2019BALLB90 - Rounak Doshi.

RUNNERS-UP MEMORIAL
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL
MOOT MEMORIAL
Subject Matter of the Moot
Public International Law

Subject in which the project is to be substituted
Family Law - I
PROFESSOR’S NAME: SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. Raka Arya Rounak Doshi
Associate Professor (NLIU Bhopal) 2019BALLB90

RUNNERS-UP MEMORIAL
TEAM CODE: 26
THE 1st AMITY VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020
CASE CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUTLAWED

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LEADING TO GLOBAL PANDEMIC
BY PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KHYNA
UNITED STATES OF BEMERICA
(APPLICANT)
V.
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KHYNA
(RESPONDENT)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

JUSTICE
THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF UNITED STATES OF BEMERICA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
QUESTIONS PRESENTED-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS------------------------------------------------------------------------------XIV
PLEADINGS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
(I) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE JURISDICTION

TO ENTERTAIN THE CURRENT MATTER?-------------------------------------------------------------1
(A) THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ------------------1
(B) The Violation of BWC falls within the Jurisdiction of the ICJ--------------------------------------2
(C) KHYNA’S ACTIONS DO NOT FALL UNDER ITS RESERVATION--------------------------------------------2
(II) WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF

PROVISIONS OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4
(A) ACTIONS OF KHYNA ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION--------------4
(i) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLE 1 OF THE BWC----------------------------------4
(ii) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF THE BWC------------------------5
(iii) THE RESERVATION OF CHINA IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BWC-------------------------------7
(a) Khyna’s reservation to the BWC is invalid.------------------------------------------------------8
(b) Khyna’s obligations towards the United States of Bemerica, and other parties to the
BWC are not absolved.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
(B) ACTIONS OF KHYNA VIOLATE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW-------------------------------------9
(i) DIRECT VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW---------------------------------------9
(ii) KHYNA BREACHED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION-------------------------------------10

III
(iii) KHYNA’S ACTIONS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM ------------------------------------------11
(III) WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

INSTRUMENTS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DELIBERATELY
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?-------------------------------------------------------------------------13
(A) BEMERICA HAS STANDING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
(B) KHYNA HAS BREACHED THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY IT---------------------------------------13
(i) VIOLATION OF ART 6 AND 7 OF IHR----------------------------------------------------------------14
(C) KHYNA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW-------------------14
(i) KHYNA VIOLATED ITS DUTY TO PREVENT TRANS-BOUNDARY HARM AND COMMITTED IT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15
(a) Presence of the elements of trans-boundary harm in the acts of Khyna---------------------15
(b) Failure to Prevent of Trans-boundary Harm----------------------------------------------------16
(ii) KHYNA VIOLATED ITS ERGA OMNES OBLIGATIONS------------------------------------------------17
(a) Khyna violated the right to life of its citizens---------------------------------------------------17
(b) Khyna has violated the Right to Health----------------------------------------------------------18
(iii) BEMERICA WAS SPECIALLY AFFECTED AS A CONSEQUENCE------------------------------------20
(IV) WHETHER KHYNA HAS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GLOBAL

PANDEMIC?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
(A) KHYNA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT------------------------------21
(B) THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO KHYNA---------------------------22
(i) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REPORTS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT-----------------22
(ii) KHYNESE MILITARY LABORATORY FORMS A PART OF AN ORGAN OF THE STATE------------22
(iii) THE BSL-4 LABORATORY EXERCISED ELEMENTS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY---------23
(iv) ALTERNATELY, THE ACTS OF LUHAN VIROLOGY LAB ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO KHYNA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24
IV
(C) KHYNA IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE BAMERICA FOR THE COMMISSION OF INTERNATIONALLY
WRONGFUL ACTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27
V
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of

Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, (1972), 1015
U.N.T.S. 163---------------------------------------------------------------------------------15, 17, 18, 20
Fourth Geneva Convention, (1949), 75 U.N.T.S 287----------------------------------------------33, 34
ICJ Statute, (1945), 33 U.N.T.S. 993-----------------------------------------------------------------14, 15
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, (1976), 993 U.N.T.S. 3----29
International Health Regulations, (2005), 2509 U.N.T.S. 79------------------------------------------25
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, (1925), 94 LNTS 65-----------------------------------------20
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (2002), 2187 U.N.T.S. 90----------------------15
UN Charter, (1945), 557 U.N.T.S. 143--------------------------------------------------------------14, 15
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331----------------------------17
WHO Const., (1948), 14 U.N.T.S. 185-------------------------------------------------------------------25
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (Jurisdiction) (UK v. Iran), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 93, 1952)- 16
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 168, 2005)-----------------------------------------------------------33, 34
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 6, 1964)-----------------------------------------------28, 29
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 137, 2007)- -28,
33
Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya v. Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 13, 1985)- -22
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 4, 1949)-----19, 23, 27, 33, 35
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission
on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 62, 1999)--------------------------------32
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports (p. 432, 1998)----------------16
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 7, 1997)---36
VI
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 136, 2004)-----------------------------------------------------30
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 226,
1996)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21, 23
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America) Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 14, 1986)------------------------------16, 18, 22, 33
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (1969, p. 3)----------------------------------19
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 14, 2010)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Reservations to the Convention of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports (p. 1.5, 1951)---28
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Judgment, I.C.J.
Report (p. 319, 1962)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------29, 30
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
(p. 3, 1980)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports (p. 226, 2014)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Merits Judgment No. 7, P.C.I.J.,(ser. A), No. 7,
at p. 19 (1926)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------33
Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (1927)---------------------------15
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927)----------------------------------------30
Territorial Jurisdiction of Int’l Comm’n of River Oder (U.K. v. Pol.), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 23
(1929)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
ARBITRATION
Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, R.I.A.A. (1872)---------19
Island of Palmas Arbitration Netherlands v. USA, 2 R. Int'l. Arb. Awards, 829, 831 (1928)-----19
Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (1957)-----------------------------------28
Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (USA v. Canada), R.I.A.A., Vol. III (1941)---------------18, 23, 26
Forests of Central Rhodopia Case, 3 R.I.A.A. 1405 (1933)-------------------------------------------36
VII
OTHER CASES
Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, EctHR App. No. 55721/07 (2011)-----------------30
BaboeramAdhin v. Suriname, Communication No. 146/1983 (1983)-------------------------------28
de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No.
ARB/04/13, (2006)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------34
Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, Appication No. 12747/87 (1992)------------------------30
Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 594 F. Supp. 707 N.D. Cal. (1988)-------------------------------------------29
General Electric Company v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-U.S. C.T.R.,
Vol. 26 ( p. 148, 1989)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------36
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (2005)-----------------------------34
Salas and others v. United States,Inter-Am.C.H.R. Case 10.573, 31/93 (1994)--------------------30
Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia, CCPR/C/15/D/45, Communication No. R.11/45 (1982)- -28, 29
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 9 (1988)- - -29, 35
UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS
Concluding observations UNHCR, Sess. No. 105 (2012)---------------------------------------------29

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 60/251. Human Rights Council, A/RES/60/251- 14
Fact Sheet No.31 Right to Health, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights & WHO--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
Fourth Review Conference on Biological Weapons, UN Press Release DC/2572-----------------20
General Comment No. 14 on Art. 12 of International Convention on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, E/C.12/2000/4 (2000)----------------------------------------------------------------29
J. Barboza, ‘‘Sixth Report on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of
Acts not Prohibited by International Law”, UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 (1990)-------------------24, 27
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001) A/------------25, 32, 34, 35, 36
Rio Declaration, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (1992)--------------------------------------------23
Study Concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of
Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN Economic and Social
Council, Sess. No. 45, UN Doc. EICN/41 Sub.2/1990/10 (1993)----------------------------------28
UNHCR 41st Sess., UN Doc. EICN.4/1985/20 (1985)--------------------------------------------------29
UNSC 4956th Meeting, RES/1540 (2004)----------------------------------------------------------------21
VIII
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, A/66/10, ILC Sess. No. 63 (2011)-----------------15

Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc.
A/56/10 (2001)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
A. Abass, Complete International Law, OUP (2012)---------------------------------------------------35

Christian J. Tams and James Sloan, Bruno Simma’s Human Rights Before the International
Court of Justice: Community Interest Coming to Life?, The Development of International Law
by the International Court of Justice, 581, 590 (2013)-----------------------------------------------28
J. Crawford, State Responsibility: The General Part, C.U.P. (2013)---------------------------------35
Eleanor D. Kinney, The International Human Right to Health: What does this mean for Our
Nation and World?, Vol. 34: 1457 (2001), Indiana Law Review----------------------------------30
James R. Crowford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th ed. 2019)------------19
Lucas Bergkamp, Liability and Environment (Kluwer, 2001)----------------------------------------19
Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (5th ed. 2003)-----------------------------------------------------19
Max Planck, Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], OUP (2015)------------------22
Patricia Birnie & Alan Boyle, International Law and the Environment, (2nd ed., 2004)-----------18
Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International
Responsibility of States, 35 German Y.B. Int’l L. 9 (1992)-----------------------------------------35
Tim Stephens, International Courts and Environmental Protection (2009)--------------------------19
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law (2003)---------------------19, 24, 26, 27
COMMENTARIES AND DRAFT ARTICLES
Commentary on Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
(2001)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35
Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities with
Commentaries, (2001)---------------------------------------------------------------------------18, 23, 27
Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, (2001)---------33
MISCELLANEOUS
IX
Discussions in the Geneva session of the Preparatory Committee of ICL Draft Articles (1966)- 16
General comment No. 36 on §6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on
the Right to Life (2018)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
ICRC Database on Customary International Law, Vol II----------------------------------------------21
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Rules of Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct
of Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, IRRC, No.278 (1990 p.395)--------------21
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database--------33
United Kingdom, Letter to the President of the UN Security Council and Statement by the
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office----------------------------------------------21
X
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
In accordance with Article 40 (1) of the Statute of the ICJ, the United States of Bemerica has
submitted a written application instituting proceedings against Republic of Khyna concerning
violations of International Human rights and the Biological Weapons Convention on the 9th of
April, 2020. This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 36 of its Statute, as
both the United States of Bemerica and Khyna have submitted declaration accepting the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
XI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE JURISDICTION

TO ENTERTAIN THE CURRENT MATTER?
2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS

OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
1. WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

INSTRUMENTS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DELIBERATELY
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?
2. WHETHER KHYNA HAS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC?
XII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
The People's Republic of Khyna is a country in east Asia. Khynese Communist government
maintains tight control over the internet, mass media, and academia. Khyna has been
characterized as a potential superpower.
On November 17, 2019, the existence of coronavirus or COVID-19, an extremely dangerous

disease was noticed in Luhan city. COVID-19 has an extremely aggressive nature to mutate from
person to person. No vaccine exists yet on account of it being a new disease. The first case was
confirmed on December 8, 2019. However, doctors in Luhan and throughout Khyna "were also
ordered not to disclose any information about the new disease to the public." In December, 2019
Doctor Li Benliang warned about a possible outbreak of an illness that resembled "Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)". The doctor was consequently accused of "spreading rumours
about a deadly virus" and later was forced to sign a statement admitting "misdemeanour". On
January 14, 2020, the World Health Organization, in its report stated: "Preliminary investigations
conducted by the Khynese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human
transmission of the Novel Coronavirus." It was reported by BDC newsthat Khynese officials
were “not sending the required details to the WHO.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS
By the end of February 2020, the virus had spread to at least 177 countries. Even after public
awareness about the new virus, the Khynese government only bothered to share the genome
sequencing to show the strain of the Novel Coronavirus.As on April 1, 2020, the disease killed
more than 55,000 people and infected nearly 9,90,000 persons across the globe. COVID-19
failed to affect people in the important cities in Khyna as much as the virus has spread rapidly
around the world. The disease caused extensive damage in terms of life, and massive economic
loss to almost all countries. Isolation measures, quarantines, and cancellation of mass events
encroached upon the human rights.The ban on travel issued by several governments led to deep
XIII
economic damage to countries. However, industry and commerce of Khyna is functioning

without any particular delays in production and/or consumption.
STANCES ON THE GENESIS OF THE VIRUS
It has been reported that the virus was developed in the Luhan Virology Lab.It is alleged by
international organisations, that the COVID-19 virus is purposely deployed by Khyna in a bid to
control the economy of the world by buying up stocks from countries that are on the brink of
economic collapse.After the crisis has begun, the entire trade system has been paralysed leaving
almost every currency, to devalue.
According to Khyna, the source of the coronavirus is believed to be a "wet market" in Luhan
which sold both dead and live animals including fish and birds. Meanwhile, there are many
indications that the virus was engineered in the Khynese military's laboratory.
KHYNA STANCE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Khyna has acceded to the Geneva Protocol in 1952 and the BTWC in 1984. When Khyna,
acceded to the Convention in 1984, it included the stipulation that the treaty was binding only in
regard to its relations with other state parties. In 2015, Khyna opened its first BSL-4 laboratory
to do undertake research in defense against biological weapons at the Luhan Institute of
Virology, which is a part of the Khynese Academy of Science. While substantial dual-use
infrastructure of Khyna is aimed at peaceful application of modern research anddevelopment, it
is also indicative of large-scale BW program.
LEGAL RECOURSE TAKEN BY BEMERICA
On 2nd April 2020, the Bemerica passed the Expropriation of Khyna’s Assets Act, 2020 and
took over all the assets of Khyna in Bemerica’s territory to compensate the healthcare costs. On
4th April 2020, Bemerica filed a complaint before International Criminal Court against Khyna
for crimes against humanity and genocide.
On 9th April 2020, The Bemerica instituted proceedings against Khyna for violation of human
rights and BTWC and to impose state responsibility, before the ICJ. Both the countries have
XIV
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, where the former has accepted compulsory
ipsofacto jurisdiction. Khyna’s declaration includes reservation which excludes “all measures
taken for the protection of national security and national defence of Khyna”.
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
(I) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE JURISDICTION

TO ENTERTAIN THE CURRENT MATTER?
United States of Bemerica and the Republic of Khyna have submitted declarations accepting
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. However, Khyna has a reservation
in its declaration excluding “all measures taken for the protection of national security and
national defence of the People’s Republic of Khyna”. Khyna has withheld information of the
Coronavirus which led to a full blown pandemic. Further, it has violated the stipulations of the
Biological Weapons convention. The United States of Bemerica submits that the violation of
human rights and the BWC falls within the jurisdiction of the ICJ as no other Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over such cases which may have precluded it. All organs of UN are authorised to
address legal issues to the ICJ. Further, there is no overlap between the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court and the ICJ. Moreover, the reservation to the declaration of Khyna
does not apply in the present case as it’s actions cannot in any natural or reasonable way be
considered acts done for national security or defence.
(II) WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS

OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
Khyna’s manufacturing and use of deadly Corona Virus against United States of Bemerica and
the world at large breaches the obligations binding upon it under the Biological Weapons
Convention and Customary International Law. Firstly, as a State party to the Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC), Khyna was required to fulfil its obligations therein in good faith. In the
instant case, Khyna has acted in breach of its negative obligation as well as its positive
obligations of the BWC by never developing biological toxins, or preventing others from
developing them in its territory. Furthermore, Khyna’s reservation to the BWC is invalid as it is
XV
incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Even assuming that it were to be
determined valid, Bemerica is not an enemy state and hence it is inapplicable. Moreover, Khyna
violated the principles of Customary International Law by breaching the principle of non-
intervcention and by causing transboundary harm.
(III) WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

INSTRUMENTS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONA LAW BY DELIBERATELY
WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?
Khyna has violated several International Human Rights Law instruments such as UDHR,
ICCPR, ICESCR, International Health Regulations, etc and International Customary Law by
deliberately withholding significant information pertaining to the virus, that led to the global
pandemic outbreak. Khyna has violated its treaty obligations undertaken by it under International
Health Regulations wherein Khyna did not provide WHO officials with the essential information
and did not notify about the virus on time. In furtherance, Khyna violated the Customary
International Harm wherein Khyna failed to prevent and committed trans-boundary harm. Khyna
acted in violation with Customary International Law by violating the Right to Life of its citizens,
by injecting the virus into some of its citizens, which led to the global spread of the virus,
thereby violating the Right to Health of people living in other countries. This has specially
affected United States of Bemerica as the number of people infected and the death toll in
Bemerica was enormous.

PANDEMIC?
The internationally wrongful conduct that has taken place under Khyna’s jurisdiction and the
acts are attributable to Khyna. Khynese Military Laboratories form a part of the state organ like
any other entity of the government and possess a status in accordance with the internal law of the
state, and the fact that the novel corona virus was designed there, attributes the responsibility
towards the state of Khyna. In furtherance, Khyna would be attributable for the commission of
acts in the BSL-4 laboratory as it constituted as an agency of the state and was empowered by the
government and the laws of the state to exercise elements that constituted governmental
authority.The acts committed in Luhan Virology Lab amount to internationally wrongful acts
XVI
and breach the international obligations of Khyna. Khyna did not investigate the wrong doings
and condoned the acts committed in the lab, thereby amounting to attribution of state
responsibility towards Khyna. With Bemerica being a specially damaged state in the due course,
can claim reparation in the form of compensation from Khyna.
XVII
PLEADINGS
(I) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE

JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE CURRENT MATTER?
1. United States of Bemerica and the People’s Republic of Khyna have submitted
declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.1
However, Khyna has a reservation in its declaration excluding “all measures taken for the
protection of national security and national defence of the People’s Republic of Khyna”. 2
Khyna has withheld information of the Corona virus which led to a full blown pandemic. 3
Further, it has violated the stipulations of the Biological Weapons convention. 4 The United
States of Bemerica submits that (A) the violation of human rights falls within the
jurisdiction of the ICJ, (B) the violation of BWC falls within the jurisdiction of the ICJ,
and (C) the actions do not fall under the reservation.
(A) THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ
2. Article 36 of the ICJ statute specifies that jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases
which the parties refer to it, or matters specially provided for in the charter of the United
Nations5 and such parties may declare the jurisdiction of the court compulsory.6
3. Issues of violations of human rights are addressed to the United National Human Rights
Commission under its complaint procedure as provided for in Resolution 60/251 of the
UNGA.7 The charter of the United Nations authorizes organs of the UN to address legal
issues to the ICJ, giving it jurisdiction.8
4. This Court has previously held that the Court's jurisdiction depends on the will of the
Parties; the Court therefore is always competent once the parties have accepted its
1
Proposition ¶14.
2
id.
3
Proposition ¶5.
4
Proposition ¶10.
5
ICJ Statute, Art. 36(1) (1945), 33 U.N.T.S. 993.
6
7
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 60/251. Human Rights Council, A/RES/60/251.
8
UN Charter, Art. 96 (1945), 557 U.N.T.S. 143.
18
jurisdiction, save in exceptional cases where a dispute may be within the exclusive
jurisdiction of some other body.9 Therefore, ICJ has jurisdiction over this case.
(B) THE VIOLATION OF BWC FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ
5. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) specifies that in case of breach of obligations
by a State, another State may file a complaint with the Security Council of the United
Nations.10 The UN Charter further clarifies that disputes addressed to the Security Council
should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the ICJ in accordance with the
provisions of the Statute of the Court.11
6. The United States of Bemerica and the People’s Republic of Khyna have accepted
compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.12 Further, the matters concerning Biological Weapons
Convention can be posed before the ICJ as it has the necessary jurisdiction over them.
(C) KHYNA’S ACTIONS DO NOT FALL UNDER ITS RESERVATION
7. A reservation is to be interpreted in good faith, taking into account the intention of the
author as reflected primarily in the text of the reservation, as well as the object and
purpose of the treaty and the circumstances in which the reservation was formulated.13
8. The ICJ held that the Court must seek that interpretation of a reservation which is in
harmony with a natural and reasonable way of reading the text.14 In the Fisheries case, the
principle of ‘good faith’ has been explored and the ICJ states that the freedom of a state to
formulate a reservation depends on good faith. A reservation cannot be used as a shield to
preclude responsibility of the State for those actions which are illegal or unlawful. Further,
it states that the ‘intention of the author’ may be deduced from the context in which the
reservation is to be read and the purposes intended to be served. For ascertaining the same,
the Court holds that the contra proferentem rule may be applied, which states that a clause
9
Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (1927).
10
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological)
and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, Art. 6 (1972), 1015 U.N.T.S. 163.
11
UN Charter, Art. 36(3) (1945), 557 U.N.T.S. 143.
12
Proposition ¶13.
13
Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, A/66/10, ILC Sess. No. 63 (2011).
14
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (jurisdiction), Judgment, I.C.J Reports (p. 93, 1952).
19
considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that
created it.15
9. The ICJ in the case of Nicaragua v USA held that national security aims to prevent a state
from any threat to its sovereignty that undermines its very existence.16 National security
and defence are narrowly interpreted to prevent the States from invoking broad, open-
ended claims that could undermine much of international law. 17
10. In the current case, Khyna’s reservation excludes those acts done for national security or
defence. However, Khyna’s actions of withholding information from the WHO and world
at large, violations of human rights as well as development and propagation of the virus
and violation of the BWC cannot in any natural or reasonable way be considered acts done
for national security or defence. Such an interpretation would go against the principle of
good faith as well as contra proferentem.
11. Additionally, The jurisdiction of the ICJ is not barred by the jurisdiction of as The
International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over ‘persons or individuals’ for crimes of
international concern.18 However, only 'states' may be parties in cases before the
International Court of Justice.19 Therefore, the complaint filed by Bemerica before the
International Criminal Court against Khyna20 does not preclude jurisdiction of the ICJ as
subjects of the jurisdiction are different and there is no overlap.
(II) WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF

PROVISIONS OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW?
12. Khyna’s manufacturing and use of deadly Corona Virus against United States of
Bemerica and the world at large violates the international obligation to refrain from the
15
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment, I. C.J. Reports (p. 432, 1998).
16
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 14, 1986).
17
Discussions in the Geneva session of the Preparatory Committee of ICL draft articles (1966).
18
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 1 (2002), 2187 U.N.T.S. 90.
19
20
Proposition ¶12.
20
use of biological weapons by breaching the obligations binding upon it under (A) the
Biological Weapons Convention and (B) Customary International Law.
(A) ACTIONS OF KHYNA ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
13. As a State party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), Khyna was required to
fulfill its obligations therein in good faith. 21 In the instant case, Khyna has acted in breach
of its negative obligation under Article 1 of the BWC (i), as well as its positive obligations
under Articles 4 and 5 of the BWC (ii). Furthermore, Khyna’s reservation to the BWC 22
does not impede United States of Bemerica’s submissions (iii).
(i) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLE 1 OF THE BWC
14. As per Article 1 of the BWC, Khyna had undertaken, never in any circumstance to
develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain microbial or other biological
agents, or toxins or the weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such
agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. 23 This undertaking serves to
preclude the possibility of the use of biological agents and toxins by State parties as
weapons, which constitutes the Convention’s raison d’etre.24
15. Reports have suggested that Khyna possesses an advanced biotechnology infrastructure as
well as the requisite munitions production capabilities necessary to develop, produce and
weaponize biological agents. Further, Khyna is commonly considered to have an active
biological warfare program.25 National reports have indicated that Khyna is running an
active biological weapons program.26 A BSL-4 laboratory (the name given to labs
handling the most dangerous agents in part because there is no known cure) at the Luhan
Institute of Virology, part of the Khynese Academy of Science has also been established.27
21
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 26 (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
22
Proposition ¶11.
23
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, Art. 1 (1972), 1015 U.N.T.S. 163.
24
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction,Preamble (1972), 1015 U.N.T.S. 163.
25
Proposition ¶12.
26
Proposition ¶11.
27
Proposition ¶12.
21
16. Arguably, in the biological field it is difficult to distinguish between research and
development;28 a country can develop warfare agents in research facilities. Once
developed, these agents can be rapidly produced in significant quantities.29 Therefore,
Khyna’s actions ought to be viewed contextually with regard to spread of the virus across
the world with limited impact on Khyna despite being the place of origin. Further, the
presence of the BSL-4 laboratory which deals with dangerous agents in Luhan is further
indicative of the origin of the virus.
17. In the current case, the running of active biological weapons program and possession of
biological labs dedicated to the study of weaponizing biological agents constitutes a
violation of the stipulations of Article 1 of the BWC.
(ii) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF THE BWC
18. The BWC further stipulates in Article 4 that each State shall take any necessary measures
to prevent the development or production of such biological agents, toxins, weapons or of
the equipment they require in its territory or its jurisdiction or control anywhere else. 30
Article 5 binds the State parties to further resolve to cooperate in application of the
stipulations of this Convention.31
19. It has been held by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua v USA case that
States bound by treaties have an obligation of due diligence towards each other under
which the responsibility of preventing the activities prohibited in the treaty from
happening within the State falls upon it. 32 Due diligence is an accepted standard for the
duty to prevent transboundary harm.33 States are not automatically liable for damage
caused.34 The test of due diligence requires reasonable efforts to take appropriate measures
28
Nuclear Threat Initiative, The Biological Threat, (30 December 2015), https://www.nti.org/learn/biological/.
29
id.
30
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction,Art. 4 (1972), 1015 U.N.T.S. 163.
31
32
33
Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities with Commentaries,
Commentary to Art. 3 ¶ 7 (2001).
22
in a timely fashion,35 with States having discretion to take measures which are necessary,
appropriate, and feasible.36 Due diligence is not a guarantee that harm will be prevented, 37
but an obligation for a State to exert its best efforts to minimise risk. 38 It was further
reiterated in the Corfu Chanel case39 and the Alabama Arbitration40 that there is an
obligation on a State not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the
rights of other States.
20. This Court has also held that there is a substantive duty of meaningful co-operation on a
State party to a convention41 which is seen through accounting the legitimate interests of
the other parties to the Convention and balancing them.42
21. Khyna has been known to run active government funded biological warfare programs. 43
Khyna’s BSL-4 laboratory at the Luhan Institute of Virology is also indicative of large-
scale Biological Weapons program.44 Khyna is not only failing to prevent development of
biological agents which can be weaponised, but is also providing government aid and
funding for it. Even assuming that there is no government funding, the manufacturing of
34
Patricia Birnie & Alan Boyle, International Law and the Environment 109 (2nd ed., 2004); Trail Smelter
Arbitration Case (USA v. Canada), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III (1941); Territorial
Jurisdiction of Int’l Comm’n of River Oder (U.K. v. Pol.), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 23 (1929); Island of Palmas
Arbitration Netherlands v. USA, 2 R. Int‟l. Arb. Awards, 829, 831 (1928); Malcolm N Shaw, International Law
760 (5th ed. 2003).
35
Tim Stephens, International Courts and Environmental Protection 158 (2009); Lucas Bergkamp, Liability and
Environment (Kluwer, 2001).
36
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law 164 (2003).
37
Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001).
38
North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (1969, p. 3); James R. Crowford, Brownlie’s Principles
of Public International Law (9th ed. 2019).
39
Corfu Channel Case (UK v. Albania), Judgment, I.C.J Reports (P. 4, 1949).
40
Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, Reports of International Arbitral
Awards (1872).
41
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 14, 2010).
42
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 226,
2014).
43
Proposition ¶11.
44
Proposition ¶12.
23
the virus in Khyna is in violation of its obligation of due diligence towards Bemerica
under the BWC. Further, its failure to quell international reports about its biological
weapons program and strict control over media and information points to a resistance to
cooperate by the State. These actions are violations of the stipulations of Articles 4 and 5
of the BWC.
(iii) THE RESERVATION OF KHYNA IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BWC
22. Khyna has reserved the application of the BWC only vis-a-vis other State parties to the
BWC, so long as they are not enemy states whose armed forces or allies failed to observe
the Convention's provisions.45 United States of Bemerica submits at the outset, that
Khyna’s reservation is invalid (a). In any case, the reservation did not absolve Khyna of its
obligations under the Convention towards the United States of Bemerica, and other state
Parties (b)
(a) Khyna’s reservation to the BWC is invalid.
23. As per Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State may
formulate reservations to a treaty at the time of ratification so long as it is not incompatible
with the object and purpose of the said treaty. 46 The object and purpose of the BWC, as is
evinced by its operative text,47 is to never “in any circumstances” allow the acquisition of
biological weapons.48 The object and purpose also includes the prohibition on the use of
such weapons, owing to the reference in the BWC’s preamble to the 1925 Geneva
Protocol,49 to which Khyna is a state Party, 50 and whose operation is in no way limited by
the BWC.51
45
Proposition ¶11.
46
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 19(c) (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
47
Convention on the prohibition of the Development, Prodcution and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxic Weapons and on Their Destruction, Art. 1 (1972), 1015 U.N.T.S. 163.
48
id.
49
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, (1925), 94 LNTS 65.
50
Proposition ¶10.
51
24
24. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of methods of warfare justly condemned by
the general opinion of the civilized world, without qualifying the same with the principle
of reciprocity.52 Furthermore, the clarification in the Fourth review conference of the BWC
that the use of such biological agents and toxins is prohibited, 53 puts to rest the question of
whether the absence of the word “usage” in Article 1 was meant to impute a different
object and purpose.
25. State practice in respect of Iraq’s ‘no first use’ reservation to the 1925 Geneva Protocol is
instructive in the instant case.54 Despite such a reservation, in 1991 the international
community expected Iraq to abide by its obligations under the Protocol not to use
chemical weapons unconditionally.55 In light of the above, Khyna’s reservation is
incompatible with the BWC’s object and purpose as it condones use of biological weapons
and perceivably its development in certain situations.
(b) Khyna’s obligations towards the United States of Bemerica, and other parties to the BWC
are not absolved.
26. Alternatively, Khyna’s obligations towards the United States of Bemerica and other
parties to the BWC were not affected as the conditions specified in the reservation did not
exist in the instant case. The United States of Bemerica is a party to the BWC, 56 and has
not been identified by Khyna as its enemy State.
(B) ACTIONS OF KHYNA VIOLATE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
27. The prohibition on the use and development of biological weapons forms part of
Customary International Law.57 United Nations Security Council in Resolution 1540
affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and their
means of delivery constitute a threat to international peace and human security. 58 Khyna is
52
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, (1925), 94 LNTS 65.
53
Fourth Review Conference on Biological Weapons, UN Press Release DC/2572.
54
United Kingdom, Letter to the President of the UN Security Council and Statement by the Minister of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
55
id.
56
Carifications ¶1.
57
ICRC Database on Customary International Law, Vol II , §73 Chap. 23.
25
liable because (i) it caused direct violation of CIL, (ii) breached the principle of non-
intervention, (iii) caused transboundary harm.
(i) DIRECT VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
28. ICJ has held from time and over that usage of Weapons of Mass Destruction goes against
Customary International Law. Biological Weapons form a part of Weapons of Mass
Destruction.59 The customary rule prohibiting the use of bacteriological (biological)
weapons is applicable on all the states.60
29. Reports suggest that Khyna possesses an advanced biotechnology infrastructure,

