THE 2015 PHILIP C.

JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

CASE CONCERNING THE FROST FILES

BETWEEN

THE STATE OF AMESTONIA

(APPLICANT)

AND

THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RIESLAND

(RESPONDENT)

FIRST TERM 2015

On Submission to the International Court of Justice

The Peace Palae, The Hague, The Netherlands

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

Whether the published documents on The Ames Post website are

admissible as evidence before the Court.

II.

Whether the seizure of the Voice of Riesland station and the arrest of
Margaret Mayer and the two other VoR employees did not violate the
Broadcasting Treaty, and were in accordance with Amestonias other
international law obligation.

III.

Whether the detention of Joseph Kafker under the Terrorism Act

violated international law.

IV.

Whether the cyber attacks against the computer systems of The Ames
Post and Chester & Walsingham are attributable to Riesland, and
constitute an internationally wrongful act for which Amestonia is
entitled to compensation.

2 | Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
On March 4, 1992, Riesland and Amestonia signed the Broadcasting Treaty to
which each state was permitted to build, staff, and operate a television station
in the others territory.

THE VOICE OF RIESLAND

In accordance with the Broadcasting Treaty, Riesland established the Voice of
Riesland (VoR) to operate in Amestonia. One of VoRs most popular shows was
Tea Time with Margaret featuring interviews with leading Amestonian political
and business figures. Margaret Mayer is a television icon from Riesland and is
appointed by the Ministry of Telecommunications to serve as Head of VoR.

THE HIVE
On July 2, 2013, a website, www.longlivethehive.com, was launched in where
the website invited environmental activists to register online and discuss ways
to stop the continued production and use of neonicotinoids. The conversations
on its online forums often focused in supporting the draft legislation however
some members also promoted violent actions, including sabotage and arson.

3 | Page

On the night of February 2, 2014, seven Amestonian warehouses were

simultaneously set on fire. The warehouses stored a significant number of
barrels of neonicotinoids. Five people died and many others were injured and
two of the dead were Rieslandic nationals.
On March 7, 2014, envelopes containing a powdered form of a non-toxic
variant of neonicotinoid were sent to the Ministries of Trade and Agriculture in
both Riesland and Amestonia, to prominent Amestonian farmers, and board
members of neonic-producing Rieslandic corporations.
President Hale and Prime Minister Silk discussed the arson and the white
powder incident and Silk offered Rieslands cooperation in battling acts of ecoterrorism, including coordination and sharing of intelligence information and
stressed the importance of continued agricultural trade between the two
countries.
On October 21, 2014, the police broke into a garage in Amestonia and
apprehended three Amestonian college students. The students had in their
possession of chemically-altered neonicotinoids and mapes of number of honey
extraction facilities in Amestonia. The students admitted in planning the attack
ang being a part of a group of environmentalist called The Hive
President Hale and Prime Minister Silk discussed the arson and the white
powder incident.

THE FROST FILES

RIESLANDS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
On February 16, 2015, a document leaked by Frost stated that the premises of
the VoR station had been used by the Bureau to promote its surveillance
activities on Amestonian soil. According to the document, Margaret Mayer was
part of an operation called the Carmen Program, intended to collect
intelligence on high-ranking Amestonian public figures and private sectore
leaders. The individuals electronic device were put into a locker and through a
back door, were being hacked by Bureau engineers, who doubled as a VoR
employees by installing malware called Blaster which provides the Bureau full
remote privileged access to electronic devices.

