Winner Best Memorial Respondent 2014

TELDERS INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014

WRITTEN MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF ROUNDSIA

(RESPONDENT)

in

THE ROUNDSIAN RESCUE DISPUTE

(ACHTAGONIA v ROUNDSIA)

Registration number 19 B

i

(a) Table of contents

(A) TABLE OF CONTENTS I

(B) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS III

(C) LIST OF SOURCES IV

(D) STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS XII

(E) ISSUES XV

(F) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XVII

(G) JURISDICTION OF THE COURT XIX

(H) ARGUMENTS 1

I THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO

ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT DISPUTE 1

A THE ICJ LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ROUNDSIA 1 1 On the basis of reciprocity Roundsia invokes Achtagoniarsquos reservation 1

B THE DECLARATION OF ACHTAGONIA IS INVALID 4 1 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is incapable of giving rise to a legal obligation 4 2 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is not in accordance with the principle of good faith 5 3 The automatic reservation is not consistent with the Courts Statute 5 4 The automatic reservation invalidates the whole declaration 6

II THE MISSION BY ROUNDSIA ON 7 JANUARY WAS A LAWFUL RESCUE

MISSION OF ITS NATIONALS ABROAD 7

A ROUNDSIArsquoS RESCUE MISSION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW 7 1 The use of necessary force to protect nationals abroad does not infringe Art 2(4) of

the UN Charter 7 11 The institute of self-defence under international customary law allows

interventions to protect onersquos nationals abroad 9 12 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was necessary 11 13 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was proportionate 11

2 An attack on a statersquos nationals abroad constitutes an attack on the state itself 12 B THE ACTIONS OF ROUNDSIArsquoS SPECIAL FORCES WERE NECESSARY DUE TO ACHTAGONIArsquoS

INACTION 13 1 Achtagonia failed to exercise the customary obligation to protect foreigners within its

territory as part of its sovereignty 13 2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention 14

2 1 The Hague Convention is binding on Achtagonia 14 2 2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention by its inaction towards the hijackers

15

III ACHTAGONIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING

IMMUNITY IN EXERCISING CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OVER CAPTAIN

SQUAREJAW 15

A ACHTAGONIA IS NOT COMPETENT TO PROSECUTE CAPTAIN SQUAREJAW 15 1 Captain Squarejaw enjoys immunity ratione personae 15 2 Captain Squarejaw is subject to immunity ratione materiae 18

ii

3 Captain Squarejaw would not be given a fair trial in Achtagonia 20

IV ROUNDSIA DID NOT BREACH ANY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE TREATY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS 20

A ROUNDSIA ACTED LAWFULLY PURSUANT TO ART VI OF THE TMACM 21 1 Roundsiarsquos refusal is in lsquogood faithrsquo 22 2 The ICJ has no jurisdiction over a self-judging clause 23

B ACHTAGONIArsquoS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE TMACM IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE

WITH ART V OF THE TMACM 24

(I) SUBMISSIONS 25

iii

(b) List of Abbreviations

Art Article

Diss Op Dissenting Opinion

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

GA General Assembly

GA Res General Assembly Resolution

ICJ International Court of Justice

ILC International Law Commission

No Number

p page

para paragraph

PICJ Permanent International Court of Justice

SC Security Council

TMACM Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters

UN United Nations

v versus

VLCT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

iv

(c) List of Sources

1 BOOKS

A Zimmerman et al The Statute of the International Court of Justice A Commentary

(2006) hereinafter cited as Zimmermann (2006)

B Simma et al The Charter of the United Nations A Commentary (2nd

ed 2002)

hereinafter cited as Simma (2002)

B Simma et al The Charter of the United Nations A Commentary (3rd

ed 2012)


M D Evans International Law (2nd

ed 2006) hereinafter cited as Evans (2006)

A Cassese International Law (2005) hereinafter cited as Cassese (2005)

Diederiks-Verschoor I H Philepina An Introduction to Air Law Kluwer Law International

(1997) hereinafter cited as Diederiks-Verschoor Philepina (1997)

E Gareth The Responsibility to Protect Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and For All

(2008) hereinafter cited as Gareth (2008)

C D Gray International Law and the Use of Force (3rd

ed 2008) hereinafter cited as Gray

(2008)

Y Dinstein War Aggression and Self-Defence (2005) hereinafter cited as Dienstein (2005)

M N Shaw International Law (5th

ed 2003) hereinafter cited as Shaw (2003)

v

2 ARTICLES

J S Brady Legal bases for the use of force against international terrorism The US

paradigm of humanitarian self-defense The Judge Advocate Generalrsquos School (1999) United

States Army (1999) hereinafter cited as Brady (1999)

A W R Thomson Doctrine of the protection of nationals abroad Rise of the non-combatant

evacuation operation Washington University Global Studies Law Review (Vol 11627

2012) hereinafter cited as Thomson (2012)

K E Eichensehr Defending nationals abroad Assessing the lawfulness of forcible hostage

rescues Virginia Journal of International law (Vol 48 No 2 2008) hereinafter cited as

Eichensehr (2008)

O Schachter The right of states to use armed force 82 Michigan Law Review 1620 (1984)

hereinafter cited as Schachter (1984)

J A Sheehan The Entebbe raid The principle of self-help in international law as justification

for state use of armed force Fletcher Forum (Vol 1 1977) hereinafter cited as Sheehan

(1977)

D Akande S Shah Immunities of state officials international crimes and foreign domestic

courts The European Journal of International Law (Vol 21 No 4 2011) hereinafter cited as

Akande Shah (2011)

J Foakes Immunity for international crimes Developments in the law on prosecuting heads

of state in foreign courts Chatam House International Law Programme (IL BP 201102

2011) hereinafter cited as Foakes (2011)

R Jennings Recent cases on lsquoautomaticrsquo reservations to the optional clause The International

and Comparative Law Quarterly (Vol 7 No 2 1958) hereinafter cited as Jennings (1958)

S R Ackerman B Billa Treaties and national security New York University Journal of

International Law and Politics Forthcoming Yale Law amp Economics Research Paper No 351

(2008) hereinafter cited as Ackerman Billa (2008)

R Briese S Schill ldquoIf the state considersrdquo Self-judging clauses in international dispute

settlement Max Plank Yearbook of United Nations Law (Vol 13 pp 61-140 2009)

hereinafter cited as Briese Schill (2009)

vi

S Zappalagrave Do Heads of State Enjoy Immunity from Jurisdiction for International Crimes

The Ghaddafi case before the French Cour de Cassation EJIL (vol 12 no 3 2001)

hereinafter cited as Zappalagrave (2001)

3 AWARDS BY COURTS

International Court of Justice

Case concerning Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (United Kingdom v Iran) 1952 ICJ (ICJ Reports

1952) hereinafter cited as Anglo-Iranian Oil Co ICJ Reports 1952

Case concerning Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (United Kingdom v Iran) 1952 ICJ (Preliminary

objections Judgment of 22 July 1952) hereinafter cited as Anglo-Iranian Oil Co

Preliminary objections Judgment (1952)

Case of certain Norwegian loans (France v Norway) 1957 ICJ (ICJ Reports 1957)

hereinafter cited as Certain Norwegian Loans ICJ Reports 1957

Case of certain Norwegian loans (France v Norway) 1957 ICJ (Judgment of 6 July 1957)

hereinafter cited as Certain Norwegian Loans Judgment (1957)


(Separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht) hereinafter cited as Certain Norwegian Loans

Separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht (1957)

Interhandel case (Switzerland v United States of America) 1959 ICJ (ICJ Reports 1959)

hereinafter cited as the Interhandel case ICJ Reports 1959

Interhandel case (Switzerland v United States of America) 1959 ICJ (Preliminary objections

Judgment of 21 March 1959) hereinafter cited as the Interhandel case Preliminary

objections Judgment (1959)

Case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v

United States of America) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment) 1984 ICJ (ICJ Reports

1984) hereinafter cited as the Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1984

vii


United States of America) (Judgment (Merits)) 1986 ICJ (ICJ Reports 1986) hereinafter

cited as the Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1986


United States of America) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment) 1984 ICJ hereinafter

cited as the Nicaragua case Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment (1984)


