1.

DECLARE THAT RESPONIA HAS TITLE AND CLAIM TO THE SHELTER

VALLEY

1.1 RELIGIOUS EFFICACY AS A FACTOR TO CLAIM

Earlier in the history , the indigenous population of Responia which lied to the west of the
holy big mountains had formed itself into various tribes. These tribes had a close
association with each other on the basis of language and similar cultures.

Over years , the people of Responia believed in worshipping. It worshipped the gods of
nature and the chief god amongst these gods of nature was the mountain god.

Responia geographically lies of the west of the big mountains which runs north to south to
the entire width of the continent of Problemus. This shows that the nature worshiping
country of responia had been naturally blessed by a huge stretch of mountains which was
the chief god amongst all the gods of nature.

How these big montains could help as a strong factor in deciding the claim of shelter valley
in favour of Responian people is based on certains assertions mentioned below :

1.1.1 CLOSE ASSOCIATION :

Since the history , the tribal people of Responia have been devotional who
worshipped the gods of nature among whom the mountain god was supreme.
The religious efficacy of the mountains have always been of the paramount interest
within the people of Responia. Therefore , it is quite evident historically that the
holy big mountains have a direct and close association , establishing a religious link
with the people of Responia.
1.1.2 KEY FACTOR IN THE UNIFICATION OF THE TRIBES

The people of Responia had formed themselves into various tribes who shared
similarity of language and culture.
The holy big mountains played a key role in the unification of the various tribes as
a basis of the formation of the Responian territory as the tribes were in close
association with each other in terms of culture and collectively worshipped the holy
mountain as god.
The holy big mountains was an important factor under which all the Responian tribes
were one. One thing that was culturally similar between all the tribes of Responia
was holding the same holy belief for the mountains.

1.1.3 NATURAL FRONTIER

The mountains had been considered as god like by the people of Responia because
they were big and ran from north to south of the entire width of the continent of
problemus acting as a big natural frontier which protected the responian people from
invasion , adverse climatic conditions and acted as a protective boundary for all.
Because of the huge and protective structure of the mountains , the mountains act no
less than a god like image to the Responian people. This geographical proximity of
the big mountains to the nature worshiping Responians and the importance of the
mountains for the people cannot be avoided.

1.1.4 CULTURAL HERITAGE

Cultural heritage is defined as the legacy of cultural property along generations in

order to maintain and exploit it and to further deliver it to future generations. More
precisely, the definition of cultural heritage is trifold: Cultural Heritage is composed
of Tangible Cultural Heritage, Intangible Cultural Heritage and Natural Heritage.
Tangible Cultural Heritage includes all tangible cultural goods including
(i) movable cultural heritage, e.g., paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts,
etc.,
(ii) immovable cultural heritage, e.g.,
monuments, archaeological sites, etc. and
(iii) underwater cultural heritage, e.g., shipwrecks, underwater
ruins and cities, etc. Intangible Cultural Heritage includes knowledge and techniques
as well as tools, crafts and cultural places associated with them, representations,
expressions and practices which can be recognized by communities, groups and, in
some cases, individuals as part of their cultural heritage. More specifically,
intangible cultural heritage include oral traditions and expressions, linguistic and
artistic cultural heritage, social practices, rituals and festivities, knowledge and
practices concerning nature and the universe as well as know-how linked to
traditional crafts. Natural Heritage includes all natural monuments which may
consist of various physical and biological formations. It further includes geological
and physiographic formations and areas where biodiversity (flora and fauna)
develops. Finally, it refers to all natural landscapes of global scientific value or of
particular natural beauty Culture and its heritage reflect and shape values, beliefs,
and aspirations, thereby defining people's national identity.
It is important to preserve our cultural heritage, because it keeps our integrity as
people. The big mountains which were holy for the people living in Responia from
a long time acted as a cultural heritage of for the people of Responia .
A similar case is of the Great Burkhan Khaldun Mountain where the mountain and
the land around it are considered sacred and holy.
Under this case it was established that protection needed to be established for cultural
heritage to ensure that no mining or extractive industry will be permitted within the
property.
Similarly in our case where Appelland is supervising the mining activities over the
shelter valley which is present inside the holy stretch of big mountains need to be
immediately stopped and the economically rich big mountains which are the cultural
heritage need to be protected. It must be the duty of the state to ensure against any
sacrilege.
The abovementioned factors establish a strong link and association of the holy big
mountains to Responia. To prove the claim of Responia over shelter valley could
 easily be proved and claimed by proving the holy big mountainsul as a part and
territory belonging to the state of Responia.
Furthermore The progressive development of the laws of armed conflict led to the
simultaneous modernization of existing framework for the protection of cultural
heritage during periods of armed conflict; specifically, Protocols I and II of 1977 to
the Geneva Convention of 1949. Protocol I deals with international armed conflicts
and Protocol II with non-international armed conflicts. It is worth noting that art.53
of Protocol I relating to cultural objectives and areas prohibits any kind of hostile
act against historical monuments, works of art, or places of worship which constitute
cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples as well as their use in any military effort or
use of them as the subject of retaliation.
Herein the State of Appelland is conducting hostilities over the said area which
grossly violates Protocol 1 article 53.
Since the abovementioned assertions clearly establish a strong link and association
of the mountains with the Responia ,the title over the shelter valley is justified.

