Agent 861

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING THE DESTRUCTION OF A SATELLITE
THE STATE OF ALDO

..................................................
APPLICANT
AGAINST

THE STATE OF PRADA

...............................................
RESPONDENT

BY SPECIAL AGREEMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TITLE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED PRAYER PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 9 15 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .Page |2 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT AGENT FOR THE RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS NO.

Preamble. 25–26 March 2004. Bockstiegel. entered into force Dec. K. M. Published in Safeguarding Space for All: Security and Peaceful Uses—Conference Report. 1973. 899 (1979) 5. 4. 672 U.S. Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Bodies. 3 J.Page |3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Articles 1.T.S. Collision Course: 2009 Iridium-Cosmos Crash. Proc. 1968.I.T.T. Statute of the International Court of Justice MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects. the Return of Astronauts. Michael N Schmitt. 2006. Proc 80. Mejia Kaiser. 24 U.L. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts. & Prac. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 37 I. Pg 89-125 3. 52 I. in Manual of Space Law 20-22 (Jasentuliyana and Lee eds. H. 18 I.S.I. 97 (1994). Volume 10. entered into force Oct. 274 (2009) 7. 7570.S. 2389.N.N. Thomas Graham.S. Cosmos 954 incident. 961 U. 81 (1994) 6. 9. Paul G. International Law and Military Operations in Space.L.M.T. 3. 1979) Treaties and conventions 1. Andre G. Oceana Publications. 187 3.L. Dembling.. 19 U. The Term ‘Launching State’ in International Space Law. 119 2. and the Return of Objects Launched Into Outer Space. THE LAW AND THE MILITARY USE OF OUTER SPACE. 2. 2005.S. De Busschere. Int’l L.

May 23. 18 U.S. Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space. 1969.T. entered into force Oct.Page |4 4.N. 2410. 1155 U.T.T. Art. VII. 331 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The State of Prada and the State of Aldo have submitted the present dispute to this Court by Special Agreement and have thus accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. 610 U. 1967.S. 205 5.N. Both parties shall accept the judgment of this Court as final and binding and execute it in good faith in its entirety. 10.S.

Page |5 STATEMENT OF FACTS I Aldo and Prada are two powerful space faring nations. Gucci is a country neighbouring Aldo and the two countries have always been in conflict due to petty border skirmishes. II Aldo has launched a series of satellites in the last decade including the Travian series of spy satellites which take images of strategic military targets in Prada and Gucci. The launch of the entire Travian series was protested by many countries. Aldo has complained of infiltration into its borders by Guccinese militants and has in the past made pre emptive strikes. particularly the military of Versace. Aldo has also used the Travian 7 in the past to help its allies guide their military during wartime. including Prada which considers this a violation of international law since Outer Space may only be used for ‘peaceful purposes’. Since the 1950s the two nations have spearheaded many missions into Outer Space. a country that was in war with Prada for a better part of the 1990’s. III MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .

Prada. On its way back into the Earth’s orbit. the capital of Prada. Prada claimed damages worth $45 million to which Aldo replied saying Gucci was the launching state and Aldo’s liabilities are only towards the launching state. On landing. a technical snag was detected in the Counterstrike 1 and it was recalled to the earth. the satellite was launched from a base near Jonas.Page |6 The Counterstrike 1 satellite was launched to detect the activities of the Travian series. In the year 2009. alerted by the Travian 7 was recognised it to be a ballistic missile heading towards Aldo. While the spaceship was entering the Earth’s orbit at a height of 100 km above the Earth’s surface. Aldo attacked the Counterstrike 1 using its Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) system destroying the Counterstrike 1. However. international law entitles a party to convict spies. the captain of Dota was recognised to be the same person who launched and controlled the Travian 7. on the other hand contended that its duties ended on the safe landing of the Dota and at any rate. The entire project was accomplished and funded by Prada and bore Prada’s flag. He was arrested immediately and on Gucci’s request extradited to Gucci where he was convicted for espionage. the ground systems at Aldo. Immediately. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . V A few months later Aldo sent a manned expedition on board the Dota Space Schuttle to launch the Travian 8. IV This sent debris from the Counterstrike 1 flying into Outer Space and it collided with the Counterstrike 2 causing it damage. the Dota experienced a few problems due to which it had to make an emergency landing at Monas. the capital of Gucci. Aldo protested this Act as a violation of international law contending that the astronauts should have been returned to their home state unharmed.

