FEDERATION OF ANLUSAN

WHETHER OR NOT THE ICJ HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE

WHETHER OR NOT ANLUSAN CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING AN

INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT FOR THE SUPPOSED INTERVENTION IN THE
ELECTIONS

I. Anlusan cannot be held responsible for committing an internationally wrongful act for the
supposed intervention in the elections.

A. The Federation of Anlusan did not commit an internationally wrongful act under the United
Nations Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (UN RSIWA).

i. The acts of the Federation of Anlusan fails to meet the elements to constitute
Internationally Wrongful Act

(Discussion on elements of IRA.)

a. Physical Intervention

( As for the tanks, military force, etc. The point here is that the second element is not met
because there should be a breach of obligation. The breach here is violation of norm of non-intervention,
but not all intervention is prohibited. Remember Nicaragua case, there should be force, coercion, and such
force, coercion must be used for subversive acts etc. Here, there is no force or coercion. Citizens of Racel
were still able to vote.)

b. Cyber Interference in Election

(As for social media status, etc. There is still lack of elements of IRA. First and second
elements are missing. The information in the social media is not attributable to Anlusan. Second element,
breach of obligation, no breach because of Open Data Agreement and Freedom of Speech.)

(As for the argument on non-intervention, there was really no intervention. Discuss
definition of intervention (something related to subversion, state not able to exercise its political rights)
when in fact, Racel was able to conduct voting. No intervention that happened)

B. The acts of the Federation of Anlusan is a valid act under the Principle of Humanitarian
Intervention

Alternative Title: The Federation of Anlusan has the obligation to extend help to the
Republic of Racel in accordance with the Principle of Humanitarian Interference.

i. Concept of Humanitarian Intervention

(Discussion on what Humanitarian Intervention is)

ii. Racel Failed to Protect its Citizens under the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine
 (Discussion on Responsibility to Protect and how Racel failed to act on the threats such
as the unidentified tanks)

iii. The Acts of the Federation of Anlusan Constitutes Legitimate Humanitarian

Intervention

C. Anlusan helped Racel to secure their right to self determination

WHETHER OR NOT SATELLITE, FEZNOTE, CHIRPER AND THE INTERNATIONAL

MEDIA COMPANIES CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR
THE SPREAD OF VIDEOS AND HOSTILE MESSAGES BEFORE THE ELECTION

I. Satellite, Feznote, Chirper and the International Media Companies cannot be held responsible
under the Open Data Agreement

a. The Open Data Agreement

II. Satellite, Feznote, Chirper and the International Media Companies cannot be held responsible
under International Law on Freedom of Expression

a. International Law on Freedom of Expresion

i. Universal Declaration on Human Rights

ii. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

III. Did not commit cyber attack

WHETHER OR NOT THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RACEL ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW
p
I. The sanctions imposed by Racel are not justified under International Law

a. The Federation of Anlusan did not commit an internationally wrongful act to warrant such
sanctions.

(“For countermeasures to exist, a state has to identify the “internationally wrongful act” that
would be sufficient to constitute a retributive act.” In this case, there is no IWA committed by
Anlusan.)

II. Even granting that Anlusan committed IRA, the sanctions imposed by Racel is not recognized
under International Law

a. The sanctions imposed are not among the forms of reparation under UN RSIWA

b. The sanctions imposed by Racel did not meet the requirement of proportionality under
Article 51 of UN RIWA
c. The sanctions imposed by Racel did not meet the procedural conditions under Article 52 of
UN RIWA