TEAM CODE:

THE UNIVERSITY OF CEBU

SCHOOL OF LAW

A Case Concerning the Scarlet Diamond

STATE OF ASTRUA (APPLICANT)

V.

STATE OF RUOCOR (RESPONDENT)

______________________________________________________________________________

On Submission to the International Court of Justice

The Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

______________________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Index of Authorities

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Questions Presented

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Summary of Pleadings

Pleadings
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

International Conventions

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol to the Status of Refugees

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child

2002 Optional Protocol to The Involvement Of Children In Armed

Conflict

1998 Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

1949 Geneva Convention on the Law of Armed Conflict

1977 Additional Protocols

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Astrua (“Astrua”) and the State of Ruocor (“Ruocor”)

hereby submit the present dispute to the International Court of Justice

pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Court’s Statute, in accordance in

accordance with the Compromis for submission to the I.C.J. of the

differences concerning the Eswen territory located in the West of Adra

Peninsula, signed in The Hague, The Netherlands, April 2015. Both states

have accepted this jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Article 36(1) of its

statute, however, both states have agreed that International Court of Justice

was not competent to decide if a state party considered an issue as essential

part of its national security.

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. Whether the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to adjudicate

this dispute;

II. Whether the case is admissible;

III. Whether the South-west Eswen Agreement is invalid; therefore, the

Western part of the Adra Peninsula is rightfully the territory of the State of

Astrua;

IV. Whether Ruocor should be held liable for the treatment and

displacement of millions of persons forced to flee to neighboring countries

as a direct result of its use of military force and is, therefore, a violation of

international human rights;

V. Whether Astrua has rightfully not accepted persons displaced by war, as

it was not obliged to do so;

VI. Whether the Astrua government is not to be held liable for the acts of

the self-proclaimed Astrua Militia for their recruitment and use of under-

aged Astrua citizens (i.e. child soldiers);

VII. Whether Ruocor, and not Astrua, is guilty of international crimes.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The Adra Peninsula is a 15,366 square miles area of land rich in

agricultural stretches into the Cofron Sea. Andra is split between the State

of Ruocor and the State of Astrua. These two states are located in the

continent of Zugbo. The population of the peninsula is around one million

people which, until recently, consisted mostly of farmers and their

respective families belonging to the ethnic groups of Astrua and Ruocor.

BRASTEIN TREATY

In the early 1800s, the State of Oswana colonized the South-western

part of the continent of Zugbo, precisely consisting of the area making up of

Ruocor and Astrua. Shortly thereafter, another strong and expanding

nation, the State of Espua, took interest in this territory. Oswana and Espua

signed an agreement to share their rule over the area, with Oswana having

authority and control over Ruocor and Espua ruling over Astrua. This

agreement included the “Brastein Treaty” that delineated the borders of the

territories in question. This resulted in the Western half of the Adra

peninsula falling within the Astrua borders. In 1840, for reasons that remain

unknown, Oswana and Espua chose to release their respective Colonies into

independence.
SOUTH-WEST ESWEN AGREEMENT

During the following decades, the government of Ruocor expended its

economic surplus in the South-western half of Adra located within the State

of Astrua, with each passing year establishing more infrastructural

developments and providing more economic aid to the farmers of that area.

This was seen as neighborly love up until the government of Ruocor made a

shocking claim. In 1964, the State of Ruocor stated that, as result of their

financial assistance to Adra, and only due to this help, the peninsula had

been able to grow and develop. This in turn, gave Ruocor an exclusive right

to the South-western portion of the Adra peninsula.

COERCION BY RUOCOR’S MILITARY FORCE

For the most part, the farming families of mostly Astrua ethnic origin

acknowledged and agreed that they did indeed owe their improvement in

quality of life to the Ruocor government. They, however, did not wish to

leave the State of Astrua, but felt coerced to sign petitions of support for a

change of sovereighty from Astrua to Ruocor which were personally

delivered by Ruocor military personnel to each farmer’s home. Not knowing

of the involvement of the Ruocor military, the Astrua government proceeded

to sign the agreement to cede the South-western portion of the Adra

Peninsula to Ruocor.

Astrua was content with this outcome as it was both able to appease

its citizens and their apparent wishes and at the same time keep a portion
of the Adra peninsula. This agreement was signed in 1965 and came to be

known as the “South-west Eswen Agreement”.

