Federation of Anlusan- ORALS

Your honors and distinguish ladies and gentlemen, good day! May it please the court, I
am Edward John Nerosa, the cousel for the applicant, the Federation of Anlusan, and
with me is my co-cousel Ms. Stella Lynn Amistad.

It is a privilege to appear before the International Court of Justice to plead on behalf of

the Federation of Anlusan. May I also please the court in discussing our first and
second points for 10 minutes and my co-cousel will be discussing the 3rd and 4th points
for another 10 minutes. We will reserve the remaining time for questions, rebuttals and
our prayer for relief.

PRAYERS:

Your Honors, we are here to respectfully request the Honorable International Court of
Justice to adjudge and declare that:

1. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

2. The Federation of Anlusan did not commit an internationally wrongful act

as defined by the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act
in relation to the provision of the UN Charter.

3. The Satellite, Feznote, Chirper and International Media are non-state

parties, hence the Court cannot rule over their respective liabilities.

4. The sanctions imposed by Racel against Anlusan are in violation of the

International Laws e.i Open Data Agreement, General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, thus the same must be lifted plus reparation and award of
damages.
I. Banner Statement:

The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the case.

It is noteworthy that under the compromis, Republic of Racel and Federation of Anlusan
voluntarily submitted the dispute to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

Basis:
Under Article 40 of the International Court of Justice Statute cases are brought before
the Court, as the case may be, either by the notification of the special agreement or by
a written application addressed to the Registrar. In either case the subject of the dispute
and the parties shall be indicated. The Registrar shall forthwith communicate the
application to all concerned.

Likewise, under the same statue (Article 36) the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all
cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of
the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Moreover, Article 38 of the
same states that Court has the authority to decide disputes which involves international
conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by
the contesting states.

Application:

In Applying these provisions of the ICJ statute in the present case, the parties,
Republic of Racel and Federation of Anlusan voluntarily submitted the dispute to the
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice through a special agreement. Also the
allegations of Republic of Racel against Federation of Anlusan, the imposed sanctions
the former against the latter as well, involve violations of the different treaties that they
both ratified and signed.
Conclusion:

Your Honors, in line with the foregoing, it could therefore be said that the International
Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the dispute.

II. Secondary Argument:

Anlusan cannot be held responsible for committing an internationally wrongful act for
the supposed intervention in the elections.

Basis:
A. Internationally Wrongful Act.

Article 2 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

provides that:

“There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct

consisting of an action or omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.”1

B. Norm of Non-Intervention.

In relation thereto, Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter provides for the
norm of non-intervention:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in
any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”.
Application

In the present case, the Federation of Anlusan cannot be held responsible for the
commission of an internationally wrongful act. There is an internationally wrongful act if
a state performs an act or omission which constitutes a breach of international
obligation and every internationally wrongful act of a state entails the international
responsibility of that state. However, the Federation of Anlusan did not perform any act
which would constitute as an internationally wrongful act provided under Article 2 of the
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts neither did it perform any
conduct which would result to an act of intervention against Racel in contravention of
the norm of non-intervention as provided for under Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United
Nations Charter as stated earlier.

Conclusion:

Your Honors, in line with the reasoning, it could be concluded that the
Federation of Anlusan did not commit an Internationally Wrongful Act for the
supposed election intervention.

(Transition)

To proceed your honors, I will now call on my co-counsel, Ms. Stella Lynn
Amistad, to discuss the 2nd and 3rd proposition on behalf of the Federation of Anlusan.