1.1.5 ETHINICITY

The justifications that states offer in support of their actions play an important role in shaping
territorial conflicts between states. During the past forty years, territorial claims against
neighbouring states have almost always been justified as attempts to recover land that had been
“wrongfully' ’taken away.

Furthermore there are certain salient territorial issues i.e. involvement of homeland territory,
ethnicity, or a long history of sovereign rule, etc , are more likely to lead to a militarized
interstate dispute.

For such a dispute to be an ‘ethnic interstate territorial dispute’, there has to be certain pre
requisites which are:-

1) Territory inhabited by a large plurality or majority belonging to a specific ethnic group,

2) That the said territory is claimed by two different states, and

3) Whereby the territory is claimed by both parties for the purpose of bringing their own
kinsmen within their own borders.
Herein, these conditions can be followed clearly and be deciphered quite evidently in the
dispute between Appeland and Responia and thus, this dispute can easily be considered to be
an “ethnic interstate territorial dispute” and thus the claims by the Responian authorities on the
basis of history and culture of the valley gets more weightage. This is because, one of the most
vital aspect of an ethnic group is the Cultural Heritage and the History of the said group of
people.

In some cases, a minority living in a particular piece of territory can be sufficient if the land on
which they live holds special significance to one of the claimants.

Similarly the claim by the Responian State over the valley as well as the holy mountain is of a
very special significance to the Responian citizens, they consider it as their most sacred holy
support and they also consider the mountain to be their protector and the people of Responia
worship the mountains with all faith and dedication, and this proves the special significance of
the mountain to the claimants from Responia

In furtherance to this, also at the mountain, in the shelter valley, the people Residing there are
the citizens of Responia historically and originally who were convicts in Responia and later on
flourished in that said region thus it can be considered as minority living in a particular piece
of territory.

Examples to this claim are Kosovo to Serbia, the West Bank to Israel and possibly bits of
Ukraine to Russia.

Also, ethnic tensions in disputed territory are used as a pretext by one of the conflict parties to
foment possible secession and/or gain control over such territory. Already the most escalatory
factor in relation to territorial conflicts, the stoking of ethnic tensions is therefore something to
be closely watched. In the past, we saw this occur when Germany claimed land inhabited by
people of German descent before WWII.

In the 1980s, such claims were rife in the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute; and of course in the
run-up to the Bosnia and Kosovo wars. Today, we see such claims turn up between Sudan and
South Sudan and in the conflict in Ukraine.
Henceforth on the grounds of Ethnic consanguinity, the claim of Responia over the Holy
Mountains and the shelter valley is a valid one.

1.1.5 Historical Claim

Historical claim or Irredentism is any political or popular movement that seeks to claim or
reclaim and occupy a land that the movement's members consider to be a territory from their
nation's past on the basis of the historical and cultural evidences of the people residing into
that territory.

Basically Historical claim refers to a scenario wherein a particular country can claim
sovereign control over some other territory on the grounds of having a historical nexus that of
significant importance with the same.

There have been evidences from the past when states have claimed territories on the basis of
Historical significance of the territory along with residing members at a particular part of a
land , these are being :-

 Russia – Ukraine dispute regarding Crimea :-

In 2014, Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in a move that violated the territorial
integrity of the former Soviet republic, and sparked a war that has displaced nearly 2
million people and destroyed the country’s infrastructure. Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s justifies the aggression, in part, by asserting that Crimea is mostly comprised
of ethnic Russians and henceforth used the principle of Historical and Ethinic
consanguinity to claim Crimea
  Annexation of Goa by Indian forces :-

The Annexation of Goa was the process in which the Republic of India annexed the
former Portuguese Indian territories of Goa, Daman and Diu, starting with the "armed action"
carried out by the Indian Armed Forces in December 1961. In India, this action is referred as
the "Liberation of Goa". In Portugal and elsewhere it is reffered to as the "Invasion of
Goa". Following the end of Portuguese rule in 1961, Goa was placed under military
administration headed by Kunhiraman Palat Candeth as Lieutenant Governor. On 8 June
1962, military rule was replaced by civilian government when the Lieutenant Governor
nominated an informal Consultative Council of 29 nominated members to assist him in the
administration of the territory.

The brief conflict drew a mixture of worldwide praise and condemnation. In India, the action
was seen as a liberation of historically Indian territory.

 Albania :-

Greater Albania or Ethnic Albania as called by the Albanian nationalists themselves, is an

irredentist concept of lands outside the borders of Albania which are considered part of a
greater national homeland by most Albanians based on claims on the present-day or historical
presence of Albanian populations in those areas. This example shows how Albania claimed
the land on the basis of historical presence of their populations over an area.

