IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING

ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF STATE OF KARMA

STATE OF KARMA
(APPLICANT)
V.
STATE OF KRIYA
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT (STATE OF KARMA)

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 4
Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................................... 5
Issues Raised .............................................................................................................................. 6
Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 The use of force by State of Kriya amounted to the violation of the provisions of the
U.N. Charter on the use of force. ........................................................................................... 7
A. The use of force by Kriya violated Art. 2(4) ............................................................... 7

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsel representing appellant have approached the Hon’ble court invoking the
compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2). The states parties to the present Statute may at
any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement,
in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all
legal disputes concerning:

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an
international obligation;
the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international
obligation.

Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International
Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present
Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.

4
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 In 2010, Mr. Daagi, who was at the time a rebel leader and the head of the Karma Rebellion
Force (which was supported by State of Kriya), succeeded in overthrowing the then
President of the State of Shram, President Malhaar, and on 30th August 2011 was formally
sworn in as President of the renamed Republic of the Karma.
 Following President Daagi’s accession to power, State of Kriya was granted substantial
benefits in the Republic of the Karma in the military and economic fields.
 However, President Daagi subsequently sought a gradual reduction in the influence of the
State of Kriya over the Republic of the Karma’s political, military and economic spheres
via “new policy of independence”. It was, according to the Republic of the Karma, this
“new policy of independence” from the State of Kriya became the reason for the invasion
of Republic of the Karma’s territory by Kriyan Armed Forces in June 2012.
 On 28 January 2012, President Daagi called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from
Republic of the Karma’s territory.
 On 8 February 2012, the State of Kriya signed troops disengagement agreement known as
the Peace Plan.
 According to the Republic of Karma, following the withdrawal of Kriyan troops from its
territory in February 2012, State of Kriya has continued to provide arms to ethnic groups
confronting one another in the Karta region, on the Kriyan boundary.
 The Republic of Karma further asserts that on 4 April 2012, the State of Kriya organized
an airborne operation, flying their troops from the western frontier of the Republic of
Karma to Karmdham, a place which is some 1,100 kms away on the other side of the
Republic of Karma, on the Karmik coast.
 The Republic of Karma alleges that the aim was to overthrow President Daagi, and also
alleges that Kriyan military operation also consisted in the provision of support to Dharmik
Armed Group, led by Mr. Dharma, opposed to President Daagi’s Government.
 According to Karma, it was on this understanding that Kriyan troops crossed into western
parts of Republic of Karma and established bases on its territory.
 State of Kriya states that on 21st September 2011, the Protocol on Security along the
Common Border was signed by the two States in order to reaffirm the invitation of the
Republic of Karma to State of Kriya to deploy its troops in western parts of Republic of
Karma as well as to commit the armed forces of both countries to jointly combat the anti-
Daagi insurgents in Republic of Karma’s territory and secure the border region.
 As for the support for irregular forces operating in the Republic of Karma, State of Kriya
states that it has never denied providing political and military assistance to the Dharmik
armed group. However, State of Kriya asserts that it did not participate in the formation of
the Dharmik Armed Group.
 On 7th December 2012, the Republic of Karma filed in the Registry of the International
Court of Justice an Application instituting proceedings against the State of Kriya in respect

5
 of a dispute concerning “acts of armed aggression perpetrated by the State of Kriya on the
territory of the Republic of the Karma, in deliberate violation of the United Nations Charter.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether by aiding the Rebel group Dharmik Armed Group for the use of force are in
violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Karma have amounted to the
violation of the provisions of the un charter on the use of force and other relevant
international law.
2. Whether State of Karma has violated the principles of conventional and customary
international law governing non-use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect of
sovereignty, and non-intervention.
3. Whether by committing acts of violence against State of Kriya nationals and destroying
their property, State of Karma violated international legal obligations to respect human
rights.

6
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

By aiding the Rebel group Dharmik Armed Group for the use of force which is in violation
of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Karma have amounted to the violation
of the provisions of the un charter on the use of force and other relevant international law.
1.1 The use of force by State of Kriya amounted to the violation of the provisions of the
U.N. Charter on the use of force.

State of Kriya and State of Karma, being a member country of the U.N. are under an obligation
to act in accordance with the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter has various provisions prohibiting
the use of force.1 It is submitted that the threat to use of force, and the use of force by Kriya
violated the provisions of the U.N. Charter. Firstly, there was a use of force under art. 2(4) by
Kriya (A.) Secondly, the use of force did not fall in exception under art. 51.(B.).

A. The use of force by Kriya violated Art. 2(4).

The art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat of use of force as well as the use of force
by its members2. Further art. 2(3) states that the international disputes between members shall
be settled by peaceful means3. The ICJ, in the Corfu Channel4 case, Congo5 case and the
Nicaragua6 Case, has highlighted that the use of force, without valid defense, violates art.
2(4). In the present case, therefore it is contended that Lemania violated art. 2(4) by a threat
to use of force (i.) as well as the actual use of force (ii.).

