Respondent-1518 ICC Memorial

TEAM CODE: 1518

7TH PROFESSOR V. S. MANI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

2018
Case Concerning the Jurisdiction, Prisoners of War, Damages and Consular Relation

MARSHAL
(APPLICANT)
v.
ARYAN
(RESPONDENT)
On Submission to the International Court of Justice

The Peace Palace, The Hague, Netherlands
Memorial on behalf of Respondent
1
7TH PROFESSOR V. S. MANI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT
COMPETITION - 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS----------------------------------------------------------------------IV-V
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES--------------------------------------------------------------------VI-XIII
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION--------------------------------------------------------------xiv
QUESTIONS PRESENTED------------------------------------------------------------------------xv
STATEMENT OF FACTS---------------------------------------------------------------------xvi-xvii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS-----------------------------------------------------------XVII-XVIII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ---------------------------------------------------------------------1-21
ISSUE-I
[1.] WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
[1.1] Aryan has not consented to ICJ’s jurisdiction. ----------------------------------------------1-3
[1.2] Subject matter of the dispute does not arise under Article 4 of BA. ------------------------3
[1.3] Even if the present dispute is covered under the BA, the treaty stands terminated. ------4
ISSUE-II
[2] WHETHER THE TREATMENT METED OUT TO MAJOR DMITRI GODMAN IS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION? -------------------------------------------------------------5
[2.1] Alleged treatment of Godman is not a subject matter covered. ------------------------------5
[2.2] There is no substantial evidence of treatment meted out to Godman. --------------------5-6
ISSUE-III
[3] WHETHER PRISONERS OF WAR SHOULD BE RETURNED BACK TO THE ARYAN? --------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
[3.1.] Detainment of POWs is contrary to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POWs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
[3.1.1] POWs are kept in “unlawful confinement”. -------------------------------------------------7
[3.2] Consequential inhuman treatment with the POWs is contrary to the Customary
International Humanitarian Law. ----------------------------------------------------------------------8
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT ii

COMPETITION - 2018
[3.2.1] Sizeable number of POWs captured by Marshal would affect the nature of the state. --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8-9
ISSUE-IV
[4] WHETHER ARYAN IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DAMAGES? ------------------------------10
[4.1] Act of army are attributable to marshal. ---------------------------------------------------10-11
[4.2] Acts are internationally wrongful act ------------------------------------------------------11-12
[4.2.1] Violation of Customary International Law--------------------------------------------------13
[4.2.2] Violation of Treaty Law-----------------------------------------------------------------------14
[4.3] Monitory Loss------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
[4.4] Harm to the territorial integrity, security, and International standing------------------14-15
ISSUE-V
[5] WHETHER THE MARSHAL HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING CONSULAR
ACCESS TO MR. ALEX? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
[5.1] Mr. Alex is a national of Aryan. ------------------------------------------------------------16-17
[5.1.1] Mr. Alex has the right to consular access by the virtue of his nationality. ----------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17-18
[5.1.2] Mr. Alex has inherent right to life------------------------------------------------------------18
[5.1.3] Mr. Alex has the right to liberty and security of his life-----------------------------------19
[5.2] Consular officer of Aryan has a right to access Mr. Alex. ------------------------------19-21
[5.3] Denial of consular access to Mr. Alex has violated Customary International Law. --------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20-21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT iii

COMPETITION - 2018
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations/Symbols Explanations
AP-I Additional Protocol 1

AP-II Additional Protocol 2
Anr. Another
ACHR American Convention on Human Rights
ACHPR African Charter on Human and People’s Rights
& And
App. Application
Approx. Approximately
Art. Article
ARISWA Draft Articles for Responsibility of States for
internationally wrongful acts
BA Bortex Agreement
CAT The Convention against torture and other cruel,
and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Cl. Clause
CIL Customary International Law
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
Ed. Edition
Etc. Etcetera
Godman Major Dmitri Godman
HPCR Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research
HRC Human Right Commission
Ibid Ibidem/ same place
Id. Idem
ICC International Criminal Court
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICRC International Committee of Red Cross
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT iv

COMPETITION - 2018
Yugoslavia
IHL International Humanitarian Law
ILC International Law Commission
J. Journal
LOC Line of Control
MPEPIL Max Plank Encyclopedia of Public International Law
PCIJ Permanent Court of Justice
Pg. Page
Pvt. Private
¶ Paragraph
Supra Above
i.e. That is
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNCTAD United Nation Conference on Trade and
Development
UN. United Nations
U.S. United States
v. Versus
VCCR Vienna Convention on Consular Relation
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties
Vol. Volume
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT v

COMPETITION - 2018
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I.CJ. AND P.C.I.J. CASES
CASES
Israel v Bulgaria, Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955, Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep 127. -----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2,3
United Kingdom v Iran, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Judgment, ICJ Rep 93. ---------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1,2
United kingdom v. Argentina, Antarctica case, ICJ Rep 12. ----------------------------------------1

Mexico v. United States of America, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, ICJ Rep 12. -------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Nicaragua v Honduras, Border and Transborder Armed Actions,ICJ Rep 69. --------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
United States of America v. Union of Soviet socialist republics, Case concerning the aerial
incident. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paraguay v. United States of America, ICJ Rep 248 ----------------------------------------------14
America v. Iran, Case concerning united states diplomatic and consular staff in tehran United
States of ICJ GL No 64, [1980] ICJ Rep 3. ---------------------------------------------------------3,4
Italy v France and ors, Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943,ICJ Rep 19. --------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8,7
United States v USSR, Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of
America,ICJ Rep 103 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,2
Nauru v Australia, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, preliminary objections, ICJ Rep 240---
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Djibouti v. France, Certain questions of mutual assistance in criminal matters judgment, ICJ
GL No 136, [2008] ICJ Rep 177. --------------------------------------------------------------------7,8
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT vi

COMPETITION - 2018
Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Awards, Civilian Claims, 44 I.L.M. 601. ---------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
Libya v Malta, Continental Shelf, Judgment, [1985] ICJ Rep 13---------------------------------09
United Kingdom v Albania, Corfu Channel, Judgment, (1948) ICJ Rep 15 ----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9,10
Fisheries Jurisdiction, Spain v Canada, Judgment, [1998] ICJ Rep 432. ---------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Hungary v Slovakia, Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, Judgment, judgment, ICJ Reports 1997-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2, 10
Martínez Liébano and 36 others v Venezuela, IACHR Series C no 150. --------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------16
Germany v United State, LaGrand, ICJ GL No 104, [2001] ICJ Rep 466. ------------------------
--------------------------------------------14, 15
Nicaragua v United States, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua,
(1986) ICJ Rep 14. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portugal v Australia, East Timor, [1995] ICJ Rep 90. -----------------------------------------------
Liechtenstein v Guatemala, Nottebohm, Preliminary Objection, [1953] ICJ Rep 111. ----------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy v France, Phosphates in Morocco, PCIJ Series A/B No 74. ---------------------------------
New Zealand v. France, Rainbow warrior case, France-New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal,
82 I.L.R. 500 (1990). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sufi and elmi v. United kingdom, app. Nos. 8319/07, 11449/07, eur. Ct. H.r. (2011) -----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
India v. Pakistan, Jadhav case, ICGJ 515 (ICJ 2017). ------------------------------------------------
Velásquez Rodríguez and ors v Honduras, IACHR Series C no 9. ---------------------------------
--------------------------------------------16
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT vii

