.L.
WITH
RESPECT
TO
THE
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION.

There is a breach of an obligation when a conduct attributable to the State fails to comply
with the obligation incumbent upon it.20 Such failure may be in the form of a breach of a
treaty obligation or the breach of a principle of C.I.L.21 Reverentias support for the
Referendum breaches its treaty obligations under the UN Charter (hereinafter, U.N.C.) as
well as C.I.L. with respect to the territorial integrity of Agnostica and the principle of nonintervention.
1. Violation of the Territorial Integrity of Agnostica.
a. Reverentia has violated the principle of Territorial Integrity enshrined in the UN
Charter and C.I.L.
Territorial integrity and political independence are two core elements of Statehood.22
Territorial integrity refers to the territorial oneness of the State,23 making statehood the
basis of international law.24 Measures encouraging territorial separation are disruptive of the
international system .25 Reverentias support for the Referendum is aimed at the territorial
separation of Agnostica and is a violation of the territorial integrity of Agnostica. The
20
A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1.
21
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Den., F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 26
(Feb. 20) [hereinafter North Sea Continental Shelf]; S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), (Merits) 1927
P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 10 (Sept. 7) [hereinafter Lotus].
22
Samuel K.N. Blay, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, 9 MAX PLANCK
ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 860 (2012).
23
Id.
24
Ved P. Nanda, Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede,

13 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. 264 (1981).
25
Id.
-MERITSprinciples of territorial integrity and political independence of a State flow from the sovereign
equality of States26 enshrined in Article 2(1) of the U.N.C.27 The principles of territorial
integrity and political independence stated in Article 2(4) of the U.N.C.28 provide for the
external affirmation by the international community of the sovereignty of a State and the
legitimacy of the occupation and use of its territory free from outside external interference or
threat.29 The separation of East Agnostica solely lies with Agnostica. Reverentia has a duty to
respect the territorial integrity of Agnostica, the safeguard of which has been dogmatically
pleaded30 right from the inception of the U.N.C. till the Friendly Relations Declaration31, a
resolution which reflects C.I.L.32
Paragraph 5(7) of the Friendly Relations Declaration33 and Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on
Colonial Peoples34 considered as a document only slightly less sacred than the Charter,35 state
that every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the
26
BRUNO SIMMA, THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, A COMMENTARY 80 (2002).
27
U.N. CHARTER, art. 2, 1.
28
Id., at art. 2, 4.
29
Blay, supra note 22.
30
J. N. SAXENA, SELF DETERMINATION: FROM BIAFRA TO BANGLADESH 14 (1978).
31
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.
2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) [hereinafterF.R.D.].
32
Nicaragua, supra note 1, at 191-193.
33
F.R.D., supra note 31, 5(7).
34
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UNGA

Res. 1514 (XV), U.N. Doc. A/4684 (1960) [hereinafter Declaration on Colonial Peoples].
35
Rosenstock, The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly

Relations: A Survey, 65 AM. J. INT'L L. 713, 730 (1971).
-MERITSnational unity and territorial integrity of any other State.36 The Helsinki Final Act37 imposes
a duty to respect the territorial integrity of States and to refrain from actions inconsistent with
the principles of the U.N.C. Several UNGA Resolutions38 have called upon States to uphold
the sovereign equality of all States, and respect their territorial integrity.
The Reverentian Parliaments adaptation of the Resolution39 and the acceptance and
ratification of the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica40 was aimed at the
disruption of the territorial integrity of Agnostica. The subsequent movement of troops41 into
the Agnostican territory is a violation of Article 2(4)42 prohibiting threat or use of force
including direct and indirect military intervention which includes sending of troops.43 The
ban on the use of force prohibits third States from participating or providing direct or indirect
36
Declaration on Colonial Peoples, supra note 34, 6.
37
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292, art. 4 [hereinafter
Helsinki Final Act].
38
Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance, UNGA Res. 48/182, U.N. Doc.

A/RES/46/182 (1991) 3; Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and
Impeding the Exercise of the Rights of Peoples to Self-Determination, UNGA Res. 52/112,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/112 (1998); Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA
Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007), art. 46; Measures to Eliminate International
Terrorism, UNGA Res. 60/228, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60 (2005); Prevention of Armed
Conflict, UNGA Res. 57/337, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/337 (2003).
39
Compromis, 35.
40
Compromis, 5.
41
Compromis, 41.
42
43
Antonello Tancredi, Secession and Use of Force, SELF DETERMINATION

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 79 (2014) [hereinafter Tancredi].
AND
SECESSION
-MERITSmilitary assistance to secessionist groups in other States.44 Use of force directly or indirectly
corresponds to the notion of aggression enshrined in UNGA Res. 331445 encompassing
deployment of regular troops as well as involvement in their acts.46 Thus, the movement of
troops into the territory of Agnostica subsequent to the Referendum is a violation of Art. 2(4)
of the U.N.C.
b. Agnostica is entitled to maintain its Territorial Integrity as it respects the principle of
self-determination.
The legal right of self-determination47, widely recognized in the jurisprudence of the ICJ,48
allows a people to choose its own political status and determine its own form of economic,
cultural and social development.49 It exists within a framework of respect for the territorial
integrity of existing States.50 Territorial integrity and the principle of uti possitetis (being the
44
F.R.D., supra note 31; Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, UNGA Res.
2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/20/2131 (1965) [hereinafter Declaration on the
Inadmissibility of Intervention]; Tancredi, supra note 43, at 90.
45
Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974)
[hereinafter Aggression].
46
Id.
47
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on 16th December
1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407, art. 1 [hereinafter I.C.C.P.R.]; International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force on Jan. 3, 1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art.
1 [hereinafter I.C.E.S.C.R.]; BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 553
(2008).
48
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia
(South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16
(June 21) [hereinafter Namibia]; Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J.12 (Oct. 16); East Timor (Port.
v.Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 104 (June 30); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9).
49
I.C.C.P.R., supra note 47, art. 1.
50
Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217 (1998) (Can.), at 127 [hereinafter
Quebec].
-MERITSrespect for established colonial borders) impose limitations on self-determination. The

