THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE 2023 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

CASE CONCERNING THE CLARENT BELT

_______________________________________________________

THE KINGDOM OF AGLOVALE

(APPLICANT)

V.

THE STATE OF RAGNELL

(RESPONDENT)

_______________________________________________________

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

2023
 TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF CONTENT .............................................................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................................... 3
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................................... 6
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ................................................................................................................. 10
PLEADINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 11
I. THE INITIATION OF “OPERATION SHINING STAR” AND THE TARGETING OF NANT
GATEWAY AND COMPOUND ARDAN WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TREATY, AND
DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE ................................................ 11
A. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Aglovale’s Submission As Balan is a Third Party ... 11
B. The OSS Is Not A Violation Towards International Law As It Is Considered A Lawful Use Of
Force ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
1. The Use of Force is Considered a Lawful Self-Defense ............................................................ 12
2. The Area is Not A Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) .......................................................................... 14
3. Ragnell Is Implementing Mandate from Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty ..................................... 15
C. Ragnell Attacks on Nant Gateway And Compound Ardan Under The OSS Is Not A Violation
Towards The Treaty .............................................................................................................................. 15
1. The Raid on the Nant Gateway does not Violates the International Humanitarian Law ........... 16
2. The Attack of Compound Ardan is Not a Violation of International Humanitarian Law .......... 18
II. RAGNELL ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY IN TEMPORARILY
EMPLOYING UAC DETAINEES IN THE TRANSPORT OF PLASTIC WASTE TO ETNA, AND
IN TEMPORARILY TRANSFERRING THEM TO CAMLANN....................................................... 21
A. The State of Ragnell Does Not Violate the Third Geneva Convention Through the Employment
and Transfer of the UAC Detainees ...................................................................................................... 21
1. The Detainment of UAC Detainees is in Camlann Correctional Center is Lawful .................... 21
2. The Transfer of UAC Detainees was Done Under Safety Reason ............................................. 21
3. The UAC Detainees were Not Subjected to Hazardous Conditions During their Employment 22
B. The State of Ragnell Does Not Violate the Fourth Geneva Convention Through The Employment
and Transfer of The UAC Detainees ..................................................................................................... 23
1. Individuals Affiliated With UAC Do Not Fall Under The Category of ‘Protected Persons’ ..... 23
2. The UAC Detainees Employment Is Unlawful Regarding International Humanitarian Law .... 23
3. The Transfer of The UAC Increase the Potential Danger They Face ......................... 24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................................... 26
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, 7 CTS 1945.................................................................. 5

Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civillian Persons In Time Of War Of 12 August 1945,
75 UNTS 135 7, 15
Geneva Convention Relative to The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War Of 12 August 1945, 75 UNTS 135
12, 13
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (8 June 1977), 1125 UNTS
3.......................................................................................................................................... 7, 8, 9, 10

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS

International Law Association Use of Force Committee, Final Report on Aggression and the Use of
Force, (2018) 4
Self-Defense-Terrorism, UNSCOR, 2001, UN Doc S/RES/1368......................................................... 4
Self-Defense-Terrorism, UNSCOR, UN Doc S/RES/1373.................................................................. 4
Intervention in Syria, UNSCOR, UN Doc S/RES/2249....................................................................... 4
UN, Report of the detailed findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry established pursuant to
Human Rights Council Resolution S-21/1, A/HRC/29/CRP.4, 24 June 2015

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASES

Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States of
America), [1954], ICJ Rep 19 1
Oil Platforms (Merits) (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), [2003], ICJ Rep. 161
5, 21

INTERNATIONAL & ARBITRATION CASES

Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, Trial Judgement, [2003], ICTY, IT-95-9-T..................................... 12, 14

Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Trial Judgement, [2003], ICTY, IT-98-29-T....................................... 10
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Appeal Chamber, [2004], ICTY, IT-95-14-A.
ICTY, Press Release “Judgment in the Case the Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic Stanislav Galic Sentenced
to 20 Years’ Imprisonment, (5 December 2003)
ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor on the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia.

MUNICIPAL CASES & LAWS

China, The Military Service Law of the People’s Republic of China................................................... 2

JOURNALS

Bernard L. Brown, “The Proportionality Principle in the Humanitarian Law of Warfare: Recent Efforts
at Codification”, (1976), 10;1 CILJ 10
Canada, “Fact Sheet - Community-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-
MRSA).”
Dörmann, Knut. “The Legal Situation of ‘Unlawful/Unprivileged Combatants,” International Review of
the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 849, (March, 2003), at 45-74.
Williams, Gareth D., Piercing the Shield of Sovereignty: An Assessment of the Legal Status of
the”Unwilling or Unable” Test, University of New South Wales Law Journal 36.2 (2013).