COMPETITION - 2018
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Charter of the United Nations (1945), 1 U.N.T.S. XVI-----------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------2
Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in
Case of War on Land (1910), U.S.T.S. 540, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 117--------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------7
Hague Convention (XIII) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War
(1910), U.S.T.S. 545, 2 A.J.I.L. Supp. 207-----------------------------------------------------------
--7
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary International Humanitarian
Law (2005) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-6, 7,16.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in
Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), (1949), 75 UNTS 31-------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------6, 7, 11
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), (1949), 75
UNTS 85--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------6, 7, 11
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth
Geneva Convention), (1949), 75 UNTS 2876- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva
Convention), (1949), 75 UNTS 135-------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------6, 7, 11
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), (1977), 1125 UNTS 36, 8, 12, 18
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), (977), 1125 UNTS 609----------------------------
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT viii

COMPETITION - 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------7
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), 999 U.N.T.S. 171------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12, 16
Statute of the International Court of Justice, (1946), 33 U.S.T.S. 993------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------1
UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998--------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--7, 11
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1967), 596 U.N.T.S. 261------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15, 17
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1964), 500 U.N.T.S. 95-----------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----17
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331----------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---2, 3
U.N. DOCUMENTS
Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (I.L.C. Yearbook--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9,10,13
Declaration on the human rights of individuals who are not nationals of the country in which
they live, General Assembly resolution 40/144, 116th plenary meeting, UN Doc
A/RES/40/144 (13 December 1985), -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the ILC, 15th session
(1963) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT ix

COMPETITION - 2018
Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law
Commission [ILC], 14th session (1962) --------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35, Article 9 (Liberty and security of person),
CCPR/C/GC/35. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
International Law Reports, Vol. 132, pg.51-----------------------------------------------------------3
Official Records of the General Assembly, Tenth Session (1958) ----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
Books
Charles cheney hyde, international law chiefly as interpreted and applied by us 1524 (2 nd rev.
Ed. 1945). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Christian eckart, promises of states under international law (2012)-------------------------------1
Daniel wisher, immigration detention: law, history, politics (2011) --------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
David r. Deener, the united states attorneys general and international law (1957) ---------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3, 4
Dieter fleck, the handbook of international humanitarian law (ed. 2013) ------------------------6
Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the international court of justice-----------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Heike krieger, east timor and the international community: basic documents (1996) ------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
International court of justice, summaries of judgments, advisory opinions, and orders of the
international court of justice (2013) ------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------1
Krzysztof j. Pelc, making and bending international rules: the design of exceptions and
escape clauses in trade law (2018) --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------3, 4
Lung-chu chen, longzhi chen, an introduction to contemporary international law: a policy-
oriented perspective (2000). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------2
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT x

COMPETITION - 2018
Mark eugen villiger, commentary on the 1969 vienna convention on the law of treaties (2009)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------2
Martin dixon, robert mccorquodale, sarah williams, cases & materials on international law
(1991) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------1, 2
Neil boister, robert cryer, documents on the tokyo international military tribunal: charter,
indictment and judgement (vol. 1, 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------3, 4
Oliver dörr and kirsten schmalenbach (eds.), the vienna convention on the law of treaties: a
commentary (2012) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------2
Olivier corten, pierre klein, the vienna conventions on the law of treaties: a commentary,
volume 1 (2011). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------2
Rafael leal-arcas, andrew filis, ehab s. Abu gosh, international energy governance: selected
legal issues (2014) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------1
Renata szafarz, the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court of justice (1991) --------
-------------------------------------------------------------------2
Robert beckman and dagmar butte, introduction to international law. -----------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------2
Robert kolb, the international court of justice (2013) -------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Scott davidson, the law of treaties (the library of essayas in international law) (vol. 1 ed.
2004) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------3
Shiv r.s. bedi, the development of human rights law by the judges of the international court
(2007) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Stuart hull mcintyre, legal effect of world war ii on treaties of the united states (1958). --------
--------------------------------------------------------------3, 4
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xi

COMPETITION - 2018
Tugrul, ansay, recueil des cours de l'academie de droit international de la haye: collected
courses of the hague academy of int'l law (vol. 146, 1974) ---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------3
United nations, recueil des arrêts, avis consultatifs et ordonnances (2002). -----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------1
ARTICLES
FRANçOISE KRILL, The ICRC’s policy on refugees and internally displaced civilians, 83
IRRC 843 (2001) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---7
Maura A. Bleichert, The Effectiveness of Voluntary Jurisdiction in the ICJ: El Salvador v.
Honduras, A Case in Point, 16 FOR. INT’L LAW J. 799 (1992) --------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------2
Riaz Mohammad Khan, Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties— Article 62 (Fundamental
Change of Circumstances), 26 PAK HRZN 16 (1973) --------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------3
Romano, Cesare P.R., International Justice and Developing Countries: A Quantitative
Analysis. 1 LPICT 367 (2002). ------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------2
Stanimir A. Alexandrov, The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice:
How Compulsory Is It?, 5 CHN. J. INT’L 29 (2006) ----------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------2
T. J. A. Schillings, Article 36 of The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, INT. & EU.
LAW, University of Tilburg (2016). -----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------15
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xii

COMPETITION - 2018
Yuval Shany, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, OXF. HANDBK. INT’L ADJ. (2013). -----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the International Court of Justice Rules of Court
(1978), the Aryan (“Respondent”) has filed a timely preliminary objection to this Honorable
Court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute between Respondent and the
Marshal (“Applicant”). The applicant has invoked jurisdiction of ICJ under Art. 36(1) of the
ICJ. If this Court determines that it does have jurisdiction to decide the subject matter of the
dispute, this Court would have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Statute of the
International Court of Justice, Art. 40(1), since applicant submitted an application instituting
proceedings.
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xiii

COMPETITION - 2018
QUESTION PRESENTED
The Aryan respectfully requests the Court to adjudge:
-I-
Whether the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the case?
-II-
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xiv

COMPETITION - 2018
Whether the treatment meted out to Major Dmitri Godman is beyond the scope of this court’s
jurisdiction?
-III-
Whether prisoners of war should be returned back to the Aryan?
-IV-
Whether Aryan is entitled to appropriate damages?
-V-
Whether the Marshal has violated International law by denying consular access to Mr. Alex?
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xv

COMPETITION - 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Aryan is a democratic country and Marshal is a despotic state which is ruled by a dictator,
General Vadim. In past, Marshal has annexed certain territories of Aryan, which culminated
in the Bortex Agreement of 1998 demarcating a new border line between Aryan and Marshal
known as the Line of Control (LOC) which also made it mandatory to make the LOC a
demilitarized zone.
On 15th of October 2017, the Aryan army conducted patrolling operations in the LOC. Major
Godman went on to stop the patrolling by the Aryan army along with five other soldiers, and
all of them were eventually caught after they ran out of ammunition. Marshal army then
conducted large scale military operations in the LOC resulting in a full-fledged war within
the territory known as the Marshal- Aryan border skirmish.
Marshal emerged victorious, annexed the LOC and captured 47000 Prisoners of War (POW)
and 100 civilians. After the humiliating defeat in the war, martial law was imposed in the
Aryan. The Aryan government requested Marshal to hand over the Prisoners of War (POW)
as well as the civilians captured by them, in exchange for Major Godman, along with his five
soldiers. Marshal refused the offer, however, Marshal agreed to release the civilians expect
one namely Mr. Alex, whom they claimed was being detained on charges of espionage.
General Vadim stated at the United Nations General Assembly, ‘Every time, we have to
tolerate their rubbish. This time, we will make them pay for their sins’. Even consular access
to Mr. Alex was denied.
On 2nd February 2018, the Marshal border outpost received a parcel containing mutilated
body parts of all the soldiers captured by Aryan with Major Godman’s name tag appearing on
top. Within Aryan, fingers were being pointed towards General Vadim and the insensitive
remarks that he had made at the General Assembly session. General Vadim invoked Article 4
which gives rise to the jurisdiction of ICJ. A notice was accordingly sent to Aryan for the
brutalities committed on Major Dmitri Godman, for bringing ICJ jurisdiction into the fray.
Aryan firmly opposed ICJ jurisdiction and stated that it doesn’t accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction
in a matter which can be resolved through diplomatic means. It also maintains that Article 4
of the BA is not applicable to the present matter since the LOC as envisaged in the BA does
not currently exist. The ICJ has admitted Marshal’s applications to institute written
proceedings under Article 36(1) of ICJ statue based on Article 4 of the BA, whereas Aryan
filed its objection to the application with a singular ground that it does not consent to the
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xvi