For the following 35 years, the Adra peninsula was not of further

interest to either country. As such, the inhabitants of Adra on both sides of

the peninsula were left free to enjoy their primarily agricultural lifestyles

without any interruption. Approximately two-thirds of the population

identified as proud Ruocor citizens.

THE SCARLET DIAMONDS

Interest in Adra arose in 2000 with the eruption of a volcano deemed

dormant which was located approximately 90 miles underground. One-third

of the volcano was situated in the North-western territory of Adra belonging

to Astrua and two-thirds was located South of it in the territory now

belonging to Ruocor according to the Eswen Agreement. After its eruption

in 2000 the volcano was classified as dormant with no possibility of future

activity.

DISCOVERY OF THE SCARLET DIAMONDS

In 2011, farmers of Adra discovered remains of that eruption that

included what seemed to be an endless supply of scarlet red diamonds.

Upon this discovery, scientists were immediately sent by both Astrua and

Ruocor government officials to conduct future studies. It was unanimously

agreed by the scientists that the deep-source volcanic eruption that

occurred in 2000 had delivered these remarkable scarlet diamonds to the

Earth’s surface. The force of the eruption cause the tearing of pieces of

Earth’s mantle leading to the diamonds being carried to the surface at an

incredibly rapid speed from the mantle in a rare type of magma known as

kimberlite. This evidence led to the conclusion that Adra’s continental plate

and upper mantle may prove to have endless supply of scarlet diamonds.

RUOCOR-ASTRUA WAR

Needless to say, both Adra’s neighboring countries took immediate

action to claim their right to this newly discovered diamond territory. The

farmers who live in Astrua’s part of the Adra peninsula saw this new

discovery as a way out of their meagre farming occupations, and they

claimed not only the diamonds found on their own territory, but also those

on Ruocor’s territory acquired under the Eswen Agreement.

INVALIDITY OF THE ESWEN AGREEMENT

The Astrua government was made aware of the Ruocor military action

in procuring the signatures for the petitions for cession of the Eswen

territory to Ruocor, and immediately declared the cession of the territory

under the Eswen Agreement null and void due to coercion.

RUOCOR’S RESORT TO MILITARY FORCE

The Astrua farmers quickly gathered together to defend their land

and their newfound resources on both parts of the border in Western part of
Adra. Simultaneously, Ruocor used their advanced military and army tactics

to quickly send military troops into Eswen agreement territory to assert

their state control over the diamond area. The troops were soon

intimidating thousands of farmers living in their homes. Meanwhile, the acts

by the Astrua farmers living in the Eswen territory against the Ruocor

supporters became so violent that Ruocor was prompted to issue a state of

emergency. With this came an official Ruocor government decree stating

that any civilian opposition to the Ruocor military should be crushed with

lethal force.

RETALIATION BY THE FARMERS’ MILITIA

After a yearlong mini-war, the Astrua farmers were feeling defeated

and realized that their numbers were dwindling. The farmers resorted to

enlisting strong and healthy boys along the Astrua/Ruocor border. These

boy soldiers were between ages 8 and 17. The boys were lured with

promises of diamonds, money, and power, and equipped with machineguns,

rifles, and makeshift bombs which the farmers had managed to steal from

their enemy troops. This caused the efforts of Ruocor army to escalate and

by 2013 nearly 200,000 Adra civilians had fled to neighboring countries,

including Belkys, in fear of persecution by Ruocor’s regime.

ASTRUA GOVERNMENT JOINS THE FRAY

Astrua’s military weighed in and began fighting alongside its farmer

rebels in the Eswen territory. The farmers’ additional motives and

justification were that Ruocor was already a wealthy country and was seen

as the superpower of the Continent of Zugbo. In addition to the claim of

invalidity by coercion, Astrua, being the poorer country and vested initially

with authority over more of the peninsula, felt entitled to the diamond

territory. With these diamond resources, and only through these resources,

would it be able to make the infrastructural developments it so desperately

needed, such as roads, schools, hospitals, and telecommunications, without

further dependence on its enemy. Astruans saw this as their only

opportunity to improve their economic and social status. The Astrua

government promoted the cause and fought for the entire Western part of

Adra with slogans such as “It’s Our Time” and “Fight the Super Powers.”

REFUGEE OR STATELESS?

