Appeland Final

1
MNLUA INTRA 1 MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………2-3
2.INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. Books………………………………………………...…5-7
2. Judicial Cases……………………………………………8
3. Journals………………………………………...………..8
3.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………….…………………………..9
4. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………10
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………11-13
6.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………….………14
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………15-23
8. SUBMISSION……………………..………………………………………24
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. App Application
2. Art./Arts. Article/Articles
3. Cpt Captain
4. Decl. Declaration
5. Doc. Document
6. ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
7. Ed. Edition
8. e.g. Examples given
9. Fn./Fns. Footnote/Footnotes
10. GA General Assembly
11. Ibid Ibidem
12. ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
13. ICJ International Court of Justice
14. ILC International Law Commission
15. No. Number
16. P./PP. Page/pages
17. Para./Paras. Paragraph/Paragraphs
18. PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
19. Res. Resolution
20. REV. Review
21. SC Security Council
22. Sep. Op. Separate opinion
23. UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
24. UN United Nations
25. UNC Charter of the United Nations
26. US United States
27. V. Versus

3
28. VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
29. Vol. Volume
30. CAT Convention against Torture
31. SUPRA – Above
32. ILR-International Law Review
33. RIAA-The Recording Industry Association for America
34. GAOR-General Assembly Official Records
35. S.I.T- Special Investigation Team
36. GARes- General Assembly Resolution

4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
2. CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
4. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
5. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
6. RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT

(ASR)
7. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
8. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
9. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORD
10. GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

5
BOOKS:
• Ago, R. The intentionally wrongful act of the State, source on international
responsibility (part 1), Addendum to the 8th report on state responsibility by the
Special Rapporteur, 32nd session of the ILC (1980); hereinafter cited as: Addendum to
Report.
• Akande, D., Shah, S. Immunities of State Officials, International Crimes, and Foreign
Domestic Courts. The European Journal of International Law Vol. 21 no.4, 2011;
hereinafter cited as: Akande and Shah.
• Beale, J. H. The Jurisdiction of a Sovereign State. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 36, No.
3, Jan.,1923; hereinafter cited as: Beale.
• Becker, T. Terrorism and the State. Rethinking the Rules of State Responsbility.
Oxford ;Portland (Oreg.) : Hart, 2006; hereinafter cited as: Becker.
• Briggs, H.W. Reservations to the Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of
International Law 093. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1958; hereinafter cited as:
Briggs.
• Brownlie, I. International law and the use of force by states. Oxford : Clarendon
Press, 2002; hereinafter cited as: Brownlie (1963).
• Brownlie, I. Principles of public international law. 5th ed. Oxford [etc.] : Oxford
University Press, 1999; hereinafter cited as: Brownlie.
• Cassese, A. International law. 2nd ed. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005;
hereinafter cited as: Cassese.
• Constantinou, A. The Right of Self-Defence Under Customary International Law and
Article 51 of the UN Charter. Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000; hereinafter cited as:
Constantinou.
• Crawford, J., Olleson, S. The Exception of Non-performance: Links between the Law
of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility. Australian Year Book of International
Law Vol 21, 2000; hereinafter cited as: Crawford.
• Fleck, D. Are Foreign Military Personnel Exempt from International Criminal
Jurisdiction under Status of Forces Agreements? Journal of International Criminal
Justice Volume 1, Issue 3, 2003; hereinafter cited as: Fleck.
• Fox, H. The law of state immunity. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2004;
hereinafter cited as: Fox.
• Gardam, J. Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. Cambridge
University Press, 2004; hereinafter cited as: Gardam.
• Gardiner, R. K. Treaty interpretation. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2010;
hereinafter cited as: Gardiner.
• Gray, C. International law and the use of force. Oxford [etc.] : Oxford University
Press, 2008;hereinafter cited as: Gray.
• Gray, C. The ICJ and the Use of Force. The Development of International Law by the
International Court of Justice (2013); hereinafter cited as: Gray (2013).
• Grimal, F., Melling, G. The Protection of Nationals Abroad: Lawfulness or
Toleration? A Commentary. Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 16 Issue 3
Winter 2011; hereinafter cited as: Grimal and Melling.

