Respondent Memorial

JUSTICE P.N.
BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016
TEAM CODE:
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS
GENERAL LIST NO
YEAR 2016
CASE CONCERNING RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF
DEMOCRATIC SETUP
6TH JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI

INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
2016
STATE OF SOREMON&
REPRESENTATIVES OF BOLR
STATE OF BOREMON
/
(THE APPLICANT STATES)
(THE RESPONDENT STATE)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS.X
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... XVI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1
1. The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which
protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State............................................ 1
1.1 Prohibition On Intervention .................................................................................................. 2
1.1.1
Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon ............ 2
1.1.2
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter ............................................................... 2
1.1.3
General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law ..................... 3
1.1.4
Security Council Resolution 1373 ............................................................................ 3
1.2
Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law ....................................... 3
1.2.1
Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States
1.2.2
Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States ....................................... 4
1.3
International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention ............................................ 4

II
1.4. Soremon has no International Legal Authority to Deploy Its Armed Forces in BoLR ........... 5
1.4.1. That intervention by Soremon is not authorized by the Security Council ...................... 5
1.4.1.1 That necessary measures had been taken by the Security Council ..................................... 6
1.5. That Self- Defence is not a Valid Exception in this Case .................................................... 6
2. The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including
ARSDB ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.
2.1.
State of Soremon has Violated the Principles Enshrined under ICCPR .......................... 8
2.2.
State Of Soremon has Violated Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, 1969
...8
2.3.
Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law .......................................... 9
The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all
rights and obligations ................................................................................................................. 10

4.
The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs Boremon and has illegally deployed its
Army in the BoLR region by violating international law ....................................................... 11

4.1 That the Intervention of the State of Soremon in the territory of Boremon is illegal ......... 11
4.2 That the State of Soremon Has No Stake In The Affairs Of Boremon ............................... 13
5. The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of
international law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation. 15
5.1. That State of Soremon Failed To Fulfill the Obligations under The U.N Resolution 47
.15
5.2 That Kamaal Khan Is Guilty of Sedition against the State of Boremon ............................. 16

III
6.That As Per The Agreements Signed By Both The States, The State Of Boremon Has
Fully Complied With The Provisions Of The Treaty By Holding Free And Fair Elections In
Bolr ............................................................................................................................................... 17
6.1 That Boremon has fulfilled all Its obligations Under The Agreement By Holding Free And
Fair Elections............................................................................................................................. 17
6.2 That The Elections Held In BoLR Region Were Free And Fair ......................................... 18
6.3 That The State of Soremon Obstructed The Conduct Of Free And Fair Elections ............. 18
7. The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international
law by deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations .................. 19
7.1 The State of Soremon Has Made Serious Human Rights Violations.................................. 19
7.2 The State of Soremon has Violated the Human Rights of the People of BoLR by
Interfering in the Democratic Process ....................................................................................... 20
7.3 The State of Soremon Denied The Right Of Self Determination to the people of Lola And
Ramola ...................................................................................................................................... 20
7.4 That the Migration of Khatoons to the BoLR Region was not given due attention by the
State of Soremon ....................................................................................................................... 21
7.5 That The State of Soremon Has Violated the Principle of Non -Refoulement . 21
PRAYER.XX

IV
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND CHARTERS

International Covenants on Human Rights, Common Article 1, December 16, 1966.
The United Nations Charter, 1945
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966
Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948.
The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up
in BoLR (ARSDB)
Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,1969
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933
ICJ Statute
Friendly Relations Declaration, 1970
RESOLUTIONS
GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of
Implementation, December 4, 1950, A/RES/421.
The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence
and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965). [hereinafter Res. 2131]

V
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: States to Refrain from
providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in
terrorist acts,eliminating the supply of weapons.: S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001).
The General Assembly Resolution 78, 1972 1 reads: To reiterate the principles of nonintervention as a means of ensuring peaceful coexistence among them and to refrain from
committing any direct or indirect act that might constitute a violation of those principle.
Doc No. CP/RES.78 (1972).[ Hereinafter Resolution 78]
UNSC Resolution 1267, The Council authorized an International Security Assistance
Force in to provide a secure environment for Political and Economic Reconstruction of
Afghanistan. Currently led by NATO forces, ISAF continues to fight Taliban Forces,
October 15, 1999, S/RES/1267.
UNSC Resolution 1244, Established the (UNMIK), authorizing an International Civil and
Military presence in Kosovo, June 10, 1999, S/RES/1244.
UN Security Council Resolution 1484, The Council authorized European Union forces to
end violence in Eastern Regions of DRC in 2003, May 30, 2003, S/RES/1484.
UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373.
General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October, 1970.
General Assembly resolution 44/146 (15 December 1989).
SC Res. 163 (XVI), Question Relating to Angola, June 9, 1961, S/4835 (1961).
GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of
Implementation, December 4, 1950, A/RES/421.

VI
CASES
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
The Nicaragua Case.
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49. [hereinafter Corfu
Channel Case]
BOOKS& ARTICLES
Jack Donnelly, .Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy:
Law, Morality and Politics,J Intl Aff. 37, 313 (1984).
Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed. 2005).
International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966).
Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive
Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 597-619 (2002).
ANTHONY CARTY, Intervention and the Limits of International Law in Political
Theory, International Relationsand the Ethics of Intervention, Political Theory,
International Relations And The Ethics Of Intervention 32(1993).
Rosalyn Higgins, Development Of International Law Through Political Organs Of United
Nations, (Vol. 2 Issue 2 1963)
H. Neuhold, Threat To The Peace, (1997).
D. Betlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a States Right of Self-Defense Against
an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, Am. U. Intl L. Rev. 106(3),
(2012).

VII
B.A. Wortley, The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries 185
(1965).
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, (1961)
T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law
L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, 8th Ed., pp.305.
Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The principle of Non-Intervention, the United nations and the
International System, Vol. 15, pp.212.
Dr S.K. Kapoor, International law and Human Rights, 16th Ed.
Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts (1954), pp.254.
The Responsibility to Protect. Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International
Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001:
Avery Davis-Roberts and David J. Carroll, Using International Law to Assess Elections,
Oxford University Press, 2012.
W. Michael Reisman, Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies, 18
Fordham Int. L.J. 794, 795 (1995).
Feller E. Tark, Refugee Protection In International Law, UNHCR Global Consultations
on International Protection, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures Determining the status of Refugees,
Geneva 1979.
Hathaway J.C, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University
Press, 2005.