United States of America) (Judgment of 27 June 1986 (Merits) 1986 ICJ hereinafter cited as

the Nicaragua case Merits Judgment (1986)

Case concerning the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon

v Nigeria Equatorial Guinea intervening) 1998 ICJ (Preliminary objections Judgment of 11

June 1998) hereinafter cited as Land and maritime boundary Preliminary objections

Judgment (1998)

Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of

Congo v Rwanda) 2008 ICJ (Judgment of 3 February 2006) hereinafter cited as Congo

case Judgement (2006)

Right of passage over Indian territory (Portugal v India) 1957 ICJ (Preliminary objections

Judgment of 26 November 1957) hereinafter cited as Right of Passage over Indian

Territory Preliminary objections Judgment (1957)

Fisheries jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) 1998 ICJ (Jurisdiction of the Court Summary of the

Judgment of 4 December 1998 Declarations of acceptance of the Courts compulsory

jurisdiction and their interpretation) hereinafter cited as Fisheries Jurisdiction Summary of

Judgment (1998)

Nuclear testing (Australia v France) 1974 ICJ (Judgment of 20 December 1974) hereinafter

cited as Nuclear test Judgment (1974)

viii

Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (Advisory opinion) 1996 ICJ (ICJ Reports

1996) hereinafter cited as Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ICJ Reports

(1996)

Oil Platforms case (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) (Judgment 2003)

2003 ICJ (ICJ Reports 2003) hereinafter cited as the Oil Platforms case ICJ Reports

(2003)

United States diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) ICJ

1980 (Judgment of 24 May 1980) hereinafter cited as the US Diplomatic Staff in Teheran

Case Judgment (1980)

Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania)

(Judgment of 9 April 1949 (Merits)) ICJ 1949 (ICJ Report 1949) hereinafter cited as Corfu

Channel ICJ Reports (1949)

Arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium) (Judgment

of 14 February 2002) 2002 ICJ hereinafter cited as Arrest Warrant Judgment (2002)

Certain questions of mutual assistance in criminal matters (Djibouti v France) (Judgment of

4 June 2008 (Merits)) 2008 ICJ hereinafter cited as Mutual Assistance in Criminal

Matters Merits Judgment (2008)

Certain questions of mutual assistance in criminal matters (Djibouti v France) (Summary of

Judgment of 4 June 2008) 2008 ICJ hereinafter cited as Mutual Assistance in Criminal

Matters Merits Summary of Judgment (2008)

European Court of Human Rights

Ireland v United Kingdom (Judgment of 18 January 1978) 1978 ECHR hereinafter cited as

Ireland v United Kingdom Judgment (1978)

ix

Kalogeropoulou et al v Greece and Germany ECHR Admissibility Decision of 12

December 2002 129 ILR herinafter cited as Kalogeropoulou case Decision of 12

December 2002

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Prosecutor v Blaškić (objection to the issue of subpoena duces tecum) IT-95-14-AR108

(1997) hereinafter cited as Prosecutor v Blaškić (1997)

Domestic cases

Propend Finance v Sing (1997) (111ILR 611 CA) hereinafter cited as Propend Finance v

Sing (1997)

Chuidian v Philippine National Bank (1990) (92 ILR 480) hereinafter cited as Chuidian v

Philippine National Bank (1990)

Herbage v Meese (1990) (98 ILR 101) hereinafter cited as Herbage v Meese (1990)

Jaffe v Miller (1993) (95 ILR 446) hereinafter cited as Jaffe v Miller (1993)

Walker v Baird (1994) (16 OR (3d) 504) hereinafter cited as Walker v Baird (1994)

Federal Republic of Germany v Miltiadis Margellos Special Highest Court of Greece Case

617-9-2002 Decision of 17 September 2002 hereinafter cited as Margellos case Decision

of 17 September 2002

Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26 House of

Lords (opinions of the lords of appeal for judgment) (Lord Hoffmann) hereinafter cited as

Jones case Lord Hoffmann

Tachiona and Others v Mugabe and Others 169 F Supp 2d 258 (2001) hereinafter cited as

Tachiona v Mugabe (2001)

x

Wei Ye v Jiang Zemin 383 F3d 620 (7th Cir 8 September 2004) hereinafter cited as Wei

Ye v Jiang Zemin (2004)

4 UN DOCUMENTS

Charter of the United Nations 1945 available at https wwwunorgendocumentscharter

(10112013) hereinafter cited as the UN Charter

Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945 available at https

wwwunorgendocumentscharter (11112013) hereinafter cited as the ICJ Statute

General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) Declaration on Principles of International Law

concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter

of the United Nations available at httpwwwun-documentsneta25r2625htm

(15112013) hereinafter cited as the Declaration on friendly relations

ACN4661 Second report on the immunity of State officials from foreign criminal

jurisdiction by Concepcioacuten Escobar Hernaacutendez Special Rapporteur 2013 hereinafter cited

as Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez (2013)

The ILCrsquos articles on state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts 2001 available at

httplegalunorgilctextsinstrumentsenglishdraft20articles9_6_2001pdf (29112013)

hereinafter cited as ILC Articles on State Responsibility (2001)

6 MISCELLANEOUS

Telders case 2014 hereinafter cited as The case

Telders Case 2014 ndash Requests for Clarifications available at

httpwwwgrotiuscentreorgClarifications2014aspx hereinafter cited as Case

clarifications

Centre for International Law 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of

Aircraft Hague 1970 available at httpcilnusedusg19701970-convention-for-the-

suppression-of-unlawful-seizure-of-aircraft hereinafter cited as the Hague Convention

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of State 1933 available at

httpwwwcfrorgsovereigntymontevideo-convention-rights-duties-statesp15897 (26 11

2013) hereinafter cited as the Montevideo Cconvention

xi

Vienna Convention on the Llaw of Ttreaties 1969 available at

httpstreatiesunorgdocTreaties198001198001272000-5220AMCh_XXIII_01ppdf

(21 11 2013) hereinafter cited as the VCLT

xii

(d) Statement of Relevant Facts1

Roundsia is a developed state with a unitary central government In contrast Achtagonia is a

developing state composed of four provinces governed in a loose federal system The parties

to the present dispute are members of the UN and have both accepted the jurisdiction of the

ICJ pursuant to the optional clause Further both parties have signed and ratified the VCLT

moreover Roundsia has adopted the Hague Convention while Achtagonia has not

The parties are neighbouring states which share a 100 km border entirely along the territory of

the Achtagonian province of Quad In recent years there have been intermittent

skirmishes between the Roundsian governmentrsquos special forces and militant groups from

Achtagoniarsquos Quad province although in the past Achtagonia and Roundsia have enjoyed

friendly relations Roundsiarsquos military actions along the border were necessary due to

Achtagoniarsquos failure to take action to control the militant groups in Quad It was assured by

Roundsiarsquos Minister of Defence that the purpose of the interventions is to disarm the

militants and that the special forces have strict orders to only use force in self-defence

In 2010 a Roundsian family of four was held hostage for several days during border

skirmishes Although the incident was resolved peacefully through negotiation and the family

was not harmed Roundsia considers the incident a vigorous violation of the right of

Roundsian nationals and consequently Roundsia itself The Circular Times reported that the

militant group involved in the incident had routinely received assistance from the government

of Achtagoniarsquos Quad province and that the militants spoke with a dialect unique to that

province Roundsia requested Achtagonia to pursue the militants involved in the 2010

incident While no arrests have been made the matter continues to be a priority of Roundsia

1 Based on the Telders case 2014

xiii

In December 2013 a Roundsian commercial aircraft with 90 Roundsian nationals (passengers

and crew) on board and 10 passengers of other nationalities was hijacked by five heavily-

armed unidentified individuals Due to inclement weather the hijackers were forced to make

an emergency landing in Achtagonia on 31 December 2013 The aircraft landed at a rural

airport near the border between Achtagonia and Roundsia and the hijackers took the

passengers and crew to an abandoned building in the airport complex

After the 31 December 2013 hijacking and during the first week of January 2014 the