 Bulgaria

Based on the territorial definition of a historic Bulgarian state, a "Greater Bulgaria"

nationalist movement has been active for more than a century that would annex most
of Macedonia, Thrace, and Moesia. This annexation is entirely on the basis of the definition
of a historic bulgarian state, thus supporting the concept of annexing a territory on the basis
of it's historic and ethnic background.

 Germany
A main point of Nazi ideology was to reunify all Germans either born or living outside of
Germany to create an "all-German Reich". These beliefs ultimately resulted in the Munich
Agreement, which ceded to Germany areas of Czechoslovakia that were mainly inhabited by
those of German descent, and the Anschluss, which ceded the entire country of Austria to
Germany; both events occurred in 1938. This agreement supports the annexation by a state on
the basis of the inhabitants at a place, the inhabitants being the descendants of the state.

Many states formalize their irredentist claims by including them in their state's legal
documents, or through other means of legal enshrinement like showing that particular
territory into their state's map. Such territorial claims are justified on the basis of real or
imagined national notions of historic territorial, religious or ethnic affiliations.

The Responian authorities are claiming the valley to be their own on the basis of the ethnicity
of the people residing there and even the similarities of language and culture followed by
residents of the state and the valley.

Thus, the valley was shown in the map of Responia and this will be considered as a legal
document of the state, and concreted their claim on the valley on the basis of historical and
ethnic affiliations.

2. Geographical Contiguity as a factor of claim

Contiguity or geographical Contiguity as it is sometimes called is a concept that has been raised
in many disputes about territory and its significance in International law. Firstly, in the law of
sea the principle of geographical Contiguity will be important in determining disputes about
entitlement to a territorial sea or continental shelf.

Secondly, while Contiguity is a factor that can arise and determine the manner in which a state
presents its case. Disputes about territory raise popular passions and it is not unknown for a
state to argue its case both on legal grounds and political grounds.
Furthermore the principle of Contiguity is important in raising a presumption of effective
occupation ; thus in the Eastern Greenland case1 ,the Hon’ble court of International Justice was
prepared to take into account the factor of Contiguity in concluding that Denmark enjoyed
sovereignty over Greenland when the actual area of settlement was limited. In this sense
Contiguity may be preyed in aid as a method of interpreting other evidence.

Thirdly, arguments based on geographical Contiguity may be raised in the context of

submissions based on historical continuity. It is arguable that a number of most difficult
territorial disputes in the modern world give rise to these features. To an extent these arguments
are present in the disputes involving the status of Gibraltar( in the claim by Spain), in Falkland
Islands ( in the claim by Argentina) and in Northern Ireland ( in the claim by the Republic of
Ireland); in all three , the claimant relies upon geographical Contiguity and Historical
significance .

Further it is worthy of note that Iraq’s claim on Kuwait in 1960’s and in 1990 were based on
the arguments deriving out of Geographical Contiguity and Historical claim.

Furthermore in the Judgment of the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia
v. Thailand)2 ,Cambodia complained that Thailand had occupied a piece of its territory
surrounding the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear, a place of pilgrimage and worship for
Cambodians, and asked the Court to declare that territorial sovereignty over the Temple
belonged to it and that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw the armed detachment
stationed there since 1954. Thailand filed preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction,
which were rejected in a Judgment given on 26 May 1961. In its Judgment on the merits,
rendered on 15 June 1962, the Court noted that a Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 provided that,
in the area under consideration, the frontier was to follow the watershed line, and that a map
based on the work of a Mixed Delimitation Commission showed the Temple on the Cambodian
side of the boundary. Thailand asserted various arguments aimed at showing that the map had

1
Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Denmark v Norway, Judgment, PCIJ Series A/B No 53, ICGJ 303 (PCIJ
1933), 5th April 1933, League of Nations (historical) [LoN]; Permanent Court of International Justice
(historical) [PCIJ]

2
Cambodia v. Thailand, 15 June 1962
no binding character. One of its contentions was that the map had never been accepted by
Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it, it had done so only because of a
mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded to the watershed line. The Court found
that Thailand had indeed accepted the map and concluded that the Temple was situated on
Cambodian territory. It also held that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any
military or police force stationed there and to restore to Cambodia any objects removed from
the ruins since 1954. In this case historical and cultural claim over the temple was backed by
the geographical Contiguity that of following watershed line as per a treaty

Henceforth, it is quite evident that the claim of Responia over Holy Mountains is primarily
backed by Cultural and Historical claim and is furthermore reinforced by the principle of
Geographical Contiguity ,wherein the mountains are an important aspect of Geographical
advantage Responia receives from time immemorial. Furthermore these mountains are
geographically aligned along with the borders of Responia, providing a tactical advantage over
illicit entry in the state. Also it is quite evidently expressed in the factual Apparatus of the case
that the state of Appelland was formulated much lately after the formulation of Responian
Kindom and also the citizens of Appelland never tried to scale the mountains as they considered
them as too steep, whereas on the contrary Responia has been in existence from time
immemorial formerly in form of different tribes who later on clubbed into becoming one nation,
the reason they did not scaled the mountains was out of respect to the god-like stature the
mountains posses in their culture.