WHETHER ALDO IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO COUNTERSTRIKE II? IV.Page |7 Hence. WHETHER PRADA MAY BE CONSIDERED A SOLE LAUNCHING STATEOF THE COUNTERSTRIKE I SATELLITE? WHETHER GUCCI IS A NECESSARY PARTY IN DETERMINING ALDO’S LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE? III. WHETHER PRADA WAS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE DOTA? MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . WHETHER THE LAUNCH OF TRAVIAN SERIES OF SATELLITES IS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? II. the present matter ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION Prada respectfully asks this Court: I.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . or whose territory has been used for the launching. and all pre launch expenditure was borne by Gucci.Page |8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ISSUE NO. which is one of the launching states. and hence it is not necessary to attach Gucci as a necessary party only for the question of determining the liability of the Applicant. the capital of Gucci. The Applicant state cannot be considered the sole launching state in this case because Counterstrike 1 was launched from Jonas. the Respondent has violated international law. The use of these satellites was to spy on strategic military targets in the Applicant state and in the state of Gucci which is a neighbouring state of the Respondent. By sending spy satellites into orbit in outer space. However. This is a clear violation of the treaty. 2: WHETHER PRADA THE MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SOLE LAUNCHING STATE OF COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE? ACCORDINGLY. the launching state may be one which has either launched or procured the launching of the satellite. ISSUE NO. the project was funded by the Respondent. IS GUCCI A NECESSARY PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY OF A JOINT ‘LAUNCHING STATE’ IN DETERMINING DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE ALDO’S LIABILITY FOR THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE? According to Article I of the Liability Convention. Liability of the Applicant is towards each of the launching states. 1 WHETHER THE LAUNCH OF THE TRAVIAN SERIES OF SPY SATELLITES WAS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? The Outer Space treaty provides for the peaceful use of outer space by all nations.

The damage caused was only due to the destruction of Counterstrike 1 by the anti-ballistic missile attack by the Respondent state. 3: WITH ALDO LIABLE IN INTERNATIONAL COUNTERSTRIKE 2 FROM THE DEBRIS OF THE NO PREJUDICE TO QUESTION LAW FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE 2. International law allows for spies to be convicted and extradited. The officials of the Applicant state gave full support and cooperation for the safe landing of the Dota shuttle. IS COUNTERSTRIKE 1? Liability for damage caused in outer space is based on the principle of fault. the Respondent state is liable in international law for the damage caused to the Counterstrike 2 from the debris of the Counterstrike 1. The duties of the Applicant state ended with the safe landing of the shuttle. and hence there has been no violation of international law by the Applicant in its treatment of the captain of the Dota. In using an AntiBallistic missile to destroy Counterstrike 1. the Respondent state could have reasonably foreseen that damage would be caused to Counterstrike 2 by the debris. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . 4: WHETHER PRADA WAS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE DOTA? The Applicant state had signed a treaty with Gucci for unconditional extradition of an enemy of the state. for his role in the launch and control of Travian 7 and subsequent destruction of the Counterstrike 1 satellite. Thus. It was only after the landing that the captain was arrested. ISSUE NO. There is no law prohibiting the signing of such a treaty.Page |9 ISSUE NO.

