TEAM 799R

THE 2020 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Case Concerning the Helian Hyacinth

THE STATE OF ADAWA

APPLICANT

v.

THE REPUBLIC OF RASASA

RESPONDENT

INDONESIAN ROUND 2020

On Submission to the International Court of Justice

The Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities ...............................................................................................................II

Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................IV

Questions Presented ...............................................................................................................V

Statement of Facts ..................................................................................................................VI

Summary of Pleadings .......................................................................................................XIII

Pleadings ................................................................................................................................1

A. The court lacks jurisdiction over Adawa’s claims because Adawa is not a party to the 1929

Treaty of Botega ................................................................................................................1

B. Rasasa’s development and deployment of the WALL along the border between Adawa and

Rasasa is consistent with international law ........................................................................7

C. Adawa’s claim that Rasasa’s Helian tariffs violate the CHC Treaty falls outside the Court’s

jurisdiction or is inadmissible; in the alternatives, the imposition of the tariffs did not violate

the CHC Treaty ..................................................................................................................10

D. Adawa’s arrest and detention of Darian Grey constitute internationally wrongful acts, and

that she must be immediately repatriated to Rasasa ..........................................................13

Prayer for Relief .....................................................................................................................15

I
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I.C.J & P.C.I.J. CASES

Case Concerning THE ARREST WARRANT OF 11 APRIL 2000 (Democratic Republic of

Congo v. Belgium), Judgement, 2002, I.C.J,3 ¶75 .................................................................13

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 23 (2001)

................................................................................................................................................7,1
1,13
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respects of Treaties (1978)
................................................................................................................................................2,5,
6

Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (1969) ..............................................................4

Convention on Special Missions, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1400, p. 231 (1969) .14
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 ...............................................................14
Vienna Convention On The Law Making Treaties ................................................................10

U.N DOCUMENTS
The practice of the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the International Atomic
Energy Agency concerning their status, privileges and immunities: study prepared by the
Secretariat “Representation of States in their relations with international organizations”,
A/CN.4/L.118 amd Add. 1 amd 2, (1967) Section 11 (a) ......................................................14

II
 ARTICLES
Marco Sassóli, Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages,
Open Technical Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified, 90 INT’L L. STUD. 308 (2014),
Volume 90 2014.....................................................................................................................8,9
Neil Davidson, A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International
Humanitarian Law, Legal Division International Committee of the Red Cross ...................7,8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Commentaries on the Draft Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, ILC
Yearbook (1974-II)
................................................................................................................................................1,3,
4

III
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Rasasa Republic is a country that focuses on the use of technology in improving the welfare of

its country. After being hit by Huricane Makan, Rasasa suffered 60% damage to the Helian

Hyacinth population. The storm caused huge losses to Rasasa, then Rasasa still experienced

problems related to security stability in the border area, robbers and belligerents often came to

the border to loot Helian Products that grew in the border area. After deliberation, finally

President Rasasa appointed Ms. Derian Gray as Foreign Minister. Appointment of Ms. Gray

as Foreign Minister has gone through considerations regarding her track records. The Republic

of Rasasa government finally decided to build a wall armed with artificial intelligence called

Weaponized Autonomous Limitation Line (or “the WALL) claimed by the rasasa government

to improve the stability of the country's security. The policy was ultimately opposed by the

State of Adawa because it was considered to violate the Treaty of Botega. According to the

Treaty of Botega, as an agreement that is always used as a tool from Adawa to attack the

Republic of Rasasa related to the policies taken, the Rasasa Republic considers that Adawa is

not a party of the Treaty of Botega and therefore Adawa does not have the rights and obligations

of the provisions of Treaty of Botega. The State of Adawa also claims that the Republic of

Rasasa's policy of unilaterally raising the Helian Product tax level has not only violated the

CHC Treaty but has also caused huge losses to the State of Adawa. However, according to

Rasasa, the Adawa claim does not violate the CHC Treaty and instead falls outside the court's

jurisdiction. The Rasasa Republic also strongly opposes the arrest and detention of their

Foreign Minister Ms. Derian Gray, where the action is an international wrongful acts.

Eventhough Adawa became an original party to the Rome Statue establishing the International

Criminal Court and remains a party to that treaty. Rasasa is not a party to the Rome Statue so

there is no obligation for Rasasa related to this Statue

IV
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The Republic of Rasasa respectfully asks the Honourable Court:

I.

Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction overs Adawa’s claim in its position to the

1929 Treaty of Botega;

II.

