A2 memo

7/24/2019 A2 memo

1/59

TEAM CODE: 669A

THE 2015PHILIP C.JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT

THE PEACE PALACE,HAGUE

CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND ANNEXATION OF EAST AGNOSTICA

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA

(APPLICANT)

V.

STATE OF REVERENTIA

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

-FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA-

7/24/2019 A2 memo

2/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. iv

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS...................................................................................... iv

UNITEDNATIONS,DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS......................... iv

I.C.J.CASES ............................................................................................................... vii

P.C.I.JCASES ............................................................................................................ viii

U.N.R.I.A.A.&MISCELLANEOUS CASES..................................................................... ix

BOOKS ......................................................................................................................... ix

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... xiv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................ xv

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .............................................................................................. xx

PLEADINGS ...................................................................................................................... 1

I. REVERENTIAS ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE EAST AGNOSTICAN REFERENDUM

VIOLATED AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY,PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION

AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY. ........................................................ 1

A. SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REVERENTIAN

PARLIAMENT. ............................................................................................................... 2

1.REVERENTIAN PARLIAMENT IS A STATE ORGAN. ............. ............. ............. ............. 2

2. THE REVERENTIAN PARLIAMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PASSING THE RESOLUTION,

ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING THE INTEGRATION AGREEMENT, ANNEXING EAST

AGNOSTICA, AND MOVING THE REVERENTIAN ARMY UNITS INTO THE TERRITORY OF

AGNOSTICA. .............................................................................................................. 3

B. REVERENTIAS SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM STANDS IN BREACH OF ITS

TREATY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE UNCHARTER AND C.I.L.WITH RESPECT TO THE

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-

INTERVENTION. ........................................................................................................... 4

1.VIOLATION OF THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA. ............ ............ ......... 4

2.REVERENTIA VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE OFNON-INTERVENTION BY INTERVENING IN

THE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS OF AGNOSTICA. .................................................................. 11

7/24/2019 A2 memo

3/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- ii

II. THE PURPORTED SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF EAST

AGNOSTICA ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE EAST AGNOSTICA

REMAINS PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA. ........ 15

A.LACK OF STATE PRACTICE AND OPINIOJURIS ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO SECESSION.

................................................................................................................................... 15

1.CUSTOMARY BEHAVIOUR OF STATES FAILS TO SUPPORT A RIGHT OF SECESSION. ... 16

2. THE SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION BY REVERENTIA OF EAST AGNOSTICA IS ILLEGAL.

............................................................................................................................... 19

3. THE RECOGNITION OF STATEHOOD OF EAST AGNOSTICA BY REVERENTIA AND

OTHER STATES IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW . ......................................... 20

B.AGNOSTICA HAS RESPECTED THE RIGHTS OF ITS PEOPLE TO SELF-DETERMINATION. .. 21

III.

THE MARTHITE CONVENTION CEASED TO BE IN FFFECT AS OF 2APRIL 2012AND,

IN ANY EVENT,AGNOSTICA DID NOT BREACH THE CONVENTION. ................................. 23

A. AGNOSTICAS TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL

INVOCATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ERROR. .................................................................. 23

B. AGNOSTICAS TERMINATION OF THE TREATY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWFUL

INVOCATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES. ..... .. 25

C. TERMINATION OF THE MARTHITE CONVENTION OWING TO REVERENTIAS MATERIAL

BREACH. ..................................................................................................................... 28

1.REVERENTIAS ACTIONS RESULTED IN THE BREACH OF THE OBJECT AS ENSHRINED IN

THE PREAMBLE. ....................................................................................................... 28

2. REVERENTIA VIOLATED PROVISIONS WHICH WERE INTEGRAL FOR ACHIEVING THE

OBJECT OF THE TREATY. .......................................................................................... 29

3. AGNOSTICAS DECISION TO TERMINATE THE MARTHITE CONVENTION IS JUSTIFIED

AS A REACTION TO REVERENTIAS MATERIAL BREACH OF THE MARTHITE

CONVENTION. ......................................................................................................... 29

IV. REVERENTIAS REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE AT THE MARTHITE EXTRACTION

FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. ................................................................ 31

A.REVERENTIAS HAS BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE V.C.L.T. ................ 31

7/24/2019 A2 memo

4/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- iii

B. REVERENTIAS HAS BREACHED C.I.L. RELATING TO PERMANENT SOVEREIGNTY

OVER NATURAL RESOURCES. .................................................................................... 32

C. IN ARGUENDO, REVERENTIA HAS BREACHED THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY

AND IS OBLIGATED TO MAKE REPARATION IN AN ADEQUATE FORM TO AGNOSTICA. .. 34

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ............................................................................................ 37

7/24/2019 A2 memo

5/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into force on Oct. 21, 1986, 567

U.N.T.S. 435 ........................................................................................................................ 17

Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on 26thDec., 1933, 165

U.N.T.S. 19 .......................................................................................................................... 19

International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, entered into force

on 4thJanuary 1969, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 ................................................................................ 22

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on 16thDecember

1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407 ........................................................................................................ 7

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force onJan. 3,

1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 ............................................................................................................. 7Statute of the International Court of Justice, entered into force on 26th June, 1945,

33 U.N.T.S. 993 ................................................................................................................... 15

The Marthite Convention, entered into force on 14thApril, 1938, Compromis(Annex) ........ 24

U.N. Charter ............................................................................................................................. 13

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, entered into forceJan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S.

331........................................................................................................................................ 23

UNITED NATIONS,DOMESTIC LEGISLATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UNGA Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N. Doc.

A/29/3281(1972) .................................................................................................................. 33

Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-

operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.

2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) ................................................................................ 5

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UNGA Res.

1514 (XV), U.N. Doc. A/4684 (1960) ................................................................................... 5

Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and theProtection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, UNGA Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc.

A/RES/20/2131 (1965) .......................................................................................................... 7

Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res

50/6, U.N. Doc A/RES/50/6 (1995) ....................................................................................... 8

7/24/2019 A2 memo

6/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- v

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc.

A/RES/61/295 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 6

Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974) ............ 7

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as

amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, entered into forceon3rd

Sept, 1963, E.T.S. 5 (1962).............................................................................................................................................. 32

For Azerbaijan, UNSC Resolutions 882 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/882 (1993), 884 (1993) .. 10

For Georgia, UNSC Resolutions 971(1995), U.N. Doc. S/RES/971 (1995), 876 (1993), U.N.

Doc. S/RES/876 (1993) ....................................................................................................... 10

For Kosovo, UNSC Resolutions 1160 (1998), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1160 (1998), 1244 (1999),

U.N. Doc. S/RES/1244 (1999) ............................................................................................. 10

Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance, UNGA Res. 48/182, U.N. Doc.

A/RES/46/182 (1991) ............................................................................................................ 6

I.L.C., Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGA

U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) ..................................................................................................... 1

Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, UNGA Res. 60/228, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60

(2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 6

O.A.U. Resolution on Situation in Nigeria, AHG/Res.51 (IV) (1967) .................................... 17

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Co-

operation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292............................ 6

OSCE, Interim Report of the CSCE Rapporteur Mission on the Situation in Nagorno

Karabakh,7-CSO/Journal No. 2, CSCE Doc. Annex 1, 4 (Feb. 1992) ................................ 12

Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources of Developing Countries, UNGA Res. 3016

(XXVII), U.N. Doc. A/3016 (1972) .................................................................................... 33

Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources, UNGA Res. 1803 (XVII), U.N. Doc.

A/RES/ (1962) ..................................................................................................................... 33

Prevention of Armed Conflict, UNGA Res. 57/337, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/337 (2003) ........... 6

Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn (1966) ................................................................. 24

Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn 265 (1968) .......................................................... 32

Report of the I.L.C., Y.B. Intl L. Commn 59 (1982) ............................................................ 26

Report of the Secretary General, Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts,

Compilation of decisions of international courts, tribunals and other bodies, U.N. Doc.