COMPETITION - 2018
ICJ’s jurisdiction and would only appear in court to reiterate the same. Now, the case has
been adjudged by ICJ.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1.] WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE?
The ICJ does not have jurisdiction over the present dispute because Aryan has not consented
to submit this dispute to the ICJ, and is under no obligation to do so. Also, the subject matter
of the dispute does not arise under Article 4 of the BA agreement. There is a fundamental
change of circumstance and Aryan contends that Article 4 of the BA does not apply to the
present matter since the LOC as envisaged in the BA does not currently exist. This Court
should acknowledge the parties’ disagreement, hold that it does not have jurisdiction to
adjudicate this dispute, and allow the parties to settle their dispute via mutually agreeable
means.
[2.] WHETHER THE TREATMENT METED OUT TO MAJOR DMITRI GODMAN IS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION?
The treatment meted out to Major Dmitri Godman is not a subject matter that is covered
under the BA. Even if the Court has jurisdiction over this dispute, Marshal failed to establish
any substantial evidence of inhuman treatment meted out to Godman.
[3.] WHETHER PRISONERS OF WAR SHOULD BE RETURNED BACK TO THE ARYAN?
Prisoners of war should be released and repatriated back to the Aryan. By keeping the POWs
in the permanent captivity, Marshal has violated the all the respective Geneva conventions
and consequential inhuman treatment with POWs by detaining them are contrary to the
principles of International law. The Marshal has captured a sizeable number of POWs which
affected the integrity of the Aryan.
[4.] WHETHER ARYAN IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DAMAGES?
Aryan is entitled to appropriate damages for the Marshal because all the acts of the army are
attributable to the Marshal and all the acts performed by the Marshal are internationally
wrongful. Marshal has violated Customary International Law, by treating POWs inhumanely,
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xvii

COMPETITION - 2018
and BA, by not adhering with the obligation of it. Aryan has also faced monitory losses due
to the expenditure in the war. The compensation should also be awarded for the mental and
emotional harm suffered by the POWs.
[5.] WHETHER THE MARSHAL HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING
CONSULAR ACCESS TO MR. ALEX?
Marshal has violated International law by denying consular access to Mr. Alex. The arbitrary
detainment of Mr. Alex was against the principles of International Law, his right to life and
liberty have been violated by the Marshal. The consular officer of Aryan has a right to access
Mr. Alex because there is no substantial evidence to prove that Mr. Alex is the espionage and
thus, restricting his rights are the violation of International treaties to which both states are
parties to.
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xviii

COMPETITION - 2018
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE-I
[1.] WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS

JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE?
Aryan firmly opposes ICJ’s jurisdiction in the present dispute because [1.1] Aryan has not
consented to ICJ’s jurisdiction; [1.2] Subject matter of the dispute does not arise under
Article 4 of BA; and [1.3] Even if the present dispute is covered under the BA, the treaty
stands terminated.
[1.1] ARYAN HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ICJ’S JURISDICTION.

Article 36(1) of the International Court of Justice [hereinafter ICJ] statute states that, “The
jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it.”1 One of the
fundamental principles of the statute is that it cannot decide a dispute between the States
without the consent of those States to its jurisdiction.2 At this stage, the court has no
jurisdiction to deal with the application. The court transmits the application to the potential
respondent State.3 However, the court cannot take any other action, unless and until the state
against which such application is made consents to the court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of
1
Statute of the International Court of Justice, (1946), 33 U.S.T.S. 993 art. 36(1) [hereinafter ICJ Statute];
HANDBOOK ON ACCEPTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, pg.19, ¶68; See also:
RAFAEL LEAL-ARCAS, ANDREW FILIS, EHAB S. ABU GOSH, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY GOVERNANCE: SELECTED
LEGAL ISSUES, pg. 248 (2014)); See also: CHRISTIAN ECKART, PROMISES OF STATES UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW, (2012).
2
Monetary gold case, East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p.101, ¶ 26; Corfu
Channel (1948); See also: Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Order of
December 11th, 1948, I.C. J. Reports 1948, p. 121; See also: Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Order of May 5th,
1950, I.C. J. Reports 1950, p.121; See also: Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case, Order of August 22nd, 1951: I.C. J.
Reports 1951, p. 106; See also: Nottebohm case (Preliminary Objection), Judgment of November 18th, 1953:
I.C.J. Reports 1953, p.111; Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Application to Intervene,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 3; See also: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua/U.S.), Merits, 1986 I.C.J. 14; See also: Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554;
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992,
p. 240 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 6; See also: Certain
Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, pg.
177; Shiv R.S. Bedi, The Development of Human Rights Law by The Judges of The International Court, pg. 178
(2007); Robert Kolb, The International Court of Justice, pg.372; See also: United Nations, Recueil des arrêts,
avis consultatifs et ordonnances, pg. 274 (ed. 2002); See also: RAFAEL LEAL-ARCAS, ANDREW FILIS, EHAB S.
ABU GOSH, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY GOVERNANCE: SELECTED LEGAL ISSUES, pg. 248; See also: MARTIN
DIXON, ROBERT MCCORQUODALE, SARAH WILLIAMS, CASES & MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, pg. 668;
See also: Heike Krieger, East Timor and the International Community: Basic Documents (1996), pg. 404;
International Court Of Justice, Summaries Of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders Of The International
Court Of Justice (2013), pg. 221.
3
ICJ Statute, supra note 1, art. 38(5); See also: HANDBOOK ON ACCEPTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, Chapter-V, ¶ 92.
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