Whether Rasasa’s development and deployment of the WALL along the border between

Adawa and Rasasa is consistent under international law;

III.

Whether Adawa’s claim that Rasasa’s Helian tariffs violate the CHC Treaty falls outside the

Court’s jurisdiction and in the alternative the imposition tariffs did not violate the CHC

Treaty;

IV.

Whether Adawa’s arrest and detention of Ms. Darian Grey constitute Internationally

Wrongful Acts and must immediately repriatirated to Rasasa.

V
 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

BACKGROUND

The State of Adawa and the Republic of Rasasa are neighboring countries in the region

of Crosnia (“the Region”). There are four other States in the Region, They have the same

ethnic group, the same language, and share many cultural traditions The Region is also the only

place on earth where the Helian Hyacinth (Hyacinthus Solaris) is cultivated. Until 1928, all

six Crosnian States were provinces of the Kingdom of Crosnia. When the last king, Narang

III, died in 1924 without a direct male descendant as required by royal tradition, the provinces

divided over competing clainmants to the throne and over the next three years became a full-

fledged civil war in 1927. After that, both of the states concluded bilateral and multilateral

treaties.

1929 TREATY OF BOTEGA

One bilateral agreement between the states in the 1929 Treaty of Botega on Armistice

and Pacification (Treaty of Botega). The treaty was signed by The newly installed President

of Rasasa and Queen Goleta of the AZU. AZU was an union between Adawa and Zeitounia,

but during the 1930’s, AZU encountered significant economic and social stresses. Effective

1 January 1939, the two provinces amicably agreed to dissolve their union and each declared

its independence as of that date. The Treaty of Botega was ratified of Rasasa and the Adawa-

Zeitounia Union in December 1929 and entered into force on 1 January 1930.

HELIAN HYACINTH

The Helian hyacinth is a flowering plant best known for producing the flavoring spice

Helian, which is derived from it’s pollen and which has a weight-to-value ratio comparable to

VI
that of saffron. According to well-established botanical scholarship, it takes no less than 20

years for newly planted Helian bulbs to produce export-quality spice and the region is the the

only place on earth where the Helian hyacinth (Hyacinthus Solaris) is cultivated. All of the

Crosnian States engaged in the highly profitable activities of growing, harvesting, and

processing Helian hyacinth pollen and exporting Helian spice.

CROSINIAN HELIAN COMMUNITY (“CHC”)

In light of the very specific equipment and exacting procedures needed for successful

cultivation of the Helian hyacinth, and the need for ongoing research and development, the

Agriculture Ministries of the six Crosnian States in 1964 formed an unofficial roundtables

meeting twice per year to discuss technical and economis issues specific to the Helian industry.

Five years later, the arrangement was formalized in a treaty, signed on 20 June 1969 and

promptly ratified by all six member states, declaring the formation of the Crosnian Helian

Community (CHC). The parties to the CHC agreed to impose no customs duties within the

CHC on Helian spice or the equipment and materials used to harvest or process the Helian

hyacinth.

Between 1969 and 1979, the net value of the Helian spice exports across the six CHC

member states increased by an avarage of 12.3% per year, and employment in Helian-related

activities increased by 8% per year. In 1979, to mark the tenth anniversary of the community,

heads of government of the CHC member states were invited to participate in the semi-annual

meeting. They issued a joint communiqué at its conclusion, proclaming what they called “the

remarkable achievements of the Crosnian Helian Community in improving revenue,

employment, and the quality of life for all of the people of our region”.

VII
DARIAN GREY

Ms. Darian Grey was (and remains) one of the wealthiest citizens of Rasasa, from 1979

to 2016, she served ad founder and chief executive officer of the Rasasan Robotics Corporation

(RRC), a privately-held company headquartered in Botega. RRSC advises governments on

computerized and autonomous defense and security systems; designs, develops and

implements these systems in conflict zones around the world; and provides training in their

use. Ms. Grey and her company been the subject of mixed publicity. In 1998, Forbes Megazine

named her one of “The 20 Women Who Will Make a Mark in the 21st Century”. in 2000,

Human Rights Watch accused Ms. Grey and RRC of “Complicity in keeping some of the worst

despotic regimes in the world securely in power”.

In Fabruary 2009, the remote island Republic of Garantia formally referred a situation

to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes and crimes against

humanity that were alleged to have occurred during the 2007-2009 civil war in that state. The

referral specifically mentioned RRC as one of the accused foreign contractors, and citied Ms.