6
• Gross, L. Bulgaria Invokes the Connally Amendment. The American Journal of
International Law, Vol. 56 1962; hereinafter cited as: Gross.
• Hambro, E. Some Observations On The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice. 25 British Yearbook of International Law 1948; hereinafter cited as:
Hambro.
• Iqbal, M., Hassan, S. Armed and ready. New Law Journal Issue: Vol 158, Issue 7337,
2008, available at: http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/armed-and-ready
[accessed 19 January 2014]; hereinafter cited as: Iqbal and Hassan.
• Jennings, R. Y. Recent Cases on "Automatic" Reservations to the Optional Clause.
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1958);
hereinafter cited as:Jennings (1958).
• Jennings, R. Y. The Caroline and McLeod Cases. American Journal of International
Law vol 32, n. 1, 1938; hereinafter cited as: Jennings.
• Kelsen, H. Principles of international law. 2nd ed. New York [etc.] : Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1966; hereinafter cited as: Kelsen.
• Kirgis, F. L. Some Proportionality Issues Raised by Israel's Use of Armed Force in
Lebanon.American Society of International Law Insights, Volume 10, Issue 20, 2006,
available at:http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/10/issue/20/some-proportionality-
issues-raised-israels-use-armed-force-lebanon [accessed 19 January 2014]; hereinafter
cited as: Kirgis.
• Klabbers, J. Some Problems Regarding The Object And Purpose Of Treaties. The
Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 1997; hereinafter cited as: Klabbers.
• Larson, A. The Facts, the Law, and the Connally Amendment. Duke Law Journal,
Vol.1961:74; hereinafter cited as: Larson.
• Lubell, N. Extraterritorial use of force against non-state actors. Oxford : Oxford
University Press, 2010; hereinafter cited as: Lubell.
• Mann, F.A.P. The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law. Collected Courses of
the Hague Academy of International Law 111. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1964;
hereinafter cited as: Mann.
• Meessen, K. M. Völkerrechtliche Grundsätze des internationalen Kartellrechts.
Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1975; hereinafter cited as: Meessen.
• Quigley, J. Legality of the United States Invasion of Panama. The Yale Journal of
International Law Vol. 15:276, 1990; hereinafter cited as: Quigley.
• Rogers, W. P. The United States' "Automatic" Reservation to Optional Clause
Jurisdiction of the I.C.J. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 7,
No. 4, 1958; hereinafter cited as: Rogers.
• Ronzitti, N. Rescuing Nationals Abroad Through Military Coercion and Intervention
on Grounds of Humanity, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985; hereinafter cited as:
Ronzitti.
• Rose-Ackerman, S., Billa, B. Treaties And National Security. International Law And
Politics.Vol. 40. 2008; hereinafter cited as: Rose-Ackerman.
• Ryngaert, C. Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford [etc.] : Oxford University
Press, 2008;hereinafter cited as: Ryngaert.

7
• Sanger, A. Immunity of State Officials from the Criminal Jurisdiction of a Foreign
State.International and Comparative Law Quarterly Volume 62, Issue 01, January
2013; hereinafter cited as: Sanger.
• Schachter, O. In Defense of International Rules on the Use of Force. The University
of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 Winter, 1986; hereinafter cited as: Schachter.
• Schmitt, M. N. Counter-Terrorism and the Use of Force in International Law. The
Marshall Center Papers, No. 5, available at:
http://www.marshallcenter.org/mcpublicweb/MCDocs/
files/College/F_Publications/mcPapers/mc-paper_5-en.pdf [accessed 19 January
2014];hereinafter cited as: Schmitt.
• Seibert-Fohr, A. The Fight against Impunity under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 6,
2002; hereinafter cited as: Seibert-Fohr.
• Sepúlveda,M. [et al.]. Human Rights. Reference Handbook, 3rd ed. University for
Peace,Costa Rica 2004); hereinafter cited as: Sepúlveda.
• Shaw, M. N. International law. 6th ed. Cambridge [etc.] : Cambridge University
Press, 2008;hereinafter cited as: Shaw.
• Simma, B. [et al.]. The Charter of the United Nations : a commentary. Volume I. 2nd
ed.Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012; hereinafter cited as: Commentary of the
Charter ofthe UN.
• Singh, N., McWhinney, E. Nuclear weapons and contemporary international law. 2nd
ed. Dordrecht [etc.] : Nijhoff, 1989; hereinafter cited as: Singh and McWhinney.
• Zanardi, P.L. Indirect Military Aggression. The Current Regulation of The Use of
Force (ed.Cassese). Dordrecht [etc.] : Nijhoff, 1986; hereinafter cited as: Zanardi.
• The American Law Institute at Washington D.C. Restatement of the Law the Foreign
Relations Law of the United States. St. Paul Minn. American Law Institute
Publishers. May14, 1986; hereinafter cited as: Restatement (Third) of Foreign
Relations Law.
• Trapp, K. N. Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-
Defence against Non-State Terrorist Actors. The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1, Jan. 2007; hereinafter cited as: Trapp.
• Waldock, C. H. M. The regulation of the use of force by individual states in
international law,Vol 91, Receuil des Cours 467, 1952; hereinafter cited as: Waldock.
• Watson, G. R. Passive Personality Principle. Texas International Law Journal, Vol.
28, Issue 1, Winter 1993; hereinafter cited as: Watson.
• Verdross, A., Simma, B. Universelles Völkerrecht : Theorie und Praxis. 3., völlig neu
bearbeitete Aufl. Berlin : Duncker & Humblot, 1984; hereinafter cited as: Verdross
and Simma.
• World Court and United Nations Charter: The Principle of Effectiveness in
Interpretation,

