Applicant Memorial PDF

2ND ANSAL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE PEACE
PALACE THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
REPUBLIC OF BLUE WATER Applicant
v.
REPUBLIC OF GREEN DESERT Respondent
IN THE
CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND CRIMES CONCERNIG
INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN STATE BLUE WATER
As submitted to the Court by the Agents appearing on behalf of the Applicant on 5 October,
2017
- W RITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE A P P L I C A N T-

-TABLE OF CONTENTS- Page I of XVI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ I
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... X
QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................................................................................. XIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .......................................................................................... XIV
PLEADINGS ............................................................................................................................ 1
I. THE WHETHER UNSC RESOLUTION 5221 PASSED AT THE BEHEST OF
GREEN DESERT VIOLATED BLUE WATER’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THE
PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
GENERALLY? ...................................................................................................................... 1
A. CLEAR VIOLATION OF SOVREIGNITY OF THE STATE OF BLUE WATER
AND FORCEFUL REFERRAL TO ICC IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND LAW OF TREATIES ..................................................................................... 1
B. CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE USED BY THE UNSC IN
PRECEDENT CASES WHICH HAS BEEN NEGELCTED SEVERELY AGAINST
THE STATE OF BLUE WATER...................................................................................... 4
II. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT BY GREEN
DESERT AGAINST GENERAL JUPITER IS VALID ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? ...................................................................... 7
A. ICJ CAN ADJUDICATE UPON THE PRESENT ISSUE ..................................... 7

-TABLE OF CONTENTS- Page II of XVI
B. ACT OF MASSACRE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED BY THE STATE. ........ 8
C. GENERAL JACK JUPITER IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE ICC STATUTE ............................................................. 10
D. General Jupiter enjoys sovereign immunity. ......................................................... 13
E. BLUE WATER HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER ACTS COMMITED IN ITS
TERRITORY ................................................................................................................... 14
III. WHETHER THE STATE OF GREEN DESERT HAS NOT VIOLATED THE
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF BLUE WATER AND SECESSION OF PURPLE
VALLEY IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT. ......................................................... 20
A. SECESSION IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT. ...................................... 21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................................... XV

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page III of XVI
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
(Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14) ......................................................... 14
(France v. Turkey), PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, 70 (1927) ........................................................... 15
(USA v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3, 21 ............................................................................................ 6
Australia v. France, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974................................................................ 13
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2007 I.C.J. 191 .................................... 10
Croatia v. Serbia 2015 ICJ 3 ................................................................................................... 12
Nicaragua v. U.S., I.CJ.14, 202 (1986).................................................................................... 11
Prosecutor v. MilomirStakic (AJ), IT-97-24-A, (ICTY), ........................................................ 10
Prosecutor v. Tadic(Case No. IT-94-1-T) ............................................................................... 10
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012 ............................. 11
The Prosecutor v Bagosora et al, Case No. ICTR-98-41- T, "Judgment and Sentence", 18
December 2008 .................................................................................................................... 13
The Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-717 ..... 12
The Prosecutor v Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-A, Appeal Judgment, 5 July 2001 ................... 12
The Prosecutor v. Kajehjeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A- T, "Judgment and Sentence", 1
December 2003 .................................................................................................................... 13
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) at 137 ........................................ 19
United Kingdom v. Albania, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949 ................................................... 11
United States v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 896, 900-901 (1988) ...................................................... 15

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page IV of XVI
Other Authorities
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
International Court of Justice, May 28, 1951, Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15 ............... 10
Regulations
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the ... 26
Articles
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, THIRD, VOL. 1 73 ¶201
(Louis Henkin ...................................................................................................................... 27
ANDREW CLAPHAM, BRIERLY’S LAW OF NATIONS 150 (OUP, 7th edn, 2012) ....... 21
Dörr O., Schmalenbach K. (2012) Article 18. ........................................................................... 1
Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press.
p. 419.................................................................................................................................... 24
Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts
DapoAkandeSangeeta Shah European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Issue 4, 1
November 2010, Pages 815–852 ......................................................................................... 15
IVOR ROBERTS, SATOW’S DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE 72 (OUP, 6th edn, 2009) .......... 24
MAX BOEHM, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X 518
(Macmillan, 1937)................................................................................................................ 22
Michael N. Schmitt &Leslien C. Green, The Universality Principle and War Crimes, 71
International Law Studies 17, (1998)................................................................................... 15
Books, Treaties and Commentaries
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 431(Jennings & Watts eds., 9th edn, 1992) 16

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page V of XVI
ARTHUR WHITAKER, THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF LATIN
AMERICA, 1800-1830 (Russell and Russell, 1941) ............................................................ 28
Aust, Modern Treaty Law, pp. 86 ff. 41 Article 9(1). ............................................................... 3
B. Broomhall, “The International Criminal Court: A Checklist for National Implementation”
in ICC Ratification and National Implementing Legislation, Nouvelles Etudes Penales, (Eres
1999) at 113. ........................................................................................................................ 18
C.L. Rozakis, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. IV, 812-818 (R. Bernhardt ed., North-Holland,
2000) .................................................................................................................................... 16
David Scheffer, The United States and the International Criminal Court, 93 AM. J. INT'L L.
12 (1999). ............................................................................................................................... 6
H. LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 8 (CUP, 2012) ......... 24
HANS KELSEN, GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE 216 (Lawbook Exchange,
2009) .................................................................................................................................... 26
Hans-Peter Kaul, Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction, in 1 THE STATUTE OF ROME
AND THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A COMMENTARY 607 (Antonio
Cassese et al. eds., 2002). ...................................................................................................... 6
J. Dugard& D. Raic, The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession, in ....... 29
JAMES CRAWFORD, THE CRPURPLE VALLEYTION OF STATES IN
INTERNATIONAL LAW 394 (OUP, 2nd edn,2006)......................................................... 28
Jason Ralph, International Society: The International Criminal Court and American Foreign
Policy, 31 REV. FOR INT'L STUD. 27 (2005)..................................................................... 6
Jean Galbraith, The Bush Administration's Response to the International Criminal Court, 21
BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 683, 685 (2003). ............................................................................ 5

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page VI of XVI
JS Charme The Interim Obligation of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties: Making Sense of an Enigma (1992) 25 George Washington JIL & Economy 71–
114.......................................................................................................................................... 2
M. Bergsmo and J. Pejic, “The Prosecutor”, in Triffter (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court: Observer’s Notes, Article by Article, (Baden-Baden
1999). ................................................................................................................................... 17
Nidal Nabil Jurdi, the International Criminal Court and National Courts: A Contentious
Relationship, Ashgate Publishing, England, 2011, p. 255. .................................................... 4
P. Radan, International Law and the Right of Unilateral Secession, in THE ASHGATE ...... 29
Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn, London, 1979, p. 62. 37 Article 8. ................ 3
Schabas, supra note 13, at 702; Gerhard Haffner, An Attempt to Explain the Position of the
USA Towards the International Criminal Court, 3 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 323 (2005). ...... 5
THOMAS MUSGRAVE, SELF-DETERMINATION AND NATIONAL MINORITIES 181
(OUP, 2000) ......................................................................................................................... 22
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court , Cambridge
University Press, 3 edition 2007), p. 157. .............................................................................. 5
United Nations and Other Documents
CA Bradley Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution (2007) 48
Harvard ILJ 307–336. ............................................................................................................ 1
Convention of the Rights and Duties of States art. 8 1992 165 L.N.T.S. 19 ........................... 16
G.A. Res. 3203 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3203 (Sept. 17, 1974) ........................................ 28
L. Arbour and M. Bergsmo, “Conspicuous Absence of Jurisdictional Overreach”, in Hebel et
al. (eds.), Reflections on the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos,
TMC Asser Press 1999), at 129-140.. .................................................................................. 17
P.Monroe, U.N. Doc. E/CN, 4/Sub. 2/46 (June 14, 1949) ....................................................... 22