Therefore from the above mentioned attributes, it can be deciphered that Responia’s Claim
over the Mountains and the Shelter Valley was a valid one
2. Appelland has no locus standi to bring in a claim on behalf of Ahmed.

2.1 Ahmed is primarily citizen of Responia and henceforth Responia holds rights over
it’s own citizens.

It is crystal clear from the factual matrix of the case that Ahmed was primarily a Responia
Citizen. It was accepted and confessed by Ahmed during his interrogation by the SIT instituted
by the Kingdom Of Responia that Ahmed was legally carrying documents that proves he is
indeed an Responian citizen. Furthermore he attained the citizenship documents of Appelland
which were forged and were not legally acceptable as per provisions of international law.

Article 7 of European convention on nationality furthermore throws light on the issue of Loss
of nationality ex lege or at the initiative of a State Party. It states that a person can loose
citizenship on acquisition of the nationality of the State Party by means of fraudulent conduct,
false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant3.

This principle clearly render Appelland’s claim over Ahmed as his citizenship of Appelland
stands null and void on the grounds of forgery of documents which is not permissible in the
realm of International Law

Furthermore Article 7 of 1963 convention reduction of statelessness states that If the law of a
Contracting State permits renunciation of nationality, such renunciation shall not result in loss
of nationality unless the person concerned possesses or acquires another nationality.4

Herein, Ahmed never factually attained the citizenship of Appelland and was using forged
documents as his means of makeshift citizenship for staying in Appelland. Henceforth It can
be clearly deciphered that Responia's claim over Ahmed was justified and that the Kingdom of
Responia owes no explanations or grounds to Appelland as Appelland grossly lacks the locus
Standi over the issue regarding Ahmed.

Furthermore, the diplomatic protection context under international law involves the exercise of
a substantive right one state has against another state with regard to some action taken by the
defendant state against an individual that is, the standing of one state to represent a particular
person before an international tribunal. In general, states may only exercise diplomatic
protection on behalf of their nationals i.e. the claim of an individual can only be brought before
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by a state of the individual's nationality.5

In case of Ahmed, since he is not a valid or legal citizen of Appelland henceforth state of
Appelland completely looses the claim over Ahmed who is factually a Responian citizen.
Therefore Appelland cannot put forth their claim over Ahmed in this Hon'ble court of Justice.

Also it is quite evidently expressed over in the factual matrix that Ahmed had not deserted
Responia for a continuous term of 20 years. Instead he had certain economic interests vested
in the Kingdom of Responia which were regarding certain dealing of property. To accomplish
this feat, Ahmed visited Responia thrice. This ardent fact of the case clearly showcases that
Ahmed had certain economic interests vested in Responia regarding dealing of property and it

3
Article 7(1) b , European Convention of Nationality 1997
4
Article 7 (1) a, Convention on reduction of statelessness 1963
5
Flegenheimer Claim (U.S. v. Italy), 25 I.L.R. 91, 157 (Italy-U.S. Conciliation Comm'n 1958)
is quite clear that he had not completely deserted the Kingdom of Responia and hence still falls
under the jurisdiction of Responian government.

Furthermore, even if the state of Appelland try to accept Ahmed as a citizen of their own
country, by the virtue of Dual Citizenship as per their Domestic legal apparatus or by the
defence of genuine and effective link , still the state of Appelland cannot claim locus Standi
for the issue pertaining to arrest of Ahmed by the virtue of Article 4 of the “Conventions on
Certain Questions Relating To The Conflict Of Nationality Laws – The Hague - 12 April
1930” states that

“A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose
nationality such person also possesses.”

As per the official claim , Ahmed is a citizen of Responia originally and according to Responian
authorities and also according to the statement given by Ahmed, he was originally a national
of Responia and spoke their native language too and he still had his papers from Responia.

According to the Responian authorities, Ahmed is originally a citizen of Responia as they had
no knowledge of him leaving the state and neither did he inform the authorities of denouncing
the state's citizenship and he used to visit Responia at times, he had visited Responia thrice in
the past years to deal with his house there, and so, according to Responian authorities, Ahmed
has always been a citizen of Responia as there were no evident acts to denounce Ahmed’s
citizenship of Responia and neither did Ahmed inform of now officially being a citizen of
Appeland and having no connections with Responia.

Also he defrauded the Appeland authorities and managed to get a citizenship of Appeland by
the means of forgery too, and the Appelland authorities, having no knowledge of the fraud,
considering him to be an original and native citizen of Appeland, will try to apply their power
and rights over its citizens and would try to protect Ahmed from the Responian authorities and
would claim to get him back to their state.

But, now the present situation leads Ahmed to be a citizen of both the states if there are
provisions of acceptance of him by Appelland by means of providing Dual citizenship or
proving Genuine and effective link, though he defrauded the Appeland authorities and gained
their citizenship in a fraudulent way, but according to Appelland, he is their original citizen
and also for the Responian authorities, he has always been their citizen.
So, both Appeland and Responia are eventually providing Ahmed a status of citizen
hypothetically and this clearly goes according to article 4 stated above,

And thus Appeland can not afford diplomatic protection to Ahmed since it is against a state
whose nationality Ahmed originally possesses and henceforth would loose locus Standi in its
entirety of the claim for Ahmed as Appeland can’t interfere in any interaction of a country
alongwith it’s own citizens.