Grey as having been ppersonally reponsible for its activities. In accordance with ICC

procedures, the office of the prosecutor opened an investigation in August 2009

Mr. Pindro was elected president of Rasasa with 58% of the vote, and he took office

in January 2017. He quickly named officers of the new government, appointing Darian Grey

as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Upon her nomination, Ms. Grey resigned her post at RRC and

divested herself of any direct financial stake in the company. Shortly after her appointment,

investigative reporters for the Budapest-based daily newspaper Népszabadság obtained and

published what it claimed were previously-undisclosed memoranda from Ms. Grey to her staff

at RRC approving the clandestine supply of arms and the training of military personnel in

numerous conflict zones, including Garantia. Rasasan human rights groups protested Ms.

VIII
Grey’s appointment as Foreign Minister, and the opposition party in parliament was unanimous

in voting against it. As of the time of her nomination to the cabinet, neither RRC nor Ms. Grey

had been charged with crimes in any domestic or international tribunal. Her appointment was

confirmed by parliament on 15 January 2017

On 13 April 2019, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced that,

pursuant to Article 58 of the Rome Statute, she was requesting the issuance of a warrant for

the arrest of Minister Grey, assigning to her criminal responsibility for certain alleged activities

of RRC in Garantia between 2007 and 2009. The charged acts included war crimes, and “other

serious violations of the laws and customs applicable to armed conflicts not of an international

character,” within Articles 8.2(a) and 8.2(e) of the Rome Statute. The indictment specifically

cited the training and supervision of paramilitary forces that perpetrated such crimes, the sale

and use of prohibited weapons systems, and the conduct of unauthorized surveillance of

civilians that allegedly led to their becoming the targets of violent repression.

On 20 June 2019, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC granted the Prosecutor’s 13 April

2019 request and issued a warrant of arrest for Minister Grey. Two days later, on 22 June

2019, officers of the Novazora police approached Minister Grey as she was leaving her hotel.

After ascertaining her identity, they took her into custody. She did not resist but informed the

arresting officers that she “enjoyed diplomatic immunity.” The Foreign Ministry of Adawa

promptly notified the Rasasan Ambassador to Adawa of Minister Grey’s arrest, and Rasasan

consular agents were provided access to her. She was then brought before a magistrate, who

confirmed that she was the person named in the indictment. Minister Grey’s counsel (whom

she selected freely and without interference) argued that she was entitled to immunity while on

Adawan soil in her official capacity, but the magistrate rejected that argument, noting that, “the

Rome Statute of the ICC makes no exception for sitting government ministers.” A judicial

appeal was denied, as was a request for the Minister’s provisional release.

IX
WEAPONIZED AUTONOMOUS LIMITATION LINE (“WALL”)

On 14 July 2012, an unprecedented and catastrophic tropical cyclone, Hurricane

Makan, struck the entire Region. The death toll from the cyclone exceeded 8,000 and, in each

of the six States, entire towns were inundated, roads and power lines were destroyed, and major

urban centers suffered historic flooding. More than 60% of the Helian hyacinths in Rasasa,

20% of those in Adawa, and between 15% and 20% of those in the other four States were

destroyed. Unemployment began to increase across the Region as farms, their suppliers, and

the businesses that depended on them became no longer viable. In the weeks and months

following the storm, crime rates skyrocketed throughout the Region. Armed gangs roamed the

countryside, stealing salvageable Helian plants and harvesting and processing equipment from

the devastated farms.

In October 2012, the President of Rasasa, Beta Tihmar, convened a meeting of major

Rasasan corporate executives to elicit ideas on how to address the increasingly serious crime

wave that the police had been unable to staunch. Notes of the meeting later released to the

media reported that Ms. Grey offered “to devote RRC’s expertise and resources to spearhead

the development of a ground-breaking autonomous security system to suppress criminal

activities in Rasasa and throughout the Region.” Ms. Grey referred to the system she had in

mind as the “Weaponized Autonomous Limitation Line” (or “the WALL”). Its principal

feature, she contended, was that it would deploy advanced technology to deter and apprehend

criminals, while using force only when absolutely necessary and when the chance of targeting

innocents was reduced to virtually zero.

in January 2013 the President notified the other five CHC Member States that Rasasa

had contracted with RRC to undertake research and development of the WALL.

X
 On 2 February 2013, RRC distributed further technical details in a report signed by 15

police and military technology experts from 12 States, including all six CHC Member States.