4 | Page

THE ARREST OF JOSEPH KAFKER

Joseph Kafker is a 70-year-old retired Amestonian politician who founded the
Green Party, now the third largest in the Amestonian Parliament. For years,
Kafker has been a vocal opponent of the use of neonics in agricultural
production. He attempted, on a number of occasions, to promote legislation
banning them but none of these efforts were successful.
On March 7, 2015, Kafker was invited to give the keynote address at an
international environmental law conference at Riesland's largest law school.
After he completed his speech, he was detained by the police, allegedly in
accordance with the Terrorism Act. In a special session, the Amestonian
Parliament adopted a resolution denouncing Kafker's detention and demanding
his release. The Government of Riesland did not respond.
On March 10, 2015, Kafker's case was brought before the National Security
Tribunal. Following a request from the Attorney General's Office, the Tribunal
ruled that all evidence pertaining to Kafker's activities and leading to his
apprehension was "closed material". The Tribunal further allowed Bureau
officers to testify via video conferencing, with their faces and voices obscured,
regarding the need to detain Kafker. Following their testimony, the Tribunal
granted the petition to extend Kafker's detention for reasons of national
security. Kafker's lawyer, who had been selected from a list of approved "special
advocates", was present during the proceedings, but was not permitted either
to consult with his client or to share with him any of the secret information
said to substantiate the allegations against him. Kafker remains detained
without charge in a maximum-security facility in Riesland and his detention
has been extended by the Tribunal every 21 days. A motion challenging the
constitutionality of the proceedings was filed before the Supreme Court of
Riesland but was denied.
On March 12, 2015, Amestonia's Foreign Minister contacted his counterpart in
Riesland and demanded access to the secret evidence that constituted the
basis for Kafker's detention. He also stated that, in Amestonia's view, the
Terrorism Act did not comply with international human rights standards. The
Rieslandic Minister rejected the request, responding that disclosure of the
information concerning Kafker's apprehension would endanger the integrity of
particular intelligence sources and therefore the national security of Riesland.
The Minister further stressed that the National Security Tribunal had already
determined that the information could not be disclosed in accordance with the
Terrorism Act.
5 | Page

On March 17, 2015, The Ames Post website's banner read "A Kafker-esque
Affair." A memorandum, sourced from Frost's USB stick, revealed that a May
2014 interview with Kafker on "Tea Time with Margaret" allowed the Bureau to
hack into his electronic devices. According to the memorandum, Kafker was
considered a "high-level suspect with ties to The Hive, including the planned
contamination of a large shipment of honey with a toxic variant of
neonicotinoids in 2014." The continuous surveillance of Kafker, following the
bugging of his devices, was considered a "top priority." From intercepted
communications, Bureau analysts were able to establish that Kafker was a
frequent visitor to the longlivethehive website, had participated in online chats,
and had used the forum's "like" function to endorse conversations including
the calls for violent disruptions to raise public awareness of the neonics
controversy. Attorney General Deloponte refused to comment on questions
raised by the media following The Ames Post's publication. He stated only that
Riesland was in possession of "closed materials" that "directly link Kafker to
The Hive's senior echelons."

CYBER ATTACKS ON THE AMES POST AND CHESTER & WALSINGHAM

On 22 March 2015, the computer networks and communication switches at
both The Ames Post and Chester & Walsingham were hacked and disabled.
Investigators found that the hackers had used a malicious program to disrupt
the operation of the computer systems and to corrupt master boot records, to
the extent that nearly 90% of the information was non-recoverable. Based on
traffic analysis, cyber security experts from the Amestonian Institute of
Technology concluded: The malware used in the hacking of the computers has
been traced to IP addresses within Rieslands territory that are associated with
Rieslands computer infrastructures. Significant segments of code in the
malware are exact replicas of those used in the Bureaus Blaster program.
These code segments are not otherwise known to be in use or available to the
general public. Both Chester & Walsingham and The Ames Post contracted
external appraisers, who have estimated the combined damages related to
infrastructure and to unrecoverable data at 45-50 million. A significant
number of proceedings before Amestonian courts were delayed for months as a
result of Chester & Walsinghams inability to access its files. The Ames Post
had to shut down its operations entirely; it resumed publication only in June
2015.

6 | Page

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I.