Roundsian authorities made significant efforts to bring the situation to an end and safeguard

the hostages and for that reason were in continuous contact with the highest political and

diplomatic levels of Achtagonia

On 1 January 2014 the Foreign Minister of Roundsia wrote to the SC of the UN expressing

Roundsiarsquos grave concern for the safety of the hostages In the first week after the hijacking

Achtagonia took no action in response to Roundsiarsquos demands While no formal statements

were made Achtagonia appeared content to leave the matter to Roundsia Further 15

individuals with serious health problems (seven of whom are Roundsians) were released

They reported that the hijackers appeared to be sharing the aircraftrsquos food supplies with local

Quad residents

Roundsiarsquos Foreign Minister expressed concern over the limited food supplies on the aircraft

and recalled the 2010 hostage incident involving militant forces operating in Achtagonia The

situation sharpened when Achtagoniarsquos President declined the hijackersrsquo request for a meeting

and refused the hijackersrsquo demands to refuel and safety service the aircraft This resulted in a

public threat by the hijackers that they would randomly murder the hostages The hijackers

from 4 January 2014 publicly threatened to kill the hostages at random if Achtagonia refused

to facilitate the onward flight

xiv

At 200 am on 7 January 2014 under heavy cloud cover the Special Forces of Roundsia

undertook a rescue mission All of the hostages were saved and all of the hijackers were

killed All members of the special forces returned to Roundsia except Captain Jack

Squarejaw He was left at the airport in a seriously injured state and is now recovering in a

military hospital in Achtagonia The Achtagonian government charged him with the murder

of the five hijackers Roundsia argues that Captain Squarejaw is entitled to state immunity and

cannot be prosecuted in Achtagonia Further Roundsia stressed that Captain Squarejaw is not

only a captain in its special forces but also the Deputy Minister of Defence In an official

statement Roundsiarsquos Prime Minister calls Captain Squarejaw a national hero and commends

him for his years of service to Roundsia particularly his peaceful resolution of the 2010

hostage incident involving the Roundsian family

Roundsia and Achtagonia concluded a TMACM in 1985 It requires each Party to provide

information it holds is relevant to an inquiry into alleged criminal offences over which the

other has jurisdiction On the basis of the aforementioned Treaty Achtagonia requested

Roundsia to supply information about the general training provided to its special forces and

the particular instructions and rules of engagement applicable to the January

exercise Roundsia lawfully refused to disclose such information as is its right on the basis of

Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues

The Respondent respectfully asks this Honourable Court to consider the following questions

I Does the Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute

A Did the Applicant properly bring the application within the jurisdiction of the

ICJ

B Is the declaration of Achtagonia invalid due to its reservation

C Is the reservation consistent with the Courts Statute

II Does the mission by Roundsia on 7 January constitute a breach of international law

A Was the use of force in accordance with international law

1 Does the rescue mission infringe Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter

2 Does self-defence allow an intervention to protect onersquos nationals

abroad under international customary law

B Was the rescue mission necessary due to Achtagoniarsquos failure to act

1 Did Achtagonia violate customary international law when it abandoned

its duty to protect foreigners

2 Is the Hague Convention legally binding on Achtagonia

3 Did Achtagonia breach the Hague Convention by not taking any

actions

III Did Achtagonia violate international law concerning the immunity of Captain

Squarejaw

A Is Achtagonia competent to prosecute Captain Squarejaw

1 Does Captain Squarejaw enjoy immunity ratione personae and ratione

materiae

xvi

B Did Achtagonia breach international law when it started proceedings against

Captain Squarejaw

IV Was Roundsia in breach of its obligations under the TMACM

A Did Roundsia act lawfully pursuant to Art VI of the TMACM

B Does the ICJ hold jurisdiction over a self-judging clause

C Was Achtagoniarsquos request for information under the TMACM in accordance

with Art V of the TMACM

1 Did the Applicantrsquos request fulfil all the necessary conditions stated in

Art V of the TMACM

xvii

(f) Summary of Arguments

1) Roundsia submits that Achtagonia cannot properly bring a claim under the jurisdiction

of the ICJ for Roundsiarsquos actions with respect to the reservation in the declaration

made by Achtagonia

2) Roundsia submits that Achtagoniarsquos declaration is invalid and thus incapable of giving

rise to a legal obligation

3) Roundsia submits that Achtagoniarsquos automatic reservation is inconsistent with the

Courts Statute and it invalidates the whole declaration

4) Roundsia submits that the rescue mission on 7 January in Achtagonia was a lawful

rescue mission of its nationals abroad and does not constitute a breach of international

law

5) Roundsia submits that the rescue mission by its special forces was necessary due to

Achtagoniarsquos failure to exercise the customary obligation to protect foreigners within

its territory as part of its sovereignty

6) Roundsia submits that Achtagonia is bound by the Hague Convention

7) Roundsia submits that Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention by not taking any

actions

8) Roundsia submits that Achtagonia violated international law concerning the immunity

of Captain Squarejaw and also by exercising criminal jurisdiction over him

9) Roundsia submits that Captain Squarejaw is subject to immunity ratione personae and

ratione materiae and therefore cannot be prosecuted Moreover Captain Squarejaw

was performing acts in his official capacity and therefore only the state can be held

liable for them

xviii

10) Roundsia submits that it is not in breach of any of its obligations under the TMACM

or that it violated international law

11) Roundsia submits that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over a self-judging clause

12) Roundsia submits that its refusal pursuant to Art VI of the TMACM was in good

faith

13) Roundsia submits that Achtagoniarsquos request is not in accordance with Art V of the

TMACM

xix

(g) Jurisdiction of the Court

Roundsia and Achtagonia are both members of the UN and parties to the Statute of the ICJ

They have accepted the Courtrsquos jurisdiction by means of respective declarations under Art 36

(2) of the Statute of the Court Pursuant to Art 36 (3) of the ICJ Statute Roundsia made its

declaration on the condition of reciprocity

Achtagonia has included a reservation in its declaration which excludes from the ICJrsquos

jurisdiction ldquodisputes relating to the national defence of Achtagonia as determined by

Achtagoniardquo

Roundsia argues that the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the

present dispute

1

(h) Arguments


ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT DISPUTE

Both States parties are members of the United Nations and parties to the Statute of the

International Court of Justice The Applicant commenced proceedings before the International

Court of Justice recognising as compulsory ipso facto the Courtrsquos jurisdiction with the

declarations submitted by both parties to the present dispute pursuant to Art 36 (2) of the ICJ

Statute Roundsia stipulated no relevant reservation while Achtagonia has formed a

reservation which excludes from the ICJrsquos jurisdiction ldquodisputes relating to the national

defence of Achtagonia as determined by Achtagoniardquo2 Roundsia has in accordance with Art

36 (3) of the ICJ Statute made its declaration on the condition of reciprocity Roundsia argues

that the International Court of Justice lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute

A The ICJ lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against Roundsia

1 On the basis of reciprocity Roundsia invokes Achtagoniarsquos reservation

Roundsia formed its declaration on the basis of reciprocity pursuant to Art 36 (3) of the ICJ

Statute

The notion of reciprocity is well established since in several cases3 the ICJ has reaffirmed the

adequate meaning of reciprocity in the implementation of Art 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute4

Reciprocity serves the purpose of maintaining equality between all States parties which have

2 The case para 11

3 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co ICJ Reports 1952 p 103 Certain Norwegian Loans ICJ Reports

1957 pp 23-4 Interhandel case ICJ Reports 1959 p 23 Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1984

p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64

4 Land and maritime boundary Preliminary objections Judgment (1998) p 298

2

submitted their declarations on the basis of Art 36 (2)5 The condition of reciprocity is not

abstract as it must be in conjunction with a provision of the declaration or of the ICJ Statute6

Further the aforementioned condition of reciprocity is ldquoconcerned with the scope and

substance of the commitments entered into including reservationshelliprdquo7 as it requires the

Court to determine if a consensus has been achieved by the parties to the present dispute8

