Mr. /Madame President, Your Excellencies, may it please this Honorable Court.

My name is Vincent Czar Urbiztondo, First agent of Respondent, State of Reverentia.

I will prove before this Court our first two submissions:

First, Reverentia’s support for the referendum in East Agnostica is consistent with
international law.

Second, East Agnostica’s secession from Agnostica and integration into Reverentia are
consistent with international law, and in any event, this Court should not order the
retrocession of East Agnostica to Agnostica Against the expressed will of its population.

On to our first submission:

Reverentia’s Support for the referendum in East Agnostica is consistent with

international law

I have two arguments to prove this.

First, the support extended by Reverentia to the referendum conducted in East Agnostica
did not violate the duty of non-intervention.

Second, Reverentia neither threatened nor utilized force against Agnostica therefore it
cannot be considered as “an act of aggression”.

On to my first argument,

Reverentia did not intervene in Agnostica’s affairs because it never extended any support
of any kind for East Agnostica’s referendum for independence. The principle of non-
intervention requires that every State has a right to conduct its affairs without outside
interference. In other words, the principle “…forbids States or groups of States to
intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other States.”

In the case of Nicaragua vs. United States, the Court held that the financial support,
training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistic support given by the United States
to the contras violated the principle of non-interference.

The Court stated that:

“A prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each

State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty to decide freely. One of these
is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation
of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard
to such choices, which must remain free ones. The element of coercion, which
defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention, is particularly
obvious in the case of an intervention which uses force, either in the direct form of
military action, or in the indirect form of support for subversive or terrorist armed
activities within another State.”

Nicaragua stated that the activities of the United States were aimed to overthrow the
government of Nicaragua, to substantially damage the economy and to weaken the
political system with the aim to coerce the Government of Nicaragua to accept various
political demands of the United States.

The Court concluded that:

“…first, that the United States intended, by its support of the contras, to coerce the
Government of Nicaragua in respect of matters in which each State is permitted, by
the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely; and secondly that the intention
of the contras themselves was to overthrow the present Government of Nicaragua…
The Court considers that in international law, if one State, with a view to the coercion
 of another State, supports and assists armed bands in that State whose purpose is
to overthrow the government of that State, that amounts to an intervention by the
one State in the internal affairs of the other, whether or not the political objective of
the State giving such support and assistance is equally far reaching.”

But in the case at hand, Reverentia never extended military, logistical, economic, or
financial support for East Agnostica’s referendum of independence. The element of
coercion which is vital in order for the intervention to be considered as a prohibited one
is not present here.

And this leads me to my second argument that,

Reverentia acts cannot be considered as “an act of aggression for it neither threatened
nor utilized force against Agnostica.

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 provided for the definition of
aggression and those acts which can qualify as an act of aggression.

Article 1 states that:

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”

Article 3, which enumerates those acts which may qualify as “an act of aggression” states
that:

“Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in
accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another
State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion
or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or
part thereof,

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another
State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another
State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine
and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another
State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions
provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory
beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its temtory, which it has placed at the disposal
of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression
against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or

mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such
gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

In the case of Nicaragua vs. United States; the Court held that mere frontier incidents
will not considered as armed attacks, unless, because of its scale and effects, it would
have been classified as an armed attack had it been carried out by regular forces.
In this case, Reverentia’s act is not included in the list of enumerated acts which can
qualify as “an act of aggression”. Reverentia’s troops remained within its borders and had
explicit orders not to leave the Reverentian territory. Hence, such act can neither be
considered as a threat nor as means of employing force against Agnostica for it was
peaceful and it was only done as a means of employing aid to any AgnoRevs fleeing
because of the violence occurring in East Agnostica and thus it is consistent with
international law.

Moving on to our second submission,

East Agnostica’s secession from Agnostica and integration into Reverentia are
consistent with international law, and in any event, this Court should not order the
retrocession of East Agnostica to Agnostica Against the expressed will of its
population.

I have three arguments to prove this.

First, the secession of East Agnostica to Agnostica is consistent with the right of the
AgnoRevs to exercise self-determination.

Second, assuming that the AgnoRevs did not have a right to secede forcing them to re-
join Agnostica would violate their right to self-determination.

Third, even if this Court were to find that the Integration Agreement between East
Agnostica and Reverentia is invalid, East Agnostica still became an independent state.

On to my first argument,

The right of the AgnoRevs to exercise the right to self-determination has been recognized
by this Court in its previous decisions and it is also evidenced by various instruments.

The Kosovo Advisory Opinion demonstrates that unilateral declarations of independence

are not prohibited per se under international law and such declarations have been
recognized in instances including the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

On to my second argument,

Even assuming that the AgnoRevs did not have a right to secede from Agnostica, forcing
them to re-join Agnostica would violate their right to self-determination. This Court may
not order remedies that violate international law, and international law adapts to facts on
the ground.

Under the “effectivity” principle, international law may well adapt to recognize a political
and/or factual reality, regardless of the legality of the steps leading to its creation. In other
words, the existence of a positive legal entitlement is quite different from a prediction that
the law will respond after the fact to a then existing political reality. These two concepts
examine different points in time. In the context of secession, the question of whether a
people contemplating secession has the right to secede is different from how the law will
react once a people have already seceded.

And finally on to my last argument,

Even if this Court were to find the Integration Agreement between East Agnostica and
Reverentia invalid, East Agnostica still became an independent state. As a non-party to
this dispute, its rights cannot be adjudicated here. In the East Timor case, this Court
declined to exercise jurisdiction over an alleged breach committed by Australia because
in doing so, it would in turn have to rule upon the lawfulness of the conduct of Indonesia,
a necessary third party, which had not consented to the Court’s jurisdiction and was not
present in the case. Such a judgment would run directly counter to the "well-established
principle of international law embodied in the Court's Statute, namely, that the Court can
only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent"
Here, if this Court will not enforce the Integration Agreement, it still cannot order
retrocession as a necessary party, East Agnostica has not consented to this Court’s
jurisdiction.