VIII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The State of Soremon, representatives of BoLR and State of Boremon submit their dispute
concerning Right of Self-determination and establishment of democratic setup of BoLR to the
International Court of Justice by Special Agreement pursuant to article 40(1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice. The parties have agreed to the contents of the Compromis
submitted as part of the Special Agreement. The State of Soremon, representatives of BoLR and
State of Boremon have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with
article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.1
Article 40(1) - Cases are brought before the Court, as the case may be, either by the notification of the special
agreement or by a written application addressed to the Registrar. In either case the subject of the dispute and the
parties shall be indicated.

IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Soremon- An Introduction
Soremon was once a Golden Bird which was looted and plundered by the Great Kritish and
reduced to one third of its original pride. They gained Independence in 1947. Over the centuries,
there has been significant integration of Soreism and Bislam cultures across Soremon and the
Bismils have played a prominent role in Soremon's economic rise and cultural influence. Though
united by the cause of national freedom struggle movement, the believers of both these religions
were different in opinion and culture. This diversity along with the major religious differences
led to the unwanted and unwarranted unrest among both the factions which in turn led to some
violent activities from members of both factions.
The Divide
The concerns of these two great leaders who greatly contributed in the national freedom
movement paved a way to the larger disputes among these two factions both demanding a
separate nation. Upon the unprecedented violent activities and riots between these two factions,
high level talks between the two group leaders started which ultimately resulted in the Partition
of Soremon into two nations. By virtue of one of the bloodiest partition movement, The
Dominion of Boremon, largely consisting of Bismil Population was created on 14th August,
1947. The Partition of Soremon and Boremon is recorded as one of the bloodiest partitions in the
history of mankind. As a result of the partition, a choice was given to the people those were
living in both Soremon and Boremon regions to select their own countries. The World witnessed
a mass exodus and exchange of people from every region like never before in the history which
was also followed by brutal riots among both factions.

X
Independent States
The Lola and Ramola was initially a state in northern Soremon. It is located mostly in the great
Cheema Mountains, and shares a border with the states of HP and Dunjab to the south. The Great
King Tintumon had ascended the throne of the Lola and Ramola in 1925 and was the reigning
monarch at the conclusion of Kritish rule in the subcontinent in 1947. One of the conditions of
the partition of Soremon imposed by Great Kritain was that the rulers of princely states would
have the right to opt for either Soremon or Boremon or remain independent.
Lola and Ramola
Due to intense fighting over the state by both Soremon and Boremon, the United Nations
Military Observer Group in Soremon and Boremon (UNMOGSB) was deployed to supervise the
ceasefire between Soremon and Boremon. UNMOGIP's functions were to investigate complaints
of ceasefire violations and submit findings to each party and to the U.N. secretary-general. Under
the terms of the ceasefire, it was decided that both armies would withdraw and a plebiscite would
be held in Lola and Ramola to give their people the right to self-determination. Soremon
introduced a number of special provisions to ensure sufficient autonomy in L & R. The Lola and
Ramola became the only state in Soremon which enjoyed special autonomy under Article 370 of
the Constitution of Soremon. Subsequently, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Soremon over
Lola &Ramola has been extended
BoLR
Boremon occupied Lola &Ramola (BoLR) is a land consists of the so called 'Azad Lola
&Ramola(ALR)' and GillyBuket also popularly referred to as the 'Northern Areas'. BoLR is
part of the state of Lola &Ramola (L&R), and hence, Soremon considers it as an integral part of
Soremon. Soremon contends that BoLR has been under the illegitimate control of Boremon since

XI
October 22, 1947. Soremon succeeded in repulsing the invaders from the valley but, when the
Soremon army sought to clear the state of these lashkars, it was confronted with regulars from
the Boremon army. The matter was referred by Soremon to the United Nations in the hope of a
fair and legitimate solution, which would put an end to external aggression and armed
confrontation between the two states.Soremons part of L&R followed the democratic path as per
Article 370 of the Soremonian constitution while the area under Boremons occupation was
bifurcated into two - 'Azad Lola and Ramola' (ALR) and the 'Northern Areas', which consisted of
GillyBuket. . The leaders of ALR surrendered the Northern Areas to Boremon under the Timbey
Agreement of April 28, 1949. The 'Azad Lola &Ramola government was established in BoLR,
on October 24, 1947, which worked like a 'war council'.
Discontentment
The continuing subjugation by Boremon over the decades has led to an acute sense of alienation
amongst the people. The growing discontent has led groups to demand freedom from Boremon
control and abolition of the Interim Constitution. Furthermore, the people of the GillyBuket did
not enjoy the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights that people in the rest of Boremon
did. In March 1993, on being petitioned about the status of the Northern Areas, the ALR High
Court in its verdict took serious note of the unrepresentative and arbitrary administrative system
and denial of fundamental rights in the 'Northern Areas'. It directed the ALR government to
immediately assume charge of the region and asked the government of Boremon to assist the
ALR government in this task. The Boremon government appealed against this judgment in the
Supreme Court, which in its verdict on 14 September 1994, stated that: the Northern Areas are
part of Lola &Ramola state but are not part of "Azad Lola &Ramola" as defined in the Interim
Constitution Act, 1974. The demographic composition of the GillyBuket region of the