The following articles of the Outer Space Treaty are sought to be applied in this case: Article I The exploration and use of outer space. Moon Treaty. Aldo and Prada are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty. which is a neighbouring state of the Applicant. The satellites were used by the Applicant to spy on strategic military targets in the territory of the Respondent state as well as the state of Gucci. This violates the provisions of the Outer space treaty. The use of outer space for the launch and operation of the Travian series is a violation of international law. including the moon and other celestial bodies. Both the countries have ratified the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration Convention. shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.1. 1. including the Charter of the United Nations. including the moon and other celestial bodies. Article III States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space. in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding. 1.3. 1 THE LAUNCH OF THE TRAVIAN SERIES OF SPY SATELLITES WAS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? 1.P a g e | 10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE NO. Rescue Agreement.2. Registration Convention and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. in accordance with international law. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . Liability Convention.

ACCORDINGLY. GUCCI ‘LAUNCHING COUNTERSTRIKE 1 IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY OF A JOINT STATE’ IN DETERMINING ALDO’S LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE? UNDER THE REGISTRATION CONVENTION. Article VII Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space. is internationally liable for damage to another State MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched. It also violates the right of the Respondent state and Gucci to sovereignty over their respective territories by providing the Applicant state with images of military targets. (ii) A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched. (c) The term "State of registry" means a launching State on whose registry a space object is carried in accordance with article II. and promoting international cooperation and understanding. including the moon and other celestial bodies. Such use is against the common interest of all nations of maintaining international peace and security. ISSUE NO. 2 PRADA MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SOLE LAUNCHING STATE OF THE SATELLITE. (b) The term "space object" includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof. IT IS STATED IN Article I For the purposes of this Convention: (a) The term "launching State" means: (i) A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object.P a g e | 11 which expressly states that outer space may only be used for peaceful purposes and in the interest of all nations.

Article III MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . ISSUE NO. including the moon and other celestial bodies. The venture was also supported by the government of Gucci. or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons. Damages may be claimed by the state in whose name the satellite is registered. in air or in outer space. personal injury or other impairment of health. The Applicant state cannot be considered the sole launching state in this case because Counterstrike 1 was launched from Jonas. and all pre launch expenditure was borne by Gucci. and hence it is not necessary to attach Gucci as a necessary party only for the question of determining the liability of the Respondent. ALDO IS LIABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE COUNTERSTRIKE 2 FROM THE DEBRIS OF THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1? 3. However. Liability of the Respondent is towards each of the launching states. or whose territory has been used for the launching. According to Article I of the Liability Convention. Neither Gucci nor the Applicant state was the sole launching state of the Counterstrike series. the launching state may be one which has either launched or procured the launching of the satellite. Since the facts are silent on the registration of the satellite. Provisions of liability convention: Article I For the purposes of this Convention: (a) The term "damage" means loss of life. natural or juridical. 3 WITH NO PREJUDICE TO QUESTION DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE 2.. the project was funded by the Applicant..P a g e | 12 Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth. or property of international intergovernmental organizations. The project was owned by and carried out mainly for the use of the Applicant State. Liability under the Registration Convention and Liability Convention is towards the Launching state.1. (b) . it may be presumed that it was done in the name of the Applicant state. the capital of Gucci. which is one of the launching states.

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article. As a result. 3. ..2. Volume 10. No exoneration whatever shall be granted in cases where the damage has resulted from activities conducted by a launching State which are not in conformity with international law including. 1 Article IV of the 1972 Liability Convention. International Law and Military Operations in Space. in lieu of kinetic means if the former would result in less collateral damage. both of the launching states involved can be held jointly and severally liable to third states and their citizens. in particular. Attack may only be conducted against military objectives and must comply with the principle of proportionality..2 3.4. the attacker might be required to employ a soft kill technique. then liability is not absolute but depends on fault. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . or if State A caused the launch to happen. States bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their territory. or from State A’s facility. If damage is caused by one state's space object to another state's space object other than on the surface of the earth. the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible. 2 Michael N Schmitt. 2. such as computer network attack. if it was launched from State A’s territory.1 3. Pg 89-125. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law.3. 2006. This means that regardless of who launches the space object. including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. In the case of collisions between satellites.P a g e | 13 In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a space object of another launching State. then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object. the primary concern is the creation of space debris. the Charter of the United Nations and the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space. exoneration from absolute liability shall be granted to the extent that a launching State establishes that the damage has resulted either wholly or partially from gross negligence or from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage on the part of a claimant State or of natural or juridical persons it represents. Article VI 1. In strikes against space-based assets.