Furthermore in Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)6, Liechtenstein sought a ruling

to force Guatemala to recognize Friedrich Nottebohm as a Liechtenstein national. In this case,
Liechtenstein claimed restitution and compensation from the Government of Guatemala on the
ground that the latter had acted towards Friedrich Nottebohm, a citizen of Liechtenstein, in a
manner contrary to international law. Guatemala objected to the Court’s jurisdiction but the
Court overruled this objection in a Judgment of 18 November 1953. In a second Judgment, of
6 April 1955, the Court held that Liechtenstein’s claim was inadmissible on grounds relating
to Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality. It was the bond of nationality between a State and an individual
which alone conferred upon the State the right to put forward an international claim on his
behalf. Mr. Nottebohm, who was then a German national, had settled in Guatemala in 1905
and continued to reside there. In October 1939 — after the beginning of the Second World War
— while on a visit to Europe, he obtained Liechtenstein nationality and returned to Guatemala
in 1940, where he resumed his former business activities until his removal as a result of war
measures in 1943. On the international plane, the grant of nationality is entitled to recognition
by other States only if it represents a genuine connection between the individual and the State
granting its nationality. Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality, however, was not based on any genuine
prior link with Liechtenstein and the sole object of his naturalization was to enable him to
acquire the status of a neutral national in time of war. For these reasons, Liechtenstein was not
entitled to take up his case and put forward an international claim on his behalf against
Guatemala.

Similarly, there is no such significant effective or genuine link of Ahmed with the state of
Appelland as prima facie, Ahmed used fraudulent means to attain the citizenship of Appelland

6
Liechtenstein v Guatemala - Nottebohm - Judgment of 6 April 1955 - Second Phase - Judgments [1955] ICJ 1;
ICJ Reports 1955, p 4; [1955] ICJ Rep 4 (6 April 1955)
alongwith keeping economical interests vested in both countries i.e. Responia for property
dealings and Appelland for the monetary benefits Appelland was providing for being the
supervisor of illicit mining in the area of shelter valley.

Henceforth, the defence of genuine and effective link won’t be admissible in this case as the
motive behind acquiring citizenship of Appelland by fraudulent means was the pursuit of
attaining momentary gains by performing Treason against the Kingdom of Responia ,while
mining illegally over the area of Shelter Valley amidst the Holy Mountains.

Therefore it can be easily deciphered before this Hon’ble court of justice to that the state of
Appelland has no locus Standi in the case concerning Ahmed as Ahmed is rightfully a
Responian Citizen and it is the right of Responia to punish Ahmed for his Treason as per the
local laws of the Responian jurisdiction.

2.2 The use of force by SIT in capture of Ahmed was justifiable and hence SIT nor the
state of Responia can be held liable for reparations or for the claim of Ahmed

While we can Quite evidently digress from the facts of the case that the capture of Ahmed falls
clearly in legal domain of Responia as he was a Responian citizen and any claims by Appeland
over Resonia regarding return of Ahmed or reparations, as their claims for locus Standi or any
reparations would be in shambles as they have no legal claim over Ahmed.

Article 51 of United Nations charter defines self defense as ‘Nothing in the present Charter
shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs
against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the
exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and
shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the
present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security.’

Herein, the official Mandate briefed to SIT was to remove the encroachers from the shelter
valley and shut down mining on the holy Big Mountain. To do that the SIT initially tried to
negotiate with the villagers in Shelter Valley. The presence of the SIT personnel in the valley
was protested by the Appelland authorities and soon the SIT started encountering Appelland
border forces at the valley. Moreover soon after interrogation of Ahmed was being conducted
by SIT , they were surrounded by Appelland border forces and also their campsite was stone
pelted by the villagers residing in the shelter valley. This created a fear and apprehension of
grave and imminent threat to the lives of SIT member. To avoid the brutalities of Appelland’s
border forces and that of the villagers, SIT had to protect their life from the irked and barbaric
mob which surrounded their campsite. Therefore they had to use Ahmed as a shield to protect
their very lives as they were under the impression that seeing one of their own would stop them
from any kind of life threatening violence.

Also, SIT was primarily an investigation body and was not equipped with sufficient gear or
artillery or even training to combat the border forces of Appelland and the hooligans of the
village. Therefore SIT had to capture Ahmed and use him as a shield to protect their very lives
from the hyper-violent situation they were stuck in.