COMPETITION - 2018
the case.4 Moreover, establishing the jurisdiction of the court without the consent of the
parties is an institution unknown either to the statute5 or to the Charter of the UN6, therefore,
the ICJ will lack the jurisdictional basis to address this dispute.7 In the Corfu Channel case8,
ICJ found that the consent of a state needs to be voluntary in order to establish that ICJ has
jurisdiction9.
The nature of this action lies in the freedom of a respondent state to accept it or not 10 – it is
under no obligation to do so.11 If states have not given their consent, the court will not
exercise its jurisdiction.12 Aryan does not accept the jurisdiction of a court on the matters
which can be resolved through diplomatic means, like in Corfu Channel Case13, or through
negotiation of a special agreement like in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case14 or through
aggressive act.
The principle of free consent is universal and fundamental rule of international law.15
Furthermore, a party claiming a defect in its consent to be bound by a treaty must notify the
other party of its claim.16 The notification shall indicate measures proposed to be taken with
4
ICJ Statute, supra note 1, art. 38(5); See also: HANDBOOK ON ACCEPTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, CHAPTER-V, ¶ 92.
5
Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United
States), Preliminary Question, ICJ Reports 1954, 19, 32. See also Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v.
Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995, 87, 101, ¶ 26; See also: STANIMIR A. ALEXANDROV, THE COMPULSORY
JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: HOW COMPULSORY IS IT?
6
T. Giegerich, op. cit., pg. 1138.
7
Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (United States of America v.
Hungary); See also: Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (United States
of America v. USSR); See also: Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953(United States of America v.
Czechoslovakia); See also: Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Argentina); See also: Antarctica (United Kingdom v.
Chile); See also: Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. USSR); See also: Aerial
Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States of America v. USSR); See also: Aerial Incident of 7 November
1954 (United States of America v. USSR).
8
Corfu Channel case, Judgment on Preliminary Objection, I.C. J. Reports 1948, p. 15.
9
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment,
Z.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 69; Maura A. Bleichert, The Effectiveness of Voluntary Jurisdiction in the ICJ: El
Salvador v. Honduras, A Case in Point, 16 FOR. INT’L LAW J. 799 (1992).
10
S. Rosenne, op.cit., p. 673.
11
Id.
12
Cesare P. R. Romano, International Justice and developing countries, pg. 542; See also: RENATA SZAFARZ,
THE COMPULSORY JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (1991); See also: ROBERT
BECKMAN AND DAGMAR BUTTE, INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW ROBERT BECKMAN AND DAGMAR
BUTTE.
13
Supra note 8.
14
GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, pg. 7.
15
Preamble, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT]; See
also: Mark Eugen Villiger, Commentary on The 1969 Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties (2009),
pg.48; Olivier Corten, Pierre Klein, The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, (Vol. 1
2011), pg. 7.
16
Preamble, VCLT, supra Note 14, art. 65; See also: MARTIN DIXON, ROBERT MCCORQUODALE, SARAH
WILLIAMS, CASES & MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, (1991), pg. 95; See also: LUNG-CHU CHEN, AN
INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: A POLICY-ORIENTED PERSPECTIVE, (2000).

COMPETITION - 2018
respect to the treaty and reasons thereof.17 This has also been recognized as customary
international law [hereinafter CIL].18 Aryan has already notified Marshal that it does not
want to be bound with the defective consent.
[1.2] SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE DOES NOT ARISE UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF BORTEX
AGREEMENT.
The present case has been instituted under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute along with Article
4 of the Bortex Agreement [hereinafter BA].19 BA governs all actions, activities and disputes
arising between Aryan and Marshal in relation to the Line of Control [hereinafter LOC].20
The subject matter or ratione materiae of the present dispute is not covered by the BA
because the factual and legal questions raised in the present dispute are not defined under the
constitutive instrument.21
The issue of treatment with Major Dmitri cannot be characterized as matter directly or
indirectly linked to or arising out of BA. It is a subject- matter not connected in any way with
any of the situations contemplated by the treaties.22 While it is true that the phrase ‘directly or
indirectly’ might be capable of a very good interpretation, but this is evidently not the
meaning the parties intended it to have.23
[1.3] EVEN IF THE PRESENT DISPUTE IS COVERED UNDER THE BA, THE TREATY STANDS
TERMINATED.
A change of circumstances becomes relevant as it is related to the wills of the parties. 24 LOC
is formulated as the fundamental basis for the BA. No formula offers a substitute for it, or
17
MARTIN DIXON, ROBERT MCCORQUODALE, SARAH WILLIAMS, CASES & MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL
LAW, (1991), pg.95; LUNG-CHU CHEN, AN INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW: A
POLICY-ORIENTED PERSPECTIVE, (2000).
18
1 OLIVIER CORTEN & PIERRE KLEIN, THE VIENNA CONVENTIONS ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A
COMMENTARY, (2011); See also: OLIVER DÖRR AND KIRSTEN SCHMALENBACH (EDS.), THE VIENNA
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A COMMENTARY, (2012); See also: MARK EUGEN VILLIGER,
COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, (2009), pg. 1058; See also:
Christian Djeffal; European Journal of International Law, Volume 24, Issue 4 (2013), pg. 1223.
19
Moot proposition, ¶ 19.
20
Preamble, BA.
21
Yuval Shany, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, OXF. HANDBK. INT’L ADJ. (2013), pg.729.
22
ECJ Case C-259/95 Kremzow (1997) ECR I-2629, ¶ 18-19. ECJ.
23
International Law Reports, Vol. 132, pg.51.
24
C. Hill, The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus (Columbia: University of Missouri, 1934); See also: Free Zones
of Upper Savoy and District of Gex Case: France v. Switzerland; PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 46, (1932) pp. 156-8;
Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco, PCIJ, Series B, No. 4 (1923), p. 29 and Fisheries Jurisdiction Case,
supra n. 87, at p. 18.

COMPETITION - 2018
points unerringly to what need to be ascertained.25 It is a well-established principle of

international law, that a treaty ceases to be binding when the basic condition upon which it is
founded have essentially changed.26 Suspension of the convention in such circumstances is
the unquestioned right of state adversely affected by such essential change. 27 Even if, there
are fundamental change of circumstances, Aryan contends that Article 4 of the BA does not
apply to the present matter since the LOC as envisaged in the BA does not currently exist.
25
Hyde, international law chiefly as interpreted and applied by US 1524 (2 nd Rev. ed. 1945); Oliver J. Lissitzyn,
Treaties and Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus), A.M. J. INT’L LAW, Vol. 61, No. 4 (1967), pp.
895-922.
26
VCLT, art. 62; See also: Riaz Mohammad Khan, Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 26, No. 1 (First Quarter, 1973), pp.
16-28; Krzysztof J. Pelc, Making and Bending International Rules: The Design of Exceptions and Escape
Clauses in Trade Law (2018), pg..75; See also: Robert Cryer, Neil Boister, Documents on the Tokyo
International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgement, (Vol. 1, eds. 2008), pg. 1223; See also:
David R. Deener, The United States Attorneys General and international law (1957), pg. 304; See also: Scott
Davidson, The Law of Treaties (The Library of Essays In International Law) (Vol. 1 ed. 2004); See also: Stuart
Hull Mcintyre, Legal Effect of World War II On Treaties Of The United States (1958), pg. 26; See also: Ansay,
Tugrul, Recueil des Cours de l'Academie de Droit International de la Haye: Collected Courses of the Hague
Academy of Int'l Law (Vol.146, 1974), pg. 23.
27
Proclamation no. 2500, Aug. 9, 1941, 6 Fed. Reg 3999/ 1941; Document: - A/CN.4/182 and Corr.1&2 and
Add.1, 2/Rev.1 & 3, Law of Treaties: Comments by Governments on the draft articles on the law of treaties, at
its fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth session; See also: Document:- A/CN.4/94 Report of the International Law
Commission Covering the Work of its Seventh Session 2 May - 8 July 1955, Official Records of the General
Assembly, Tenth Session, Supplement No. 9 (A/2934); See also: Oliver J. Lissitzyn, Treaties and Changed
Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus), A.M. J. INT’L LAW, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 895-922; David R.
Deener, The United States Attorneys General and International Law (1957), pg. 304; See also: Robert Cryer,
Neil Boister, Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgement, (vol.
1 eds. 2008), pg. 1223; See also: Stuart Hull McIntyre, Legal Effect of World War II on Treaties of the United
States (1958), pg. 26; See also: Krzysztof J. Pelc, Making and Bending International Rules: The Design of
Exceptions and Escape Clauses in Trade Law (2018), pg.75.

COMPETITION - 2018
ISSUE-II
[2.] WHETHER THE TREATMENT METED OUT TO MAJOR DMITRI GODMAN

IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION?
The treatment meted out to Major Dmitri Godman [hereinafter Godman] is beyond the scope
of this court’s jurisdiction because [2.1] Alleged treatment Godman is not a subject matter
covered under BA; and [2.2] There is no substantial evidence of treatment meted out to
Godman.
[2.1] ALLEGED TREATMENT OF GODMAN IS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER COVERED UNDER BA.
The present case has been founded under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute alongside Article 4
of the BA.28 BA only governs actions, activities and disputes which arise between Marshal
and Aryan in relation to the LOC.29 The subject matter or ratione materiae of the present
dispute is not covered by the BA because the factual and legal questions raised in the present
dispute are not defined under the constitutive instrument.30
The agreement shall govern all actions, activities and disputes which arise between Marshal
and Aryan in relation to the LOC31, not the actions which arise because of the LOC. The
jurisdiction arises from the BA and the treatment meted out to Godman was a subject not
covered under the BA. Therefore, court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Marshal's Application.
[2.2] THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF TREATMENT METED OUT TO GODMAN.

Mere presence of Godman’s name tag on top of the chopped up body pieces 32 doesn’t prove
that the chopped up body pieces was of Major Godman and any kind of consequential
inhuman treatment was done with him. There is no substantial evidence of inhuman treatment
meted out to Godman. Even if the chopped up body pieces belonged to Godman even then
the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to decide over the merits of the inhuman treatment meted
out to Godman. In many cases, the accused were acquitted giving the benefit of doubt as the
applicant failed to adduce any “substantial evidence”.33 Similarly, in the present case Marshal
has failed to prove that any inhuman treatment was meted out to Godman by the Aryan.
28
Moot Proposition, ¶ 17.
29
Preamble of BA.
30
Supra note 20.
31
Preamble of BA.
32
33
The Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber, (ICC-01/04-02/12, 27 February 2015); See also:
The Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Pre-Trial Chamber (ICC-01/04-01/10, 23 December 2011); See also:
Prithipal Singh Etc v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10 (India).

COMPETITION - 2018
ISSUE-III
[3.] WHETHER PRISONERS OF WAR SHOULD BE RETURNED BACK TO THE

ARYAN?
Prisoners of war [hereinafter POWs] should be returned back to the Aryan because [3.1]
Detainment of POWs is contrary to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of
war, and [3.2] Consequential inhuman treatment with the POWs is contrary to the Customary
International Humanitarian Law.
[3.1] DETAINMENT OF POWS IS CONTRARY TO THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE
TREATMENT OF POWS.
“Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active
hostilities”.34 But Marshal refused to return the POWs by stating that these soldiers would be
kept in a permanent captivity.35 The war is already over and Marshal emerged victorious in
it.36 So, after the cessation of hostilities, according to Art. 11837, Marshal should repatriate all
the POWs and by not abiding to the principles of the Geneva Convention, it has breached Art.
11838 and common Art. 1 of the Geneva Convention lays down an obligation to respect and
ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances.
The ‘unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians’39 shall be regarded
as grave breach of this Protocol, when committed willfully and in violation of the convention
or the protocol.40 Therefore, this act of Marshal constitutes a grave breach of Additional
Protocol I [hereinafter AP I] of Geneva Convention. According to CIHL, “Prisoners of war
must be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities”,41
Hence the act of not repatriating the POWs back to the Aryan, is contrary to the Geneva
Convention and CIHL as well.
34
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 august 1949 [hereinafter Third
Geneva Convention], art. 118; See also: DIETER FLECK, THE HANDBOOK OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED
CONFLICTS, 731 (2013).
35
36
37
Fourth Geneva Convention, supra note 32, art. 118.
38
Id.
39
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims
of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), (1977), 1125 UNTS 3 [hereinafter AP-I], art. 85(4)(b).
40
AP-1, art.85(4).
41
CIHL, Rule 128; Daniel Wisher, Immigration Detention: Law, History, politics (2011).

COMPETITION - 2018
[3.1.1] POWs are kept in “unlawful confinement”.

‘Arbitrary deprivation of liberty is prohibited’42. It should be noted that common art. 3 of the
Geneva Convention, as well as AP I, state that all civilians and persons hors de combat be
treated humanely and arbitrary deprivation of liberty is contrary to the following
convention.43 No concrete ground for the detention of the POWs are given by Marshal.
Detention of POWs against the various rules44 laid down in the Geneva Convention is
referred to as “unlawful confinement”45. Therefore, Marshal should release the POWs from
its ‘unlawful confinement’.
[3.2] CONSEQUENTIAL INHUMAN TREATMENT WITH THE POWS IS CONTRARY TO THE
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW.

Modern international law perceives repatriation as the personal human right of a POW,
refugee, or internally displaced person to return to his or her place of origin. 46 Detaining a
person by arbitrarily, denying its liberty is a grave breach of Customary International
Humanitarian Law [hereinafter CIHL].47 Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely
treated, and may not be subjected to any physical mutilation.48
General Vadim has already given a statement at the UN General Assembly- ‘Every time, we
have to tolerate their rubbish. This time, we will make them pay for their sin’.49 This
statement of General Vadim has indicated that Marshal’s intention is not in a good faith and
they could seek revenge from the Aryan and therefore, they are not releasing the POWs.
42
CIHL, Rule 99.
43
Common art. 3 of all the Geneva Conventions and AP-1 and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions
of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II),
(977), 1125 UNTS 609 [hereinafter AP-2].
44
Deprivation of liberty by neutral States is governed by Hague Conventions (V) and (XIII), art.11, 13 and 14
of Hague Convention (V) state the grounds for detention of belligerent persons by neutral States; See also:
Article 24 of Hague Convention (XIII) states the grounds for the detention of belligerent ships, their officers and
crew by neutral States; See also: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and
Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (First Geneva Convention), (1949), 75 UNTS 31 [hereinafter First Geneva
Convention], art. 28, 30 and 32; See also: Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Geneva Convention), (1949), 75
UNTS 85 [hereinafter Second Geneva Convention], art. 36 and 37; See also: Third Geneva Convention, art. 21,
90, 95, 103, 109 and 118; Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 42 & art. 78.
45
Elements of Crimes for the UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July
1998 [hereinafter ICC Statute], Definition of unlawful confinement as a war crime (ICC Statute, article
8(2)(a)(vii)).
46
Alfred de Zayas, Repatriation, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2011); See also:
FRANçOISE KRILL, The ICRC’s policy on refugees and internally displaced civilians by, IRRC (September
2001) Vol. 83 No 843, pp 607.
47
Supra note 41.
48
Third Geneva Convention, art. 13.
49

COMPETITION - 2018
Later on, General Vadim stated that he was right in doing what he did and he committed to
bring Aryan to book.50 Marshal’s motive is to gain more political influence over Aryan but all
the committed acts by Marshal are contrary to the principles of the International law and the
treaties and conventions that both states are party to. 51 Aforementioned facts show that
Marshal has breached the CIHL, and Geneva Conventions.
[3.2.1] Sizeable number of POWs captured by Marshal would affect the nature of the
state.
The large number of POWs captured by Marshal would create public pressure on the Aryan
to get those POWs back. Martial law52 has been imposed on the Aryan who has never
witnessed any military coup53. So, nature of the state has already been changed from being
democratic to seeing the army rule. At that point of time, Aryan would be facing much more
pressure from the public and has been trying to adapt to the new rules of the new government.
Getting back the POWs would be a big relief for the new government as well as the people
residing in the Aryan’s territory.
50
Ibid at ¶ 17.
51
52
Ibid at ¶ 10.
53
Ibid at ¶ 4.

COMPETITION - 2018
ISSUE-IV
[4] WHETHER ARYAN IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DAMAGES?