munitions production capabilities necessary to develop, produce and weaponize biological
agents,61 and a small-scale offensive biological weapons program even after joining the
BWC.62 There are many indications besides the nature of the disease demonstrating that
the virus was engineered in the Khynese military laboratory or laboratories. 63 Thus, these
actions of Khyna go against the principles of Customary International law.
(ii) KHYNA BREACHED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION
30. Intervention refers to the interference by a state in the internal or foreign affairs of
another State.64 Principle of Non–Intervention mentions that when some intervention, in
the choice of a political, economic, social & cultural system, and the formulation of
foreign policy is caused, and this intervention is caused through the methods of coercion,
then it is a violation of the international legal norm.65 This Court has iterated in various
judgments that the principle of non-intervention derives from Customary International
58
UNSC 4956th Meeting, RES/1540 (2004).
59
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 226, 1996).
60
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Rules of Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of
Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, §B1, IRRC, No.278 (1990 p.395); ICRC Database on
Customary International Law, Vol II , §73 Chap. 23.
61
Proposition ¶10.
62
Proposition ¶11.
63
Proposition ¶9.
64
Max Planck, Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], OUP (2015).
65
26
Law.66Coercion does not include only direct military force but also indirect interference
through economic, political, and diplomatic means which aims to impose a certain conduct
of consequence on a sovereign State.67
31. In the present case, Khyna’s action of developing and spreading the virus caused severe
damage to Bemerican economy68 as it lead to a huge downfall in the prices of the
Bemerican Companies’ shares in the stock market.69 The disease also caused extensive
damage to social and cultural system by causing harm in terms of life, livelihood and
damage to relationships.70 It also led to cancellation of mass events.71 Moreover, spread of
virus caused delay in foreign investment projects and affected the obligations of Chicago
Convention on International Civil Aviation;72 therefore it affected the foreign policies of
Bemerica.73 This all was done through the means of coercion as Bemerica’s right to decide
freely on its economic & foreign policy and social & cultural activities was taken away.
Quarantine and ban measures74, which became requisite to fight the virus, forced Bemerica
to change its policies. Thus, Khyna imposed a certain conduct of consequence on
Bemerica. Consequently, Khyna has breached the principle of Non-Intervention.
(iii) KHYNA’S ACTIONS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM
32. “Transboundary harm” means harm caused in the territory of or in other places under the
jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin, whether or not the States
concerned share a common border.75 There exist certain “general and well-recognized
66
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 14, 1986); Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports (p. 13, 1985); Max Planck, Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], OUP (2015).
67
Max Planck, Encyclopedia of Public International Law [MPEPIL], OUP (2015).
68
Proposition ¶7.
69
Proposition ¶8.
70
Proposition ¶7.
71
id.
72
id.
73
id.
74
id.
75
Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, Art. 2(c) (2001).
27
principles”, which include “every State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to
be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States. 76 Under the duty to prevent trans-
boundary harm,77 states must keep activities within their jurisdiction or control from
causing damage to the environment in other States or outside the boundaries of national
jurisdiction,78 which is a recognized principle of customary international law.79 There are
certain elements of trans-boundary harm80 - (i) Physical relationship between the activity
concerned and the damage caused, (ii) Human Causation, (iii) Threshold of severity that
calls for legal action, (iv) Transboundary movement of the harmful effects.
33. In this case, Khyna’s lack of implementation to restrict the travel of infected people 81 led
to the spread of virus across the world, infecting people from various nations. Thus there
exists a physical relationship between the activity concerned and the damage caused. The
novel corona virus was created and developed by Khyna in the Luhan Virology Lab 82 and
was engineered in the Khynese military laboratory or laboratories.83 Thus, trans-boundary
harm is caused due to human actions. Third element requires that the damage caused should
be at least ‘‘greater than the mere nuisance or insigniﬁcant harm which is normally
tolerated”.84 The virus has caused more than 65,000 deaths globally 85 and has affected
economies of various states, including mass unemployment. 86 The fourth element implies that
more than one State is involved in or affected by the activity in question. 87 The virus
76
77
Rio Declaration , U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (1992).
78
id.
79
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 226, 1996).
80
Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (USA v. Canada), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III (1941).
81
Proposition ¶5.
82
Proposition ¶8.
83
Proposition ¶9.
84
J. Barboza, ‘‘Sixth Report on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts not
Prohibited by International Law”, UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 [Art. 2(b) and Art. 2(e)] (1990).
85
Proposition ¶6.
86
Proposition ¶7.
87
28
originated from Khyna88 but has infected people all around the world, including states such as
United States of Bemerica, Tpain, Itafy, etc.89 Therefore, Khyna has caused transboundary
harm
(III) WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