P a g e | 14 3.5. 3. 3. or another celestial body. outer space. This could have been an error made by Travian 7 in detection. This was done based on a detection of its own satellite that it was a ballistic missile. According to this article “if a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by it or its nationals in outer space (…) would cause potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space (. To date.8. i. there have been no instances where the second scenario of the Liability Convention has been applied. a space object. The standard of liability applied under the second scenario is a more arduous one in that it applies a fault liability standard whereby a state will be considered liable only if it can be shown that the damage caused was due to the fault of the state or states responsible for the launch of the space object as the case may be..) it shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such activity or experiment”. and the second scenario deals with an event where a space object causes damage someplace other than the surface of the Earth.6. But for this measure being taken. This deployment of anti-satellite weapons was clearly a violation of the law of peaceful use of outer space and the Respondent should thus be liable for the damage so caused. 4 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . The respondent has used a ballistic missile which can be considered a weapon of mass destruction to destroy a satellite of the applicant which was returning from outer space. 3. There are two scenarios where damage could be caused by a space object.7. The first scenario envisions a space object that causes damage to the surface of the Earth or an aircraft in flight. The Respondent has also violated article IX of the Outer Space Treaty by not undertaking “appropriate international consultations before proceeding”. Counterstrike 1 would not have been destroyed. The Respondent undertook the measure of attacking Counterstrike 1 with the knowledge that it would lead to creation of space debris which is inherently dangerous and poses damage to other space objects.9. and no damage would have resulted to Counterstrike 2. The Liability Convention of 1972 expands upon the principles of liability for damage caused by space objects introduced in Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. as the facts clearly state that Travian 8 was launched in order to ‘avoid further mistakes such as the one made by the Travian 7’. 3.. ISSUE NO.e.

He would be liable for this damage to the property of the Applicant state as an agent of the Respondent state. Unconditionally extradite any person considered by the other party to be an Enemy of the State. 2.3 On landing in Monas. 4. Gucci and Prada have signed the 1980 Treaty of Friendship. and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched. The terms of the FCA mandate both the parties to do the following: 1. distress. including the moon and other celestial bodies. Lend the other party military assistance on request. or emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas.P a g e | 15 PRADA WAS NOT OF THE IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN DOTA? 4. In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies. other than in a situation of armed conflict. Cooperation and Assistance (FCA). Article VII Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space. the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties. Provisions of Outer Space treaty Article V States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident.1. including the moon and other celestial bodies. The Captain was responsible in part for the control of the Travian 7 satellite and consequently for the destruction of Counterstrike 1 and damage to Counterstrike 2. in air or in outer space. When astronauts make such a landing. the Captain of the Dota and the crew were within the territory of the Applicant state and shall be subject to the municipal laws for acts committed by them.2. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . 4. is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth. they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their space vehicle.

and 4. and 3. and hence there has been no violation of international law by the Applicant in its treatment of the captain of the Dota. in the light of the facts stated. PRAYER Wherefore. issues raised. There is no law which prohibits the signing of such a treaty of extradition.4. arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most humbly and respectfully submitted before this Honourable Court that it may be pleased to 1. DECLARE that launch of the Travian series of spy satellites was in violation of international law. International law allows for spies to be convicted and extradited. and 2. DECLARE that Aldo is liable in international law for the damage caused to the Counterstrike 2. DECLARE that Prada was not in violation of international law in its treatment of the captain of the Dota RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .P a g e | 16 4. The duties of the Applicant state ended with the safe landing of the shuttle. DECLARE that Gucci a necessary party in its capacity of a joint ‘launching state’ in determining Aldo’s liability for the damage caused to the Counterstrike 1.

P a g e | 17 AGENT FOR THE RESPONDENT MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful