Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request this Honourable Court to adjudge
and declare as follows:
(1) The incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT is in violation of JMSA and
is accordingly in violation of international law.
(2) The secession and subsequent annexation of the territory of DRT is in violation of
international law and Kingdom of Rafale is responsible for the same; and
(3) The actions of Azazel in changing the depicted borders of Azazel by introducing a
worm into the servers of MapMyRafale are in conformity with international law, or in
any case the wrongfulness of these actions are precluded under customary
international law.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for Applicants

Contents
Statement of jurisdiction....................................................................................... 4
QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................ 6
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS...................................................................................... 7
A.

Action of Azazel was in conformity of international law...............................................8

PLEADINGS............................................................................................................. 9
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.......................................................................................... 9
A.

That the JMSA is a valid treaty under international law.............................9

a.

DRT is the lawful territory of the Republic of Azazel................................11

B. That the incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT amounts to
aggression or use of force, and is accordingly violation of international law. 12
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME...........................................................................15
A.

That the secession of the DRT is not valid...............................................15

B. That annexation of DRT by Kingdom of Rafale is in violation of


international law............................................................................................ 17

3. THE ACTION OF AZAZEL IN CHANGING THE DEPICTED BORDERS OF AZAZEL


BY INTRODUCING WORM INTO THE THE SERVERS OF MAPMYRAFALE ARE IN
CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR IN ANY CASE THE WRONGNESS
OF THESE ACTIONS ARE PRECLUDED UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LA.
20
A. Action of Rafale owned MMR Corp. is amounts to internationally wrongful
act against Azazel......................................................................................... 20
B. Its action is precluded under customary international law as a
countermeasure............................................................................................ 21
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF...............................................................25

Index of authorities

Statement of jurisdiction
The Republic of Azazel and the Kingdom of Rafale have submitted the present dispute to this
Court by Special Agreement, sixteenth day of July in the year two thousand and
fourteen, pursuant to article 40(1) of the Courts Statute. Both parties have agreed to the
contents of the Compromis submitted as part of the Special Agreement. All States parties to
this dispute have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with article
36(2) of the Courts Statute. All parties shall accept the judgment of this Court as final and
binding and shall execute it in good faith in its entirety.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME?
3. THE ACTION OF AZAZEL IN CHANGING THE DEPICTED BORDERS OF
AZAZEL BY INTRODUCING WORM INTO THE THE SERVERS OF
MAPMYRAFALE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR IN
ANY CASE THE WRONGNESS OF THESE ACTIONS ARE PRECLUDED UNDER
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW?

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1

Azazel, a country situated in Eurasia, is divided more or less in two parts, from north
to south, by the spine mountains. Shortly after WW II it was ravaged by a bitter civil
war resulting into its partition into Republic of Azazel and Kingdom of Rafale.

In 1993, certain geographical changed took place along the spine mountains taking
advantage of which the Azazelian Army marched ahead towards Rafale and captured
the territory which later came to be known as DRT. Under the global pressure, both
countries signed Joplin Memorandum of Security Assurance, according to which both
countries were required to keep their armies along what came to be known as MaryKubis Line.

In 2010, Doodle Inc., a company incorporated in Azazel, depicted map of Azazel


showing Mary-Kubis line as their border. The issue was not taken very well by
Rafale, and it banned Doodle Inc. in its territory.

To capitalize the absence of Doodle Inc., MapMyRrafale, a state owned corporation


started its new product which depicted the border of Rafale along the Spine
Mountains.

In its protest of falsely depiction of the borders by MapMyRafale, Azazel introduced


worm into the servers of MapMyRafale and hacked it and defended its action as
countermeasure.

Meanwhile in 2012, the inhabitants of DRT started demanding secession of DRT from
Azazel, as result referendum of independence was held in DRT in which majority of
inhabitants of DRT ( 34% of of total voter) opted for independence.

Accordingly Azazelian army started to retreat back from DRT. Meanwhile,


PhunsukWangdu, leader of the DRT announced accession of DRT with Rafale.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE
DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
A. That the JMSA is a valid treaty under international law
a. Parties have capacity to enter into a treaty
b. It is an international agreement
c. It is subject to international law
B. DRT is the lawful territory of the Republic of Azazel
2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY OF DRT IS
IN VIOLATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME.
A. That the secession of the DRT is not valid
B. That annexation of DRT by Kingdom of Rafale is in violation of international law

3. THE ACTION OF AZAZEL IN CHANGING THE DEPICTED BORDERS OF


AZAZEL BY INTRODUCING WORM INTO THE THE SERVERS OF
MAPMYRAFALE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR IN
ANY CASE THE WRONGNESS OF THESE ACTIONS ARE PRECLUDED
UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

A. Action of Azazel was in conformity of international law


a.