The report disclosed that the WALL employed machine learning algorithms, developed from

a large quantity of “training data” acquired from the Rasasan police and the police and military

forces of 10 other States, in order to identify threats. The training data included millions of

images, video footage, computer models, and other information derived from prior instances

of armed conflict, civil unrest, and criminal activities during

peacetime. According to RRC, the WALL featured an advanced form of “supervised

learning,” in which the training data had been meticulously “tagged” by teams of software

engineers from RRC working in cooperation with Rasasan police officers and military officials.

The tagging highlighted aspects of the training data that indicated armed threats, as well as

indicators of retreat, surrender, incapacity, and other factors that would render an individual

effectively hors de combat.

By April 2013, police in the other four Crosinian States had gained the upper hand, and

crime levels were restored to pre-Hurricane Makan levels. Each of these States gradually

withdrew from the WALL project and, by August 2013, only Rasasa and Adawa continued to

participate in the development of the venture. The withdrawing States assigned any rights they

might have acquired during the development of the project back to RRC.

President Pindro announced the completed installation of the WALL on 10 January

2018. To this date, there have been no reports of any incidents of lethal force deployed by the

WALL. In its May 2018 official publication, the joint task force observed: “Although Adawa

continues to maintain its opposition to the program on legal grounds, the WALL has without

question had a positive impact in reducing and deterring cross-border crime.”

APPLICATION TO THE COURT

XI
 Adawa and Rasasa have agreed to refer this dispute to this court. On 22 July 2019, the

Court entered an Order recommending that the parties draft a Statement of Agreed Facts (the

present document), without prejudice to any arguments they might seek to present during the

proceedings

XII
 SUMMARY OF THE PLEADINGS

FIRST PLEADING

During the 1930s, the AZU encountered significant economic and social stresses.

Adawa became more urbanized and industrialized while Zeitounia did not, and the central

government, under heavy Zeitounian influence, opposed what it considered to be demands that

it invest disproportionately in infrastructure in Adawa. Effective 1 January 1939, the two

provinces amicably agreed to dissolve their Union, and each declared its independence as of

that date. Adawa adopted a republican form of government, while Zeitounia retained Queen

Goleta as monarch.

In connection with the case above, history has noted that several countries in the world

have experienced similar problems that ended with the formation of a new country. for example

when the formation of Pakistan from India, Ireland from the United Kingdom, and Belgium

from the Netherlands. In these cases, the portion which separated was considered a new State;

the remaining portion continued as an existing State with all the rights and duties which it had

before.

In order to reinforce the above argument several articles in the Vienna Convention on

Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978 have explained the consequences that must be

experienced when succession occurs. It can be found in article Article 16 Position in respect of

the State of the predecessor State and Article 8 "Agreements for the devolution of treaty

obligations or rights from a predecessor State to a successor State".

In connection with the foregoing, obligations will be born which must be obeyed as a

consequence of the decisions taken. Besides giving rise to obligations there are other

consequences that will also follow, namely the legal effect.

XIII
SECOND PLEADING

The decision of the Republic of Rasasa to erect a wall equipped with artificial weapons

known as WALL is an act that does not violate international law. According to the Article 23

Force majeure, of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, The

wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State

is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or

of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the

circumstances to perform the obligation.

In order to further strengthen the argument, Neil Davison, Scientific and Policy

Adviser Arms Unit, Legal Division International Committee of the Red Cross, entitled A Legal

Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law

Compliance With International Humanitarian Law Autonomous Weapon Systems, as defined,

are not specifically regulated by IHL treaties. However, it is undisputed that any autonomous

weapon system must be capable of being used, and must be used, in accordance with IHL. The

responsibility for ensuring this rests, first and foremost, with each State that is developing,

deploying and using weapons and its consistent with the development and testing process

which was conducted by the Republic of Rasasa and State Of Adawa.

WALL development that has been carried out by the Republic of Rasasa is an act in

accordance with International Law because there are no elements that violate the provisions

stipulated by international law. It is consistent with the international law, in particular

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as required to those who plan, decide upon and carry

out an attack to fulfill the targeting requirements such as distinction, proportionality and

precautions in attack.

XIV
THIRD PLEADING

The next main issue alleged by the State of Adawa towards the Republic of Rasasa is

the policy of raising tariffs on Helian Products. The policy does not violate the agreements

stipulated in the CHC Treaty. On the contrary, the claim from State Adawa falls outside the

Court's jurisdiction. Republic Rasasa has the right to determine the high and low tariffs that

apply in their own country. Then the most important thing is Pulling tariffs on Helian Products

is an act that does not violate the CHC Treaty.

