Respondent Memorial

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

TEAM CODE:

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

STATE OF SOREMON& REPRESENTATIVES OF BOLR

STATE OF BOREMON /

(THE APPLICANT STATES)

(THE RESPONDENT STATE)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE -MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... V STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………..…………………………………...IX STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………….X SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... XVI ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................................... 1 1. The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State............................................ 1 1.1 Prohibition On Intervention .................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1

Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon ............ 2

1.1.2

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter ............................................................... 2

1.1.3

General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law ..................... 3

1.1.4

Security Council Resolution 1373 ............................................................................ 3

1.2

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law ....................................... 3

1.2.1

Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American

States

………………………………………………………………………………………4

1.2.2

Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States ....................................... 4

1.3

International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention ............................................ 4 WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT II

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

1.4. Soremon has no International Legal Authority to Deploy Its Armed Forces in BoLR ........... 5 1.4.1. That intervention by Soremon is not authorized by the Security Council ...................... 5 1.4.1.1 That necessary measures had been taken by the Security Council ..................................... 6 1.5. That Self- Defence is not a Valid Exception in this Case .................................................... 6 2. The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including ARSDB ........................................................................................................................................... 7

3.

2.1.

State of Soremon has Violated the Principles Enshrined under ICCPR .......................... 8

2.2.

State Of Soremon has Violated Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, 1969 …………………………………………………………………………………………...8

2.3.

Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law .......................................... 9

The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all

rights and obligations ................................................................................................................. 10 4.

The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs Boremon and has illegally deployed its

Army in the BoLR region by violating international law ....................................................... 11 4.1 That the Intervention of the State of Soremon in the territory of Boremon is illegal ......... 11 4.2 That the State of Soremon Has No Stake In The Affairs Of Boremon ............................... 13 5. The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of international law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation…. 15 5.1. That State of Soremon Failed To Fulfill the Obligations under The U.N Resolution 47 ………………………………………………………………………………………….15 5.2 That Kamaal Khan Is Guilty of Sedition against the State of Boremon ............................. 16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT III

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

6.That As Per The Agreements Signed By Both The States, The State Of Boremon Has Fully Complied With The Provisions Of The Treaty By Holding Free And Fair Elections In Bolr ............................................................................................................................................... 17 6.1 That Boremon has fulfilled all Its obligations Under The Agreement By Holding Free And Fair Elections............................................................................................................................. 17 6.2 That The Elections Held In BoLR Region Were Free And Fair ......................................... 18 6.3 That The State of Soremon Obstructed The Conduct Of Free And Fair Elections ............. 18 7. The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international law by deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations .................. 19 7.1 The State of Soremon Has Made Serious Human Rights Violations.................................. 19 7.2 The State of Soremon has Violated the Human Rights of the People of BoLR by Interfering in the Democratic Process ....................................................................................... 20 7.3 The State of Soremon Denied The Right Of Self Determination to the people of Lola And Ramola ...................................................................................................................................... 20 7.4 That the Migration of Khatoons to the BoLR Region was not given due attention by the State of Soremon ....................................................................................................................... 21 7.5 That The State of Soremon Has Violated the Principle of Non -Refoulement . 21 PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………….XX

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IV

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

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)  Geneva Conventions of 1949.  Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,1969  Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933  ICJ Statute  Friendly Relations Declaration, 1970

RESOLUTIONS  GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4, 1950, A/RES/421.  The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965). [hereinafter Res. 2131]

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT V

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

 The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: „States to Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,…eliminating the supply of weapons.‟: S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001).  The General Assembly Resolution 78, 1972 ¶1 reads: „To reiterate the principles of nonintervention as a means of ensuring peaceful coexistence among them and to refrain from committing any direct or indirect act that might constitute a violation of those principle.‟ Doc No. CP/RES.78 (1972).[ Hereinafter Resolution 78]  UNSC Resolution 1267, The Council authorized an International Security Assistance Force in to provide a secure environment for Political and Economic Reconstruction of Afghanistan. Currently led by NATO forces, ISAF continues to fight Taliban Forces, October 15, 1999, S/RES/1267.  UNSC Resolution 1244, Established the (UNMIK), authorizing an International Civil and Military presence in Kosovo, June 10, 1999, S/RES/1244.  UN Security Council Resolution 1484, The Council authorized European Union forces to end violence in Eastern Regions of DRC in 2003, May 30, 2003, S/RES/1484.  UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373.  General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October, 1970.  General Assembly resolution 44/146 (15 December 1989).  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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VI

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

CASES  Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).  The Nicaragua Case.  Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49. [hereinafter Corfu Channel Case]