A/62/62 and Corr.1 and Add.1 (2007) ................................................................................. 34

7/24/2019 A2 memo

7/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- vi

Right to Exploit Freely Natural Wealth and Resources, UNGA Res. 626 (VII), U.N. Doc.

A/2361 (1952) ...................................................................................................................... 33

Special Assembly of the League of Nations, Resolution adopted on March 11, 1932, Off. J.,

Special Suppl. No. 101, 8..................................................................................................... 20

Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UNGA Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262 (2014) ........ 10The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nations by

the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106 ............................ 16

The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.S.C. Report, 677 (1900) (U.S.A.) ........................................... 15

U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993) ................................................................................................... 10

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.

21,Right to Self-determination, 1996, U.N. Doc. A/51/18, annex VIII, 125, 6 (1996).... 16

UN Secretary-General U. Thant, Secretary-General's Press Conferences held in

Dakar,Senegal, U.N. Monthly Chron. 34-38 (1970) ........................................................... 16

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (Right to Self-determination), The

Right to Self-determination of Peoples(1984)..................................................................... 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of El Salvador U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/14/Add.5, 17-22 II Y.H.R.C.

241 (1983-4)......................................................................................................................... 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Iraq, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/Add.3, 29-30 II Y.H.R.C. 191

(1987) ................................................................................................................................... 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Lebanon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.60 17-22 II Y.H.R.C. 211

(1983-4)................................................................................................................................ 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Mexico, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/46/Add.3, 34-6 II H.R.C.O.R.

178 (1988-9)......................................................................................................................... 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.57, 11-6 Y.H.R.C. 213

(1981-2)................................................................................................................................ 12

UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/6/Add.3m 11-6 II Y.H.R.C. 11

(1981-2)................................................................................................................................ 12

UNIDO, Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation

(Mar. 12-26, 1975), ..................................................................................................................

https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/media/images/1975Lima_Declaration_and_Plan_of_Acti

on_on_Industrial_Development_and_Cooperation_26.3.1975.pdf (January 10, 2014, 12.45

A.M.) .................................................................................................................................... 33

UNSC Res. 169/1961, U.N. Doc. S/RES/169 (1961) .............................................................. 17

UNSC Res. 1808 (2008), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1808 (2008) ....................................................... 17

7/24/2019 A2 memo

8/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- vii

UNSC Res. 242 (1967), U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (1967) ........................................................... 19

UNSC Resolution 541(1983), U.N. Doc. S/RES/541 (1983); UNSC Resolution 550(1984),

U.N. Doc. S/RES/550 (1984) ............................................................................................... 21

UNSC Resolution 662(1990), U.N. Doc. S/RES/662 (1990) .................................................. 20

Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of theRights of Peoples to Self-Determination, UNGA Res. 52/112, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/112

(1998) ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993) ................ 8

I.C.J.CASES

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect

of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22) ................................................................................... 21

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.),1978 I.C.J. 3 (Dec. 19) .............................. 27Appeal Related to the Jurisdiction of the I.C.A.O. Council (India v. Pakistan), 1972 I.C.J. 3

(Aug. 18) .............................................................................................................................. 28

Asylum Case (Colom. v. Peru), (Merits) 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20) ....................................... 15

Case Concerning Armed Activities of the Territory of Congo (Demr. Rep. of Congo v. Ugd.),

2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19) ..................................................................................................... 33

Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22) ........... 8

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), (Merits) 1962 I.C.J.

Rep. 6 (June 15) ................................................................................................................... 24Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) .................................................. 1

Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nica.), (Judgment) 2009

I.C.J. 213 (July 13) ............................................................................................................... 27

East Timor (Port. v.Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 104 (June 30) ................................................................ 7

Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25) ................................................... 25

Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9) ................................... 1

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Camr. v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea

intervening), (Judgment) 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10) ............................................................. 26

Land, Island and Maritime Dispute Case (El Sal. v. Hond.), (Merits) 1992 I.C.J. 351 (Sept.

11) .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South

West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16

(June 21)................................................................................................................................. 7

7/24/2019 A2 memo

9/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- viii

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9) .......................................................................................................... 7

Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8) ........................... 9

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14

(June 27)..................................................................................................................................... 1North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Den., F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 26 (Feb.

20) .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), (Judgment) 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr.

20) ........................................................................................................................................ 27

S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), (Merits) 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 10 (Sept. 7) ............................ 4

United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16)

................................................................................................................................................ 1

Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J.12 (Oct. 16) ................................................................................... 7

P.C.I.JCASES

Advisory Opinion No. 22, Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932 P.C.I.J.

(ser. A/B) No. 46 (Aug. 19) ................................................................................................. 25

Advisory Opinion No. 23, Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin

or Speech in Danzig Territory, 1932 P.C.I.J. 4 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4) ........................... 3

Advisory Opinion No. 6, Settlers of German Origin in Poland, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 6

(Sept. 10) ................................................................................................................................ 2Case Concerning Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B)

No. 53 (Apr. 5) ..................................................................................................................... 24

Case Concerning the Adaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions 1925 P.C.I.J.

(ser. A) No. 11 (Mar. 26) ..................................................................................................... 24

Chorzow Factory Case (Germ. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A), No. 17 at 47 (Sept. 13) ........... 1

German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. 19 (ser. A) No. 6

(Aug. 25) ................................................................................................................................ 3

Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory(U.K. v. Fr.),1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No.

49 (Aug. 11) ......................................................................................................................... 26

Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14) ...................... 3

7/24/2019 A2 memo

10/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- ix

U.N.R.I.A.A.&MISCELLANEOUS CASES

AIR Service Agreement Case (France v. United States), 1978, 18 R.I.A.A 306, 337 ............ 34

Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) 1928, 2 R.I.A.A. 1025 ...................................................... 34

Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (Ijzeren Rijn) (Bel. v. Neth.), 2005, 27

R.I.A.A. 35, 64 ..................................................................................................................... 26

Case 162/96, A. Racke GmbH&Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, 1998 E.C.R. I-3655, 37057 ... 25

Conference on Yugoslavia, 1992, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 2, 92 I.L.R. 167,

168-9 (Jan. 11) ..................................................................................................................... 18

Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire, Commn. No. 75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R. (2000)

A.H.R.L.R. 72 (8thAnn. Activity Rep.) ............................................................................... 17

Rainbow Warrior Affair (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1985/1986, R.I.A.A.1904 ........................................... 28

Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217 (1998) (Can.) .................................... 8

The Chechnya Case, 1995 Second Russian Constitutional Court, Decree No. 10-P, 31:5

Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1995) 48, 52 (July 31)

(Russia) .................................................................................................................................. 8

The Tatarstan Case, 1992 First Russian Constitutional Court, 30:3 Statutes and Decisions of

the USSR and its Successor States (1994) 32, 41 (Mar. 13) (Russia) ................................... 8

BOOKS

ANTONIO CASSESSE, SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES: A LEGAL REAPPRAISAL 116

(1995) ........................................................................................................................ 22

ARECHAGA, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MANUAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

545(1968) .................................................................................................................... 3

AUST,MODERN TREATY LAW AND PRACTICE 216-17(2013) ............ ............. ............. .... 26

BROWNLIE,PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 553(2008) ...................... ......... 7

BRUNO SIMMA,THE CHARTER OF THE UNITEDNATIONS,ACOMMENTARY 80(2002) ....... 5

CAHEIR,ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF ROBERTO AGO 163(1987)............................................ 26

CHRISTIAN

JT

AMSA

NDJ

AMESS

LON,T

HED

EVELOPMENTO

FINTERNATIONAL

LAW

BY

THE LNTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 317(1958) ............. ............. ............. ........... 11

CHRISTINE GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 58 (2004) ................... 18

CRAWFORD, ALLAIN PELLET, SIMON OLLESON, THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY 237

(2010) .......................................................................................................................... 2

CRAWFORD,CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 415(2006) ............. .............. . 9

7/24/2019 A2 memo

11/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- x

CRAWFORD, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION'S ARTICLES ON STATE