8
JUDICIAL CASES (ICJ)
1. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6, 12 (June 15)
2. Belgium./Netherland.), 1959 I.C.J. 209, 212(June 20)
3. 1999 BETH A. SIMMONS, TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AND THEIR

RESOLUTION: THE CASE OF ECUADOR AND PERU 3 (U.S. Inst. of Peace,
Peaceworks No.)
4. David Harris Case
5. Netherlands V. U.S. (1928) Permanent court of arbitration
6. Vuolamme V. Finland
7. Mukong V. Cameroon
8. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United

States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14; hereinafter cited
as:Nicaragua case
9. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment,

I.C.J.Reports 2003, p. 161; hereinafter cited as: Oil Platforms.
JOURNAL:
• Duke Law Journal

9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Appeland and Responia are both members of the UN and parties to the statute of ICJ. They
have accepted courts jurisdiction by means of respective declarations under Art. 40(1) of the
ICJ statute and under Art. 38(1) of the statute of the court.

10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
In the shelter valley dispute, appelland requests this honourable court to
adjudge and declare whether:
I. Appelland has title and claim to the shelter valley
II. The reparations were owed to appelland by responia for the incident
involving ahmad and return ahmad to appelland.
II
.a. that the reparations were owed to appelland
b.The inhuman activity by the SIT did not follow the principle of UN Charter,UDHR and
ICCPR.

11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PARTIES TO THE CASE
APPELAND- Situated in the Problemus continent in the middle of Pacific Ocean, at the Eastern
Side of the big mountains. Republic with a Unitary system of govt, house of representatives
with President. Became a member of UN in the year 1957. Well respected urban hub. Trader
of Spice X.
RESPONIA- Situated in the Problemus continent in the middle of Pacific Ocean, at the Western
Side of the big mountains. Became a member of UN in the year 1951. Trader of Sparkium.
TIMELINE
1905- Explorer from Responia found the country of Appeland beyond the big mountains.
Starting of trade between the two countries. (Sparkium and Spice X).
1950- Prison break at Responia with 500 convicts and they started living in a valley in the
mountains which is called the Shelter Valley.
1951- Appeland became member of UN.
1957- Responia became a member of UN.
1978- Deposits of Sparkium was discovered in the mountains.
1981- Villagers of Appeland started to help in mining of Sparkium and started to buy Sparkium
from them.
1989- Appeland started trading of Sparkium in global market.
1998- Responia’s share of global trade of Sparkium wasreduced to 70% from 100%.
2003- Responia’s SIT submitted first report.
2005- Responia’s SIT submitted second report.
2011- Export of Sparkium from Appeland had increased to 40% and Shelter Valley was shown
in the maps of both countries.
2017- Reactivation of SIT.
2018- SIT arrested one mining engineer.

12
2019- Villagers attacked a camp of Responian borders and bombed Responian vehicles.
2019- In March, the valley was captured by Responian army.
2019- In April, Appeland and Responia approached the ICJ.
DISPUTE
In or around 1950, a prison of Responia with 500 convicts was breached and the convicts
escaped to big mountains. Believing mountains to be a holy site, the Responian authorities did
not chase them there. The convicts found a valley in the mountains and started living there.
The convicts began to interact with the habitats of nearby villages and towns of Appeland and
the valley kept growing. In 1978, the people of the valley discovered the deposits of Sparkium.
Minister of Commerce of Appeland when came to know about this, he informally took the
decision to not return the convicts to Responia. The convicts were contacted by some new
settlers of a neighbouring town to make an oral deal to supply raw Sparkium to them. In return
they will give them a percentage of the money they made by selling the Sparkium to traders.
The villagers also helped in mining and soon the access of the convicts to Appeland was
unrestricted. By 1989 Appeland started trading Sparkium in global market and by 1998
Responia’s share of trade of Sparkium in global market was reduced to 70% to 100%. In 2003,
SIT of Responia submitted its first report regarding this matter and it found that refineries were
outside the town limit of Appeland, Appeland authorities were not present near, guards spoke
the language similar to Responian tribes and unnumbered and unmarked trucks transported the
refined products to regular traders of port cities of Appeland and from there traders sold it
across the world. In the second report of SIT in 2005 it found that the valley in the mountains
is called shelter valley and the people living there are mostly Responian convicts, they use
goods made inn Appeland, mines use machineries and techniques of Appeland and chief
mining engineers were from Appeland. The governor of foreign affairs of Responia wrote to
the minister of foreign affairs of Appeland requesting to stop the illegal mining on Responian
territory and withdraw support to the encroachers. In the reply, Appeland refused to admit that
they have any link with encroachers. They also claimed the trade to be legal as it was on their
territory and the territory to be their own. They said that they will investigate about people
living in the shelter valley. The talks led to no resolution but by the year 2011 the export of
Sparkium from Appeland increased to 40% and Shelter valley was shown in the maps of both
countries as part of itself. In 2017, to shut down the mining, SIT approached the villagers and

13
protest started. After that, SIT started encountering Appeland border forces and on 4th
November 2018, SIT arrested a supervisor named, Ahmed who said that he was a Responian
citizen, but he moved to Appeland 20 years ago. He gained citizenship in Appeland by fraud.
Appeland border forces and villagers surrounded them during the interrogation and to save
themselves they tied Ahmed in front of their van and drove that. Some stones struck Ahmed
and he lost his eyesight. In Responian investigation, actions were taken against SIT members
due to human rights violations. In January 2019, the villagers attacked a camp of the Responian
Border Forces and bombed Responian vehicles. The shells, weapons, maps and surveillance
used by Appeland border forces were discovered from the dead attackers. Finally, Responia
sent military forces to claim the valley. Last minute the villagers sent telegrams and messages
to Appeland authorities claiming to be a part of Appeland and requested help. The valley was
captured by Responian army in March 2019. Under global pressure both the countries ceased
fire and after failed talk in April 2019 both the countries approached International Court Justice
for solution.

14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Appelland claims the title to shelter valley under historical priority i.e. first possession.
2. Appelland claims the title under the law of Uti Posseidetis that is the law of possession.
3. Appelland claims the title under Article 3 of Paris which says about peaceful display of
authority.
4. Appellands owes a reparations from the Responia for the matter of Ahmed under article
2(3) of ICCPR which ensures the right of the remedy.
5. Appelland submits that state have a right to investigate in the mater of torture and provide
for a remedy.
6. Appelland submits under G.A.R that there is a right of reparation for the incidents of
ahmed.
7. Appelland submits under Article 2(4) of UN Charter there is prohibition of using of force
which responia did.
8. Appelland submits under Article 9 of UDHR that Ahmed arrests violates human rights.
9. Appelland submits under article 22 of UDHR that Ahmed’s right to social security was
violated by the SIT formed by Responia.
10. Appelland submits under Article 10 of ICCPR that Responia deprived Ahmed of his
liberty and violated his dignity.
11. Appelland submits under article 5 of UDHR, article 7 of ICCPR that Ahmed was
subjected to torture.
12. Appelland submits under article 3 of UDHR that ahmeds right to life and liberty was
violated and Article 9(1) i.e. right to liberty and security.