Yes, Aryan is entitled to appropriate damages because [4.1] Acts of army are attributable to
Marshal; and [4.2] Acts are internationally wrongful acts because they violate of Customary
International Law and violate treaty law.
[4.1.] ACTS OF ARMY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO MARSHAL.

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or
omission is attributable to the State under international law and constitutes a breach of an
international obligation of the State.54
The condition for the existence of an internationally wrongful act of the State is that the
conduct attributable to the State should constitute a breach of an international obligation of
that State55. Sometimes an act can be attributed to the state if it knew or must have known. 56
States can only act by and through their agents.57 Thus the question is who should be
considered as acting on behalf of the state.
In the Rainbow Warrior case,58 the arbitral tribunal stressed, “any violation by a State of any
obligation, of whatever origin, gives rise to State responsibility”.59 If the legal acts in
question are imputable to state, they are regarded as acts attributed to state. 60 In the present
case, acts of taking POW’s capturing civilians, torturing them61 and denial of consular
access62 are all internationally wrongful acts which can be attributed to Marshal. Marshal
failed to fulfill the obligations under the BA, therefore giving rise to the state responsibility.
Since, Marshal has done consequential inhuman treatment with the captured POWs of the
Aryan, Marshal is subjected to pay the damages which are to be calculated based on settled
conventions under International law with respect to the loss suffered by Aryan.
54
Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001, art.2
55
Ibid at art.2 commentary (7).
56
Corfu Channel, United Kingdom v Albania, Judgment, Compensation, (1949) ICJ Rep 244, ICGJ 201 (ICJ
1949), 15th December 1949.
57
German Settlers in Poland Advisory Opinion of 10 September 1923 (Series B, No. 6), Permanent Court of
International Justice [hereinafter PCIJ].
58
Rainbow Warrior Case (Fr./N.Z.), 82 I.L.C. 499 (1990).
59
Ibid at pg. 251, ¶ 75.
60
Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America V. Iran)
Request for The Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 15 December 1979.
61
62
Ibid at ¶ 13.

COMPETITION - 2018
[4.2] ACTS ARE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT.

Art. 1 states the basic principle underlying the articles as a whole, which is that a breach of
international law by a state entails its international responsibility. 63 An internationally
wrongful act of a state may consist in one or more actions or omissions or a combination of
both.64 Whether there has been an internationally wrongful act depends, first, on the
requirements of the obligation which is said to have been breached and, secondly, on the
framework conditions for such an act, which are set out in part one.65
The term “international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under
international law by reason of the internationally wrongful act of a state.66 The content of
these new legal relations is specified in part two.67 Every internationally wrongful act of a
state entails the international responsibility of that state.68 In the Phosphates in Morocco
Case69, PCIJ affirmed that when a state commits an internationally wrongful act against
another state international responsibility is established “immediately as between the two
states70.
ICJ has applied the principle on several occasions, for example in the Corfu Channel Case71 ,
in The Military And Paramilitary Activities In And Against Nicaragua Case72 and in the Gab
Cikovo-Nagymaros Case73. The Court also referred to the principle in its advisory opinions
on Reparation for Injuries,74 and on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase)75, in
which it stated that “refusal to fulfill a treaty obligation involves international
responsibility”.76 Arbitral tribunals have repeatedly affirmed the principle in several cases for
63
Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries 2001, art. 1.
64
Commentary on Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with
commentaries 2001, art. 1.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Supra note 53, art. 1.
68
Id.
69
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14).
70
Ibid at pg. 10, at pg. 28; See also: S.S. “Wimbledon”, 1923, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 1, p. 15, at p. 30; See also:
Factory at Chorzów, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21; See also: Merits,
Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 29.
71
Supra note 56.
72
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),
Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, at p. 142, para. 283, and p. 149, para. 292.
73
Supra note 13, at p. 38, ¶ 47.
74
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1949,
p. 174, at p. 184.
75
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Second Phase, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 221.
76
Article 1, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries
2001.

COMPETITION - 2018
example in the claims of Italian nationals resident in Peru cases77; Dickson Car Wheel
Company Case78; International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States 79
;
Phosphates in Morocco Case80 and Armstrong cork company case. In the Rainbow Warrior
Case,81 the arbitral tribunal stressed “any violation by a State of any obligation, of whatever
origin, gives rise to State responsibility”.82
According to the arbitrator, it is an indisputable principle that “responsibility is the necessary
corollary of rights. All international rights entail international responsibility”. 83 According to
the Italian-United States Conciliation Commission, no State may “escape the responsibility
arising out of the exercise of an illicit action from the viewpoint of the general principles of
international law”.84
Thus the term “international responsibility” in art. 1 covers the relations which arise under
international law from the internationally wrongful act of a State, whether such relations are
limited to the wrongdoing State and one injured State or whether they extend also to other
States or indeed to other subjects of international law, and whether they are centered on
obligations of restitution or compensation or also give the injured State the possibility of
responding by way of countermeasures.85
[4.2.1]. Violation of Customary International Law.
a. International wrongful act under the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners of war must at
all times be humanely treated.86 “Cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon
personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” of civilians, are
prohibited.87 Torture and cruel treatment are also prohibited by specific provisions of the
77
Seven of these awards rendered in 1901 reiterated that “a universally recognized principle of international law
states that the State is responsible for the violations of the law of nations committed by its agents” (UNRIAA,
vol. XV (Sales No. 66.V.3), pp. 399 (Chiessa claim), 401 (Sessarego claim), 404 (Sanguinetti claim), 407
(Vercelli claim), 408 (Queirolo claim), 409 (Roggero claim), and 411 (Miglia claim)).
78
Dickson Car Wheel Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, UNRIAA, vol. IV (Sales No. 1951.V.1), p.
669, at p. 678 (1931).
79
International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, ibid., p. 691, at p. 701 (1931).
80
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14).
81
Rainbow Warrior affair, UNRIAA, vol. XX (Sales No. E/F.93. V.3), p. 215 (1990).
82
Ibid at p. 251, para. 75.
83
Max Huber, UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 615, at p. 641 (1925).
84
UNRIAA, vol. XIV (Sales No. 65.V.4), p. 159, at p. 163 (1953).
85
Supra note 53, art. 1 commentary (5).
86
Third Geneva Convention, Art 13.
87
Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3.

COMPETITION - 2018
Geneva Conventions.88 In addition, “torture or inhuman treatment” and “willfully causing

great suffering or serious injury to body or health” constitute grave breaches of the
Geneva Convention and are war crimes under the ICC.89 There were evidences of
consequential inhuman treatment with the captured POWs of the Aryan. From the above
facts, we can establish that Aryan has violated the Geneva Conventions and hence, should
compensate for the same.
b. International wrongful acts under International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights. Every human being has the inherent right to life.90 No one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.91 All persons deprived
of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of
the human person.92 POWs’ survival and well-being considered as the principal objective
of humanitarian rule.93 Marshal has treated POWs inhumanely that has ultimately
encroached the right to life and right against torture of the detained POWs.
[4.2.2] Violation of Treaty Law.