RESPONSIBILITY:INTRODUCTION,TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 210(2002) ..................... 1

EAGLETON,THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL 66(1928) ....................... 3

FRAUKE METT, THE CONCEPT OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES 150

(2004) ........................................................................................................................ 18GNANAPALA WELHENGAMA, MINORITIESCLAIMS,FROM AUTONOMY TO SECESSION 308,

312(2000) .................................................................................................................. 18

HARASZTI,SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE LAW OF TREATIES 229-425(1973) 23

HYDE,INTERNATIONAL LAW 69(1947) .......................................................................... 11

I.A.SHEARER,STARKES INTERNATIONAL LAW 94(1994) .............................................. 11

J.N.SAXENA,SELF DETERMINATION:FROM BIAFRA TO BANGLADESH 14(1978) ............. 5

JAMES SUMMER,PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 34(2007)...................................... 12

KELSEN,PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 62-4(1952) ............................................ 11

L.OPPENHEIM,INTERNATIONAL LAW,ATREATISE 305(1955) ....................................... 11

LAUTERPACHT,RECONGITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 420(1947) ........... .............. ........ 20

LEE C.BUCHHEIT,SECESSION:THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF-DETERMINATION 89(1978) ... 16

LORD MCNAIR,LAW OF TREATIES 405-8(1961) ............................................................. 24

LOWE,INTERNATIONAL LAW 74(2007) .......................................................................... 26

M GOMAA, SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF TREATIES ON GROUNDS OF BREACH 32

(1996) ........................................................................................................................ 29

M.N.SHAW,INTERNATIONAL LAW 786,68(2008) ......................................................... 15

M.D.EVANS,INTERNATIONAL LAW 196(2010) .............................................................. 29

NICO SCHRIJVER,SOVEREIGNTY OVERNATURAL RESOURCES (1997) ............................. 32

O DRR AND K SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A

COMMENTARY 544(2012) .......................................................................................... 28

O.Y ELAGAB, THE LEGALITY OF NON-FOCIBLE COUNTERMEASURES IN INTERNATIONAL

LAW (1988) ................................................................................................................ 34

RAIC,STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 316-72(2002) ................... 13

SINCLAIR,THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 193(1984) ............... .. 24

7/24/2019 A2 memo

12/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xi

ARTICLES AND COMMENTARIES

A. Olafsson,International Status of the Faroe Islands, 51 NORDIC J.OF INTL L. 29 (1982)

.............................................................................................................................................. 13

Allott, State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law, 29 HARV.INT'L L.J.1,

10 (1988) ................................................................................................................................ 1

Angelika Nuberger, South Ossetia, 9 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of INTL.L. 487 (2012) . 17

Antonello Tancredi, Secession and Use of Force, Self Determination and Secession in

International Law 79 (2014) .................................................................................................. 6

Arie E. David, The Strategy of Treaty Termination, 24 Am. J .Comp. L. 350 (1976); J.L.

Brierly, The Law of Nations 256 (1955) ............................................................................. 23

Borchard,Responsibility of States, 24 AM.J.INTL L. 517 (1930) .......................................... 3

Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-Determination, Secession, International Law

Perspectives 27 (2006) ......................................................................................................... 18

Crawford, Bodeau,I.L.C.'s Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Towards Completion of a

Second Reading, 94 AM.J.INTL L.637, 660 (2000) ........................................................... 2

Crawford,Revising the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, 10 EUR. J. INT'L L. 435, 500

(1999) ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Fitzmaurice,First Report on the Law of Treaties, 1 Y.I.L.C 93-94 (1956) ............................ 32

Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of

the Rule of Law, 92 Recueil des Cours 61 (1957)................................................................ 11Gyorgy Haraszti, Treaties and Fundamental Change of Circumstances, 146 RECUEIL DES

COURS(1975) ...................................................................................................................... 24

International Commission of Jurists, Report of the International Commission of Jurists

Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of giving an Advisory

Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, 1 League of NationsO.J.

Spec. Supp. 3, 5635 (1920) .................................................................................................. 16

J. Garner, The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination of Treaties, 21 AM. J.

INT'L L. 409 (1927) .............................................................................................................. 24James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession , 69

B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998) ......................................................................................................... 18

Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 12 INTL COMP. L. Q 1051

(1963) ................................................................................................................................... 12

7/24/2019 A2 memo

13/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xii

Jimnez De Archaga, International Law in the Past Third of a Century, 159 RECUEIL DES

COURS9 (1978) ................................................................................................................... 11

Jimenez De Arechaga, State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign Owned

Property,11N.Y.U.J.INT'L.L.&POLY.179-80(1978) .................................................. 33

John Dugard, The Secession of States and their Recognition in the Wake of Kosovo , 357RECUEIL DES COURS70 (2011) ........................................................................................... 20

Kohen,Introduction, Secession: International Law Perspectives 7 (2006) ............................... 9

Krueger, Implications of Kosovo, Abkhazia and south Ossetia for International law the

conduct of the community of states in current secession conflicts, 3(2) CAUCASIAN REV.

INT'L.AFF.126(2009) ......................................................................................................... 18

Lawrence S. Eastwood, Jr., Secession: State Practice And International Law After The

Dissolution Of The Soviet Union And Yugoslavia, 3 DUKE J.COMP.&INT'L.L. 303 (1993)

.............................................................................................................................................. 16

Lea Brilmayer, Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation, 16 YALE J.

INTL L.185 (1991) ............................................................................................................. 22

Manley O. Hudson, Working Paper, Article 24 of the Statute of the International Law

Commission,2 Y.B.INT'L L.COMM'N 24 (1950), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/16 .......................... 15

Meinhard Schroder, Principle of Non-intervention, Encyclopaedia of Public Intl. L. 619

(1984) ................................................................................................................................... 11

Philip Kunig,Intervention,6 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law 289 (2012) .. 11

Poch De Caviedes, De la clause rebus sic stantibus la clause de rvision dans les

conventions internationals, 118 Recueil des Cours 109-204 (1966) ................................... 25

Preuss,Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic

Jurisdiction, 74 Recueil desCours 554 (1949) .................................................................... 11

Rainer Hoffman,Annexation,1 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Intl. L.411 (2012) .............. 19

Robin C.A.White, Expropriation of the Libyan Oil Concessions-Two Conflicting

International Arbitrations30INTL.COMP.L.Q.11-12(1981) ......................................... 33

Rosenstock, The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly

Relations: A Survey, 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 713, 730 (1971) ........................................................ 6

Samuel K.N. Blay, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, 9 Max Planck

Encyclopaedia of International Law, 860 (2012) .................................................................. 4

Thornberry, Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International

Instruments, 38 INT'L &COMP.L.Q.867 (1989) ................................................................ 21

7/24/2019 A2 memo

14/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xiii

Ved P. Nanda, Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede, 13

Case W.RES.J.INT'L L. 264 (1981) ..................................................................................... 4

7/24/2019 A2 memo

15/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xiv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to the Joint Notification and the Compromis concluded on 2nd September 2014,

agreed to therein, between the Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of

Reverentia (Respondent) (hereinafter referred to as the Parties), and in accordance with

Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Parties hereby submit to

this Court its dispute Concerning the Secession and Annexation of East Agnostica. In

accordance with Article 36(1) of the I.C.J. Statute and Article 5(a) of the Compromis, each

party will accept the judgement of the Court as final and binding. In accordance with Article

3 of the Compromis, the Court is hereby requested to adjudge the dispute.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

16/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. WHETHER REVERENTIAS ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE EAST AGNOSTICAN

REFERENDUM VIOLATED AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THE PRINCIPLE OF

NON-INTERVENTION,AND THE UNITEDNATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY.

II. WHETHER THE PURPORTED SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF EAST

AGNOSTICA ARE ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT, AND THEREFORE, WHETHER EAST

AGNOSTICA REMAINS A PART OF THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF

AGNOSTICA.