(i)Threat to use of force

A threat of force consists ‘in an express or implied promise by a government of a resort to force
conditional on non-acceptance of certain demands of that government’7. In Guyana v.
Suriname8, the Court stated that a ‘signalled intention to use force if certain events occur’ could
constitute a threat under Art. 2(4).
In the instant case, it is evident from the facts that on 4 April 2012, the State of Kriya organized
an airborne operation, flying their troops from the western frontier of the Republic of Karma

1
U.N. Charter Preamble, Art. 1(1), 2(4), 42.
2
BROWNLIE, USE OF FORCE, p. 364
3
U.N. Charter art. 2(3)
4
United Kingdom v. Albania, Merits [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4 [Hereinafter referred as Corfu Channel Case]
5
DRC v. Uganda (Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo) Judgement, ICJ Rep 2005,
¶42-165 and 345 [Hereinafter referred as DRC v. Congo]
6
Nicaragua v. U.S. (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua), Merits, ICJ Rep 1986
[Hereinafter referred as Nicaragua Case]
7
N. STURCHLER, THE THREAT OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, CAMBRIDGE, 2007; M.
Roscini, ‘Threats of Armed Force and Contemporary International Law’, 54 NILR, 2007, p. 229; R. Sadurska,
8
Guyana v. Suriname (Arbitral tribunal award) ICGJ 370 (PCA 2007) (OUP reference) ¶ 439, 445

7
to Karmdham, a place which is some 1,100 kms away on the other side of the Republic of
Karma, on the Karmik coast.9 This act by the state of Kriya clearly indicated that they are going
to use force for overthrowing the Pesident Daggi and Kriyan military operation also consisted
in the provision of support to Dharmik Armed Group, led by Mr. Dharma, opposed to President
Daagi’s Government.
This indication has to be considerd as a threat to use foce, firstly they have send their troops
through airborne to State of Karma border region, secondly, they have used force indirectly by
aiding Dharmik Armed Group, and it clearly indicates a threat as the military personals present
their could start a war.

ii. Use of force

Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter and the norms of customary international law10 (CIL) prohibit the
use of force. In the Nicaragua11 Case, it was stated that the most grave forms of use of force
are those involving armed attack12 and the court further suggested that the term ‘force’ in art.
2(4) includes armed forces13. It prohibits the use of armed forces, whether amounting to war or
not.14 Also, the prevailing practice of States and International organization including the 1970
declaration15 is to treat military force as falling under the prohibition of the use of force.16

9
Fact Sheet para 4
10
Nicaragua Case, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ¶ 73; Nicaragua Case, Merits, ¶ 187-190
11
Nicaragua Case, ¶191
12
Iran v US, Oil Platforms, Judgement, ICJ Rep 2003 [Hereinafter referred as Oil Platforms Case]
13
Nicaragua case, pp. 14, 128
14
D J HARRIS, CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, LONDON SWEET &
MAXWELL, p. 890 (6th ed., 2004)
15
U.N. Doc. A/RES/25/2625, Preamble
16
H. STEINBERGER, ‘SOVEREIGNTY’, IN MAX PLANK INSTITUTE OF COMPARATIVE PUBLIC
LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, ENCYCLOPEDIA FOR PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW,
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, Vol. 10 (NORTH HOLAND, 1987) p. 609

8
1. State of Karma has violated the principles of conventional and customary international
law governing non-use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect of sovereignty,
and non-intervention.
The International Court of Justice Statute defines customary international law in Article
38(1)(b)17 as "a general practice accepted as law." This is generally determined through two
factors: the general practice of states and what states have accepted as law.
Conventional international law, or treaty law is based on international agreements, conventions
and treaties: it is binding only on ratifying nations. Conventional Law is governed by the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Customary international law is a kind of
international common law based on widespread state practice and acknowledgment of
obligation; on the judgments of domestic and international tribunals; and on "the general
principles of law recognized by civilized nations” and “the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations.” It is binding on all nations and on non-state actors

In Nicaragua vs United States18, It was held as:

“Due to a United States’ multilateral treaty reservation, (the Vandenberg reservation), the
Court could not rely on the United Nations Charter and was compelled to base its findings in
relation to the use of force customary and general principles of international law.”
As a result, the Nicaragua case developed a significant jurisprudence on customary
international law relating to (1) the use of force and non-intervention, (2) elements necessary
to form customary international law, and (3) the relationship between customary and treaty
law. It is evident from the facts that State of Kriya has done constant intervention in the State
of Karma and moreover they have also supported the rebel group in state of Kriya. The rebel
group DMK has created lot of damage in state of Kriya which was effecting badly towards
economy of state of Kriya. The counsel on behalf of the Appellant plead that that state of Karma
has violated the treaty made by between the two states as the “peace plan” by providing arms
to the Dharmic Rebblion group. Because of this continues intervention done by state of Karma,
State of Kriya was paying a heavy cost. Hence as USA was convicted guilty for violating the
Customary International Law, in the instant matter State of Karma must be held guilty as they
have violated the Customary International Law and needs to pay for the Damages. The counsel
would like to plead that State of Karma has done lot of damages, for that reason they must pay
the compensation amount.

Aggression is recognized as a crime in customary international law. Article 6 of the Numberg

charter defines its jurisdiction as including a. crime against peace.

17
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to
it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice
accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
18
Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986)