BOOKS& ARTICLES  Jack Donnelly, .Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law, Morality and Politics,J Intl Aff. 37, 313 (1984).  Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed. 2005).  International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966).  Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 597-619 (2002).  ANTHONY CARTY, Intervention and the Limits of International Law in Political Theory, International Relationsand the Ethics of Intervention, Political Theory, International Relations And The Ethics Of Intervention 32(1993).  Rosalyn Higgins, Development Of International Law Through Political Organs Of United Nations, (Vol. 2 Issue 2 1963)  H. Neuhold, Threat To The Peace, (1997).  D. Betlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State‟s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors, Am. U. Int‟l L. Rev. 106(3), (2012).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VII

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

 B.A. Wortley, The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries 185 (1965).  H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, (1961)  T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law  L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, 8th Ed., pp.305.  Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The principle of Non-Intervention, the United nations and the International System, Vol. 15, pp.212.  Dr S.K. Kapoor, International law and Human Rights, 16th Ed.  Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts (1954), pp.254.  The Responsibility to Protect. Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001:  Avery Davis-Roberts and David J. Carroll, Using International Law to Assess Elections, Oxford University Press, 2012.  W. Michael Reisman, „Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies‟, 18 Fordham Int. L.J. 794, 795 (1995).  Feller E. Tark, Refugee Protection In International Law, UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protection, Cambridge University Press, 2003.  UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures Determining the status of Refugees, Geneva 1979.  Hathaway J.C, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT VIII

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

`

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

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.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IX

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

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 was also followed by brutal riots among both factions.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT X

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

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 „GillyBuket‟ 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 Soremon. Soremon contends that BoLR has been under the illegitimate control of Boremon since

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XI

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

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.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 GillyBuket. . 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 GillyBuket 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 Constitution Act, 1974”. The demographic composition of the GillyBuket region of the

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XII

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

BoLR,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”.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XIII

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

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 won‟t help to reach at any diplomatic solution. By virtue of the UN Secretariat‟s mediation, both the countries decided to conclude “The Agreement for the Right of SelfDetermination 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. ZakeerSakia, 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, invoking Article 36(2) of the Court‟s Statute

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XIV

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

ISSUES RAISED

The State of Boremon has placed before this Hon‟ble Court, the following Questions for its consideration: A)

THE STATE

OF

SOREMON

HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

WHICH PROTECTS THE STATES FROM THE NON-INTERFERENCE OF ANY OTHER STATE B) THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR AGREEMENT INCLUDING ARSDB C)

THE STATE

OF

BOREMON

IS FULLY SOVEREIGN EQUAL

STATE

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

POSSESSINGALL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS D)

THE

STATE OF

SOREMON

HAS NO STAKE IN THE AFFAIRS

BOREMON

AND HAS ILLEGALLY

DEPLOYEDITS ARMY IN THE BOLR REGION BY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW E)

THE

ACTIONS OF THE

STATE

OF

BOREMON

ARE FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BASIC

PRINCIPLESOF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE UNITY AND INTEGRITY IN THENATION. F) AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY BOTH THE STATES, THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BY HOLDING FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN BOLR G) THE STATE OF SOREMON HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION AND HAS BREACHED THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DEPLOYING IS ARMY AND BY INDULGING IN SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

The Respondent has duly addressed all the aforementioned in the form of seven substantive arguments advanced summarized under.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XV

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

a) The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State The State of Soremon violated the primary principle of Non-Intervention and other different resolutions of United Nations by interfering in the internal affairs of the State of Boremon. Moreover, as a result of this gross negligence on the part of Soremon, historical precedents of International Court of Justice have also been breached. b) The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including ARSDB The State of Soremon has violated the treaty entered into by both the states by consistently presenting a hostile front through deployment of forces. On the other hand, Boremon took objectives of the treaty to heart and has adhered by them such as hosting of free and fair elections, asking for deployment of troops so as to bring back a semblance of normalcy to the people of BoLR. A host of other conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Law of treaties, 1969 and the principles of ICCPR have also been breached by the State of Soremon. c) The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all rights and obligations The State of Boremon is a fully sovereign state possessing all the rights and obligations as required of a state such as a defined territory, a permanent population, capacity to enter into relations with other states and government.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XVI

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

d) The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs of Boremon and has illegally deployed its Army in the BoLR region by violating international law The State of Soremon has violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and 2131(xx) of the General Assembly Resolution by interfering in the domestic affairs of Boremon and relying upon the uncompromised principle of self defence. e) The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of International Law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation. The State of Soremon violated UN Resolution No. 47 by shying away from plebiscite which they initially supported. The conduct of the President of Gilly Buket United Movement, Mr. Kamaal Khan was of seditious nature and the actions of the State of Boremon were necessary in order to maintain the unity and integrity of the nation. f) As per the agreements signed by both the States, the State of Boremon has fully complied with the provisions of the treaty by holding free and fair elections in BoLR As stated in the agreement, the State of Boremon fully complied with the provisions of the treaty by holding free and fair elections in BoLR region and in conformity with UDHR principles. On the other hand, Soremon had tried to hamper the electoral process by deliberately deploying its troops so as to carry out its vested interests. g) The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international law by deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations. The State of Soremon indulged in different human rights violations by deploying its armed personnel in BoLR region and depriving the populi of their inherent right to self- determination.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XVII