15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.THAT APPELLAND HAS TITTLE AND CLAIM TO THE SHELTER
VALLEY.
Historical claims to territory are based on historical priority (first possession) or duration
(length of possession) 1. It claims create an underlying entitlement to territory regardless of
whether a state has actual or constructive possession of the land at the time of the claim2.
Historical claims are strong when the territory in question is the claimant group’s homeland
because that “includes both priority and duration and expresses the ultimate case of man land
symbiosis.”3
1
This Note adopts, with certain modifications, the categorization system of Professor
Andrew Burghardt, The Bases of Territorial Claims, 63 GEOGRAPHICAL REV. 225 (1973), who
presents seven categories of territorial claims: effective control, historical, cultural, territorial
integrity, economic, elitist, and ideological. Professor Burghardt’s categories are defined broadly
enough that they provide ready application to the ICJ’s jurisprudence. As this Part
demonstrates, this Note expands upon Professor Burghardt’s classification and further develops
some of his categories. Professor Burghardt is a political geographer best known for his work on
Burgenland, Austria. For alternative systems, see NORMAN J.G. POUNDS, POLITICAL
GEOGRAPHY 252–59 (2d ed. 1972), proposing seven alternative categories of territorial claims
(strategic, economic, ethnic, proximity, sphere of influence, geographical, and acquisition), and
ROBERT STRAUSZ-HUPÉ & STEFAN T. POSSONY, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE AGE OF
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND DICTATORSHIP 278 (1950), which offers a set of
ten criteria for border definition.
2
This Note considers only a small segment of all territorial disputes and only one means
of international dispute resolution, addressing only those disputes adjudicated by the ICJ. For
an examination of why states choose international legal processes for the resolution of
territorial disputes, see generally Beth Simmons, See You in “Court”? The Appeal to Quasi Judicial Legal
Processes in the Settlement of Territorial Disputes, in A ROAD MAP TO WAR:
TERRITORIAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT 205 (Paul F. Diehl ed., 1999).
Furthermore, this Note considers only land disputes; it does not consider maritime
disputes, maritime boundary delimitations, or disputes over islands in which the crux of the legal
question derives from the law of the sea. The nine traditional categories of justifications for
territorial claims apply uniformly only to land disputes.
Several scholars distinguish between territorial disputes and border disputes. See, e.g.,
A.O. CUKWURAH, THE SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 6
(1967); NORMAN HILL, CLAIMS TO TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS 25
(1945); R.Y. JENNINGS, THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 14 (1963);
SURYA P. SHARMA, TERRITORIAL ACQUISITION, DISPUTES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 21–28
(1997). For the purposes of this Note’s inquiry, the difference is immaterial. Border disputes and
territorial disputes both involve, at their core, sovereignty over disputed land. The ICJ’s
judgments in several cases bear out the interdependent nature of these two issues. See, e.g.,
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6, 12 (June 15) (“To decide this
question of territorial sovereignty, the Court must have regard to the frontier line between the
two States”); Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belg./Neth.), 1959 I.C.J. 209, 212
(June 20) (examining the frontier between Belgium and the Netherlands in a territorial
sovereignty dispute); see also SHARMA, supra, at 26–27 (reviewing cases “confirming the
interdependent nature of the two categories”).
3

16
Uti Possidetis
The doctrine posits that title to the colonial territory devolves to the local authorities 4 and
prevails over any competing claim based on occupation5. Thus, uti possidetis assumes that
internal, administrative boundaries are functionally equivalent to international boundaries6.
Elitism
Elitist claims to territory contend that a “particular minority has the right or duty to control
certain territories.”7 Conquerors—who, historically, made such claims most frequently—
often shaped them in terms of divine rights to rule certain territory8. Elitist claims have a
modern and public incarnation in arguments for territory based on superior technological
demonstrates, this Note expands upon Professor Burghardt’s classification and further develops some of his
categories. Professor Burghardt is a political geographer best known for his work on
ten criteria for border definition. See DONALD L. HOROWITZ, ETHNIC GROUPS IN CONFLICT 219–24 (1985)
(discussing self-determination in the context of language); Herb, (discussing ethnic
identity based on “the commonality of language and culture”); David B. Knight, People
Together, Yet Apart: Rethinking Territory, Sovereignty, and Identities, in REORDERING THE
WORLD: GEOPOLITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY,
Juan J. Linz, From Primordialism to Nationalism, in NEW NATIONALISMS
OF THE DEVELOPED WEST: TOWARD EXPLANATION 203, 204 (Edward A. Tiryakian & Ronald).
4
See
27, 1999 BETH A. SIMMONS, TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AND THEIR RESOLUTION: THE CASE
OF ECUADOR AND PERU 3 (U.S. Inst. of Peace, Peaceworks No.) (arguing that border
stability enhances investor confidence and assists exporters).
5
This Note considers only a small segment of all territorial disputes and only one means
of international dispute resolution, addressing only those disputes adjudicated by the ICJ. For
an examination of why states choose international legal processes for the resolution of
territorial disputes, see generally Beth Simmons, See You in “Court”? The Appeal to Quasi Judicial Legal
Processes in the Settlement of Territorial Disputes, in A ROAD MAP TO WAR:
TERRITORIAL DIMENSIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT 205 (Paul F. Diehl ed., 1999).
6
Professor Ratner contends that such boundaries are not
functionally equivalent. See id. (“[A]pplication of uti possidetis to the breakup of states
today . . . ignores critical distinctions between internal lines and international boundaries . . . .”).
7
demonstrates, this Note expands upon Professor Burghardt’s classification and further develops
some of his categories. Professor Burghardt is a political geographer best known for his work on
ten criteria for border definition.
8
Ibid