Also the actions of SIT are backed by the customary rule of International Humanitarian Law
of ‘Necessity and Proportionality’7. This principle of Necessity and Proportionality is an
inherent principle in nature of armed conflict .Necessity and proportionality are cumulative
considerations of international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of armed conflict, the
laws of war, and jus in bello). In an armed conflict, both conditions must be met in order to
justify the type of force used. While it has since evolved, the crux of the principle remains the
same. Today, in times of armed conflict, the use of force must be necessary to obtain an
anticipated specific strategic military objective. The prohibition against the use of force
under jus ad bellum is not conditional on necessity or proportionality. Instead, there exist
exceptions, and there are only two of them, to the use of force. These exceptions have been
codified in the Charter of the United Nations and are,

7
Held as customary principle of International Law in case of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States
of America (1986) ICJ 1
 1) acting in self-defence, and
2) by Security Council authorization where it is acting under its Chapter VII powers
and in accordance with its obligations under the Charter. Therefore Responia is justified
to use force against Appelland as an inherent need to exercise self defense.

Furthermore The traditional understanding of the term of armed attack is the use of force by a
state against another state.30 But the contemporary concept also covers the attacks of the non-
state actors. The UN Charter, in Article 51, does not make any mention of the source of the
armed attack. As it states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right to
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a state.” But the ICJ, in
its judgment in the Nicaragua Case explained that an armed attack can be carried out by either
regular armed forces or by irregular armed groups. As it held:

“an armed attack must be understood as including not merely action by regular armed forces
across an international border, but also ‘the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands,
groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of
such gravity as to amount to’ (inter alia) an actual armed attack conducted by regular forces,
‘or its substantial involvement therein.”8

In addition, other cited reasons that permit the use of force include humanitarian intervention,
though this is still controversial, reprisals, and states’ protection of their nationals in other
states.

The United Nations Charter and the International Military Tribunal Statute have been created
with regard to international law. These laws were created by the UN member states in order to
protect succeeding generations from scourges of war. Members resorted that the use of armed
forces was not allowed, save in the interest of all. The UN Charter even though premising on
the past is open to future amendments since the definition of the word ‘war’ has changed (and
will change) over time . One may quickly note that the word ‘war’ is not mentioned in the
Charter only “force” is mentioned together with “enforcement measures”. In addition, total

8
Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of America), supra note 8, para. 195.
prohibition of use of force is not indicated since an exemption is given, “in the interest of all”.
Somewhat different is the Article 2, paragraph 4, reads:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Herein the matter and the manner
involving use of force was not inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations and falls
in the category of an exception to this Article under article 51 of the same UN charter.

Furthermore there are certain pre requisites mentioned for which one can resort to use of force
as per the collective self defence. This development of the law , particularly in the light of more
recent state practice, in 150 years sine the Caroline incident 9, suggests that action, even if it
involves the use of armed force and violation of another state’s territory, can be justified as self
defence where

 An armed attack is launched, or is immediately threatened, against a state’s territory or

forces ( probably nationals too)

 There is an urgent necessity for defensive action against the attack.

 There is no practicable alternative to action in self defenc, and in particular another

state or other authority which has the legal powers to stop or prevent the infringement
does not, or cannot ,use them to that effect

 The action taken by way of self defence is limited to what is necessary to stop or prevent
the infringement, i.e. to the needs of defence.

 In the case of collective self defence, the victim of an armed attack has requested
assistance of collective self defence.

Herein the case of Ahmed, all the pre requisites of using self defence are being met with and
henceforth the use of force used by the SIT, falls under the ambit of self defence rather than an
act of aggression.

9
The Caroline incident of 1837
Furthermore , the right to self defence, either individual or collective, has been asserted on
many occasions when a state has put forth this defence under the doctrine of necessity and
proportionality. Some of these are

 In 1956 Israel invoked the right of self defence when launching the attack against Egypt
which led to British and French intervention in the vicinity of the Suez Canal. Israel
asserted that it needed to destroy fedayeen bases in Sinai from which repeated recent
raids against Israel had been launched, with the consent and approval of Egypt. Israel
also claimed to be acting in self-defence at the time of its invasion of neighbouring
Arab territories in June 1982.

 AlsoAlso in 1962 the United States of America imposed a naval 'quarantine' of Cuba,
and defended its action on the grounds of self-defence since Soviet vessels were
bringing to Cuba offensive missiles which the United States regarded as immediate
threat to its sovereignty.

 Furthermore during the years immediately preceding the attainment of independence

by the British territories of Aden and the Federation of South Arabia, armed attacks
into these territories were repeatedly launched by armed forces from neighbouring
Yemen Arab Republic. British forces, in defending themselves against these attacks,
occasionally attacked areas in Yemen Arab Republic which ere used in support of
attacks on British Territory. The United Kingdom asserted that in taking such action
it was acting in self-defence, as, for example, in the attack on Harib Fort in 1964

Furthermore Appelland fails to prove that Ahmed was a legal citizen of their country and
henceforth cannot put forth any kind of claim whatsoever with reference to incident involving
Ahmed. Also since Responia is still the legal County of Ahmed, Responia has full rights to
arrest or even ensure a trial of one of its citizen, i.e. Ahmed, who committed the crime of
Treason by aiding to economic interests of neighbouring country while hampering the
economic interests of his country ex-ledge. Furthermore for the human Rights violation of
Ahmed Responian courts took strict actions against SIT which is limited to only domestic legal
apparatus and Hon’ble International Court of Justice is not an acceptable platform for the same.
Furthermore, the state of Appelland is trying to attain petty monetary benefits in form of
reparations for which they are overhauling the incident regarding arrest of Ahmed which does
not fall in their Jurisdiction.
Henceforth it can be attributed that Appelland has no Locus Standi over the incident regarding
Ahmed as they grossly lack any means of proving legal allegiance of Ahmed with Appelland.

