ENTRY OF APPEARANCE (feel disinterested; don’t emphasize; like you are explaining to a friend)

Madame Chief Justice, / Your Honors, / May it please the Court.

I am Jude Thaddeus M. Damian, / appearing as counsel for the applicant’s position. / Similarly
appearing on behalf of the Republic of Amira / is Ms. Samantha Gabrielle M. Sta. Ana, / my co-counsel. We
respectfully submit that the expulsion of Amiran citizens from Rophan / is violative of the provisions of
international law. 1 2
Your Honors, / we will be forwarding five submissions. / This counsel will discuss our first three
submissions: / firstly, the accountability of states to treaty obligations; secondly; violations on prohibitions of
mass and collective expulsion; and thirdly, the prohibition of racial discrimination. / This discussion will only
require 20 minutes of this Court’s time. 1 2
My co-counsel will forward our final two submissions: / first, violations of substantive and procedural
rights of aliens; and second, violations of generally-accepted principles of international law. / My co-counsel’s
position will only require 20 minutes of this Court’s time. 1 2
Your Honors, we respectfully reserve five minutes for rebuttal if necessary. 1 2
If Your Honors have no preliminary questions, / we respectfully enter our appearance as applicant / and
May it please the Court.

ORAL ROUNDS (be assertive; proper emphasis; do not emphasize too much)
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties emphasizes the principle of “pacta sunt
servanda” which translates to the obligation of state parties to a treaty to keep the agreements to which they
have consented to be a part of.
Consistent with Article 14 of the same Convention, Rophan consented to international obligations
included within the treaties when it chose to ratify the same. The act of expelling Amiran citizens in Rophan
grossly violates these agreements and completely disregards peaceful cooperation among nations.
We must recognize that both nations have been involved with each other for more than 25 years as
neighbors and members of similar treaties. 3, 6 The relationship between Amira and Rophan has not always
been cordial, but when opportunity came to mend their differences, the result was beneficial for both. 6, 7
However, not all good things last. When the Federation of Rophan was urged by Mykinos, its top
trading partner, to appropriately respond to a cyberterrorist incident from a Rophan-based Amiran company 9,
Rophan went above and beyond with its action by releasing a Statement which compels Amirans to depart from
their known homes and livelihood in Rophan. This was to be done within a 48-hour window period. 13
Amidst this controversy, Rophan severed diplomatic ties against Amira even when negotiations were
conducted. With diplomatic solutions proving to be futile, the parties jointly submitted this dispute to the
International Court of Justice. 12-16 AMIRA 11 NEW GOVT- attrib to amirans-A-FORMINISTER
CONDEMNED, 15 VIOLATION DEPORTATION 18 submitted
Hence, we forward the following submissions in relation to the inconsistency and contravention of
Rophan’s mass expulsion of Amirans in their territory. If I may be allowed, may I proceed, Your Honors?

1. How do you consider material breach of obligation for a state to be liable of damages? ARSIWA – Injury material and moral damages
from internationally wrongful act – Internationally wrongful act – 1. Breach of International Obligation; 2. Attributable to State
2. Is there discrimination when not all Amirans are expelled and there are exceptions? No. There is substantial distinction (owing allegiance
nearly equivalent to permanent allegiance; furthermore, they have the options to be naturalized.
3. On the claim that those expelled are not loyal to Rophan, but considering that Amirans owe temporary allegiance to their host country,
was their breach of the same in this case to warrant expulsion? No. We forward that the Amiran citizens to be expelled did not breach any treaty
obligations
4. Is a foreign country required to grant rights and protection to aliens? Yes. 1. By virtue of treaty; by virtue of gapil; human rights
5. What is the status of the ICCPR under international law? are the parties in this case state parties to the treaty? yes convention
 6. As to justifiability, considering that there was a cyber attack originating from Rophan, is this considered as an issue of national security
that warrants and justify unilateral expulsion of the Amirans? No. article 13, international law, not justifiable, no national security
7. Why are human rights paramount to national security? Yes. Human rights are non-derogable
8. In the case cited (Russia), how did the Court apply proportionality and necessity? Commensurate; equivalent
-case-to-case basis
9. Follow up question, how do you assess the attack in this case, given it is not an armed attack (isolated and independent instance no
attribution to the state)
10. Can riots be considered as threat to national security instead of the cyber attacks? No sporadic
11. The mass expulsion is limited to Amirans living in the Federation of Rophan and only that. The discriminatory measure was only
applied to Amiran citizens living in Rophan hence there is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