purpose of the latter is to protect territorial integrity and stability of independent States.51
International documents supporting the existence of peoples right to self-determination
contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of self determination
must be limited to prevent threats to an existing States territorial integrity.52 The Friendly
Relations Declaration,53 Vienna Declaration,54 Helsinki Final Act,55 and UNs Fiftieth
Anniversary Declaration56 state that self determination does not authorisation any action that
dismembers/impairs the territorial integrity of sovereign States which respect equal rights and
self-determination of peoples without distinction as to race, creed or colour/kind.57 The same
has found support among Judicial decisions.58
Agnostica has respected the self-determination of Agnorevs. 85% of Agnorevs remained in
Agnostica participating actively in the politics and economics of Agnostica. An Agnorev
51
Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22);
Land, Island and Maritime Dispute Case (El Sal. v. Hond.), (Merits) 1992 I.C.J. 351 (Sept.
11).
52
Quebec, supra note 50.
53
F.R.D., supra note 31, 5 (7).
54
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993), art. 2.
55
Helsinki Final Act, supra note 37, art.8.
56
Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res
50/6, U.N. Doc A/RES/50/6 (1995), 3(1).
57
Quebec, supra note 50, at 127.
58
Quebec, supra note 50, at 152; The Tatarstan Case, 1992 First Russian Constitutional
Court, 30:3 Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1994) 32, 41 (Mar.
13) (Russia); The Chechnya Case, 1995 Second Russian Constitutional Court, Decree No.
10-P, 31:5 Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1995) 48, 52 (July
31) (Russia).
-MERITShousehold earned 157% of the income of the average ethnic Agnostican family.59 The
Agnostican Constitution devolves control over cultural and education to the provinces60
giving Agnorevs a right to freely decide their cultural and educational affairs. The selfdetermination of Agnorevs is confirmed by the fact that the Agnostican Constitution
empowers the Federal Parliament to the dissolve the Union and gives its citizens the right to
freely choose their political system.61 Agnostica supported the Referendum, conducted it in
peaceful conditions62 showcasing that the Agnorevs enjoyed their right to self-determination.
c. The principle of territorial integrity provides a guarantee against dismemberment.
Territorial integrity provides a guarantee against dismemberment of the territory of a State.63
In cases of secession, the UN has called on States to respect the territorial integrity of the
existing State.64 UN Resolutions, even if not binding, sometimes have a normative value and
a series of resolutions often show an evolution of opinio juris.65 In the cases of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Comoros and Kosovo, among others, the international
community addressed all parties involved in the secessionist movements to respect the
territorial integrity of the States concerned and warned that any entity unilaterally declared in
59
Compromis, 7.
60
Compromis, 8.
61
Compromis, 8.
62
Compromis, 38.
63
CRAWFORD, CREATION
CRAWFORD].
OF
STATES
IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW 415 (2006) [hereinafter
64
Kohen, Introduction, SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES 7 (2006)

[hereinafter Kohen].
65
Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8) [hereinafter
Nuclear Weapons].
-MERITScontravention of the principle would not be recognised.66 The latest UNGA Res., Territorial
Integrity of Ukraine67 affirmed UNs commitment to Ukraines sovereignty, political
independence, and territorial integrity within its recognized borders.68 This underscored the
invalidity of the Crimean referendum dated 16.03.2014.69 By a vote of 100 to 11, with 58
abstentions, the UNGA called upon its members to refrain from actions aimed at disrupting
Ukraines territorial integrity.70 There is sufficient state practice71 and opinio juris72 in favour
of a C.I.L. which calls upon States to respect the territorial integrity of the existing State in
secessionist conflicts. Reverentias support for the Referendum is a failure on its part to
respect the territorial integrity of Agnostica.
66
UNSC Res. 787 (1992), U.N. Doc. S/RES/787 (1992), concerning Bosnia and
Herzegovina; For Georgia, UNSC Resolutions 971(1995), U.N. Doc. S/RES/971 (1995), 876
(1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/876 (1993); For Azerbaijan, UNSC Resolutions 882 (1993), U.N.
Doc. S/RES/882 (1993), 884 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993); For Kosovo, UNSC
Resolutions 1160 (1998), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1160 (1998), 1244 (1999), U.N. Doc.
S/RES/1244 (1999).
67
Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UNGA Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262 (2014)
[hereinafter Ukraine].
68
Id., at 1.
69
Id., at 5.
70
Id., at 2.
71
North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21; ANTHONY DAMATO, KIRSTEN ENGEL,
INTERNATIONAL LAW ANTHOLOGY 121 (1994).
72
North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21.

10
-MERITS2. Reverentia violated the Principle of Non-intervention by intervening in the domestic

affairs of Agnostica.
a. Intervention in domestic affairs of a State is prohibited.
C.I.L. prescribes a duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of other States73 and bestows
the right on every State to conduct its affairs without outside interference74 in matters which
international law recognises as being solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States.
75
Intervention in this connection means something less than aggression but more than mere
interference and much stronger that mediation or diplomatic suggestion.76 Prohibition of
interference is the corollary of every States right to sovereignty.77 To fall within the terms of
the prohibition, it must be in opposition to the will of the State affected and serve by design
to impair the political independence of that State.78 In the secession of Nagorna Karabakh,
Azerbaijan, the parent State condemned Armenian intentions of annexation of the region as
73
F.R.D., supra note 31, at 3(1); Declaration on Inadmissibility of Intervention, supra note
44, 1; L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, A TREATISE 305 (1955) [hereinafter
OPPENHEIM]; O'CONNELL, INTERNATIONAL LAW 299-300 (1965); Jimnez De Archaga,
International Law in the Past Third of a Century, 159 RECUEIL DES COURS 9 (1978); Philip
Kunig, Intervention, 6 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 289 (2012);
CHRISTIAN J TAMS AND JAMES SLON, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY
THE LNTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 317 (1958).
74
Corfu Channel, supra note 1; Nicaragua, supra note 1.
75
KELSEN, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 62-4 (1952); Preuss, Article 2, Paragraph

7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction, 74 RECUEIL DES
COURS 554 (1949); Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered
from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law, 92 RECUEIL DES COURS 61 (1957); Meinhard
Schroder, Principle of Non-intervention, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PUBLIC INTL. L. 619 (1984).
76
I.A. SHEARER, STARKES INTERNATIONAL LAW 94 (1994).
77
Nicaragua, supra note 1 at 205; OPPENHEIM, supra note 73, at 428.
78
HYDE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 69 (1947); Nicaragua, supra note 1, at 205.

