1367A

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING DISPUTES REGARDING INFRINGEMENT OF

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY

STATE OF AYODHYA

(APPLICANT)

Vs.

PROVINCE OF NAGAS

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................ iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................. v

STATEMENT OF FACTS ...........................................................................................vi

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ............................................................................ viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................ix

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ....................................................................................... 1

1. The Government of Nagas did not acquire a Sovereign Title over Nagas. ....... 1

a) Acquisition of territory by use of force is not recognised in International

Law. ....................................................................................................................... 1

b) There has been no violation of internal right of self- determination ............. 2

2. The Nagasi declaration of Independence is in violation of Ayodhya’s

Territorial Integrity. ................................................................................................... 4

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................ 5

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

92 ILR 167. .................................................................................................................... 3

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v.

Uganda), (Merits), 2005 I.C.J. Reports 168 (December, 19), ¶ 162 .......................... 2

G.A. Res. 25/ 2625, A/RES/2625(XXV) (24.10.1970) ............................................. 1, 2

Nicaragua, ¶187-190 ..................................................................................................... 1

Re Secession Quebec, 1998 2 SCR 217, ¶126 (Canada). .............................................. 2

S.C. Res. 216, (12.11.1965); S.C. Res. 242, S/RES/242 (1967) (22.11.1967); S.C.
Res. 541, (18.11.1983). .............................................................................................. 1

S.C. Res. 303, S/RES/303 (1971) (6.12.1971); G.A. Res.2793, A/RES/2793(XXVI)

(18.11.1971) ............................................................................................................... 2

The Queen v. Keyn 1876 ................................................................................................ 3

Other Authorities

http://mundorama.net/2011/02/22/the-principle-of-self-determination-and-the-right-
of-territorial-integrity-a-legal-and-a-political-issue-por-henrique-santos-costa-de-
souza/ ......................................................................................................................... 4

Opinion No. 2, Badinter Commission Report, Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration

Commission 167, 92 ILR 1993 .................................................................................. 2

Rules

A/RES/29/3281 .............................................................................................................. 1

Art. 2(4), UN Charter. .................................................................................................... 1

ICCPR, UNTS, vol. 999, p. 171 .................................................................................... 1

Organisation of African Unity resolution 16 (I) 1964. .................................................. 3

iii
UNGA Res 1514 (XV); 1541 (XV); .............................................................................. 3

Treatises

Brownlie, at 364 ............................................................................................................. 1

GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 33, (3rd ed., 2008). . 2

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Ayodhya and the Province of Nagas, by special agreement pursuant to
Article 40, Paragraph 1 and 36 (2), of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
hereby submit this dispute to the International Court of Justice for resolution. Statute
of the International Court of Justice,Art 36 (2) Art. 40 (1), T.S. No. 993 (1945). The
parties signed said special agreement and submitted it to the Registrar of the Court.

v
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

In the State of Ayodhya located in the continent of Indis, over 45 percent of the
population ethnically belonged to the Suryavanshi tribe, which practices its own
religion and around half the population of the State practices the Chandravanshi
religion. The State of Ayodhyafreed itself and received independence in the year
1970. Due to religious differences, a large percentage of the population belonging to
the Suryavanshi religion migrated to Samson, which was in the northwestern region
of the State of Ayodhya, and which was dominated by members of the
Suryavanshireligion. In the year 1974, the State of Samson was declared as a separate,
independent state.

During the partition of the subcontinent, there remained the problem of over 650
states, run by princes, one of which was the State of Nagas. Around 40 percent of
the population of the region practices the Chandravanshi religion, while 60
percent of the population belongs ethnically to the Suryavanshi tribe, and practices the
Suryavanshi religion.

The ruler of the State of Nagas, Guna, who belonged to the Chandravanshi religion,
while most of his subjects belonged to the Suryavanshi tribe, decided to remain
neutral. But in October 1976, as the State of Samson sent in Suryavanshi tribesmen to
knock at the gate of the capital of the State of Nagas. Guna appealed to the
government of Ayodhyafor military assistance, consequent to which, he signed the
Instrument of Accession, ceding Nagasto the State of Ayodhya in November 1976.

The States of Samson and Ayodhya fought their first war over the State of
Nagas in 1976-1977. In 1975, the State of Samson referred the dispute to the United
Nations. In a resolution dated August 13, 1977, the UN asked the two States to
remove their troops and hold a "free and fair" plebiscite to allow the people of the
State of Nagas to decide their future. An emergency government was formed in the
State of Nagas in 1977 with Guna as the Prime Minister. The State of Samson
ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of the State
of Nagas under its control.