SUBMISSION TREATY APPLICATION

(EMPHASIZE)
Your Honors, under Article 18 of the
FIRST, / IT IS ARTICLE 18 VIENNA
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
SUBMITTED THAT / CONVENTION States are bound by the treaty obligations
ROPHAN REMAINS they entered consensually. Article 14
ARTICLE 14 VIENNA
BOUND TO ITS CONVENTION
paragraph (a) of the same Convention
TREATY includes ratification as a manifestation of
OBLIGATIONS / AND How to withdraw from a treaty the willingness of a state to be bound by
HENCE / IS Art 54-56 VLCT – 12 months’ notice; treaties. As compared to simple promises,
ACCOUNTABLE / TO consultation with other parties; treaties mandate more requirements to
VIOLATIONS EVEN according to the provision of the treaty renege in international obligations. A state
WHEN IT SEVERED bound by a treaty cannot inhibit itself from
DIPLOMATIC TIES the performance of these obligations by
AGAINST AMIRA simply severing diplomatic relations.

It must be emphasized that the unilateral

severance of diplomatic relations by
PARAGRAPH 17 COMPROMIS Rophan fails to be a reasonable ground to
absolve Rophan from its international
obligations. This is in consideration that
Amira is also a State Member to the
treaties which Rophan violated.

ART 60 VCLT (3) (A)

A material breach of the treaties are the
violation of a provision essential to the
accomplishment of the object or
purpose of the treaty.

Maybe used by the defense

ART 60 (2) (B)
Entitlement of the Affected Party
(b) a party specially affected by the
breach to invoke it as a ground for
suspending the operation of the treaty in
whole or in part in the relations between
itself and the defaulting State
 Vedran Andric v. Sweden, 45917/99, The European Court of Human Rights, in its
SECOND, THE ECHR, 23 February 1999, ¶ 1. decision in the case of Vedran Andric v.
EXPULSION OF Sweden, defines mass expulsion as the
AMIRANS IN ROPHAN The case involves a Bosnian Cathloic compulsion of a group of aliens to leave a
VIOLATES priest who defected from military duty country. Vedran Andric is an alien who seeked
INTERNATIONAL which directed attacks to Muslims. He asylum in Sweden and was disallowed such
escaped to Sweden through Croatia. In which resulted to his mass expulsion with other
LAWS AGAINST
Sweden, he applied for asylum and was Bosnian natives. Andric was not given due
MASS AND denied. After which, he was consideration with his personal circumstances
COLLECTIVE commanded to be expelled with other which included his PTSD symptoms and claims
EXPULSION BASED Bosnians to their country. The Court of non-refoulement. The applicability of
ON emphasized in its decision the definition expulsion to a group of aliens also applies in this
DISCRIMINATION 1 2 of mass expulsion as a measure which case.
compels aliens as a group to leave a
country without a reasonable and Mass expulsion takes a discriminatory
objective examination of the particular character in violation of the purpose of
case of each alien and without allowing Article 1 of ICERD when a state expels and
the alien to put forward arguments
deports aliens based on their nationality.
against the expulsion.
Article 1 of the ICERD manifests the
ICERD Art 1 Definition of Racial instance of racial discrimination and the
Discrimination prohibition of the same.