3: That Responia be paid reparations for the theft of Sparkium deposits by the Shelter
Villagers and for the damage caused by the villagers in carrying out the bombings

3.1 Reparations be paid to Responia for the illicit theft of Sparkium by Appelland

It is quite evident from the apparatus of the case that, the State of Appelland was clearly
stealing supplies of raw Sparkium form the Kingdom of Responia. This crime of theft was
being accomplished by creating chiefly 3 mines in the territory of Responia, i.e. the holy
mountains , which were involved in illicit extraction of Sparkium near the border area of
Responia. This unwarranted action of Appelland has greatly affected the trade of Sparkium in
the Kingdom of Responia.
Furthermore even the vehicles operating near the mines were unregistered and there were
unnamed batches of cargo. This secretive approach of Appelland clearly indicates their
vindictive approach of usurping Responian territory along with its mineral reserves

The Trade of Sparkium is the most vital part of income generated by the Kingdom of
Responia, this is so since an aeon of time , furthermore Responia has been the only country
across the globe that supplies and facilitates the trade of Sparkium. Historically it can be
clearly traced that both the countries which are, Responia and Appelland have been engaged
in trade of particular type of produce, while Responia being rich in minerals is pioneer and an
exclusive trader of Sparkium, whereas the state of Appelland has been involved in trade of a
particular spice namely spice x, apart from spice x, there is no such pristine and novel
produce belonging to the state of Appelland. Also time and again , Appelland has tried
mining for Sparkium domestically but no avail to them.

However in the recent past, Appelland has been actively an exporter of Sparkium holding off
upto 40% of the total market share which was formerly completely held off by the Kingdom
of Respondia. This strange development is a result of an exodus of convicts from Respondia
to Appelland. These convicts have been actively involved in illegally extracting Sparkium
exclusively belonging to Responia and are also being aided with inventory by the State of
Appelland ranging from mining tools to explosives.

The reports prepared by the SIT clearly indicates that the rampant mining of Sparkium is
directly a theft of such a valuable resource. Appelland has diverted from every sense of
morality if any in the pursuit of being a Sparkium producer.

Furthermore the State of Appelland has violated the principle of Due Diligence in the realm
of customary international law. Under the concept of Due Diligence, States have the
sovereign right to exploit their own resources in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations and the principles of international law, as well as the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction do not cause harm to the environment of other states10. Due
diligence is a generally accepted concept in international environmental law. States must
behave in such a way as to ensure that no damage will occur to the environment of other

10
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 14 June 1992. Principle 2.
States or other areas, as a result of the activities under their jurisdiction and control. Thus, the
necessary measures should be taken in order to prevent environmental harm.

Also, Due diligence obligations have significantly arisen in areas of trans-boundary

environmental harm. In international environmental law, due diligence is an important
component of the obligation to prevent trans boundary harm. This obligation requires states
to take measures to protect persons or activities beyond their respective territories in order to
prevent harmful events and outcomes . The International Court of Justice (ICJ) confirmed the
customary nature of this principle in 1949 in Corfu Channel11 when referring to a state’s
obligation to not knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of
other states. The Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities (ILC)4 also indicate that states have a duty to prevent significant transboundary
harm (Article 3) and provide an assessment of possible transboundary harm (Article 7).
Moreover, the Trail Smelter case12asserts that, No State has the right to use or permit the use
of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by the emission of fumes in or transported
to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious
consequence and injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.

Furthermore the State of Appelland is performing mining in the shelter valley in the
mountains. This region falls under the territorial jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Responia.
This can be quite evidently proved as historically, Responia has been the only sole claimant
of the mountains as in the religious texts of Responia, there exists a mountain god and also it
can be easily deciphered that historically the holy mountains have been an integral
geographical part of the Kingdom of Responia. The justifications that can be offered in
support of Responia's actions play an important role in shaping territorial conflicts between
Responia an Appelland. Also during the past forty years, territorial claims against
neighboring states have almost always been justified as attempts to recover land that had been
“wrongfully ‘’taken away. Historical argument, beginning with the Peace of Westphalia, is an
argument that has its roots in Western understanding of property rights. Historical arguments
have come into ascendancy as claims based strictly on ethnic, strategic, and economic

11
Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep. 4.