XII
BoLR,has undergone a sea change since 1947 as a result of a deliberate strategy of the Boremon
government to turn the original inhabitants of the region, mostly Shias, into a minority. The issue
of the large scale migration of Khatoons into BoLR has not been given its due attention by
Soremon and the international community. The Northern Light Infantry (NLI) deployed in the
Targil war by Boremon was originally made up of recruits from the region but has of late been
increasingly staffed by non-locals, as the local Shias are not trusted anymore. This shows the
level of prejudice against the very people belonging to the place.
Reports
The sectarian divide in BoLR is well-documented in an ICG, an NGOs report entitled,The
State of Sectarianism in Pakistan published in April 2005 which stated that the Shias in the
region were alienated by state's continued sponsorship of Sunni orthodoxy. The report reveals
how Mr. Fawad Khan, the Prime Minister of Boremon has manipulated sectarianism to settle
political scores with the another political party which was suspected to have some hold over the
local population. According to the report, riots claimed 700 lives. The International Media also
published reports which revealed that the Boremon has been draining BoLR of its resources over
decades and it is ironic that no benefits from these projects accrue to the local people. In 2013,
the World Human Rights Observatory, (WHRO) an acclaimed international organization,
published a full-fledged report in a global newspaper which stated:
Bad as the situation is in BoLR, it is infinitely worse in Gilly Buket, the people are kept in
poverty, illiteracy and backwardness the people of BoLR indeed are very unfortunate to be
living under the brutal regime of Boremon.

XIII
The Press
The Soremonian Prime Minister, Mr. MANO Shah convened a Press Conference to deal with the
growing discontentment in BoLR to which the Mr. Fawad Khan, the Boremonians Prime
Minister issued a Statement saying they would not hestitate to use the growing Nuclear power
that lies within their reserve.
Result of UN Intervention
Upon these developments, the UN Secretariat advised both the countries to remain calm as
aggressions wont help to reach at any diplomatic solution. By virtue of the UN Secretariats
mediation, both the countries decided to conclude The Agreement for the Right of SelfDetermination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR (ARSDB- See Annexure No.1) in
September, 2015 to which Boremon agreed that it shall release Mr. Kamaal Khan and provided
opportunity to the people of BoLR to establish a democracy which will be free from interference
from the State of Boremon and in turn, the State of Soremon shall not indulge in any deployment
of its forces in BoLR or Boremonian region. Elections were held in BoLR and Mr. ZakeerSakia,
the President of the Boremon United Mission was declared to have won the elections. Everything
was appearing normal and now in perfect order when, on November, 2015, the dead-body of Mr.
Kamaal Khan was found in come deserted regions of East Sufighanistan.
The Dispute
The Secretariat of the UN once again intervened in the matter to request both the parties to
resolve the matter peacefully. The negotiations were held between the Soremon, Boremon and
some representatives of BoLR region and filed an Application on December, 15th 2015,
invoking Article 36(2) of the Courts Statute

XIV
ISSUES RAISED
The State of Boremon has placed before this Honble Court, the following Questions for its
consideration:
A)
THE STATE
OF
SOREMON
HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
WHICH PROTECTS THE STATES FROM THE NON-INTERFERENCE OF ANY OTHER STATE
B) THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR AGREEMENT
INCLUDING ARSDB
C)
THE STATE
OF
BOREMON
IS FULLY SOVEREIGN EQUAL
STATE
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
POSSESSINGALL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

D)
THE
STATE OF
SOREMON
HAS NO STAKE IN THE AFFAIRS
BOREMON
AND HAS ILLEGALLY
DEPLOYEDITS ARMY IN THE BOLR REGION BY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW

E)
THE
ACTIONS OF THE
STATE
OF
BOREMON
ARE FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BASIC
PRINCIPLESOF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE UNITY AND
INTEGRITY IN THENATION.
F) AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY BOTH THE STATES, THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS FULLY
COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BY HOLDING FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN BOLR
G) THE STATE OF SOREMON HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION AND HAS BREACHED THE SPIRIT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DEPLOYING IS ARMY AND BY INDULGING IN SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS.
The Respondent has duly addressed all the aforementioned in the form of seven substantive
arguments advanced summarized under.

XV
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
a) The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which
protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State
The State of Soremon violated the primary principle of Non-Intervention and other different
resolutions of United Nations by interfering in the internal affairs of the State of Boremon.
Moreover, as a result of this gross negligence on the part of Soremon, historical precedents of
International Court of Justice have also been breached.
b) The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including
ARSDB
The State of Soremon has violated the treaty entered into by both the states by consistently
presenting a hostile front through deployment of forces. On the other hand, Boremon took
objectives of the treaty to heart and has adhered by them such as hosting of free and fair
elections, asking for deployment of troops so as to bring back a semblance of normalcy to the
people of BoLR. A host of other conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Law of treaties,
1969 and the principles of ICCPR have also been breached by the State of Soremon.
c) The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all
rights and obligations
The State of Boremon is a fully sovereign state possessing all the rights and obligations as
required of a state such as a defined territory, a permanent population, capacity to enter into
relations with other states and government.

XVI
d) The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs of Boremon and has illegally deployed
its Army in the BoLR region by violating international law
The State of Soremon has violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and 2131(xx) of
the General Assembly Resolution by interfering in the domestic affairs of Boremon and relying
upon the uncompromised principle of self defence.
e) The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of
International Law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation.
The State of Soremon violated UN Resolution No. 47 by shying away from plebiscite which they
initially supported. The conduct of the President of Gilly Buket United Movement, Mr. Kamaal
Khan was of seditious nature and the actions of the State of Boremon were necessary in order to
maintain the unity and integrity of the nation.
f) As per the agreements signed by both the States, the State of Boremon has fully complied
with the provisions of the treaty by holding free and fair elections in BoLR
As stated in the agreement, the State of Boremon fully complied with the provisions of the treaty
by holding free and fair elections in BoLR region and in conformity with UDHR principles. On
the other hand, Soremon had tried to hamper the electoral process by deliberately deploying its
troops so as to carry out its vested interests.
g) The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international
law by deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations.
The State of Soremon indulged in different human rights violations by deploying its armed
personnel in BoLR region and depriving the populi of their inherent right to self- determination.

