RESPONDENT

THE STATE OF PAFIANA HAS VIOLATED THE CUSTOMARY RULES OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH PROTECTS THE STATES FROM THE NON
INTERFERENCE OF ANY OTHER STATE

A pre-Charter definition described humanitarian intervention as reliance upon force for the
Justifiable purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from treatment that is so
Arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits of that authority within which the
Sovereign is presumed to act with justice and reason1.In the instant case, the State of Pafiana
was ready to undermine the highest order of any state i.e. of the Right of self-determination2 by
not withdrawing its troops from the Kudritan constituency. Therefore to trust them with the
responsibility of a state that they claim to be integral to them, will not solve the purpose as they
cannot keep their own people together, let alone handle another state which faces so much of
cultural diversity. Humanitarian intervention is called for only in cases where there has been a
material breach of the treaty by one party. In the instant case, the State of Pafiana cannot claim to
have acted in good faith because it violated the principle of Pacta Sun Servanda of the VCLT.

Prohibition on Intervention

As a matter of law, Pafiana claims that Indiana has acted in violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter3, and of obligation erga omnes to refrain from the threat or use of force.
The principle of territorial integrity of states is well established and protected by a series of
consequential rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of states as
mentioned under the proviso of Article 2(7)4.Under International Law, Intervention is forcible or
dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state, calculated to impose certain
conduct or consequences on that other State5. Its prohibition is the corollary of every state’s right
to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence6.

Breaches of UN recognized principles committed by the State of Pafiana

Soremon has committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation including the
Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council.

 Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter

It quotes with approval an observation by the International Law Commission to the effect that
“the great majority of international lawyers today unhesitatingly hold that Article 2(4), together
with other provisions of the Charter, authoritatively declares the modern customary law

1
2
3
4
5
6
regarding the threat or use of force7.”

 General Assembly Declaration on the Principle of International Law

In 1965, the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention 8 in

which it declared that no state has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state, and that consequently armed
intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of
state are condemned9. The Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Cooperation among States10, enunciated similar principles11.The Declaration states
that “armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the
personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of
international law”12.

 Security Council Resolution (1373)

The Security Council resolution clearly states that states should not provide any form of support
to acts causing widespread panic and prevent people from planning or facilitating such attacks13.

Breaches of Other Customary Principles of International Law

The State of Pafiana has also committed breach of the recognized principles of customary
international law. Acts constituting a breach of the customary principle of non-intervention will
constitute a breach of the principle of non-use of force in international relations14.

 Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American

States
The resolution reflects the customary law and makes a clear statement for states to strictly
observe the principle of non-intervention to ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with a
peaceful coexistence. Para 115 and Para 316 of the resolution are relevant in the present case.

 Montevideo Convention On Rights And Duties Of States

Article 817 of the convention deprives the state of any right to intervene in the internal or external
affairs of another State.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
International Court of Justice Has Denounced Intervention

The ICJ had denounced any claimed right to intervention in the 1949 Corfu Channel case18, in
which it held nonintervention to be “a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of
States”19 and a principle of customary international law.

Actions of Pafiana amount to Breach of International Law

The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law and is based
on the principle of sovereignty of the states20. International law prohibits intervention in conflict
with civil war like characteristics within another country and the organization, supports
incitement to subversive, terrorist or armed activities intended to lead to overthrowing power
relationships21. We claim for the mentioned violations of customary laws.

THE STATE OF PAFIANA HAS VIOLATED HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CIVILIANS

BY INDULGING ITSELF IN THE KILLINGS OF MANY INNOCENTS SPECIALLY IN
THE KUDRITAN REGION

The distinction between the combatant and the non-combatant elements of a community is the
essential condition precedent of the humanizing of war.22 The latter category includes civilians.23
The importance of ensuring that civilians were not targeted was echoed by the ICTY in Kordic
and Cerkez case.24In the case of Abella v. Argentina25, the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights also affirmed the principle of distinction.

The State of Pafiana has violated international human rights instruments

Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 3 of UDHR26confers the right to life.27The killing of innocent
protestors by the Pafiana army is a clear violation of ICCPR and UDHR which guarantees right
to life to civilians.

That the Pafiana army killed Innocent Protestors of the region

Article 50(1) 28of Additional protocol defines population as a civilian under the meaning of
International Law.29 There is a duty to demarcate between civilians and combatants. In fact, the

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
principle of distinction has been characterized by the International Court of Justice as a
fundamental and intransgressible principle of customary international law30 .