III. WHETHER THE MARTHITE CONVENTION CEASED TO BE IN EFFECT AS OF APRIL 2,

2012AND,WHETHER IN ANY EVENT,AGNOSTICA BREACHED THE CONVENTION.

IV. WHETHER REVERENTIAS REMOVAL OF THE SOFTWARE AT THE MARTHITE

EXTRACTION FACILITIES VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

17/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xvi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Kingdom of Credera, conquered the Thanatosian Plains and incorporated the

region into its global empire as two separately-administered colonies, Reverentia and

Agnostica. The Crederan authorities demarcated the two territories based upon their

observations of linguistic, cultural, and religious differences between their respective

inhabitants. The colony of Reverentia was located in the eastern half of the Thanatosian

Plains. The colony of Agnostica was located in the western half of the Thanatosian

Reverentia functioned as a manufacturing and urban trading centre. A large number of ethnic

Reverentians migrated to Agnostica, settling in East Agnostica and are known as Agnorevs.

Federal Republic of Agnostica (Applicant) and the State of Reverentia (Respondent) were

established on 1 August 1925.

-The Marthite Convention-

2. Within the territory of East Agnostica were the only areas in the world that contain

deposits of Marthite, a naturally-occurring mineral salt which was known to possess mildly

restorative properties Marthite has always been a core ingredient in Reverentian traditional

medicine but is virtually unknown outside the Thanatosian Plains.

On 14 April 1938, Agnostica and Reverentia concluded a bilateral treaty, called The

Marthite Convention. The facilities in East Agnostica produced between 200 and 250 tonnes

of Marthite per year, and the Reverentian Marthite Trust (RMT) sold the entire output to

traditional medicine practitioners in Reverentia and East Agnostica. In late 2011 it was found

that high doses of Marthite were over 90% effective in treating a broad range of previously

untreatable infant and early-childhood autoimmune disorders. RMT shifted its focus to the

international market, selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to

7/24/2019 A2 memo

18/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xvii

pharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under

the Marthite Convention.

3. On 1st February 2012, Agnostican Prime Minister Maxine Moritz contacted the

President of Reverentia, Antonis Nuvallus, proposing to terminate the Marthite Convention

by mutual consent. The President of Reverentia did not agree to terminate the treaty. On 2nd

April 2012, Agnostica declared the 1938 Marthite Convention to be terminated and without

further effect. The Prime Minister also disclosed that Agnostica had agreed, once it was no

longer subject to the Convention, to lease all rights to the existing East Agnostican Marthite

facilities to Baxter Enterprises, Ltd. (Baxter). Following this, all the Reverentian Engineers

engaged at the facility were called back.

-Turmoil in East Agnostica-

4. On 1st October 2012, the Agnostican Parliament passed the Marthite Control Act

(MCA), under which an Agnostican citizen possessing Marthite without a Government

license would be subject to a mandatory prison term of from 18 months to four years. On 23rd

November 2012, Gohandas Sugdy, a 19-year-old Agnorev miner, was found to be in

possession of two pocketfuls of Marthite, and was arrested and charged under the MCA. He

wanted the Marthite for his sick grandfather and later on committed suicide in prison cell

when he was unable to do so.

Hailing Mr. Sugdy as a martyr to the Reverentian cause, the leading East Agnostican

newspaper denounced the Marthite ban as denying Reverentians in Agnostica the fruits ofour own labour, the product of our own lands, and the lifeblood of our ancient traditions.

Through the remainder of 2012, demonstrations across East Agnostica increased in number,

frequency, and intensity.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

19/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xviii

5. On 2nd January 2013, with clashes between the authorities and protesters continuing,

Mr. Bien, the Agnorev head of the East Agnostican, proposed a resolution before the

Agnostican Parliament, calling upon the Prime Minister to de-escalate the police and

military presence in East Agnostica. On 5 January 2013, Mr. Bien presented a resolution to

the Agnostican Parliament proposing the dissolution of the nation. This resolution was

defeated.

-Referendum on the question of secession-

6. On 10thJanuary 2013, the Reverentian Parliament adopted a resolution titled On the

Crisis in East Agnostic which dealt with the secession of East Agnostica from Agnostica.

The East Agnostican provincial parliament voted on 16 January 2013 to schedule a plebiscite

open to all Agnostican citizens resident in East Agnostica on the question of secession. On

29 January 2013, the plebiscite was held, and 73 percent of voters cast their ballots in favour

of secession. The next day, the members of Agnorev Peoples Parliament (APP), ratified

the secession of East Agnostica and voted unanimously to send a delegation headed by Mr.

Bien to enter into talks with Reverentia.

7. On 6thFebruary 2013, the President of the Security Council expressed concern over

what he termed the question of the continued territorial integrity of Agnostica, and the

possibility that recent events might constitute an unjustifiable and illegal interference in

Agnostican domestic affairs. On 18th February 2013, five of the largest international

pharmaceutical manufacturers jointly announced that they were suspending purchases of

Marthite until the legal status of East Agnostica and of the Marthite itself is conclusively

resolved.

8. President Nuvallus announced on 22ndFebruary 2013 that he and Mr. Bien had signed

an Integration Agreement that would make East Agnostica a semi-autonomous province of

7/24/2019 A2 memo

20/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xix

Reverentia, with the APP as its provincial legislature. Prime Minister Moritz denounced the

annexation.

-Dispute Settlement-

9. Agnostica and Reverentia sent their Foreign Ministers to New York on 10 th May

2013. Reverentia expressed willingness to submit the dispute over East Agnostica to the

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but Agnosticas Foreign Minister insisted

that it would agree only if the Court were seized also of the inextricably related disputes

over the Marthite Convention.

The parties subsequently negotiated and concluded this Special Agreement.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

21/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xx

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Reverentian Parliament is responsible for passing the Resolution titled On the Crisis in East

Agnostica, accepting and ratifying the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica and

moving the Reverentian Army units into the territory of Agnostica. This act of Reverentia is

in breach of its international obligations with respect to territorial integrity of Agnostica and

the principle of non intervention. Agnostica is entitled to maintain its Territorial Integrity as it

respects the principle of self-determination. As matters relating to self determination fall in

the domain of the concerned State, Reverentias intervention in the domestic affairs of

Agnostica is prohibited under international law. Reverentia is also in breach of its obligations

of prohibition of use of indirect military force and for granting premature recognition to East

Agnostica despite Agnosticas denunciation of the plebiscite.

II.

Secession and subsequent annexation of East Agnostica are illegal and without effect as there

is lack of state practice establishing a right to secession in international law. Agnorevs cannot

exercise external self-determination as Agnostica has respected the right of internal self-

determination of Agnorevs. State practice and opinio juris in favour of ethnic groups seeking

secession has not been visible in the practice of states and therefore the secession of East

Agnostica and its subsequent annexation by Reverentia is illegal and without effect. Also, the

recognition of Statehood of East Agnostica by Reverentia and other states is a violation of

international law.

III.

The Marthite Convention has ceased to be in effect as of April 2012, thereby giving validity

to Agnosticas agreement with Baxter International. Agnosticas invocation of the doctrine of

error, doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances is valid and the termination of the

Marthite Convention is lawful. In any case, it is Reverentia which has committed a material

7/24/2019 A2 memo

22/59

-PRELIMINARIES-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- xxi

breach of the convention by selling some 75% of the total quantity of mined Marthite to

pharmaceutical companies for as much as ten times its maximum permitted sale price under

the Marthite Convention after discovering the commercial significance of Marthite, thereby

giving Agnostica a right to claim termination of the said treaty as per the law of treaties.

IV. Reverentias removal of software at the Marthite extraction facilities is an apparent violation

of international law. The Marthite Convention itself states the right of Agnostica over the

facilities and Reverentia also breaches its obligations post termination of the treaty under the

Vienna Convention. The act claimed to be a counter measure by Reverentia is invalid as it

does not arise in response to an unlawful act by Agnostica and does not commensurate the

rule of proportionality in law of counter measures.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

23/59

-MERITS-

-MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT- 1

PLEADINGS

I. REVERENTIAS ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE EAST AGNOSTICAN REFERENDUM VIOLATED

AGNOSTICAS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION AND THE

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER GENERALLY.