MISCELLANEOUS

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, 2001
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April
2008, as amended to 25 October 2013
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force,
Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992.
 Belgium, Interpretative declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 May
1986.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual
and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009.
Côte d’Ivoire, Teaching Manual........................................................................................................... 2
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht,
Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4,
Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, Glossary.
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Explanatory memorandum on the Additional Protocols to the
Geneva Conventions, BT-Drucksache 11/6770, 22 March 1990.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The State of Ragnell requests the Court to adjudge:

I. Whether the initiation of “Operation Shining Star” and the targeting of Nant Gateway and
Compound Ardan were in conformity with the Treaty, and do not give rise to any obligation
to compensate;
II. Whether Ragnell acted in accordance with the Treaty in temporarily employing UAC
detainees in the transport of plastic waste to Etna, and in temporarily transferring them to
Camlann.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE GAIS PENINSULA

The Gais Peninsula comprises Aglovale, Balan, and Ragnell. Between Aglovale and the Dozmary
Sea lies the Clarent Belt (“the Belt”). Tintagel Coast is the only habitable area within the Belt.
Eamont Thruway is a railway and road system that crosses the Belt underground through
southwestern Balan and into Aglovale.

AGLOVALE

The Kingdom of Aglovale (“Aglovale”) is the most economically advanced country in the region.
Aglovale is a place where two of the world’s biggest banks are headquartered. Aglovale is
Ragnell’s most important trading partner, with bilateral commerce representing 24% of its
economy. Aglovale paid for the construction of Eamont Thruway and Nant Gateway.

RAGNELL

The State of Ragnell (“Ragnell”) is an important trading partner for Aglovale with bilateral
commerce representing 32% of its economy. After the Clarent War, Ragnell had the responsibility
to maintain public order and provision of government services.

BALAN

The Federation of Balan (“Balan”) is the sovereign power in the Belt.

THE CLARENT WAR

The Clarent War was an armed conflict between Ragnell and Balan that happened in 1951 to 1958.
Both Ragnell and Balan placed their armed soldiers and battle tanks along the border between the
Belt and Ragnell. The fight centered near Tintagel Park. The war heavily polluted the region, with
Ragnell gaining dominant control over the territory.

THE TRILATERAL TREATY

The Trilateral Treaty of Lasting Peace (“The Treaty”), signed by Aglovale, Ragnell, and Balan,
ended the Clarent War.

LEASE OF THE CLARENT BELT

The Belt is leased to Ragnell for 65 years with annual payment as stated in the Treaty. Balan
maintains sovereignty over the Belt, while Ragnell has the position of governing responsibilities
for the maintenance of public order.
 RPP

The Ragnellian Progressive Party (“RPP”) is one of the two major political parties in Ragnell with
a central manifesto in protecting Ragnellian interests in the Belt. Ragnell’s president, Dan
Vortigern, was RPP’s presidential candidate who was elected on 12 November 2018.

THE UAC

Unityk Ai Chyvon (“UAC”) is a group consist of Balani military veterans who loudly opposed The
Treaty. After Vortigern’s election, UAC’s activities escalated to physical and cyber-attacks against
Ragnellian owned factories and law enforcement units in the Belt, with at least 233 raids between
2019 and 2021 causing hundreds of civilian casualties.

UAC’s senior commander submitted a declaration to the Swiss Federal Council saying that the
UAC represents the Balani people in their fight for self-determination against alien occupation of
the Belt and considers itself in an international armed conflict with Ragnell.

OPERATION SHINING STAR

Ragnell called on Balan to take effective measures to suppress the attacks of UAC in the Belt. As
a consequence, Balani police raided UAC clubs, arrested its members, and confiscated contraband.
However, the attacks by the UAC did not cease, whereas on 7 July 2021 the UAC attacked three
Ragnellian factories killing fifty employees. President Vortigern then decided to suppress the UAC
fighters by launching Operation Shining Star (“OSS”).

DETENTION OF UAC

More than 400 UAC fighters were captured during the armed conflict between Ragnell and the
UAC as they were being held at Fort Caerlon, a makeshift detention center within the Belt. The
detainees were provided with basic food and shelter.