This was reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case9 where the ICJ recalled that

the Court must determine by interpreting the declarations of acceptance and of any

reservations they include if a consensus has been reached to establish the Courtrsquos jurisdiction

on the grounds of mutual consent10

Further the ICJ emphasised that every state may

formulate its declaration as it pleases consequently the ICJrsquos jurisdiction only exists where

the declarations of States parties overlap in conferring it11

Regarding this Shaw stated that

ldquothe doctrine of the lowest common denominator thus operates since the acceptance by

means of the optional clause by one state of the jurisdiction of the Court is in relation to any

other state accepting the same obligationrdquo12

Further reciprocity enables a state party to

invoke a reservation which originated from the declaration of the other party13

Consequently

5 Zimmermann (2006) p 607

6 Right of Passage over Indian Territory Preliminary objections Judgment (1957) p 24

7 Land and maritime boundary Preliminary objections Judgment (1998) p 299 also see

Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1984 p 419 para 62 also pp 420-21 para 64

8 Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1984 pp 420-421 para 64

9 Fisheries Jurisdiction Summary of Judgment (1998) paras 39-56

10

Ibid

11

This was reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Summary of Judgment

(1998) paras 39-56 also in Certain Norwegian Loans Judgment (1957) p 18

12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13

Zimmermann (2006) p 608

3

the party which more widely accepts the Courtrsquos jurisdiction may rely upon the narrower

acceptance made by the other party This was reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Anglo-Iranian oil

company case14

Interhandel case15

and the Norwegian Loans case16

Achtagonia made its declaration under Art 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute with a reservation on

ldquodisputes relating to the national defence of Achtagonia as determined by Achtagoniardquo17

In

this respect Roundsia stresses that the consensus between the States parties according to their

declarations exists in the narrower limits indicated by Achtagoniarsquos reservation Further

Roundsia is entitled by virtue of the condition of reciprocity to invoke the reservation relating

to national defence pursuant to the reservation made by Achtagonia Therefore Roundsiarsquos

declaration does not confer jurisdiction of the Court regarding disputes which relate to the

national defence of Roundsia as determined by Roundsia By invoking the reservation of

Achtagonia on the basis of reciprocity Roundsia determines that the present dispute falls

within the category of Roundsiarsquos national defence The notion of national defence reflects a

statersquos obligation to protect its essential values and interests from any external interferences

which might compromise the statersquos sovereignty In the present dispute Roundsiarsquos nationals

who were held hostage represent the threatened essential value of Roundsia which must be

protected Roundsia condemns the actions of the hijackers which pose a grave threat to the

national defence of Roundsia as well as a threat to international peace and security

14

Anglo-Iranian Oil Co Preliminary objections Judgment (1952) p 14

15

Interhandel case Preliminary objections Judgment (1959) p 21

16

Certain Norwegian Loans Judgment (1957) p 19

17

The case para 11

4

B The declaration of Achtagonia is invalid

1 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is incapable of giving rise to a legal obligation

Art 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute serves the purpose of accepting the Courtrsquos jurisdiction by

submitting a unilateral declaration ldquoin relation to any other State accepting the same

obligationrdquo18

It is well established that states enjoy liberty in deciding to accept the Courtrsquos

jurisdiction and also in formulating its declarations19

However this liberty should not be

mistaken for arbitrariness to the point that ldquothe State making the declaration is free to amend

the scope and the contents of its solemn commitments as it pleasesrdquo20

The intention of both

States parties in submitting the declaration of acceptance was to become legally bound by it21

This point was recalled by the ICJ in the Nuclear test case22

In conclusion when a state accepts the Courtrsquos jurisdiction the declaration must be formed

pursuant to the principle of effectiveness meaning that if a declaration is made with

reservations such reservations ldquomust be interpreted by reference to the object and purpose of

the declaration which was the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Courtrdquo23

Therefore Roundsia argues that Achtagoniarsquos declaration is unable to create legal obligations

while it is in conflict with the declarationrsquos object and purpose which is to accept the Courtrsquos

jurisdiction By conferring the jurisdiction of the ICJ on the basis of unilateral declarations

18

ICJ Statute Art 36 (2)

19

This was reaffirmed by the ICJ in Fisheries Jurisdiction Summary of Judgment (1998)

paras 39-56 and also Nicaragua case Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment (1984) para

59

20

Nicaragua case Jurisdiction and Admissibility Judgment (1984) para 59

21

Nuclear test Judgment (1974) para 46

22

Ibid

23

Fisheries Jurisdiction Summary of Judgment (1998) paras 39-56

5

both parties to the present dispute concluded a type of contract which gives rise to mutual

rights and obligations However Achtagoniarsquos declaration cannot be treated as a legal

instrument due to Achtagoniarsquos lsquoautomatic reservationrsquo which states ldquohellipas determined by

Achtagoniardquo24

by which it can unilaterally determine whether its obligation exists or not25

2 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is not in accordance with the principle of good faith

Roundsia emphasises that one of the general principles of international law is the obligation to

act in good faith26

As regards the present dispute Roundsia stresses that the automatic

reservation enables Achtagonia to unilaterally preclude the Courtrsquos competence to determine

whether Achtagonia is invoking its automatic reservation legally and in good faith In

conclusion Roundsia emphasises that Achtagoniarsquos automatic reservation is not in

accordance with the principle of good faith With this type of reservation Achtagonia has

encroached upon the Courtrsquos jurisdiction

3 The automatic reservation is not consistent with the Courts Statute

Achtagoniarsquos reservation is not in line with the object and purpose of the ICJ Statute Art 36

(6) of the ICJ Statute states ldquoin the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction

the matter shall be settled by a decision of the Courtrdquo27

With respect to the aforementioned

article it must be pointed out that when a statersquos declaration includes an lsquoautomatic

reservationrsquo it deprives the Court of the power bestowed upon it pursuant to Art 36 (6) of the

24

The case para 11

25

Certain Norwegian Loans Separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht (1957) p 44

26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28

Roundsia argues that such conduct is inadmissible and therefore such an

automatic reservation must be recognised as invalid by the Court

It is well established that an automatic reservation is not in compliance with the provisions of

Art 36 (6) which declare the principle of compeacutetence de la compeacutetence (the Kompetenz

Kompetenz doctrine) consequently it is also in contradiction with the ICJ Statute29

Further

Roundsia points out that the adoption of such a reservation by the ICJ as valid it would be

acting against both its Statute and the general Art 92 of the Charter which requires the Court

to act in accordance with the Statute

4 The automatic reservation invalidates the whole declaration

Roundsia argues that Achtagonias declaration cannot be treated as a valid legal instrument

due to the automatic reservation being a vital element of the declaration An invalid

declaration is therefore incapable of giving rise to legal effects consequently Achtagonia

may not found the Courts jurisdiction on this ground30

Judge Lauerpacht argues that ldquoit is not

the case that the Declaration is valid until an occasion arises in which that particular

reservation is relied upon by one party and challenged by the other with the result that its

inconsistency with the Statute is thus brought to light The Declaration is invalid ab initiordquo31

28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7


MISSION OF ITS NATIONALS ABROAD

A Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was in accordance with international law

1 The use of necessary force to protect nationals abroad does not infringe Art 2(4) of

the UN Charter

In order to fully and clearly understand the meaning of specific provisions of the UN Charter

we must pursue the fundamental purpose32

for which it was written33

By taking a closer look

at the Preamble Art 1 55 and 56 of the UN Charter a powerful argument is revealed

namely that the UN Charterrsquos fundamental purpose is the protection of human rights34

With

Art 2 (4) being an essential principle35

of the UN Charter it must be interpreted in

accordance with the fundamental purposes of that Charter36

ldquoTherefore when viewed against

the purposes of the Charter as a whole Art 2 (4) does not prohibit forcible self-help to protect

humanitarian concernsrdquo37

Notwithstanding the importance and general acceptance of Art 2 (4) of the UN Charter as a

jus cogens norm38

and a norm of customary international law39

it must be recognised that the

32

As Kofi Annan stated ldquowhen we read the Charter today we are more than ever conscious

that its aim is to protect individual human beingshelliprdquo see Gareth (2008) p 37

