Applicant Memorial

(1)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

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

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

-STATE OF SOREMON & REPRESENTATIVES OF BOLR

/ STATE OF BOREMON

(2)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT II TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF AUTHORITIES ... VI STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ... X STATEMENT OF FACTS ... XI

ISSUES RAISED ... XVI

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ... XVII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ... 1

1. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH WAS SIGNED ON 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT ROMIA ... 1

2. BOLR HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION AND IS A FREE NATION ... 3

2.1.THAT SELF-DETERMINATION IS A LEGAL RIGHT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ... 3

2.2.THAT RIGHT TO SELF- DETERMINATION IS A PEREMPTORY NORM ... 3

2.3.THE PEOPLE OF BOLR ARE ENTITLED TO THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION... 5

3. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CIVILIANS BY INDULGING ITSELF IN THE KILLINGS OF MANY INNOCENTS SPECIALLY IN THE BOLR REGION ... 5

3.1.STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS ... 6

(3)

III

3.2.1. CIVILIANS WERE ATTACKED BY THE BOREMON FORCES IN CONTRAVENTION OF AP-I .. 6

3.3.THAT THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED AGREEMENT FOR THE RIGHT OF SELF -DETERMINATION AND TO ESTABLISH A DEMOCRATIC SET UP IN BOLR ... 7

3.3.1. THAT THE UNREST IN BOLR REGION IS WIDELY REPORTED ... 8

3.3.2. THAT THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS FUELLED SECTARIAN DIVIDE IN THE REGION ... 8

4. THE STATE OF BOREMON ILLEGALLY POSSESS THE TERRITORY OF BOLR INCLUDING AZAD LOLA AND RAMOLA (ALR) AND GILLY BUKET ... 9

4.1.BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY ... 9

4.1.1. ARTICLE 5 OF DECLARATION ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT ... 9

4.1.2. WORLD SUMMIT OUTCOME 2005 ... 9

4.2.FORCES OF BOREMON VIOLATED THE RESOLUTIONS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY ... 10

4.2.1. RESOLUTION 42/22 OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ... 10

4.2.2.BOREMIAN FORCES HAVE VIOLATED THE MANILA RESOLUTION ... 10

4.3. THAT THE STATE OF LOLA AND RAMOLA INCLUDING THE BOLR REGION IS AN INTERGRAL PART OF SOREMON ... 11

5. THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WARRANTS SOME STRINGENT ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN UP BY THE ICJ AGAINST BOREMON ... 12

(4)

IV

5.2 THERE EXISTS INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT BETWEEN BOREMON AND SOREMON

5.2.1. THE CONFLICT FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 1(4) OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL 1 OF 1977 ... 12

5.2.2. IN ARGUENDO, THE SOREMONION INTERVENTION INTERNATIONALIZED THE ARMED CONFLICT ... 13

6. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A SERIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF HIGH VALUE AND DIGNITY WHILE DEFENDING ITS STANCE IN BOLR ... 14

6.1. BOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

(ICCPR) ... 14

6.1.1. BOREMON IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ICCPR ... 14

6.1.2. VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ICCPR HAVE BEEN VIOLATED ... 14

6.2.BOREMON IS ACTING AGAINST ITS OBLIGATION UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW NOT TO INTERVENE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANOTHER STATE ... 15

6.2.1. ACTIONS OF BOREMON AMOUNT TO BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ... 15

6.3.VIOLATION UNDER UDHR,1948 ... 17

7. THAT THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY, IN THE TERRITORY OF BOLR MUST BE INSTATED BY THE ICJ BY ALLOWING BOLR TO MERGE WITH SOREMON ... 17

7.1.BOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OF PROHIBITION OF USE OF FORCE ... 17

(5)

V

7.1.2. THERE EXISTS NO RIGHT OF UNILATERAL HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION ... 18

7.2.THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER IMMEDIATE CESSATION OF BOREMON‟S WRONGFUL ACTS ... 18

7.2.1. THAT THE USE OF FORCE BY BOREMON WAS AN INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT . 18

7.2.2. CESSATION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT ... 19

(6)

VI

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)

 UN Security Resolution 47, Kashmir

 General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th

October, 1970.  The Geneva Conventions of 1949.

RESOLUTIONS

 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.

 The General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of

International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations: A/RES/25/2625 (24 October 1970)

 G.A. Res.1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial

(7)

VII

 U.N. Doc.A/RES/1514(XV) (1960)[ hereinafter Colonial Declaration];

 GA Res. 1541(XV), Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the

Charter, December 15, 1960, A/4684 (1960)

ACTS & REPORTS

 Indian Independence Act, 1947.

 International Status of South-West Africa, ICJ Reports, 1950, p.131.  ICJ Reports 1950, p.132.

 A.J.I.L, Vol. 22 (1968), pp. 867-912

 Permanent Court of International Justice (1993) A/B No.53 (3 W.C.R. 151)  I.C.J. Reports 1953, p.47

 UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373.

 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.