A State entails responsibility when its acts or omissions constitute a breach of international

obligations1 and the breach is attributable to it.2 The support for the East Agnostican

Referendum (hereinafter, Referendum) is attributable to the Reverentian Parliament which

is a Reverentian State organ3 [A.]. The Reverentian Parliaments adoption of the

Resolution, On the crisis in East Agnostica (hereinafter, Resolution) recognising the

Referendum as valid4, its acceptance and ratification of the Integration Agreement annexing

East Agnostica,5and its decision of the movement of Reverentian Army thereafter breached

Reverentias treaty obligations under the UN Charter and customary international law

(hereinafter, C.I.L.) obligations with respect to the territorial integrity of Agnostica and the

principle of non-intervention [B.].

1I.L.C., Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, UNGAU.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001), art.1 [hereinafter A.R.S.I.W.A.]; Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project(Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9) [hereinafter Gabcikovo]; Corfu Channel (U.K. v.Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) [hereinafter Corfu Channel]; Chorzow Factory Case(Germ. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A), No. 17 at 47 (Sept. 13) [hereinafter Chorzow];Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14(June 27) [hereinafterNicaragua].

2A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1, art. 2; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran(U.S. v. Iran), 1980 I.C.J. 3 (June 16); Crawford, Revising the Draft Articles on State

Responsibility, 10 EUR. J. INT'L L. 435, 500 (1999); Allott, State Responsibility and theUnmaking of International Law, 29 HARV. INT'L L. J. 1, 10 (1988); CRAWFORD, THE

INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 'S ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY:INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 210 (2002) [hereinafter CRAWFORD, STATERESPONSIBILITY).

3A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1, art. 4.

4Compromis, 35.

5Id., at 41.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

24/59

-MERITS-


A. SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE REVERENTIAN

PARLIAMENT.

For a conduct to be internationally wrongful, it must be attributable to the State.6The State

is an abstraction7, and can act only by and through its agents.8The conductof the organs of

the State,9irrespective of its functions10is attributable to the State.

1. Reverentian Parliament is a State Organ.

The International Law Commission (hereinafter, ILC) Articles11 define State organ as

any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.12

The reference to a State organ covers all the entities which make up the organization of the

State and act on its behalf13 exercising legislative, executive, and judicial or any other

function.14Thus, the Reverentian Parliament, which exercises legislative function, is a State

organ of Reverentia.

6CRAWFORD,STATE RESPONSIBILITY,supranote2.

7CRAWFORD,ALLAIN PELLET,SIMON OLLESON,THE LAW OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY 237

(2010)[hereinafterCRAWFORD,PELLET &OLLESON].

8Advisory Opinion No. 6, Settlers of German Origin in Poland, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 6(Sept. 10);CRAWFORD,PELLET &OLLESON,supranote7.

9A.R.S.I.W.A., supra note 1, art. 2, 12, 13; Crawford, Bodeau, I.L.C.'s Draft Articles onState Responsibility: Towards Completion of a Second Reading, 94 AM.J.INTL L.637, 660(2000).

10A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1, art. 4.

11A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1.

12A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1, art. 4, 2.

13CRAWFORD,STATE RESPONSIBILITY,supranote 2.

14A.R.S.I.W.A.,supranote 1, art. 4, 1.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

25/59

-MERITS-


2. The Reverentian Parliament is responsible for passing the Resolution, accepting and

ratifying the Integration Agreement, annexing East Agnostica, and moving the

Reverentian Army units into the territory of Agnostica.

Judicial decisions,15writings of publicists16recognise the customary rule of a State being held

responsible for positive acts of legislation contravening international law. The Reverentian

Parliaments adoption of the Resolution, subsequent secession of East Agnostica,17accepting

and ratifying the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica18 are legislations

contravening international law and are attributable to Reverentia. The decision to move

Reverentian Army into the territory of Agnostica19 is attributable to the Reverentian

Parliament.

15German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. 19 (ser. A) No. 6(Aug. 25); Advisory Opinion No. 23, Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons ofPolish Origin or Speech in Danzig Territory, 1932 P.C.I.J. 4 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4);Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14).

16 EAGLETON, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL 66 (1928); Arechaga,

International Responsibility, MANUAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 545 (1968);

Borchard, Responsibility of States, 24 AM. J. INTL L. 517 (1930);CRAWFORD, PELLET &OLLESON,supranote7.

17Compromis, 35.

18Id., at 41.

19Id.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

26/59

-MERITS-


B.REVERENTIAS SUPPORT FOR THE REFERENDUM STANDS IN BREACH OF ITS TREATY

OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE UN CHARTER AND C.I.L. WITH RESPECT TO THE

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AGNOSTICA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION.

There is a breach of an obligation when a conduct attributable to the State fails to comply

with the obligation incumbent upon it.20Such failure maybe in the form of a breach of a

treaty obligation or the breach of a principle of C.I.L.21 Reverentias support for the

Referendum breaches its treaty obligations under the UN Charter (hereinafter, U.N.C.) as

well as C.I.L. with respect to the territorial integrity of Agnostica and the principle of non-

intervention.

1. Violation of the Territorial Integrity of Agnostica.

a. Reverentia has violated the principle of Territorial Integrity enshrined in the UN

Charter and C.I.L.

Territorial integrity and political independence are two core elements of Statehood. 22

Territorial integrity refers to the territorial oneness of the State,23 making statehood the

basis of international law.24Measures encouraging territorial separation are disruptive of the

international system .25Reverentias support for the Referendum is aimed at the territorial

separation of Agnostica and is a violation of the territorial integrity of Agnostica. The

20A.R.S.I.W.A.,supra note 1.

21North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (F.R.G. v. Den., F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 26(Feb. 20) [hereinafter North Sea Continental Shelf]; S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), (Merits) 1927P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 10 (Sept. 7) [hereinafter Lotus].

22 Samuel K.N. Blay, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, 9 MAX PLANCKENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 860 (2012).

23Id.

24Ved P. Nanda, Self-Determination Under International Law: Validity of Claims to Secede,13 CASE W.RES.J.INT'L L. 264 (1981).

25Id.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

27/59

-MERITS-


principles of territorial integrity and political independence of a State flow from the sovereign

equality of States26 enshrined in Article 2(1) of the U.N.C.27 The principles of territorial

integrity and political independence stated in Article 2(4) of the U.N.C.28 provide for the

external affirmation by the international community of the sovereignty of a State and the

legitimacy of the occupation and use of its territory free from outside external interference or

threat.29The separation of East Agnostica solely lies with Agnostica. Reverentia has a duty to

respect the territorial integrity of Agnostica, the safeguard of which has been dogmatically

pleaded30right from the inception of the U.N.C. till the Friendly Relations Declaration31, a

resolution which reflects C.I.L.32

Paragraph 5(7) of the Friendly Relations Declaration33and Paragraph 6 of the Declaration on

Colonial Peoples34considered as a document only slightly less sacred than the Charter,35state

that every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or total disruption of the

26BRUNO SIMMA,THE CHARTER OF THE UNITEDNATIONS,ACOMMENTARY80 (2002).

27U.N.CHARTER, art. 2, 1.

28Id.,at art. 2, 4.

29Blay,supranote 22.

30J.N.SAXENA,SELF DETERMINATION:FROM BIAFRA TO BANGLADESH 14(1978).

31Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) [hereinafterF.R.D.].

32Nicaragua,supranote 1, at 191-193.

33F.R.D.,supra note 31, 5(7).

34Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UNGARes. 1514 (XV), U.N.Doc. A/4684 (1960) [hereinafter Declaration on Colonial Peoples].

35 Rosenstock, The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning FriendlyRelations: ASurvey, 65 AM.J.INT'L L.713, 730 (1971).