THE AMES POST DOCUMENTS AS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE

The documents published on the website of The Ames Post website are
admissible as evidence before the Court; Rieslands mass electronic
7 | Page

surveillance program against Amestonian public figures and nationals

revealed in those documents violates international law; and Amestonia is
therefore entitled to an order directing the immediate cessation of those
programs with assurances of non-repetition.
The Frost Files which are the documents being published in the said
website contains sensitive information relating to Rieslands intelligence
operation in Amestonia, containing The Verisimo Program and The
Carmen Program of which is being used by Riesland for the betterment
of their country.

II.

THE SEIZURE OF THE VOR STATION AND THE ARREST OF THEIR

EMPLOYEES IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BROADCASTING TREATY
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW OBLIGATION
The seizure and forfeiture of the VoR station and its equipment, and the
arrest of Margaret Mayer and the other two VoR employees, did not
violate the Broadcasting Treaty, and were in accordance with Amestonias
other international law obligations.
It is stated in the Frost Files that Margaret Mayer and the VoR station is
a part of an operation called The Carmen Program intended to collect
intelligence on high-ranking Amestonian public figures and private sector
leaders.

III.

THE DETENTION OF JOSEPH KAFKER

It is submitted that the Terrorism Act violated international law. The act
of Riesland in the detention of Joseph Kafker violates provisions of
International Law and Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. In addition, he was not given a
fair trial by the National Security Tribunal which violates the
International Human Rights legal framework, the Terrorism Act 2003 did
not comply with International Human Rights Standards in giving Kafker
due process when the Respondent did not disclose the reason why he
was apprehended. He was deprived of his right to legal counsel. The
Secret Surveillance Bureau Act 1967 violates the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits State parties from
8 | Page

interfering with the privacy of another. The hacking of Joseph Kafkers

electronic devices by the Bureau on a May 2014 interview on Tea Time
with Margaret violated his privacy rights.

IV.

The cyber attacks against the computer systems of The Ames Post
and Chester & Walsingham are attributable to Riesland, and
constitute an internationally wrongful act for which Amestonia is
entitled to compensation.
It is submitted that the cyber attacks against The Ames Post and Chester
& Walsingham are attributable to Riesland based on the analysis
made by cyber security experts from the Amestonian Institute
of Technology that The malware used in the hacking of the
computers has been traced to IP addresses within Rieslands territory
that are associated with Rieslands computer infrastructures. Significant
segments of code in the malware are exact replicas of those used
in the Bureaus Blaster program. These code segments are not otherwise
known to be in use or available to the general public.
Amestonia, being the victim state in a cyber attack which caused
the latter combined damages related to infrastructure and to
unrecoverable data of about 45-50 million, significant number of
proceedings before Amestonian courts were delayed for months as a
result of Chester & Walsinghams inability to access its files and The
Ames Post had to shut down its operations entirely until it resumed
publication only in June 2015, has the right and/or entitled to
demand Riesland compensation for an internationally wrongful act of
the latter. . The damage to the computer systems of Amestonia
gives the latter rightful opportunity to defend itself in accordance
with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

9 | Page

PLEADINGS

I.

THE AMES POST DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED IN THEIR WEBSITE ARE

ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
A. This Court should allow the use of the Published Documents in
The Ames Post Website as evidence against Rieslands
Surveillance Program
The published documents in The Ames Post website came from the
USB drive of Frederico Frost, a former Bureau intelligence analyst
who had a copy of 100,000 documents coming from the Bureaus
computers. Thousands of the documents being given by Frost were
marked Top secret were published in The Ames Post. Such
documents obtained by Frost is namely called the Frost Files.1
According to Article 58, Paragraph 1 of Rules of Court, The Court
shall determine whether the parties should present their
arguments before or after the production of the evidence, the
parties shall, however, retain the right to comment on the evidence
given.2 Even though the Frost Files was given by Frost to The Ames
Post without notifying Riesland, Frost acted on good faith on the
side of Amestonia of which Rieslands surveillance program has
been active ever since the establishment of broadcasting facilities
on March 4, 1992.
The Frost Files or published documents in The Ames Post are
substantial evidence and is admissible before the Court because of
the grave abuse of discretion of Rieslands surveillance program on
Amestonia. If the Court will not allow such documents become as