 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]

(8)

VIII CASES

 Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), (1995) 102 I.C.J. Rep. 90

 Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), (1970) 304 I.C.J.

 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Second Phase) 2 February 1973.  United Kingdom v. Iceland, (1974) 162 I.C.J. Rep. 3.  Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, (2000) ¶ 521 Case No. IT-95-16-T.  Blaskić Case, IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000.

 Kordić & Čerkez Case, July 18 2008.

 Abella v. Argentina, (1997) Case No 11.137 Report No 55/97  Palestinian Territory Case, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004.

 Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, (1981) U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 176 (1981).

ADVISORY OPINION

 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, (1975) 31-33 I.C.J. Rep. 12

 Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, (2004) 136 I.C.J. Rep. 9 July 2004. [hereinafter

Palestinian Territory Case]

(9)

IX BOOKS & ARTICLES

 Antonia Cassese, Self Determination of Peoples- A Legal Appraisal (1996).  R. Provost, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2002)

 Patrick Bascio (2007). Defeating Islamic Terrorism: An Alternative Strategy. Branden Books.

 "Pakistan: Rampant Killings of Shia by Extremists". Human Rights Watch. June 30, 2014.

 Astrid J. M. Delissen, Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead1 08 (1991).

 Kashmir Across LoC, Debidatta Aurobindo Mahapatra, Gyan Publications, 2003, Pg. 14.  S.R.S. Bedi, The Development of Human Rights Law by the Judges of the International

Court of Justice, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2007.

 J.G. Starke Introduction to International Law, Tenth Edition.  L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Eighth Edition.  J.E.S. Fawcett, The Law of Nations,OUP Oxford, 2008.

 Rigo Sureda, The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination.

 Louis B. John, The Development of the Charter of the United Nations: The Present

(10)

X

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 The State of Soremon, and

representatives of BoLR, undertake to accept the judgment of this Court as final and binding and

shall execute it in good faith in its entirety.

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.

(11)

XI

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

(12)

XII

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 „Gilly Buket‟ 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

(13)

XIII

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. The Soremon‟s part of L&R followed the democratic path

as per Article 370 of the Soremonian constitution while the area under Boremon‟s occupation was bifurcated into two - 'Azad Lola and Ramola' (ALR) and the 'Northern Areas', which

consisted of Gilly Buket. . 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 Gilly Buket 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

(14)

XIV

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 NGO‟s 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”.

(15)

XV 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 will not help in reaching any diplomatic solution. By virtue of the UN Secretariat‟s mediation, both the countries decided to conclude “The Agreement for the Right of

Self-Determination 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. Zakeer Sakia,

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,

(16)

XVI ISSUES RAISED

The parties have placed before this Hon‟ble Court, the following Questions for its consideration:

A)THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH WAS SIGNED ON

16THSEPTEMBER,2015 AT ROMIA

B)THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS DECLINED TO ITS PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN BOLR THE BASIC

MINIMAL RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION

C)THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS BY INDULGING ITSELF IN THE KILLINGS

OF MANY INNOCENTS SPECIALLY IN THE BOLR REGION

D)THE STATE OF BOREMON ILLEGALLY POSSESS THE TERRITORY OF BOLR INCLUDING AZZAD AND

GILLY BUKET

E)THE PRINCIPAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WARRANTS SOME STRINGENT ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY

THE ICJ IN THIS REGARD

F) THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A SERIES OF INTERNATIONAL

CONVENTIONS OF HIGH VALUE AND DIGNITY WHILE DEFENDING ITS STANCE IN BOLR

G) THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY, IN THE TERRITORY OF BOLR MUST BE INSTATED BY THE ICJ

EITHER BY ALLOWING BOLR TO MERGE WITH SOREMON OR BY ESTABLISHING A FULL-FLEDGED

DEMOCRACY IN THE REGION.

The Applicant has duly addressed all the aforementioned in the form of seven substantive

(17)

XVII

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

a) The State of Boremon has violated the international treaty which was signed on 16th September, 2015 at Romia

The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in

BoLR (ARSDB) was violated by the State of Boremon when it failed to follow the Agreement

that it was instrumental in making and signing by committing atrocities upon the people of BoLR

as elaborated in submissions below.

b) The State of Boremon has declined to its people who are living in BoLR the basic minimal right of Self-determination

International treaties and covenants such as the ICCPR, the UN charter, the ICHR, all accept the

right to self-determination to be a jus cogens norm binding on all States. It is a legal right under

International Law. The people of BoLR are entitled to the right of self-determination according

to the current state practices and the essential principles of self-determination.

c) The State of Boremon has violated human rights by indulging itself in the killings of many innocents especially in the BoLR region

The State of Boremon has violated different human rights conventions and instruments by killing

innocent protestors of the region and repeatedly violating the agreement for the right of

self-determination. The UDHR as well as the other agreements that both states are a party to, prohibit

the killing of innocent people. In the instant case, innocent civilians were killed because of the

(18)

XVIII

d) The State of Boremon illegally possess the territory of BoLR including Azad and Gilly Buket

