Advanced Pleadings

1. THE NOTIFICATION DATED JUNE 6 , 2018 ISSUED BY THE VARYSIAN

GOVERNMENT IS VALID AND IN CONFORMITY OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW.
1.1. no ratification to convention

As per the Refugee Convention 1951, state has obligation to provide asylum to the refugees who
came to their state for seeking asylum but if state has neither signed nor ratified the 1951 UN
Refugee Convention nor its 1967 Protocol then it is not an obligation to them.

Therefore, here situation also states that Varys are not responsible to provide asylum to Orukains or
they do not have any obligation towards the Orukains as they have neither signed nor ratified the
1951 UN Refugee Convention nor 1967 Protocol.

1.2. no international obligation

The 1951 Convention does not define how States parties are to determine whether an individual meets the
definition of a refugee. Instead, the establishment of asylum proceedings and refugee status determinations
are left to each State party to develop. This has resulted in disparities among different States as governments
craft asylum laws based on their different resources, national security concerns, and histories with forced
migration movements. 

The ​Asian African Legal Consultative Committee, in 1966, adopted Principles Concerning Treatment of
Refugees, Article III(1) of which states that :

“​State has the sovereign right to grant or refuse asylum in its territory to a refugee​.​”  

Therefore , in the present case too Varys are not liable for the asylum for Orukains as state has its
discretionary power to decide whether they want to provide asylum to a particular state or not.
International has not given any obligation to the state to provide asylum to other states

1.3 National Interest & National Security

According to CIL , state practices evidencing international rights are both general and followed out
of a sense of legal obligation. With respect to the right to asylum , it cannot be said that such a
right exits as a matter of this law.
Meaning there by it says that though state has some legal obligations in international law to follow
yet at last its their discretionary power to follow them or not , as state security comes first and
when it comes to state government will ultimately work for the national trust of the state.

Just as in the case of Rohingya refugees ,

For some time now, India’s concerns about security have had a more restrictive impact on asylum
space in the country. Mixed migration flows have further complicated the identification and
protection of refugees and UNHCR has significantly modified and increased its registration activities
to cope with this and provide the necessary support to the Government.

Similarly , in this case too Varys have question on their security because Antolians have been
intruders in past also. So now also they have been their in an illegal way and Varys government
has been notified by newspapers and media that there is rapid increase in their state. Therefore, to
have security in state they are not willing to accept Antolians. And a state will always work in
national interest of their country.

1.4 population control

As a developing country every government wants to have limited number of population with good
economic status and developing growth. For this purpose every state will wish to have less number
of population because more people will lead to more expenses, more use of resources will be there,
and this will lead to less growth in country.

Therefore , in the present case Varys were not asccepting Antolians as they were very large in
number ( about 90 %) and were doubtful on illegal activities.

They were all Orukains who belong to a very religious community and they did not support any
kind of modern develping system, which will give loss to Varys as it is a developing country.

Hence , to povide asylum to such a big population is a problem for nation as well as for the
people .

2. ALTERNATIVELY , THE ORUKAINS WHO ENTERED VARYS FROM ANTOLIA

CANNOT BE TERMED AS REFUGEES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW , IF THEY
ARE OF ANTOLIAN NATIONALITY​.

2​.1 every intruder is not a refugee

Illegal Economic Migrants

Any foreigner who might have left his or her country of origin without due authorisation from the
authorities concerned, both in the country of origin as well as the country of destination , solely to
improve his or her economic prospects , is not a refugee. After all, there is no element of
persecution or coercion compelling the individual to leave the country of origin.

In the present case , Antolians have come to Varys with a ground of economic problems they were
facing in Antolia. And according to the definition given above they are not to be considered as
refugees and also according to international law economic grounds cannot to be taken care to
provide asylum .

In the case Salibiah v. Canada , the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada was concerned with a claim
for refugee status by a citizen of the Lebanon. The refugee division had decided that the plaintiff
was not entitled to refugee status because there was no evidence that he personally had been
signed out for persecution.

Similarly , in this situation also there was no evidence that Antolians had been persecuted and came
to another country on that ground. Also economic grounds cannot be preferred to provide asylum in
Varys.

2.2 Reparation when there is no threat to life

According to this concept a country has a right to return the asylum seekers if there is no
evidence of proving that they were being persecuted by another country. If asylum seekers are
not actually been persecuted then providing asylum to them will not be considered under
international law. It is mandatory to be proven that asylum seekers are being persecuted beause of
which they have been deprived of their political , social , economical rights.

In the present case, Orukains have not been proved to be persecuted by Antolia or any other
country and moreover they had left Antolia on economic grounds which is not considered in
international law. Varys has right to return Antolian Orukains on these grounds , also Antolian
Orukains are from Antolian nationality so they are deprived of to seek asylum in Varys because
they are not been proven to belong from different country.

Hence , Varys are not liable to provide asylum when the seekers are not even prosecuted.

2.3 Guiding Principles of UN 1998