1 Compromis P20
2 Article 58, International Court of Justice Rules of Court (1978)
10 | P a g e

admissible evidence, such step to settle with the Respondent will

have no basis.
B. Rieslands mass electronic surveillance programs against
Amestonia revealed on the published documents violates
international law
The published documents contained Rieslands mass electronic
surveillance programs being implemented in Amestonia, two of
which are the Verisimo and Carmen program.
The Verismo Program is an operation in where a recording pod was
installed in the primary backbone of Amestonias international
internet and telephone communications traffic. The pod copied all
information that went through the cable and transferred it to the
Bureaus servers.3
The Carmen Program is intended to collect intelligence on high
ranking Amestonian public figures and private sector leaders by
interviewing them in Mayers show and their electronic devices will
then be installed with a malware, allowing full remote access of
such devices.4
Under the Carmen Program, it was revealed that over 100
Amestonian public figures, businessmen, officials and diplomats
were under surveillance, whose primary objective was to collect
information concerning Amestonias domestic and foreign policy, in
order to advance Rieslands political and economic interests in the
region. 5
Such programs are in contrast against Article 15, Paragraph 1
Subsection C in the International Convent on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights in where the State parties to the present
Covenant recognize the right of everyone to benefit from the

3 Compromis P22
4 Compromis P25
5 Compromis P26
11 | P a g e

protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any

scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. 6
Such programs threaten the national security of the applicant and
will deteriorate the applicants foreign relations and standing.

II.

THE SEIZURE OF THE VOICE OF RIESLAND DID NOT VIOLATE THE

BROADCASTING TREATY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
A. The seizure of the Voice of Riesland station and its equipment
are in accordance with Amestonias international law
obligation
According to Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Broadcasting Treaty
between Amestonia and Riesland that the premises of the station
must not be used in any manner incompatible with the stations
functions as envisaged in the presenty Treaty, in other rules of
general international law, or in any other agreements in force
between the Parties hereto.7
According to the document leaked by Frost, it stated that the
premises of the Voice of Riesland station had been used by the
Bureau to promote its surveillance activities on Amestonian soil.
Because of the published document, the said surveillance activities
is contrary to Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Broadcasting Treaty
and such seizure of the Voice of Riesland station and its equipment
is in accordance in Amestonias other international law obigations.

B. The arrest of Margaret Mayer and the two other employees of

the Voice of Riesland did not violate the Broadcasting treaty
According Article 23, Paragraph 1 of the Broadcasting Treaty
between Amestonia and Riesland that it is the duty of all persons
employed by each station to respect the laws and regulations of the
6Article 15, Paragraph 1 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
7 Broadcasting Treaty, Article 23
12 | P a g e

host state.7 Therefore, the arrest of Margaret Mayer and the two
other employees of the Voice of Riesland is affirmed since they have
committed a crime of espionage in Amestonia which is contrary to
the host state to allow such act.
According to the document leaked by Frost, Margaret Mayer was
part of an operation called the Carmen Program, intended to
collect intelligence on high-ranking Amestonian public figures and
private sector leaders. Whenever such individuals came to be
interviewed for Mayers show, they were told to store their
electronic devices in a locker within the studio. Then the VoR
employees, who are also associated with the Carmen program used
this chance to hack into the individuals electronic devices which
then provided the Bureau full remote access to the devices.4
It was also highly susceptible that the operating state itself will be
responsible for staffing, running and funding the station in
accordance to Article 1 of the Broadcasting Treaty, that it can will
likely be used by the Bureau as a leeway to operate their
surveillance program easily in Amestonia by employing associates
of the Bureau as VoR employees.8

III.