7/24/2019 A2 memo

28/59

-MERITS-


national unity and territorial integrity of any other State.36The Helsinki Final Act37imposes

a duty to respect the territorial integrity of States and to refrain from actions inconsistent with

the principles of the U.N.C. Several UNGA Resolutions38have called upon States to uphold

the sovereign equality of all States, and respect their territorial integrity.

The Reverentian Parliaments adaptation of the Resolution39 and the acceptance and

ratification of the Integration Agreement annexing East Agnostica40 was aimed at the

disruption of the territorial integrity of Agnostica. The subsequent movement of troops41into

the Agnostican territory is a violation of Article 2(4)42 prohibiting threat or use of force

including direct and indirect military intervention which includes sending of troops.43 The

ban on the use of force prohibits third States from participating or providing direct or indirect

36Declaration on Colonial Peoples,supra note 34, 6.

37Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final Act of Helsinki, Aug 1, 1975, 14 I.L.M. 1292, art. 4 [hereinafter

Helsinki Final Act].

38 Guiding Principles on Humanitarian Assistance, UNGA Res. 48/182, U.N. Doc.A/RES/46/182 (1991) 3; Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights andImpeding the Exercise of the Rights of Peoples to Self-Determination, UNGA Res. 52/112,U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/112 (1998);Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGARes. 61/295, U.N.Doc. A/RES/61/295 (2007), art. 46; Measures to Eliminate InternationalTerrorism, UNGA Res. 60/228, U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60 (2005); Prevention of ArmedConflict, UNGA Res. 57/337, U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/337 (2003).

39Compromis, 35.

40Compromis, 5.

41Compromis, 41.

42U.N.CHARTER, art. 2,4.

43Antonello Tancredi, Secession and Use of Force, SELF DETERMINATION AND SECESSIONIN INTERNATIONAL LAW79 (2014) [hereinafter Tancredi].

7/24/2019 A2 memo

29/59

-MERITS-


military assistance to secessionist groups in other States.44Use of force directly or indirectly

corresponds to the notion of aggression enshrined in UNGA Res. 331445 encompassing

deployment of regular troops as well as involvement in their acts.46Thus, the movement of

troops into the territory of Agnostica subsequent to the Referendum is a violation of Art. 2(4)

of the U.N.C.

b. Agnostica is entitled to maintain its Territorial Integrity as it respects the principle of

self-determination.

The legal right of self-determination47, widely recognized in the jurisprudence of the ICJ,48

allows a people to choose its own political status and determine its own form of economic,

cultural and social development.49It exists within a framework of respect for the territorial

integrity of existing States.50Territorial integrity and the principle of uti possitetis(being the

44F.R.D., supranote 31; Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the DomesticAffairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, UNGA Res.2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/20/2131 (1965) [hereinafter Declaration on theInadmissibility of Intervention]; Tancredi,supranote 43, at 90.

45 Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res. 3314 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3314 (1974)[hereinafter Aggression].

46Id.

47International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on16thDecember1966, 1057 U.N.T.S 407, art. 1 [hereinafter I.C.C.P.R.]; International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights, entered into force onJan. 3, 1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art.1 [hereinafter I.C.E.S.C.R.]; BROWNLIE,PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONALLAW553(2008).

48Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia

(South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16(June 21) [hereinafter Namibia]; Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J.12 (Oct. 16);East Timor (Port.v.Aus.), 1995 I.C.J. 104 (June 30); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in theOccupied Palestinian Territory, 2004 I.C.J. 136 (July 9).

49I.C.C.P.R.,supranote 47, art. 1.

50Reference re Secession of Quebec, (1998) 2 S.C.R. 217 (1998) (Can.), at 127 [hereinafterQuebec].

7/24/2019 A2 memo

30/59

-MERITS-


respect for established colonial borders) impose limitations on self-determination. The

purpose of the latter is to protect territorial integrity and stability of independent States.51

International documents supporting the existence of peoples right to self-determination

contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of self determination

must be limited to prevent threats to an existing States territorial integrity.52The Friendly

Relations Declaration,53 Vienna Declaration,54 Helsinki Final Act,55 and UNs Fiftieth

Anniversary Declaration56state that self determination does not authorisation any action that

dismembers/impairs the territorial integrity of sovereign States which respect equal rights and

self-determination of peoples without distinction as to race, creed or colour/kind.57The same

has found support among Judicial decisions.58

Agnostica has respected the self-determination of Agnorevs. 85% of Agnorevs remained in

Agnostica participating actively in the politics and economics of Agnostica. An Agnorev

51 Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22);

Land, Island and Maritime Dispute Case (El Sal. v. Hond.), (Merits) 1992 I.C.J. 351 (Sept.11).

52Quebec,supra note 50.

53F.R.D.,supranote 31, 5 (7).

54Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (1993), art. 2.

55Helsinki Final Act,supranote 37, art.8.

56Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, UNGA Res

50/6, U.N. Doc A/RES/50/6 (1995), 3(1).

57Quebec,supra note 50, at 127.

58Quebec, supranote 50, at 152; The Tatarstan Case, 1992 First Russian ConstitutionalCourt, 30:3 Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1994) 32, 41 (Mar.13) (Russia); The Chechnya Case, 1995 Second Russian Constitutional Court, Decree No.10-P, 31:5 Statutes and Decisions of the USSR and its Successor States (1995) 48, 52 (July31) (Russia).

7/24/2019 A2 memo

31/59

-MERITS-


household earned 157% of the income of the average ethnic Agnostican family.59 The

Agnostican Constitution devolves control over cultural and education to the provinces60

giving Agnorevs a right to freely decide their cultural and educational affairs. The self-

determination of Agnorevs is confirmed by the fact that the Agnostican Constitution

empowers the Federal Parliament to the dissolve the Union and gives its citizens the right to

freely choose their political system.61Agnostica supported the Referendum, conducted it in

peaceful conditions62showcasing that the Agnorevs enjoyed their right to self-determination.

c. The principle of territorial integrity provides a guarantee against dismemberment.

Territorial integrity provides a guarantee against dismemberment of the territory of a State.

63

In cases of secession, the UN has called on States to respect the territorial integrity of the

existing State.64UN Resolutions, even if not binding, sometimes have a normative value and

a series of resolutions often show an evolution of opinio juris.65In the cases of Bosnia and

Herzegovina, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Comoros and Kosovo, among others, the international

community addressed all parties involved in the secessionist movements to respect the

territorial integrity of the States concerned and warned that any entity unilaterally declared in

59Compromis, 7.

60Compromis, 8.

61Compromis, 8.

62Compromis, 38.

63 CRAWFORD, CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 415 (2006) [hereinafterCRAWFORD].

64 Kohen, Introduction, SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES 7 (2006)[hereinafter Kohen].

65Legality or the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 254 (July 8) [hereinafterNuclear Weapons].

7/24/2019 A2 memo

32/59

-MERITS-


contravention of the principle would not be recognised.66The latest UNGARes., Territorial

Integrity of Ukraine67 affirmed UNs commitment to Ukraines sovereignty, political

independence, and territorial integrity within its recognized borders.68This underscored the

invalidity of the Crimean referendum dated 16.03.2014.69

By a vote of 100 to 11, with 58

abstentions, the UNGA called upon its members to refrain from actions aimed at disrupting

Ukraines territorial integrity.70There is sufficient state practice71and opinio juris72in favour

of a C.I.L. which calls upon States to respect the territorial integrity of the existing State in

secessionist conflicts. Reverentias support for the Referendum is a failure on its part to

respect the territorial integrity of Agnostica.

66 UNSC Res. 787 (1992), U.N. Doc. S/RES/787 (1992), concerning Bosnia andHerzegovina; For Georgia, UNSC Resolutions 971(1995), U.N. Doc. S/RES/971 (1995), 876(1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/876 (1993); For Azerbaijan, UNSC Resolutions 882 (1993), U.N.Doc. S/RES/882 (1993), 884 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/RES/884 (1993); For Kosovo, UNSCResolutions 1160 (1998), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1160 (1998), 1244 (1999), U.N. Doc.S/RES/1244 (1999).