17
Ability a particular group claims control over a territory by virtue of having the capacity to
develop the land’s potential most fully9. Such claims are consistent with a labour theory of
property law, which grants property rights to the person (or entity) investing labour in the
land, thereby making it productive10.
If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine
which of the states claiming sovereignty posses a tittle/session, conquest occupation etc.
Tittle of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present day international law are either based
on a act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, pre
suppose that the ceding and the cessionary powers or at least one of them have the faculty of
effectively disposing of the ceded territory.11
A state which exercises continuous and peaceful governmental possession has a tittle by way
of occupation if the territory was previously res nullius.12
Under Art. III of the treaty of Paris, and inchoate tittle could not prevail over the continuous
and peaceful display of authority by another state; for such display may prevail even over a
prior definitive tittle put forward by another state.
In Island of Palmas case, “the Netherland found there claim to sovereignty essentially on the
tittle of peaceful and continuous display of state authority over the island. Since this tittle
would in international law prevail over a tittle of acquisition of sovereignty not followed by
actual display of state authority.”13
An inchoate tittle however cannot prevail over a definite tittle founded on continuous and
peaceful display of sovereignty.
Taking of possession was generally regarded as being wholly sufficient per se to establish
immediately a right of sovereignty. “certain types of activities invoked by Bahrain such as the
drilling of artesian wells be considered as sufficient to support Bahrain claim that it has
sovereignty over it.14The state practise indicates that the territories inhabited by people
having a social organisation is not regarded as terra nullius.
Here, Appeland is situated to the east of the big mountains in an island situated in the
continent of Problemus in the middle of Pacific Ocean. During 1950 around 500 convicts
from a prison of Responia escaped into the big mountains and found a valley in the
mountains. In light of the authorities in Appeland co-operating with the authorities in
Responia, they made a home in the mountains. The convicts also began to interact with the
villagers and towns near the mountains in Appeland and slowly the valley community kept
growing. In 1978, one of the people living in the mountains discovered deposits of Sparkium.
9
Ibid
10
See JOHN LOCKE, SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT ¶ 27 (Richard H. Cox ed.,
Harlan Davidson 1982) (1690) (“Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath
provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own,
and thereby makes it his property.”).
11
David Harris Case and material on International Law 7th edition
12
Ibid
13
Netherlands V. U.S. (1928) Permanent court of arbitration. Sole arbitrator: Huber. 2 R.I.A.A. 829.
14
Judgement, merits, I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 197.

18
In the days to come the convicts found that they had more access to the villages and towns
near the mountains in Appeland. Some new settlers in a neighbouring town contacted the
convicts. An oral idea struck, the convicts were to supply them raw Sparkium and the
villagers would give them a percentage of the money they made by selling the Sparkium to
the traders. The villagers helped the convicts procure materials for mining and in setting up
mines of Sparkium. This was in 1961, soon the access to the convict community to Appeland
was unrestricted. Some of them even settled in neighbouring towns. Some of the people from
the towns settled in the valley and the population of the valley kept growing. In a 2018
counting, there were around 4329 people in the valley.
Therefore, Appeland has a tittle and claim to the shelter Valley.

19
II.THAT THE REPARATIONS WERE OWED TO APPELAND BY

RESPONIA FOR THE INCIDENT INVOLVING AHMED AND
RETURN AHMED TO APPELAND.
II.1. THAT THE REPARATIONS WERE OWED TO APPELAND
Reparation is the act of making aments form a wrong; compensation for injury or wrong
esp.15
Art. 2(3). Of ICCPR states that, “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To
ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have
an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting
in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his
right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by
any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop
the possibilities of judicial remedy;(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce
such remedies when granted.”
It ensures that rights recognized in ICCPR will be respected and be available to everyone
within the territory of those states who have ratified the covenant.
According to General Comment No. 20 on Art.7 of ICCPR human rights committee indicated
that state must act to prevent investigate and punish acts of torture etc and provide a remedy
for the victim.
In Vuolamme V. Finland16 , as the committee stated, “the assessment of what constitutes
inhuman or degrading treatment falling within the meaning of Art.7 depends on all the
circumstances of the case such as the duration and manner of the treatment, it’s physical or
mental effects as well as the sex, age and state of health of the victim.
According to Art. 14 of CAT, “Each state party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim
of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.”
According to the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a remedy and Reparation
for victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious violations of
International Humanitarian Law adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly Resolution
60/147 of 16 December 2005(VII)-Victim’s right to remedies in cognizance with ASR17
11.Remedies for gross violation of International human rights law and serious violations of
International humanitarian law include the victim’s right to the following as provided for
under international law:
a) Equal and effective access to justice;
15
Black’s Law Dictionary, pg.1301
16
HRC Report, G.A.O.R., 44th Sess., Supp. 40, p.249 (1989).
17
Art. 31, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38