XVII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THE STATE OF SOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
WHICH PROTECTS THE STATES FROM THE NON-INTERFERENCE OF ANY OTHER STATE
A pre-Charter definition described humanitarian intervention as reliance upon force for the
justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment that is so
arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the
sovereign is presumed to act with justice and reason.2In the instant case, the State of Soremon
was ready to undermine the highest order of any state i.e. of the Right of self-determination3 by
not withdrawing its troops from the BoLR constituency despite agreeing to the same in the
Agreement signed between both the nations. There was also the issue of refuges migrating from
the Soremon due to inadequate attention given by that Country.4 Therefore to trust them with the
responsibility of a state that they claim to be integral to them, will not solve the purpose as they
cannot keep their own people together, let alone handle another state which faces so much of
cultural diversity.
Humanitarian intervention is called for only in cases where there has been a material breach of
the treaty by one party. In the instant case, the State of Soremon cannot claim to have acted in
good faith because it violated the principle of Pacta Sun Servanda of the VCLT and failed to
uphold Article 8 of the ARSDB which invoked goodwill between the parties to each uphold their
end of the bargain.
Jack Donnelly, .Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law, Morality and
Politics,J Intl Aff. 37, 313 (1984).
3
GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4,
1950, A/RES/421.
4
Compromis 12.

1
1.1 Prohibition on Intervention

As a matter of law, Soremon claims that Boremon has acted in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter5, and of obligation erga omnes to refrain from the threat or use of force.
The principle of territorial integrity of states is well established and protected by a series of
consequential rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of states as
mentioned under the proviso of Article 2(7).6
Under International Law, Intervention is forcible or dictatorial interference by a state in the
affairs of another state, calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other
State7. Its prohibition is the corollary of every states right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and
political independence.8
1.1.1 Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon

Soremon has committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation including the
Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council.
1.1.1.1.Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter

It quotes with approval an observation by the International Law Commission to the effect that
the great majority of international lawyers today unhesitatingly hold that Article 2(4), together
with other provisions of the Charter, authoritatively declares the modern customary law
regarding the threat or use of force.9
The Charter, supra note 2, Article 2(4).

Id., Article 2(7).
7
Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed. 2005).
8
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June
27). [hereinafter the Nicaragua Case]
9
International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966).
6

2
1.1.1.2.General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law

In 1965, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention 10 in
which it declared that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state, and that consequently armed
intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of
state are condemned11. The Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Cooperation among States12, enunciated similar principles13.The Declaration states
that armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the
personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of
international law.14
1.1.1.3.Security Council Resolution (1373)
The Security Council resolution clearly states that states should not provide any form of support
to acts causing widespread panic and prevent people from planning or facilitating such attacks.15
1.2.
Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law
The State of Soremon has also committed breach of the recognized principles of customary
international law. Acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will
constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations.16
10
The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965).
[hereinafter Res. 2131]
11
Id.
12
Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 13.
13
Id.
14
Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L.
597-619 (2002).
15
The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: States to Refrain from providing any form of
support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,eliminating the supply of weapons.:
S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001).

3
1.2.1. Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States
The resolution reflects the customary law and makes a clear statement for states to strictly
observe the principle of non-intervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with a
peaceful coexistence. Para 117 and Para 318 of the resolution are relevant in the present case.
1.2.2. Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States

Article 819 of the convention deprives the state of any right to intervene in the internal or external
affairs of another State.
1.3.
International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention
The ICJ had denounced any claimed right to intervention in the 1949 Corfu Channel case20, in
which it held nonintervention to be a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of
States21 and a principle of customary international law. Similarly, in the Nicaragua case, relying
on the definition of intervention found in the Friendly Relations Declaration,22 the ICJ found that
the U.S. had violated international law, specifically by training, arming, equipping, financing and
supplying the Contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and
paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.23
16
The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23, at 289.

The General Assembly Resolution 78, 1972 Doc No. CP/RES.78 (1972).[ Hereinafter Resolution 78]
18
Id., 3.
19
Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States Art. 8. December 26, 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19 [Hereinafter
Montevideo Convention]
20
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49.
21
Anthony Carty, Intervention and the Limits of International Law in Political Theory, International Relations and
the Ethics of Intervention, Political Theory, International Relations and the Ethics of Intervention 32(1993).
22
Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 13.
23
The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23.
17

4
In Arguendo, even if there were some problems arising in BoLR, the state of Soremon had no
right to deploy its troops especially when the UN Secretariat had taken notice of the same.
1.4. Soremon has no International Legal Authority to Deploy Its Armed Forces in BoLR
1.4.1. That Intervention by Soremon is not authorized by the Security Council
It is to be noted that according to article 39 of the Charter, it is the prerogative of the Security
Council to determine the existence of any threat to peace or breach of peace, or act of aggression.
Accordingly, articles 41 and 42 prescribe what measures may be taken by the SC to maintain and
restore international peace and security. Therefore, in any emergent situation, SC continues to
assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force 24, as is evident from the
situations in Democratic Republic of Congo25, Afghanistan26 and Yugoslavia27. Authorization by
SC is an exception to the nonintervention principle, which encompasses a general prohibition
on armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the
personality of state28. In the Corfu Channel case29, the Court rejected any alleged right of
intervention as manifestation of a policy of force. According to the Nicaragua case30, direct
military action constitutes use of force and violates non intervention principle.
24
Rosalyn Higgins, Development Of International Law Through Political Organs Of United Nations, (Vol. 2 Issue 2
1963)
25
UN Security Council Resolution 1484, The Council authorized European Union forces to end violence in Eastern
Regions of DRC in 2003, May 30, 2003, S/RES/1484.
26
UNSC Resolution 1267, The Council authorized an International Security Assistance Force in to provide a secure
environment for Political and Economic Reconstruction of Afghanistan. Currently led by NATO forces, ISAF
continues to fight Taliban Forces, October 15, 1999, S/RES/1267.
27
UNSC Resolution 1244, Established the (UNMIK), authorizing an International Civil and Military presence in
Kosovo, June 10, 1999, S/RES/1244.
28
H. Neuhold, Threat to the Peace, (1997).
29
Corfu Channel Case, supra note 35.
30