33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35

The prohibition on the threat of the use of force with the status of a jus cogens norm and a

norm of customary law

36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38

is a universally recognised norm of which derogation is not permitted

8

wording of Art 2 (4) does not cover all dimensions of the use of force with one of the

dimensions being the inherent right of states to use self-defence that is embodied in Art 51 of

the UN Charter and which has also gained the status of a rule of customary law This view

was reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Nicaragua case40

In this respect Roundsia argues that a

customary rule has formed over the years with widespread state practice41

which recognises

the right of a state to rescue its nationals when certain conditions are met

The rescue of nationals abroad is in compliance with Art 2 (4) of the UN Charter when three

conditions are met cumulatively According to Simma ldquofirstly the life of nationals must be

endangered in the territory of other state Secondly the other state is not able or unwilling to

ensure the safety of the persons concerned Thirdly the scale and effect of military force used

are adequate to achieve the purpose and goal of the operation thus the impact on the other

statersquos territory is kept to the absolutely necessary minimumrdquo42

As a member of the UN

Roundsia recognises and respects its obligation under the UN Charter but stresses that every

state has a commitment to protect its nationals as they represent the core of every state The

rescue mission was in accordance with the required conditions described by Simma43

In this

respect Roundsia stresses that the rescue missionrsquos sole purpose was to rescue its nationals

39

defined in Art 38 (1)(b) of the ICJ Statute as ldquoevidence of a general practice accepted as

lawrdquo

40

Nicaragua case Merits Judgment (1986) para 176

41

Operations by the UK in the Suez Canal in 1956 the USA from 1958 until 1989 in

Lebanon and Panama Belgium in Congo in 1960 and 1964 Israel in Uganda (Entebbe) in

1976 France in Mauritania in 1977 Russia in Georgia in 2008 the USA in Teheran in 1980

the USA in Grenada in 1984 and in Panama in 1989 also the USA in Liberia in 1990 France

and the USA in the Central African Republic in 1996 and 2003 Belgium and France in

Rwanda in 1990 1993 and 1997 France in Chad in 1992 and 2006 Germany in Albania in

1997 France in the Ivory Coast in 20023

42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

from imminent danger44

The necessity requirement was given due to Achtagoniarsquos inaction in

response to its duty to protect the lives within its territory45

Consequently Roundsiarsquos right to

protect its own nationals arose Moreover the rescue mission was proportionate whereas the

military force was only directed at the armed hijackers and was terminated immediately after

the purpose had been achieved46

Further the rescue mission was not in any way directed at

breaching the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Achtagonia Roundsia thus concludes

that the rescue mission was legal and justified

11 The institute of self-defence under international customary law allows interventions

to protect onersquos nationals abroad

Roundsia was acting pursuant to its inherent right to self-defence under customary

international law when carrying out the rescue mission The legal exercise of self-defence

requires that the conditions of necessity and proportionality are satisfied The latter was

reaffirmed in the following cases the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion47

the Oil Platforms

case48

and the Nicaragua case49

Moreover the ICJ ruled in the Nicaragua case that ldquohellipthe

Charter having itself recognized the existence of right to self-defence does not go on to

regulate directly all aspects of its content Moreover a definition of the lsquoarmed attackrsquo which

if found to exist authorizes the exercise of the lsquoinherent rightrsquo of self-defence is not provided

44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ICJ Reports 1996 p 226 para 141

48

Oil Platforms case ICJ Reports 2003 p 161

49

Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1986 para 194

10

in the Charter and is not part of treaty lawrdquo50

Roundsia emphasises that customary

international law continues to exist alongside treaty law meaning that the international treaty

law does not prevail over international customary law51

In the era before the UN Charter was adopted a right existed to forcibly protect nationals

abroad under customary international law52

In addition Roundsia stresses that since 1945 when the UN Charter was accepted ldquothere has

been no treaty no UN Security Council Resolution nor any judgment53

from the ICJ

condoning or condemning the legality54

of protection of nationals abroadrdquo55

Many states have

carried out rescue operations56

in order to rescue their nationals abroad at least since 196057

Roundsia emphasises that a positive opinio juris has been established Further the inaction of

the international community and the fact many third states have refrained from condemning

the aforementioned rescue operations only acts as confirmation In this respect a strong

argument may be made that a customary international rule has crystallised which confirms the

legality of Roundsiarsquos rescue mission58

This view is confirmed by many international legal

experts such as Bowett Kewenig Paasche Schroumlder Dinstein Schachter and many others

50


51

Ibid

52

Thomson (2012) p 644

53

US Diplomatic Staff in Teheran Case Judgment (1980) p 227

54

Also confirmed by Gray (2008) p 159

55


56

See p 8 of the memorandum reference No 41

57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11

12 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was necessary

For the use of force in self-defence for the purpose of protecting onersquos own nationals abroad

to be legal it must be necessary The necessity requirement has two parts The first requires

certainty of the imminent threat to the hostages and the second demands that peaceful means

to prevent harm to the hostages be exhausted59

The need for the rescue mission was established by clear indicators Roundsiarsquos nationals

were not only being detained by heavily armed hijackers but the hijackers had publicly

threatened to kill the hostages at random if Achtagonia refused to facilitate the flight At this

point there is no doubt that the hostages were in imminent danger and that the necessity

requirement was fulfilled The second part of the lsquonecessityrsquo requirement demands that non-

forceful means be exhausted prior to the use of force However non-forceful means were not

adequate in this situation or as Schachter pointed out ldquowhen the lsquoremediesrsquo are likely to be

futilerdquo60

The armed intervention was urgent since the hostages faced certain death Moreover

Roundsia stresses that without the element of surprise it is highly probable that the rescue

mission would have failed allowing the hijackers to secure themselves Consequently the

hijackers may have felt threatened which may have led to the lives of the hostages being put

at even greater risk61

13 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was proportionate

The main purpose of Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was to safeguard the hostages it harboured

no intentions with regard to Achtagonia The rescue mission was on a small scale and only

temporarily breached Achtagoniarsquos territory On that note Roundsia emphasises that the

59

Eichensehr (2008) p 470

60

Schachter (1984) p 334

61

Ibid p 473

12

rescue mission was a so-called in-and-out operation Achtagoniarsquos territorial sovereignty was

breached for a short period of time long enough to ldquooverfly the territory land retrieve the

hostages take off and overfly out of the territoryrdquo62

Therefore Roundsia concludes that its

action was undertaken in complete harmony with the principle of proportionality

2 An attack on a statersquos nationals abroad constitutes an attack on the state itself

According to Eichensehr ldquothe harm to a statersquos citizens could reach the level of armed

attackrdquo63

This would occur when the scale of imminent danger to nationals reaches such

intensity that it would be classified as an assault on the state itself64

Roundsia recognises the

kidnapping of its nationals by the armed hijackers and the imminent threat they were

subjected to as an armed attack on itself

Under the Montevideo Convention the permanent population constitutes an essential element

for the existence of a state65

In this regard by carrying out the rescue mission to protect its

nationals in Achtagonia Roundsia was acting in line with its self-preservation Roundsia

points out that the number of hostages involved namely 82 Roundsian nationals in the

hijacking reveals the large magnitude of the attack According to Eichensehr ldquoindeed even in

the traditional self-defence context number of deaths is not the measure of an armed

attackrdquo66

62

Sheehan (1977) p 151

63 Eichensehr (2008) p 468

64 Ibid

65 Montevideo convention Art 1

66


13

B The actions of Roundsiarsquos special forces were necessary due to Achtagoniarsquos inaction

1 Achtagonia failed to exercise the customary obligation to protect foreigners within its

territory as part of its sovereignty

Sheehan notes that ldquoa cardinal rule of municipal as well as international law is the maxim sic

utere tuo ut alienum non laedas or use your own property in such a manner as not to injure

that of anotherrdquo67

ICJ reaffirmed the latter rule in the Corfu Channel case68

In this regard

Achtagonia clearly breached its customary international obligation which implies that a state

should not allow its territory to be used in a manner whereby the legally protected interests of

other states would be endangered69

In the present case Roundsiarsquos nationals represent its

legally protected interest as Achtagonia did not take any action whatsoever to protect them