In order to make a treaty with other countries, a country has the right to make a

reservation. Having regard to Article 2 Vienna Convention On The Law Making Treaties,

Reservation means to a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when

signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude

or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.

So, the Republic of Rasasa has the right to set and determine tariffs on their Helian Products

for the benefit of his own country. The reason why the state has the right to set and determine

their own tariffs because some important reason including pricing to maximize profits, facing

or preventing competition, maintaining price stability, achieving income and investment, and

maintaining or increasing the market share.

Then the claim made by the state of adawa that the policy to raise the tax is a violation

of international law is an act that falls into the category of Internationally Wrongful Act. There

are several indicators that support in determining that the claim is an Internationally Wrongful

act such as attributable to the State under international law; and constitutes a breach of an

international obligation of the State.

Relating to responsibility as a consequence of internationally wrongful act, a state

responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to make restitution, that

XV
is, to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed, provided

and to the extent that restitution: (a) is not materially impossible; (b) does not involve a burden

out of all proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of compensation.

Having regard to Article 36 of Internationally Wrongful Act (1) The State responsible

for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate for the damage caused

thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution, and (2) The compensation

shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is

established.

FOURTH PLEADING

As a nation that is subject and obey to in international law. Rasasa Republic considers

that the arrest made by the State of Adawa against the Foreign Minister of the Republic of

Rasasa is an act that has no legal basis and violates international law. As a person who has

Diplomatic Immunity, and as agreed in the CHC Treaty that a person with diplomatic immunity

will not be arrested in carrying out official travel without a clear reason. and therefore, Ms.

Gray must be released immediately and returned to the Republic of Rasasa respectfully.

History has recorded that several world leaders have experienced arrests while

carrying out diplomatic missions. According to the case of “The Arrest Warrant of 11 April

2000 (Democratic Republic Of The Congo v. Belgium)”. The court concluded that the issue

and circulation of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 by the Belgian authorities failde to respcet

the immunity of the incumbent minister for foreign affairs of the congo and more particulary,

infringed the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability then enjoyed by Mr.

Yerodia (minister for foreign affair of the Congo). Same as Adawa’s arrest of Darian Gray as

the minister for foreign affairs of Rasasa, consider as violation of respcet to the immunity as

minister for foreign affairs of Rasasa.

XVI
 Article 31(1) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, “A diplomatic agent shall

enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.” Adawa and Rasasa have

been parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, therefore Adawa have an

obligation to submit

XVII
 PLEADINGS

A. The court lacks jurisdiction over Adawa’s claims because Adawa is not a party to

the 1929 Treaty of Botega

1. According to paragraph 7 of the compromise, During the 1930s, the AZU encountered

significant economic and social stresses. Adawa became more urbanized and

industrialized while Zeitounia did not, and the central government, under heavy

Zeitounian influence, opposed what it considered to be demands that it invest

disproportionately in infrastructure in Adawa. Effective 1 January 1939, the two

provinces amicably agreed to dissolve their Union, and each declared its independence

as of that date. Adawa adopted a republican form of government, while Zeitounia

retained Queen Goleta as monarch.1

2. According to a legal opinion given by the United Nations Secretariat in 1947

concerning Pakistan's position in relation to the Charter of the United Nations.

Assuming that the situation was one in which part of an existing State had broken off

and become a new State,236 the Secretariat advised: The territory which breaks off,

Pakistan, will be a new State; it will not have the treaty rights and obligations of the old

State, and will not, of course, have membership in the United Nations. In international

law, the situation is analogous to the separation of the Irish Free State from Great

Britain, and of Belgium from the Netherlands. In these cases, the portion which

separated was considered a new State; the remaining portion continued as an existing
2
State with all the rights and duties which it had before."

1 Compromis, Paragraph 7

2 Commentaries on the Draft Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, ILC Yearbook (1974-

II)

1
 3. According to Article 16 Position in respect of the Treaties of the predecessor State, of

Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978, ’’A newly

independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty

by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in

force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relate” 3

4. According to Article 8 “Agreements for the devolution of treaty obligations or rights

from a predecessor State to a successor State”

1. The obligations or rights of a predecessor State under treaties in force in

respect of a territory at the date of a succession of States do not become the

obligations or rights of the successor States towards other States parties to

those treaties in consequence only of the fact that the predecessor State and the

successor State have concluded an agreement providing that such obligations

or rights shall devolve upon the successor State.