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page VII of XVI
S.C. Res. 1272, ¶1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1272 (Oct. 25, 1999) ................................................... 28
U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, U.N.
Doc.A/HRC/7/23, at 6 (2008) .............................................................................................. 22
U.N.S.C., Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future .......... 26
International Cases and Arbitral Decisions
Holland v. Lampen Wolfe [2000] 3 All ER 833 (HL) ............................................................. 14
I Congresso del Partido [1981] 2 All ER 1064, at 1074 (HL) ................................................. 14
Miscellaneous
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/08948.pdf ............................................................................... 6
Treaties and Conventions
1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 .... 19
Article 40(1), UN Charter. ......................................................................................................... 8
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the ........... 25
Convention of the Rights and Duties of States 165 L.N.T.S. 19, Art. 1 .................................. 24
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes
Against Humanity ................................................................................................................ 19
ICC Statute, Article 30(1). ....................................................................................................... 12
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (2002) 2187 UNTS 90, Art. 13(b). ............ 2
UN Charter, Article 36 (1). ........................................................................................................ 8
UN Charter, Article 36(2). ......................................................................................................... 8
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1961), 56 1; 65 1 .................................................. 2

-INDEX OF AUTHORITIES- Page VIII of XVI
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (1978), Pre 6 n. 21; 73 6
............................................................................................................................................... 2
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Accession to, 83 passim ............................ 2

-STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION- Page IX of XVI
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Republic of Blue Water (Applicant) and the Republic of Green Desert (Respondent)
have submitted the present dispute to this Court by Special Agreement, to the International
Court of Justice pursuant to the Special Agreement (Compromis) signed in The Hague, The
Netherlands, on October 5, 2017 and jointly notified to the Court on the same date. The
Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under Article 36(1) read with Article 40(1) of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice, 1950. The Court has jurisdiction to decide all matters
referred to it for decision.
The Parties shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon them and shall
execute it in its entirety and in good faith.

-STATEMENT OF FACTS- Page X of XVI
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND:
• The republic of Blue Water is a European Nation which possesses a land area of 1,
78,629 square kilometres and a population of 12 million citizens. It has various ethnic,
cultural and religious groups which inhabit the country, especially two such groups namely
the Dolos and the Simbas. The Dolos inhabit the southern part of the country especially in
the semi-autonomous territory of Purple Valley which constitutes 80% of the population of
Purple Valley.
• The federal republic of Blue Water it divided into 6 federal units in which Purple Valley
is the largest in area and population, however despite being semi –autonomous the ultimate
sovereignty lies with Blue Water. The Blue Water constitution prohibits secession of federal
territories and proclaims to be a secular national despite ethnic tensions.
• Purple Valley has an area of 46,374 square kilometres and has population of 5 million
inhabitants of which majority are the Dolos. They are regarded as a unique and indigenous
community. The region of the valley is rich in natural resources and contributes to 30% of
the GDP. The Dolos are peaceful yet due to mining activities their habitat has declined yet
no provisional status has been given to them
• A movement known as the “Free Dolo Movement” in December 2014 for the liberation
of the country from Blue water’s control was initiated by the youth. Here the youth fought
for self-determination amongst the indigenous Dolo people. The movement became violent
and central Blue Water forces were targeted or killed. Following which, a referendum was
held in Purple valley asking if Purple Valley ought to secede and become an independent
nation, out of which only 42% showed up to vote dude to fear of reprisal yet 60% voted for

-STATEMENT OF FACTS- Page XI of XVI
the referendum, and 40% against. Blue water followed this by declaring emergency in
Purple valley, suspending all fundamental right and the constitution and declaring the
referendum illegal, and armed forces were deployed causing human right violations and the
Dolos were subject to violence and humiliation.
• In August, 2016 armed forces formed a mass meeting of Dolo boys and men to discuss
the FDM (free Dolo movement) the meeting in order to prevent the meeting sent Sumba
warriors who opened fire on the Dolo volunteers and killed 25,000 people, causing the
“Plutonian Massacre” where the international community formed an outcry and wanted
Blue water to restore normalcy, following which blue water acknowledge the massacre and
accepted the control over the samba warriors.
• The international commission of concerned jurists, the genocide research network and
international association of genocide watchers came to a conclusion that the Plutonia
Massacre was a genocide within the Genocide Convection, following which the United
Nations Security Council passed resolution 5221 referring the matter to ICC for
investigation and further prosecution.
• Blue water objected to the referral but the UNSC felt it was essential as criminal
responsibility was required, and Kyna a P5 member also objected the referral, as blue water
was a non-party to the jurisdiction of the ICC, however the resolution was passed.
• The prosecutor of the ICC launched a preliminary investigation and a case was made
for the trial of General Jupiter, a self-styled state sponsored military officer who commanded
the massacre and the investigation constituted that genocide had been committed under the
Rome statue under article 58 with an arrest warrant pretrial chamber I, was turned down and
General Atlanta, the president to appointed General Jupiter as the Home minister of the
country despite the requests on the ground of ‘Sovereign Immunity” and refusal to accept

-STATEMENT OF FACTS- Page XII of XVI
the jurisdiction for the ICC. To tackle this situation, resolution 5222 was proposed by Green
Dessert which required Blue water to handover General Jupiter to either the ICC or Green
Dessert for the criminal trial based on individual criminal responsibility which again Blu
Water objected to. Following the massacre and refusal of Blue Water to comply with the
resolutions passed by the UNSC, purple valley held a referendum, for the declaration of
independence from Blue water, where out of 94% of the total turnout, 85%voted “yes” while
only 15% voted “no”. The Administration of Purple Valley universally declared
independence from blue water within 48 hours, 105 countries recognized Blue Water as a
independent nation and justified the Universal Declaration of Independence by Purple
Valley.
• The UNSC acting under the Chapter VII of the charter passed resolution 5223
recognizing Purple Valley as a state and making it mandatory for Blue Water to free Purple
Valley and grant it full independence. Blue water rejected this resolution as being illegal ad
having no binding effect, and claimed this a violation of territorial integrity. Following Blue
water’s refusal to comply with the UNSC resolutions, Green Dessert issued an international
arrest warrant for General Jack Jupiter, and following the international pressure Blue Water
agreed to form a domestic tribunal to try General Jupiter, which would be an in-camera trial,
and only in 2022 after the end of a mandated 6-year term. This condition was rejected by
the ICC as well as Green dessert who pressed for the Unsc resolutions.
Due to this stalemate and failing to arrive at a negotiated settlement, Blue water and Green
desert agreed to resolve the dispute to the International Court of Justice.

-QUESTIONS PRESENTED- Page XIII of XVI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
THE APPLICANT, STATE OF BLUE WATER, PUTS FORTH TO THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1.WHETHER UNSC RESOLUTION 5221 PASSED AT THE BEHEST OF GREEN
DESERT VIOLATED BLUE WATER’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THE
PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
GENERALLY?
2.WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT BY GREEN DESERT
AGAISNT GENERAL JUPITER IS VALID ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
3.WHETHER THE STATE OF GREEN DESERT HAS NOT VIOLATED THE
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF BLUE WATER AND SECESSION OF PURPLE
VALLEY IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT.

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS- Page XIV of XVI
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
UNSC’S REFERRAL TO BLUE WATER VIOLATED NORMS OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW
There has been a display of gross abuse of international law from the UNSC despite Blue
Water not being a member of the ICC, and hence there was no prerequisite need for the
forceful referral to the ICC, despite it being the norm that it is nor fair or proper to refer a
non-party such as Blue Water to the jurisdiction of the ICC. There has been an inconsistent
and ineligible referral which has been issued to Blue Water. As nor was there any
commission issued by the UNSC, any resolutions preceding the referral or any procedure
conducted by a legitimate body as such. Therefore, the applicants since Blue Water is nor a
signatory state of the treaty, nor is the state obliged or willing to cooperate and hence cannot
be obliged. Since the state has not even expressly shown consent, the step taken by the
UNSC 9 to refer Blue water is violative of the Vienna Convention of Treaties, 1969,
violative of the norms of International law as well.
THE INTERNATIONAL WARRANT AGAINST GENERAL JUPITER IS
ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT
ICJ has jurisdiction over the present dispute between the Contracting Parties relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. State has no
responsibility of the act committed by Simba warriors as it is a militia entity and General
Jupiter has no control supervisory control over them. Hence General Jupiter is not guilty of
the crime of genocide and international arrest warrant issued by the ICC and UNSC

-SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS- Page XV of XVI
Resolution 5222 is void as he enjoys sovereign immunity. State has the jurisdiction over the
criminal acts committed in its territory. Green Desert should refrain from intervening,
directly or indirectly, in the internal and external affairs within the domestic jurisdiction of
any state under the principle of Non-Intervention under customary international law.
THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ILLEGAL AND
WITHOUT EFFECT
The purported secession of Purple Valley is illegal and without effect as Dolos did not
constitute a people. The Dolos constituted a minority who do not possess any right to self-
determination. In any case, the right of secession does not exist under international law and it
can be claimed as a remedial right only when all other remedies have been exhausted. As an
alternative remedy, the Dolos could claim for greater autonomy in Blue Water. In arguendo, a
right to secede can only be claimed when there are gross systematic and widespread
humanitarian offences committed, which did not occur in Purple Valley. Moreover, Purple
Valley had not attained statehood and despite the state of Blue Water withdrawing its military
troops, Blue Water continued to exercise sovereignty over it. Therefore the region of Purple
Valley and the Dolo movement has breached an international obligation of prohibition on use
of force and acts of aggression. Thus, the UDI of Purple Valley, and the declaration of an
unrecognised secession constitutes an internationally wrongful act.

-PLEADINGS- 1
PLEADINGS
I. THE WHETHER UNSC RESOLUTION 5221 PASSED AT THE BEHEST OF
GREEN DESERT VIOLATED BLUE WATER’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY,
THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS
CHARTER GENERALLY?
There has been a display of gross abuse of international law from the UNSC despite Blue
Water not being a member of the ICC, and hence there was no prerequisite need for the
forceful referral to the ICC, despite it being the norm that it is nor fair or proper to refer a
non-party such as Blue Water to the jurisdiction of the ICC.
A. CLEAR VIOLATION OF SOVREIGNITY OF THE STATE OF BLUE WATER
AND FORCEFUL REFERRAL TO ICC IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND LAW OF TREATIES
As per the Rome Statute, a state that has signed but not ratified a treaty is obliged to refrain
from “acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty1. Israel, Sudan, US have
unsigned the Rome Statute indicating that they have no legal obligations arising from their
signature of the statute. 2 Hence the State of Blue Water the Applicant has no real obligation
or legal compulsion towards this referral.
a. Non-Party States are not obligated to cooperate without their consent
1
Dörr O., Schmalenbach K. (2012) Article 18.
2
CA Bradley Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution (2007) 48 Harvard ILJ 307–336.

-PLEADINGS- 2
Article 87 of the Rome Statute states that court “may invite any state not party to this statue
to provide assistance under this part on the basis of an ad hoc arrangement, an agreement
with such state or any other appropriate basis.” 3Non-Party states are not obligated to
cooperate without their consent. Article 13(b)4 as used by Sudan where the country
remained uncooperative despite its obligations to take any steps it deems appropriate to
cooperate with the investigation. Hence as Blue water has not been part of an ad hoc
arrangement nor are they signatories in the treaty or statute, the referral is in violation of
international rules and norms.
b. Treaties are only binding on principle, that too to only State Parties
Treaties are merely binding on principle, that too to only state parties, as they follow the
concept of “Pacta tettris nec nocent nec proscunt”, where for non- state parties there is a
choice to either benefit or harm from a treaty. Therefore, the obligation of non-party states
to cooperate differs from that of state parties.5
Since Blue Water is not a state party to either the treaty or statute, there is an objection as
they cannot be referred to the ICC as per article 356 of the Vienna Convention of on the law
of the third state, that the means of establishing obligation from the third state is only when
the state expressly accepts that obligation in writing.
c. Treaty does not create obligations or rights of the third party without its consent
3
JS Charme The Interim Obligation of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: Making
Sense of an Enigma (1992) 25 George Washington JIL & Economy 71–114.
4
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (2002) 2187 UNTS 90, Art. 13(b).
5
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (1978), Pre 6 n. 21; 73 6
6
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)Accession to, 83 passim

-PLEADINGS- 3
Article 347 of the said convention also clearly expresses that a treaty does not create either
obligations or rights of the third-party state without its consent. This is why the applicants
feel that the State of Blue water having voluntarily denied, not expressly communicated8
acceptance of being a third party there is neither any obligation nor any statute that can
legally bind them to the treaty.
Therefore, since the applicant is nor a signatory state of the treaty, nor is the state obliged
or willing to cooperate and hence cannot be obliged. Since the state has not even expressly
shown consent, the step taken by the UNSC9 to refer Blue water is violative of the Vienna
Convention of Treaties, 1969, violative of the norms of International law as well.
This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and is a gross abuse of international power as the
ICC or UNSC have neither the right nor authority to issue this referral.In fact, the referral
impinges on their sovereignty as they have the authority to make their own sovereign
decisions as per international law, and the UNSC referral violates that sovereign right as
well as the treaty rules of the Vienna Convention, the rules and also norms of international
law.
The Statute of ICJ provides that a State may recognize as compulsory, in relation to any
other State accepting the same obligation10, the jurisdiction of the Court in legal disputes.
The conditions on which such compulsory jurisdiction may be recognized are stated in
paragraphs (2) of Article 36 of the Statute, which read as follows: the interpretation of a
treaty; any question of international law; the existence of any fact which, if established,
7
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1961), 56 1; 65 1
8
Aust, Modern Treaty Law, pp. 86 ff. 41 Article 9(1).
This reflects the classic rule, Sinclair, Vienna Convention, p. 33.
9
Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice, 5th edn,London, 1979, p. 62. 37 Article 8.
10
Christian J. Tams, James Sloan-The Development of International Law by the International
Court of Justice-Oxford University Press (2013).pdf

-PLEADINGS- 4
would constitute a breach of an international obligation; the nature or extent of the reparation
to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
B. CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE USED BY THE UNSC IN
PRECEDENT CASES WHICH HAS BEEN NEGELCTED SEVERELY AGAINST
THE STATE OF BLUE WATER
The UNSC in earlier cases which have been set as precedents of the council prosecuting
those for crimes against humanity followed a procedure in Darfur in 2004 11. Where they
issued a referral to the ICC following resolutions and investigative techniques to pursue and
prosecute those accused for their crimes. However, there has been an inconsistent and
ineligible referral which has been issued to Blue Water. As nor was there any commission
issued by the UNSC, any resolutions preceding the referral or any procedure conducted by
a legitimate body as such.
a. Clear violation of procedure and investigation as followed in precedent cases
The council had followed a credible process while dealing with the crimes committed in
Darfur, and began by condemning the violence and humanitarian crisis by passing a
resolution 154712. However, in the case of Blue Water the council directly referred the
country to the ICC without any preceding resolutions laying the base or foundations. The
Court’s role as a principal organ of the United Nations gave rise to the argument that, in
case of normative conflict with the other principal organs, and in particular the Council
11
Nidal Nabil Jurdi, the International Criminal Court and National Courts: A Contentious Relationship, Ashgate
Publishing, England, 2011, p. 255.
12
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court , Cambridge University Press, 3
edition 2007), p. 157.

-PLEADINGS- 5
(even when acting under Chapter VII of the Charter), the Court may review judicially the
decisions of those organs. The Court has the competence under the Charter to review the
legality of Security Council resolutions that arise incidentally in contentious proceedings
between states.
b. Violation of national jurisdiction and irregularity in procedure
In 2004, the council felt that the Sudan situation was a threat to international peace and
security and therefore, urged the Sudanese government to take matters forward and resolve
the issues to violence and criminal activities, but in the case with Blue Water, there was no
such respect towards national jurisdiction and a direct referral was made to the ICC13
without informing the state of Blue Water, as to what issues the council had with the nation
and defied the norms of international law and the Vienna Convention by not allowing
national jurisdiction14 sort the issues through their legal system and then resorting to the
international court.
As per Article 36(3) of the UN Charter, the Security Council should also take into
consideration that legal disputes should, as a general rule, be referred by the parties to the
International Court of Justice in accordance15 with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.
Instead of passing a resolution (5221), wherein the case was referred to International
Criminal Court, the UNSC should have referred the dispute to ICJ. Hence ICJ does have the
right to adjudicate over this issue.
13
Jean Galbraith, The Bush Administration's Response to the International Criminal Court, 21 BERKELEY J.
INT'L L. 683, 685 (2003).
14
Schabas, supra note 13, at 702; Gerhard Haffner, An Attempt to Explain the Position of the USA Towards the
International Criminal Court, 3 J. INT'L CRIM. JUST. 323 (2005).
15
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3, 21.

