Instances Where States Are Duty Bound By A Treaty Or Convention thus the three

nations are bound by treaty obligations

Art. 11 VCLT, states that ‘consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by
signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession, or by any other means if so agreed’.it is submitted that the states are the party tot
the treaties and conventions above mentioned and thud are bound by it1.

43 Art 2(1)(b) 2
provides that ‘“ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession”
mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the
international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty. It is submitted that both the countries
were party to the treaties which oblige it to maintain peace. as held in the case country that
hasn’t signed the treaty has no obligation to follow its norms. However, as the ICJ had stated
in the North Continental Shelf Cases3,  certain treaties provide for international conduct, and
customs and are of a “fundamentally norm-creating character.” Article 26 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties deals with the Latin maxim “pacta sunt servanda”, i.e.
every signatory is to follow the treaty in good faith, and is binding upon them. This forms the
basis of every international agreement.

Thus, it is humbly submitted that the respondents are bound by international law to comply
with treaty obligations to maintain peace and outlaw aggression.

Obliged Of Obligation Erga Omnes with Regard to Non Agression

It is submitted that the two states are duty bound to to give protection to all those who are
seeking protection under the principle of erga omnes with regard to the principles underlying
the obligation that are as follows.

The International court of justice in its aphorism in Barcelona Traction case, held that the
International Court of Justice, Court explicitly reckoned four erga omnes obligations:

1
Article 11 Vienna convention on law of treaties ,1969
2
Article 43 Art 2(1)(b) Vienna convention on law of treaties ,1969
3
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany
v. Netherlands) , I.C.J. Reports 1969, p.3, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 February 1969, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICJ,50645e9d2.html [accessed 14 April 2021]
The outlawing of acts of aggression in Nicaragua v. United States of America4 stated that the
prevention of the practice of force as mentioned in the Charter 5 has achieved the status of
customary international law and called it a “fundamental or cardinal principle of such law”

The outlawing of genocide; there is wide support for the view that the customary rule against
genocide, like the rule outlawing acts of aggression, belongs to jus cogens. Furthermore at the
level of state responsibility prohibition of genocide is recognized customary law which
imposes obligation erga omnes on all the states of international community.6

That State Of Regnaell Has Violated The Following Authorities As The Treaty Hols A
Binding Force Launching “Operation Shining Star” And In Its Attacks On Both Nant
Gateway And Compound Ardan.

Ragnell violated its Treaty obligations of the Trilateral Treaty of Lasting Peace

Ragnell violated its Treaty Obligations under the following

 Article 2
 Article 3
 Article 11
 Article 14
 Article 18
 Article 9
 Thereby it is not capable of the following:
 Cannot invoke Article 44(3(b)) (Separability of treaty provisions)
 Cannot invoke termination due to fundamental change of circumstances without
notification (A 65 (1)

4
(Nicaragua v. United States of America); Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986, available
at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ICJ,4023a44d2.html [accessed 15 April 2021]
5
UDHR , 1948
6
Cassese 2003 pg 98
That Regnell violated following obligations under the UN charter

 Non-intervention/sovereignty
 Ragnell violated its obligation under the UN charter by using force in the Clarent Belt
a territory of Balan (Article 2(3)(4))
 Ragnell may not invoke the right to self-defence (Article 51 of UN Charter). (Balan
officials were against UAC)

Ragnell violated Conventional and Customary International Law & Principles of

Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law

 ICCPR-right to life/right to adequate life a.11 and living a.12

That Regnell violated following obligations under the Geneva convention

 Geneva 4 (Attack on Nant Gateway)

 First AP for Geneva Con. (Nant Gateway and Compound Ardan) (Art 33 No
protected persons may be punished. Art 53 prohibited destruction of property Art 55-
56 (Medical supplies) Art 59-60 (Relief schemes)
 Ragnell violated Article 18 Termination of the Lease of the Trilateral Treaty of
Lasting Peace by not negotiating the “hand-over”.

Ragnell violated Customary Law under ARSIWA and has committed a wrongful act
therefore, Aglovale should be compensated.

 Ragnell has committed a wrongful act that is attributable to the state, and constitutes a
breach of an international obligation (Article 1 and Article 2 of ARSIWA)
 Ragnell cannot invoke circumstances precluding wrongfulness (Article 20)

Self-defence

Necessity

 Should it invoke CPW, Ragnell was non-compliant with peremptory norms in its act.
 Under ARSIWA Aglovale has a right to Compensation on accord of the wrongful act
for the death of the nationals (commentary corfu channel case) (ARISWA comm.
P.71, Para 9)