As per stated in the Article 3, “The parties to this Agreement shall ensure peace in the
demilitarized LOC and shall not indulge in any act of aggression without a fair warning to
each other”.94 It is prohibited for the Parties to the conflict to extend their military operations
to zones on which they have conferred by agreement the status of demilitarized zone.95
Marshal army has conducted large scale military operations in the LOC resulting in a full-
fledged war within the territory known as the Marshal- Aryan border skirmish96 even when it
is forbidden under BA Agreement and AP 1. From the above facts it can be established that
the Applicant should compensate to Respondent as it violated the BA and AP 1.
88
First Geneva Convention, art. 12(2); Second Geneva Convention, art. 12(2); See also: Third Geneva
Convention, art. 17(4), 87(3) & 89; Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 32.
89
First Geneva Convention, art. 50; Third Geneva Convention, art. 130; Fourth Geneva Convention, art.147;
ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(A)(II) And (III) And (C)(I).
90
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [hereinafter ICCPR], art. 6.
91
Ibid at art. 7.
92
Ibid at art. 10.
93
Civilians Claims–Eritrea's Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27-32 (Eritrea v. Ethiopia), Partial Award, Eritrea-Ethiopia
Claims Commission (Dec. 17, 2004); ICGJ 354 (PCA 2004).
94
BA, art. 3.
95
AP 1, art. 60.
96

COMPETITION - 2018
[4.3] MONITORY LOSS

War has serious economic costs – loss of buildings, infrastructure, a decline in the working
population, uncertainty, rise in debt and disruption to normal economic activity. 97 There has
been a huge monitory loss, especially the money invested on arms and ammunition.98 When
people are displaced, they cannot continue to work or keep their businesses open which cause
damage to the economy of countries involved.99 In addition, moral injury100 suffered by the
victim and their families for which Marshal is asking for pecuniary compensation. The
widespread trauma caused by the atrocities caused by the war and suffering of the civilian
population is another legacy of these conflicts, and moreover it creates extensive emotional
and psychological stress.101
[4.4] HARM TO THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL STANDING

The internal disturbance in the law and order within the territory of the Aryan because of the
full-fledged war.102 The citizens had to suffer, also because approx. 100 civilians were
captured by the Marshal.103 The fog of war, chaos and confusion, present during war and
other forms of armed conflict, made it difficult to obtain accurate information on the resulting
population health consequences.
The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to compensate
for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage cannot be compensated in the form of
restitution. The compensation shall cover all the financial assessable damages including loss
of profits insofar as it is established.104 In Eritrea v. Ethiopia case105, the commission
awarded compensation for mental and emotional harm suffered by the POWs.106 Hence,
Aryan is entitled to get reparations for the damages suffered by their government, their
people, property, and economy.
97
Tejvanpettinger, Economic Impact of War, (March 31, 2017), www.economicshelp.org.
98
Moot Preposition, ¶ 5
99
The Institute for Economics and Peace, The Economic Costs of Violence and Containment.
100
ILC Articles on State Responsibility, art. 36, Op. Cit. (Note 1).
101
"Impact of Armed Conflict On Children". United Nations Report. New York. 1996.
102
Moot Preposition, ¶ 9
103
Ibid at ¶ 10.
104
Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 36.
105
Supra Note 87.
106
Ibid at Eritrea’s Damages Claims, at p. 230, 238.

COMPETITION - 2018
ISSUE-V
[5.] WHETHER MARSHAL HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY

DENYING CONSULAR ACCESS TO MR. ALEX?
Marshal has violated international law by denying consular access to Mr. Alex because [5.1]
Mr. Alex is a national of Aryan; [5.2] Consular officer of Aryan has a right to access Mr.
Alex; and [5.3] Denial of consular access to Mr. Alex has violated customary International
Law.
[5.1] MR. ALEX IS A NATIONAL OF ARYANS.
In the present case, it is stated that Marshal agreed to release the civilians 107 except one
namely Mr. Alex, whom they claimed was being detained on the charges of espionage as he
belonged to the Aryan secret service.108 It is clearly mentioned in the facts that Mr. Alex is
the civilian of the Aryan109. Therefore Mr. Alex is a national of the Aryan. In the Jadhav’s
case110, India received another Note Verb ale on 21 March 2017 from Pakistan. In this,
Pakistan stated that, “the case for the consular access to the Indian”111
In the Case Of Paraguay v. United State Of America112, Mr. Breard was a Paraguayan
national and Paraguayan and consular officers immediately began rendering assistance to Mr.
Breard.113 In the LaGrand Case114, Germany had asserted rights on behalf of its nationals.115
As in the LaGrand Case116, the court gave the judgment that the Court cannot accept the
United States objections.
The dispute between the Parties as to whether Article 36, paragraph 1 (a) and (c), of the
Vienna Convention on Consular relations [hereinafter VCCR] have been violated in this case
in consequence of the breach of paragraph 1 (b) does relate to the interpretation and
application of the Convention. This is also true of the dispute as to whether paragraph 1 (b)
creates individual rights.117 This fact does not prevent a State party to a treaty, which creates
individual rights, from taking up the case of one of its nationals and instituting international
judicial proceedings on behalf of that national, on the basis of a general jurisdictional clause
107
AP 1, art. 50;
108
Moot proposition, ¶ 12
109
Id.
110
The Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), Verbatim Record (2017), ¶ 73.
111
Ibid.
112
Case Concerning the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America),
Verbatim Record, 98/22, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 June 1998.
113
Id.
114
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 466.
115
Ibid at ¶ 42.
116
Id.
117
Id.

COMPETITION - 2018
in such a treaty.118 Therefore, from the above facts and case it is legally proved that every
national has the right to access consular access under article 36(1)(c).119 Aryan has the right
to consular access to Mr. Alex being the national of the country. Hence, Marshal has to grant
consular access to Mr. Alex under article 36(1)(c) of VCCR.
[5.1.1] Mr. Alex has the right to consular access by the virtue of his nationality.
VCCR art. 36(1)(c) says that, consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the
sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him
and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national
of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a
judgment.120 In this case, Mr. Alex. was detained by Marshal,121 later a repeated request from
Aryan to Marshal to allow consular access to Mr. Alex were denied by the Marshal.122 In
accordance with art. 36(1) of the VCCR, Aryan has right to consular access and right to send
consular officer to converse with him, and to arrange for his legal representation. 123 As held
by this Court in Avena case124, “violations of the rights of the individual under Article 36
may entail a violation of the rights of the sending State, and that violations of the rights of the
latter may entail a violation of the rights of the individual”.125 In the LaGrand case126, the
German claim that the individual's rights to be informed without delay of his rights, is not
only an individual right but even a human right.127 There is a duty upon the arresting
authorities to give the information as soon as it is realized that the person is a foreign national
or once there are grounds to think that the person probably is a foreign national.128 Therefore,
in the present case, Mr. Alex has the right to consular access by virtue of his nationality.129
118
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 466.
119
VCCR, art. 36(1).
120
Id.
121
122
Id at ¶ 13.
123
Draft Articles on Consular Relations, with commentaries 1961, art. 36, commentary 4(c).
124
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2004,
p. 12.
125
Ibid at p.36, ¶ 40.
126
Supra note 108.
127
T. J. A. Schillings, Article 36 of The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, INT. & EU. LAW,
University of Tilburg (2016), pg. 55.
128
Supra note 121, pg. 58.
129
Supra note 108, ¶ 42.

COMPETITION - 2018
[5.1.2] Mr. Alex has inherent right to life.