20
b) Adequate, effective, and prompt reparation for the harm suffered.
IX. Reparation for harm suffered
15. Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing
gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international
humanitarian law. Reparation should be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the
harm suffered. In accordance with its domestic laws and international legal obligations, a
State shall provide reparation to victims for acts or omissions which can be attributed to the
State and constitute gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of
international humanitarian law. In cases where a person, a legal person, or other entity is
found liable for reparation to a victim, such party should provide reparation to the victim or
compensate the State if the State has already provided reparation to the victim.
17. States shall, with respect to claims by victims, enforce domestic judgements for
reparation against individuals or entities liable for the harm suffered and endeavour to
enforce valid foreign legal judgements for reparation in accordance with domestic law and
international legal obligations. To that end, States should provide under their domestic laws
effective mechanisms for the enforcement of reparation judgements.
18. In accordance with domestic law and international law, and taking account of individual
circumstances, victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious
violations of international humanitarian law should, as appropriate and proportional to the
gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each case, be provided with full and
effective reparation, as laid out in principles 19 to 23, which include the following forms:
restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
19. Restitution should, whenever possible, restore the victim to the original situation before
the gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international
humanitarian law occurred. Restitution includes, as appropriate: restoration of liberty,
enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life and citizenship, return to one’s place of
residence, restoration of employment and return of property.
20. Compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage, as
appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the violation and the circumstances of each
case, resulting from gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations
of international humanitarian law, such as:
(a) Physical or mental harm;
(b) Lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits;
(c) Material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential;
(d) Moral damage;18
Here the S.I.T. of Responia on 4th November 2018 arrested supervisor named Ahmed at one
of the mines and interrogated him. When surrounded by Appeland border forces and villagers
of Appeland they tied Ahmed in front of their van and drove through. When the S.I.T. tied
Ahmed in front of their van to save themselves, some stones struck Ahmed and he lost his
18
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/RemedyAndReparation.aspx

21
eyesight. This cruel and degrading treatment was gross violation of his human rights. So in
the light of all the aforesaid provisions the reparations were owed to appelland by Responoia
for the incident involving Ahmed
Article 34 of International Law Commission’s draft article talks about responsibility of states
for internationally wrongful acts lists restitution, compensation and satisfaction as the forms
of reparation.
It is a general principle of public international law that any wrongful act i.e. any violation of
an obligation under international law gives Reparation for violations of international
humanitarian law rise to an obligation to make reparation.19
II.2. THAT THE INHUMAN ACTIVITY BY S.I.T. DID NOT FOLLOW

THE PRINCIPLE OF UN CHARTER, UDHR AND ICCPR
Art. 2(4) of the Charter of the UN, the prohibition to use force or threat of force, is declared a
cornerstone of the charter of the UN and regarded as jus cogens by the ICJ and ILC. 20 The
relevance of the principles of non-use of force and non-intervention have been emphasised
thoroughly in ICJ judgments21 and GA resolutions22. Art. 2(4) is a strict prohibition; and
incursion into the territory of another state constitutes an infringement of Art. 2(4).23
Art. 9 of UDHR states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Detention is the act of keeping back or withholding, either accidently or by design, a person or
thing.24
As stated in Mukong V. Cameroon25, “As to the conditions of detention in general, the

committee observes that certain minimum standards regarding the condition of detention must
be observed.”
19
Permanent Court of International Justice, Factory at Chorzow (Claim for Indemnity) case, (Germany v.
Poland), (Merits), PCIJ (ser. A) No. 17, 1928, p. 29. See also Article 1 of the Articles on the Responsibility of
States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001: “Every
internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.” UN Doc.
A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, 26 July 2001 (hereinafter “ILC Articles on State Responsibility”).
20
Nicaragua, para. 183; Armed Activities, para. 148; Construction of a Wall (Sep. op.
Elaraby), p. 254; Oil Platforms (Dis. op. Elaraby), p. 291; Oil Platforms (Sep. op.
Kooijmans), para. 46; Oil Platforms (Sep. op. Simma), para. 6; Yearbook of ILC (1996-II), p.
247.
21
Nicaragua, paras. 184-185; Corfu Channel, p. 35.
22
Friendly Relations Declaration; UN Doc. A/RES/42/22; UN Doc. A/RES/2160(XXI); UN
Doc. A/RES/32/150; UN Doc. A/RES/2936(XXVII); UN Doc. A/RES/107(S-1).
23
Commentary of the Charter of the UN, p. 123; Gray (2013) p 9-10.
24
Black’s Law Dictionary
25
(1995) 2 I.H.R.R. 131.