THE DETENTION OF JOSEPH KAFKER BY THE RESPONDENT

VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
The relationship between terrorism and human rights is quite complex
and at all costs must prevent that relationship from becoming
contradictory. States must also fulfil their obligation under the Charter of
the United Nations and other provisions of international law with respect
to combating international terrorism and urged to take effective and
resolute measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of
international law and international standards of human rights for the
speedy and final elimination of international terrorism (The Declaration
on measures to eliminate international terrorism, adopted by
Resolution 49/60, of 17 Feb 1995)

8 Broadcasting Treaty, Article 1

13 | P a g e

A.

The act of Riesland in the detention of Joseph Kafker violates

provisions of international law and international standards of
human
rights.
The International Covenant on Civil
and
Political
Rights
specifies
the
protection
from
arbitrary arrest and detention. Arbitrarily depriving an individual
of their liberty is strictly prohibited by the United Nations' division
for human rights. Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights decrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile"; that is, no individual, regardless of
circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty or exiled from their
country without having first committed an actual criminal offense
against a legal statute, and the government cannot deprive an
individual of their liberty without proper due process of law. As
well, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights specifies the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention
by the Article 9.

B.

The International Human Rights legal framework requires that

any deprivation of liberty should be based on grounds and
procedures established by law, that detainees should be informed
of the reasons for their detention and promptly notified of the
charges against them, and that they should be provided with
access to legal counsel. In the case of Kafkers detention, his lawyer
who was present during the proceedings was not permitted either
to consult with him or to share with him any of the secret
information said to substantiate the allegations against him which
was against the International Human Rights legal framework. As
part of its efforts to counter terrorism, a State may lawfully detain
persons suspected of terrorist activity, as with any other crime.
However, if a measure involves the deprivation of an individuals
liberty, strict compliance with international and regional human
rights law related to the liberty and security of persons, the right
to recognition before the law and the right to due process is
essential. The non-disclosure of information concerning Kafkers
apprehension which was in accordance with the Terrorism Act of
2003 violates the International Human Rights.
In July 2007, the Human Rights Committee adopted general
comment No. 32, revising its general comment on Article 14 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the
14 | P a g e

right to a fair trial and equality before the courts and tribunals.
The revised general comment notes that the right to a fair trial and
to equality before the courts and tribunals is a key element of
human rights protection and serves to safeguard the rule of law by
procedural means. Article 14 of the Covenant aims at ensuring the
proper administration of justice and to this end guarantees a series
of specific rights, including that all persons should be equal before
the courts and tribunals, that in criminal or civil cases everyone
has a right to a fair and public hearing by a competent,
independent and impartial tribunal, that everyone charged with a
criminal offense should have the right to be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law, and that everyone convicted of
a crime should have the right to have his or her conviction and
sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
C.

IV.

Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights prohibits States parties from interfering with the privacy of
those within their jurisdiction and requires them to protect those
persons by law against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their
privacy. Privacy includes information about an individuals identity,
as well as the private life of the person. Any act which has an
impact on a persons privacy must be lawful, i.e., it must be
prescribed by law. This means that any search, surveillance or
collection of data about a person must be authorized by law.
(Article 17 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, article 8 (2) of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and article 11 (2) of the
American Convention on Human Rights.) The hacking of Joseph
Kafkers electronic devices by the Bureau violated his privacy
rights. The Secret Surveillance Bureau Act 1967 violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
prohibits State parties from interfering with the privacy of another.