11
-MERITSan unlawful interference in its affairs.79 Similar sentiments have been echoed by El
Salvador,80 Lebanon,81, Baathist Iraq82 and Central and South American countries.83 Thus,
Reverentias support for the Referendum interferes in the domestic affairs of Agnostica
designed to impair the territorial integrity of Agnostica.
b. Matters of secession fall within the domestic affairs of a State.
International law leaves the creation of a new State to the domain of the domestic law of the
existing State of which the seceding entity presently forms a part.84 The principle of nonintervention imposes on third States the obligation not to support any secessionist claims.85
People should freely determine their political status without any interference.86 Thus, the
interference in the internal affairs of States adversely affects the right of self-determination.87
Intervention by third States in secessions where a people has not been oppressed by the
79
OSCE, Interim Report of the CSCE Rapporteur Mission on the Situation in Nagorno
Karabakh,7-CSO/Journal No. 2, CSCE Doc. Annex 1, 4 (Feb. 1992).
80
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of El Salvador U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/14/Add.5, 17-22 II

Y.H.R.C. 241 (1983-4).
81
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Lebanon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.60 17-22 II Y.H.R.C.

211 (1983-4).
82
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Iraq, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/Add.3, 29-30 II Y.H.R.C. 191
(1987).
83
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/6/Add.3m 11-6 II Y.H.R.C.

11 (1981-2); UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.57, 11-6
Y.H.R.C. 213 (1981-2); UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Mexico, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/46/Add.3, 34-6 II H.R.C.O.R. 178 (1988-9).
84
Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 12 INTL COMP. L. Q 1051

(1963).
85
Kohen, supra note 64, at 11; OPPENHEIM, supra note 73, at 128.
86
JAMES SUMMER, PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL Law 34 (2007).
87
UNHRC, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (Right to Self-determination), The
Right to Self-determination of Peoples (1984), 6 [hereinafter General Comment No. 12].
12
-MERITSparent State is unlawful.88 Recognition of secessionist entities is premature89, meaning that

it is a violation of the principle of territorial integrity and non-intervention.90 The claim of
secession of Faroes from Denmark was treated as internal to Denmark.91 Thus, the secession
of East Agnostica is a matter solely within the domestic affairs of Agnostica and Reverentias
support for the Referendum and the pre-mature recognition of East Agnostica as a State
without the consent of Agnostica is an interference in the internal affairs of Agnostica.
c. Indirect military intervention falls under the prohibition of use of force.
Any direct or indirect military intervention carried out by third-party violates the territorial
integrity of another State.92 Ban on the use of force prohibits third States from providing
military assistance, directly or indirectly, to secessionist groups in other States93 including the
sending of troops.94 This corresponds to the notion of aggression enshrined in UNGA Res.
3314 (XXIX)95 which includes deployment of troops.96 Movement of troops into Agnostican
Territory by Reverentia, after the ratification of the Integration Agreement amounts to a use
88
SIMMA, supra note 26, at 61.
89
OPPENHEIM, supra note 73, at 128.
90
RAIC, STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 316-72 (2002).
91
A. Olafsson, International Status of the Faroe Islands, 51 NORDIC J.

(1982).
92
OF
INTL L. 29
U.N. CHARTER, art. 2(4); Tancredi, supra note 43, at 77.
93
F.R.D., supra note 31 at 1(10); Declaration on Inadmissibility of Intervention, supra note

44, at 2; Tancredi, supra note 43, at 90.
94
Tancredi, supra note 43, at 79.
95
Aggression, supra note 45.
96
Tancredi, supra note 43, at 80.

13
-MERITSof force and falls within the prohibition enshrined in Article 2(4) of the U.N.C..97 The
President of the UNSC also expressed concern over the question of the continued territorial
integrity of Agnostica and the possibility that recent events might constitute unjustifiable
and illegal interference in Agnostican domestic affairs.98
97
98
Compromis, 40.
14
-MERITSII.
THE
PURPORTED SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF
ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE

THE TERRITORY OF THE F EDERAL
EAST AGNOSTICA
EAST AGNOSTICA
ARE
REMAINS PART OF
REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA.
Secession and annexation of East Agnostica are illegal as there is a lack of state practice
establishing a right to secession in international law [A.]. Agnorevs cannot exercise external
self-determination as Agnostica has respected the right of internal self-determination of
Agnorevs [B.].
A. LACK OF STATE PRACTICE AND OPINIO JURIS ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO SECESSION.
For a right of secession to exist as a principle of C.I.L., state practice must be satisfied.99 The
requirements of a norm under C.I.L. are state practice and opinion juris.100 A right of
secession must be recognized through repetitious and uniform practice.101 This recognition
must include the understanding that such practice is required by international law. A new rule
of customary international law can be established within a short period of time so long as
there is extensive and uniform state practice.102 Thus, the behaviour of States can reveal the
existence of a right of secession.
99
Manley O. Hudson, Working Paper, Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law
Commission, 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N 24 (1950), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/16 [hereinafter
Hudson]; The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.S.C. Report, 677 (1900) (U.S.A.).
100
Statute of the International Court of Justice, entered into force on 26th June, 1945,
33 U.N.T.S. 993, art. 38 1; North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21; Asylum Case
(Colom. v. Peru), (Merits) 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20) [hereinafter Asylum]; M. N. SHAW,
INTERNATIONAL LAW 786, 68 (2008) [hereinafter SHAW].
101
Hudson, supra note 99, at 29; North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21.
102
Asylum, supra note 100.

15
-MERITS1. Customary behaviour of States fails to support a right of secession.

a. Practice of the League of Nations and United Nations.
In the Aaland Islands103 controversy, the League of Nations rejected a right of secession and
held that international law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to
separate themselves from the State.104 There is no right of secession stemming from the
concept of self-determination.105 United Nations Secretary- General U. Thant in 1970
asserted that the UN has never accepted the principle of secession.106
b. Patterns of State Behavior with respect to secession.
During the attempted secession of Katanga from Congo, the international community
responded negatively towards a right of secession.107 The UNSC declared that all secessionist
103
The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations
by the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106.
104
International Commission of Jurists, Report of the International Commission of Jurists

Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of giving an Advisory
Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, 1 LEAGUE OF NATIONS O.J.
Spec. Supp. 3, 5635 (1920).
105
LEE C. BUCHHEIT, SECESSION: THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF-DETERMINATION 89 (1978)