NANT GATEWAY

Nant Gateway is a tunnel mouth within the Belt, built as part of the major expansion of the Eamont
Thruway funded by Aglovale. After a threat of surprise attack by the UAC, Nant Gateway was
bombed by Ragnell under the OSS and the bombs destroyed Nant Gateway.

ETNA

Etna is a developing country, located near the Gais Peninsula. Etna is a party to the Basel and
Stockholm Conventions.

ENVIRONMENT OF THE CLARENT BELT

Factories in the Park were producing in aggregate more than two million metric tons of plastic per
year. The production of plastics-based medical supplies increased with the arrival of COVID-19.

In compliance with its commitments under The Treaty, Ragnell licensed several waste
management facilities in the Park. Only one of them is capable of treating contaminated plastic
waste. This facility was later rendered inoperative due to damage by crossfire between Ragnellian
and UAC forces. As a result, medical plastic waste contaminated by Clostrioides difficile and
Staphylococcus aurens accumulated.

TRANSFER OF PLASTIC WASTE

Due to the increasing amount of plastic waste in the Belt, Ragnell made several requests to transfer
the waste for processing in Aglovale. Both parties met and committed to resume negotiation on 27
December. This scheduled negotiation was later canceled by Aglovale

Ragnell signed a bilateral agreement with Etna to export all the accumulated plastic waste for
disposal. Etna committed to disposing of the waste in an environmentally sound manner. The UAC
detainees who were captured were ordered to help load the waste onto ships.

THE ILSA REPORT

The International Landfill Solutions Alliance (“ILSA”) is a global non-profit organization which
issued a report stating Etna’s primary treatment sites’ incapability of handling the plastic wastes
and subsequent environmentally harmful practices, including the dumping of potentially infectious
plastic waste into open landfills and the ocean.

COMPOUND ARDAN

Compound Ardan was bombed by Ragnell after suspicions that the warehouses were being used
by UAC to store weapons and ammunition which resulted in civilians’ death.

TRANSFER OF THE UAC DETAINEES

1,000 UAC detainees were transferred to Camlann Correctional Center (“Camlann”), a

maximum-security prison in the north of Ragnell. The standards in Camlann are the same as those
that were adhered to in Fort Caerleon which met or even exceeded relevant international standards.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

After the bombings of Nant Gateway and Compound Ardan, Aglovale’s Parliament enacted
sanctions legislation against Ragnell. The sanctions include inter alia, freezing the funds of
Ragnell’s central bank, prohibiting companies incorporated in Aglovale and Aglovalian citizens
from entering new contracts or providing good or services to business enterprises operating in
Ragnell, and seizing the assets of anyone of Ragnellian or other nationality who try to circumvent
the sanctions. As a result, several hospitals are unable to acquire medical supplies.

It is predicted that the volume of Ragnell’s trade would sharply contract up to 15.5%, inflation rate
rose to 34%, unemployment tripled to 18.6%, and imports would fall by 25% in value before 2022.
Aglovale also seized Prydwen Place, the summer house of Kay Ector, a Ragnellian national and a
primary donor to the RPP.
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
PLEADING I
This submission is inadmissible as the claims are heavily related to Balan, a third party to this case.
Under the Monetary Gold Principle, the Court cannot decide cases which involve rights and obligations of
third party as can be found in the present case.
The launch of OSS does not violate international law as it is a lawful self-defense. This is lawful
as self-defense against non-state actor is a rightful act. This also based on the inability of Balan to contain
the attack in its area. Moreover, the exercise of self-defense has fulfilled the necessary and proportionate
standard.
The area in question also has lost its status as a demilitarized zone. Ragnell also only implementing
its mandate to maintain peace and order under Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty.
Article 2(2) of The Treaty which obliges the parties to comply with international humanitarian law
(“IHL”) has not been violated. First, the raid on the Nant Gateway does not violate IHL as it was in
compliance with the principle of distinction, necessity, and proportionality; and (2) the attack of Compound
Ardan is not a violation of IHL. Second, the bombing on Compound Ardan also does not violate IHL as
Ragnell had taken everything feasible precautions before attacking, and the attack was proportional to the
military advantage achieved.
Therefore, Ragnell does not have any obligation to pay reparations toward Aglovale.

