Tanya Jawab Kak Jems, Kak Siska, Kak Grifin (6/02/2021)

Submission 3 Applicant
1. What is the object of the reservation?
 Your excellencies the object and purpose of the reservation is based on Article 36(6)
where is stated that in any event of dispute the one who can determine the Court
jurisdiction is the court itself. In this case YE, since the clause of
2. How could you said that it is domestic jurisdiction where there is asylum seeker in the
airplane?
 Yes, at the time of the incident happen on 26 June 1 the Applicant think that the one who
used the aircraft is terrorist but the fact shows that in airplane there are a asylum seeker,
as in previous we established that the Respondent interference with our internal affairs,
and cannot constituted to be refugee under the refugee convention 2 and also cannot
entitled the protection of refuge, therefore this is purely our domestic matter
4. What is reservation and the corelation into this present case
 Reservation is defined in Article 2(d) of VCLT as unilateral statement when a state ratify
or in this case submits a reservation along with its optional declaration to the ICJ in order
to modify the legal effect of the treaty, 3 and also Judge Lauterpacht confirmed the
reservation as automatic reservation since the reservation to the acceptance by a state of
the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, made under unilateral
declaration in order to determine the scope of its reservation.4
5. What is self-judging clause
 Self-judging clause is a clause where a state determine its own jurisdiction, with a phrase
of if the state considers” or wording that has a similar effect, i.e., language such as “in the
state’s opinion”, “if the state determines”, etc.5 and it can be seen from the Djibouti v.
1
Compromis 41
2
Refugee Convention Art2(1)
3
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2(d)
4

5
Stephan Schill & Robyn Briese, “If the State Considers”: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute
Settlement” p. 70
 France Case where the clause of “may be refused [...] if the requested state considers
that the execution of the request”6 is constituted as self-judging clause
6. What was UN Conference Doc talking about? What sources of international law it is?
 Your excellencies UN Conference in this present case that I referring to is a documents of
by United Nation containing of assembly by country delegation discussed issues in the
international league of nations forum, and this documents contains reports from the
meeting in a contextual manner

Submission 3 Respondent
1. Isn’t that Aprepluya has assumption that it was a terrorist?
 Indeed, the Applicant assumption was a terrorist, however, as the evidence fact shows the
passenger was Ms Vormund and Ms Gwo Hye in resulting death turn on the international
human rights law.7 Thus, as the Applicant violation its obligation under ICCPR the matter
comes within international supervision.8
2. What do you purpose to Aprepluya to conduct its action?
 Yes you excellencies, as we suggest under ICAO Manual when an intercepted aircraft
fails to respond to repeated attempts to communicate by visual signals or radiotelephony,
the intercepting aircraft should only continue to observe the aircraft until it lands or
leaves the restricted or prohibited airspace.9 In this case instead the Applicant shot down
the civil aircraft and causing it to crash, the Applicant must observer the aircraft unti it
land. Even if your excellencies the Applicant argue this is necessary, we argue that the
Applicant does not meet the criteria of necessity nor necessity and proportionality under
self-defence that we will elaborate more in the next submission
3. kenapa bisa constitute not as military activities?
 YE, the action cannot be constituted as military activities since the nature of military
activities when the military are defending the state’s national security interests against

6
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France),
7
Aricle 6(1) of International Covenant on Civil Political Rights
8
Interhandel Case, p.25.
9
Manual on Intercepting Aircraft, p. 37.
 external armed threats,10 and also the ICJ has consistently retained that the standard of
armed attack is sending by or on behalf of a state of groups which carry out acts of armed
forces against another state.11 In this case YE, there are no appear of external armed
threats and also only indication that appear by the fact the passenger of the civil aircraft is
Ms Vormund and Ms Gwo Hye.
4. Apakah ada principle of international law kalau misalnya ada military activites, ICJ tapi punya
jursidtiction?
 No your excellencies, as the reservation give affect as it stand to both parties 12 and it
made international obligation to respondent and other state13 we argue that the Applicant
the scope of shooting down of civil aircraft is constituted as military activities and within
our reservation.
5. What is nature of optional declaration?
 The optional declarations cannot be considered, either notionally or legally, as bilateral or
multilateral instruments, not even with respect to the area of coincidence of the various
consents these are unilateral acts.14 Moreover, in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case, the
International Court of Justice took a similarly clear stand, saying that … the text of the
Iranian Declaration is not a treaty text resulting from negotiations between two or more
States. It is the result of unilateral drafting by the Government of Iran. 15 In this case your
excellencies as we argue that the nature of optional decalaration under article 36(2) of ICJ
it-self are unilateral acts.