[hereinafter BUCHHEIT].
106
"As an international organization, the United Nations has never accepted and does not
accept and I do not believe it will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of [a]
Member State." UN Secretary-General U. Thant, Secretary-General's Press Conferences held
in Dakar,Senegal, U.N. MONTHLY CHRON. 34-38 (1970); UN Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 21, Right to Self-determination,
1996, U.N. Doc. A/51/18, annex VIII, 125, 6 (1996) (The Committee noted that
international law has not recognised a general right of peoples to declare secession from a
State unilaterally).
107
Lawrence S. Eastwood, Jr., Secession: State Practice And International Law After The
Dissolution Of The Soviet Union And Yugoslavia, 3 DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW 303 (1993) [hereinafter Lawrence].
16
-MERITSactivities conducted were contrary to the Congolese Constitution and UNSC decisions.108 In
Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire109, the African Commission upheld the territorial
integrity of Congo and held that the quest for independence of Katanga had no merit under
the African Charter.110
The international communitys response to Biafra's effort to secede from Nigeria highlights
an inconsistent pattern of state practice with respect to secession.111 Throughout the crisis, the
UN did not even consider the events in Nigeria.112 The OAU opposed the secession
recognizing the situation as an internal affair and reiterated their condemnation of
secession.113
In the case South Ossetia,114 UNSC affirmed territorial integrity of Georgia within its
internationally recognized borders.115
State practice has been hostile to secession as well as remedial secession.116 External selfdetermination was denied to Republika Srpska notwithstanding its proclamation of
108
UNSC Res. 169/1961, U.N. Doc. S/RES/169 (1961), 8.
109
Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire, Commn. No. 75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R. (2000)
A.H.R.L.R. 72 (8th Ann. Activity Rep.).
110
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force on Oct. 21, 1986, 567
U.N.T.S. 435 (A.C.H. P.R.).
111
Lawrence, supra note 107, at 308.
112
BUCHHEIT, supra note 105, at 168-69.
113
O.A.U. Resolution on Situation in Nigeria, AHG/Res.51 (IV) (1967).
114
Angelika Nuberger, South Ossetia, 9 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA

(2012).
115
OF INTL.
L. 487
UNSC Res. 1808 (2008), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1808 (2008).
116
Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-Determination, SECESSION, INTERNATIONAL

LAW PERSPECTIVES 27 (2006); SIMMA, supra note 26, at 36.
17
-MERITSindependence.117 Rights to secession of ethnic groups which were proven to be the victims of
severe human rights violations has not been recognised.118 Human rights violation may have
been censored; nonetheless, States underlined the territorial integrity of the mother State
exerting this violence.119 Chechnya is one such instance.120
International community has denounced the annexation of Crimea by Russia. UN has
affirmed its commitment to Ukraines territorial integrity.121 A number of States have not
recognized the illegal referendum in Crimea and have refused to recognise the illegal
annexation.122
Thus, state practice and opinio juris in favour of ethnic groups seeking secession has not been
visible in the practice of States.123 The secession of East Agnostica is illegal and without
effect as the right of secession is not available to a people under international law
117
Conference on Yugoslavia, 1992, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 2, 92 I.L.R. 167,

168-9 (Jan. 11).
118
Krueger, Implications of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia for International Law the
Conduct of the Community of States in Current Secession Conflicts, 3(2) CAUCASIAN REV.
INTL. AFF. 126 (2009).
119
FRAUKE METT, THE CONCEPT OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES 150

(2004).
120
Id.
121
Ukraine, supra note 67.
122
Id.
123
James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69

B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998) [hereinafter Crawford, State Practice]; CHRISTINE
GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 58 (2004); SHAW, supra note 100, at
444; GNANAPALA WELHENGAMA, MINORITIES CLAIMS, FROM AUTONOMY TO SECESSION
308, 312 (2000); Quebec, supra note 50, at 111.
18
-MERITS2. The subsequent annexation by Reverentia of East Agnostica is illegal.

Article 2(3) and (4) of the UN Charter124 oblige Member States to settle their international
dispute by peaceful means and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Thus, not
only war, but also the use of force in any form is regarded as an internationally wrongful act
from which no rights may be derived; consequently, annexations are illegal.125 Security
Council Resolution 242(1967) emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory
by war.126 Although not binding, Resolutions show how States interpret127 the prohibition of
use of force and its consequences.128 The territory of a State shall not be the object of
acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force.129 Territorial acquisition
resulting from the threat or use of force shall be illegal.130 This was confirmed by
development in connection with the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq.131 UNSC Resolution
662(1990) unanimously declared Iraqs annexation of Kuwait to be null and void and called
international community not to recognize the annexation.132 Thus, the annexation of East
124
U.N. CHARTER, arts. 2 3, 2 4.
125
Rainer Hoffman, Annexation, 1 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA

[hereinafter Hoffman].
126
UNSC Res. 242 (1967), U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (1967).
127
Nuclear Weapons, supra note 65, 71; Nicaragua, supra note 1.
128
Hoffman, supra note 125.
129
F.R.D., supra note 31, at 1(10).
OF INTL .
L. 411 (2012)
130
Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on 26th Dec., 1933, 165
U.N.T.S. 19, art. 11 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention]; Aggression, supra note 45, at
5(3); Helsinki Final Act, supra note 37, Principle I-IV.
131
Hoffman, supra note 125.
132
UNSC Resolution 662(1990), U.N. Doc. S/RES/662 (1990).

19
-MERITSAgnostica is illegal and without effect as the purported secession itself is not valid in law.
Further, the international community also issued communiqus describing the annexation of
East Agnostica as a threat to international peace and stability.133
3. The recognition of Statehood of East Agnostica by Reverentia and other States is a