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE STATE OF SOREMON HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH PROTECTS THE STATES FROM THE NON-INTERFERENCE OF ANY OTHER STATE

A pre-Charter definition described humanitarian intervention as reliance upon force for the justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment that is so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the sovereign is presumed to act with justice and reason.2In the instant case, the State of Soremon was ready to undermine the highest order of any state i.e. of the Right of self-determination3 by not withdrawing its troops from the BoLR constituency despite agreeing to the same in the Agreement signed between both the nations. There was also the issue of refuges migrating from the Soremon due to inadequate attention given by that Country.4 Therefore to trust them with the responsibility of a state that they claim to be integral to them, will not solve the purpose as they cannot keep their own people together, let alone handle another state which faces so much of cultural diversity. Humanitarian intervention is called for only in cases where there has been a material breach of the treaty by one party. In the instant case, the State of Soremon cannot claim to have acted in good faith because it violated the principle of Pacta Sun Servanda of the VCLT and failed to uphold Article 8 of the ARSDB which invoked goodwill between the parties to each uphold their end of the bargain.

2

Jack Donnelly, .Human Rights, Humanitarian Intervention and American Foreign Policy: Law, Morality and Politics,J Intl Aff. 37, 313 (1984). 3 GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of Implementation, December 4, 1950, A/RES/421. 4 Compromis ¶ 12.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

1.1 Prohibition on Intervention As a matter of law, Soremon claims that Boremon has acted in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter5, and of obligation erga omnes to refrain from the threat or use of force. The principle of territorial integrity of states is well established and protected by a series of consequential rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of states as mentioned under the proviso of Article 2(7).6 Under International Law, Intervention is forcible or dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state, calculated to impose certain conduct or consequences on that other State7. Its prohibition is the corollary of every state‟s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.8

1.1.1 Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Soremon Soremon has committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation including the Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council.

1.1.1.1.Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter It quotes with approval an observation by the International Law Commission to the effect that „the great majority of international lawyers today unhesitatingly hold that Article 2(4), together with other provisions of the Charter, authoritatively declares the modern customary law regarding the threat or use of force.‟9

5

The Charter, supra note 2, Article 2(4). Id., Article 2(7). 7 Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed. 2005). 8 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27). [hereinafter the Nicaragua Case] 9 International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966). 6

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

1.1.1.2.General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law In 1965, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention 10 in which it declared that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state, and that consequently armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of state are condemned11. The Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States12, enunciated similar principles13.The Declaration states that „armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law.‟14 1.1.1.3.Security Council Resolution (1373) The Security Council resolution clearly states that states should not provide any form of support to acts causing widespread panic and prevent people from planning or facilitating such attacks.15

1.2.

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law

The State of Soremon has also committed breach of the recognized principles of customary international law. Acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations.16 10

The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965). [hereinafter Res. 2131] 11 Id. 12 Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 13. 13 Id. 14 Daniel H. Joyner, The Kosovo Intervention: Legal Analysis and More Persuasive Paradigm, 13 Eur. J. Int'l L. 597-619 (2002). 15 The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: „States to Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,…eliminating the supply of weapons.‟: S/RES/1373 (28 September 2001).

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

1.2.1. Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States The resolution reflects the customary law and makes a clear statement for states to strictly observe the principle of non-intervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with a peaceful coexistence. Para 117 and Para 318 of the resolution are relevant in the present case.

1.2.2. Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States Article 819 of the convention deprives the state of any right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another State.

1.3.

International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention

The ICJ had denounced any claimed right to intervention in the 1949 Corfu Channel case20, in which it held nonintervention to be „a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of States‟21 and a principle of customary international law. Similarly, in the Nicaragua case, relying on the definition of intervention found in the Friendly Relations Declaration,22 the ICJ found that the U.S. had violated international law, specifically by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua.23

16

The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23, at 289. The General Assembly Resolution 78, 1972 Doc No. CP/RES.78 (1972).[ Hereinafter Resolution 78] 18 Id., ¶ 3. 19 Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States Art. 8. December 26, 1933, 165 L.N.T.S. 19 [Hereinafter Montevideo Convention] 20 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49. 21 Anthony Carty, Intervention and the Limits of International Law in Political Theory, International Relations and the Ethics of Intervention, Political Theory, International Relations and the Ethics of Intervention 32(1993). 22 Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 13. 23 The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23. 17