LAW INSTRUMENTS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW BY
DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING INFORMATION?
34. The release of COVID 19, a deadly virus poses a direct threat to people around the globe.
The Khynese government’s act of producing and subsequently releasing the virus resulted
in infecting around 9,90,000 people and death of more than 65,000 people. 90 It delayed
foreign investment projects; travel and tourism industry around the world was affected due
to which Bemerica incurred significant loss.91
35. That Bemerica has the standing to bring a claim against Khyna (A) for breaching the
obligations undertaken by it (B) and for breaching the obligations under Customary
International Law (C).
(A) BEMERICA HAS STANDING
36. Bemerica derives standing from Article 42(b) of the ARSIWA according to which an
injured state is entitled to invoke responsibility of another State for the breach of an
obligation owed to the international community as a whole, which specially affects it.92
(B) KHYNA HAS BREACHED THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY IT
37. Article 21(a) of the WHO Constitution confers upon the World Health Assembly the
authority to adopt regulations “designed to prevent the international spread of disease”. 93
The members of the WHO are obliged to follow the regulations, 94 as a consequence of
which, the IHR were adopted.
88
Proposition ¶2.
89
Proposition ¶6.
90
Proposition ¶7.
91
id.
92
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 42(b) 2001, 1015 U.N.T.S. 243.
93
WHO Const. Art. 21 (1948), 14 U.N.T.S. 185.
94
WHO Const. Art. 22 (1948), 14 U.N.T.S. 185.
29
(i) VIOLATION OF ART 6 AND 7 OF IHR
38. IHR requires each State party to assess events or evidence of events that may be of
unexpected or of unusual public health within its territory that may constitute public health
emergency of international concern.95 It is provided that at least two out of four conditions
must be satisfied in order for a country to notify WHO in 24 hours in case of public health
events.96 The four conditions include seriousness of public health impact, unusual or
unexpected event, significant risk of international spread and international travel or trade
restrictions.97 Following this, the state party must continue to contact with all the accurate
and sufficiently detailed public health information available.98
39. The Khynese administration discovered the first case of COVID-19 on December 8,
2019,99 but failed to inform WHO till the last week of December. 100 With the nature of the
virus resembling SARS,101 which has been also recognized by the IHR as a disease of
unusual or unexpected nature and may have serious public health impact, it is implied that
despite being an event of unusual public health, Khyna to failed to inform WHO within
the limited time frame as required by Article 6 & 7 of IHR.
(C) KHYNA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW
40. That Khyna not only failed to prevent trans-boundary harm but also committed it (i),
violated erga omnes obligations (ii), and Bemerica was specially affected as a
consequence (iii).
95
International Health Regulations, Art. 7 (2005), 2509 U.N.T.S. 79.
96
97
International Health Regulations, Annex. 2 (2005), 2509 U.N.T.S. 79.
98
99
Proposition ¶2.
100
Clarification ¶8.
101
International Health Regulations, Annex. 2 (2005), 2509 U.N.T.S. 79.
30
(i) Khyna not only failed to prevent transboundary harm but also committed it
(a) Presence of the elements of trans-boundary harm in the acts of Khyna
41. Elements of trans-boundary harm102 were present in the acts that were committed by
Khyna. There is a physical relationship between the activity concerned and the damage
caused as the activities in one state must directly give rise to harm in other state or
states.103 In this case, Khyna’s lack of implementation to restrict the travel of infected
people104 led to the spread of virus across the world, infecting people from various
nations.
42. The second element of trans-boundary harm is the human (i.e. anthropogenic) cause of
trans-boundary damage.105 The novel corona virus was created and developed by Khyna
in the Luhan Virology Lab106 and was engineered in the Khynese military laboratory or
laboratories.107
43. The third element is the threshold criterion wherein the damage caused should be at
least “greater than the mere nuisance or insigniﬁcant harm which is normally
tolerated”.108 Significant adverse effect can be regarded as an effect which can impact
human health and safety among various other factors, such as industry, environment,
property or agriculture in other states. 109 The virus has caused more than 55,000 deaths
globally,110 thereby affecting the human health and safety all around the world. There has
102
Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (USA v. Canada), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. III (1941).
103
104
Proposition ¶5.
105
106
Proposition ¶8.
107
Proposition ¶9.
108
J. Barboza, ‘‘Sixth Report on International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising out of Acts not
Prohibited by International Law”, UN Doc. A/CN.4/428 [Art. 2(b) and Art. 2(e)] (1990).
109
Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, §2 (2001).
110
Proposition ¶6.
31
been an impact on the industry in various countries as well, wherein the travel and
tourism industry was hit the hardest, leading to mass unemployment. 111
44. Trans-boundary movement of harmful effects implies that more than one State is
involved in or affected by the activity in question. 112 The virus originated from Khyna 113
but has infected people all around the world, including states such as United States of
Bemerica, Tpain, Itafy, etc.114
(b) Failure to Prevent Trans-boundary Harm
45. Arguendo, even if the virus was not developed by Khyna but by private entitites, Khyna
failed its due diligence obligations to prevent trans-boundary harm.
46. There exist certain “general and well-recognized principles”, which include “every
State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the
rights of other States.115As has been stated in the Genocide case, under the duty to
prevent trans-boundary harm, the court emphasized that in order to demonstrate its
best possible effort, the state of origin is requested to prevent foreseeable significant
damage, or minimize the risk of such harm, under its due diligence obligations. 116
47. That Khyna has failed to exercise its due diligence obligations and prevent foreseeable
significant damage or minimize the risk of the harm as no substantial detail regarding the
coronavirus was provided, which the WHO officials and other officials were expecting and
needed,117 and did not put a restriction on travel of people infected with the virus.118
48. In furtherance, Khyna did not complete its procedural duties in order to prevent trans-
boundary harm as it did not provide subsequent consultation and notification119 or any
111
Proposition ¶7.
112
113
Proposition ¶2.
114
Proposition ¶6.
115
116
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 137, 2007).
117
Proposition ¶4.
118
Proposition ¶7.
119
Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (1957).
32
requisite information about virus to the public and countries that could be affected by it,
even when the virus came to public knowledge.120
(ii) KHYNA VIOLATED ITS ERGA OMNES OBLIGATIONS
49. Contracting States of the ICCPR and ICESCR have a common legal interest in the
accomplishment of those high purposes, which are the raison d’etre of the Covenants.121
As a result, there arise the obligations to secure the rights that are integral to the fulfilment
of these purposes, including the right to life and socio-economic rights122 and owed erga
omnes.123
(a) Khyna violated the right to life of its citizens
50. Article 6 of the Covenant imposes upon States the non-derogable 124 obligation to
recognize and protect the Right to Life of all human beings. 125 The Right to Life of a
person is deprived when an act or omission by the state is intended to cause an intentional
or otherwise foreseeable and preventable life-terminating harm or injury.126 States must
take all appropriate and necessary measures to counter the threats to life, 127 such threat
may also include diseases that may be life threatening. 128 The right to life enshrined in
Article 6 of ICCPR & Article 3 of UDHR imposes an obligation on non-member states 129
120
Proposition ¶5.
121
Reservations to the Convention of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports (p. 1.5, 1951).
122
Christian J. Tams and James Sloan, Bruno Simma’s Human Rights Before the International Court of Justice:
Community Interest Coming to Life?, The Development of International Law by the International Court of
Justice, 581, 590 (2013); Study Concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for
Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, UN Economic and Social Council,
Sess. No. 45, U.N.Doc. EICN/41 Sub.2/1990/10 (1993).
123
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C. J. Reports (p. 6, 1964).
124
General comment No. 36 on §6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to
Life (2018); Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia, CCPR/C/15/D/45, Communication No. R.11/45 (1982);
BaboeramAdhin v. Suriname, Communication No. 146/1983 (1983).
125
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 6 (1976), 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
126
Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia, Communication No. R.11/45 (1982).
127
id.
128
Concluding observations UNHCR, Sess. No. 105 (2012).
129
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. Soztth Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminnry Objections,
Judgment I.C.J. Report (p. 319, 1962).
33
too as protection of the right to life falls within the purview of customary international
law.130
51. In the instant case, COVID-19 was developed in a Virology Lab in Luhan 131 and was
deliberately deployed to affect a miniscule 0.001% of the Khynese population, thereafter,
through meticulous planting of “infected” persons around the world, the virus has reached
every nook and corner of the planet.132 This resulted in the death of more than 65,000
people worldwide, including 16,034 people in Bemerica.133 Despite international
condemnation for the same,134 the Khynese government did not take any measures to
counter the threat to life.135
53. The introduction of the virus and subsequent inaction and irresponsibility of the Khynese
government in dealing with the outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus directly led to the
violation of their right to life.
(b) Khyna has violated the Right to Health
54. States party to the covenant are required to take full realization of this right for the
purpose of prevention, treatment and control of epidemic 136 and they must also fulfil their
obligation of not interfering, directly or indirectly, with the right to health of others.137
55. An omission or failure of States to take necessary measures arising from legal
obligations,138 including the failure to take appropriate steps towards the full realization of
everyone’s right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
130
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 9 (1988); Forti v. Suarez-Mason,
594 F. Supp. 707 N.D. Cal. (1988); UNHCR 41stSess., U.N. Doc. EICN.4/1985/20 (1985); Barcelona Traction, Light
and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C. J. Reports (p. 6, 1964).
131
Proposition ¶8.
132
id.
133
Proposition ¶6.
134
id.
135
Proposition ¶8.
136
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 12(2)(c) (1976), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
137
General Comment No. 14 on Art. 12 of International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
E/C.12/2000/4 (2000).
138
id.
34
health amounts to a violation of Article 12.139 Right to Health enshrined in Article 12 of
ICESCR and Article 25(1) of UDHR140 is binding on all countries regardless of
ratification.141 States have the primary obligation to protect and promote human rights. 142
Obligations related to Right to Health are defined and guaranteed by international
customary law.143
56. Human Rights treaties have an extra territorial application 144 when the nature of this
supposes extra territoriality the state’s actions produce effects outside its territory. 145
States must respect the rights of individuals regardless of their territorial borders. 146 The
Court in the Lotus Case147 stated that the subjective application of the principle of
jurisdiction allows jurisdiction over offences begun within the state but not completed
there.148
57. The Khynese government has failed to create a proper mechanism to deal with the
epidemic by allowing infected persons to move outside the Khynese territory 149 to various
countries, thereby spreading covid-19 globally. By this virtue, the Khynese government
failed to control the virus. Further, the government deliberately misled the WHO, wherein
139
id.
140
South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment I.C.J. Report (p. 319, 1962).
141
Eleanor D. Kinney, The International Human Right to Health: What does this mean for Our Nation and
World?, Vol. 34: 1457 (2001), Indiana Law Review.
142
International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976).
143
Fact Sheet No.31 Right to Health, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights &
WHO.
144
Al-Skeini and others v. The United Kingdom, EctHR App. No. 55721/07 (2011).
145
Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, Appication No. 12747/87 (1992);Salas and others v. United
States,Inter-Am.C.H.R. Case 10.573, 31/93 (1994).
146
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports (p. 136, 2004); HRC, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the
Covenant, General Comment No.31 (2004); Marko Milanovic, Human Rights Treaties and Foreign
Surveillance: Privacy in the Digital Age, 56 HARV. INT’L L. REV. 81 (2015).
147
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927).
148
id.
149
Proposition ¶5.
35
the nature of the virus was incorrectly informed to the WHO, 150 thereby breaching its
international obligations and interfering with the right to health of others.
58. Hence, Khyna by failing to address prevention, treatment and control of covid-19 within
its territory and to the rest of the world, has violated Article 12 of the Covenant.
(iii) BEMERICA WAS SPECIALLY AFFECTED AS A CONSEQUENCE
59. The lack of preventive measures by Khyna led to global outbreak of the virus, infecting
over 9,90,000 people and killing more than 65,000 people worldwide and infecting
4,50,000 and further killing 16,000 people in the United States of Bemerica. 151 Bemerica
also sustained significant loss to its economy152 and employment sector.153 The number of
cases in Bemerica is higher than those in any country thereby distinguishing its claim from
the rest of the international community.154
60. That Khyna has violated the norms of Customary International law and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which were obliged towards Bemerica and as a consequence
of which Khyna is liable.