violation of international law.
Acts contrary to international law cannot become a source of legal rights for the
wrongdoer.134 This applies to the creation of States and acquisition of territory.135 The
secession and annexation of East Agnostica have been brought about by the indirect use of
force which is prohibited under Art. 2(4) of the U.N.C.136 and is therefore an act contrary to
international law. States have a duty not to recognize such acts under customary international
law, in accordance with the general principles of law.137 The League of Nations had directed
its members not to recognise the puppet State of Manchuko which was created by invasion of
the Chinese province of Manchuria by Japan.138 Similarly, the UN had called upon members
not to recognise the statehood of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which was brought
about by the use of force by Turkey.139 Most recently, the UNGA called upon UN members
133
Compromis, 40.
134
LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 420 (1947);
135
John Dugard, The Secession of States and their Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo, 357
RECUEIL DES COURS 70 (2011) [hereinafter Dugard].
136
Nicaragua, supra note 1, at 187-201.
137
Namibia, supra note 48.
138
Special Assembly of the League of Nations, Resolution adopted on March 11, 1932, OFF.
J., Special Suppl. No. 101, 8.
139
UNSC Resolution 541(1983), U.N. Doc. S/RES/541 (1983); UNSC Resolution 550(1984),
U.N. Doc. S/RES/550 (1984).
20
-MERITSnot to recognise the secession and subsequent annexation of Crimea by Russia140 since Russia
illegally intervened in Ukraines domestic affairs and employed indirect military force to
bring about the secession. This is in consonance with this Courts Kosovo Advisory Opinion
wherein the Court held that declarations of independence brought about by acts contrary to
international law should not be recognised.141Reverentia violated international law by
recognising and supporting the secession of East Agnostica. The recognition of the new
borders of Reverentia by 30 other States including two permanent members of the Security
Council142 is without any effect as it is against their obligation to not recognise acts contrary
to international law.
B. AGNOSTICA HAS RESPECTED THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE TO SELF -DETERMINATION.
Self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self-determination.143
Outside the colonial context, the principle of self-determination is not recognised as giving
rise to secession by parts of independent States.144 Self-determination enables a people to
separate from a State only exceptionally, when the rights of the people are violated in a
massive way.145 Such a right to self determination cannot be exercised by peoples living in
Agnostica as it has respected their right of self-determination and has conducted itself in
140
Ukraine, supra note 67.
141
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in

Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22).
142
Clarifications to the Compromis, 7.
143
Quebec, supra note 50, at 126.
144
Crawford, State Practice, supra note 123, at 114; Thornberry, Self-Determination,

Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International Instruments, 38 INT'L & COMP. L.Q.
867 (1989).
145
F.R.D., supra note 31, at 5(7).

21
-MERITSconsistence with its obligations under the I.C.C.P.R.146 and I.C.E.R.D.147 Government by the
consent of the governed148 does not encompasses a right to opt out but a right to right to
participate through electoral processes within the framework of the State.149 Agnostica
provided the Agnorevs full participation in all decision making processes concerning their
political, cultural and social status as Agnostica has well-developed systems of civil rights
law that prohibit discrimination in employment, education, and public accommodation on
many grounds, including ethnic origin.150
146
I.C.C.P.R., supra note 47.
147
International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, entered into

force on 4th January 1969, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.
148
Lea Brilmayer, Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation, 16 YALE

J. INTL L. 185 (1991).
149
ANTONIO CASSESSE, SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL 116

(1995); General Comment No. 12, supra note 87, at 1.
.
150
Clarification to the Compromis, 4.
22
-MERITSIII.
THE MARTHITE CONVENTION

ANY EVENT,
CEASED TO BE IN FFFECT AS OF
2 APRIL 2012
AND , IN
AGNOSTICA DID NOT BREACH THE CONVENTION.
A treaty may be terminated or suspended in accordance with a specific provision in that

treaty, or otherwise at any time by the consent of all parties after consultation.151 An
implication of withdrawal or termination may be signalled by the nature of a treaty or the
parties admittance to such a possibility, may also be invoked by a State to terminate a
treaty.152 In terminating the Marthite Convention on 2 April 2012, Agnostica has invoked
principles of customary international law which allow for termination of a treaty in
corresponding circumstances. These are Doctrine of Error [A], Doctrine of fundamental
change of circumstances [B], and termination as a consequence of material breach of the
treaty [D]. In arguendo, the Lease Agreement between Baxter Enterprises and Agnostica
does not constitute a breach.
A. AGNOSTICAS TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL
INVOCATION OF THE
DOCTRINE OF ERROR.
A State may invoke an error in a treaty to invalidate its consent to be bound by the treaty, if
the error formed an essential basis of the consent of the State to be bound by the treaty and if
it relates to a fact which was assumed by that State to exist at the time when the treaty was
151
Arie E. David, The Strategy of Treaty Termination, 24 AM. J .COMP. L. 350 (1976); J.L.
BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS 256 (1955) [hereinafter BRIERLY]; HARASZTI, SOME
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE LAW OF TREATIES 229-425 (1973).
152
BRIERLY, supra note 151, at 331; Nicaragua, supra note 1.

23
-MERITSconcluded. The C.I.L. concerning error has been codified in the V.C.L.T.153 and has been
reflected in several cases.154
The error may lead to the nullity of the treaty if one can speak of an error de facto155 alleged
by the State to have existed at the moment the treaty was concluded and formed an essential
basis of its consent.156 Error, where it exists, is that it may affect the reality of the consent
supposed to have been given.157
The Marthite Convention was entered into out of respect for traditional Reverentian
medicine and its users. The error is related to the material fact that the mineral Marthite is
without significant commercial value outside its traditional uses158 for Agnostica and
Reverentia. The parties did not see any commercial value which formed a basis for
Agnosticas consent to be bound by the treaty for non- commercial usage of Marthite.
The ILC did not differentiate between unilateral and mutual error in international law.159
Art.48 applies to an error made by only one party no less than to a mutual error made by both
153
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980, 1155
U.N.T.S. 331, art. 48, 1.
154
Case Concerning Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser.
A/B) No. 53 (Apr. 5); Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand),
(Merits) 1962 I.C.J. Rep. 6 (June 15) [hereinafter Preah Vihear]; Case Concerning the
Adaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions 1925 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 11 (Mar.
26).
155
OPPENHEIM, supra note 73, at 342; LORD MCNAIR, LAW OF TREATIES 405-8 (1961).
156
BRIERLY, supra note 151, at 256.
157
Preah Vihear, supra note 154.
158
The Marthite Convention, entered into force on 14th April, 1938, Compromis (Annex),
Preamble [hereinafter Marthite Convention].
159
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INTL L. COMMN. (1966), 266 [hereinafter Report of the
I.L.C., 1966].
24
-MERITSor all the parties.160 In the present case, the error having been made on part of both the
parties, the lawful invocation of the Doctrine of Error gives Agnostica the right to terminate
the Marthite Convention.
B. AGNOSTICAS TERMINATION
INVOCATION OF THE
OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL
DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
Expectations of parties arising from a state of facts constitute the binding force of a treaty and
depend upon the continuance of that state of facts.161 In case of a substantial change of
events, the rule of rebus sic stantibus is invoked.162 This rule reflects the fiction that every
treaty tacitly implies a clause that presumes unchanged continuance of circumstances163. The
change in circumstances should be so essential that it marks the existence of a new order of
things164 which were not contemplated by the parties at the time of their agreement and which
render highly unreasonable a demand for performance in the face of newly emerged
expectations.165
160
Id.; J. Garner, The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination of Treaties, 21
AM. J. INT'L L. 409 (1927); SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES 193 (1984) [hereinafter SINCLAIR]; Gyorgy Haraszti, Treaties and Fundamental
Change of Circumstances, 146 RECUEIL DES COURS (1975) [hereinafter HARASZTI].
161
Poch De Caviedes, De la clause rebus sic stantibus la clause de rvision dans les
conventions internationals, 118 RECUEIL DES COURS 109-204 (1966).
162
HARASZTI, supra note 160,
163
Advisory Opinion No. 22, Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932
P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 46 (Aug. 19) [hereinafter Free Zones].
164
Case 162/96, A. Racke GmbH&Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 E.C.R. I-3655, 37057.
165
Gabkovo, supra note 1.