Achtagonia must thus be held accountable for its inaction70

It could be implied that

Achtagonia ldquoappeared content to leave the matter to Roundsiardquo71

Roundsia argues that it on

several occasions urged Achtagoniarsquos authorities to take appropriate measures to safeguard

the hostages and bring the situation to an end

ldquoIn the course of 1-3 January 15 individuals with severe health problems (seven of whom are

Roundsians) are released Those released from the aircraft report that the hellip hijackers appear

to be sharing the aircraftrsquos food supplies with local Quad residentsrdquo72

This alarming fact

implied that the hijackers were collaborating with Achtagonia or more precisely with

67


68

Corfu Channel ICJ Reports 1949 p 22

69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14

residents of the Quad province in Achtagonia Here we should recall the hostage taking of a

Roundsian family in 2010 by a militant group which ldquospoke with a dialect unique to that

provincerdquo73

Even more disturbing was an article in the Circular Times which ldquoreported that

the militant group routinely received assistance from the government of Achtagoniarsquos Quad

provincerdquo74

Roundsia argues that in cases where it is presumed that the authorities are

collaborating with the hijackers or when the authorities do not take any action against the

hijackers in order to protect the nationals of a foreign state actions in self-defence are

justified75

2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention

2 1 The Hague Convention is binding on Achtagonia

Both States parties to the present dispute have signed and ratified the VCLT Unlike

Achtagonia Roundsia is a party to the Hague Convention and the Convention for the

Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal Convention)

Art 38 of the VCLT provides an exception to the general rule implemented in Art 34 of

VCLT whereby it declares that the rules in a treaty can become binding on third states

through international custom Customary international law can be established by showing

state practice and opinio juris For this purpose it has to be emphasised that the Hague

Convention has 185 States parties Roundsia therefore concludes that the Hague Convention

can be treated as part of international customary law and consequently binding on non-State

parties to the Convention such as Achtagonia

73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75

Dinstein (2005) p 233

15

2 2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention by its inaction towards the hijackers

The Hague Convention imposes an obligation on Achtagonia to take action Art 6 (1) of the

Convention determines that a state in whose territory a perpetrator is found shall take him into

custody or take other measures to ensure his presence In addition Art 6 (2) prescribes a duty

on the state in whose territory the offender is found to start a preliminary enquiry into the

facts Further according to Art 7 of the Convention the state in whose territory the offender is

found shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution or

extradite him to another state ldquoThis is a well-known international principle known as aut

dedere aut judicare76

rdquo77

In conclusion none of these obligations were satisfied by

Achtagonia It did not take any steps with regard to the hijackers even though Roundsia had

clearly demanded Achtagonia to take all necessary actions to bring the situation to an end



SQUAREJAW

A Achtagonia is not competent to prosecute Captain Squarejaw

1 Captain Squarejaw enjoys immunity ratione personae78

Immunity ratione personae is enjoyed by heads of state heads of government the minister of

foreign affairs and certain other high-ranking state officials ldquowho play a prominent role in that

State and who by virtue of its functions represent it in international relations automatically

76

Meaning to extradite or prosecute

77

Diederiks-Verschoor Philepina (1997) p 213

78

Also known as personal immunity

16

under the rules of international lawrdquo79

This was reaffirmed by the ICJ in the Arrest warrant

case80

where it used the words ldquosuch asrdquo implying that the list of senior officials entitled to

this immunity is not closed81

A wider definition82

which would allow high-ranking state

officials other than the so-called troika83

to enjoy personal immunity was also addressed by

the ILCrsquos Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez84

She considered that such a wider definition would

ldquostrengthen the secure and sustainable nature of international relations and the sovereign

equality of States in light of new models of diplomacy and international relationsrdquo85

Further

she pointed out that it should be taken into consideration ldquothat there are examples of State

judicial practice in which certain domestic courts have granted immunity ratione personae to

senior State officials other than the troikardquo86

This wider definition is supported by many

states87

which believe it could benefit their international relations In conclusion it must be

79

Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez (2013) p 18

80

Arrest Warrant Judgment (2002) para 51

81

Akande Shah (2011) p 821

82

ldquocould take on greater importance if it is decided to follow a broader interpretation whereby

immunity might also be enjoyed by other senior State officials including as often suggested

other members of the Government such as ministers of defence ministers of trade and other

ministers whose office requires them to play some role in international relations either

generally or in specific international forums and who must therefore travel outside the

borders of their own country in order to perform their functionsrdquo See Special Rapporteur

Hernaacutendez (2013) p 18

83

Head of State Head of Government Minister of Foreign Affairs

84

Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez (2013) pp 20-21

85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87

In this connection the following States have indicated to varying degrees their willingness

to explore a non-restrictive interpretation Algeria Belarus Chile China France Israel

Norway Peru Portugal the Russian Federation Switzerland the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland and Vietnam See Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez (2013) p 21

reference No 42

17

considered that nowadays international relations are far more intense and the needs of

international relations dictate that other high-ranking state officials would benefit from

personal immunity to effectively represent their respective states88

Captain Jack Squarejaw as

a serving deputy minister enjoys immunity ratione personae which covers his private acts as

well as official acts while in office89

His ldquoduties as deputy minister of defence include

overseeing the nationrsquos ground troops stationed domestically and abroad and meeting with

his counterparts in other statesrdquo90

To determine whether one should be granted immunity

ratione personae it is crucial to examine the nature of his functions91

Captain Squarejawrsquos

personal immunity derives from his office Roundsia contends that the requirements which

imply that Captain Squarejaw is rightfully deserving of personal immunity are linked to his

function which requires him to travel frequently as part of his role in Roundsiarsquos national

defence which requires his functioning in international relations92

Thus Roundsia stresses

that Captain Squarejaw must enjoy full protection under the immunity ratione personae which

demands inviolability and immunity from criminal jurisdiction93

Further it is clear ldquothat

immunity ratione personae extends even to cases involving allegations of international crimes

must be taken as applying to all those serving state officials hellip possessing this type of

immunityrdquo94

In Arrest Warrant case ICJ determined ldquothat under customary international law

88

Congo case Judgement (2006) para 47 89

Foakes (2011) p 4

90

Case Clarifications answer on question 6

91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18

no exception to that immunity exists in respect of war crimes and crimes against humanityrdquo95

ICJ based this latter view on the following cases Ghaddafi case96

Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98

and Wei Ye v Jiang Zemin99

Roundsia therefore demands that

Achtagonia respects the personal immunity of Captain Squarejaw and refrains from

prosecuting him

2 Captain Squarejaw is subject to immunity ratione materiae100

Immunity ratione materiae is granted to all state officials when carrying out official acts on

behalf of their state101

To consider whether a state official should be granted functional

immunity it must first be determined that he acted in his official capacity In this respect the

ILC held that ldquothe conduct of hellip a person hellip empowered to exercise elements of the

governmental authority shall be considered an act of the state under international law if the hellip

person hellip acts in that capacity even if it exceeds its authority or contravenes instructionsrdquo102

In this regard Roundsia stresses that Captain Squarejaw enjoys immunity ratione materiae as

he is the serving Deputy Minister of Defence since 2011 and during the rescue operation was

