Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Your honors and distinguish ladies and gentlemen, good day! May it please the court, I
am Edward John Nerosa, the counsel for the applicant, the Republic of Racel, and with
me is my co-counsel Ms. Stella Lynn Amistad.
PRAYERS:
Your Honors, we are here to respectfully request the Honorable International Court of
Justice to adjudge and declare that:
1. The jurisdiction over the dispute remain with the same for the
determination of the liability of Anlusan in violating the right of Racel to self-
determination as well as the rest of the issues submitted to it.
I. Banner Statement:
A. The ICJ has jurisdiction over the case as referred to it by virtue of Article 36
in relation to Article 38 of the ICJ Statute.
Under the ICJ Statute jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the
parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United
Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. In the event of a dispute as to whether
the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.
Application:
In applying the provisions of the ICJ Statute in the present case, the States in
dispute can seek the competence of the International Court of Justice to decide on
matters brought before it, should the issues raise remain unresolved. The Court shall
rule on the matters brought to it pursuant to international laws, treaties and conventions,
by which the parties are members or signatories thereto.
In addition, the parties voluntarily submitted the jurisdiction of the case through a
Special Agreement, with regard the disputes concerning the secession of Racel from
Bellona and the subsequent economic measures imposed by the newly-independent
state, Republic of Racel against the Federation of Anlusan.
Conclusion:
Your Honors, in line with the foregoing, it could therefore be said that the International
Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the dispute.
Basis:
A. The series of acts by Anlusan constitutes intervention on the Racelian
election.
Article 2, paragraph 4 of 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.1
B. 1 The effective intervention on the part of Anlusan before and during the
election constitutes an Internationally Wrongful Act.
The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under
international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any
other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever
its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the
internal law of the State.
One of the IP addresses was similar to the other addresses of the computers of
the Anlusanian intelligence service and another IP address indicated the servers of
Satellite.
"Intervention may or may not involve the use of force. It is frequently possible for
a powerful state to impair the political independence of another weaker state without
actually utilizing its armed forces. It may be accomplished by the withholding of
recognition of a new government, combined with various forms of economic and
financial pressure until the will of the stronger state prevails through the resignation or
overthrow of the government disapproved."
The purpose of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and
to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Application:
In applying the forgoing principles in the present case, the principle of non-intervention
includes, but is not limited to the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state. As provided under the
compromise, on the day of the Racelian Referendum, there is presence of the Anlusan
Navy within the Anlusan side of the lake Cherno, which gave the Racelians fear for their
safety during and in effect hindered and curtailed the right of the Racelians to exercise
their right to vote in the referendum. The act done by the Anlusan Navy is considered as
an act of intervention which effectively prevented the self-determination of Racel.
In addition, the threats and attacks posted in Feznote and Chriper constitute overt acts
with regard the election intervention during Racelian Referendum, and the IP addresses
of which are found to be similar to that of the Anlusanian intelligence service and
another IP address indicated the servers of Satellite. Lastly, as stated in the
compromis, it has been confirmed by the Flovirien’s cybersecurity and Exelcia Security
Experts that 10% of the cyberattacks against the Racelians on the night and during the
day of the Referendum came from the Anlusan government computers.
Conclusion:
Your Honors, with the foregoing circumstances of this case, it could be concluded that
the Anlusan government is responsible for the commission of an Internationally
Wrongful Act through election intervention.
(Transition)
To proceed your honors, I will now call on my co-counsel, Ms. Stella Lynn
Amistad, to discuss the 2nd and 3rd proposition on behalf of the Federation of Anlusan.