All the while, some of the Adra civilians on the Eswen territory who

had Ruocor citizenship fled to neighboring countries were slowly being

deported back to Astrua. These civilians, also of Ruocor ethnic origin, were

left feeling confused with nowhere to call home, asking themselves, “what

country do I belong to now”? Despite the turmoil, the majority of the Adra’s

refugees held firm to their loyalty to the State of Ruocor. Astrua turned

away these refugees since some of them were apparently remaining loyal to

their Ruocor roots. The Astrua government strictly prohibited them from

entering or re-entering their borders.

CASUALTIES OF WAR
 A further year of bloodshed followed, with the loss of countless

innocent lives, and inhumane treatment being suffered by Astrua and

Ruocor citizens alike. The Astrua farmer rebels made their way slowly into

Eswen territory. Most of the villages they encountered had been abandoned

but for a few hundred or so women that had been left behind due to old age.

Along the way they rounded up these women against their will. They called

their efforts a mass rescue from the oppressive Ruocor government.

However the women themselves saw this for what it truly was, a mass

kidnapping. The women were not physically harmed but they were treated

like slaves, being forced to work 20hours straight cooking and cleaning up

after the Astrua rebels, particularly the young boys. It was not long before

Ruocor responded with their counterattack. The government chose to set

the ultimate example by killing male inhabitants of an Astrua farmer village

located within the Eswen territory. Simultaneously, Ruocor ramped up its

attacks further by targeting those they saw most vulnerable, the child

soldiers. As a result, thousands of child soldiers met their death at the hand

of ruthless Ruocor troops.

SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

In April 2015, the two countries, upon intercession by the State of

Belkys, signed an agreement and submitted it in compliance with all formal

requirements, to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, to have

the International Court of Justice decide all the issues of international law
that have arisen in this dispute. This agreement included the provision that

the International Court of Justice was not competent to decide if a state

party considered an issue as essential part of its national security.

Both Ruocor and Astrua are members of the United Nations, and they

are states parties to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of

Refugees, the 1989 Convention on Rights of a Child and its 2002 Optional

Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the 1998 Rome

Statute of the International Criminal Court as well as the four 1949 Geneva

Conventions on the Law of Armed Conflict and their two Additional

Protocols of 1977.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS

JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THIS DISPUTE

The International Court of Justice was created on the same footing as the

General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council and

the Secretariat, and therefore, can be called to decide disputes of legal

nature in accordance with international law and its jurisdiction is mainly

determined by the agreement of concerned parties. The issue whether

the ICJ acquires jurisdiction over the case may be deemed to be relative

question which may depend on the development of internal relations.

Lastly, the main issue of the case is territorial dispute on rightful

ownership of the West Adra territory which is not a matter of national

security.

II. THE CASE IS ADMISSIBLE

The parties have submitted to compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ through

its submission with all the formal requirements.

III. THE WESTERN PART OF ADRA RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO

ASTRUA

Firstly, the South-west Eswen Agreement was signed by the Astrua

people as they were personally delivered by the Ruocor military

personnel which was coercion, leading to the Agreement being an

annullable treaty. Secondly, the 1969 Vienna Convention of Law of

Treaties provides that in order for treaties to be valid, the consent should

be altered by no consent vice. Lastly, deceit was used to vitiate Astrua’s

consent to sign the South-west Eswen Agreement.

IV. RUOCOR IS LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT AND

DISPLACEMENT OF PERSONS FORCED TO FLEE TO

NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

Ruocor’s use of military force caused the displacement of persons from

their locality which resulted to more violent encounters and Roucor’s

government further escalated it through the use of lethal force. The

displacement of Adra refugees is also atrributable to Ruocor’s activities.

Thus, Roucor’s activities directly violates the Geneva Convention and its

Additional protocols.

V. ASTRUA IS NOT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT PERSONS

DISPLACED BY WAR

The protection of refugees is not permanent and absolute. The protection

granted by the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the

Status of Refugees contain persons categorized as not to deserve

protection. The Adra refugees still belongs to Ruocor, hence, these

people may not fall in the category of refugees as their fear of

persecution is not well-founded.

VI. THE SELF-PROCLAIMED ASTRUA’S MILITIA RECRUITMENT

AND USE OF UNDER-AGED ASTRUA CITIZEN IS NOT

ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASTRUA GOVERNMENT OR

MILITARY FORCES

The prohibition in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights

of the Child was not violated by Astrua as it the Farmer’s Militia that had

recruited these children as a desperate move to increase their numbers.