In 1978, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the territory under the control of
Ayodhya, and the remainder with Samson. In 1991, fighting broke out again
between the States of Ayodhya and Samson, over the State of Nagas; which was

vi
resolved peacefully later. In 2002, proindependence and pro-Samson guerrillas
struck in the State of Nagas. Consequently the troops of both states regularly
exchanged fire at the border, on the territory of Nagas.An estimated 50,000
rounds of ammunition were expended and a large number of soldiers and civilians
killed.

In 2006, the State of Ayodhyacontended that there were infiltrators in Nagas who
were trained and armed by the government of Samson. The State of Samson,
however denied the same.

In 2013, the conflict again ended with a ceasefire; however, the war between
the two states had left the State of Nagas war-torn. With approximately 700,000
military and paramilitary troops in the territory, gruesome human rights
violations were perpetrated with immunity. Torture, rape, plunder, abduction,
arson, custodial disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and ruthless suppression of
peaceful political dissent had become commonplace in the State of Nagas.

In the year 2016, the State of Nagas declared itself independent, as it could no longer
bear the brunt of the dispute between the State of Samson and the State of
Ayodhya. Subsequently, certain members of the dominantSuryavanshi tribe
established their own government.

TheState of Ayodhyahas submitted the dispute in question to the ICJ. The State of
Ayodhya contends that the declaration of independence of Nagas violates
international law, as it infringes upon their territorial integrity.

vii
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGAS ACQUIRED A SOVEREIGN TITLE

OVER NAGAS?

2. WHETHER THE NAGAS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS IN VIOLATION OF

AYODHYA’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY?

viii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGAS ACQUIRED A SOVEREIGN TITLE

OVER NAGAS?

The Government of Nagas did not hold a lawful title over Nagas as acquiring a
territory by use of force is not recognised in International Law [a]. Further, the right
to self-determination does not give people the right to secede [b].

2. WHETHER THE NAGASI DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS IN VIOLATION

OF AYODHYA’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY?

Self-determination has been recognized as an international human right principle, but

at the same time, should not threaten the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. For
the international legal order to be respected, the recognition of a newborn state should
only occur with the consent of its territorial state. The international law does not
support separatist movements against a legitimately established Government.The
unilateral secession of Nagas is not included on the right of self-determination due to
the internationally recognized principle of the territorial integrity.

ix
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGAS DID NOT ACQUIRE A SOVEREIGN TITLE OVER

NAGAS.

The Government of Nagas did not hold a lawful title over Nagas as acquiring a
territory by use of force is not recognised in International Law [a]. Further, the right
to self-determination does not give people the right to secede [b].

a) Acquisition of territory by use of force is not recognised in International Law.

The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law1 recalled the ‘duty of states
to refrain...from military, political, economic or another form of coercion aimed
against the political independence or territorial integrity of any state’ and the
International Covenants on Human Rights2adopted in 1966 emphasised the right of all
peoples freely to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. This
approach was underlined in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States 3,
approved by the General Assembly in 1974, which particularly specified that ‘no state
may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to
coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its
sovereign rights’.4

The acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under international law.5Under

Art.2(4)of the Charter, States are prohibited from the threat or use of force which
affects the territorial integrity of another State.6This is a jus cogens norm from which
no derogation is allowed.7Assuming Art.2(4) is not a jus cogens norm, the exceptions

1
G.A. Res. 25/ 2625, A/RES/2625(XXV) (24.10.1970).
2
ICCPR, UNTS, vol. 999, p. 171.
3
A/RES/29/3281
4
Brownlie, Use of Force at 364.
5
S.C. Res. 216, (12.11.1965); S.C. Res. 242, S/RES/242 (1967) (22.11.1967); S.C. Res. 541,
(18.11.1983).

6
Art. 2(4), UN Charter.

7
Nicaragua, ¶¶187-190.

1
of self-defense and humanitarian intervention8are not applicable here. Thus, in either
case, there is an inviolability of the territorial integrity of States by use of force9and
international lines of demarcation, established by an agreement, must be
respected. 10 Moreover, a State must refrain from organising irregular forces for
incursion into the territory of another State; or participation in acts of civil strife in
another State; or acquiescing in organized activities directed towards the commission
of acts involving threat or use of force in another territory.11Hence, any change in
territory brought about by use of force is prohibited.