PANDEMIC?
61. States may be held internationally responsible for their acts or omissions, as well as for
acts of another which are attributable to them. Khyna is responsible for the commission of
internationally wrongful conduct (A), Internationally committed wrongful acts are
attributable to Khyna (B), and accordingly, Khyna must make reparations in the form of
compensation to the injured parties (C).
(A) KHYNA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT
62. A state commits an internationally wrongful act when the conduct consisting of an act or
an omission is attributable to the state, 155 and constitutes a breach of an international
150
id.
151
Proposition ¶6.
152
Proposition ¶7.
153
id.
154
Proposition ¶6.
155
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 2(a) (2001), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243.
36
obligation of the state.156 Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the
international responsibility of that State.157
63. That the internationally wrongful acts of violating provisions of Biological Weapons
Convention158 and Customary International Law by manufacturing and using the deadly
virus against Bemerica,159 and several International Human Rights Law instruments such
as UDHR,160 ICCPR,161 ICESCR,162 International Health Regulations,163 and International
Customary Law164 by deliberately withholding significant information pertaining to the
virus amount to Internationally wrongful acts that are attributable to Khyna.
(B) THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO KHYNA
64. According to well-established customary rules of international law, the conduct of any
organ of a State must be regarded as an act of that State, 165 and the state is responsible for
the organs acting in its capacity.166
(i) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REPORTS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT
65. This Court previously declared that the care taken in preparing the report and the
independence of those responsible for its preparation all lend considerable authority to
it.167 Evidence produced by what the Court has termed a disinterested witness, who has
nothing to gain or lose from its outcome, may well be afforded prima facie superior
156
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 2(b) (2001), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243.
157
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 1 (2001), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243.
158
Supra Issue II(A)(i).
159
Supra Issue II(B).
160
Supra Issue III(C)(ii)(b).
161
Supra Issue III(C)(ii)(a).
162
Supra Issue III(C)(ii)(b).
163
Supra Issue III(B)(i).
164
Supra Issue III(C).
165
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports (p. 62, 1999).
166
id.
167
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports (p. 137, 2007).
37
credibility.168 The Court is often called upon to weigh the evidentiary value of reports
prepared by official or independent bodies, and it has previously permitted a liberal
recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence. 169 Therefore, reports from
independent international organisations and departments of the United States of
Bemerica can be said to have probative value before the ICJ.
(ii) KHYNESE MILITARY LABORATORY FORMS A PART OF AN ORGAN OF THE STATE
66. The ILC Articles on State Responsibility define a state organ as "any person or entity
which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the state." 170 It includes an
organ of any territorial governmental entity within the State on the same basis as the
central governmental organs of that State.171 Executive acts of a state constitute the express
will of the states and constitute the activities of the states, 172 and even the actions of minor
organs of the state, such as that of police officers, account as attributable to the state. 173The
armed forces are considered to be a State organ, like any other entity of the executive,
legislative or judicial branch of government.174 Activities of the armed forces or the
military are extremely wide, with research and development of weapons forming an
essential part of it.175 Even if the authorities exceed their limitations or act contrarily to
what the state has directed, the state would still be responsible.176
168
169
170
Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 4(2) (2001).
171
Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 4(1) (2001);
Commentary of Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Commentary of
Art. 4 (2001).
172
Annex Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Merits Judgment No. 7, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 7, at
p. 19 (1926).
173
Commentary of Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
Commentary of Art. 4 (2001).
174
Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 148 (1949), 75 U.N.T.S 287.
175
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database,
https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex.
176
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports (p. 168, 2005).
38
67. Many indications besides the nature of the disease demonstrate that the virus was
engineered in the Khynese military laboratory or laboratories. 177 With the armed forces
attributed as organs of the state, state responsibility is entailed.178
68. Therefore, acts commissioned by Khynese military laboratories are attributable to the
state of Khyna.
(iii) THE BSL-4 LABORATORY EXERCISED ELEMENTS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY
69. An organ of a state that is empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the
governmental authority shall be considered an act of the State under international law,
provided the person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance. 179 The
“entity” reflects the wide variety of bodies which, though not organs, may be empowered
by the law of a State to exercise elements of governmental authority, which may also
include public agencies,180 which can be regarded as an ‘empowered public institution’. 181
As per customary international law, commission of acts by an entity that was empowered
by the laws of the state to exercise elements of governmental authority, are attributed to
the state.182 Even if the authorities act contrary to instructions or had exceeded their
authority, the act would be attributable to the state if it accounts to an internationally
wrongful act.183
70. Khyna officially acknowledged research in biological weapons and in 2007 Khyna
announced a 20-year plan to set up a research center to study natural and man-made
epidemics.184 In 2007, Khyna announced opening up of BSL-4 laboratory at the Luhan
177
Proposition ¶9.
178
Fourth Geneva Convention, Art. 148 (1949), 75 U.N.T.S 287.
179
180
id.
181
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (2005).
182
Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13,
(2006).
183
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), ICJ Reports
(p. 168, 2005).
184
Proposition ¶9.
39
Institute of Virology, which was completed in January 2015.185 This dual use infrastructure
mandated by Khynais indicative of a large scale program of Biological Weapons.186
71. That the BSL-4 Laboratory constituted as an agency of the state and was empowered by
the government and the laws of the state to exercise elements that constituted
governmental authority. The laboratory indicated the development of a BW program,
which constituted the development of the coronavirus, and the same act could be attributed
to the state.
(iv) ALTERNATELY, THE ACTS OF LUHAN VIROLOGY LAB ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO KHYNA
72. If a state adopts and acknowledges a conduct as its own, it is directly attributable to the
state.187 The act of adoption of a conduct by the state might be express, or in some cases,
even implied,188 and for it to be acknowledged by the state, it has to be internationally
wrongful with regards to the obligation of the states. 189 Acknowledgement of a committed
harm does not have to be by a formal proclamation; condoning an unlawful act, even
though not expressly, may also constitute sufficient acknowledgement. 190 State may be
responsible for the effects of the conduct of private parties, if it failed to take necessary
measures to prevent those effects.191
73. The virus was developed in the Luhan Virology Lab from where it was carefully
deployed to affect a miniscule 0.001% of the Khynese population,192 which consequently
spread the virus on a global basis. This led to an economic turmoil in Urope and Bemerica,
giving Khyna the opportunity to buy shares due to fall in stock prices.193
185
id.
186
id.
187
188
Crawford J., State Responsibility: The General Part, C.U.P. (2013).
189
Commentary on Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, General
Commentary (2001).
190
Abass A., Complete International Law, OUP (2012).
191
Commentary on Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, General
Commentary Chap. 2(4) (2001); United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports (p. 3, 1980).
192
Proposition ¶8.
193
id.
40
74. The existence of COVID-19 was detected in Khyna on 17th November, 2019.194 Khyna
did not carry out necessary investigations about the virus in the right time and also, did not
send WHO any report about the same until the virus was spread across the world, which
was by the last week of December. A willful neglect of the duty to investigate a
wrongdoing results in State responsibility,195 as it is tantamount to aiding the same.196
75. That the acts that were committed in Luhan Virology Lab amount to internationally
wrongful acts and breach the international obligations of Khyna. Khyna did not investigate
the wrong doings and condoned the acts committed in the lab, thereby amounting to
attribution of state responsibility towards Khyna.
(C) KHYNA IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE BEMERICA FOR THE COMMISSION OF
INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS
76. An injured State is entitled to obtain compensation from the State which has committed
an internationally wrongful act for the damage caused by it.197 Incidental expenses are
compensable if they were reasonably incurred to repair damage and or mitigate loss
arising from the breach.198
77. As the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act, Khayna is liable to make
reparations199 in the form of compensation to Bemerica, as restitution is not possible.200
194
Proposition ¶2.
195
Riccardo Pisillo-Mazzeschi, The Due Diligence Rule and the Nature of the International Responsibility of
States, 35 German Y.B. INT’L L. 9, 29 (1992); Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.
R. (ser. C) No. 9 (1988).
196
197
GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports ( p. 7, 1997).
198
General Electric Company v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran-U.S. C.T.R., Vol. 26 ( p.
148, 1989).
199
200
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 36 (2001), 1015 U.N.T.S. 243; Forests of
Central Rhodopia Case, 3 R.I.A.A. 1405 (1933).
41
42
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE CLAIMANT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS HONOURABLE
COURT TO FIND, ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
A. THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA DO NOT FALL WITHIN ITS RESERVATION, AND ACCORDINGLY THE
COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER BEMERICA’S CLAIMS;
AND IN ANY EVENT:
B. KHYNA HAS VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS DEVELOPMENT OF BIOLOGICAL TOXINS;
C. KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW INSTRUMENTS AND
CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW; AND
D. THERE IS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR KHYNA WITH REGARD TO THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT,
AGENTS FOR THE APPLICANT.
43