Action of Rafale owned MapMyRafale Corp. amounts to internationally wrongful

b.

act against Azazel


The act of Azazel in response is valid under customary international law as a

i.
ii.

countermeasure.
it has observed all necessary procedural obligations of a lawful countermeasure
countermeasure is in proportion with the injury suffered by Azazel

PLEADINGS

1. THE INCURSION OF THE RAFALEAN TROOPS INTO THE


TERRITORY OF THE DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE JMSA
AND IS ACCORDINGLY IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW.
A. The JMSA is a valid treaty and has a binding effect under
international law

1. It is respectfully submitted that The Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,


19691 defines a treaty as an international agreement concluded between states in
written form and governed by the international law, whether embodied in a
single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its
particular designation.2
2. It is respectfully submitted that therefore if any international agreement , made
between states and if it is creating binding obligation 3 and governed by
international law then that agreement can be called as a treaty.
3. It is submitted that the term Agreement is wider as compared to treaty and also it
can be confirmed by Article 102 of UN Charter that refers every treaty and
every international agreements.4Thus, all treaties are international agreement
but all international agreements are not the treaties.
4. It is submitted that an international agreement means an agreement intended to
be governed by the international law between two or more states of international

1Hereinafter referred to as VCLT.


2VCLT, Art. 2.
3Fitzmaurice, law and procedure Cambridge University Press, 1993 pp. 204-7
4MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW( Cambridge university press, sixth ed.

2008) at 909

law possessing international personality and having capacity to enter into


treaties.5
5. Treaties may be made or concluded by the parties in virtually any mannerthey
wish. There is no prescribed form or procedure, and how a treatyis formulated
and by whom it is actually signed will depend upon theintention and agreement
of the states concerned. Treaties may be draftedas between states, or
governments, or heads of states, or governmentaldepartments, whichever appears
the most expedient6 a state is presumed to have given its consent to be bound by
the treaty if it has been signed by the the head of the state.7 Moreover once
consent is given to be bound by the treaty, it is presumed to have come into
force.8
6. It is submitted that the agreement is subject to international law as both the
parties to the JSMA have agreed to be governed by the Charter of the United
Nations.9 both the parties to the agreement are independent and sovereign states10
and both have capacity to enter into a treaty. Thus, the JSMA is an international
treaty creating a legal relation between the parties to the insant cse.
7. A state may regard itself as having given its consent to the text of the treaty by
signature in dened circumstances noted by article 12, that is, where the treaty
provides that signature shall have that effect, or where it is otherwise established
that the negotiating states were agreed that signature should have that effect, or
where the intention of the state to give that effect to the signature appears from
the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiations. so

5M.Jones, Full Powers and Ratication, Cambridge, 1946. at pp. 96


6Supra n. 4, Art.7,VCLT
7Ibid., Art. 7 (2) (a); supra n. 9.
8Supra n. 4, Art.24 (3).
9Joplin Memorandum of Security Assurance, Art. 2.
10 As both the parties are member of the United Nations, Compromis [33].

here it can be concluded that JSMA is a treaty because both the head of the state
have signed the treaty11 and therefore, it has come into force.
8. It is submitted that a treaty has a legal basis and that basis is the presence of
common consent12 and both of the states have freely given their consent 13 to be
bound by the terms of the treaty, and therefore the treaty does not suffer from
vice of prohibited means of entering into a treaty. Further it is given 14 that both
parties signed treaties after six months of bilateral talks. thus can be concluded
that both the parties have sufficient time to enter into the agreement. and thus it
is strongly established that both the parties had given consent to the treaty before
signing the treaty.

a. That the Disputed Rafale Territory is the lawful territory of the


Azazel

9. It is submitted that the acquisition of a territory by boundary treaties is an


accepted mode of acquisition of territory and it establishes an objective territorial
regime valid ergaomnes.15 Thus a territory may be legally acquired by a

11 Annexure I compromis
12Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 32.
13Preamble of JMSA , also signature by the head of the states is evidence of their consent

Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties, Art. 7(2) and Art. 11.