In the present matter, Samson, having sponsored separatist movements in Nagas,sent

pro-Samson guerillas to aid the pro-separatist guerillas already present. This paved
way for the military rule over a civil system of governance. This led to the Nagas
declaring independence and seceding from Ayodhya. This seccession is unlawful and
therefore, did not transfer the sovereign title to Nagas.

b) There has been no violation of internal right of self- determination

International law does not grant a right to secede in pursuit of external self-
determination, except in the case of classic decolonization.External self-determination
can be exercised only in response to denial of internal self-determination.
Additionally, the right to external self-determination cannot change the existing
frontiers, except by an agreement between the States concerned.12Thus, exercise of
self-determination by use of force in violation of territorial integrity of States is in
derogation of a jus cogensnorm.13

8
Art.51, UN Charter; S.C. Res. 303, S/RES/303 (1971) (6.12.1971); G.A. Res.2793,
A/RES/2793(XXVI) (18.11.1971); GRAY, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE 33,
rd
(3 ed., 2008).

9
Brownlieat 268.

10
G.A. Res. 25/ 2625, A/RES/2625(XXV) (24.10.1970).

11
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda), (Merits),
2005 I.C.J. Reports 168 (December, 19), ¶ 162.

12
Opinion No. 2, Badinter Commission Report, Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission
167, 92 ILR 1993.

13
Military and Paramilatary activities against Nicaragua,1986 ICJ 14 at 100-101

2
The Declaration of Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states contained an
important caveat to the application of the right of self-determination, which was that
nothing in the declaration would not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any
action that would impair political integrity of a state. The right to secede is
recognized in a situation where a people right to self determination has been
violated.14

In the case of Quebec succession it was categorically held that only when the right to
internal self-determination is denied, can a state ask for external self determination.
The right to self-determination must be balanced with respect to the territorial
integrity of existing states. 15 The right to self determination arises only in case of
oppression of people, for example in case of foreign military operation or where
definable group of people is being denied meaningful access to the government to
pursue their political, economic and cultural development.

However the residents of Nagas have not contended that they have been denied any
of the above mentioned rights or meaningful access to the government. Presently, the
plebiscite that the UN ordered wasn’t conducted in a proper manner. Even if this
plebiscite was recognised by the Naga Parliament, a formal dissolution agreement had
to be reached with the Government and approved by the Parliament.16 Thus, till such
an agreement is concluded, there can be no valid secession. Hence, Ayodhya’s
territory cannot be altered by the unilateral secession and declaration of Independence
by Nagas.

14
JAMES CRAWFORD,BROWNLIE’S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW,2012
15
Re Secession Quebec, 1998 2 SCR 217, 126 (Canada).
16
The Queen v.Keyn 1876.

3
 2. THE NAGASI DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS IN VIOLATION OF

AYODHYA’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY.

There crucial importance of the principle of territorial integrity. This norm protects
the territorial framework of independent states and is part of the overall concept of the
sovereignty of states. In terms of the concept of the freezing of territorial boundaries
as at the moment of independence (save by mutual consent), the norm is referred to as
uti possidetis juris. This posits that boundaries established and existing at the moment
of independence cannot be altered unless the relevant parties consent to change. It is
supported by international instruments17 and by judicial pronouncement.

18
The Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia
emphasized in that ‘it is well established that, whatever the circumstances, the right to
self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of
independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the states concerned agree
otherwise’.

The UN Declaration of Friendly Relations (1970) and the UN Vienna Declaration

(1993) are examples of pronouncements that endorse the right of self-determination of
peoples. Nevertheless, such right is not intended to authorize actions in order to
dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign state.
Besides, such international documents are declarations, and not treaties or
conventions, what makes them non-binding to the signing states, according to the
international law.19
In the present matter, a unilateral declaration of independence by Nagas is leading to
the impairing of the territorial integrity or political unity of Ayodhya.

17
UNGA Res 1514 (XV); 1541 (XV);Organisation of African Unity resolution 16 (I) 1964.
18
92 ILR 167.
19
http://mundorama.net/2011/02/22/the-principle-of-self-determination-and-the-right-of-territorial-
integrity-a-legal-and-a-political-issue-por-henrique-santos-costa-de-souza/

4
 PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the State of Ayodhya respectfully requests this Court to
declare:

 Nagas does not have a sovereign title to the territory of Nagas.

 The declaration of independence violates the territorial integrity of Ayodhya.

Respectfully Submitted

Agent Code: 1367

Agent for Applicant