67 Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, UNGA Res. 68/262, U.N. Doc. A/RES/68/262 (2014)[hereinafter Ukraine].

68Id., at 1.

69Id., at 5.

70Id., at 2.

71 North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21; ANTHONY DAMATO, KIRSTEN ENGEL,INTERNATIONAL LAW ANTHOLOGY 121(1994).

72North Sea Continental Shelf,supranote 21.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

33/59

-MERITS-


2. Reverentia violated the Principle of Non-intervention by intervening in the domestic

affairs of Agnostica.

a. Intervention in domestic affairs of a State is prohibited.

C.I.L. prescribes a duty not to intervene in the internal affairs of other States 73and bestows

the right on every State to conduct its affairs without outside interference74in matters which

international law recognises as being solely within the domestic jurisdiction of States. 75

Intervention in this connection means something less than aggression but more than mere

interference and much stronger that mediation or diplomatic suggestion.76 Prohibition of

interference is the corollary of every States right to sovereignty.77To fall within the terms of

the prohibition, it must be in opposition to the will of the State affected and serve by design

to impair the political independence of that State.78In the secession of Nagorna Karabakh,

Azerbaijan, the parent State condemned Armenian intentions of annexation of the region as

73F.R.D.,supranote 31, at 3(1); Declaration on Inadmissibility of Intervention, supra note

44, 1; L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, A TREATISE 305 (1955) [hereinafterOPPENHEIM]; O'CONNELL, INTERNATIONAL LAW299-300 (1965); Jimnez De Archaga,

International Law in the Past Third of a Century,159RECUEIL DES COURS9 (1978); PhilipKunig,Intervention,6 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTERNATIONAL LAW289 (2012);CHRISTIAN J TAMS AND JAMES SLON, THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW BYTHE LNTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE317 (1958).

74Corfu Channel,supranote 1; Nicaragua,supranote 1.

75KELSEN,PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW62-4 (1952); Preuss,Article 2, Paragraph7 of the Charter of the United Nations and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction, 74RECUEIL DESCOURS 554 (1949); Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered

from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law, 92 RECUEIL DES COURS 61 (1957); MeinhardSchroder,Principle of Non-intervention,ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF PUBLIC INTL.L. 619 (1984).

76I.A.SHEARER,STARKES INTERNATIONAL LAW 94 (1994).

77Nicaragua,supra note1at 205; OPPENHEIM,supranote 73, at 428.

78HYDE,INTERNATIONAL LAW69 (1947); Nicaragua,supranote 1, at 205.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

34/59

-MERITS-


an unlawful interference in its affairs.79 Similar sentiments have been echoed by El

Salvador,80Lebanon,81, Baathist Iraq82and Central and South American countries.83 Thus,

Reverentias support for the Referendum interferes in the domestic affairs of Agnostica

designed to impair the territorial integrity of Agnostica.

b. Matters of secession fall within the domestic affairs of a State.

International law leaves the creation of a new State to the domain of the domestic law of the

existing State of which the seceding entity presently forms a part.84The principle of non-

intervention imposes on third States the obligation not to support any secessionist claims.85

People should freely determine their political status without any interference.

86

Thus, the

interference in the internal affairs of States adversely affects the right of self-determination. 87

Intervention by third States in secessions where a people has not been oppressed by the

79 OSCE, Interim Report of the CSCE Rapporteur Mission on the Situation in NagornoKarabakh,7-CSO/Journal No. 2, CSCE Doc. Annex 1, 4 (Feb. 1992).

80 UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of El Salvador U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/14/Add.5, 17-22 IIY.H.R.C. 241 (1983-4).

81UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Lebanon, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.60 17-22 II Y.H.R.C.211 (1983-4).

82UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Iraq, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/37/Add.3, 29-30 II Y.H.R.C. 191(1987).

83UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Venezuela, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/6/Add.3m 11-6 II Y.H.R.C.11 (1981-2); UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Uruguay, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.57, 11-6Y.H.R.C. 213 (1981-2); UNHRC, C.C.P.R. Reports of Mexico, U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/46/Add.3, 34-6 II H.R.C.O.R. 178 (1988-9).

84Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 12 INTL COMP. L. Q 1051

(1963).

85Kohen,supra note64, at11;OPPENHEIM,supranote 73, at 128.

86JAMES SUMMER,PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONALLaw 34 (2007).

87UNHRC, C.C.P.R. General Comment No. 12: Article 1 (Right to Self-determination), TheRight to Self-determination of Peoples(1984), 6 [hereinafter General Comment No. 12].

7/24/2019 A2 memo

35/59

-MERITS-


parent State is unlawful.88Recognition of secessionist entities is premature89, meaning that

it is a violation of the principle of territorial integrity and non-intervention.90The claim of

secession of Faroes from Denmark was treated as internal to Denmark.91Thus, the secession

of East Agnostica is a matter solely within the domestic affairs of Agnostica and Reverentias

support for the Referendum and the pre-mature recognition of East Agnostica as a State

without the consent of Agnostica is an interference in the internal affairs of Agnostica.

c. Indirect military intervention falls under the prohibition of use of force.

Any direct or indirect military intervention carried out by third-party violates the territorial

integrity of another State.

92

Ban on the use of force prohibits third States from providing

military assistance, directly or indirectly, to secessionist groups in other States93including the

sending of troops.94This corresponds to the notion of aggression enshrined in UNGA Res.

3314 (XXIX)95which includes deployment of troops.96Movement of troops into Agnostican

Territory by Reverentia, after the ratification of the Integration Agreement amounts to a use

88SIMMA,supranote 26, at 61.

89OPPENHEIM,supranote 73, at 128.

90RAIC,STATEHOOD AND THE LAW OF SELF-DETERMINATION 316-72(2002).

91 A. Olafsson, International Status of the Faroe Islands, 51 NORDIC J. OF INTL L. 29(1982).

92U.N.CHARTER, art. 2(4); Tancredi,supranote 43, at 77.

93F.R.D.,supranote 31 at 1(10); Declaration on Inadmissibility of Intervention,supranote44, at 2; Tancredi,supranote 43, at 90.

94Tancredi,supranote 43, at 79.

95Aggression,supra note 45.

96Tancredi, supra note43, at 80.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

36/59

-MERITS-


of force and falls within the prohibition enshrined in Article 2(4) of the U.N.C..97 The

President of the UNSC also expressed concern over the question of the continued territorial

integrity of Agnostica and the possibility that recent events might constitute unjustifiable

and illegal interference in Agnostican domestic affairs.98

97U.N.CHARTER,art. 2, 4.

98Compromis, 40.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

37/59

-MERITS-


II. THE PURPORTED SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF EAST AGNOSTICA ARE

ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT,AND THEREFORE EAST AGNOSTICA REMAINS PART OF

THE TERRITORY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF AGNOSTICA.

Secession and annexation of East Agnostica are illegal as there is a lack of state practice

establishing a right to secession in international law [A.]. Agnorevs cannot exercise external

self-determination as Agnostica has respected the right of internal self-determination of

Agnorevs [B.].

A.LACK OF STATE PRACTICE AND OPINIOJURISESTABLISHING A RIGHT TO SECESSION.

For a right of secession to exist as a principle of C.I.L., state practice must be satisfied.99

The

requirements of a norm under C.I.L. are state practice and opinion juris.100 A right of

secession must be recognized through repetitious and uniform practice.101This recognition

must include the understanding that such practice is required by international law. A new rule

of customary international law can be established within a short period of time so long as

there is extensive and uniform state practice.102Thus, the behaviour of States can reveal the

existence of a right of secession.

99 Manley O. Hudson, Working Paper, Article 24 of the Statute of the International LawCommission, 2 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N 24 (1950), U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/16 [hereinafterHudson]; The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S.S.C. Report,677 (1900) (U.S.A.).