The State of Boremon has been in illegal occupation of Azad Lola and Ramola (ALR) and Gilly

Buket since October 22, 1947 as a result of which the status of the said territory has remained in

dispute and the people have been in poverty due to continued suppression and oppression.

e) The principal of international law warrants some stringent actions to be taken by the ICJ in this regard

Since the State of Boremon has flagrantly violated different principles and provisions of

International Law from time to time in administering the territory of BoLR by illegally

occupation and violating the surmount principle of non-intervention, they are in clear

contravention of the said law.

f) The State of Boremon has repeatedly violated a series of international conventions of high value and dignity while defending its stance in BoLR

The State of Boremon has flagrantly violated numerous international conventions primarily the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (UDHR), 1948 while illegally occupying the territory of BoLR and oppressing the

people of BoLR.

g) The State of Democracy, in the territory of BoLR must be instated by the ICJ by allowing BoLR to merge with Soremon.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that restoration of peace and harmony in the

territory of BoLR can be brought by establishing the state of democracy and merging it with

Soremon. The reason for this move is because the people have been in poverty and illiteracy for

(19)

1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL TREATY WHICH WAS SIGNED ON 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT ROMIA

It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that the Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR (ARSDB) was violated by the State

of Boremon when it committed atrocities upon the people of BoLR and did not give it a fair

chance to become a democracy.

The ARSDB clearly states in its preamble that violence was wrong, that democracy was utmost,

that the use of weapons was a threat and that peace is the way forward.2 Despite the words that

were etched on the paper by the Nation of Boremon, they chose to violate the agreement by not

only going against the spirit of the treaty but also violating a majority of the Articles stated

specifically as are enumerated below.

Article 1 of the ARSDB states that it is the obligation to establish peace in the territory of BoLR

and in adherence to the principle of Non-intervention but that has not happened in the instant

case as Boremon failed to withdraw its troops from Lola and Ramola.3

Soremon maintains that BoLR has been under the illegitimate control of Boremon since October

22, 1947.4 The continuing subjugation by Boremon over the decades had led to an acute sense of

alienation amongst the people.5

2_{Annexure No. 1, Preamble.} 3_{Compromis ¶ 14, Line 8.} 4

(20)

2

Article 2 states that the people of BoLR and the whole Northern region have a right of

Self-Determination. Every state inherently has the right to demand for self-determination. It is an

internal right, not dependent on external approval or any other state. Hence, the people of BoLR

are within their right to ask for the same.

Article 3 of the Agreement states that human Rights must be promoted but in the instant

scenario, there has been continuous violation of Human Rights such as open fire at the innocent

public killing 45 people6, riots claiming 700 lives7, and also a Report published by WHRO which

gave an overview of the situation of BoLR.8

Article 4 states that Boremon will conduct free & fair elections in BoLR and shall ensure the

transparency in the process .The ALR High Court had directed the ALR government to assume

charge of the region and bring in a rudimentary form of government.9 Instead, their political

leader was abducted and found killed which fell conveniently at the time of elections. The only

hope of a democratic government, a voice of truth for the people was quashed by the

Boremonian government.

Article 5 states that the State of Soremon will withdraw of its Army from the BoLR regions and

not indulge in any further Army deployment in the region in an effort to establish peace in the

region. The violence that is occurring in the region due to the non-democratic activities of the

people at power in Boremon has made it difficult for such a move to be made and the State of

Soremon, cares about the number of people who are being affected by the rule and suffering at

the hands of an unjust nation that has for its own benefit, given away land to another nation that

5 Compromis ¶ 14, Line 14. 6_{Compromis ¶ 16, Line 14.} 7_{Compromis ¶ 12, Line 18.} 8_{Compromis ¶ 14. Line 7.} 9 Compromis ¶ 14. Line 24.

(21)

3

will benefit its own nation while unjustly depriving the people of BoLR of their land and its

produce.

The continuing acts of violence and threats10 by the State of Boremon has made it difficult for

the State of Soremon to continue honoring the Agreement made and therefore have approached

the Hon‟ble Court to seek a resolution.

2. BOLR HAS EXERCISED ITS RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION AND IS A FREE NATION

2.1. That Self-Determination is an Inherent Right under International Law

Self-determination is the right of peoples to “freely determine their political status and freely

pursue their economic, social and cultural development”11

. The UN Charter12 recognizes this right as a prerequisite to enjoyment of other rights. The Security Council‟s work relating to non-self-governing territories13 and the General Assembly‟s recognition14 of self-determination

reaffirm this principle. The right is also incorporated in the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights15 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights16, to

which Boremon is a party17.

2.2. That right to self- determination is a peremptory norm

It is humbly submitted that this Court has recognized the customary nature of the right to

10_{Compromis ¶ 18.} 11

International Covenants on Human Rights, Common Article 1, December 16, 1966, U.N.T.S., vol. 999.