The independent act of the Farmers’ Militia was already beyond the

scope of their control.

VII. RUOCOR, AND NOT ASTRUA, IS GUILTY OF

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

Ruocor’s immediate use of its military force towards the farmers

prompted the heat of the conflict. All of these acts are violative of the

1949 Geneva Convention on the Law of Armed Conflict. Astrua only

acted upon the protection of its rights, its people, its territory, and its

sovereignity.
 PLEADINGS

I. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION

TO ADJUDICATE THIS DISPUTE

A. The International Court of Justice as principal judicial body of the

United Nations may supersede internal agreements between

concerned parties

The International Court of Justice was created as a principal organ of

the United Nations, on the same footing as the General Assembly, Security

Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council and the

Secretariat, and with its Statute annexed to and forming part of the

Charter.1

The ICJ, therefore, can be called to decide disputes of legal nature in

accordance with international law which are submitted to it by concerned

states. And its jurisdiction is mainly determined by the agreement of the

concerned parties.2

Special agreements between the parties, as in this case that the ICJ is

declared not competent to decide if a state party considered an issue as

essential part of its national security by virtue of their agreement, may be

superseded by paragraph 1 of Article 36 of the Statute, which provides;

1
Handbook of the International Court of Justice
2
Ibid
 “The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties

refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charters of the

United Nation or in treaties and conventions in force.”

B. The International Court of Justice acquires jurisdiction over the

case as main issue on hand may be part, but is not entirely essential,

to the states national security

1
Handbook of the International Court of Justice
2
Ibid
 Any internal agreement between the concerned states as to the

competency of the ICJ to hear and decide the case submitted to it,

particularly on pivotal issues that needs to be addressed, is deemed to be a

relative question which may depend on the development of international

relations. As in the case of recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the

ICJ vis-à-vis a concerned state declaring one matter to fall essentially within

its domestic jurisdiction, the ICJ is bound to follow the UN Charters which

declares that it is not to intervene in matters which are essentially within

the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to

submit such matters to settlement to it.3

However, by the principle of reciprocity, the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the

case may be restricted to what has been agreed by the concerned states,

but absence of the reciprocity between them, the ICJ may hear and decide

all issues it deems necessary to settle in order to end the dispute of the case

submitted to it by the concerned states.

The agreement between Astrua and Ruocor that ICJ is not competent

to decide if a state party considered an issue as essential part of its national

security essentially leaves the matter among the parties whether or not

such issue is an essential part of its national security, and if not, only then

can ICJ exercise its jurisdiction.

3
Article 2, pa. 7 of the UN Charter
 This is exactly where the principle of reciprocity takes effect, as

Astrua believes that the main issue on hand may indeed be part, but is not

entirely essential, of its national security.

C. The main issue of the case is the territorial dispute on rightful

ownership of the West Adra territory as declared in the Eswen

agreement, which is not a matter of national security

National security is a very broad yet elusive in the international law

as essentially it is composed of two major parts. The first mainly refers to a

state’s ability to maintain military defence

3
Article 2, pa. 7 of the UN Charter
over its territory, as it was emphasized in history by Navy Secretary James

Forestall in the US Senate in August 1945 in the shadow of World War II.

And the second pertains to the protection of constitutional values. Thus the

term national security is generally construed so as to include political and

economic interest, and not limited domestically, but worldwide.4

This can be best explained in a U.S. case where the court observed the

term “national security” as a definite and limited sense which relates to

those activities which are directly concerned with the nation’s safety, as

distinguished from general welfare.5

The dispute of ownership over the West Adra territory under the

Eswen agreement is in no matter a concern of national security. However,

the conflict pertaining to the war between Ruocor’s military and the Astrua

Farmers Militia and Astrua’s government is merely consequential to the

dispute of ownership.

II. THE CASE IS ADMISSIBLE

Considering that the parties have submitted to the compulsory

jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice through its submission with

all formal requirements to the Registrar of the International Court of

Justice, and the settlement main issue of rightful ownership of the West

4
Kearney, D. What does “National Security” actually mean?. May 21, 2013. Retrieved
January 10, 2019 from http://rightsni.org/2013/05/national-security/#_ftn4
5
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 (1956)
Adra territory under the Eswen agreement not being an issue essential to

national security, the applicant submits this case is admissible.