5
1.4.2. That necessary measures had been taken by the Security Council
It may be pertinent to observe that following the requests from the Government of Soremon, the
UN Secretariat made both states reach a compromise that was encompassed in The Agreement
for the Right of Self-determination and to establish a Democratic set-up in BoLR
(ARSDB)31which dealt with the self-determination of the people of BoLR as well as the other
issues that were plaguing the state. Once a requisite measure had been taken by the Security
Council, intervention by Soremon suo motu was rendered unnecessary, lacking the requisite
international legal authority to deploy its forces in BoLR.
1.4.3. That Self- Defence is not a Valid Exception in this Case
If permissible action taken in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense also
involves a degree of intervention, that intervention is itself justified on grounds of self- defense32.
According to article 51, right to self-defense can only be invoked against an actual armed attack
on a member of the United Nations. The Court defined armed attack in the Nicaragua case33
In the view of the Court, this is to be understood as meaning not merely action by
regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a
State of armed bands on to the territory of another State, if such an operation,
because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack
had it been carried out by regular armed forces.34
This pre-requisite is not met in the present case, since there was no armed attack by Boremon
against BoLR.
31
Compromis 20.
D. Betlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a States Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual
Armed Attack by Non State Actors, Am. U. Intl L. Rev. 106(3), (2012).
33
34
Id.
32

6
2. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR AGREEMENT
INCLUDING ARSDB
The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty regarding human rights as has
been expounded in the above contention. The treaty that had been signed between Boremon and
Soremon, i.e. The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic
set up in BoLR in September, 201535 clearly stated that Boremon agreed to release Mr. Kamaal
Khan and provide an opportunity to establish a democratic set-up in BoLR and in turn asked
Soremon to not deploy its forces in the region of BoLR or in Boremon region.
The preamble of the Agreement clearly states that the self determination 36 of the people is of the
utmost importance and Boremon seeked to achieve that by the holding of free and fair elections
as it successfully managed to do so unlike Soremon that continuously presented a hostile front
when it did not deploy its forces from the region despite repeated attempts by Boremon to make
it happen. Boremon has also taken the other objectives of the treaty to heart and has adhered by
them such as hosting of free and fair elections, asking for deployment of troops so as to bring
back a semblance of normalcy to the people of BoLR.37
Article 1 of the ARSDB clearly states that that there is an obligation to maintain peace in the
territory of BoLR and maintain non-interference which Boremon categorically complied with at
the initiation of the Agreement.38 Article 2 states that the people of BoLR wished to attain selfdetermination which Boremon fulfilled by separating the states and holding free and fair
elections in the state which is also in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement. The only
35
Compromis 20.
Compromis Preamble of ARSDB
37
Ibid.
38
Compromis 20.
36

7
reason that Boremon entered the treaty so readily was because it wanted to help the people of
BoLR to resume their lives without the threat of forces and troops constantly becoming a routine
in the state.
The State of Boremon had just one condition when it signed the ARSDB as recorded in Article 5
that the State of Soremon shall deploy all its troops and not engage in further deployment of
troops in the region. But the State of Soremon failed to keep its end of the bargain by resorting to
underhand the terms made. 200 of the 600 troops remained stationed at the foot of the BoLR
hills waiting for the Soremonian governments orders to attack.39 This was not an upkeep of its
end of the bargain. Soremon has failed to uphold the Agreement signed by both states and are
also bound by the same as also stated in Article 8 of the ARSDB.
2.1.State of Soremon has Violated the Principles Enshrined under ICCPR
The State of Soremon has violated the principles recognized by the United Nations through its
treaty provisions namely International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.40 This states that
promotion of self-determination is the right of every state and its people41
2.2.State Of Soremon has Violated Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, 1969
Soremon, by not abiding the provisions of the treaty concluded between the States of Boremon
and Soremon, has violated the VCLT, 1969. The sanctity of contractual arrangement is
expressed in the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, whose rationale is that the parties to the treaty
are bound to respect it in good faith.42 Also, Article 2643 the Vienna Convention on Law of
Treaties stipulates the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. The treaty was binding upon the parties
39
Ibid
Article 1(3)
41
In conformity with the Charter of the United Nations also.
42
B.A. Wortley, The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries 185 (1965).
43
VCLT, supra note 18, at Article 26 reads: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be
performed by them in good faith.
40

8
to it44 and must have been performed in good faith. The State of Soremon breached the said
principle of Pacta Sunt Servandawhich is of high value in International Law45thus effectively
violating the Vienna convention.
2.3.Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law

The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law and is based
on the principle of sovereignty of the states.46 International law prohibits intervention in conflict
with civil war like characteristics within another country and the organization, supports
incitement to subversive, terrorist or armed activities intended to lead to overthrowing power
relationships.47 The state of Boremon claims for the mentioned violations of customary laws.
2.4.Breaches of UN Recognized Principles
The state of Soremon has committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation
including the Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council. Article
2(4) of the Charter authoritatively declares modern customary law regarding threat or use of
force48. Security Council Resolution 137349 and General Assembly Resolution 262550 constitute
subsequent practice for interpreting UN Charter provisions51.
2.4.1.1.Breach of other Customary principles of International law
44
Article 8 of ARSBD.
Compromis 20.
46
The Charter, supra note 2.
47
The DARIO, supra note 5.
48
The Charter, supra note 2, Art. 2(4).
49
UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, September 28,
2001, S/RES/1373.
50
Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 12, : The Resolution provides the state to respect territorial integrity of
a state and provides the states from refraining itself from any of the acts which may breach the territorial integrity
of the other state.
51
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 31(3) (b) reads: Any subsequent practice in the application of
the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S.
331. [hereinafter VCLT]
45

9
The state of Soremon committed breaches of the recognized principles of customary

international law. 1 and 3 of the Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations makes a clear statement for states to strictly observe the principle of nonintervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with an obligation not to support or
promote any armed activities against another state.
3. THE STATE
OF
BOREMON
IS FULLY SOVEREIGN EQUAL
STATE
IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
POSSESSING ALL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Boremon is a Sovereign state
under International Law which like the other States possess equal rights and is under similar
obligations as others. In the present case, the legal status of the State of Boremon has not been
challenged by the State of Soremon thus acknowledging its statehood.
State has been defined as a community of people which has been established for some objectives
such as internal order and external security.52 In the view of a renowned Jurist Lawrence, State is
a society which is politically organized and its members are bound with each other by being
under some central authority and most of the people automatically follow the rules of this central
authority.53 Oppenheim states that the existence of State is possible only when people of State
have settled under highest government authority and habitually follows its orders.54
According to Article 1 of Montevideo Declaration, 1933, State as a person of International Law
should possess the following qualifications:
52
H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, (1961), pp.216.