12_{Article 1(2), 55, 73(b) and76(b) of the United Nations Charter, 1945. [ hereinafter The Charter]} 13_{SC Res. 163 (XVI), Question Relating to Angola, June 9, 1961, S/4835 (1961).}

14_{GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4,}

1950, A/RES/421.

15_{International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S.171. [hereinafter ICCPR].} 16_{International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.[hereinafter}

ICESR].

17

(22)

4

determination18. Many eminent publicists consider it to be a jus cogens norm19. The obligation to

facilitate and respect self-determination is an erga omnes obligation20, binding on all states21.

“Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people”22. Right to Remedial succession also exists for the people.

A number of General Assembly Resolutions23 on self-determination reflect binding customary

norms, as they intend to declare law and were adopted by genuine consensus24.The Court moved

one step further in the East Timor case25 when it declared that

“Portugal‟s assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character, is irreproachable.”

The Court emphasized that the right of peoples to self-determination was „one of the essential

principles of contemporary international law‟26

.These propositions were all reaffirmed by the

International Court in the Construction of a Wall advisory opinion27.

18_{Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, (1975) 31-33 I.C.J. Rep. 12 [hereinafter Western Sahara Case]; Case}

concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), (1995) 102 I.C.J. Rep. 90. [hereinafter East Timor Case].

19_{Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), (1970) 304}

I.C.J. Rep. 3. [hereinafter Barcelona Traction Case].

20_{East Timor Case, supra note 8.} 21_{Barcelona Traction Case, supra note 9.}

22_{The General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning}

Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:

A/RES/25/2625 (24 October 1970). [hereinafter Friendly Relations Declaration]

23 _{Id., at n76; G.A. Res.1514 (XV), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and}

Peoples at no. 75, Dec. 14 1960 U.N. Doc.A/RES/1514(XV) (1960)[ hereinafter Colonial Declaration]; GA Res.

1541(XV), Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter, December 15, 1960, A/4684 (1960).

24_{Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Second Phase) (United Kingdom v. Iceland), (1974) 162 I.C.J. Rep. 3.} 25_{East Timor Case, supra note 8, at 90.}

26

(23)

5

2.3. The people of BoLR are entitled to the right to self-determination

According to current principles of state practice recently used to analyze Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Croatia and Macedonia, minorities within existing states can secede as a means to gain

self-determination only when they meet the following six criteria of self-self-determination28: (1) the

existence of a distinct, self-defined group within a state that overwhelmingly supports

separatism; (2) a legitimate claim to the territory; (3) a pattern of systematic discrimination or

exploitation against a sizable, self-defined minority; (4) the central government's rejection of

compromise solutions; (5) the prospect of the territory and people concerned becoming a viable

state; and (6) the effect of granting or refusing self-determination on regional and international

peace, the effectuation of authoritative governmental processes and respect for human rights, and

the impact on both regional and global value processes.29 These prerequisites are met by people

of BoLR who faced colonial subjugation and oppression by Boremon. They confiscated their

grazing lands and fragmented of BoLR societies through drawing of arbitrary boundaries

between BoLR and its neighbors.

3. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CIVILIANS BY INDULGING ITSELF IN THE KILLINGS OF MANY INNOCENTS SPECIALLY IN THE BOLR REGION

The distinction between the combatant and the non-combatant elements of a community is the

essential condition precedent of the humanizing of war.30 The latter category includescivilians.31

27_{Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian}

Territory, (2004) 136 I.C.J. Rep. 9 July 2004. [hereinafter Palestinian Territory Case]

28_{Antonia Cassese, Self Determination of Peoples- A Legal Appraisal (1996).} 29_Ibid

30_{Astrid J. M. Delissen, Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead1 08 (1991).} 31

(24)

6

The importance of ensuring that civilians were not targeted was echoed by the ICTY in Blaskic32,

and Kordic and Cerkez case.33 In the case of Abella v. Argentina,34 the Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights also affirmed the principle of distinction.

3.1. State of boremon has violated international human rights instruments

Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 3 of UDHR35 confers the right to life.36 The killing of

innocent protestors by the Boremonian army is a clear violation of ICCPR and UDHR which

guarantees right to life to civilians. Article 9 provides for the right against arbitrary arrest or

detention.37 Innocent people were taken as prisoners and detained illegally, in turn, violating the

Article 9. In 2013, the World Human Rights Observatory (WHRO) an acclaimed international

organization, published a full-fledged report in a global newspaper which stated that the people

are being oppressed and not being given an optimum chance to live their life.38

3.2. That the Boremonian army killed Innocent Protestors of the region

3.2.1. Civilians were attacked by the Boremon armed forces in contravention of AP-I

It is to be noted that the various attacks by the Boremon armed forces led to forty five civilians

losing their lives,39 Article 50(1)40 of Additional protocol defines population as a civilian under

the meaning of International Law.41

32_{Blaskić Case, supra note 78.}

33_{Kordić & Čerkez Case, supra note 80.}

34_{Abella v. Argentina, (1997) Case No 11.137 Report No 55/97} 35

Article 3, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

36_{ICCPR, Art. 6.} 37_{ICCPR, Art. 9.} 38_{Compromis ¶ 14.} 39

Compormis ¶ 16..