12
United States v. Canada, Arbitral Trib., 3 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 1905 (1941)
considerations have become less acceptable. Examples of territorial conflicts between
Ecuador and Peru, India and Pakistan, and Togo and Ghana reveal that the discourse of
territorial conflict justification can influence the extent of territory in dispute, the ways in
which armed struggles over territory evolve, the places where interstate territorial conflict is
likely to develop, and the solutions to ongoing territorial wars that are contemplated. Thus,
disputed territory cannot be understood simply as a collection of objective attributes. It must
be seen instead as the outgrowth of a dynamic relationship existing between an area and the
social processes and ideologies that give it meaning. Also the territorial claim of Responia
can be quite evidently be proven by the virtue of cultural claim.

The SIT instituted by Responia clearly witnessed that the Guards appointed at the mines
were quite familiar with the language spoken in some of the Responian tribes. Furthermore
cultural claim of Responia over the shelter valley region can easily be deciphered as the they
had ethnic members of their ethnicity residing in shelter valley. Furthermore they treated holy
mountains as an embodiment of their chief god. Therefore, such territory cannot be
surrendered even in parts as it would loose the cultural significance. Also, mining and other
exploitation of resources at a cultural site is not permissible in International Law.
A similar case is of the Great Burkhan Khaldun Mountain where the mountain and the land
around it are considered sacred and holy.

Under this case it was established that protection needed to be established for cultural heritage
to ensure that no mining or extractive industry will be permitted within the property.

Similary in our case where appelland is supervising the mining activities over the shelter
valley which is present inside the holy stretch of big mountains need to be immediately
stopped and the economically rich big mountains which are the cultural heritage need to be
protected. It must be the duty of the state to ensure against any sacrilege.

Henceforth it is quite evident that Appelland is usurping the territorial integrity of Responia
and rampantly destroying their cultural Site of supreme importance i.e. the holy mountains
by mining Sparkium over there. Therefore such thieving acts should be punished by this
Hon’ble court of law and also, reparations must be paid by Appelland for the theft of Sparkium
and destruction caused to the Holy Mountains by their mining activities.
3.2 Reparations be paid to Responia for the bombings and damage caused to the
territorial sovereignty and integrity of the country by the external agressionn of
Appelland.

Territorial integrity i.e. the ardent principle under international law ,that prohibits states from
the use of force against the "territorial integrity or political independence" of another state. It
is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter13 and has been recognized as customary
international law. Furthermore it states that foisting by force of a border change is an act of
aggression.

In this case the state of Appelland has grossly violated the conventions of the UN Charter and
significantly breached the sovereignty and integrity of Responian territory as the villagers led
a massive retaliation as they attacked a camp of the Responian Border forces and bombed
Responian vehicles travelling near the mountains with mortar and grenades. The shells and
weapons discovered from the site of the attacks were found to be manufactured in Appelland.
Some maps and surveillance apparatus used by the Appelland border forces were also
discovered form the dead attackers.

Henceforth The State of Appelland has violated the territorial sovereignty of Responia under
Article 2 (4) UN charter which states , all Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations. Appelland has blatantly violated this article by entering into the territorial
sovereignty of Responia, without any valid ground. Appelland has also damaged the camp
site and vehicles near the border without any justifiable cause.

Article 1 of ‘definition of aggression’ adopted by UNGA14 says that “Aggression is the use of
force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of
another State. The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall
constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. Use of any weapons by a State
against the territory of another State or an attack by the armed forces of a State on the land of
another State constitutes an act of aggression. In the landmark case : Democratic Republic of

13
.The Charter of United Nations ,1945.
14
United Nations General Assembly, Article-1
the Congo v. Uganda15 On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
instituted proceedings against Uganda in respect of a dispute concerning acts of armed
aggression perpetrated by Uganda on the territory of the DRC, in violation of the United
Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity. On 15 December
2005, the Court found that Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international
relations and of non-intervention, that it violated its obligations under international human
rights law and international humanitarian law, and that it violated other obligations owed to
the DRC. The Court additionally found that the DRC in turn violated obligations owed to
Uganda under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Again in the case of
DRC v. Uganda (or Armed Activities), Court aptly interpreted Art. 51 of the Charter and
concluded that right to self-defence under Art. 51 does not extend to armed attack by non-
State actors.

Similarly in the Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against
Nicaragua16, United States were training para-military forces to wreck havoc in Nicaragua
and were using the defence of Self Defence as per Article 51 of the UN charter. The Hon’ble
International Court of Justice gave decision in favour of Nicaragua and held U.S.A. liable for
their acts of aggression against Nicaragua.

In this case, Appelland owed certain diplomatic duties towards the Kingdom of Responia
which it blatantly violated by showcasing an aggressive strike. The said strike obliterated the
camp of Responian Border Forces and Responian vehicles near mountains.

In furtherance to this, the attack on border forces of Responia is a direct violation of Article
2 and 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that Everyone is entitled to
all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such
as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person
belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of
sovereignty and Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Appelland

15
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168
16
Nicaragua v. United States of America; Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986,
violated these essential principles of UDHR by bombing the populace of Responia and
causing grave mayhem. Such violent acts of aggression must be condemned on international
platform by penalizing Appelland for their vicious actions by providing reparations to the
Kingdom of Responia, so that Responia can recover from the vindictive and vicious damage
caused to them at the hands of Appelland.