22
Art. 22 of UDHR stipulates Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security,
and is entitled to realisation, through national effort and international corporation and in
accordance with the organisation and resources of each state, of the economic, social and
cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Here the S.I.T. of Responia on 4th November 2018 arrested a supervisor at one of the mines
and interrogated him. When surrounded by Appeland border forces and villagers of Appeland
they tied Ahmed in front of there van and drove through. Therefore, the conditions of Art. 2(4)
of the charter of the UN were violated.
Article 10 of ICCPR stipulates that, “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
Appeland submits that the inhuman activity carried out by S.I.T. of Responia constituted use
of torture or to, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of
Art. 5 of the UDHR in cognizance with Art. 7 of ICCPR which states that No one shall be
subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
According to CAT Part I Art. 1, “Torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering
whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining
from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or
a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity.
In Vuolamme V. Finland26 , as the committee stated, “the assessment of what constitutes

inhuman or degrading treatment falling within the meaning of Art.7 depends on all the
circumstances of the case such as the duration and manner of the treatment, it’s physical or
mental effects as well as the sex, age and state of health of the victim.
The right to life, liberty and security of person is contained in Art. 3 of the UDHR.
Also, according to Article 9 subclause (1), “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of
his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by
26
HRC Report, G.A.O.R., 44th Sess., Supp. 40, p.249 (1989).

23
law”. Subclause (2), “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the
reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.”
Art. 9 of ICCPR protects all categories of person detained by the state, including illegal
immigrants and the mentally disabled, not just suspected criminals.27
Here, when the S.I.T. tied Ahmed in front of their van to save themselves, some stones struck
Ahmed and he lost his eyesight. This cruel and degrading treatment was gross violation of his
human rights, personal security and dignity according to the aforesaid provisions.
The provisions for the implementation of ICCPR shall apply without prejudice to the
procedures prescribed in the field of human rights by or under the constituent instruments and
the conventions of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies and shall not prevent the
States Parties to the present Covenant from having recourse to other procedures for settling a
dispute in accordance with general or special international agreements in force between them
as stated in Art. 44 of ICCPR.
27
Pg.588 David Harris Cases and materials on International Law

24
SUBMISSIONS:
For the reasons advanced above, Appelland respectfully requests this Honourable Court to
adjudge and declare that:
1. Appelland has title and claim to the shelter valley
2. The reparations were owed to Appelland by Responia for the incident involving Ahmed and
return Ahmed to appelland.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for the Appelland.

Appeland Final

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Appeland Final

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

MNLUA INTRA 1 MOOT COURT COMPETITION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

1. STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

2. CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

3. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

4. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

5. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

6. RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT

7. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION

8. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

9. GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORD

10. GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

2. Belgium./Netherland.), 1959 I.C.J. 209, 212(June 20)

3. 1999 BETH A. SIMMONS, TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AND THEIR

4. David Harris Case

5. Netherlands V. U.S. (1928) Permanent court of arbitration

8. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United

9. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment,

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

1951- Appeland became member of UN.

1957- Responia became a member of UN.

1978- Deposits of Sparkium was discovered in the mountains.

1989- Appeland started trading of Sparkium in global market.

2003- Responia’s SIT submitted first report.

2005- Responia’s SIT submitted second report.

2017- Reactivation of SIT.

2018- SIT arrested one mining engineer.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

2019- In March, the valley was captured by Responian army.

2019- In April, Appeland and Responia approached the ICJ.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

II.THAT THE REPARATIONS WERE OWED TO APPELAND BY

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

II.2. THAT THE INHUMAN ACTIVITY BY S.I.T. DID NOT FOLLOW

As stated in Mukong V. Cameroon25, “As to the conditions of detention in general, the

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

In Vuolamme V. Finland26 , as the committee stated, “the assessment of what constitutes

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

1. Appelland has title and claim to the shelter valley

Agents for the Appelland.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLAND

S-ar putea să vă placă și