40_{Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of}

Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) Art. 50(1) reads: „A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the

categories of persons referred to in Article 4‟, June 8, 1977, 1125 UNTS 3. [hereinafter Additional Protocol I]

41

(25)

7

3.2.2. There is a duty to demarcate between civilians and combatants

Article 4842 of the Additional Protocol I appears under the heading 'Basic Rule' and thus, is an

important element of the context in which all of the subsequent rules should be interpreted. The

principle of distinction has been characterized by the International Court of Justice as a

fundamental and intransgressible principle of customary international law.43

3.2.3. There is a duty to protect civilians during an armed conflict

By way of Article 51(1),44 Article 51(2)45 and Article 51(3),46 the Additional Protocol I aims to

protect the civilians during an armed conflict. The ICTY, in the case of Stanislav Galic,47 held

that in case of armed conflict attacks should not be directed towards the civilians.

3.3. That the state of boremon has violated agreement for the right of self-determination and to establish a democratic set up in BoLR

Article 4 of the ARSBD48 which states the commitment of the state of Boremon is violated by

the killing of Mr. Kamaal Khan and other human rights violation in the region. It is to be noted

that on November, 2015, the dead-body of Mr. Kamaal Khan was found in some deserted

42_Id.

43_{Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (1996) ¶ 78-79 I.C.J. Rep. 66.}

[hereinafter Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons]

44

Additional Protocol I, supra note 88, at Art. 51 (1) reads: „The civilian population and individual civilians shall

enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.‟

45

Id., at Art. 51 (2) reads: „The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of

attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.‟

46_{Id., at Art. 51 (3) reads: „Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as}

they take a direct part in hostilities.‟

47_{Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, (2003) ¶ 54 Case No. IT-98-29-A}

48_{The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR, Article 4:”The}

State of Boremon agrees that its shall conduct the free and fair elections in the BoLR and shall ensure the transparency in the process.”

(26)

8

regions of East Sufighanistan.49

3.3.1. That the atrocities in BoLR Region have come to light in the International community The BB-BBN is a leading international News Channel of Soremon carried detailed news

covering the unrest in BoLR and particularly, it showed footage where the Boremian Army

massacred many people in BoLR. The video was soon being telecasted the world over. The UN

Secretary General sent a letter to the prime minister of Boremon condemning and reprimanding

the acts of Boremon and pleaded for the negotiation along with the Prime Minister of Soremon to

which Mr. Fawad Khan replied negatively.50

3.3.2. That the State Of Boremon Has Fuelled Sectarian Divide in The Region

Boremon has been seeing a surge in violence against Shia Muslims in the country in recent

decades.51 And since 1947 "thousands of Shia" has been killed by Sunni extremists according to

the human rights group Human Rights Watch.52 Sectarian divide has plagued BoLR for long and

much of this has to do with the Boremon state which has time and again played the sectarian card

to fulfill its sinister designs in BoLR.53

The sectarian divide in BoLR is well-documented in an ICG, an NGO‟s 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.”54 According to the

report, riots claimed 700 lives. Sectarian elements from neighboring provinces actively

patronized by the state have unleashed a reign of terror in the region from time to time. They

49_{Compromis ¶ 14.} 50_{Compromis ¶ 17.} 51

Patrick Bascio, (2007). Defeating Islamic Terrorism: An Alternative Strategy. Branden Books. p. 60.

52_{"Pakistan: Rampant Killings of Shia by Extremists". Human Rights Watch. June 30, 2014. Retrieved 16}

November 2014

53_{Compromis ¶ 12.} 54

(27)

9

looted and burnt villages and did not even spare the livestock in their state-sponsored rampage.55

4. THE STATE OF BOREMON ILLEGALLY POSSESS THE TERRITORY OF BOLR INCLUDING AZAD LOLA AND RAMOLA (ALR) AND GILLY BUKET

The Applicant submits before the Hon‟ble Court that 'Azad Lola & Ramola (ALR)' and „Gilly

Buket‟ are integral parts of the State of Soremon and the state of Boremon has had illegitimate control over the region since October 22, 1947.56

4.1. Breach of The Principle Of Territorial Integrity

Every state shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national

unity and territorial integrity of any other state or country.57 In Lotus Case, the court observed

that the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that a state may

not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state.58

4.1.1. Article 5 oOf Declaration On The Right To Development

The Declaration on the Right to Development59 adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 41/128 called in for states to take resolute action to eliminate „threats against national sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity.‟

4.1.2. World Summit Outcome 2005

In this summit, the world leaders reaffirmed „to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign

55

Compromis ¶ 14.

56_{Compromis ¶ 9.}

57_{Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 12.}

58_{S.S. Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), (1927) 18 PCIJ Series A/No. 10.} 59

(28)

10

equality of all states, and respect their territorial integrity and political independence.‟60

4.2. Forces Of Boremon Violated The Resolutions Of General Assembly

The Boremon Army forces by way of killing protesters in BoLR and Azad Lola and Ramola in

the territory of Soremon, and other military operations of Soremon61 have acted in contravention

to the recognized principle of United Nations which prohibits the use of force by one state in

other‟s territory. Such an aggressive approach by Boremon has resulted in a blatant violation of the following resolutions of the UN General Assembly.