-PLEADINGS- 6
c. No Governing Body appointed to look investigate the issue and direct resolution
before referral was made.
The council in Darfur, which after failing the Sudanese government in handling their affairs,
led to resolution 156416 under Chapter VII which established a commission of inquiry to
look into the humanitarian law and human rights in Darfur of all parties.17 Following which
a commission of inquiry established by the UN investigated reports which, finally led to a
referral at the ICC18.
However instead of passing any preceding resolutions or taking into consideration of both
parties, which only the views of Purple Valley were considered and not of the state of Blue
Water, there was a referral devoid of an inquiry, investigations, preceding resolutions and
no chapters used under UN laws19.
In the event that the Court finds a lack of jurisdiction under the previous heads, the applicant
contends that war crimes are now accepted by most authorities as subject to universal
jurisdiction. The General Assembly in 1968 adopted the Convention on the Non-
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity,
reinforcing the general conviction that war crimes are susceptible to universal jurisdiction 8
, while the four Geneva “Red Cross” Conventions of 1949 also contain provisions for
universal jurisdiction over grave breaches which include wilful killing, torture or inhuman
16
Jason Ralph, International Society: The International Criminal Court and American Foreign Policy, 31 REV.
FOR INT'L STUD. 27 (2005).
17
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/08948.pdf
18
Hans-Peter Kaul, Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction, in 1 THE STATUTE OF ROME AND THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: A COMMENTARY 607 (Antonio Cassese et al. eds., 2002).
19
David Scheffer, The United States and the International Criminal Court, 93 AM. J. INT'L L. 12 (1999).+

-PLEADINGS- 7
treatment, unlawful deportation of protected persons and the taking of hostages. Clearly the
Plutonian Massacre has not been proven to be a case of Genocide.
II. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT BY GREEN
DESERT AGAINST GENERAL JUPITER IS VALID ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?
International Arrest is not in accordance with International Law since it has not been
established that General Jack Jupiter is individually criminally responsible for the actions
proposed to have been, committed during the massacre.
A. ICJ CAN ADJUDICATE UPON THE PRESENT ISSUE
a. Articles 1 and 5 of the Compromis provide an independent basis for jurisdiction
under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court.
According to Article 1 of the Compromis signed and jointly notified to the International
Court of Justice by Blue Water and Green Desert, the parties submit to the jurisdiction of
the Court the questions and the legal issues raised in the Compromis pursuant to Article
40(1)20of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. However, the submission is
subject to the issue of Jurisdiction being debated and argued upon.21Article 5 provides that
the parties are legally bound to accept the decision of the court irrespective of the judgment.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the judgment shall be carried out in good faith and without
20
Article 40(1), UN Charter.
21
Compromis, Article 1.

-PLEADINGS- 8
prejudice to the rights and sovereignty of international states.22Thus, by the special
agreement entered into between the parties, the Court has the jurisdiction to adjudge the
present dispute.23
b. Blue Water and Green Desert have accepted the Compulsory Jurisdiction of ICJ
Alternatively, if the Court finds that there is a lack of jurisdiction under 1.124, the Applicant
contends that the Court has jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the UN Charter, whereby both
the parties have accepted the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ for legal‟ disputes.25
c. The Current issue is applicable to jurisdiction of ICJ.
Article 37 of ICJ statute read with Article 9 of Genocide Convention makes it clear that ICJ
has jurisdiction over the present dispute between the Contracting Parties relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating
to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article
III.
B. ACT OF MASSACRE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED BY THE STATE.
a. The Act committed has no direct link with the state.
“A state sponsored militia entity, ‘Simba Warriors’ opened fire on the innocent Dolo
volunteers”26. It can be inferred from this that a massacre occurred however it was done
22
Compromis, Article 4.
23
UN Charter, Article 36 (1).
24
Compromis
25
UN Charter, Article 36(2).
26
Compromis

-PLEADINGS- 9
without any legal or written sanction provided by the Govt. of Blue Water showing that they
do not have the same attribution and accountability as compared to the Blue water armed
forces, since that is an official government organ and the Simba warriors are merely state
sponsored militia hence the massacre was not a govt order hence it is not a state
responsibility .Since the body of Simba warriors does not fall under the executive,
legislative or judicial organ of the state and exercises its militant operation and hence under
Article 4 of ARSIWA the responsibility cannot be attributed to the State of Blue Water.
b. The Massacre committed is not genocide.
The massacre that occurred in the State of Blue Water is not Genocide as proposed by ICC’s
prosecutor and Green Desert. It can be easily inferred from the line “The movement, though
started on a peaceful note, eventually took on a violent turn with symbols and institutions
representing Blue Water being attacked. Central Blue Water forces were also targeted
attacked and killed.”27that the Dolo Movement took a violent turn and were destroying the
public property of Blue Water and killing Blue Water forces. It turned into an internal armed
conflict affecting the State of Blue Water.
Simba warriors which fired upon the protesters causing death were there without any intent
to commit any systematic attack against a particular ethnicity. Genocide is an organized and
not a spontaneous crime.28There was no systematic attack, no planned killing against any
particular ethnic or national group hence the massacre is not genocide.
27
Compromis
28
According to the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, `a policy
must exist to commit these acts [although] it need not be the policy of a State': Prosecutor v. Tadic(Case No. IT-
94-1-T), Opinion and Judgment,7 May 1997, para. 655.

-PLEADINGS- 10
C. GENERAL JACK JUPITER IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE ICC STATUTE
In the instant proceedings, the accused, General Jack Jupiter, cannot be held guilty for the
crime of genocide against the Dolo’s under Article 6 of the ICC Statute.
a. The victims were not part of a protected group
Under Article 6 of the ICC Statute and Article II (a) of the Genocide Convention, the crime
of genocide requires the intent to destroy a “particular group of people”. The ICJ, too, has
upheld that genocide involves the denial of right of existence to entire groups and not just
collections of individuals.29The definition of such a protected group must be positive in
nature.30 It must be possible to identify such a group on the basis of positive characteristics
that it possesses, and not because it does not have the characters of a particular group.31 The
ICTY also reached the same conclusion, as it held genocide means the denial of right of
existence to positively defined groups, with empirically distinguishable
characteristics.32The reason the crime of genocide has not occurred because the members at
the meeting where-in the massacre took place were not part of a single entity to prevent
further escalation of violence. Therefore, no genocide took place in the present case.
b. The evidence before the ICC has to conclusively prove that genocide can be
attributed to General Jupiter
29
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide International
Court of Justice, May 28, 1951, Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15.
30
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),2007 I.C.J. 191, ¶ 190.
31
Id., ¶ 197.
32
Prosecutor v. MilomirStakic (AJ), IT-97-24-A, (ICTY), Supra Note 15, 22 March 2006, [hereinafter Stakic],¶
28.

-PLEADINGS- 11
Article 66 (3) of the ICC Statute states that guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a settled principle in international law that a party asserting a
case must establish it33 and therefore the respondent must bear the burden of proving his
case.34It is also a long-standing rule of international law that a charge of great severity must
be proved absolutely conclusively for the court to take notice of the same. 35 Moreover, the
same standard of proof applies for attribution with respect to acts of genocide. 36In this
regard, the Court will also consider whether evidence collected is reliable and has any
probative value before it is considered to be admissible.37 In considering the probative value
of evidence, the court will also try and verify the accuracy of the evidence, and examine
circumstances surrounding the collection of such evidence.38 As a result, evidence obtained
from open sources must meet very high standards in order to be admitted. There is nothing
conclusive to suggest that genocide of any sort against the Dolo community can be attributed
to General Jack Jupiter beyond any reasonable doubt.
c. General Jupiter did not have the requisite mens rea to commit genocide against
the Dolo community
The general requirement of mens rea for any crime under international law is that a person
shall be held guilty of a crime only if the material aspects of the same were committed with
knowledge and intent.39 A person has intent where he means to engage in a particular
conduct or give effect to a certain consequence.40 He has knowledge where he is aware that
33
Nicaragua v. U.S., I.CJ.14, 202 (1986).
34
Id.
35
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, ¶ 17.
36
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Supra Note 30, ¶ 209.
37
Prosecutor v. Thomas LubangaDyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment, 14 March 2012, International Criminal
Court (ICC).
38
Id.
39
ICC Statute, Article 30(1).
40

-PLEADINGS- 12
a circumstance exists or that a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.41The
crime of genocide would also require a dolus specialis or specific intent that is separate from
the general mens rea element of knowledge and intent42; this specific intent involves the
intention to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.43 In
genocide, mere discriminatory intent towards a particular group44 is not enough; it has to be
accompanied by willful and deliberate acts to obliterate a particular group. 45The Applicant
submits that General Jupiter did not possess the requisite dolus specialis to carry out
genocide against the Dolo Community. The intention that did exist on General Jupiter’s part
is to prevent any disruption in public peace and stabling occurring from the violent
movement. There, is no evidence to suggest that this was done in furtherance of an intention
to destroy the Dolo community.
d. Arguendo, it cannot be established that General Jupiter had effective control
over the Simba warriors committing genocide
To determine whether a commander is guilty of the genocide committed by his subordinates,
the Court may look into his/her statements in light of the crimes committed and decide on
the necessary implications.46The most important factor remains effective control. If the
alleged perpetrator had effective control over the persons carrying out the acts, then he will
be held liable for the same.47Effective control extends, in this regard, to ideological control,
that is the capacity to give orders to a particular group of subordinates to make them do or
41
42
Katanga, Supra Note 53, ¶ 527.
43
The Prosecutor v Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-A, (AJ), 5 July 2001, ¶ 45-46.
44
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v.
Serbia) 2015 ICJ 3, ¶ 143.
45
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Supra Note 30, ¶ 188.
46
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 263 ff., ¶ 32.
47
The Prosecutor vBagosora et al, Case No. ICTR-98-41- T, Judgment and Sentence, 18 December 2008, ¶
2012.

-PLEADINGS- 13
prevent them from doing something.48Since there is no statement or legal sanction showing
that General Jack Jupiter was present or even commanded the genocide against the Dolo
community the only real evidence is show during the prosecutors, investigation which
cannot be held as ultimatum without any further investigation. and not in the compromise.
Further in the incident where the Simba warriors were shown to open fire, the firing was
clearly intended for the entire crowd and not directed towards a particular community.
Moreover, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that deaths did occur in that
particular incident and if they did, all the casualties were from the Dolo community. As a
result, it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that General Jupiter oversaw the
genocide of the Dolo community.
D. General Jupiter enjoys sovereign immunity.
General Jack Jupiter in not guilty of being individually criminally responsible as he
committed an official act and enjoys ‘sovereign immunity’.
a. General Jack Jupiter enjoys immunity rationae personae.
In describing the rule according immunity ratione personae in the Arrest Warrant case, the
ICJ stated that it applies to ‘diplomatic and consular agents [and] certain holders of high-
ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for
Foreign Affairs’. In the Arrest Warrant case, the ICJ went even further by granting “full
immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability” to certain high-ranking office
holders, which “protect the individual concerned against any act of authority of another State
48
The Prosecutor v. Kajehjeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A- T, Judgment and Sentence, 1 December 2003, ¶ 773.

-PLEADINGS- 14
which would hinder him or her in the performance of his or her duties.”49In international
law it is firmly established that certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the
Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction
in other States, both civil and criminal’ form which it can be inferred that a Home Minister
of a state should also be provided with the same shield.50. Also, the rationale for the
immunity means that it applies whether or not the act in question was done at a time when
the official was in office or before entry to office.51And Since, at the stage of proceedings
during which immunity is raised it will not yet have been established that the state has acted
illegally. Indeed, it may turn out that the allegations made against the state or official are
unfounded. It would therefore be wrong to assert that the state, by acting in a grossly illegal
manner, has deprived itself of the rights which it would otherwise be entitled to in
international law and has implicitly waived its immunity.52. Hence, General Jack Jupiter
enjoys immunity ratione personae as he is the Home Minister of Blue Water and therefore
cannot be tried in foreign or international courts.
E. BLUE WATER HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER ACTS COMMITED IN ITS
TERRITORY
The State of Blue Water the Applicant is obligated under international law to implement its
obligations in domestic law[a] and no other state can exercise jurisdiction over another[b]
49
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14) at § 54;see also
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France),
2008 i.c.j. 177 (June 4) at § 170.

50
Arrest Warrant case, para 51.
51
Arrest Warrant case, supra note 50, at paras 54–55
52
Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts DapoAkandeSangeeta Shah
European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Issue 4, 1 November 2010, Pages 815–852,

-PLEADINGS- 15
by the virtue of the principle that no State is superior to another[c]. The principle of Non-
Intervention under customary international law is violated by UNSC Resolution.
a. State has the jurisdiction over the criminal acts committed in its territory
A State exercises jurisdiction in the field of criminal law on five bases: territory, protection,
nationality of offender (active personality), nationality of victim (passive personality) and
universality.53Territory is the most common, if for no other reason than that it is the only
form of jurisdiction where the State can be sure of actually executing the process of its
courts. In the Lotus case, Judge Moore indicated a presumption favouring the forum
delicticommissi.54One of the earliest criminal law treaties, the Treaty of International Penal
Law, signed at Montevideo on 23 January 1889, stated that: `Crimes are tried by the Courts
and punished by the laws of the nation on whose territory they are perpetrated, whatever
may be the nationality of the actor, or of the injured.'55
Non-Intervention under customary international law [hereinafter “CIL”] 56 imposes a duty
on states to refrain from intervening, directly or indirectly, in the internal and external affairs
within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.57 Domestic jurisdiction of a state is where
state is the sole judge, with sovereign authority to decide freely.58 The manner in which a
53
United States v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 896, 900-901 (1988). Michael N. Schmitt &Leslien C. Green, The
Universality Principle and War Crimes, 71 International Law Studies 17, (1998).
54
SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, 70 (1927).
55
(1935) 29 AJIL, p. 638.
56
Nicaragua, supra note 33.
57
Convention of the Rights and Duties of States art. 8 1992 165 L.N.T.S. 19, [hereinafter ‘Montevideo’].
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625(XXV), Supp. No. 28, G.A.O.R., U.N. Doc.
A/8082 (1970); Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the
Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty 1965, G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), G.A.O.R, 20th Sess., Supp. 14,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/20/2131 (1965) [hereinafter ‘Res. 2131]; Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act of Helsinki (Aug. 1, 1975)
58
Nicaragua, supra note 33, at 124 ;1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, 431(Jennings & Watts eds.,
9th edn, 1992) [hereinafter ‘OPPENHEIM’].

-PLEADINGS- 16
government treats its own nationals in its territory is within its domestic jurisdiction.59 Under
the Principle of Non-Intervention Green Desert should not interfere in the internal matter of
Blue Water by asking the State to handover General Jupiter. Thus, in the Present Case the
Courts of Applicant have the sole authority to adjudicate upon the act of General Jupiter as
accorded by International Law. Article V of the Genocide Convention requires States to
implement its obligations in domestic law, specifically by providing for trial and punishment
of those responsible for the crime. After assessing the customs and conventions in
international law it is submitted that Blue Water has the right to conduct trial for acts
committed in its territory.
b. The principle of Universal Jurisdiction is not applicable in the present case.
Universal jurisdiction quasi delicta juris gentium does not apply in the present case since
the act committed is not Genocide. The act committed in the territory of BW does not
constitute any of the acts which are recognised by CIL which come under the ambit of
universal jurisdiction and since Article 660says that trial should be held by the courts of the
territory where the crime took place and hence the respondent cannot plead Universal
Jurisdiction.
c. Principle Of Complementarity Violated By ICC
The principle of complementarily governs the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction. This
distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions. The
Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and right to prosecute international
59
C.L. Rozakis, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. IV, 812-818 (R. Bernhardt ed., North-Holland, 2000) [hereinafter
‘Bernhardt’].
60
Genocide Convention;

-PLEADINGS- 17
crimes. Article 1 of the Rome Statute states that “the court be complementary to national
criminal jurisdictions.”61 The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where national legal
systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality, are unwilling or
unable to genuinely carry out proceedings62. The principle of complementarily is based both
on respect for the primary jurisdiction of States and on considerations of efficiency and
effectiveness, since States will generally have the best access to evidence and witnesses and
the resources to carry out proceedings.
Therefore, there is a clear violation of this principle as, there was no tribunal or council, and
issuance of an arrest warrant by Pre-Trial Chamber of ICC violated the principle of
complementarity, showing that resolution 5222 is a violation of several legal mechanisms63.
i. As per the Principle of Complementarity the states have the First responsibility and
right to prosecute international crimes
This distinguishes the Court in several significant ways from other known institutions,
including the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the
ICTY and the ICTR). The Statute recognizes that States have the first responsibility and
right to prosecute international crimes. The ICC may only exercise jurisdiction where
national legal systems fail to do so, including where they purport to act but in reality are
unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out proceedings.
61
L. Arbour and M. Bergsmo, “Conspicuous Absence of Jurisdictional Overreach”, in Hebel et al. (eds.),
Reflections on the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of AdriaanBos, TMC Asser Press 1999), at
129-140..
62
M. Bergsmo and J. Pejic, “The Prosecutor”, in Triffter (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court: Observer’s Notes, Article by Article, (Baden-Baden 1999).
63
B. Broomhall, “The International Criminal Court: A Checklist for National Implementation” in ICC
Ratification and National Implementing Legislation, Nouvelles Etudes Penales, (Eres 1999) at 113.

-PLEADINGS- 18
However in the Case ICC issuing international arrest warrant against General Jack Jupiter
incumbent Home Minister of Blue Water ,is in violation of Principle of Complementarity
because in the present case the Applicant had agreed to try General Jupiter according to its
according to its own domestic legal framework.
ii. One State cannot exercise its authority over another State
Expressed by the maxim par in parem non habet imperium, one State cannot exercise its
authority over another State.64 In the words of Chief Justice Marshall in the US Supreme
Court’s decision in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, which is widely considered as
the first judicial assessment of the doctrine of immunity, “[o]ne sovereign being is in no
respect amenable to another.”65 therefore the maxim of par in parem non habet imperium is
applicable in this case. Under act of state doctrine, the acts of a state, carried out within its
own territory, cannot be challenged in the courts of other states (not even if the acts are
contrary to international law, according to the most extreme version of the doctrine.66
d. Prosecutor’s investigation is illegal and without effect
Firstly, the Prosecutor of ICC initiated preliminary investigation into the Plutonian
Massacre to give effect to the resolution 5221 i.e., UNSC’s referral. The State of Blue Water
has always by the Prosecutor post an investigation, to which it didn’t even agree to in the
first place.
64
See Cassese, International Law, 98; Kelsen, International Law, 357–358; Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles,
488; Verdross and Simma, UniversellesVolkerrecht, 763; Lauterpacht, International Law, 317; Aust, Handbook
of International Law, 145; Wirth, “Immunities,” 430; Kalogeropoulou v. Greece and Germany, App. No.
59021/00, 2002-x Eur. Ct. h.r. 421, 129 i.l.r. 537 at 546.
65
The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) at 137.
66
Akehurst,Pg 122

-PLEADINGS- 19
e. The terms put forth by BW in order to conduct the domestic trial of General
Jupiter are fair as per principles of international law.
i. The trial of General Jupiter ought to be held at the end of his mandated time as
serving at his post
As per the 1968 UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity and by the 1974 European Convention on the Non-
Applicability of Statutory Limitations to Crimes against Humanity and War Crime 67, the
Statute of Limitations may not apply to the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948
Genocide Convention.68. Therefore, conducting the trial of General Jack Jupiter after 6
years, when the constitutionally mandated term has ended, should not be an issue. General
Jupiter’s trial should only be conducted after the end of the constitutionally mandated term
of 6 years; otherwise it will lead to further chaos and disorder within the unsettled
population, as he will be unable to perform his duties as the Home Minister.
ii. An in-camera trial does not violate principle of open justice
As per Article 14(1) of ICCPR, if a trial threatens the morals, public order or national
security of a country, then it may be conducted in a manner, which keeps it away from the
eyes of press and public. If GD or the ICC is permitted to conduct the trial of General Jupiter,
the case will be open to public scrutiny. Despite most of Purple Valley population being of
Dolo ethnicity, we as a State cannot neglect the other minorities. Thus, Blue Water is trying
to emphasize on this need of an “in-camera trial” by a domestic tribunal. Blue Water allowed
access of this trial only to 5 journalists to be nominated by the United Nations with the
67
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
68
1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2

-PLEADINGS- 20
approval of Blue Water, even though access of reports of an in-camera trial are not to be
given to anyone.
iii. Exception to Open Justice
Another situation where the principle of open justice can be bended is when the right to
privacy needs to be protected. In such cases, there shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is
necessary in a democracy. Blue Water asks for an in-camera trial by a domestic tribunal
because it feels that if Green Desert or ICC is to conduct the trial, then the presence of the
public and the press at the trial will result in increased stress for the accused, the invasion
of his privacy, and damage to his reputation, which is detrimental not only to General Jupiter
as an individual but also to Blue Water as it will hinder the administration of justice.
III. WHETHER THE STATE OF GREEN DESERT HAS NOT VIOLATED THE
TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF BLUE WATER AND SECESSION OF
PURPLE VALLEY IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT.
Purple Valley held a referendum to secede and become an independent nation with a
separate sovereign identity from Blue Water. Secession is illegal because a group cannot
secede unilaterally merely on the basis of a referendum [A]. Since Purple Valley had not
seceded and remained a part of Blue Water, the recognition by Green Desert is illegal [B].
In the absence of consent from Blue Water, secessionist conflict is ongoing, and recognition
of Purple valley by Green Desert during secessionist conflict is premature 69, thereby
69
ANDREW CLAPHAM, BRIERLY’S LAW OF NATIONS 150 (OUP, 7th edn, 2012) [hereinafter

-PLEADINGS- 21
violating Blue Water’s territorial integrity. Since the parent state of the region of Purple
Valley, the State of Blue Water has not provided any formal recognition of the secession is
undecided and invalid as per international norms.
Since the ethnic group of Dolos is not considered as a ‘people’ as per international norms
and is considered a minority and hence it does not possess the right to self-determination
and the right to secession is not made available to them.
A. SECESSION IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT.
The secession is illegal because self-determination is a right granted to all peoples70and the
Purple Valley do not constitute “people” [a]. In any case, international law does not provide
the right to secede [b]. In arguendo, unilateral secession from Blue Water violates
international law[c].
a. Dolos constitute a minority
UNESCO Meeting of Experts has defined “peoples” as a group containing some or all of
certain common Blue Water people such as a common historical tradition, ethnic identity,
cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity, and common religious affinity, territorial connection,
economic life71. However, Blue Water consists of ethnic Simbas, ethnic Dolos and others,
who have different ethnic, cultural and historical characteristics. Therefore, the Dolos and
citizens of the so called Purple Valley cannot claim self-determination.
‘BRIERLY’].
70
Charter, supra note 10, Art. 1; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999
U.N.T.S. 171 (1966), Art.1 [hereinafter ‘ICCPR’]; International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (1966), Art. 1 [hereinafter ‘ICESCR’]; Friendly Relations
Declaration, supra note 10, Principle 5; Helsinki, supra note 10.
71
U.N. Human Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues, U.N. Doc.A/HRC/7/23, at
6 (2008); U.N., Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious,
and Linguistic Minorities, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1, at ¶16-26 (1979).

-PLEADINGS- 22
However, Dolos constitute a minority in Blue Water. Minority is a group of citizens
numerically inferior to rest of the population of a State, with ethnic, religious or linguistic
characteristics different from rest of the population in a non-dominant position, i.e. in a
defensive position dominated by another nationality72. A proposed classification of
minorities also includes frontier peoples and second-generation immigrants73. Minorities do
not possess right to self-determination since special rights are conferred to them through
international instruments74. They constitute a minority due to their common ethnicity and
historic background. Hence, the Dolos cannot claim the right to self-determination, as they
do not have the numerical majority and dominance and are using their ethnic right to
exercise an unfair use of Blue Water’s sovereign territory in the area of Purple Valley
without any lawful justification and hence are not conferred the right to self-determination.
b. In arguendo, international law does not provide the right to secede.
Although self-determination does not include the right to secede [i], it may be claimed when
all other remedies are exhausted [ii]. Therefore, the Dolos cannot make such claim unless
other options are exhausted. The state of “Purple Valley” is illegal as it has not attained
formal statehood, and Blue Water exercises sovereignty over it. Therefore, encouragement
of Green Desert Army of Purple Valley is an internationally wrongful act
i. Self-Determination does not include right to secede.
72
MAX BOEHM, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X 518 (Macmillan, 1937).
73
P.Monroe, U.N. Doc. E/CN, 4/Sub. 2/46 (June 14, 1949).
74
THOMAS MUSGRAVE, SELF-DETERMINATION AND NATIONAL MINORITIES 181 (OUP, 2000)
[hereinafter ‘MUSGRAVE’].

-PLEADINGS- 23
Self-determination is the right to exercise cultural, linguistic, religious or political autonomy
within the state. Secession involves withdrawal of a group of persons from a state or
repudiation of their obligation to obey state’s laws. A claim for secession comes into conflict
with territorial integrity of state. The Charter, therefore, contemplates right to self-
determination and not a right to secede75. Moreover, UN does not accept a right to secession
against any of its member states76. Therefore, there is no recognized right to secede
encompassed under the right to self-determination.
International law protects territorial integrity of a state, which manifests state sovereignty77,
and exercise of independent authority within its borders78. Premature recognition is granted
durante bello, or during a secessionist conflict whose outcome remains uncertain 79.It
amounts to
Furthermore, recognition is the acknowledgement of an independent politically organized
society80. It involves validation and acknowledgement of independence of the body claiming
to be a state. Recognition is deduced from intention of the recognizing state, which is granted
expressly or impliedly by issuing a formal statement and offering to establish diplomatic
relations with the new state81. Such recognition declares that the foreign community
possesses the required qualifications of statehood82. The Green Desert recognizes a
75
Summary Report of the 6th Meeting of Committee, 6 U.N.C.I.O. 296 (1945).
76
Secretary General U. Thant (4 January, 1970), 7 U.N. MONTHLY CHRONICLE 36 (Feb. 1970).
77
C.L. Rozakis, Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. IV, 812-818 (R. Bernhardt ed., North-Holland, 2000) [hereinafter
‘Bernhardt’].
78
L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL I, PPURPLE VALLEYCE PART I 390 (Jennings &
Watts eds., 9th
edn, 1992) [hereinafter ‘OPPENHEIM’].
79
H. LAUTERPACHT, RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 8 (CUP, 2012) [hereinafter
‘LAUTERPACHT’].
80
Resolution adopted at Brussels on April 23, 1936, 30 A.J.I.L. (Supp) 185 (1936), Art. 1.
81
IVOR ROBERTS, SATOW’S DIPLOMATIC PRACTICE 72 (OUP, 6th edn, 2009).
82
OPPENHEIM, supra note 12, at 127.

-PLEADINGS- 24
referendum as lawful, while extending diplomatic recognition to an independent state
thereby not allowing Purple Valley. Although Green Desert can recognize Purple Valley
only if it fulfills the essentials of statehood provided83 in the Montevideo Convention84; it
granted recognition merely based on people’s will to secede. Therefore, recognition is
premature and violated Blue Water’s territorial integrity.
ii. Secession of Purple Valley requires Blue Water’s consent.
Under CIL, valid secession requires recognition of parent state. The parent state can
prescribe a mode of secession in its constitution. For instance, Constitutions of USSR,
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, Ethiopia,
St. Kitts and Nevis, and Sudan permit secession by a parliamentary resolution or
referendum. Moreover, when referendum was conducted without parent state consent,
statehood was not granted in several instances. The referendum has no legal effect without
further negotiations with the parent state. Therefore, recognition by parent state has always
been regarded as a prerequisite for a valid secession. Secession by plebiscite is not
recognized by the government of Blue Water, and is hence, illegal. Green Desert has
committed an internationally wrongful act. An internationally wrongful act is committed
when it is attributable to the state and it breaches an international obligation85; the conduct
of the Parliament and President of a country is considered an act of the state. Therefore,
encouragement of secession and subsequent promotion of resolutions are attributable to
Green Desert.
83
Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 419.
84
Convention of the Rights and Duties of States 165 L.N.T.S. 19, Art. 1 [hereinafter
‘Montevideo’].
85
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the
International Law Commission, G.A.O.R., 56th Sess., Supp.No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001),
Art. 2 [hereinafter ‘ARSIWA’].

-PLEADINGS- 25
Since Purple valley has not attained formal statehood and the state of Green Desert has
intervened in the internal affairs of Blue Water, owing to the fact that the region of Purple
valley still exists under its control authority and passing referrals and referring the internal
matters to the UN and ICC is an internationally wrongful act and promoting Purple Valley
as a separate state even though it has never attained any such formality. Hence the state of
Green Desert is liable for intervening in the sovereign matters and territory of the state f
Blue Water defying international norms.
iii. Unilateral Secession is not recognized as CIL.
Unilateral secession is a form of secession that takes place without the consent of the parent
state86. State practice shows that unilateral secession has not been accepted outside the
colonial context, and such secessionist activities have been declared illegal. The only
instance where a unilateral declaration of independence was accepted as lawful was in the
case of Kosovo. However, Kosovo’s secession is extraordinary and special because it
consisted of UN-led negotiation process that explored all imaginable settlement options
and failed87. Several states88as well as scholarly writings89 have described Kosovo as a
unique case that does not set a precedent for other secessionist conflicts. The remedial nature
of unilateral secession is also elucidated by this situation. Therefore, CIL requires consent
of the Blue Water consent to permit secession. Since the secession requires the consent of
86
Re, Secession of Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 217 (Canada) [hereinafter ‘Quebec’].
87
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the
Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, Public Sitting,
Uncorrected Verbatim Records (2009) [hereinafter ‘Kosovo Self-Government’].
88
Ahtisaari, U.N.S.C., Report of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General on Kosovo’s Future
Status, U.N. Doc. S/2007/168, ¶ 15 (Mar. 26, 2007).
89
Carsten Stahn, Constitution without a State? Kosovo under the UN Constitutional Framework
for Self-Government, 14 LEIDEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 540 (2001); Orakhelashvili,
Statehood, Recognition and the UN System, 12 MAX-PLANCK YPURPLE VALLEYRBOOK OF UN LAW,
1-44
(2008).

-PLEADINGS- 26
the parent state, such as in the case with of Pakistan and Bangladesh following the Shimla
agreement, the state of Blue water is still has the region of Purple Valley under its sovereign
control. A state can acquire territory of another through occupation only after the property
is derelict and the former owner stops protesting against it. Dereliction involves actual
abandonment of territory with intention of giving up sovereignty over it90.
A state is an entity with a defined territory composed of a permanent population, under the
control of its own government, which has the capacity to engage in relations with other
states.CIL also recognizes these requirements for statehood91. Moreover, as long as the
parent state is still undecided about secession, it cannot be concluded that the secession
conducted by Purple valley is strong enough to maintain control over the territory with
permanence92. This requirement is stricter for seceding entities, which have an existing
adverse claim to its territory93.
Furthermore, a state requires a constitutional mechanism, and the political, technical and
financial capability to conduct international relations with other states94. Purple Valley did
not even sign a declaration before fulfilling the essentials of statehood. Hence, Green Desert
has not attained formal statehood.
Since the state of Blue Water has not provided any recognition or there is no administration
or any provisional status granted formally to the region of Purple valley it continues to be a
90
HANS KELSEN, GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE 216 (Lawbook Exchange, 2009).
91
Arbitration Commission of the EuropPurpleValleyn Conference on Yugoslavia (Badinter Commission),
Opinion No. 1, 92 I.L.R. 162.
92
PETER MALANCZUK, AKEHURST'S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 78
(2002)
[hereinafter ‘AKEHURST’].
93
Colin Warbrick, Recognition of States: Recent EuropPurpleValleyn Practice, in ASPECTS OF STATEHOOD
AND INSTITUTIONALISM IN CONTEMPORARY EUROPE 14-16 (Evans ed., Dartmouth, 1997).
94
AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, THIRD, VOL. 1 73 ¶201 (Louis Henkin
ed., 1987).

-PLEADINGS- 27
mere semi-autonomous region in the state of Blue Water and hence has not attained the
status of being a formal state with sovereign powers or even territory. Therefore, the
promotion of the referrals and recognition and promotion of Purple Valley as a separate
state by Green desert and the remaining 105 countries is ineffective seeing that it continues
to be a mere region Under the sovereign administration of Blue Water.
When a state is forced to withdraw temporarily, it does not amount to dereliction. In Delagoa
Bay, interruption in Portuguese occupation of land by England was not abandonment since
Portugal exercised sovereignty over the land for several years. Blue Water never abandoned
the property of Purple Valley and the illegal referendum did not change that the area
remained part of Blue Water’s sovereign territory. Hence, Blue Water having its
administration, military, etc in place in the area of purple valley it still exercises sovereignty
over it.
b. In arguendo, Purple Valley cannot claim the right to secede unilaterally
Include inter alia torture, enslavement and apartheid there were no systematic attacks
carried out in Purple Valley. There had only been a clash between the Blue Water’s state
sponsored militia and the protestors when the protests had increased in size, intensity and
frequency. Therefore, there cannot be a claim for unilateral secession.
Secessionist conflict remains undecided until parent state provides its consent. A national
group cannot successfully secede by merely expressing their wish to secede95.Secession is
permitted only when the parent state waives its claim to territorial integrity96this is evident
95
Åland Islands (Sweden v. Finland), (1920) 4 L.N.O.J. (Sp. Supp. 8) 5 [hereinafter ‘Åland’].
96
Jure Vidmar, Territorial Integrity and The Law of Statehood, 44 GEO. WASH. INT'L L. REV. 697
(2012).

-PLEADINGS- 28
through State Practice in the Baltic States97, East Timor98, Bangladesh99, and US100. For
instance, Lithuania declared its secession by a referendum, but the EC and the UN extended
recognition only after USSR’s recognition101. Thus, the secessionist conflict in Purple
Valley would continue until Blue Water gives its consent. Since the state of Blue Water has
not provided any form of formal recognition for the claim of secession by the region of
Purple Valley, it continues to be under Blue Water’s sovereign territory.
Right to secede can only be claimed when state resorts to gross and consistent patterns of
crimes or violent oppression violating fundamental rights102. The claim for unilateral
secession is usually made when there are gross humanitarian offences committed by the
state103, like the deliberate violations and crimes against humanity in Kosovo. Humanitarian
crimes are systematic and widespread attacks involving multiple commissions of acts.
Such as torture, enslavement and apartheid were not present at all. There were no systematic
attacks carried out in Purple Valley. Therefore, there cannot be a claim for unilateral
secession.
97
JAMES CRAWFORD, THE CRPURPLE VALLEYTION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 394
(OUP, 2nd edn,2006) [hereinafter ‘CRAWFORD-I’].
98
S.C. Res. 1272, ¶1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1272 (Oct. 25, 1999).
99
G.A. Res. 3203 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/3203 (Sept. 17, 1974).
100
ARTHUR WHITAKER, THE UNITED STATES AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF LATIN AMERICA, 1800-
1830 (Russell and Russell, 1941).
101
JURE VIDMAR, DEMOCRATIC STATEHOOD IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Hart Publishing, 2013).
102
J. Dugard& D. Raic, The Role of Recognition in the Law and Practice of Secession, in
SECESSION: INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES 106, 109 (Marcelo Kohen ed., 2006).
103
P. Radan, International Law and the Right of Unilateral Secession, in THE ASHGATE
RESPURPLE VALLEYRCH COMPANION TO SECESSION 324-7 (A. Pavković& P. Radan eds., Ashgate
2011).

-PRAYER FOR RELIEF- Page XVI of XVI
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THE STATE OF BLUE WATER RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THE COURT TO
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
1. THE REFERRAL ISSUED BY UNSC IS VIOLATIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
2. THE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT BY ICC AGAINST GENERAL
JUPITER IS ILLEGAL AND VIOLATIVE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
3. THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY THE REIGON OF
PURPLE VALLEY IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
AGENTS FOR THE APPLICANT

Applicant Memorial PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Applicant Memorial PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2ND ANSAL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, THE PEACE

PALACE THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

REPUBLIC OF BLUE WATER Applicant

REPUBLIC OF GREEN DESERT Respondent

CASE CONCERNING THE SECESSION AND CRIMES CONCERNIG

INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY IN STATE BLUE WATER

- W RITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE A P P L I C A N T-

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. III

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... X

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................................................................................. XIII

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .......................................................................................... XIV

I. THE WHETHER UNSC RESOLUTION 5221 PASSED AT THE BEHEST OF

GREEN DESERT VIOLATED BLUE WATER’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, THE

PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION, AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

A. CLEAR VIOLATION OF SOVREIGNITY OF THE STATE OF BLUE WATER

AND FORCEFUL REFERRAL TO ICC IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW AND LAW OF TREATIES ..................................................................................... 1

B. CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE USED BY THE UNSC IN

PRECEDENT CASES WHICH HAS BEEN NEGELCTED SEVERELY AGAINST

THE STATE OF BLUE WATER...................................................................................... 4

II. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANT BY GREEN

DESERT AGAINST GENERAL JUPITER IS VALID ACCORDING TO THE

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? ...................................................................... 7

A. ICJ CAN ADJUDICATE UPON THE PRESENT ISSUE ..................................... 7

- W RITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE A P P L I C A N T-

B. ACT OF MASSACRE HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED BY THE STATE. ........ 8

C. GENERAL JACK JUPITER IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE

UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE ICC STATUTE ............................................................. 10

D. General Jupiter enjoys sovereign immunity. ......................................................... 13

E. BLUE WATER HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER ACTS COMMITED IN ITS

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF BLUE WATER AND SECESSION OF PURPLE

VALLEY IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT. ......................................................... 20

A. SECESSION IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT EFFECT. ...................................... 21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...................................................................................................... XV

- W RITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE A P P L I C A N T-

(Dem. Rep. Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 14) ......................................................... 14

(France v. Turkey), PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, 70 (1927) ........................................................... 15

(USA v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 3, 21 ............................................................................................ 6

Australia v. France, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974................................................................ 13

Croatia v. Serbia 2015 ICJ 3 ................................................................................................... 12

Nicaragua v. U.S., I.CJ.14, 202 (1986).................................................................................... 11

Prosecutor v. MilomirStakic (AJ), IT-97-24-A, (ICTY), ........................................................ 10

Prosecutor v. Tadic(Case No. IT-94-1-T) ............................................................................... 10

Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012 ............................. 11

December 2008 .................................................................................................................... 13

The Prosecutor v. Kajehjeli, Case No. ICTR-98-44A- T, "Judgment and Sentence", 1

December 2003 .................................................................................................................... 13

The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812) at 137 ........................................ 19

United Kingdom v. Albania, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949 ................................................... 11

United States v. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 896, 900-901 (1988) ...................................................... 15

- W RITTEN S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE A P P L I C A N T-

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE, RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, THIRD, VOL. 1 73 ¶201

(Louis Henkin ...................................................................................................................... 27

Dörr O., Schmalenbach K. (2012) Article 18. ........................................................................... 1

Hersch Lauterpacht (2012). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge University Press.

Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign Domestic Courts

DapoAkandeSangeeta Shah European Journal of International Law, Volume 21, Issue 4, 1

November 2010, Pages 815–852 ......................................................................................... 15

MAX BOEHM, ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, VOL. X 518

International Law Studies 17, (1998)................................................................................... 15

Books, Treaties and Commentaries