Article 29 VCTL Racial discrimination is prominent in the

Territorial scope of treaties situation of Amirans being expelled from
Rophan.
Article 27
Internal law and observance of treaties Furthermore, the ICCPR, precisely Article
A party may not invoke the provisions 13, directly regulates the procedure for
of its internal law as justification for its
expulsion. Its purpose is clearly to prevent
failure to perform a treaty
arbitrary expulsions. It entitles each alien to
UN Human Rights Committee a decision in his own case and, hence,
General Comment 15/27 of 22 July Article 13 would not be satisfied with
1986, ¶ 10. (1986). laws or decisions providing for collective
expulsions. This is expressly provided for in
ART 13 ICCPR General Comment No. 15 of the Human
An alien lawfully in the territory of a Rights Committee. 1 2
State Party to the present Covenant may
be expelled therefrom only in pursuance The implementation of collective
of a decision reached in accordance expulsion deprives aliens to be expelled of
with law and shall, except where
their individual right to procedural
compelling reasons of national security
otherwise require, be allowed to submit
guarantees provided by Article 13 of the
the reasons against his expulsion and to ICCPR, hence, there is a material breach
have his case reviewed by, and be committed by Rophan. 1 2
represented for the purpose before, the
competent authority or a person or Under this submission, we forward these
persons especially designated by the two points: (a) the mass expulsion of
competent authority. Amirans pursues an arbitrary and
discriminatory cause and (b) the mass
expulsion does not validly invoke national
security for its implementation.
ICCPR, supra note 13, Article 2, ¶ 2.
The States Parties to the present
Covenant undertake to guarantee that
the rights enunciated in the present
Covenant will be exercised without
discrimination of any kind as to race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status.
International Law Association,
Declaration of principles of
international law on mass expulsion,
62nd conference of the ILA, Seoul,
24-30 August 1986, Conference
Report 1986, pp. 17-18.
On our first point of this submission, the
mass expulsion of Amirans instituted by
Rophan contravenes the objectives of
Article 13 conjoined with Article 2 (2) of
the ICCPR. This embodies the principle of
non-discrimination.
Under this provision, The State Parties to
the Covenant undertake to guarantee that
civil and political rights must be exercised
without discrimination. 1 2
Rooted on discrimination and
arbitrariness, the directive to expel Amiran
citizens in Rophan deprives these aliens
their substantial rights and their right to
procedural guarantees.
The International Law Association in its
declaration of principles of international law
on mass expulsion further expresses that
mass expulsion becomes arbitrary or
discriminatory when they serve as a pretext
for an unlawful aim and contravenes the
principle of good faith, proportionality, and
justifiability. 1 2
The expulsion of Amirans in Rophan
pursues an unlawful aim and fails to
establish just cause. 1 2 .(feel offended)
The action is intended to manifest the false
propaganda which tags all Amiran citizens
as criminals
(feel angry)
Instituted by a government which is largely
anti-Amiran, the command is politically-
motivated and substantially-based on
prejudice. This is evident when the
Amirans were not offered opportunity to
individual procedural guarantees. The
expulsion was also intended to get rid of
Amirans in haste to validate the claim
that Amirans are criminals and must be
purged out of their territory. 1 2 3
There is a substantial distinction between
Amiran citizens who were mandated to
leave Rophan and citizens who were
allowed to stay.
 Dual citizens, parents of Rophan
children, and spouses of Rophan citizens
are excluded from the expulsion order due
to their status which compels them to hold
indirect allegiance and loyalty to Rophan.
Par. 13

Dual citizens enjoy the protection of

Rophan in exchange of their allegiance to
their State. In the instance of Amiran
citizens which are spouses of Rophans and
Amiran parents residing in Rophan with
Rophan children, it must be said that they
are compelled to hold loyalty to Rophan
because of their kin relationship. Their
relationship with Rophan citizens obligates
them to respect the law which protects the
rights and interests of their Rophan kin.

Nolan and K. v Russia [2009] ECHR, On our second point of this submission,
Application no. 2512/04, ¶ 115; Rophan cannot invoke national security as
Council of Europe, Protocol 7 to the a valid ground for the implementation of
European Convention for the the Amiran citizens’ expulsion.
Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, 22
November 1984, ¶ 15. In a decision reached by the European Court
of Human Rights in the case of Nolan
the applicant was detained and versus Russia, it is required that for a State
disallowed to return to Russia because to invoke the defense of national security,
he was a Turkish man who was the principles of proportionality and
allegedly a threat to national security. necessity must be complied with. The
Russia failed to provide sufficient European Court of Human Rights also
evidence for his deprivation to the right stated that the State must also provide
to travel home. The ban to return was evidence capable of corroborating that the
not necessary or proprotionate. It was interests of national security are at stake and
not because of a lawful aim.
that these interests are of a compelling
‘
the applicant was detained and nature.
disallowed to return to Russia because
he was a Turkish man who was The same Court also provided in the case of
C.G. versus Bulgaria that a state must also
allegedly a threat to national security.
be able to establish that the decision is taken
Similarly on the instance of Rophan, pursuant to a legitimate aim, and is
Rophan did not provide evidence to necessary and proportionate to the aim
corroborate the threat to national pursued.
security. The exoulsion of Amiran
citizens was also not proportionate and Firstly, it cannot be subscribed that there is
necessary to any threat.
a threat to Rophan’s national security as the
C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, Appl. cyberterrorist and hacking attack was only
no. 1365/07, ECHR, 24 April 2008, ¶ directed at Mykinos. This is stated in
78. paragraph 9 of the Compromis.