4.2.1 Resolution 42/22 of the General Assembly

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity

or political independence of any State. Such an action constitutes a violation of international law

and of the United Nations Charter and entails international responsibility. The principle of

refraining from the threat or use of force in international relations is universal in character.62

4.2.2. Boremian Forces have Violated The Manila Resolution

As per the Manila declaration63 all States shall refrain in their international relations from the

threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This

was blatantly violated when The Prime Minister of Boremon made the statement that all affairs

are the internal affairs and outside interference is not welcome. He also made the statement -

“Boremon is a also a Nuclear Country and if needed, we shall not hesitate to show our power.”64

60_{UN GA Res. 60/1, World Summit Outcome, ¶ 5, October 24, 2005, UN Doc. No. A/RES/60/1 (2005).} 61_{Compromis ¶16.}

62

Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, UN GA Res.42/22, UN Doc. S/RES/42/22 (1987).

63_{UN GA Res.37/10, Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, November 15, 1982,}

UN Doc. S/RES/37/10 (1982).

64

(29)

11

4.3. That the State Of Lola and Ramola Including the BoLR Region Is An Integral Part Of Soremon

The provision for accession made in the Government of India Act of 1935 as adopted under the Independence Act of 1947, read: “An Indian State shall be deemed to have acceded to the

Dominion if the Governor General has signified the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by Ruler thereof.”65

Neither the law had any provision that the accession for consulting

the people of the princely states nor there was any provision that the accession had to be ratified

by the people.66 Further the U.N resolution of August 13, 1948 clearly stated that Pakistan was to

vacate its troops from the whole of the state.67

It is to be noted that Tribal Lashkars supported by Boremon invaded the princely state of L&R

and soon afterwards the ruler of the state acceded to Soremon.68 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.69

The republic of Soremon maintains that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 on

Lola and Ramola was passed by UNSC under chapter VI of UN Charter, which are non-binding

and have no mandatory enforceability.70 In March 2001,the then Secretary-General of the United

Nations, Jofrey Anna during his visit to Soremon and Boremon ,remarked that the Lola-Ramola

resolutions are only advisory recommendations and comparing with those on East Limor and

Firaq was like comparing apples and oranges, since those resolutions were passed under chapter

65_{Indian Independence Act, 1947.} 66

Kashmir Across LoC, Debidatta Aurobindo Mahapatra, Gyan Publications, 2003, Pg. 14.

67_{UN Security Council Resolion, 47, Kashmir.} 68_{Compromis ¶ 7.}

69_Ibid. 70

(30)

12

VII, which make it enforceable by UNSC.71 Therefore, this Northern Region needs to be rid of

the oppression that is plaguing them in the form of the Boremon government.

5. THE PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WARRANTS SOME STRINGENT ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN UP BY THE ICJ AGAINST BOREMON

5.1. A Non-international armed conflict has arisen internally within Boremon

A non-international armed conflict exists when the violence has protracted and produced

intensity within one territory.72. It is humbly contended that the threshold has been met in the

instant scenario as in order to deal with the Kama Khan situation, the Boremion army was

especially deployed, which did not hesitate in opening fire, in which 45 citizens were killed

instantly.73

5.2. There exists international conflict between Boremon and Soremon

5.2.1. The conflict falls within the ambit of article 1(4) of the Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 Article 1(4) provides that armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial

domination, alien occupation or racist regimes are to be considered international conflicts74. The

expression “alien occupation” covers cases of partial or total occupation of a territory which has not yet been fully formed as a State.75 There must be an armed conflict in which people are

struggling against colonial domination, alien occupation or a racist regime; and the struggle of

71_{Compromis ¶ 9.}

72_{Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, (1997) ¶70 Case No. IT-94-1-T. [hereinafter Tadić Case]; Prosecutor v. Ramush}

Haradinaj etal, (2008) ¶36 Case No. IT-04-84-T.

73_{Compromis ¶ 16.Article 3 of Geneva Convention of 1949.} 74_{Article 2 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.}

75_{Jean Pictet, Commentary on the Additional rotocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August}

(31)

13

that people must be in order to exercise its right to self-determination.76 The fact that the Shias

are being discriminated against, as well as the People of the Northern region were feeling a sense

of alienation under the tyrannical rule of the Boremon government.77

5.3. In Arguendo, the Soremonion intervention internationalized the armed conflict

An influential current of legal scholarship argues that a foreign military intervention into

conflicts taking place in the territory of another State has an internationalizing effect on the

non-international armed conflict taking place in another country, transforms or „contaminates‟ them,

therefore all conflicts will have to be deemed as international armed conflicts.78

In the Tadić case, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavvia (ICTY)

clearly stated that: “An armed conflict may become international if (i) another State intervenes in

that conflict through its troops, or alternatively if (ii) some of the participants in the internal armed conflict act on behalf of that other State.”79

The chamber relied on it determining that foreign involvement internationalized the internal

conflict in the Blaskić,80 Aleksovski,81 Kordić & Čerkez,82 & Nalelitić83 cases.