The cyber attacks against the computer systems of The Ames Post
and Chester & Walsingham are attributable to Riesland, and
15 | P a g e

constitute an internationally wrongful act for which Amestonia is

entitled to compensation.
A cyber-attack consists of any action taken to undermine the
functions of a computer network for a political or national
security purpose.9 A political or national security purpose
distinguishes cyber-attack from simple cyber-crime. Cyber-attack is
any aggressive act taken by a state actor in the cyber domain
necessarily involves national security. On the other hand, cybercrime is not carried out for a political or national security purpose,
such as Internet fraud, identity theft, and intellectual property
piracy. A cyber-attacks means can include any actionhacking,
bombing, cutting, infecting, and so forthbut the objective can
only be to undermine or disrupt the function of a computer
network. In other words, a cyber-attack may be carried out by state
or non-state actors, must involve active conduct, must aim to
undermine the function of a computer network, and must have a
political or national security purpose.
Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter provides that member states,
including Amestonia and Riesland:
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. (Emphasis
supplied)
This prohibition is complemented by a customary international law
norm of non-intervention, which prohibits states from
interfering in the internal affairs of other states. 10 The
9The Law of Cyber-Attack, Oona A. Hathaway, Rebecca Crootof, Philip Levitz, Haley
Nix, Aileen Nowlan, William Perdue, Julia Spiegel, p. 10
10See Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, G.A.
Res. 37/10, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/RES/37/10 (Nov. 15, 1982); Declaration on Principles
of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in
16 | P a g e

International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held that, where the

interference takes the form of a use or threat of force, the
customary international law norm of non-intervention is
coterminous with Article 2(4).11
The legal advisor to the U.S. Department of State, Harold Koh, has
declared, Whenever a State contemplates conducting activities
in cyberspace, the sovereignty of other States needs to be
considered. This is so, he said, because of the interconnected,
interoperable nature of cyberspace, operations targeting networked
information infrastructures in one country may create effects in
another country (Koh, 2012, p. 14).
Under the principle of sovereignty and the doctrine of territorial
integrity, states can exercise full control over their territory.
The U/N. General Assembly underscored this right and qualified
the use of force by a state on the territory of another state, without
the formal and explicit consent of the latter, for an act of
aggression. Nevertheless, the right of self-defense is equally
essential.
There is an increasing tendency for states to seek other methods of
attribution. The main alternative is the imputed responsibility
concept. Under this theoretical approach, a state is responsible
for any cyber attacks originated from within its territory, even
if they are conducted by non-state actors such as terrorist
organizations (Graham, 2010)12. According to the view of the
international community, a state does not fulfill this obligation
when its legislative and procedural mechanisms, for one reason or
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nation, G.A. Res. 25/2625, U.N. Doc.
A/RES/25/2625 (Oct. 24, 1970).
11Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986
I.C.J. 14, para. 209 (June 27) ([A]cts constituting a breach of the customary principle
of nonintervention, will also, if they directly or indirectly involve the use of force,
constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations.). It is
possible, however, that to the extent that cyber-attacks do not constitute a use of force,
they may nevertheless violate the customary international law norm of nonintervention
17 | P a g e

another, do not bring the perpetrators to trial and verdict.

A state that is victim to a cyber attack has the right to
demand the territorial state to abide by its duty and to ensure
that the non-state actors responsible will not remain
unpunished.
(Schmitt,
2011).13
In addition, the victim state may want to initiate its own
investigation and if the allegedly wrong state refuses to cooperate,
it receives the status of a sanctuary state and consequently
becomes a potential target for a legitimate use of force by the victim
state
(Graham,
2010).
The rules regulating the state responsibility are codified into the
Draft Articles of States Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful
Acts from 2001, which is binding for all states because it
constitutes a customary international law. These rules are based
on the concept of agencies: states are represented by state
institutions or officials who perform their duties on behalf of these
institutions. State cannot be held responsible for illegal acts
committed by individuals unless is proved that these individuals
exercise public functions that are connected to some activity which
is state-related. However, the rules that entail state responsibility
have gradually changed, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attack,
and now the state is somewhat responsible for acts of private
actors if it is due to overt or covert support, negligence, or
inadequate laws, etc. (Vrk, 2006).
Thus, an act by a non-state actor in order to be attributed to a
state
should
conform
to
the
following
criteria:
a) The act is categorized as an armed attack;