T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law, pp.48.
5454
L. Oppenheim, International Law, pp.216.
53

10
(a) A permanent population;

(b) A defined territory;
(c) A Government and
(d) Capacity to enter into relations with other States.
The facts of the present case clearly fulfill all the essentials as are required to be a state.
Apart from fulfilling the essential elements of a State, the State of Boremon is a sovereign state.
4. THE
STATE OF
SOREMON HAS
NO STAKE IN THE AFFAIRS
BOREMON
AND HAS ILLEGALLY
DEPLOYED ITS ARMY IN THE BOLR REGION BY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Soremon has violated
different principles of International Law by illegally deploying its army in the BoLR region and
nonchalantly staking its interest in the affairs of Boremon. This has consequently resulted into a
breach of an Agreement for Right of Self Determination (ARDSB) signed on 16th of September,
2015 between the State of Soremon and the State of Boremon.
4.1 That the Intervention of the State of Soremon in the territory of Boremon is illegal
The word intervention has been defined as dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of
another State for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of thing. 55 In
principle, International law prohibits intervention. The prohibition of intervention is the corollary
of every States right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. 56 The
55
L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, 8th Ed., pp.305.

Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The principle of Non-Intervention, the United nations and the International System,
Vol. 15, pp.212.
56

11
principle of non-intervention by States has been propounded in Article 2(4) of the United
Nations Charter. Article 2(4) states:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use
of force, against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or
in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
This principle has been reaffirmed by the General Assembly through its resolution 2131 (xx) of
December 196557. Moreover in 1970, General Assembly adopted unanimously a resolution
entitled Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and
Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the U.N. As regards to nonintervention the resolution58 stated:
No State or group of States has the right to intervene directly or indirectly for
any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.
It is to be considered that the principles of the Charter which are embodied constitute basic
principles of International Law and appeal to all States, including the on-members, to be guided
by those principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the
basis of the strict observance of these principles.59
In the present case, it is clearly stated that the State of Soremon and State of Boremon are
members of the United Nations and are parties to the United Nations Charter and other UN
conventions.60 Therefore, it was expected of Soremon to adhere to the principles and conventions
relating to non-intervention stated above and not to indulge in any kind of excesses.
Unfortunately the Prime Minister of Soremon interpreted the above situation in an altogether
57
Dr S.K. Kapoor, International law and Human Rights, 16th Ed., pp.183.
General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October, 1970.
59
Prof. Louis B. John The development of the Charter of the United Nations: The Present State in the Present State
of International Law and other Essay (1973), pp.50.
60
Compromis 23
58

12
different way and instead accused the State of Boremon of violating the ARDSB treaty and
International Customary Law.61 It was a purely internal matter as it is clearly stated in the facts
that region of BoLR is a part of the State of Boremon and functions under its strict control62 of
which Boremon had a primary right to preliminary investigation and enquiry as regard to the
post-mortem and other legal hassles relating to Mr. Kamaal Khan- the President of the Gilly
Buket United Movement (GBUM) whose body was found in the deserted regions of East
Sufighanistan.63 The intentions of foul play were clearly visible when considerable number of
troops was deployed on the hills of BoLR by Soremonian Government on the pretext that they
would act as a watchdog in the smooth conduct of free and fair elections and till a new
government comes to power. Elections being a purely internal matter of the State of Boremon
were deliberately entrenched by Soremon so as to fulfil their own interests by illegally occupying
the territory of BoLR which is a part of Boremon.
4.2 That the State of Soremon Has No Stake In The Affairs Of Boremon
With the coming into force of the Charter of the United Nations, certain revolutionary changes
have arisen regarding the valid ground of intervention. The prime amongst them is the right of
self defence. In the famous case of The Caroline64 the court declared:
The necessity of self defence should be instant, overwhelming and leaving no
choice of means and no moment of deliberation.
The above test has been given legal recognition by United Nations Charter under Article 51.65
Article 51 provides:
61
Compromis 21
Compromis 11
63
Compromis 21
64
ICJ Rep. (1949), pp.4.
65
Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts, pp.244.
62

13
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or
collective self-defence if an attack occurs against a member of the United
Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures to maintain
international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this
right shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any
way effect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the
present Charter to take at any time action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security.
In the present case, before the Security Council could have taken any measures for maintaining
international peace and security, the State of Soremon deployed military so as to garner control
over BoLR in the garb of violation of International Law. In reality, there was no urgency in the
situation required on part of Soremon as the said issue was an internal issue of Boremon which
could have been handled efficiently by their Government. Moreover, the State of Boremon was
in no way on the offense and Soremon could not in any way have pleaded self defence.
In a case titled Military and Para Military Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
U.S.,)66 the International Court of Justice unanimously held that:
U.S. should immediately refrain and cease from any action restricting blocking
or endangering access to or from Nicaragua ports, and in particular the laying of
mines. The Court further held that the right to sovereignty and to political
independence possessed by Nicaragua, like any other State of the region or of the
66
I.C.J. Rep. (1984), pp.169.

14
world should be fully respected and should not in any way jeopardized by any
military and para-military activities which are prohibited by the principles of
International Law.
Another ground on which intervention is sometimes permitted is on humanitarian grounds. After

coming into force of United Nations Charter, the United Nations has done commendable work in
the field of human rights. If at all intervention is permitted on humanitarian grounds, it may be
done only by the United Nations. The UN Charter does not authorize any State to intervene in
the affairs of any other member State. In the present case, even this was not followed by the State
of Soremon before deploying its army in the territory of Boremon.67
5. THE
ACTIONS OF THE
STATE
OF
BOREMON
ARE FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BASIC
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE UNITY AND
INTEGRITY IN THE NATION.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the actions which were conducted by the
State of Boremon were in complete compliance with the basic principles of International law and
were imperative to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation.
5.1. That State of Soremon Failed To Fulfill the Obligations under the U.N Resolution 47
The term resolution as used in UN practice has a generic sense, including recommendations
and decisions, both of which have a vague and variable meaning in the Charter. 68 The Court, on
67
Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts (1954), pp.254.