2. Notwithstanding the conclusion of such an agreement, the effects of a

succession of States on treaties which, at the date of that succession of States,

were in force in respect of the territory in question are governed by the present

articles.4

5. The present article thus deals only with the legal effects of a devolution agreement as

an instrument purporting to make provisions concerning the treaty obligations and

rights of a newly independent State. The general feature of devolution agreements in

that they provide for the transmission from the predecessor to the successor State of the

3
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Art. 16 (1978)

4 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Art. 8 (1978)

2
 obligations and rights of the predecessor State in respect of the territory under treaties

concluded by the predecessor and applying to the territory5.

6. A typical example of a devolution agreement is, for instance, the agreement concluded

in 1957 between the Federation of Malaya and the United Kingdom by an Exchange of

Letters.103 The operative provisions, contained in the United Kingdom's letter, read as

follows: I have the honour to refer to the Federation of Malaya Independence Act,

1957, under which Malaya has assumed independent status within the British

Commonwealth of Nations, and to state that it is the understanding of the Government

of the United Kingdom that the Government of the Federation of Malaya agree to the

following provisions:

(i) All obligations and responsibilities of the Government of the United Kingdom

which arise from any valid international instrument are, from 31 August, 1957,

assumed by the Government of the Federation of Malaya in so far as such

instruments may be held to have application to or in respect of the Federation

of Malaya.

(ii) (ii) The rights and benefits heretofore enjoyed by the Government of the United

Kingdom in virtue of the application of any such international instrument to or

in respect of the Federation of Malaya are from 31 August, 1957, enjoyed by

the Government of the Federation of Malaya. I shall be grateful for your

confirmation that the Government of the Federation of Malaya are in agreement

5 Commentaries on the Draft Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, ILC Yearbook (1974-
II)

3
 with the provisions aforesaid and that this letter and your reply shall constitute

an agreement between the two Governments6

7. Section 4. Treaties and third states. Article 34. General Rule Regarding Third States:

“A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third state without its

consent”.7

8. According to Draft articles on Succession of States in respect of Treaties with

commentaries 1974, Article 8, Paragraph 5 “The question of the legal effects of such

an agreement as between the parties to it, namely as between the predecessor State and

the successor State, cannot be separated from that of its effects vis-a-vis third States,

for third States have rights and obligations under the treaties with which a devolution

agreement purports to deal. Accordingly, it seems important to consider how the

general rules of international law concerning treaties and third States, that is articles

34 to 36 of the Vienna Convention, apply to devolution agreements, and this involves

determining the intention of parties to those agreements”.8

9. According to the Article 22 Notification of succession Vienna Convention on

Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978

1. A notification of succession in respect of a multilateral treaty under article 17 or 18

shall be made in writing.

2. If the notification of succession is not signed by the Head of State, Head of

Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State

communicating it may be called upon to produce full powers.

6 Commentaries on the Draft Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, ILC Yearbook (1974-
II)

7 Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, Art. 34 (1969)

8 Commentaries on the Draft Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties, ILC Yearbook (1974-
II)

4
 3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides, the notification of succession shall:

(a) be transmitted by the newly independent State to the depositary, or, if there is no

depositary, to the parties or the contracting States;

(b) be considered to be made by the newly independent State on the date on which it is

received by the depositary or, if there is no depositary, on the date on which it is

received by all the parties or, as the case may be, by all the contracting States.

4. Paragraph 3 does not affect any duty that the depositary may have, in accordance

with the treaty or otherwise, to inform the parties or the contracting States of the

notification of succession or any communication made in connection therewith by the

newly independent State.

5. Subject to the provisions of the treaty, the notification of succession or the

communication made in connection therewith shall be considered as received by the

State for which it is intended only when the latter State has been informed by the

depositary. In this case, there was no notification of succession by the Republic of

Rasasa9

10. According to Article 23 Effects Of A Notification Of Succession Vienna Convention

on Succession of States in respect of Treaties 1978

1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed, a newly independent

State which makes a notification of succession under article 17 or article 18, paragraph

2, shall be considered a party to the treaty from the date of the succession of States or

from the date of entry into force of the treaty, whichever is the later date.