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

In Arguendo, even if there were some problems arising in BoLR, the state of Soremon had no right to deploy its troops especially when the UN Secretariat had taken notice of the same. 1.4. Soremon has no International Legal Authority to Deploy Its Armed Forces in BoLR 1.4.1. That Intervention by Soremon is not authorized by the Security Council It is to be noted that according to article 39 of the Charter, it is the prerogative of the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to peace or breach of peace, or act of aggression. Accordingly, articles 41 and 42 prescribe what measures may be taken by the SC to maintain and restore international peace and security. Therefore, in any emergent situation, SC continues to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force 24, as is evident from the situations in Democratic Republic of Congo25, Afghanistan26 and Yugoslavia27. Authorization by SC is an exception to the non–intervention principle, which encompasses a general prohibition on “armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of state”28. In the Corfu Channel case29, the Court rejected any alleged right of intervention as manifestation of a policy of force”. According to the Nicaragua case30, direct military action constitutes use of force and violates non – intervention principle.

24

Rosalyn Higgins, Development Of International Law Through Political Organs Of United Nations, (Vol. 2 Issue 2 1963) 25 UN Security Council Resolution 1484, The Council authorized European Union forces to end violence in Eastern Regions of DRC in 2003, May 30, 2003, S/RES/1484. 26 UNSC Resolution 1267, The Council authorized an International Security Assistance Force in to provide a secure environment for Political and Economic Reconstruction of Afghanistan. Currently led by NATO forces, ISAF continues to fight Taliban Forces, October 15, 1999, S/RES/1267. 27 UNSC Resolution 1244, Established the (UNMIK), authorizing an International Civil and Military presence in Kosovo, June 10, 1999, S/RES/1244. 28 H. Neuhold, Threat to the Peace, (1997). 29 Corfu Channel Case, supra note 35. 30 The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

1.4.2. That necessary measures had been taken by the Security Council It may be pertinent to observe that following the requests from the Government of Soremon, the UN Secretariat made both states reach a compromise that was encompassed in „The Agreement for the Right of Self-determination and to establish a Democratic set-up in BoLR‟ (ARSDB)31which dealt with the self-determination of the people of BoLR as well as the other issues that were plaguing the state. Once a requisite measure had been taken by the Security Council, intervention by Soremon suo motu was rendered unnecessary, lacking the requisite international legal authority to deploy its forces in BoLR. 1.4.3. That Self- Defence is not a Valid Exception in this Case If permissible action taken in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense also involves a degree of intervention, that intervention is itself justified on grounds of self- defense32. According to article 51, right to self-defense can only be invoked against an actual armed attack on a member of the United Nations. The Court defined armed attack in the Nicaragua case33 In the view of the Court, this is to be understood as meaning not merely action by regular armed forces across an international border, but also the sending by a State of armed bands on to the territory of another State, if such an operation, because of its scale and effects, would have been classified as an armed attack had it been carried out by regular armed forces.34 This pre-requisite is not met in the present case, since there was no armed attack by Boremon against BoLR.

31

Compromis ¶ 20. D. Betlehem, Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State‟s Right of Self-Defense Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Non State Actors, Am. U. Int‟l L. Rev. 106(3), (2012). 33 The Nicaragua Case, supra note 23. 34 Id. 32

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

2. THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR AGREEMENT INCLUDING ARSDB

The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty regarding human rights as has been expounded in the above contention. The treaty that had been signed between Boremon and Soremon, i.e. The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR in September, 201535 clearly stated that Boremon agreed to release Mr. Kamaal Khan and provide an opportunity to establish a democratic set-up in BoLR and in turn asked Soremon to not deploy its forces in the region of BoLR or in Boremon region. The preamble of the Agreement clearly states that the self determination 36 of the people is of the utmost importance and Boremon seeked to achieve that by the holding of free and fair elections as it successfully managed to do so unlike Soremon that continuously presented a hostile front when it did not deploy its forces from the region despite repeated attempts by Boremon to make it happen. Boremon has also taken the other objectives of the treaty to heart and has adhered by them such as hosting of free and fair elections, asking for deployment of troops so as to bring back a semblance of normalcy to the people of BoLR.37 Article 1 of the ARSDB clearly states that that there is an obligation to maintain peace in the territory of BoLR and maintain non-interference which Boremon categorically complied with at the initiation of the Agreement.38 Article 2 states that the people of BoLR wished to attain selfdetermination which Boremon fulfilled by separating the states and holding free and fair elections in the state which is also in accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement. The only