25
-MERITSRebuc stic stantibus has been recognized as a principle of C.I.L. by this Court166 and
subsequently been codified in the VCLT167
A treaty is concluded against the background of all kinds of circumstances.168 A fundamental
change in those circumstances entitles a party to seek its release from the treaty. The doctrine
of rebus sic stantibus rests upon the fact whether or not the fulfilment of a treaty after
occurrence of a change in the state of facts would be so injurious and burdensome to at least
one of the parties that such party has a right under the law of the right of necessity to
terminate the treaty.169 International law regards this doctrine as justifying the repudiation of
excessively burdensome obligations.170
The search for the intention of the parties, objectively defined, is the very aim of the process
set out in Articles 62 of the V.C.L.T.171 Those changes whose effect is to alter a circumstance
constituting an essential basis of the consent of the parties constitute fundamental changes of
circumstances.172 The P.C.I.J. gave expression to this (obvious but nonetheless important)
insight when it held, that no obligations ensuing from a treaty instrument can bind a State
without the States consent.173
166
Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25); Gabkovo, supra note 1.
167
V.C.L.T., supra note 153, art. 62.
168
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INTL L. COMMN. 59 (1982).
169
SINCLAIR, supra note 160; CAHEIR, ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERTO AGO 163 (1987).
170
MCNAIR, supra note 155, at 685; SINCLAIR, supra note 160, at 190.
171
LOWE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 74 (2007); AUST, MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE
216-17 (2013).
172
Report of the I.L.C. 1966, supra note 159, at 259.
173
Free Zones of Upper Savoy Case, supra note 162; Interpretation of the Statute of the
Memel Territory (U.K. v. Fr.), 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 49 (Aug. 11), at 313-14;
26
-MERITSIn Namibia, this Court referred to the primary necessity of interpreting an instrument in
accordance with the intentions of the parties.174 In, Aegean Sea,175 Gabcikovo-Nagymaros176,
Navigational Rights177, and Pulp Mills178, ICJ arrived at an evolutionary interpretation of the
instrument at issue specifically by stressing the importance, within the law of treaties, of the
intentions of the parties.
The Marthite convention in the introductory paragraph expressly recognizes that the Marthite
is of no significant commercial value outside its traditional uses179 upon recognition of which
the treaty is based. It was enacted to ensure reliable supply of Marthite to those for whom it
holds cultural significance in the situation where Marthite had little commercial value
otherwise. In such a situation, the State of Agnostica found it judicious to use Marthite (a
natural resource, over which it has complete sovereign entitlement) in the manner as provided
in the Marthite Convention. The Report of ILSA in late 2011 changed this fundamental
circumstance. Presently, the fundamental circumstances in the backdrop of which the
Marthite Convention was signed having changed; Agnostica has a right to terminate the
Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) (Bel. v. Neth.), 2005, 27
R.I.A.A. 35, 64.
174
Namibia, supra note 48, at 53; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria (Camr. v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea intervening), (Judgment) 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10).
175
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), 1978 I.C.J. 3 (Dec. 19), at 77.
176
Gabcikovo, supra note 1, at 142.
177
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nica.), (Judgment)
2009 I.C.J. 213 (July 13), at 63.
178
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Urg.), (Judgment) 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr. 20), at
204.
179
The Marthite Convention, supra note 158, Preamble.

27
-MERITSMarthite Convention in accordance with the Doctrine of Fundamental change of

Circumstances.
C. TERMINATION
MATERIAL
OF
THE
MARTHITE CONVENTION
OWING
TO
REVERENTIAS
BREACH.
Material breach by one party entitles the other party or parties to a treaty to invoke the breach
as the ground of suspension.180 V.C.L.T. states that a material breach of a treaty consists in
the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the
treaty.181 The definition of material breach mentioned in Article 60(3)(b) is a codification of
customary international law.182
1. Reverentias actions resulted in the breach of the object as enshrined in the preamble.
Preamble to a treaty, being of contextual and teleological significance, consists of a set of
recitals which assists in determining the object and purpose of the treaty as it is the normal
place where the parties embody an explicit statement to that effect.183 In the Rainbow
Warrior Case, France was held to have committed a material breach, by violating the object
of the 1986 New ZealandFrance Agreement.184
180
BROWNLIE, supra note 47, at 622.
181
V.C.L.T., supra note 153, art. 60, 3(b).
182
Appeal Related to the Jurisdiction of the I.C.A.O. Council (Ind. v. Pak), 1972 I.C.J. 3
(Aug. 18) [hereinafter I.C.A.O. Council].
183
O DRR AND K SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A

COMMENTARY 544 (2012).
184
Rainbow Warrior Affair (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1985/1986, R.I.A.A.1904 [hereinafter Rainbow

Warrior].
28
-MERITS2. Reverentia violated provisions which were integral for achieving the object of the treaty.
The object and purpose of a treaty cannot be a concept existing independently of any of its
terms.185 Marthite Convention states that RMT will distribute Marthite only to traditional
medicine practitioners in Reverentia and East Agnostica.186 But within weeks of publication
of an article by ILSA, that Marthite had mainstream medicinal uses, RMT shifted its focus to
the international market, selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to
pharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under
the Marthite Convention.187 This action is a breach of Reverentias commitment under the
Convention and this new arrangement caused serious concerns among the traditional users
that shortages and price increase would be inevitable.188
3. Agnosticas decision to terminate the Marthite Convention is justified as a reaction to
Reverentias material breach of the Marthite Convention.
A State claiming to be injured by the alleged violation may invoke the right to consider the
treaty or some of its provisions as suspended.189 Art.60(2)(b) of the V.C.L.T. authorizes a
party specially affected by the material breach of a multilateral treaty, to invoke the breach as
a ground for suspending the treaty in whole or in part between itself and the breaching
party.190 Art.60 of the V.C.L.T. codifies customary law, which stipulates that a material
185
Nicaragua, supra note 1; M GOMAA, SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF TREATIES ON

GROUNDS OF BREACH 32 (1996).
186
The Marthite Convention, supra note 158, art. 4, (a).
187
Compromis, 13.
188
Id.
189
I.C.A.O. Council, supra note 182.
190
M.D. EVANS, INTERNATIONAL LAW 196 (2010).