2. Nevertheless, the operation of the treaty shall be considered as suspended as between

the newly independent State and the other parties to the treaty until the date of making

9 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, Art. 22 (1978)

5
 of the notification of succession except insofar as that treaty may be applied

provisionally in accordance with article 27 or as may be otherwise agreed.

3. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or it is otherwise agreed, a newly independent

State which makes a notification of succession under article 18, paragraph 1, shall be

considered a contracting State to the treaty from the date on which the notification of

succession is made.10

10 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties Art. 23 (1978)

6
 B. Rasasa’s development and deployment of the WALL along the border between

Adawa and Rasasa is consistent with international law

1. According to the Article 23 Force majeure, of Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts, The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity

with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act is due to force

majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an unforeseen event, beyond

the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform

the obligation.11

2. According arcticle that was published by Neil Davison, Scientific and Policy Adviser

Arms Unit, Legal Division International Committee of the Red Cross, entitled A Legal

Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law

Compliance With International Humanitarian Law Autonomous Weapon Systems, as

defined, are not specifically regulated by IHL treaties. However, it is undisputed that

any autonomous weapon system must be capable of being used, and must be used, in

accordance with IHL. The responsibility for ensuring this rests, first and foremost, with

each State that is developing, deploying and using weapons and its consistent with the

development and testing process which was conducted by the Republic of Rasasa and

State Of Adawa12

3. It is consistent with the international law, in particular International Humanitarian Law

(IHL) as required to those who plan, decide upon and carry out an attack to fulfill the

11 Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 23 (2001)

12Neil Davidson, A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law,
Legal Division International Committee of the Red Cross

7
 targeting requirements such as distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack13

and it is related to paragraph 24 of the Compromise when Ms. Darian Grey described

the WALL: “Using advanced artificial swarm intelligence, the WALL can

instantaneously and appropriately decide whether and how to respond to any given

threat”.14

4. According the article that was published by U.S Naval War College, Autonomous

Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical

Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified by Marco Sassóli in the introduction section,

stated that:” Human beings often kill others to avoid being killed themselves. The robot

can delay the use of force until the last, most appropriate moment, when it has been

established that the target and the attack are legitimate” and it is appropriate with the

the paragraph 24 of the compromise as mentioned before.15

5. According the article that was published by U.S Naval War College, Autonomous

Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical

Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified by Marco Sassóli section IV Spesific IHL

Issue, Point A, Paragraph 2,” It is obvious that before autonomous weapons may be

deployed, such an assessment must be made.53 It may be that “reviews should take

place at the stage of the conception/design of the weapon, and thereafter at the stages

of its technological development (development of prototypes and testing), and in any

case before entering into the production contract”. Again, it is consistent will all the

13Neil Davidson, A Legal Perspective: Autonomous Weapon Systems Under International Humanitarian Law,
Legal Division International Committee of the Red Cross

14 Compromis, Paragraph 24

15Marco Sassóli, Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical
Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified, 90 INT’L L. STUD. 308 (2014), Volume 90 2014

8
 requirements, that The Republic of Rasasa and State of Adawa have already conducted

such all requirements including Study, Development and Testing process16.

16Marco Sassóli, Autonomous Weapons and International Humanitarian Law: Advantages, Open Technical
Questions and Legal Issues to be Clarified, 90 INT’L L. STUD. 308 (2014), Volume 90 2014

9
 C. Adawa’s claim that Rasasa’s Helian tariffs violate the CHC Treaty falls outside

the Court’s jurisdiction or is inadmissible; in the alternatives, the imposition of

the tariffs did not violate the CHC Treaty

1. Pulling tariffs on Helian Products is an act that does not violate CHC Treaty.

a) Having regard to Vienna Convention on The Law of Making Treaties

Article 2, treaty means to international agreement concluded between

States in written form and governed by international law, whether

embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments

and whatever its particular designation;17

b) In order to make a treaty with other countries, a country has the right to

make a reservation.

1) According to the Article 2 Vienna Convention On The Law

Making Treaties, reservation means to a unilateral statement,

however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing,

ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby

it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain

provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.18

2. The Republic of Rasasa has the right to set and determine tariffs on their Helian

Products for the benefit of his own country.

a) The the main pillar in determining the price of trade products in a

country or for exports is because of the basic principles in the economy.