J Castaeda, Legal Effects of UN Resolutions (1969), at 14; Johnson, The Effect of Resolutions of the General
Assembly of the United Nations, 32 British Year Book of Intl L (195556) 97, at 107108.
68

15
the other hand, reserves the expression decision for binding resolutions and recommendation
for non-binding ones.69 A resolution is binding when it is capable of creating obligations on its
addressee(s).70 In the instant case, the resolutions that have been created under Chapter VI of the
UN have a purpose i.e. to solve the Azad Lola and Ramola issue. It creates an obligation upon
the parties as is evidently stated in Para 72 of the resolution to solve the ongoing crisis.
It is to be noted that the holding of the plebiscite was the mandate of the U.N resolution which
was initially supported71 but later dismissed by Soremon, thereby denying the right of selfdetermination to the people of Lola and Ramola.
Further, it was Soremon who approached the U.N72 but later refused to comply with the
directions made by the U.N. and since the Soremenian army is deployed in Soremonian occupied
Lola and Ramola and that region is governed by Soremon, it is nothing but necessary for
Boremon to deploy its troops in the BoLR region and administer the region by means of a
democratic set up.
5.2 That Kamaal Khan Is Guilty of Sedition against the State of Boremon
Most humbly the respondents contend that Mr. Kamaal Khan is guilty of the offence of sedition
under the Pakistan Penal Code and has also violated the AJK Constitution Act. Section 124A of
the Pakistan Penal Code makes sedition a punishable offence and the statements made by
Kamaal Khan73 are clerarly seditious. Mr. Kamaal Khan made the following statement:
69
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter) [1962] ICJ Rep 151, at 163
(hereinafter Certain Expenses) (ICJ decisions are available at http://www.icj-cij.org), with analysis by Basak, supra
note 1, at 80, 144
70
Since the ICJ has found recommendations to have certain legal effects that nonetheless do not amount to those of
decisions, I prefer a less inclusive definition of binding than Castaeda, supra note 3, at 2021.
71
Compromis 6.
72
Compromis 9.
73
Compromis 16.

16
It is high time that the people of the BoLR must either join the Soremon Union or
self-proclaim independence as self-determination is their basic fundamental
internally recognized right.
Thus, he was arrested by the State of Boremon as he had made a seditious statement and was
inciting people against the Boremonian state. The action to arrest and detain the said individual is
in accordance with the laws of the land. No sovereign state would allow itself to be slandered in
the eyes of the populi of the nation.
6. THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY BOTH THE STATES, THE STATE OF BOREMON
HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BY HOLDING FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS IN BOLR
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Boremon has fully complied
with the ARSDB by holding free and fair elections in the state of BoLR.
6.1 That Boremon has fulfilled all its obligations Under the Agreement by Holding
Free and Fair Elections
Article 4 of the ARSDB creates an obligation on the State of Boremon to conduct free and fair
elections.74 The Preamble to the ARSDB states the significance of the notion of democracy. The
respondent hereby avers that the State of Boremon has been successful in conducting free and
fair elections in BoLR and there is no evidence to the contrary. It is further contended by the
respondents that the State of Soremon has vested interest in the BoLR region and they intend to
create unrest in the BoLR region by deploying their military.
74
Article 4, The Agreement for the Right of Self Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR.

17
6.2 That the Elections Held In BoLR Region Were Free And Fair
The 1989 resolution of the General Assembly declares that determining the will of the people
requires an electoral process that provides an equal opportunity for all citizens to become
candidates and put forward their political views individually and in cooperation with others
within the constitutional and national legislation.75
It is to be noted that the elections were held in October, 2015 and Mr. Zakeer Sakia was declared
to have won the elections without any protest.76 Further everything was appearing normal and in
perfect order until the dead body of Mr. Kamaal Khan was found in East Sufghanistan.77 The
respondents aver that under the pretext of the death of Kamaal Khan, the Soremon leadership
deployed their army in the BoLR region without making any enquiry, the very next day.78
6.3 That the State of Soremon Obstructed the Conduct Of Free And Fair Elections
Article 21 of the UDHR gives equal right to everyone to take part in the government of his
country based on the principle of universal and equal suffrage and secret voting.79 Further
democracy has become a norm and almost a moral value in the world, and the military
intervention dilutes the process of free and fair elections.80 The right to security of the person
includes not only protection from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile,81 but in the context of the
electoral process, includes the protection of voters, candidates and their agents, poll workers, and
75
General Assembly resolution 44/146 (15 December 1989).

Compromis 21.
77
Compromis 21.
78
Compromis 21.
79
Article 21 (3), Universal Declaration on Human Rights. [hereinafter referred to as UDHR]
80
The Responsibility To Protect. Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001:
81
UDHR, Arts.3 and 9; ICCPR, Art. 9; ICERD, Art. 5; ACHPR, Art. 6; ACHR, Arts. 7(1) and 7(3); CIS, Art 5(1);
ECHR, Art. 5
76

18
domestic and international observers from interference, coercion or intimidation.82 In this sense,
security of the person includes not only the protection of the physical person, but also protection
of their mental state.83
It is to be noted that the State of Soremon did not adhere to the provisions of the ARSDB and
ordered 200 members of its army to remain in BoLR84, thereby trying to subvert the election
process. It is hereby contended that the Soremonian army was deployed with an intention to
create an impact in the minds of voters.
7. THE STATE
OF
SOREMON
HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION AND HAS BREACHED THE SPIRIT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DEPLOYING IS
ARMY AND BY INDULGING IN SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS
It is humbly submitted before the honorable court the State of Soremon has indulged in several
Human Rights Violations by breaching the spirit of International Law from time to time and by
illegally deploying its army in the territory of Boremon.
7.1 The State of Soremon Has Made Serious Human Rights Violations
The Respondent hereby avers that the State of Soremon has violated the human rights of the
people by not letting the people of BoLR to exercise their right of self-determination and by
interfering in internal democratic process. Also, Soremon conveniently neglected the issue of
Khatoon migration who feared persecution.
82
UNHRC, General Comment 25, para 11

