III.

The Principle of Self-Determination concerning UN Charter

The principle of self-determination cannot justify the secession of East

Angin. The Angrams are not qualified as “peoples” meaning as a whole for the
purposes of self-determination; and they do not have the right to external self-
determination. The UN Charter, and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provide for a right to self-determination of “peoples”. 1 However
this term cannot be considered for Angrams. Most of it does not include ethnic
groups or minorities in particular. Just like in the Aaland Island dispute, which
noted that international law does not authorized and the “seperation of a minority
from the state of which it forms part.” In the declaration of Independence of
Kosovo case, many states submitted in their pleadings that “people” does not
include ethnic groups on the territory of an existing state. 2 In this case, the
Angrams share the same historical, cultural and ethnical identity, as well as
common economic background, therefore them being considered as an ethnic
group. 

A. The secession of Ramuan was threatened to use

The secession was conducted with the help and support from the State of
Ramuan. As seen in the Kosovo declaration of independence dispute, the Court has
held that International Law does not prohibit unilateral declarations of
Independence.3 However, it is obligated not to recognize situations in a State
1
U.N. Charter art. 94
2
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect
of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), General List No. 141, International Court of Justice
(ICJ), 22 July 2010
3
Compromis
relation, created by a breach of International Law. As stated, Ramuan action which
threatened to use force laid further encouragement to the Angram’s claims and
supported their attempted secession.4 The court has recognized that in such
situations the secession is unlawful. There are many occasions where entities
violates the general international law in an attempt to secede where those attempts
were proclaimed illegal because of the involvement of third parties, which is
similar to this case. Moreover, they even sent military personnels along Angin
borders and promoted the recognition of East Angin. 5 This can be concluded that
the action from the Respondent indirectly initiated the secession of East Angin by
violating principles of general international law. According to Article 1 Paragraph
(2) of the UN Charter explicitly states that the United Nations is promote “friendly
relations among peoples based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-
determination of persons, and take appropriate steps to strengthen universal
peace”.6 The inclusion of self-determination in the United Nations Charter marks
the universal recognition of this principle as the basis for maintaining relations of
peace and friendship among nations.

B. Jurisdiction of ICJ

East Angin and Ramuan both agreed to refer the dispute to the ICJ.
according to the ICJ Statute, the jurisdiction of the Court involves all legal disputes
concerning the interpretation of a treaty, any question of international law, the
existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an
international obligation, and the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for

4
Compromis
5
Compromis
6
U.N. Charter art. 1
the breach of an international obligation.7 This case questions whether there is a
breach of international obligation, therefore this case is under the jurisdiction of
ICJ and it can be brought to ICJ; although the extent of the compensation of the
breach wouldn’t be discussed as it is agreed to be negotiated outside of this court.

7
Compromis