100 Statute of the International Court of Justice, entered into force on 26th June, 1945,33 U.N.T.S. 993, art. 38 1; North Sea Continental Shelf, supra note 21; Asylum Case(Colom. v. Peru), (Merits) 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20) [hereinafter Asylum]; M. N. SHAW,INTERNATIONAL LAW 786,68(2008)[hereinafterSHAW].

101Hudson,supranote 99, at 29; North Sea Continental Shelf,supranote 21.

102Asylum,supranote 100.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

38/59

-MERITS-


1. Customary behaviour of States fails to support a right of secession.

a. Practice of the League of Nations and United Nations.

In theAaland Islands103controversy, the League of Nations rejected a right of secession and

held that international law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to

separate themselves from the State.104 There is no right of secession stemming from the

concept of self-determination.105 United Nations Secretary- General U. Thant in 1970

asserted that the UN has never accepted the principle of secession.106

b. Patterns of State Behavior with respect to secession.

During the attempted secession of Katanga from Congo, the international community

responded negatively towards a right of secession.107The UNSC declared that all secessionist

103The Aaland Islands Questions, Report Presented to the Council of the League of Nationsby the Commission of Rapporteurs, League of Nations Doc. B.721/68/106.

104 International Commission of Jurists, Report of the International Commission of JuristsEntrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of giving an AdvisoryOpinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, 1 LEAGUE OFNATIONSO.J.Spec. Supp. 3, 5635 (1920).

105LEE C. BUCHHEIT, SECESSION: THE LEGITIMACY OF SELF-DETERMINATION89 (1978)[hereinafter BUCHHEIT].

106 "As an international organization, the United Nations has never accepted and does notaccept and I do not believe it will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of [a]Member State." UN Secretary-General U. Thant, Secretary-General's Press Conferences heldin Dakar,Senegal, U.N.MONTHLY CHRON.34-38 (1970); UN Committee on the Eliminationof Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No. 21, Right to Self-determination,1996, U.N. Doc. A/51/18, annex VIII, 125, 6 (1996) (The Committee noted thatinternational law has not recognised a general right of peoples to declare secession from aState unilaterally).

107Lawrence S. Eastwood, Jr., Secession: State Practice And International Law After TheDissolution Of The Soviet Union And Yugoslavia, 3 DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE ANDINTERNATIONAL LAW 303 (1993) [hereinafter Lawrence].

7/24/2019 A2 memo

39/59

-MERITS-


activities conducted were contrary to the Congolese Constitution and UNSC decisions. 108In

Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire109, the African Commission upheld the territorial

integrity of Congo and held that the quest for independence of Katanga had no merit under

the African Charter.110

The international communitys response to Biafra's effort to secede from Nigeria highlights

an inconsistent pattern of state practice with respect to secession.111Throughout the crisis, the

UN did not even consider the events in Nigeria.112 The OAU opposed the secession

recognizing the situation as an internal affair and reiterated their condemnation of

secession.113

In the case South Ossetia,114 UNSC affirmed territorial integrity of Georgia within its

internationally recognized borders.115

State practice has been hostile to secession as well as remedial secession.116External self-

determination was denied to Republika Srpska notwithstanding its proclamation of

108

UNSC Res. 169/1961, U.N. Doc. S/RES/169 (1961), 8.109 Katangese Peoples Congress v. Zaire, Commn. No. 75/92, 1995 A.C.H.P.R. (2000)A.H.R.L.R. 72 (8thAnn. Activity Rep.).

110African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, entered into forceonOct. 21, 1986, 567U.N.T.S. 435 (A.C.H. P.R.).

111Lawrence,supranote 107, at 308.

112BUCHHEIT,supra note 105, at 168-69.

113O.A.U. Resolution on Situation in Nigeria, AHG/Res.51 (IV) (1967).

114Angelika Nuberger, South Ossetia, 9 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTL.L. 487(2012).

115UNSC Res. 1808 (2008), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1808 (2008).

116 Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-Determination, SECESSION, INTERNATIONALLAW PERSPECTIVES27 (2006); SIMMA,supra note 26, at 36.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

40/59

-MERITS-


independence.117Rights to secession of ethnic groups which were proven to be the victims of

severe human rights violations has not been recognised.118Human rights violation may have

been censored; nonetheless, States underlined the territorial integrity of the mother State

exerting this violence.119

Chechnya is one such instance.120

International community has denounced the annexation of Crimea by Russia. UN has

affirmed its commitment to Ukraines territorial integrity.121 A number of States have not

recognized the illegal referendum in Crimea and have refused to recognise the illegal

annexation.122

Thus, state practice and opinio juris in favour of ethnic groups seeking secession has not been

visible in the practice of States.123 The secession of East Agnostica is illegal and without

effect as the right of secession is not available to a people under international law

117Conference on Yugoslavia, 1992, Arbitration Commission, Opinion No. 2, 92 I.L.R. 167,

168-9 (Jan. 11).

118Krueger, Implications of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia for International Law theConduct of the Community of States in Current Secession Conflicts,3(2)CAUCASIAN REV.INTL.AFF.126(2009).

119FRAUKE METT,THE CONCEPT OF THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF PEOPLES 150(2004).

120Id.

121Ukraine,supranote 67.

122Id.

123 James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998) [hereinafter Crawford, State Practice]; CHRISTINEGRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE58 (2004);SHAW,supranote 100, at444; GNANAPALA WELHENGAMA, MINORITIESCLAIMS,FROM AUTONOMY TO SECESSION308, 312 (2000); Quebec, supranote 50, at 111.

7/24/2019 A2 memo

41/59

-MERITS-


2. The subsequent annexation by Reverentia of East Agnostica is illegal.

Article 2(3) and (4) of the UN Charter124oblige Member States to settle their international

dispute by peaceful means and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or

use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. Thus, not

only war, but also the use of force in any form is regarded as an internationally wrongful act

from which no rights may be derived; consequently, annexations are illegal.125 Security

Council Resolution 242(1967) emphasized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory

by war.126Although not binding, Resolutions show how States interpret127the prohibition of

use of force and its consequences.128 The territory of a State shall not be the object of

acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force.129Territorial acquisition

resulting from the threat or use of force shall be illegal.130 This was confirmed by

development in connection with the annexation of Kuwait by Iraq.131 UNSC Resolution

662(1990) unanimously declared Iraqs annexation of Kuwait to be null and void and called

international community not to recognize the annexation.132 Thus, the annexation of East

124U.N.CHARTER,arts.23,24.

125Rainer Hoffman,Annexation,1 MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF INTL.L.411 (2012)[hereinafter Hoffman].

126UNSC Res. 242 (1967), U.N. Doc. S/RES/242 (1967).

127Nuclear Weapons,supranote 65, 71; Nicaragua,supranote 1.

128Hoffman,supranote 125.

129F.R.D.,supranote 31, at 1(10).

130Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, entered into force on26thDec., 1933, 165U.N.T.S. 19, art. 11 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention]; Aggression, supranote 45, at 5(3); Helsinki Final Act,supranote 37, Principle I-IV.

131Hoffman,supranote 125.

132UNSC Resolution 662(1990), U.N. Doc. S/RES/662 (1990).

7/24/2019 A2 memo

42/59

-MERITS-


Agnostica is illegal and without effect as the purported secession itself is not valid in law.

Further, the international community also issued communiqus describing the annexation of

East Agnostica as a threat to international peace and stability.133

3. The recognition of Statehood of East Agnostica by Reverentia and other States is a

violation of international law.

Acts contrary to international law cannot become a source of legal rights for the

wrongdoer.134 This applies to the creation of States and acquisition of territory.135 The

secession and annexation of East Agnostica have been brought about by the indirect use of

force which is prohibited under Art. 2(4) of the U.N.C.136and is therefore an act contrary to

international law. States have a duty not to recognize such acts under customary international

law, in accordance with the general principles of law.137The

Documents

A2 memo