PLEADING II
Ragnell demonstrates compliance with the Third and Fourth Geneva Convention. UAC detainment
in Camlann Correctional Center is lawful according to Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention since
Ragnell guaranteed the hygiene and the well-being of the prisoners of war in their premises.
The transfer of UAC Detainees to Camlann is conducted under safety reason according to Article
47 of the Third Geneva Convention since it allows the transfer of prisoners of war under safe circumstances
and if the combat zone draws closer to them.
The UAC Detainees were not subject to hazardous conditions during their employment. In
accordance with Article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention, Ragnell paid and provided the detainees with
safety equipment.
 PLEADINGS
I. THE INITIATION OF “OPERATION SHINING STAR” AND THE TARGETING
OF NANT GATEWAY AND COMPOUND ARDAN WERE IN CONFORMITY
WITH THE TREATY, AND DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY OBLIGATION TO
COMPENSATE
A. The Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over Aglovale’s Submission As Balan
is a Third Party
The Court should not adjudicate this submission as the legal interest of Balan, a
third party, will be highly involved in the judgment. This will violate the Monetary
Gold Principle, a principle derived from the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed
from Rome in 1943. The ICJ has ruled out in that case that in the event that rights
or obligations of a third party constitute the subject matter of the case, the Court
shall not adjudicate and will not have jurisdiction over the said case. 1 The Nauru
Case also further specifies that the third party’s legal situation is a logical
requirement for a decision. 2
In this case, the interest of Balan, a third party, will certainly be an integral part of
the decision. The Operation Shining Star was conducted against Balan, hence
examining the case will consider Balan’s inability and unwillingness to prevent
UAC’s attack. It will also involve reviewing the conduct of UAC in Balan’s
territory. All of these submissions are formed by the rights and obligations of
unpresent parties and the decision on this case will highly rely on Balan's legal
situation. Thus, it can be concluded that the Court shall not have jurisdiction over
the present case.
B. The OSS Is Not A Violation Towards International Law As It Is Considered
A Lawful Use Of Force
The initiation of OSS should be considered a lawful use of force. It does not violate
any laws. This is due to three reasons, which are (1) the use of force is considered

1
ICJ, Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, UK, and US), Preliminary
Question, Judgement, 1954, para. 32.
2
ICJ, Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections, Judgement, 1992, para. 55.
 a lawful self-defense, (2) the area is not a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and (3)
Ragnell is implementing mandate from Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty.
1. The Use of Force is Considered a Lawful Self-Defense
The Article 51 of the UN Charter has laid out that each state has the right to
self-defense. In the present case, the self-defense is lawful as it meets the
criteria of (a) invoking self-defense towards non-state actor is consistent
with international law, (b) the inability of Balan to contain the attack is
proven, and (c) the operation pass the necessary and proportionate test.
(a) Invoking self-defense towards non-state actor is consistent with
international law
Self-defense should not only limited towards attack by state actor’s.
Self-defense against non-state actor is also acceptable under
international law. This is due to the wording of Article 51 UN
CHarter that does not limit to state3 and the fact that this act is
corresponding to numerous state practice on exercising self-defense
mechanism towards non-state actors. For instance the Intervention
in Syria4 and US self-defense in relation to 9/11 attack5. As part of
the scholarly opinion, this argument is also supported by
International Law Association Report that such instances are
observed in state practices. 6 In the present case, the UAC as a non-
state actor also demonstrates threat to the security in Balan.
Considering the above mentioned state practices, it can be
concluded that Ragnell’s operation towards UAC is consistent with
international law.
(b) The inability of Balan to contain the attack is proven
To determine the legality of an extraterritorial self defense against
non-state actor, it should be established first that the host state was

3
UN, UN Charter, Art. 51.
4
UNSCOR, UN Doc S/RES/2249
5
UNSCOR, UN Doc S/RES/1373
6
International Law Association Use of Force Committee, Final Report on Aggression and the Use of Force, (2018),
p. 15.
 unable or unwilling.7 In this case, it is apparent that Balan is unable
to effectively contain the attack carried out by UAC as demonstrated
in its failure to prevent further damage given the effort they have
produce.8 Thus, it can be concluded that the inability as basis of self
defense for Ragnell has been proven.
(c) The operation pass the necessary and proportionate test
To determine the legality of a self-defense, it should also be
necessary and proportionate to the attack, as provided by Nicaragua
Case9 and Oil Platform Case10. Necessary means all available
options has been exhausted and no other possible means left other
than exercising the self-defense.11 In the present case, Ragnell has
frequently request Balan to take sufficient measure to contain the
attack from UAC, however UAC only took insufficient measures
such as confiscating weapons and contrabands without investigating
further potential UAC member linked to it.12 It is also been proven
that those efforts fails to stop the attack from UAC. This means
nothing but Ragnell left with no other option but to initiate OSS.
Proportionate means the self-defense correspond strictly to the
attack it was attempting to contain.13 In this case the OSS was
launched solely to prevent more harm to the public by focusing the
self-defense operation on the UAC forces and only captured them
strictly aimed to prevent further damage.
Thus, it can be concluded that the OSS has fulfills the standard to
legally commence self-defense laid by international law.