In order to reach the benefit so the country determining the price based

on the principle including:

17
Vienna Convention On Law Making Treaties. Art. 1 (1)
18
Vienna Convention On The Law Making Treaties. Art. 2.

10
 1) Pricing to maximize profits

2) Facing or preventing competition

3) Maintaining price stability

4) Achieving income and investment

5) Maintaining or increasing the market share

3. Claims from State of Adawa regarding to policies adopted by the Republic of

Rasasa will not be accepted by the court because there is no element that violates

the agreement as alleged.

a) Claim that Rasasa’s Helian Tariffs violate the CHC Treaty is a kind of

Internationlly Wrongful Act.19

1) According to the United Nation Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Act Article 2 stating that there is an

internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting

of an action or omission: (a) is attributable to the State under

international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international

obligation of the State.

2) Adawa's claim to the Republic of Rasasa which stated that his

policy had violated the CHC Treaty resulted the disruption of

Rasasa's economic stability, so The State responsible for the

internationally wrongful act is under an obligation: (a) to cease

that act, if it is continuing; (b) to offer appropriate assurances

and guarantees of non-repetition, if circumstances so require.

19
United Nation Responsibility od States For Internationally Wrongful Act (2001)

11
3) Relating to responsibility as a consequence of internationally

wrongful act, a state responsible for an internationally wrongful

act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-

establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was

committed, provided and to the extent that restitution: (a) is not

materially impossible; (b) does not involve a burden out of all

proportion to the benefit deriving from restitution instead of

compensation.

4) Having regard to Article 36 of Internationally Wrongful Act (1)

The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under

an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby,

insofar as such damage is not made good by restitution, and (2)

The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage

including loss of profits insofar as it is established.

12
 D. Adawa’s arrest and detention of Darian Grey constitute internationally wrongful

acts, and that she must be immediately repatriated to Rasasa

1. According to the case of “The Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic Of

The Congo v. Belgium)”. The court concluded that the issue and circulation of the arrest

warrant of 11 April 2000 by the Belgian authorities failde to respcet the immunity of the

incumbent minister for foreign affairs of the congo and more particulary, infringed the

immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability then enjoyed by Mr. Yerodia

(minister for foreign affair of the Congo)20. Same as Adawa’s arrest of Darian Gray as the

minister for foreign affairs of Rasasa21, consider as violation of respcet to the immunity as

minister for foreign affairs of Rasasa.

2. Having regard to Article 2 Responsibility of states for Internationally Wrongful Acts :

“There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action

or omission:

(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and

(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State” 22

23
First, Adawa is a state under international law and second, made a breach of an

international obligation of the state for the arrest and detention of Darian Grey,

according to Convention on Special Missions 1969 Article 31 (1), “The representatives

of the sending State in the special mission and the members of its diplomatic staff shall

20Case Concerning THE ARREST WARRANT OF 11 APRIL 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium),
Judgement, 2002, I.C.J,3 ¶75

21 Compromis, ¶32

22 Responsibility of States For Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 2 (2001)

23 Compromis, ¶8 ¶60

13
 enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State”24. and according

to The practice of the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the International

Atomic Energy Agency concerning their status, privileges and immunities: study

prepared by the Secretariat on Section 11 (a) of The General Convention and Section 9

(a) of the 1946 Agreement with Swirzerland Provide, inter alia, for the Immunity from

personal arrest or detention of representatives. 25 Therefore, Adawa conducted an act of

international wrongful act.

3. Article 31(1) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, “A diplomatic agent shall enjoy

immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.”26 Adawa and Rasasa have

been parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations27, therefore Adawa have

an obligation to submit.

24 Convention on Special Missions, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1400, p. 231 (1969), Art. 31 (1)

25 The practice of the United Nations, the specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency
concerning their status, privileges and immunities: study prepared by the Secretariat “Representation of States
in their relations with international organizations”, A/CN.4/L.118 amd Add. 1 amd 2, (1967) Section 11 (a)

26 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Art. 31 (1), (1961)

27 Compromis, ¶60

14
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Republic of Rasasa respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and declare:

I.

This Court lacks jurisdiction over Adawa’s claim because Adawa is not a party to the 1929

Treaty of Botega; and

II.

Development and deployment of the WALL along the border between Adawa and Rasasa is

consistent with international law; and

III.

The claim about Helian tariffs violate CHC Treaty falls outside This Court’s jurisdiction or is

inadmissible; in the alternative, the imposition of the tariffs did not violate the CHC Treaty;

and

IV.

Arrest and detention of Darian Grey constitute internationally wrongful acts, and that she

must be immediately repatriated to Rasasa.

Respectfully Submitted,

Agents of the Government of the Republic of Rasasa

15