95

Evans (2006) p 413

96

Zappalagrave (2001) p 596

97

See the speeches of Lord Browne-Wilkinson at 844E-G Lord Hope at 886G-H Lord

Saville at 903F-G Lord Millett 913E-G and Lord Phillips at 924C-D cited in Evans (2006)

p 414 reference No 64

98

Tachiona v Mugabe (2001) cited in Evans p 414 reference No 62

99

Wei Ye v Jiang Zemin (2004) cited in Evans p 414 reference No 62

100

Also known as functional immunity

101 Special Rapporteur Hernaacutendez (2013) p 16 para 50

102

ILC Articles on State Responsibility (2001) Art 7

19

in Achtagonia acting in his official capacity on behalf of Roundsia103

The latter can be firmly

established if we consider that Captain Squarejaw was carrying out the rescue mission to

rescue the hostages who were mainly Roundsian nationals This could never be treated as a

private act because it was conducted for the benefit of Roundsia Thus it can only be treated

as an official act of the state104

This is a well-known rule of customary international law105

which was reaffirmed in the Blaškić case106

and is also supported by the European court of

human rights107

and by national jurisprudence UK recognized in Propend Finance v Sing108

that the protection afforded by the State Immunity Act of state officials acting on behalf of the

state should not be undermined109

Similar view is also shared by the US courts in the case

Chuidian v Philippine National Bank110

and in Herbage v Meese111

further by Canadian

Courts in Jaffe v Miller112

and in Walker v Baird113

and also by the special highest Court of

Greece in Margellos case114

103


104

Ibid p 826 see also Jones case Lord Hoffmann para 74-8

105

which originates from ldquothe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries restated many times

sincerdquo see Prosecutor v Blaškić (1997) p 607

106

Prosecutor v Blaškić (1997) p 607 para 38

107

Kalogeropoulou case Decision of 12 December 2002 p 537 108

Propend Finance v Sing (1997) cited in Evans (2006) p 410

109

Evans (2006) p 410

110

Chuidian v Philippine National Bank (1990) cited in Evans (2006) p 410 reference No

54

111

Herbage v Meese (1990) Ibid

112

Jaffe v Miller (1993) Ibid

113

Walker v Baird (1994) Ibid

114

Margellos case Decision of 17 September 2002 para 14

20

Roundsia emphasises that Captain Squarejaw is immune from the jurisdiction of Achtagonia

with respect to the acts he performed on behalf of Roundsia115

In addition Roundsia has notified Achtagonia that Captain Squarejaw enjoys immunity By

doing so it has accepted responsibility for the official act performed by Captain Squarejaw116

In conclusion ldquothe right of State officials to immunity does not accrue to the individuals

acting on behalf of the State but to the State itselfrdquo117

Therefore Achtagonia must

immediately terminate all proceedings it has initiated against Captain Squarejaw and secure

his return to Roundsia where any wrongdoing he may have caused in carrying out the rescue

mission will be appropriately resolved

3 Captain Squarejaw would not be given a fair trial in Achtagonia

Roundsia argues that Captain Squarejaw would not be given a fair trial in a national court of

Achtagonia First the nature of the matter is politically highly sensitive Second as we can

deduce from Achtagoniarsquos application it considers the rescue mission as an attack on its

sovereignty which was clearly not the focus of the mission and therefore this trial will be

directed to find a scapegoat It is unacceptable to Roundsia that Achtagonia is bringing a

discussion of the national policy of Roundsia into a national court as this would be contrary

to the sovereignty of Roundsia


MUTUAL ASSISTANCE TREATY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

Roundsia and Achtagonia concluded the TMACM in 1985 That treaty ldquorequires each Party to

provide information which it holds relevant to an inquiry into alleged criminal offences over

115


116

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Merits Judgment (2008) para 196

117

Cassese (2005) p 113

21

which the other has jurisdictionrdquo118

Roundsia stresses it performed the obligations arising

from the TMACM in accordance with the VCLT Art VI of the TMACM clearly states which

conditions must be fulfilled for a party to legally refuse assistance On that note Roundsia

acted pursuant to good practice and indicated sufficient grounds for refusal as required by Art

VI of the mentioned treaty Roundsia thus emphasises that the allegations made by

Achtagonia are without any legal foundations

A Roundsia acted lawfully pursuant to Art VI of the TMACM

Roundsia emphasises that it has not violated the TMACM by refusing to disclose information

Roundsia notes that not only did it inform Achtagonia of its refusal of the request for mutual

assistance concerned but that it also gave exact reasons in accordance with Art VI of the

TMACM In addition Roundsia argues that Art VI of the treaty does not demand that the

requested state must give a specific reason or precise explanation for its refusal to comply

with the request In Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters119

and in the Nicaragua case120

the ICJ made a valid point which could apply to the present case The TMACM is formulated

in a manner which allows each party to refer to exceptions provided in Art (6) when it

considers that fulfilment of the request ldquowould seriously impair [a Statersquos] sovereignty

national security or other essential public interests of for any reason provided by its domestic

lawrdquo121

Roundsia has emphasized that the TMACM enables it to act pursuant to Art VI of

the TMACM Thus Achtagonia must acknowledge and respect the right of Roundsia to

118

The case para 9

119

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Summary of Judgment (2008) p 7

120

Nicaragua case ICJ Reports 1986 para 222 and para 282 also see Oil Platforms case

ICJ Reports 2003 para 43

121

The case para 9

22

invoke Art (6) as this provision was unanimously adopted by both parties when

implementing the TMACM

1 Roundsiarsquos refusal is in lsquogood faithrsquo

The requirement of good faith derives from the customary law principle of pacta sunt

servanda and is reflected not only in Art 26 of the VCLT but also in Art 31 (1) It finds a

further reflection in the Declaration on friendly relations The ICJ recognised that good faith

is one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations

whatever their source in the Nuclear Tests case122

and the Nicaragua vs United States

case123

In Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters the Court stated that ldquoIt also allows the requested

State to substantiate its good faith in refusing the requestrdquo124

In the same case the ICJ held

that it could review Francersquos actions with respect to good faith and that France therefore

needed to show that the reasons for its refusal to execute the rogatory letter fell within those

allowed for in Art 2125

Therefore all that needs to be established by Roundsia is that one of

the reasons for refusing to disclose the information fell within the ambit of Article VI of the

TMACM Roundsia again notes that matters concerning national security its special forces

and in particular its instructions and rules of engagement more than others affect the national

sovereignty of Roundsia and its security public order and other essential interests as

mentioned in Art VI of the TMACM Thus national security in particular is a matter for

which the government is the sole trustee It is eminently a matter on which an international

122

Nuclear test Judgment (1974) paras 457 473 253 268

123


124


125

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Merits Judgment (2008) paras 135 145

23

court can have no useful opinion126

Roundsia argues that the ultimate treatment of a request

for mutual assistance in criminal matters clearly depends on the decision by its competent

national authorities which was also confirmed by the Court in Mutual Assistance in Criminal

Matters127

2 The ICJ has no jurisdiction over a self-judging clause

Self-judging clauses are clauses that allow states to reserve for themselves a right of non-

compliance with international legal obligations in certain circumstances These circumstances

arise predominantly where the state in question considers that compliance would harm its

sovereignty security public policy or more generally its vital interests128

Self-judging clauses grant discretion to States to unilaterally determine certain elements that

allow them to exit from or even avoid the coming into existence of an international obligation

Similarly States parties to international treaties that contain self-judging clauses are aware of

the potential for abuse129

In this regard Roundsia considers that Art VI is a self-judging

clause and that each request for legal assistance is to be assessed on its own terms by each

Party as stated by Art VI of the TMACM In the Norwegian loans case the ICJ stated that

with a self-judging clause a State has ldquoundertaken an obligation to the extent to which it and

it alone considers that it has done sordquo130

While it must of course ensure that the procedure is

put in motion Roundsia is not thereby obliged to guarantee the outcome131

Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128

Ackerman Billa (2008) p 437

129

Briese Schill (2009) p 24

130

Certain Norwegian Loans Separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht (1957) paras 34 48

131


24

appeared to favour the position put forward by Roundsia on self-judging clauses namely that

the Court would have no jurisdiction to review a statersquos exercise of discretion under a self-

judging clause This was confirmed by the Court in the Oil Platforms case132

Moreover in

the Ireland v United Kingdom case the ECtHR stated ldquothe national authorities are in

principle in a better position than the international judge to decide both on the presence of

such an emergency and on the nature and scope of derogations necessary to avert itrdquo133

B Achtagoniarsquos request for information under the TMACM is not in accordance with

Art V of the TMACM

Roundsia argues that the request for information made by Achtagonia in accordance with Art

V of the TMACM did not fulfil all the necessary conditions The aforementioned request for

information was related to the general training of Roundsiarsquos special forces and the specific

instructions and rules of engagement applicable to the January exercise Further Roundsia

points out that Achtagoniarsquos request only included a description of the essential acts or

omissions or matters alleged or sought to be ascertained Roundsia points out that under Art