The applicant in this case was deported

 within a day for allegedly being a threat
to national security. Prior to being
deported, he was not allowed contact to
his legal counsel and family.
Furthermore, no law or decision from
court recognized that he was a threat to
national security.
With regards to the alleged violation of
Article 13, the Court observed that the
domestic courts that dealt with the
expulsion decision did not examine
whether it had been made on genuine
national security grounds and whether
the executive was able to demonstrate
the factual basis for its assessment that
he presented a risk in that regard. This
is similar to the situation of Amirans.
1 – COMPROMIS P9
2 – COMPROMIS P9
Secondly, the imminence of the attack was
eased with the discovery of the offenders
responsible for the attack. The attack is
discovered to have been done by individuals
not acting for Amira’s state functions or
state goals. It cannot be presumed that the
Amirans sought to be expelled are
responsible as this was a cyber-attack
rooted from the offender’s individual
interest. 9
No evidence also imputes the Amirans to be
expelled for the crime.
Thirdly, the attack and the growing
criminality cannot be attributed to the
Amirans mandated to leave Rophan.
Rophan failed to corroborate evidence
linking all Amiran citizens to the hacking
and to the crimes.

These reasons debunk the presence of a

threat to national security; hence, it cannot
be raised as a justification for the command
to expel the Amiran citizens.

ON OUR THIRD Art 2 (1) (a) The expulsion of Amiran citizens through
SUBMISSION, WE Art 2 (1) (b) the Joint Statement blatantly violates the
FORWARD THAT THE ICERD purpose of the following ICERD provisions:
MASS EXPULSION OF Article 2, paragraph 1 section A which
AMIRANS IN ROPHAN emphasizes the obligations of state parties
CONSTITUTES A not to engage in any act or practice of racial
DISCRIMINATORY discrimination against persons, groups of
ACT AGAINST persons or institutions and Article 2,
AMIRAN CITIZENS paragraph 1 section B which reminds state
BY INCITING parties of their undertaking not to support,
DISCRIMINATION sponsor or defend racial discrimination by
AND FAILING TO any persons or organizations.
CONDEMN RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION. 1 and 2 - Compromis P10 1. It can be gleaned under paragraph 10 of
the compromis that several riots and mass
rallies against Amiran citizens sprouted in
the country due to the misattribution of
crimes to Amirans. 2. Under the same
paragraph of the compromis, the growing
prejudice against Amirans also paved the
way for the landslide win of a Rophan party
which bears sentiments against Amira. It is
to be noted that there has always been bad
blood between the states and this expulsion
 3. Compromis P8
4. Compromis P6 of Amirans merely serves to further the
point that Amirans are treated with
prejudice and hate. Amirans have always
been painted as villains to Rophan. 3. This
is evident with the attribution of criminality
to them by Rophan citizens as states under
paragraph 8 of the compromis and the 4.
unstable relations of state authorities prior to
the integration of Amirans in Rophan which
can be seen on paragraph 6 of the
compromis. The expulsion command
validates the unfair treatment of Rophans to
Amirans. The expulsion of Amirans in
Rophan abets and incites the prejudice
5. Compromis P13 against Amirans when it cited Amirans as
criminals and condemned Amirans for
criminal acts.

This is also a violation of the Rophan’s

official’s mandate not to engage in any act
or practice of racial discrimination. 5.
Instead of acting on their mandate, they
opted to pour gas to the fire by utilizing
their power and authority arbitrarily to issue
a Joint Statement discriminating Amirans.
This is manifested under paragraph 13 of the
compromis.

The stance of the expulsion order does not

inspire security or safety. It incites disunity
and danger to both Amiran and Rophan
citizens. This tolerates systemic racism and
racism does not favor anyone - it
dehumanizes offenders and endangers
victims. Hence, the order must be set
unlawful.
Prejudice is a burden that confuses the past, threatens the future, and renders the present inaccessible.

We have established considerations imputing the unlawfulness of Rophan’s mass expulsion of Amirans. First,
the Federation of Rophan can be imputed for acts violating its international obligations. Second, mass expulsion
is prohibited in this instance. Third, the mass and collective expulsion is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unlawful.

If Your Honors have no further questions, I now cede the podium to my co-counsel. Thank you and may it
please the court.