14 Para. 13 copmromis
15 Supra 4, pp. 496

Boundary treaty where a sovereign state has agreed to give a piece of its territory
to another state.16
10. It is submitted that by the time of conclusion of JMSA was signed, the Republic
of Azazel had already taken control over the Disputed Rafale Territory17 and
according to JMSA both states have expressly agreed to maintain their troops
only along the present borders which in the instant case is DRT..18
11. It is respectfully submitted that in order to determine the intention of the parties,
reliance can be placed on Article 31 and Article 32 of VCLT,1969. A treaty
should be interpreted in good faith19 and in accordance with the ordinary
meaning given to the terms of treaty in their context and in the light of its object
and purpose.20 Ordinary meaning of a term of the treaty should be determined in
the light of itsobject and purpose.21
12. It is respectfully submitted that in the instant case, the object and purpose of the
JSMA treaty is to maintain peace and security at the present border and to
respect the independence and sovereignty of states concerned.22 Therefore it can
easily be inferred that under JMSA, Kingdom of Rafale intended to give the
captured territory to Republic of Azazel.

16Ibid.
17Hereafter referred as DRT.
18Supra n. 13, Art. 3.
19 Art. 31, VCLT
20Supra n. 3, Art. 31.
21Supra 4, pp.839
22 Annexure 1 ,compromis

13. Further it is submitted that the passage of sovereignty by means of an agreement


is an established and recognised concept in the international law if the respective
parties to the respective agreement intends to do so. In the instant case Rafale
has transferred its sovereignty over DRT to Azazel by JMSA and it is legal as
international law recognises such a right

B. the incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT amounts


to aggression or use of force, and therefore the act of rafalean
troops is in violation of recognised international law.

14. It is submitted that the the sovereignty of states is the basis of international law
and it is the right ofevery sovereign state to conduct its affairs, internal as well as
external, without interference of any other state23.
15. It is submitted that the United Nations Charter provides that 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. 24 This principle
is also a pre-emptory norm not to be violated by states.Thus all countries have
duty and obligation

to not to use force against soverignity and political

independence any other state.


16. It is submitted that the use of force would violate international law. Thus even
the Rafales claim is assumed to be valid, it has still violated the general
principles of international law.

23Nicaragua V. United States of America, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 392.


24UN Charter, Art. 2(4); supra n. 3.

17. It is submitted that the use of force cannot be justified on any ground except as
provided in the charter itself i.e. self-defence,25 participations in United Nation
enforcement action, or seemingly, in some cases of humanitarian intervention
with UN authorisation.26Therefore, it is clear that Kingdom of Rafale, by sending
the troops into the territory of the Azazel, has used the force and has thus
violated the territorial sovereignty of the Azazel, and it is therefore the violation
of the provisions of the charter of the United Nations.
18. It is further submitted that even if the claim of Rafale over Disputed Rafalean
Territory is accepted, then also Rafale will still be guilty of violating the
international law because use of force is against principles of international law.

2. THE SECESSION AND SUBSEQUENT ANNEXATION OF


TERRITORY OF DRT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE KINGDOM OF RAFAL IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME.
A. the secession of the Disputed rafalean territory is illegal

19. It is submitted that the right of the people to self-determination is one of the
essential principles of international law.27 Article 1(2) of the International

25The UN Charter, Art. 51.


26Supra n. 3, p. 893.
27 Supra 3. pp. 205

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1970 28 states that right to
self-determination is the right of every person and it is the responsibility of the
state parties to the covenant to promote the realization of right to selfdetermination in conformity with the UN Charter.29
20. It is submitted that in a case 30 it was held by international court of justice that
the right to self-determination of peoples was held to be part of customary
international law. In yet another case, court recognised its essential binding
obligation character.31 In view of some writers, principle of self-determination is
also jus cogens.32
21. It is submitted that the republic of Azazel, is a party to the ICESCR without any
reservation,33

and therefore it is bound to ensure that every person in the

disputed rafalean territory enjoys

the right of self-determination, and in

furtherance of that obligation Azazel conducted referendum in the DRT and


which resulted in people of DRT chosing independence.34
22. It is submitted that International law donot contain either a right of unilateral
secession or the explicit denial of this right35 therefore, unilateral declaration of
independence or secession can be regarded as legal in limited circumstances i.e.
28Hereafter referred as ICESCR.
29International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1970, Art.1(3).
30Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences for the states of continued presence of South

Africa in Namibia, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 31.


31Supra n. 3.
32Supra n.3 pp. 483
33Compromis [33].
34Compromis [27], [28].

when the territory is subject to decolonialization, or parent state has given its
consent, or people of the territory are subject to flagrant violation of human
rights etc.36 It is further submitted that here in the instant case, people of DRT are
neither under a colonial rule nor had parent state Azazel completed its process of
secession, as the final decision of secession is yet to be taken by the house of
representative and people of DRT are not subjected to flagrant violation of
human rights.
23. It is submitted that Legality of secession is subject to pre emptory norms i.e.
secession must not have taken place against any of the the principles of
international law i.e. breach of territorial sovereignty and use of force. 37
24. It is submitted that in the instant case an unlawful secession in violation of preemptory norms has took place because Rafale has violated jus cogens principles
of non-use of force and territorial sovereignty of a state under Article 2(4) of the
UN Charter. Also, since Azazel being a democratic state,therefore people of DRT
enjoys internal self-determination, and thus these people do not have any right to
secede fromrepublic of Azazel without the consent of azazel through its House
of Representative.

B. The illegal annexation of DRT by Kingdom of Rafale is a violation


of international law

35Antonnio cassesse, principles of international relations pp. 62; Reference re Secession

Qubec, [1998] 2 I.C.J. 217.


36Ibid.;.
37Kosovo case (Request for Advisory Opinion), [2010] I.C.J. Rep. 403.

25. It is further submitted that Annexation means a forceful acquisition of a piece


of territory of a state with the intention to retain it 38. Thus the element of force
is essential to for any country or estate to annex and therefore annexation of a
territory is invalid.39 Since Force is being prohibited by the UN Charter 40, the
annexation of a territory is therefore a violation of international law.41
26. It is further submitted that after the decision of Azazel to retreat its troops from
DRT and to secede DRT from Azazel,it was announced by PhunsukWngdu who
is

the leader of free DRT movement along with the monarch of Rafale

announced that DRT would again join Rafale. Thereafter, Rafale sent its troops
to DRT which was still a lawful territory of Azazel.42
27. It is submitted that the act of Rafale in sending the troops to the territory of
republic of Azazel amounts to annexation through use of force and therefore it
violates the jus cogens43 and the principles of international law.44further, the act
of annexing the DRT by kingdom of rafale violates the territorial integrity of
Azazel, and this is against the principles of international customary law.45

38L. OPPENHEIM, OPPENHEIMS INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOLUME 1, PEACE,

PART 2 TO 4, 700 (R. Jennings & A. Watts eds., 9th edn. 2005).
39It is contrary to UN Charter Art. 2(4).
40Article 2(4) of UN Charter.
41Supra n. 18.
42Compromis [29].
43Supra n. 3. pp 495
44Threat or Use of force is prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
45Under Article 2(4) of UN Charter.

28. It is submitted that Kingdom of Rafale, intervenen in the internal matters of a


state,thus it has violated the principle of non-intervention recoginsed in
international customary law and therefore has violated an international
customary law.
29. It is submitted that every state has a duty to avoid use of any forcible action that
deprives peoples referred in to the equal rights and self-determination of their
right to self-determination and freedom and independence, and by the act of use
of force and annexation of DRT, Rafale has violated the international law.
30. It is further submitted that, kingdom of Rafale, by an act annexation of DRT
violates the right to self-determination of the people of DRT as it is not allowing
them to freely choose their political and social status as given in the UN Charter,
ICCPR and ICESCR46. Thus it can be said that by denial of the right of the
people of DRT to enjoy right to self-determination, Rafale is violating the
principle of international law.47

3. THE ACTION OF AZAZEL IN CHANGING THE DEPICTED


BORDERS OF AZAZEL BY INTRODUCING WORM INTO THE
THE SERVERS OF MAPMYRAFALE ARE IN CONFORMITY
WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, OR IN ANY CASE THE
WRONGNESS OF THESE ACTIONS ARE PRECLUDED
UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW.

46Ibid.
47Supra n. 30, p.773-4.

A. The Act of MMR Corporation of kingdom of rafale is an


internationally wrongful act against the republic of Azazel

31. It is submitted that both the parties to the JSMA, being the member of the United
Nations,48 have certain obligations of respecting the territorial integrity and
political independence of each other. It is further submitted that if a state does
any act which violates international obligation 49, towards any other state, it will
be said to have committed an act recognised internationally to be a wrongful act
and it thus entails certain responsibility towards that state.50
32. It is submitted that an International wrongful act has been defined as any act or
omission attributable to states or other subjects of international law which
constitutes of breach of an international obligation. 51
33. Thus, there are two elements of international wrongful act, first that the conduct
in question must be attributable to the State under international law and
secondly,the conduct must constitute a breach of an international legal obligation
in force for that State at that time.52

48Compromis [33].
49Supra n. 3 pp 118.
50 S.S.Wimbladon., [1922] P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2,
51Draft Articles on state Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, 2 YILC 165

(1973) Art. 3; supra n.3.


52United States Diplomatic and Consuler Staff in Tehren (United States of America v. Iran),

[1980] I.C.J. Rep.4.

34. It is submitted that States are obliged to take measures to prevent harm which
affects the interests of another states that can be caused by public or private
activities53 conducted within its jurisdiction or control.54
35. It is submitted that in the instant case the kingdom of Rafale is a member of the
United Nations55 so it owes an duty and an obligation as well to respect the
territorial integrity of the Azazel. This obligation is originated from the UN
Charter itself.
36. It is submitted that the action of MyMapRafale Corporation of kingdom of Rafale
in falsely depicting the map of Republic of

Azazel, is in violation of the

obligation on the part of kingdom of Rafale to respect the territorial integrity of


Azazel. The MyMapRafale Corp. is a state owned corporation,56 thus it qualifies to
be an organ of the state of Rafale, and therefore its actions are attributable to the
kingdom of Rafale.57
B. The act of mymaprafale is a which is precluded under customary
international law as a countermeasure to any act

37. It is respectfully submitted that the wrongfulness of an act of a State not in


conformity with an international obligation towards another State is precluded if
and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against the latter
State.58 And further it is submitted that the Countermeasure means an act of
53J.B. MOORIE, Alabama Claims, A DIGEST IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 7 (15069).
54Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) [2011] I.C.J. Rep. 18.
55Compromis [33].
56Compromis [21].
57Supra n. 3 pp 783
58Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001, Art. 22.

unilateral enforcement which violates the rights of other states, and is justified
by the refusal of the state committing an internationally wrongful act, to honour
an obligation which arising under the rule of state responsibility. 59 In other
words, it refers to any act which is non-violent act and which are illegal in
themselves, but they become legal when done by one state in response to the
commission of an previous illegal act by another state towards the former. 60 this
justifies otherwise unlawful conduct taken in response to a previous international
wrongful act of another State and directed against that State.61
38. It is further submitted that the countermeasures are lawful to the extent they that
they have been taken in accordance with certain substantial and procedural
conditions,62 like it must have been taken in response to a previous international
wrongful act of another state and must be directed against that state, he injured
state must have called upon the state committing the wrongful act to discontinue
its wrongful conduct or to make reparation for it, it must be aimed to induce the
wrongdoing state to comply with its obligations under international law it must
be reversible, and its effects must be in proportion with the wrong done.
39. It is submitted that a countermeasure is said to be in proportion with injury
suffered if it commensurates with initial wrong taking in account the gravity of
the internationally wrongful act and the rights in question. Proportionality of
ciountermeasure must be assessed by taking into account not only the purely
59Supra n. .
60OSCAR SCHACHTER, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, 167

(Kluwer Law International, London, 1995).


61Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 7.
62Supra n.3. pp 124

quantitative element of injury suffered, but also some qualitative factors such as
the and the seriousness of the breach importance of the interest protected by the
rule infringed.
40. It is submitted that in the instant case, all necessary substantive and procedural
conditions of a countermeasure should been fulfilled. It is to be taken as a
response to the earlier internationally wrongful act of Rafale which had, by
depicting false map, 63violated the territorial integrity of Azazel.
41. It is submitted that Azazel had also called upon Rafale to discontinue its
internationally wrongful activity,64 and countermeasure was not taken to punish
Rafale but to induce or compel it to abide by its international obligation of
respecting the territorial integrity of Azazel.
42. It is further submitted that the action taken by Azazel to introduce worm into the
servers of MapMyWorld65 was not irreversible, as it can easily be taken back by
Azazel and it does not hamper the permanent infrastructure of MapMyWorld.
43. It isfurther submitted that the countermeasure was in proportion to the right
breached. The effect of the countermeasure is equivalent to the effect of injury
caused i.e. it has restored the position prior to time when wrong was done. Also,
it is related with same right in question i.e. territorial integrity of Azazel.
44. It isfurther submitted that it is clear that countermeasure taken by Azazel was in
conformity with the international customary law of countermeasure.

63Compromis [22].
64Compromis [20].
65Compromis [23].

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF


For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully request this Honourable Court to adjudge
and declare as follows:
(4) The incursion of Rafalean troops into the territory of DRT is in violation of JMSA and
is accordingly in violation of international law.

(5) The secession and subsequent annexation of the territory of DRT is in violation of
international law and Kingdom of Rafale is responsible for the same; and
(6) The actions of Azazel in changing the depicted borders of Azazel by introducing a
worm into the servers of MapMyRafale are in conformity with international law, or in
any case the wrongfulness of these actions are precluded under customary
international law.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for Applicants