4
Kearney, D. What does “National Security” actually mean?. May 21, 2013. Retrieved
January 10, 2019 from http://rightsni.org/2013/05/national-security/#_ftn4
5
Cole v. Young, 351 U.S. 536 (1956)
III. THE WESTERN PART OF ADRA, AS INDICATED IN THE ESWEN

AGREEMENT, RIGHTFULLY BELONGS TO THE STATE OF

ASTRUA

A. The nullity of South-west Eswen Agreement

The South-west Eswen Agreement is essentially a treaty between

Ruocor and Astrua, wherein Astrua ceded the South-western portion of the

Adra Peninsula, originally belonging to it by virtue of the Brastein Treaty, to

Ruocor in order to appease its citizens who filed such petition for change of

sovereignty from Astrua to Ruocor. However, the petition was signed by the

Astrua people as they were personally delivered by Ruocor military

personnel to each farmer’s home.

This is not mere treaty coercion which would call for recission of the

treaty, but instead the South-west Eswen Agreement is an annullable treaty

as the consent of Astrua was vitiated through the fraudulent act of Ruocor’s

coercion of its people in signing the petition for change of sovereignty.

B. Nullity causes of treaties in international law

The 1969 Vienna Convention of Law of the Treaties provides that in

order for treaties to be valid, the consent should be altered by no consent

vice. Under the The 1969 Vienna Convention of Law of the Treaties, the

consent vices are:

1. The visible violation of an extremely important rule in the national law

regarding the competence to contract treaties,

2. The non-respecting of the special restriction of the power to express

the consent of a state

3. The error, the deceit, the corruption of a state representative, and

4. The constraint exerted on a state representative or exerted on a state.

 C. Deceit was used to vitiate Astrua’s consent to sign the South-west

Eswen Agreement

Article 49 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

provides that a state may invoke deceit as a vice of its consent to commit by

the treaty if it were determined to contract a treaty after the fraudulent

behaviour of another state.

Due to the personal delivery of Ruocor’s military personnel, the

Astrua people felt coerced to sign the petition of support for a change of

sovereignty. This fraudulent act of Ruocor led to Astrua believing that their

people had wanted it to cede its territory to Ruocor. Upon finding out that it

was through Ruocor’s military involvement that the signatures were

procured for the petition for cession of the Eswen territory, Astrua

immediately declared the cession of the said territory under the Eswen

Agreement null and void due to coercion.

IV. RUOCOR IS LIABLE FOR THE TREATMENT AND

DISPLACEMENT OF PERSONS FORCED TO FLEE TO

NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES

A. Displacement of persons due to Ruocor’s use of military force

The United Nations has defined the displacement of people as the

forced movement of people from their locality or environment and

6
UNESCO. Displaced Person / Displacement
occupational activities, forming a social change caused by different factors,

but mostly commonly attributed armed conflict.6

Ruocor’s use of their advanced military and army tactics to quickly

send military troops to the Eswen agreement territory in order to assert

their state control over the diamond. These Ruocor military personnel were

even intimidating thousands of farmers living in their homes.

6
UNESCO. Displaced Person / Displacement
 B. Further escalation of Roucor’s government order to use lethal force

The Astrua farmers living in the Eswen territory retaliated the

military activities of Ruocor which resulted to more violent encounters

prompting Ruocor to issue a state of emergency. With it came an official

Ruocor government decree stating that any civilian opposition to the Ruocor

military should be crushed with lethal force.

The continued encounters between Ruocor’s military personnel and

the Astrua Farmers Militia caused nearly 200,000 Adra civilians to flee to

neighboring countries, including Belkys, in fear of persecution by Ruocor’s

regime.

C. Displacement of Adra refugees is attributable to Ruocor’s activities

The systematic military activities of Ruocor has resulted to the

forcible transfer of the people of the Eswen territory to other neighboring

countries. This forcible transfer is a direct violation of the provisions of the

Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, as such expulsion and other

coercive acts of Ruocor in the Eswen territory does not fall under any

authority permitted by international law.

Further, the civilian casualty of the military activities of Ruocor posed

a great threat to civilian security in the Eswen territory as it continues to

escalate with its encounter with the Farmer’s Militia.

 D. Ruocor’s violation of the Geneva Convention and its Additional

Protocols

Ruocor’s excessive military activities and its decree to use lethal force

in dealing with civilian opposition directly violates the Geneva Convention

and its Additional Protocols. Article 53 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva

Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of

International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 and Article 13 of

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and

relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts

(Protocol II), 8 June 1977 provides for the protection of civilian population,

under which it states:

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general

protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To

give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in

all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall

not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary

purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are

prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and

for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

 Ruocor’s military operation were so vile that they have even resorted

to set the ultimate example by killing male inhabitants of an Astrua farmer

village located within the Eswen territory. Simultaneously, Ruocor ramped

up its attacks further by targeting those they saw most vulnerable, the child

soldiers. As a result, thousands of child soldiers met their death at the hand

of ruthless Ruocor troops.

V. ASTRUA IS NOT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT PERSONS DISPLACED

BY THE WAR

A. Protection of refugees

Refugee, as defined in the 1951 Convention, is a person who is outside

his or her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded

fear of being persecuted because of his or her race, religion, nationality,

membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable

or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country, or to

return there, for fear of persecution.

Although the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the

Status of Refugees provides stringent guidelines for the persons considered

as refugees, its protection is not, however, permanent and absolute.

B. Persons excluded from the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol

Relating to the Status of Refugees

 Primarily, the protection granted by the the 1951 Convention and the

1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees are delimited to persons

having met the criteria for refugee status. Further, there are also those

persons categorized as not to deserve refugee protection and should be

excluded from such protection, such as:

1. Those having committed a crime against peace, a war crime, a crime

against humanity or a serious non-political crime outside their country

of refuge; or

2. They are guilty of acts contrary to the purpose and principle of United

Nations.

C. Astrua not bound to accept persons displaced by war

During the time of turmoil, Astrua had sctrictly prohibited the Adra

refugees primarily due to the operative fact that these refugees are legally

citizens of Ruocor from the disputed territory of West Adra, which at the

time of conflict, and without finality of annulment of the South-west Eswen

Agreement, still belongs to Ruocor. Hence, these people may not fall in the

category of refugees as their fear of persecution is not well-founded, as they

are legally citizens of Ruocor, and Ruocor’s military activities are generally

aimed at the persecution of the opposition and not at its own people.
 Further, for the sake of argument, the 1951 Convention could not

apply to the Adra refugees, specifically those coming from the disputed

territory, as expressly provided in Article 1 (E) thereof, which states:

“This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the

competent authorities of the country to which he has taken residence

as having the right and obligations which are attached to the

possession of the nationality of that country.”

Their firm loyalty to the State of Ruocor poses a big question of fealty

which might affect the national security and public order of Astrua upon

their acceptance of these refugees.

D. Non-applicability of refoulement to the case

The prohibition of expulsion or return (refoulement) is not applicable

to the case for the as most of these Adra refugees, seeking asylum in

Astrua, have not been genuinely threatened as to their life or freedom as

they are legally citizens of Ruocor during the time of conflict and Ruocor’s

persecution is mainly aimed at those who oppose them.

And, for the sake of argument, even if they are threatened as to their

life or freedom, Astrua is not obliged to accept them as their entering into

Astrua in time of war with Ruocor may pose a threat to national security

and public order for Astrua.

VI. THE SELF-PROCLAIMED ASTRUA’S MILITIA RECRUITMENT

AND USE OF UNDER-AGED ASTRUA CITIZEN IS NOT

ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASTRUA GOVERNMENT OR MILITARY

FORCES

A. Prohibition on recruitment and use of the under-age in armed

conflict

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on

the involvement of children in armed conflict expressly prohibits the

recruitment and enlistment of children under the age of 18 as conscript

soldiers.

Such prohibition was not violated by Astrua as it was not them, rather

it was the Farmers’ Militia, that had recruited these children for their own

cause.

B. The Farmers’ Militia acted on their own

As a desperate move to increase their numbers, the Farmers’ Militia

had resorted to the enlistment of strong and healthy boys along the

Astrua/Ruocor border, ages between 8 and 17, and lured with promises of

diamonds, money, and power, and equipped with machineguns, rifles, and

makeshift bombs which the farmers had managed to steal from their enemy

troops.
 C. Astrua not guilty of tolerating the rebels act of recruiting child

soldiers

The Astrua government is not to be held responsible for the

independent act of the Farmers’ Militia in their recruitment of child soldier

as this was already beyond the scope of their control. Further, Astrua’s

silence on the matter should not be considered as an act of tolerance.

The fact that Astrua had mobilized its military force to fight alongside

these farmer rebels in Eswen territory against Ruocor’s army should be

taken in consideration of protecting the Astrua people and preventing

senseless bloodshed of non-military personnel.

D. Astrua’s propaganda is not a call to arms

The Astrua government promoted the cause and fought for the entire

Western part of Adra with slogans such as “It’s Our Time” and “Fight the

Super Powers.” This should also not be mistaken as a call to arms, as it

merely is an act of awakening the patriotism of its people not to heed to the

assertion of its enemies to Astrua’s rightful claim over the disputed territory

under the Eswen agreement.

VII. Ruocor, and not Astrua, is guilty of international crimes

A. Unwarranted military actions by Ruocor

Ruocor’s failure to seek amicable solution to the problem and instead

resorted to the immediate use of its military force prompted the heat of the
conflict. The acts of intimidation by Ruocor’s military personnel towards the

farmers living in the disputed territory of Eswen is a direct violation of

Article 57 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12

August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International

Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 for the following reasons:

1. Their conduct of military operations did not involve constant care to

spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. The Ruocor government’s decree of use of lethal force against civilian

opposition is ipso facto proof that they would not refrain from

deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause

incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian

objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in

relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

B. Heinous acts of Ruocor violative of international laws

The decree issued by Ruocor of resorting to use of lethal force against

civilian opposition is pivotal to the case as such decree may not be

imputable as essential to obtaining its military objectives, which forced the

occupants of the Eswen territory to move to their neighboring countries in

fear of Ruocors persecution. The Ruocor government chose to set the

ultimate example by killing male inhabitants of an Astrua farmer village

located within the Eswen territory. Simultaneously, Ruocor ramped up its

attacks further by targeting those they saw most vulnerable, the child
soldiers. As a result, thousands of child soldiers met their death at the hand

of ruthless Ruocor troops.

All of these acts are violative of the provisions of: (1) the 1949

Geneva Convention on the Law of Armed Conflict as the further escalation

of Ruocor’s military activities may no longer be attributable to an allowable

military objective in armed conflict; (2) the deliberate attacks by Ruocor

against the people living in the Eswen territory, who are considered to be

civilians and protected persons in the international law setting, for the sake

of making an example out of them violates the provision of Article 53 and 57

of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and

relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts

(Protocol I), 8 June 1977 and Article 13 of Protocol Additional to the

Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of

Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977

provides for the protection of civilian population; (3) the deliberate

targeting of the child soldiers is a direct violation of Article 24 and Article

50 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of

War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 which provides for the measures to be taken

in relation to child welfare; and (4) the overall military attacks of is a clear

violation of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in

Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 as the victims of these military

operations were not treated with humanity by Ruocor’s military personnel.

 C. Astrua is the offended party of Ruocor’s deceit and military actions

Astrua acted upon the protection of its rights, its people, its territory,

and its sovereignty. First, the disputed area of Eswen rightfully belongs to

Astrua as the cessation of which through the South-west Eswen Agreement

was made through a vice of Astrua’s consent when Ruocor’s military

personnel had coerced Astrua’s people in signing a petition for change of

sovereignty.

Second, Astrua’s military involvement was in response to Ruocor’s

aggressive military actions against Astrua’s people and over a territory

rightfully belonging to Astrua.

Third, Astrua cannot be held liable for the acts of the Farmers’ Militia,

specifically in the recruitment and enlistment of child soldiers, as these acts

were not authorized by former and are independently done by the latter as

a means of increasing their numbers against Ruocor’s military force.

And finally, Astrua cannot be held liable for not accepting the Adra

refugees in time of war, as this poses a great threat to their national

security and public order.

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The State of Astrua respectfully requests this Court to declare:

I.

The International Court of Justice take jurisdiction to adjudicate this

dispute;

II.

Declare the annulment of the South-west Eswen Agreement as it was done

in vitiation of Astrua’s consent by Ruocor’s coercion of Astrua’s people;

III.

Declare Astrua as rightful owner of the territory of West Adra as originally

vested in them by the Brastein Treaty;

IV.

Ruocor be prosecuted for its violation of various international laws;

V.

Astrua be held not liable for any violation of international laws.

Respectfully submitted,

AGENTS FOR ASTRUA