29
-MERITSbreach can be invoked as a ground for its suspension.191 Failure of a contracting State to
observe a material stipulation of its agreement is deemed to justify another party in taking a
step towards unilateral termination.192 As a consequence of commission of material breach of
the Marthite Convention, Agnostica is justified in terminating its obligations under the said
treaty.
191
Namibia, supra note 48; SHAW, supra note 100, at 948.
192
OPPENHEIM, supra note 73, at 947-948.

30
-MERITSIV.
REVERENTIAS
MARTHITE
EXTRACTION
FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Reverentia has violation international law by removing software at the Marthite extraction
facilities as it has breached of its general treaty obligations under the V.C.L.T. [A], C.I.L.
obligations relating to permanent sovereignty over natural resources [B], and of state
responsibility obligating Reverentia to make reparation in an adequate form to Agnostica [C].
A. REVERENTIAS HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER V.C.L.T.
As a consequence of termination of the Marthite Convention, the legal situation pertaining to
the ownership of software and mining facilities remains unchanged193 and Reverentia has
breached international law by violating this obligation.194 The arrangement regarding the
facilities and support systems to mine Marthite was agreed upon by Reverentia and Agnostica
and was further acknowledged in the Marthite Convention195. The Marthite Convention
acknowledged the payment of a sum of 100 Swiss francs by Agnostica to Reverentia to own
the Marthite mining and mining-support facilities within the territory of East Agnostica196.
The Marthite Convention only confers upon the State-owned RMT ownership of the Marthite
mined in Agnostican Facilities197 subject to other provisions198.
In accordance with Art. 70 (1) (b), the obligations of the parties to treaty do not end even with
the termination of the treaty. It provides that the same does not affect any right, obligation or
193
V.C.L.T., supra note 153, art. 70, 1(b).
194
195
The Marthite Convention, supra note 158, art. 2
196
Id.
197
Id., art. 3.
198
Id., art. 4.
31
-MERITSlegal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its
termination.199 Therefore, Reverentia is obligated under the V.C.L.T. to respect that
arrangement and the principle of good faith and the rule pacta sunt servanda must be applied.
Some treaties, for example, the E.C.H.R.,200 expressly provide that the denunciation of the
treaty shall not release the State from its obligations with respect to acts done during the
currency of the Convention. Similarly, when a treaty is about to be terminated or when a
party proposes to withdraw, the parties may consult together and regulate the termination or
withdrawal. Any such conditions provided for in the treaty or agreed upon by the parties must
prevail.201 Therefore the arrangement preceding the Marthite Convention in so far as the
ownership of the facilities is concerned prior to the termination must prevail.
B. REVERENTIAS
HAS BREACHED
C.I.L.
RELATING TO PERMANENT SOVEREIGNTY
OVER NATURAL RESOURCES.
Reverentias removal of software from the Marthite mining facilities is an infringement of

Agnosticas sovereignty over its natural resources. Every State is entitled to sovereign rights
over its natural resources.202 The customary law of permanent sovereignty over natural
resources is inclusive of correlated rights.203 International law has recognised natural
199
Fitzmaurice, First Report on the Law of Treaties, 1 Y.I.L.C 93-94 (1956); SINCLAIR,
supra note 160, at 211-2.
200
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as
amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, entered into force on 3rd Sept, 1963, E.T.S. 5 (1962).
201
Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INTL L. COMMN. 265 (1968).
202
I.C.C.P.R., supra note 47, art. 1, 2; I.C.E.S.C.R., supra note 1, art.1, 2; A.C.H.P.R.,
supra note 110, art.1, 3.
203
NICO SCHRIJVER, SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES (1997).

32
-MERITSresources;204 natural wealth and resources;205 natural resources on land within

international boundaries;206 natural resources for all economic activities;207 terrestrial and
marine natural resources and all economic activities for exploitation of such resources.208
This Court has acknowledged the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources
as customary international law in the Case Concerning the Armed Activities on the Territory
of Congo.209 These rights are more than simply exclusive rights,210 in the sense that their
scope must be extensively interpreted to include whatever powers are needed to ensure that
the State is enabled to enjoy its right in full.211 Therefore, Agnostica has the sovereign right
204
Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, UNGA Res. 1803 (XVII), U.N. Doc.
A/RES/ (1962); Right to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources, UNGA Res. 626
(VII), U.N. Doc. A/2361 (1952).
205
Right to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources, UNGA Res. 626 (VII), U.N. Doc.
A/2361 (1952).
206
Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources of Developing Countries, UNGA Res.

3016 (XXVII), U.N. Doc. A/3016 (1972).
207
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N. Doc.
A/29/3281(1972).
208
UNIDO, Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and

Cooperation (Mar. 12-26, 1975),
https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/media/images/1975Lima_Declaration_and_Plan_of_Action
_on_Industrial_Development_and_Cooperation_26.3.1975.pdf. (January 10, 2014, 12.45
A.M.).
209
Case Concerning Armed Activities of the Territory of Congo (Demr. Rep. of Congo v.
Ugd.), 2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19).
210
Right to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources, UNGA Res. 626 (VII), U.N. Doc.
A/2361 (1952).
211
Eduardo Jimenez De Arechaga, State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign

Owned Property, 11 N.Y.U.J.INT'L. L. & POLY. 179-80 (1978); Robin C.A.White,
Expropriation of the Libyan Oil Concessions-Two Conflicting International Arbitrations 30
INTL. COMP.L.Q. 11-12 (1981).
33
-MERITSover its natural resources and Reverentias action is a breach of its duty to respect its
obligation.
C. IN ARGUENDO, REVERENTIA
HAS BREACHED THE
LAW
OF
STATE RESPONSIBILITY
AND IS OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPARATION IN AN ADEQUATE FORM TO
AGNOSTICA.
Lawful countermeasures must be in response to a prior wrongful act and taken in light of
refusal to remedy it, directed against the State committing the wrongful act and must be
proportionate.212 In the absence of an internationally wrongful act by Agnostica,
Reverentias action of removal of software does not constitute a circumstance precluding
wrongfulness and in any case, the alleged countermeasure is invalid as it does not pass the
test of proportionality.
1. Reverentias removal of software does not constitute a valid countermeasure.
One of the circumstances precluding the wrongfulness of conduct that would otherwise not
be in conformity with the international obligations of the State concerned is the act being a
countermeasure in commensuration.213
Article 22 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility states that the wrongfulness of an act of
a State not in conformity with an international obligation to another State is precluded if and
to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter State in
212
213
A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 1, art. 22; AIR Service Agreement Case (France v. United
States), 1978, 18 R.I.A.A 306, 337; Naulilaa Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany), 1928, 2
R.I.A.A. 1025; Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. INTL L. COMMN. 59 (1982); O.Y ELAGAB, THE
LEGALITY OF NON-FOCIBLE COUNTERMEASURES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1988);
Gabkovo, supra note 1; Report of the Secretary General, Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts, Compilation of decisions of International Courts, Tribunals
and Other Bodies, U.N. Doc. A/62/62 and Corr.1 and Add.1 (2007).
34
-MERITSaccordance with chapter 2 of part 3. 214 Reverentias actions do not fulfil the requirement of
legal countermeasures as given in ILC Articles on State Responsibility.215
Article 49 lists three prerequisites which must be fulfilled by the State which is taking the
countermeasure.
Firstly, it must be taken in response to a previous international wrongful act of another State
and must be directed against that State in order to induce that State to comply with its
obligations.216
Secondly, the countermeasure should be limited to the non-performance for the time being of
international obligations of the State taking the measures towards the responsible State.217
Thirdly, a countermeasure shall be taken in such a way as to permit the resumption of
performance of the obligation in question.218
Reverentia does not fulfil any of the aforementioned conditions. Firstly, Agnostica has not
committed any international wrongful. It is Reverentia who has caused material breach of the
Marthite Convention and therefore, Reverentia has no right to resort to a counter measure.
Secondly, Reverentias actions are not limited to mere non-performance but have caused
grave damage to mining operations of Marthite.219 Thirdly, their actions have put undue
distress on resumption of performance.
214
A.R.I.S.W.A., supra note 1, art.22.
215
Id., arts. 49, 51, 52.
216
Id., art. 49(1).
217
Id., art. 49(2).
218
Id., art. 49(3).
219
Compromis, 21.
35
-MERITSThe determination whether a convention is or is not in force, and whether it has or has not
been properly suspended or denounced, is to be made pursuant to the law of treaties. An
evaluation of the extent to which the suspension or denunciation of a Convention, seen as
incompatible with the law of treaties, involves the responsibility of the State which proceeded
to it, is to be made under the law of State responsibility.220
The question as to the relationship between the rules of state responsibility and those relating
to the law of treaties arose in the Rainbow Warrior Arbitration.221 The Arbitral Tribunal
decided that the law relating to treaties was relevant, but that the legal consequences of a
breach of a treaty, including the determination of the circumstances that may exclude
wrongfulness and the appropriate remedies for breach, are subjects that belong to the law of
state responsibility.222
In Gabkovo, this Court held that a party can seek to be mitigated for the damage suffered
but that cannot be a ground to justify an otherwise wrongful act while holding that the actions
of Czechoslovakia was not a lawful counter measure because it was not proportionate.223
Therefore, Reverentias alleged countermeasure does not preclude Reverentias wrongfulness
as it does not fulfil conditions relating to resort to countermeasures.
220
221
Rainbow Warrior Affair, supra note 184.
222
Id., at 499, 551.
223
Id, at 45.
36
-MERITSCONCLUSION AND PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the Federal State of Agnostica, Applicant, respectfully requests the
Court to adjudge and declare that:
I.
Reverentias encouragement of the East Agnostican referendum violated Agnosticas

territorial integrity, the principle of non-intervention, and the United Nations Charter
generally;
II.
The purported secession and subsequent annexation of East Agnostica are illegal and
without effect, and therefore East Agnostica remains part of the territory of the
Federal Republic of Agnostica;
III.
The Marthite Convention ceased to be in effect as of 2 April 2012 and, in any event,
Agnostica did not breach the Convention;
IV.
Reverentias removal of the software at the Marthite extraction facilities violated

international law.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Agents for the Applicant
37

A2 Memo

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A2 Memo

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TEAM CODE: 669A

THE 2015 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND ANNEXATION OF EAST AGNOSTICA

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

EAST AGNOSTICAN REFERENDUM

AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY. ........................................................ 1

AND MOVING THE

IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PASSING THE

UNITS INTO THE TERRITORY OF

SUPPORT FOR THE

TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE

STANDS IN BREACH OF ITS

WITH RESPECT TO THE

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE

REMAINS PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE F EDERAL

REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA. ........ 15

ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO SECESSION.

OTHER STATES IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW .

B. AGNOSTICA HAS RESPECTED THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION. .. 21

THE MARTHITE CONVENTION CEASED TO BE IN FFFECT AS OF 2 APRIL 2012 AND,

AGNOSTICA DID NOT BREACH THE CONVENTION. ................................. 23

TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL

TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL

DOCTRINE OF ERROR. .................................................................. 23

DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ....... 25

VIOLATED PROVISIONS WHICH WERE INTEGRAL FOR ACHIEVING THE

OBJECT OF THE TREATY .

DECISION TO TERMINATE THE

REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE AT THE

FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. ................................................................ 31

A. REVERENTIAS HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE V.C.L.T. ................ 31

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

RELATING TO PERMANENT SOVEREIGNTY

OVER NATURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................... 32

HAS BREACHED THE

REPARATION IN AN ADEQUATE FORM TO AGNOSTICA. .. 34

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ............................................................................................ 37

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-PRELIMINARIESUNSC Res. 242 (1967), U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (1967) ........................................................... 19

-PRELIMINARIESLegal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-PRELIMINARIESU.N.R.I.A.A. & MISCELLANEOUS CASES

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

545 (1968) .................................................................................................................... 3

STATE RESPONSIBILITY 237

RESPONSIBILITY: INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 210 (2002) ..................... 1

312 (2000) .................................................................................................................. 18

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-PRELIMINARIESARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES

COURS (1975) ...................................................................................................................... 24

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

COURS 9 (1978) ................................................................................................................... 11

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-PRELIMINARIESVed P. Nanda, Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede, 13

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT-

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY , THE