76_{William H. Boothby, The Law of Targeting 47 (2012).} 77

Compromis ¶ 11.

78_{T.J. Farer, The Humanitarian Laws of War in Civil Strife: Towards a Definition of International Armed Conflict,}

15-50 7 Rev. Belge de Droit Int. 20 (1971).

79_{Tadić Case, supra note 71, at ¶ 84.} 80

Prosecutor v. Blaskić, (2000) ¶ 76-94 Case No. IT-95-14-T. [hereinafter Blaskić Case]

81_{Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, (2000) ¶ 137 Case No. IT-95-14/1-A.}

82_{Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić & Mario Čerkez, (2001) Case No. IT-95-14/2-T. [hereinafter Kordić & Čerkez Case]} 83_{Prosecutor v Nalelitić, (2003) ¶ 182: „Indeed, the doctrine has become so accepted in the ICTY jurisprudence that}

(32)

14

6. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A SERIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF HIGH VALUE AND DIGNITY WHILE DEFENDING ITS STANCE IN BOLR

6.1. Boremon Has Violated The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)

6.1.1. Boremon is bound to comply with the provisions of ICCPR In the Wall case, this Court clearly stated that:

“While the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, it may sometimes be exercised outside the national territory. Considering the object and purpose of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even when such is the case, States parties to the Covenant should be bound to comply with its provisions.”84

In addition, the activities by the armed forces over which the state has “effective control” are under the jurisdiction of the State.85

6.1.2. Various provisions of the ICCPR have been violated

Article 6 of the ICCPR confers the right to life.86 The blatant violation of Human Rights by the

Boremon forces that resulted in death of seven hundred civilians87 violated the article 6 and

deprived innocent civilians of their right to life. Article 9 provides for the right against arbitrary

arrest or detention.88 Certain non-combatants were captured by the Boremon forces as prisoners

84

Palestinian Territory Case, supra note 17, at 178-179.

85_{Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, (1981) U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 176 (1981).} 86_{ICCPR, supra note 5, at Art. 6.}

87_{Compromis ¶ 17.} 88

(33)

15

of war, were ignored and were not even provided food for several days.89 Hence, innocent people

were taken as prisoners and detained illegally, in turn, violating the Article 9.

6.2. Boremon is Acting against Its Obligation under Customary International Law Not to

Intervene in the Affairs of another State

6.2.1. Actions of Boremon amount to Breach of International Law

It is noted that since Boremon was exercising effective control over the attacks conducted in the

State of Soremon, the state of Boremon is liable for the breaches of International law provisions.

The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law and is based

on the principle of sovereignty of the states.90 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.91 The state of Soremon claims for the mentioned violations of customary laws.

6.2.1.1. Breaches of UN recognized principles

Boremon 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 force92.

Security Council Resolution 137393 and General Assembly Resolution 262594 constitute

subsequent practice for interpreting UN Charter provisions95.

89_{Clarifications, no. 1.} 90

The Charter, supra note 2.

91_{The DARIO, supra note 61.} 92_{The Charter, supra note 2, Art. 2(4).}

93_{UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, September 28,}

(34)

16

6.2.2.2. Breach of other customary principles of international law

Boremon committed breaches of the recognized principles of customary international law. ¶ 1

and ¶ 3 of the Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American

States makes a clear statement for states to strictly observe the principle of non-intervention to

ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with an obligation not to support or promote any armed

activities against another state.

In accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of

the inherent dignity and of the equal and in alien able rights of all members of the human family

is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The ideal of free human beings

enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if

conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his

economic, social and cultural rights.

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to

promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which

he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights

recognized in the present Covenant.

94_{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.

95_{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]

(35)

17 6.3. Violation under UDHR, 1948

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have

outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall

enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the

highest aspiration of the common people.

7. THAT THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY, IN THE TERRITORY OF BOLR MUST BE INSTATED BY THE ICJ BY ALLOWING BOLR TO MERGE WITH SOREMON

7.1. Boremon has violated the principle of prohibition of use of force

7.1.1. The obligation to refrain from the use of force is an obligation erga omnes

Article 2(4) of the UN charter prohibits States from “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. “Threat or use of force” includes a series of the strikes and invasion against another State‟s territory.96

The UN Charter adopts a

clear-cut approach to force by distinguishing three types: armed, economic and political.97 All

can lead to a violation of international law, namely the principle of non-intervention,98 but only

force of an armed nature can violate the norm enshrined in article 2(4) and therefore constitute a

use of force in the technical sense.99

96_{I. Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States 366 (1963); A. Randelzhofer, Article 2(4), in The}

Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 112, 123(B. Simma et al ed. 2002).

97

M. N. Schmitt, Computer Network Attack and Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts on a Normative

Framework, 37 Colum. J. Transnat‟l L., (1999) 3, 909 (1999).