7
Williams, Gareth D., Piercing the Shield of Sovereignty: An Assessment of the Legal Status of the”Unwilling or
Unable” Test, University of New South Wales Law Journal 36.2 (2013).
8
Moot Problem, para. 30.
9
ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ
Report 14, 1986, para. 176, 194 [Nicaragua]
10
ICJ, Oil Platforms (Merits) (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ Report 161, 2003, para. 51
[Oil Platforms].
11
Oil Platforms, para. 73.
12
Moot Problem, para. 26.
13
Nicaragua, para. 194.
 2. The Area is Not A Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)
The act in question is not in any way illegal as it was conducted in an area
that no longer sustain its status of demilitarized. This status has elapsed
under two grounds: (a) International law and state practices’ standards of
losing demilitarized zone status has been met and even if it is still a
demilitarized zone (b) the condition in Clarent Belt has fulfilled the
exception laid out in Article 14(b) of the Treaty.
(a) International law and state practices’ standards of losing
demilitarized zone status has been met
Based on the Article 60(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I of
Geneva Convention, parties are released from its obligation related
to the demilitarized zone if there are breach concerning the
requirement of a demilitarized zone, one of them being to refrain
from acts of hostilities.14 State practice of Canada15, South Africa16,
Ivory Coast17, and New Zealand18 also correspond similarly to that
provision.
With the act exercised by UAC, attack has been evident in the said
area. With this occurring hostilities in Clarent Belt, it is safe to
conclude that it triggered the elapsing status of demilitarized zone
of Clarent Belt making the OSS not in breach of any laws regarding
demilitarized zone.
(b) The condition in Clarent Belt has fulfilled the exception laid out in
Article 14(b) of the Treaty

14
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts, (8 June 1977), 1125 UNTS 3, art.60(7) [Protocol I].
15
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate
General, 13 August 2001, § 457.4.
16
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as
amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 147–148 and 150–151; see also p. 152.
17
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du
commandant de compagnie.
18
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters,
Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 412(5).
 Article 14 of the Treaty stipulates the conditions which constitute an
exception to exercise military activities in the demilitarization of the
Clarent Belt.19 The police force is mentioned in Article 14(b) as one
of the exceptions. Considering that the OSS is a police force from
Ragnell, even if the area is still demilitarized, the OSS is exempted
from the prohibition and can legally perform self-defense in Clarent
Belt.
3. Ragnell Is Implementing Mandate from Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty
This operation is in fact in accordance with international law as it is only
implementing the mandate of the Treaty. Based on Article 11(1)(c), Ragnell
is assigned the obligation to “maintain peace and order, through the
deployment of police personnel”. 20 The activities conducted by Ragnell in
Clarent Belt falls under the definition of ‘deployment of police personnel’
as suggested by state practice of China21, Belgium22, and Israel23.
Moreover, the wording of Article 14 of the Treaty has made it clear that the
police forces in Article 11(1)(c) is considered unison with armed force as it
is usually the condition in which considered as an exception to the
demilitarized condition. Furthermore, the demilitarization is regarded as no
armed force policy. Having police force as an exception implies that police
force is also regarded as armed force. Thus, the OSS is merely an effort to
implement Ragnell’s obligation.

19
Article 14 of the Treaty.
20
Article 11(1)(c) of the Treaty.
21
China, The Military Service Law of the People’s Republic of China, Art.4.
22
Belgium, Interpretative declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 May 1986, § 2.
23
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and
Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 238.
 C. Ragnell Attacks on Nant Gateway And Compound Ardan Under The OSS Is
Not A Violation Toward The Treaty

Article 2 (2) of the Treaty regulates that the Parties of the Treaty shall
comply with all applicable principles of IHL. The applicability of IHL is enforced
in armed conflict situations to balance out humanitarian and military
considerations.24 Ragnell’s military attack in the Belt is in compliance with IHL as
(1) the raid on the Nant Gateway; and (2) the attack of Compound Ardan is not a
violation of IHL.