Avery Davis-Roberts and David J. Carroll, Using International Law to Assess Elections, Oxford University Press,
2012.
84
Compromis 20.
83

19
7.2 The State of Soremon has violated the Human Rights of the People of BoLR by
Interfering in the Democratic Process
The respondent hereby contends that that State of Soremon has vested interest in the region and
in furtherance of its intention to disrupt the electoral process of the region, they have not
complied with the mandate of the ARSDB. The State of Soremon did not remove one-third of
their members of the troop and later decided to call back all their troops thereby rejecting the
electoral mandate of the people of BoLR.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the will of the people as the basis of the
authority of government, when the right to democratic government is violated, all the other
human rights that depend on the lawful institutions of government become matters for the
discretion of dictators. Violations of the right to popular government are not secondary or less
important. They are very, very serious human rights violations.85
7.3 The State of Soremon Denied the Right Of Self Determination to the people of
Lola And Ramola
Soremon tried to snatch away the right of self-determination from the people of Lola and Ramola
and has dismissed the holding of plebiscite86 as required under the U.N resolution.
Self-determination is the right of peoples to freely determine their political status and freely
pursue their economic, social and cultural development87. The UN Charter88 recognizes this
right as a prerequisite to enjoyment of other rights. The Security Councils work relating to non85
W. Michael Reisman, Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies, 18 Fordham Int. L.J. 794, 795
(1995).
86
Compromis 6.
87
International Covenants on Human Rights, Common Article 1, December 16, 1966, U.N.T.S., vol. 999.
88
Arts.1(2), 55, 73(b) and76(b) of the United Nations Charter, 1945.

20
self-governing territories89 and the General Assemblys recognition90 of self-determination

reaffirm this principle.
7.4 That the Migration of Khatoons to the BoLR Region was not given due attention
by the State of Soremon
The Khatoons community migrated to the BoLR region in large scale when they feared
persecution and the issue was not given its due attention by the State of Soremon.91 It is
contended that the Khatoons are internally displaced person who were made to flee into the
BoLR region which itself is in a state of turmoil. Internally displaced persons are defined in the
12998 guiding principles on internal displacement as perosns or groups of persons who have
been forced or obliged to flee or lto leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in
particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized
violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not
crossed an internationally recognized State border.92
7.5 That the State of Soremon has violated the Principle of Non-Refoulement
The obligation exists under Article 33 of the1951 Refugee CoThe obligation exists under Article
33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention not to return a refugee to a country of territory where he/she
would be at risk of persecution:
89
SC Res. 163 (XVI), Question Relating to Angola, June 9, 1961, S/4835 (1961).
GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4,
1950, A/RES/421.
91
Compromis 12.
92
Feller E. Tark, Refugee Protection In International Law, UNHCR Global Consultations on International
Protection, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
90

21
No Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner

whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be
threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.93
This is known as the principle of non-refoulement, which is considered part of customary
international law and therefore binding on all states.94 Thus, Soremon has breached the principles
of international law by not giving due attention to such large scale migration.
In conclusion, a state that cannot manage to control its own fleeing population cannot be
expected to take care of a large and diverse population such as that of the lands of Boremon
occupied Lola and Ramola (BoLR). The instance of that refugee scenario is enough to put at rest
the doubts that Soremon is disregardful of its own population. It is to be noted that the partition
of Soremon into two nations was supported by both the sides and it was only after the high level
talks between the two leaders that a theocratic nation of the State of Boremon was carved out. 95
Hence, it can be inferred that the State of Boremon largely consisting of Bismil population96
would be in a better position to govern the territory of BoLR.
93
UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures Determining the status of Refugees, Geneva 1979.
Hathaway J.C, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
95
Compromis 4.
96
Compromis 4.
94

22
PRAYER
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited the agent for
the Applicant State most humbly and respectfully pray before this Honble Court, that it
may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
a) The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which protects the
States from the Non-Interference of any other State
b) The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including
ARSDB
c) The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all rights
and obligations
d) The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs of Boremon and has illegally deployed its
Army in the BoLR region by violating international law
e) The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of
international law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation.
f) As per the agreements signed by both the States, the State of Boremon has fully complied with
the provisions of the treaty by holding free and fair elections in BoLR
g) The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international law by
deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations.
The Respondent State additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it
may deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And for this act of kindness the
Respondent State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
(Respectfully Submitted)
- Agents on behalf of the Respondent State.
XVIII

Respondent Memorial

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

Respondent Memorial

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

JUSTICE P.N.

BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

6TH JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI

(THE APPLICANT STATES)

(THE RESPONDENT STATE)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... V

Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon ............ 2

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter ............................................................... 2

General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law ..................... 3

Security Council Resolution 1373 ............................................................................ 3

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law ....................................... 3

Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American

Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States ....................................... 4

International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention ............................................ 4

Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law .......................................... 9

rights and obligations ................................................................................................................. 10

Army in the BoLR region by violating international law ....................................................... 11

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, AGREEMENTS AND CHARTERS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

IS FULLY SOVEREIGN EQUAL

POSSESSINGALL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

HAS NO STAKE IN THE AFFAIRS

AND HAS ILLEGALLY

DEPLOYEDITS ARMY IN THE BOLR REGION BY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW

ARE FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BASIC

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.1 Prohibition on Intervention

1.1.1 Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon

1.1.1.1.Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter

The Charter, supra note 2, Article 2(4).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.1.1.2.General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1.2.2. Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States

International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention

The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23, at 289.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

2.3.Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The state of Soremon committed breaches of the recognized principles of customary