30
THE STATE OF BO HAS REPEATEDLY VIOLATED A SERIES OF INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF
HIGH VALUE AND DIGNITY WHILE DEFENDING ITS STANCE IN BOLR

Boremon Has Violated The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights (ICCPR)

Boremon is bound to comp ly with the provisions of ICCPR

In the

Wall

case, this Court clearly stated that:

“While the jurisdiction of States is primarily territorial, it may sometimes be

exercised outside the national territory. Considering the object and purpose of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it would seem natural that, even when
such is the case, States parties to the Covenant should be bound to

comply with its provisions.”

84

In addition, the activities by the armed forces over which the state has “effective control” are

under the jurisdiction of the State.

85

6.1.2. Various provisions of the ICCPR have been violated

Article 6 of the ICCPR confers the right to life.

86

The blatant violation of Human Rights by the Boremon forces that resulted in death of seven
hundred civilians
87

violated the article 6 and deprived innocent civilians of their right to life. Article 9 provides for
the right against arbitrary arrest or detention.

88

Certain non-combatants were captured by the Boremon forces as prisoners

84

Palestinian Territory Case,

supra

note 17, at 178-179.

85

Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, (1981)

U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40) at 176 (1981).

86

ICCPR,

supra

note 5, at Art. 6.

87

Compromis

¶ 17.

88

ICCPR,
supra

note 5, at Art. 9.

USTICE

P.N.

HAGWATI

TH

NTERNATIONAL

OOT

OURT

OMPETITION ON

UMAN

R
IGHTS

2016

RITTEN

UBMISSION ON

EHALF OF THE

PPLICANT

15

of war, were ignored and were not even provided food for several days.

89

Hence, innocent people were taken as prisoners and detained illegally, in turn, violating the
Article 9. 6.2. Boremon is Acting against Its Obligation under Customary International Law Not
to Intervene in the Affairs of another State

6.2.1. Actions of Boremo n amount to Breach of International Law

It is noted that since Boremon was exercising effective control over the attacks conducted in
the State of Soremon, the state of Boremon is liable for the breaches of International law
provisions. The prohibition on intervention between states has its foundation in customary law
and is based on the principle of sovereignty of the states.

90
International law prohibits intervention in conflict with civil war like characteristics within
another country and the organization, supports incitement to subversive, terrorist or armed
activities intended to lead to overthrowing power relationships.

91

The state of Soremon claims for the mentioned violations of customary laws.

6.2.1.1. Breaches of UN recognized principles

Boremon committed the breaches of the recognized principles of United Nation including the
Charter and resolution adopted by General Assembly and Security Council. Article 2(4) of the
Charter authoritatively declares modern customary law regarding threat or use of force

92

. Security Council Resolution 1373

93

and General Assembly Resolution 2625

94

constitute subsequent practice for interpreting UN Charter provisions

95

89

Clarifications

, no. 1.

90

The Charter,

supra

note 2.

91
The DARIO,

supra

note

61.

92

The Charter,

supra

note 2, Art. 2(4).

93

UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,
September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373.

USTICE

P.N.

HAGWATI

TH

I
NTERNATIONAL

OOT

OURT

OMPETITION ON

UMAN

IGHTS

2016

RITTEN

UBMISSION ON

EHALF OF THE

PPLICANT

16
6.2.2.2. Breach of other customary principles of international law

Boremon committed breaches of the recognized principles of customary international law. ¶ 1

and ¶ 3 of the Resolution 78 adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American
States makes a clear statement for states to strictly observe the principle of non-intervention to
ensure peaceful coexistence and provides with an obligation not to support or promote any
armed activities against another state. In accordance with the principles proclaimed in the
Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and in alien
able rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace
in the world. The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom
from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy
his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights. Considering the
obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for,
and observance of, human rights and freedoms, Realizing that the individual, having duties to
other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive
for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

94

Friendly Relations Declaration, supra note 12,The Resolution provides the state to respect
territorial integrity of a state and provides the states from refraining itself from any of the acts
which may breach the territorial integrity of the other state.

95

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Articl

e 31(3) (b) reads: „

any subsequent practice in the application of

the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation‟,

May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. [hereinafter VCLT]

J

USTICE

P.N.

HAGWATI

TH

NTERNATIONAL

OOT

OURT

OMPETITION ON

UMAN

IGHTS

2016
W

RITTEN

UBMISSION ON

EHALF OF THE

PPLICANT

17

6.3. Violation under UDHR, 1948

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as
the highest aspiration of the common people.

7.

THAT THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY

IN THE TERRITORY OF

LR

MUST BE INSTATED BY THE ICJ BY ALLOWING

O
LR

TO MERGE WITH SOREMON

7.1.2. There Exists No Right of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention

Rougier rejected the idea of unilateral intervention as that states would rarely intervene unless
they would derive benefits from such an intervention.

100

In 1965, the General Assembly adopted a

Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention

101

which forbids all forms of intervention in the internal or external affairs of other states. The
concept of unilateral humanitarian intervention has been almost universally condemned by all
states.

102