Art. 6 of ICCPR recognizes that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 130 The
European Court of Human Rights [hereinafter ECHR] has held that returning a person to a
situation of indiscriminate violence intense enough to pose a real risk to the life of any
civilian would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of art. 3 of the
ECHR131.The right to life is recognized as a rule of customary international law.132
According to the International American Court of Human Rights, States must adopt all
necessary measures to create a legal framework that deters any possible threat to the right to
life, and must exercise due diligence in the prevention of such a violation 133. In this case, Mr.
Alex, who is detained on the charges of espionage,134 has inherent right to life, which shall be
protected by the law because he is a human being and every human being has the inherent
right to life.135 Hence, the act of denial of consular access to Mr. Alex by Marshal has
violated the right to life of Mr. Alex and violated ICCPR.136
[5.1.3] Mr. Alex has the right to liberty and security of his life.
Art. 9 of ICCPR recognize that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.137
The right to life overlaps with the right to personal security,138 especially with regard to
injuries or extreme forms of detention that are life-threatening139. The protection of the
civilian population and civilian objects is further underpinned by the requirement that all
parties to a conflict take precautions in attack, and in defence.140 In the present case, the
detention of Mr. Alex is arbitrary141 in nature because he was a civilian142 and he was
detained on the suspicion on being espionage143 without any substantial evidence. The
130
ICCPR, art. 6.
131
Sufi and Elmi v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 8319/07, 11449/07, ¶241, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2011); See also: L.M.
v. Russia, App. Nos. 40081/14 et al., paras. 119-126, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2015).
132
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Report to the General Assembly,
A/67/275, para. 105.
133
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela,
Judgment of 5 July 2006, ¶66; Velasquez Rodriguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser.
C) No. 4 (1988), ¶ 172.
134
135
Supra note 124.
136
137
ICCPR, art. 9.
138
Id at art. 9(1).
139
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35, Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), CCPR/C/GC/35,
¶ 55.
140
CIHL, rule 15.
141
Human Rights Watch, reports 2008.
142
Moot preposition, ¶ 12.
143
Id.

COMPETITION - 2018
repeated requests by the Aryan to Marshal to have consular access to Mr. Alex, were
denied144 which has deprived the right to liberty and security145 of Mr. Alex. Hence, this act
of Marshal has violated Customary International Law on Diplomatic Relation146.
[5.2] CONSULAR OFFICER OF ARYAN HAS A RIGHT TO ACCESS MR. ALEX.

Article 36(1)(c) of VCCR states that Consular officers shall have the right to visit a national
of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with
him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any
national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in
pursuance of a judgment. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on
behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such
action.147
In 1985, a UN General Assembly Resolution recognized an alien’s right to communicate with
their consulate.148 The receiving State must permit the consular official to visit a national of
the sending State who is in custody, prison or detention in his consular district, to converse
with him, and to arrange for his legal representation.149 The consular officers have rights to
visit a national in prison and to converse and correspond with him.150
In the present case, Mr. Alex who has been detained by the Marshal 151 even after the repeated
requests from Aryan to Marshal to have consular access to Mr. Alex were denied.152
Therefore, from the above fact it is clearly mentioned that the consular officer of Aryan has a
complete right to consular access to Mr. Alex153 and also, because Mr. Alex has not expressly
opposed the consular access.154
144
Id at ¶ 13.
145
Supra note 131.
146
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [hereinafter VCDR] (1964), 500 U.N.T.S. 95.
147
Supra note 113, art. 36(1)(c).
148
Declaration on the human rights of individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live,
General Assembly resolution 40/144, 116th plenary meeting, UN Doc A/RES/40/144 (13 December 1985), art
10.
149
Supra note 117.
150
Supra note 121, at pg. 60.
151
152
Id at ¶ 13.
153
Supra note 113.
154
Id.

COMPETITION - 2018
[5.3] DENIAL OF CONSULAR ACCESS TO MR. ALEX HAS VIOLATED CUSTOMARY

INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The VCCR to a large extent codified customary international law and thus represents the
most basic principles pertaining to the performance of consular functions.155 The United
States still looks to customary international law as a basis for insisting upon adherence to the
right of consular notification.156
Article 46(2) of AP 1 states that, ‘a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or
attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so
acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces’.157
It was never stated in the facts that Mr. Alex was engaged in gathering information against
Marshal in the uniform of his armed force. Facts clearly state that Mr. Alex is a civilian158
who has been captured by the Marshal as the result of war.159 Therefore, from the above
mentioned facts we can therefore establish that there is no substantial proof that Mr. Alex is
an espionage. Hence, the denial of consular access to Mr. Alex has violated CIL.
155
Consular Notification and Access, January 1998, Part Five: Legal Material.
156
Id.
157
AP 1, art. 46(2).
158
Supra note 101.
159

COMPETITION - 2018
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Aryan respectfully requests that this Court:
 Declare that the ICJ does not have the jurisdiction to determine the matter and the
treatment meted out with the Major Dmitri Godman is beyond the scope of this court’s
jurisdiction.
 In the event that this Court is pleased to assume jurisdiction over the said dispute, declare
that the Prisoners of War should be returned back to the Aryan.
 Aryan is entitled to appropriate damages from the Marshal.
 Marshal has violated International Law by denying consular access to Mr. Alex.
Respectfully Submitted,
Agents for the Aryan.

Respondent-1518 ICC Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent-1518 ICC Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent-1518 ICC Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 1518

7TH PROFESSOR V. S. MANI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

On Submission to the International Court of Justice

Memorial on behalf of Respondent

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ---------------------------------------------------------------------1-21

[1.1] Aryan has not consented to ICJ’s jurisdiction. ----------------------------------------------1-3

[2.1] Alleged treatment of Godman is not a subject matter covered. ------------------------------5

[2.2] There is no substantial evidence of treatment meted out to Godman. --------------------5-6

[3.1.1] POWs are kept in “unlawful confinement”. -------------------------------------------------7

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT ii

[4] WHETHER ARYAN IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DAMAGES? ------------------------------10

[4.1] Act of army are attributable to marshal. ---------------------------------------------------10-11

[4.2] Acts are internationally wrongful act ------------------------------------------------------11-12

[4.2.1] Violation of Customary International Law--------------------------------------------------13

[4.2.2] Violation of Treaty Law-----------------------------------------------------------------------14

[4.3] Monitory Loss------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14

[4.4] Harm to the territorial integrity, security, and International standing------------------14-15

[5.1] Mr. Alex is a national of Aryan. ------------------------------------------------------------16-17

[5.1.2] Mr. Alex has inherent right to life------------------------------------------------------------18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF------------------------------------------------------------------------------22

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT iii

AP-I Additional Protocol 1

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT iv

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT v

I.CJ. AND P.C.I.J. CASES

United kingdom v. Argentina, Antarctica case, ICJ Rep 12. ----------------------------------------1

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT vi

Libya v Malta, Continental Shelf, Judgment, [1985] ICJ Rep 13---------------------------------09

Hungary v Slovakia, Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, Judgment, judgment, ICJ Reports 1997-

Martínez Liébano and 36 others v Venezuela, IACHR Series C no 150. --------------------------

Portugal v Australia, East Timor, [1995] ICJ Rep 90. -----------------------------------------------

Italy v France, Phosphates in Morocco, PCIJ Series A/B No 74. ---------------------------------

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT vii

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Charter of the United Nations (1945), 1 U.N.T.S. XVI-----------------------------------------------

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT viii

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT ix

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT x

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xi

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xii

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xiii

The Aryan respectfully requests the Court to adjudge:

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xiv

Whether prisoners of war should be returned back to the Aryan?

Whether Aryan is entitled to appropriate damages?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xv

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xvi

[3.] WHETHER PRISONERS OF WAR SHOULD BE RETURNED BACK TO THE ARYAN?

[4.] WHETHER ARYAN IS ENTITLED TO APPROPRIATE DAMAGES?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xvii

[5.] WHETHER THE MARSHAL HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING

CONSULAR ACCESS TO MR. ALEX?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT xviii

[1.] WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS

[1.1] ARYAN HAS NOT CONSENTED TO ICJ’S JURISDICTION.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

points unerringly to what need to be ascertained.25 It is a well-established principle of

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4