35

Compromis ¶ 20. Compromis ¶ Preamble of ARSDB 37 Ibid. 38 Compromis ¶ 20. 36

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

reason that Boremon entered the treaty so readily was because it wanted to help the people of BoLR to resume their lives without the threat of forces and troops constantly becoming a routine in the state. The State of Boremon had just one condition when it signed the ARSDB as recorded in Article 5 that the State of Soremon shall deploy all its troops and not engage in further deployment of troops in the region. But the State of Soremon failed to keep its end of the bargain by resorting to underhand the terms made. 200 of the 600 troops remained stationed at the foot of the BoLR hills‟ waiting for the Soremonian government‟s orders to attack.39 This was not an upkeep of its end of the bargain. Soremon has failed to uphold the Agreement signed by both states and are also bound by the same as also stated in Article 8 of the ARSDB. 2.1.State of Soremon has Violated the Principles Enshrined under ICCPR The State of Soremon has violated the principles recognized by the United Nations through its treaty provisions namely „International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights‟.40 This states that promotion of self-determination is the right of every state and its people41 2.2.State Of Soremon has Violated Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, 1969 Soremon, by not abiding the provisions of the treaty concluded between the States of Boremon and Soremon, has violated the VCLT, 1969. The sanctity of contractual arrangement is expressed in the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, whose rationale is that the parties to the treaty are bound to respect it in good faith.42 Also, Article 2643 the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties stipulates the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda. The treaty was binding upon the parties

39

Ibid Article 1(3) 41 In conformity with the Charter of the United Nations also. 42 B.A. Wortley, The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries 185 (1965). 43 VCLT, supra note 18, at Article 26 reads: ‟Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.‟ 40

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

to it44 and must have been performed in good faith. The State of Soremon breached the said principle of Pacta Sunt Servandawhich is of high value in International Law45thus effectively violating the Vienna convention.

2.3.Actions of Soremon amount to Breach of International Law The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law and is based on the principle of sovereignty of the states.46 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.47 The state of Boremon claims for the mentioned violations of customary laws. 2.4.Breaches of UN Recognized Principles The state of Soremon has 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 force48. Security Council Resolution 137349 and General Assembly Resolution 262550 constitute subsequent practice for interpreting UN Charter provisions51. 2.4.1.1.Breach of other Customary principles of International law

44

Article 8 of ARSBD. Compromis ¶ 20. 46 The Charter, supra note 2. 47 The DARIO, supra note 5. 48 The Charter, supra note 2, Art. 2(4). 49 UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373. 50 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. 51 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] 45

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

The state of Soremon committed breaches of the recognized principles of customary international law. ¶ 1 and ¶ 3 of the Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations makes a clear statement for states to strictly observe the principle of nonintervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with an obligation not to support or promote any armed activities against another state.

3. THE STATE

OF

BOREMON

IS FULLY SOVEREIGN EQUAL

STATE

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

POSSESSING ALL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Boremon is a Sovereign state under International Law which like the other States possess equal rights and is under similar obligations as others. In the present case, the legal status of the State of Boremon has not been challenged by the State of Soremon thus acknowledging its statehood. State has been defined as a community of people which has been established for some objectives such as internal order and external security.52 In the view of a renowned Jurist Lawrence, State is a society which is politically organized and its members are bound with each other by being under some central authority and most of the people automatically follow the rules of this central authority.53 Oppenheim states that the existence of State is possible only when people of State have settled under highest government authority and habitually follows its orders.54 According to Article 1 of Montevideo Declaration, 1933, State as a person of International Law should possess the following qualifications:

52

H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, (1961), pp.216. T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law, pp.48. 5454 L. Oppenheim, International Law, pp.216. 53

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

(a) A permanent population; (b) A defined territory; (c) A Government and (d) Capacity to enter into relations with other States. The facts of the present case clearly fulfill all the essentials as are required to be a state. Apart from fulfilling the essential elements of a State, the State of Boremon is a sovereign state.

4. THE

STATE OF

SOREMON HAS

NO STAKE IN THE AFFAIRS

BOREMON

AND HAS ILLEGALLY

DEPLOYED ITS ARMY IN THE BOLR REGION BY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Soremon has violated different principles of International Law by illegally deploying its army in the BoLR region and nonchalantly staking its interest in the affairs of Boremon. This has consequently resulted into a breach of an Agreement for Right of Self Determination (ARDSB) signed on 16th of September, 2015 between the State of Soremon and the State of Boremon. 4.1 That the Intervention of the State of Soremon in the territory of Boremon is illegal The word „intervention‟ has been defined as dictatorial interference by a State in the affairs of another State for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of thing. 55 In principle, International law prohibits intervention. The prohibition of intervention is the corollary of every State‟s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. 56 The

55

L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, 8th Ed., pp.305. Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The principle of Non-Intervention, the United nations and the International System, Vol. 15, pp.212. 56

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

principle of non-intervention by States has been propounded in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” This principle has been reaffirmed by the General Assembly through its resolution 2131 (xx) of December 196557. Moreover in 1970, General Assembly adopted unanimously a resolution entitled Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the U.N. As regards to nonintervention the resolution58 stated: “No State or group of States has the right to intervene directly or indirectly for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.” It is to be considered that the „principles of the Charter‟ which are embodied constitute basic principles of International Law and appeal to all States, including the on-members, to be guided by those principles in their international conduct and to develop their mutual relations on the basis of the strict observance of these principles.59 In the present case, it is clearly stated that the State of Soremon and State of Boremon are members of the United Nations and are parties to the United Nations Charter and other UN conventions.60 Therefore, it was expected of Soremon to adhere to the principles and conventions relating to non-intervention stated above and not to indulge in any kind of excesses. Unfortunately the Prime Minister of Soremon interpreted the above situation in an altogether 57

Dr S.K. Kapoor, International law and Human Rights, 16th Ed., pp.183. General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October, 1970. 59 Prof. Louis B. John The development of the Charter of the United Nations: The Present State in the Present State of International Law and other Essay (1973), pp.50. 60 Compromis ¶ 23 58

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

different way and instead accused the State of Boremon of violating the ARDSB treaty and International Customary Law.61 It was a purely internal matter as it is clearly stated in the facts that region of BoLR is a part of the State of Boremon and functions under its strict control62 of which Boremon had a primary right to preliminary investigation and enquiry as regard to the post-mortem and other legal hassles relating to Mr. Kamaal Khan- the President of the Gilly Buket United Movement (GBUM) whose body was found in the deserted regions of East Sufighanistan.63 The intentions of foul play were clearly visible when considerable number of troops was deployed on the hills of BoLR by Soremonian Government on the pretext that they would act as a watchdog in the smooth conduct of free and fair elections and till a new government comes to power. Elections being a purely internal matter of the State of Boremon were deliberately entrenched by Soremon so as to fulfil their own interests by illegally occupying the territory of BoLR which is a part of Boremon. 4.2 That the State of Soremon Has No Stake In The Affairs Of Boremon With the coming into force of the Charter of the United Nations, certain revolutionary changes have arisen regarding the valid ground of intervention. The prime amongst them is the right of self defence. In the famous case of The Caroline64 the court declared: “The necessity of self defence should be instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation.” The above test has been given legal recognition by United Nations Charter under Article 51.65 Article 51 provides:

61

Compromis ¶ 21 Compromis ¶ 11 63 Compromis ¶ 21 64 ICJ Rep. (1949), pp.4. 65 Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts, pp.244. 62

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way effect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

In the present case, before the Security Council could have taken any measures for maintaining international peace and security, the State of Soremon deployed military so as to garner control over BoLR in the garb of violation of International Law. In reality, there was no urgency in the situation required on part of Soremon as the said issue was an internal issue of Boremon which could have been handled efficiently by their Government. Moreover, the State of Boremon was in no way on the offense and Soremon could not in any way have pleaded self defence. In a case titled Military and Para Military Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.,)66 the International Court of Justice unanimously held that:

“U.S. should immediately refrain and cease from any action restricting blocking or endangering access to or from Nicaragua ports, and in particular the laying of mines. The Court further held that the right to sovereignty and to political independence possessed by Nicaragua, like any other State of the region or of the

66

I.C.J. Rep. (1984), pp.169.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

world should be fully respected and should not in any way jeopardized by any military and para-military activities which are prohibited by the principles of International Law.”

Another ground on which intervention is sometimes permitted is on humanitarian grounds. After coming into force of United Nations Charter, the United Nations has done commendable work in the field of human rights. If at all intervention is permitted on humanitarian grounds, it may be done only by the United Nations. The UN Charter does not authorize any State to intervene in the affairs of any other member State. In the present case, even this was not followed by the State of Soremon before deploying its army in the territory of Boremon.67

5. THE

ACTIONS OF THE

STATE

OF

BOREMON

ARE FULLY IN CONFORMITY WITH THE BASIC

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WERE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE UNITY AND INTEGRITY IN THE NATION.

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the actions which were conducted by the State of Boremon were in complete compliance with the basic principles of International law and were imperative to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation. 5.1. That State of Soremon Failed To Fulfill the Obligations under the U.N Resolution 47 The term „resolution‟ as used in UN practice has a generic sense, including recommendations and decisions, both of which have a vague and variable meaning in the Charter. 68 The Court, on

67

Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts (1954), pp.254. J Castañeda, Legal Effects of UN Resolutions (1969), at 14; Johnson, „The Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations‟, 32 British Year Book of Int‟l L (1955–56) 97, at 107–108. 68

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 15

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

the other hand, reserves the expression „decision‟ for binding resolutions and „recommendation‟ for non-binding ones.69 A resolution is „binding‟ when it is capable of creating obligations on its addressee(s).70 In the instant case, the resolutions that have been created under Chapter VI of the UN have a purpose i.e. to solve the Azad Lola and Ramola issue. It creates an obligation upon the parties as is evidently stated in Para 72 of the resolution to solve the ongoing crisis. It is to be noted that the holding of the plebiscite was the mandate of the U.N resolution which was initially supported71 but later dismissed by Soremon, thereby denying the right of selfdetermination to the people of Lola and Ramola. Further, it was Soremon who approached the U.N72 but later refused to comply with the directions made by the U.N. and since the Soremenian army is deployed in Soremonian occupied Lola and Ramola and that region is governed by Soremon, it is nothing but necessary for Boremon to deploy its troops in the BoLR region and administer the region by means of a democratic set up. 5.2 That Kamaal Khan Is Guilty of Sedition against the State of Boremon Most humbly the respondents contend that Mr. Kamaal Khan is guilty of the offence of sedition under the Pakistan Penal Code and has also violated the AJK Constitution Act. Section 124A of the Pakistan Penal Code makes sedition a punishable offence and the statements made by Kamaal Khan73 are clerarly seditious. Mr. Kamaal Khan made the following statement:

69

Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter) [1962] ICJ Rep 151, at 163 (hereinafter „Certain Expenses‟) (ICJ decisions are available at http://www.icj-cij.org), with analysis by Basak, supra note 1, at 80, 144 70 Since the ICJ has found recommendations to have certain legal effects that nonetheless do not amount to those of decisions, I prefer a less inclusive definition of „binding‟ than Castañeda, supra note 3, at 20–21. 71 Compromis ¶ 6. 72 Compromis ¶ 9. 73 Compromis ¶ 16.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 16

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

“It is high time that the people of the BoLR must either join the Soremon Union or self-proclaim independence as self-determination is their basic fundamental internally recognized right”. Thus, he was arrested by the State of Boremon as he had made a seditious statement and was inciting people against the Boremonian state. The action to arrest and detain the said individual is in accordance with the laws of the land. No sovereign state would allow itself to be slandered in the eyes of the populi of the nation.

6. THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENTS SIGNED BY BOTH THE STATES, THE STATE OF BOREMON HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY BY HOLDING FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS IN BOLR

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that the State of Boremon has fully complied with the ARSDB by holding free and fair elections in the state of BoLR. 6.1 That Boremon has fulfilled all its obligations Under the Agreement by Holding Free and Fair Elections Article 4 of the ARSDB creates an obligation on the State of Boremon to conduct free and fair elections.74 The Preamble to the ARSDB states the significance of the notion of democracy. The respondent hereby avers that the State of Boremon has been successful in conducting free and fair elections in BoLR and there is no evidence to the contrary. It is further contended by the respondents that the State of Soremon has vested interest in the BoLR region and they intend to create unrest in the BoLR region by deploying their military.

74

Article 4, The Agreement for the Right of Self Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 17

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

6.2 That the Elections Held In BoLR Region Were Free And Fair The 1989 resolution of the General Assembly declares that „determining the will of the people‟ requires an electoral process that provides an equal opportunity for all citizens to become candidates and put forward their political views individually and in cooperation with others within the constitutional and national legislation.75 It is to be noted that the elections were held in October, 2015 and Mr. Zakeer Sakia was declared to have won the elections without any protest.76 Further everything was appearing normal and in perfect order until the dead body of Mr. Kamaal Khan was found in East Sufghanistan.77 The respondents aver that under the pretext of the death of Kamaal Khan, the Soremon leadership deployed their army in the BoLR region without making any enquiry, the very next day.78 6.3 That the State of Soremon Obstructed the Conduct Of Free And Fair Elections Article 21 of the UDHR gives equal right to everyone to take part in the government of his country based on the principle of universal and equal suffrage and secret voting.79 Further democracy has become a norm and almost a moral value in the world, and the military intervention dilutes the process of free and fair elections.80 The right to security of the person includes not only protection from arbitrary arrest, detention and exile,81 but in the context of the electoral process, includes the protection of voters, candidates and their agents, poll workers, and

75

General Assembly resolution 44/146 (15 December 1989). Compromis ¶ 21. 77 Compromis ¶ 21. 78 Compromis ¶ 21. 79 Article 21 (3), Universal Declaration on Human Rights. [hereinafter referred to as UDHR] 80 The Responsibility To Protect. Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001: 81 UDHR, Arts.3 and 9; ICCPR, Art. 9; ICERD, Art. 5; ACHPR, Art. 6; ACHR, Arts. 7(1) and 7(3); CIS, Art 5(1); ECHR, Art. 5 76

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 18

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

domestic and international observers from interference, coercion or intimidation.82 In this sense, security of the person includes not only the protection of the physical person, but also protection of their mental state.83 It is to be noted that the State of Soremon did not adhere to the provisions of the ARSDB and ordered 200 members of its army to remain in BoLR84, thereby trying to subvert the election process. It is hereby contended that the Soremonian army was deployed with an intention to create an impact in the minds of voters.

7. THE STATE

OF

SOREMON

HAS ACTED IN VIOLATION AND HAS BREACHED THE SPIRIT OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DEPLOYING IS

ARMY AND BY INDULGING IN SEVERAL HUMAN RIGHTS

VIOLATIONS

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court the State of Soremon has indulged in several Human Rights Violations by breaching the spirit of International Law from time to time and by illegally deploying its army in the territory of Boremon. 7.1 The State of Soremon Has Made Serious Human Rights Violations The Respondent hereby avers that the State of Soremon has violated the human rights of the people by not letting the people of BoLR to exercise their right of self-determination and by interfering in internal democratic process. Also, Soremon conveniently neglected the issue of Khatoon migration who feared persecution.

82

UNHRC, General Comment 25, para 11 Avery Davis-Roberts and David J. Carroll, Using International Law to Assess Elections, Oxford University Press, 2012. 84 Compromis ¶ 20. 83

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 19

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

7.2 The State of Soremon has violated the Human Rights of the People of BoLR by Interfering in the Democratic Process The respondent hereby contends that that State of Soremon has vested interest in the region and in furtherance of its intention to disrupt the electoral process of the region, they have not complied with the mandate of the ARSDB. The State of Soremon did not remove one-third of their members of the troop and later decided to call back all their troops thereby rejecting the electoral mandate of the people of BoLR. Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the will of the people as the basis of the authority of government, when the right to democratic government is violated, „all the other human rights that depend on the lawful institutions of government become matters for the discretion of dictators. Violations of the right to popular government are not secondary or less important. They are very, very serious human rights violations.‟85 7.3 The State of Soremon Denied the Right Of Self Determination to the people of Lola And Ramola Soremon tried to snatch away the right of self-determination from the people of Lola and Ramola and has dismissed the holding of plebiscite86 as required under the U.N resolution. Self-determination is the right of peoples to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”87. The UN Charter88 recognizes this right as a prerequisite to enjoyment of other rights. The Security Council‟s work relating to non85

W. Michael Reisman, „Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies‟, 18 Fordham Int. L.J. 794, 795 (1995). 86 Compromis ¶ 6. 87 International Covenants on Human Rights, Common Article 1, December 16, 1966, U.N.T.S., vol. 999. 88 Arts.1(2), 55, 73(b) and76(b) of the United Nations Charter, 1945.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 20

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

self-governing territories89 and the General Assembly‟s recognition90 of self-determination reaffirm this principle. 7.4 That the Migration of Khatoons to the BoLR Region was not given due attention by the State of Soremon The Khatoons community migrated to the BoLR region in large scale when they feared persecution and the issue was not given its due attention by the State of Soremon.91 It is contended that the Khatoons are internally displaced person who were made to flee into the BoLR region which itself is in a state of turmoil. Internally displaced persons are defined in the 12998 guiding principles on internal displacement as “perosns or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or lto leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border‟.92 7.5 That the State of Soremon has violated the Principle of Non-Refoulement The obligation exists under Article 33 of the1951 Refugee CoThe obligation exists under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention not to return a refugee to a country of territory where he/she would be at risk of persecution:

89

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. 91 Compromis ¶ 12. 92 Feller E. Tark, Refugee Protection In International Law, UNHCR Global Consultations on International Protection, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 90

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 21

JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 6TH INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 2016

“No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.93 This is known as the principle of non-refoulement, which is considered part of customary international law and therefore binding on all states.94 Thus, Soremon has breached the principles of international law by not giving due attention to such large scale migration. In conclusion, a state that cannot manage to control its own fleeing population cannot be expected to take care of a large and diverse population such as that of the lands of Boremon occupied Lola and Ramola (BoLR). The instance of that refugee scenario is enough to put at rest the doubts that Soremon is disregardful of its own population. It is to be noted that the partition of Soremon into two nations was supported by both the sides and it was only after the high level talks between the two leaders that a theocratic nation of the State of Boremon was carved out. 95 Hence, it can be inferred that the State of Boremon largely consisting of Bismil population96 would be in a better position to govern the territory of BoLR.

93

UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures Determining the status of Refugees, Geneva 1979. Hathaway J.C, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2005. 95 Compromis ¶ 4. 96 Compromis ¶ 4. 94

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 22

PRAYER

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 Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State b) The State of Boremon has not violated any international treaty or agreement including ARSDB c) The State of Boremon is fully sovereign equal State in international law possessing all rights and obligations d) The state of Soremon has no stake in the affairs of Boremon and has illegally deployed its Army in the BoLR region by violating international law e) The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles of international law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the nation. f) As per the agreements signed by both the States, the State of Boremon has fully complied with the provisions of the treaty by holding free and fair elections in BoLR g) The State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of international law by deploying is Army and by indulging in several human rights violations. The Respondent 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 Respondent State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray. (Respectfully Submitted) - Agents on behalf of the Respondent State. WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT XVIII