12Graham, D. (2010). Cyber threats and the law of war. Journal of National Security
Law and Policy, 4, 87-104.
13Schmitt, M. (2011). Cyber operations and the jus ad bellum revisited. Villanova Law
Review, 56, 569-606.
18 | P a g e

b) The state is, directly or indirectly, substantially involved

in the operations conducted by the non-state actors.
When a state or state agent bears the responsibility for a cyber
attack that inflicts some harm in the domain of another state, then
the victim states counter measures are regulated by the
international law of warfare and international humanitarian
law.
Additionally, if the damage to the computer systems is likely
to result in death or injury to people or destruction or damage
to tangible objects, then the victim state has the rightful
opportunity to defend itself in accordance with Article 51 of
the U.N. Charter (Creekman, 2002), which provides that: Nothing
in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a
Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right
of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security
Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to
take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security.
Differently stated, the cyber attacks against the computer systems
of The Ames Post and Chester & Walsingham are attributable to
Riesland, and constitute an internationally wrongful act for which
Amestonia is entitled to compensation under the following
grounds:
1.

Based on the analysis made by cyber security experts

from the Amestonian Institute of Technology: The
malware used in the hacking of the computers has
been traced to IP addresses within Rieslands
territory that are associated with Rieslands
computer infrastructures. Significant segments of
code in the malware are exact replicas of those used in
the Bureaus Blaster program. These code segments
19 | P a g e

are not otherwise known to be in use or available

to the general public.;
Should the Agent for the Respondent invoke the
anonymity of the act, it will be argued that the state
is responsible for any cyber attacks originated from
within its territory, even if they are conducted by
non-state actors such as terrorist organizations.
2.

The Federal State of Riesland, being a member of the

United Nation, violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter
for interfering internal affairs of Amestonia;

3.

The victim state in a cyber attack has the right to

demand the territorial state to abide by its duty and to
ensure that the state or non-state actors responsible
will not remain unpunished. The damage to the
computer systems of Amestonio gives the latter rightful
opportunity to defend itself in accordance with Article
51 of the U.N. Charter.

4.

Amestonias counter measures are regulated by the

international law of warfare and international
humanitarian law, should the latter proceed with the
same.

Thus, it cannot be denied with the foregoing that cyber attacks

against the computer systems of The Ames Post and Chester &
Walsingham are attributable to Riesland and it constitute an
internationally wrongful act for which Amestonia is entitled to
compensation for it caused combined damages related to
infrastructure and to unrecoverable data of about 45-50 million,
significant number of proceedings before Amestonian courts were
delayed for months as a result of Chester & Walsinghams inability
to access its files and when The Ames Post had to shut down its
operations entirely until it resumed publication only in June 2015.

20 | P a g e

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21 | P a g e

The State of Amestonia respectfully requests this Honorable Court to

ajudge and declare that:

1. Documents published on the website of The Ames Post are admissible

as evidence before the Court against Rieslands mass electronic
surveillance programs.
2. The seizure of the Voice of Riesland station and the arrest of Margaret
Mayer and the two other VoR employees, did not violate the
Broadcasting Treaty and were in accordance with Amestonias
international law obligation
3. The detention of Joseph Kafker under the Terrorism Act violated
international law and is therefore entitle to his immediate release, the
disclosure of all information which formed the basis of his
apprehension, and the payment of compensation for his detention;
and
4. The cyber-attacks against the computer systems of The Ames Post and
Chester & Walsingham are attributable to Riesland and Amestonia is
entitled to compensation on such internationally wrongful act.

Respecfully submitted,
AGENTS FOR AMESTONIA

By:

HAGEN BANG-ASAN
ANGELA MARIE ALMALBIS
MHEL JOSEPH P. AREGLADO

22 | P a g e