10
Yurika Ishii, “The Distinction between Military and Law Enforcement Activities: Comments on Case Concerning
the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine V. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures Order,”
11
Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion; Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo, pp. 145-146.
12
Certain Norwegian Loans, p. 27.
13
Phosphates in Morocco (Preliminary), at 23.
14
Santiago Torres Bernárdez, ‘Reciprocity in the System of Compulsory Jurisdiction and in Other Modalities of
Contentious Jurisdiction Exercised by the International Court of Justice’ in Emmanuel G. Bello and Prince Bola A.
Ajibola (eds) Essays in Honour of Judge Taslim Olawale Elias (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1992) vol. I, 291, 293.)
15
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (Preliminary Objection), Judgment of 22 July 1952, IC.J Reports 1952, 105
Submission 4 Applicant
1. Is occurrence of an armed attack has been fulfilled?
Yes, as the threat of an armed attack falls within the meaning of Article 51 of the
UN Charter. Despite the restrictiveness of Article 51, 16 it was recognized that armed
attack includes threats.17 Based on Article 31(4) of the VCLT in conjunction with Article
33(1), by applying the equally authentical text approach of interpretation, the French text
of the UN Charter contains the term “agression armée”. The notion of aggression
included in the French text of the UN Charter conveys a much broader meaning than
attack, namely the threat of force.18
A threat to international peace and security posed by terrorist attacks permits
resort to self-defense.19 Moreover, the use of aircraft for terrorist purposes equals the use
of armed force.20 In 2016, the Security Council included FOJ into the consolidated list
and thus recognized it as a dangerous organization that poses a threat. 21 Moreover, FOJ
had been suspected of bombing the capitals of other states over the last three years. 22
Thus the threat was sufficient and corresponds to the meaning of Article 51 “armed
attack”.
2. Legal basis of legitimacy of anticipatory self-defense?
16
UN Charter, art 51; UN General Assembly, Note (Transmitting Report of the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change, entitled "A more secure world: our shared responsibility") (2 December 2004) UN Doc
A/59/565 54 para 188.
17
UN Charter, art 51; UN General Assembly, Note (Transmitting Report of the High-level Panel on Threats,
Challenges and Change, entitled "A more secure world : our shared responsibility") (2 December 2004) UN Doc
A/59/565 54 para 188; UN General Assembly, ‘In Larger Freedom Report of the Secretary-General of the United
Nations for decision by Heads of State and Government in September’ (21 March 2005) UN Doc A/59/2005 33 para
124; John Lawrence Hargrove, ‘The Nicaragua Judgment and the Future of the Law of Force and Self-Defense’
(1987) 81 AJIL 135 139.
18
ILC, ‘Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 3rd session’ (16 May - 27 July 1951) UN
Doc A/1858, para 48; Claud Waldock, The Regulation of the Use of Force by Individual States in International Law
(1952) 2 Recueil des cours 500, 501.
19
UNSC Res 1368 (12 September 2001) UN Doc S/RES/1368; UNSC Res 1373 (28 September 2001) UN Doc
S/RES/1373.
20
Maj Anne de Luca, Using the Air Force against Civil Aircraft (ASPJ, 2012) 51.
21
Facts, 39.
22
Facts, 39.
 Anticipatory measures have been a long-standing, intrinsic part of the right to self-
defense, as evidenced by judicial authority23 and in state practice. 24 Further, the Travaux
Préparatoires shows that anticipatory self-defense is upheld by Article 51 of the UN
Charter.25 According to Ago, defensive use of force has an objective of ‘preventing
another’s wrongful action achieving its purpose26 and in response to imminent danger.27

In this case, FOJ had a purpose of attacking Aprepluya’s capital city. 28

Aprepluya’s use of force was defensive and anticipatory in nature, with the objective of
preventing the civil aircraft from entering its National Capital and striking its government
building.29 Therefore, Aprepluya’s anticipatory action is in accordance with UN Charter.

3. Kalau ada aircraft masuk ke territory sebuah negara harus comply ke regulation mana?
According to Article 1 of the Chicago Convention, every State has complete and
exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. As evidenced by Facts 41, 42,
and 43, the aircraft was flying within Aprepluya’s territory, and hence is subject to
Aprepluya’s jurisdiction.

Submission 4 Respondent
1. Weren’t that it would have been much worse if they did not stop the plane?
No, as anticipatory self-defense is not supported by international law. Article 51
of the UN Charter clearly states that the right to self-defense only arises in the event of an

23
Nicaragua case [1986] (dissenting opinion Judge Schwebel) para 347-348; Armed Activities case, [2005]
(separate opinions Judges Kooijmans and Simma) para 25-34; Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-defense
(6th edn, CUP 2017) 233-234.
24
For Example: (1) Israel’s strike on Egyptian forces massing on the West Bank June 5, 1967; (2) Israel's strike of
the Iraqi Osirak Nuclear Research Reactor June 7, 1981; (3) United States-South Vietnamese action in Cambodia
April 30, 1970; (4) The sinking of Argentine warship, General Belgrano, by British Submarines in the Falkland
Islands May 2, 1982; (5) America’s invasion of Iraq 20 March to 1 May 2003.
25
UN, Travaux Préparatoires, Anticipatory Action in Self-Defence, p. 483; Szabó, p. 94.
26
ILC Report 1980, at p. 53, para. 5.
27
ILC Report 1980, at para. 88.
28
Facts 38, 45.
29
Facts 42.
 armed attack.30 The occurrence of an armed attack must at the very least be imminent,
that is, an attack has begun although not necessarily completed. 31 The Mantyan Airways
aircraft had not shown any sign of beginning an attack. At the time of the incident, the
aircraft was three minutes flying time from the outskirts of the city, when Lieutenant
Defesa fired the shot burst to its wing root area.32 It was not specifically flying towards
government buildings, which would have supported an inference of the pilot’s intention
to crash into a building. Hence, the shooting was committed purely based on the
assumption of the Commanding Officer on the basis that an airplane being a certain
distance away from a general area.33

30
UN Charter, Art. 51.
31
Rory Brown, pp. 57-106.
32
Facts 42.
33
Facts 42.