98_{Marco Benatar, The Use of Cyber Force: Need for Legal Justification? GoJIL 1 (2009) 3, 375-396 (2009).} 99_{M. S. McDougal & F. P. Feliciano, The International Law of War: Transnational Coercion and World Public}

(36)

18

7.1.2. There Exists No Right of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention

Rougier rejected the idea of unilateral intervention as that states would rarely intervene unless

they would derive benefits from such an intervention.100 In 1965, the General Assembly adopted

a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention101 which forbids all forms of intervention in

the internal or external affairs of other states. The concept of unilateral humanitarian intervention

has been almost universally condemned by all states.102

7.2. This Court should order the immediate cessation of Boremon’s wrongful acts

7.2.1. That the use of force by Boremon was an Internationally Wrongful Act

According to article 12, 'there is a breach of an international obligation by a state when an act of

that State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation'.103 Whatever may

have been the subjective intention of the perpetrator of the internationally wrongful act is

irrelevant. In other words, the idea of fault is not a necessary element in the commission of an

internationally-wrongful act in international law.104 The PCIJ in Phosphates in Morocco case explicitly linked the creation of international responsibility with the existence of an “act bearing attributable to the State and described as contrary to the treaty rights of another State”.105 This view has later been crystallized in the article 2 of the ILC‟s Articles on State Responsibility. In the instant case, since the use of force by Boremon was sanctioned by its own President.106

100_{Jean-Pierre L. Fonteyne, The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current}

Validity Under the U.N. Charter, 4 Cal. W. Int‟l L.J. 223 (1973). [hereinafter Fonteyne]

101_{UN GA Res. 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and}

the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty, 1965, A/48/535.

102_{T. Modibo Ocran, The Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in Light of Robust Peacekeeping, 25 B.C. Int‟l &}

Comp.18 (2002).

103_{ILC Draft Articles, supra note 62.}

104_{James Crawford et al, The Law of International Responsibility 209 (2010)}

105_{Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. France) Preliminary Objections, 28 (1938), P.C.I.J., Series A/B No. 74.} 106

(37)

19

7.2.2. Cessation as a consequence of an Internationally Wrongful Act

Article 30107 deals with two separate but linked issues raised by the breach of an international

obligation. The function of cessation is to put an end to a violation of international law and to

safeguard the continuing validity and effectiveness of the underlying primary rule.108 The

obligation of cessation is really a formulation of the principle pacta sunt servanda: it is an

expression of the fact that States must respect their international obligations.109 The Arbitration

Tribunal in the Rainbow Warrior arbitration stressed upon two essential conditions intimately

linked for the requirement of cessation of wrongful conduct to arise, namely that the wrongful

act has a continuing character and that the violated rule is still in force at the time in which the

order is issued.110 In the instant case, both these requirements are being fulfilled.

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the territory of BoLR has already suffered

a lot of chaos and turmoil over the last 68 years due to the neglected and ruthless attitude of the

State of Boremon as a result of which the territory is in shambles and on the possible verge of

devastation. The illegal occupation of the territory of BoLR by the State of Boremon is for

obvious reasons a purpose to fulfill the vested interests for its government as the geographical

location of the territory is a haven for developing relations with the Central Prasian republics and

thereby expanding their markets. Moreover, the recent reports of emergence of militant

organizations in the territory of BoLR such as Jammat-ul-Hawa have also come to light.111

107_{ILC Draft Articles, supra note 62, at Art. 30.} 108

James Crawford, The International Law Commission‟s Articles On State Responsibility: Introduction, Text And Commentaries 197 ( 2003).

109_{Id at 546.}

110_{Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France), (1990) 270 ¶ 114 82 ILR 499.} 111

(38)

20

On the other hand, the State of Soremon is the most populous democracy of the world and the

seventh-largest country of the world by area. The state is a federal constitutional republic

governed under a parliamentary system having room for pluralistic, lingual and

multi-ethnic society.112 If the territory of BoLR is merged with the State of Boremon it would allow the

inhabitants of the territory to come out of the obscurity of helplessness and re-invent themselves

at least for basic human sustenance which they have been deprived since infancy. The

geographically gifted territory which has unfortunately been exploited by the State of Boremon

will be able to utilize its natural resources and other assets productively.

112

(39)

XVIII

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited the agent for the Applicant State most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

a) The State of Boremon has violated the international treaty which was signed on 16th

September, 2015 at Romia

b) The State of Boremon has declined to its people who are living in BoLR the basic minimal

right of Self-determination

c) The State of Boremon has violated human rights by indulging itself in the killings of many

innocents especially in the BoLR region

d) The State of Boremon illegally possess the territory of BoLR including Azzad and Gilly Buket

e) The State of Boremon has repeatedly violated a series of international conventions of high

value and dignity while defending its stance in BoLR

f) The State of Democracy, in the territory of BoLR must be instated by the ICJ by allowing

BoLR to merge with Soremon.

The Applicant 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 Applicant State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)