V (a) the request for information must also include a description of the nature of the

investigation or proceedings in the State requesting the information In addition Art V (b)

requires the requesting state to reveal the purpose for which the request for information is

made and the nature of the assistance sought Roundsia notes that Achtagonia did not include

a description of the investigation or proceedings which were going on in Achtagonia Further

Achtagonia failed to reveal the purpose for which the request for information was made

Therefore Roundsia considers Achtagoniarsquos request is a not valid legal instrument and not in

accordance with the TMACM and consequently refuses to disclose any information

132

Oil Platforms case ICJ Reports 2003 para 43

133

Ireland v United Kingdom Judgment (1978) para 207

25

(i) Submissions

For the reasons advanced above Roundsia respectfully requests this Honourable Court to

adjudge and declare that

I Achtagonia cannot properly bring an application within the jurisdiction of the

ICJ for Roundsiarsquos actions with respect to the reservation in the declaration

made by Achtagonia

II The mission carried out by Roundsia on 7 January does not constitute a breach

of international law or of any other international legal obligation

III Achtagonia violated international law concerning the immunity of Captain

Squarejaw and also by exercising criminal jurisdiction over him

notwithstanding Roundsiarsquos claim that Captain Squarejaw has immunity

IV Roundsia did not breach any of its obligations under the TMACM

V Failing an agreement between the parties to this dispute the form and amount of

reparation will be settled by this Court

Respectfully submitted

Agents for the Respondent

i

(a) Table of contents

(A) TABLE OF CONTENTS I

(B) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS III

(C) LIST OF SOURCES IV

(D) STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS XII

(E) ISSUES XV

(F) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XVII

(G) JURISDICTION OF THE COURT XIX

(H) ARGUMENTS 1


ADJUDICATE THE PRESENT DISPUTE 1

A THE ICJ LACKS JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIMS BROUGHT AGAINST ROUNDSIA 1 1 On the basis of reciprocity Roundsia invokes Achtagoniarsquos reservation 1

B THE DECLARATION OF ACHTAGONIA IS INVALID 4 1 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is incapable of giving rise to a legal obligation 4 2 Achtagoniarsquos declaration is not in accordance with the principle of good faith 5 3 The automatic reservation is not consistent with the Courts Statute 5 4 The automatic reservation invalidates the whole declaration 6


MISSION OF ITS NATIONALS ABROAD 7

A ROUNDSIArsquoS RESCUE MISSION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW 7 1 The use of necessary force to protect nationals abroad does not infringe Art 2(4) of

the UN Charter 7 11 The institute of self-defence under international customary law allows

interventions to protect onersquos nationals abroad 9 12 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was necessary 11 13 Roundsiarsquos rescue mission was proportionate 11

2 An attack on a statersquos nationals abroad constitutes an attack on the state itself 12 B THE ACTIONS OF ROUNDSIArsquoS SPECIAL FORCES WERE NECESSARY DUE TO ACHTAGONIArsquoS

INACTION 13 1 Achtagonia failed to exercise the customary obligation to protect foreigners within its

territory as part of its sovereignty 13 2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention 14

2 1 The Hague Convention is binding on Achtagonia 14 2 2 Achtagonia breached the Hague Convention by its inaction towards the hijackers

15



SQUAREJAW 15

A ACHTAGONIA IS NOT COMPETENT TO PROSECUTE CAPTAIN SQUAREJAW 15 1 Captain Squarejaw enjoys immunity ratione personae 15 2 Captain Squarejaw is subject to immunity ratione materiae 18

ii







(I) SUBMISSIONS 25

iii


Art Article



GA General Assembly




No Number

p page

para paragraph


SC Security Council


UN United Nations

v versus


iv

(c) List of Sources

1 BOOKS




ed 2002)



ed 2012)











(2008)




v

2 ARTICLES









Eichensehr (2008)





(1977)



Akande Shah (2011)












vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











ii







(I) SUBMISSIONS 25

iii


Art Article



GA General Assembly




No Number

p page

para paragraph


SC Security Council


UN United Nations

v versus


iv

(c) List of Sources

1 BOOKS




ed 2002)



ed 2012)











(2008)




v

2 ARTICLES









Eichensehr (2008)





(1977)



Akande Shah (2011)












vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











iii


Art Article



GA General Assembly




No Number

p page

para paragraph


SC Security Council


UN United Nations

v versus


iv

(c) List of Sources

1 BOOKS




ed 2002)



ed 2012)











(2008)




v

2 ARTICLES









Eichensehr (2008)





(1977)



Akande Shah (2011)












vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











iv

(c) List of Sources

1 BOOKS




ed 2002)



ed 2012)











(2008)




v

2 ARTICLES









Eichensehr (2008)





(1977)



Akande Shah (2011)












vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











v

2 ARTICLES









Eichensehr (2008)





(1977)



Akande Shah (2011)












vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











vi




3 AWARDS BY COURTS






















vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











vii













Judgment (1998)










Judgment (1998)



viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











viii



(1996)



(2003)


















ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











ix



December 2002




Domestic cases


Sing (1997)














x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











x



4 UN DOCUMENTS















6 MISCELLANEOUS




clarifications







xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xi




xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xii
























xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xiii

















Quad residents








xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xiv


















Art VI of the TMACM

xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xv

(e) Issues




ICJ













actions


Squarejaw



materiae

xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xvi


Captain Squarejaw







Art V of the TMACM

xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xvii




made by Achtagonia







law






actions






liable for them

xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xviii





faith


TMACM

xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











xix








Achtagoniardquo


present dispute

1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











1

(h) Arguments















Statute




2 The case para 11



p 419 para 62 pp 420-421 para 64


2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











2



















Consequently







10

Ibid

11



12

Shaw (2003) pp 979-80

13


3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











3



company case14

Interhandel case15




In














14


15


16


17

The case para 11

4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











4





obligationrdquo18
















18


19



59

20


21


22

Ibid

23


5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











5




Achtagoniardquo24




act in good faith26














24

The case para 11

25


26

Ibid p 48

27


6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











6

ICJ Statute28






Further













28


29

Evans (2006) p 572

30


31

Ibid

7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











7





the UN Charter







With








jus cogens norm38



32



33

Brady (1999) p 66

34

Ibid p 66

35



36

Brady (1999) p 66

37

Ibid

38


8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











8







which recognises












In this


39


lawrdquo

40


41








42

Simma (2002) p 228

43

Ibid

9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











9

















the Oil Platforms

case48






44

Ibid

45

Ibid

46

Ibid

47


48


49


10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











10









from the ICJ



Many states have










50


51

Ibid

52


53


54


55


56


57

Simma (2012) p 226

58

Ibid pp 227-8

11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











11













futilerdquo60










59


60


61

Ibid p 473

12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











12








attackrdquo63













attackrdquo66

62



64 Ibid


66


13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











13








In this regard















This alarming fact


67


68


69

Sheehan (1977) pp 148-49

70

Ibid p 150

71

The case para 6

72

Ibid para 4

14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











14



provincerdquo73



provincerdquo74




justified75













73

Ibid para 3

74

Ibid

75


15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











15










rdquo77






SQUAREJAW






76


77


78


16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











16



case80











Further





states87


79


80


81


82








83


84


85

Ibid

86

Ibid p 21

87





reference No 42

17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











17























immunityrdquo94


88


Foakes (2011) p 4

90


91


92

Ibid

93

Foakes (2011) p 4

94


18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











18



Pinochet case97

also

Tachiona v Mugabe98




prosecuting him











95

Evans (2006) p 413

96


97




98


99


100



102


19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











19










human rights107







further by Canadian





103


104


105



106


107



109

Evans (2006) p 410

110


54

111


112


113


114


20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











20























115


116


117


21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











21




















lawrdquo121



118

The case para 9

119


120



121

The case para 9

22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











22










case123














122


123


124


125


23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











23





Matters127

















Further the ICJ

126

Jennings (1958) pp 349 362

127


128


129


130


131


24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











24




Moreover in





Art V of the TMACM















132


133


25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











25

(i) Submissions





made by Achtagonia











Winner Best Memorial Respondent 2014

Documents

Transcript of Winner Best Memorial Respondent 2014