2019BALLB90 - Rounak Doshi.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019BALLB90 - Rounak Doshi.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUNNERS-UP MEMORIAL

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Subject Matter of the Moot

Public International Law

PROFESSOR’S NAME: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Raka Arya Rounak Doshi

Associate Professor (NLIU Bhopal) 2019BALLB90

THE 1st AMITY VIRTUAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

CASE CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUTLAWED

UNITED STATES OF BEMERICA

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KHYNA

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF

THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

(I) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE JURISDICTION

(C) KHYNA’S ACTIONS DO NOT FALL UNDER ITS RESERVATION--------------------------------------------2

(II) WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF

(A) ACTIONS OF KHYNA ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION--------------4

(i) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLE 1 OF THE BWC----------------------------------4

(ii) ACTIONS OF KHYNA HAVE VIOLATED ARTICLES 4 AND 5 OF THE BWC------------------------5

(iii) THE RESERVATION OF CHINA IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE BWC-------------------------------7

(a) Khyna’s reservation to the BWC is invalid.------------------------------------------------------8

(B) ACTIONS OF KHYNA VIOLATE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW-------------------------------------9

(i) DIRECT VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW---------------------------------------9

(ii) KHYNA BREACHED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION-------------------------------------10

(iii) KHYNA’S ACTIONS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM ------------------------------------------11

(III) WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

(A) BEMERICA HAS STANDING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------13

(B) KHYNA HAS BREACHED THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY IT---------------------------------------13

(i) VIOLATION OF ART 6 AND 7 OF IHR----------------------------------------------------------------14

(C) KHYNA BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW-------------------14

(a) Presence of the elements of trans-boundary harm in the acts of Khyna---------------------15

(b) Failure to Prevent of Trans-boundary Harm----------------------------------------------------16

(ii) KHYNA VIOLATED ITS ERGA OMNES OBLIGATIONS------------------------------------------------17

(a) Khyna violated the right to life of its citizens---------------------------------------------------17

(b) Khyna has violated the Right to Health----------------------------------------------------------18

(iii) BEMERICA WAS SPECIALLY AFFECTED AS A CONSEQUENCE------------------------------------20

(IV) WHETHER KHYNA HAS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GLOBAL

(A) KHYNA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL CONDUCT------------------------------21

(B) THE INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACTS ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO KHYNA---------------------------22

(i) CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND REPORTS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN THE COURT-----------------22

(ii) KHYNESE MILITARY LABORATORY FORMS A PART OF AN ORGAN OF THE STATE------------22

(iii) THE BSL-4 LABORATORY EXERCISED ELEMENTS OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY---------23

(C) KHYNA IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE BAMERICA FOR THE COMMISSION OF INTERNATIONALLY

PRAYER FOR RELIEF----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------27

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS

Concluding observations UNHCR, Sess. No. 105 (2012)---------------------------------------------29

INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION

Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, A/66/10, ILC Sess. No. 63 (2011)-----------------15

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

A. Abass, Complete International Law, OUP (2012)---------------------------------------------------35

COMMENTARIES AND DRAFT ARTICLES

1. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS THE JURISDICTION

2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF KHYNA AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS

1. WHETHER KHYNA HAS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

2. WHETHER KHYNA HAS STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC?

On November 17, 2019, the existence of coronavirus or COVID-19, an extremely dangerous