1. The Raid on the Nant Gateway does not Violates the International
Humanitarian Law

Ragnell asserts that the assault on the Nant Gateway adhered to the
principles of (a) distinction 25; (b) necessity26; and (c) proportionality27.
a. The attacks remained in line with the principle of distinction

In a general principle, civilian objects are granted immunity from

raid under the law. Nonetheless, immunity may be relinquished when a
civilian object is employed for military purposes,28 there are some
countries that has done the practice, including Australia29, Canada30, and
Denmark31. It has also been established through legal precedent, such as
the case of Prosecutor v. Kupreškić.32
Currently, the Nant Gateway serves both humanitarian and
UAC's arms and personnel transport purposes into the Belt.33

24
ICRC, International Humanitarian: a Comprehensive Introduction, (2022), at 17.
25
Protocol I, Art.52.
26
Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civillian Persons In Time Of War Of 12 August 1945, 75
UNTS 135, art 53 [Geneva IV]; Protocol I, Art.54.
27
Protocol I, Art.51.
28
Moot Problem, para. 26,30.
29
Australian Defence Force, Law of Armed Conflict, 2006, at 531 [Australian Manual].
30
Office of the Judge Advocate General, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, 1999, at
428 [Canada Manual].
31
Danish Ministry of Defence, Military Manual On International Law Relevant To Danish Armed Forces In
International Operations, 2016, at 276 [Denmark Manual].
32
Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Trial Judgement, [2000], ICTY, IT-95-16-T, at 522.
33
Moot Problem, para. 41.
 Consequently, the attack on the gateway was deemed justified since
it had been utilized by the UAC, transforming it into a military
target. In conclusion, the bombing of the Nant Gateway did not
contravene the principle of distinction.
b. The necessity of the bombing was paramount

The principle of necessity dictates that, whenever feasible,

less harmful measures should be employed when seeking military
objectives.34 At present times, the only viable method to neutralize
the UAC's access to the Belt is by destroying the Nant Gateway.
Employing less destructive measures, such as stationing guards or
establishing alternative entry points, would prove inadequate as the
UAC would continue to exploit the Gateway persistently, as
evidenced by the unsuccessful attempt to restrict contraband by
Balan.35 Therefore, the bombing of the Nant Gateway was deemed
necessary to accomplish Ragnell's objectives.

c. The bombing was carried out in a proportionate manner

Proportionality involves evaluating the military advantage

sought against the potential civilian casualties resulting from an
attack.36 In the context of targeted killings, for instance, bombing a
building where a sniper is hiding and causing numerous civilian
casualties in exchange for eliminating one combatant would be
considered disproportionate. 37 On the other hand, NATO's bombing

34
Protocol I, Art.54; Nils Melzer, “Targeted Killing Or Less Harmful Means? – Israel’s High Court Judgement On
Targeted Killing And The Restrictive Function of Military Necessity,” (2008), 9 Yearbook of International
Humanitarian Law, at 109.
35
Moot Problem, para. 26,30.
36
Protocol I, Art. 51(5)(b); Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO
Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 2000, at 76, 77 [NATO Bombing]; Prosecutor v.
Martić, Trial Judgement, [2007], ICTY, IT-95-11-T, at69; Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski, Trial Judgment, [2008],
ICTY, IT-04-82-T, at 357.
37
The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and
the Environment v. The Government of Israel, HCJ 769/02, (13 December 2006), 46.
 of a radio station resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians was deemed
proportionate as it was carried out to disrupt the belligerents
command and control capabilities.38

The bombing of the Nant Gateway was undertaken in order

to prevent the UAC from making further incursions into the Belt. 39
The decision not to bomb the gateway would have resulted in an
immediate escalation of hostilities, as the continuous influx of
weapons and troops would have prolonged the conflict. 40 Therefore,
the bombing was deemed proportionate since it effectively curtailed
the UAC's influence within the belt without causing any harm to
civilian individuals.41

2. The Attack of Compound Ardan is Not a Violation of International

Humanitarian Law

Ragnell’s attack on Compound Ardan has complied with IHL as it

fulfilled the principles of (a) precautionary and (b) proportionate.

a. Ragnell has taken everything feasible measures to comply with

precautionary principle before attacking Compound Ardan

Precautionary principle obligates parties in armed conflict to

take all feasible measures before launching an attack to minimize
incidental harm against civilians. 42 Prior to the attack, Ragnell
received information in the form of a map and photographs, from a
Balani worker, showing that the four buildings of the Compound
were used for UAC activities and Warehouse 15 was used for

38
NATO Bombing, 71-74.
39
Moot Problem, para. 41.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Protocol I, art. 57.
 weapons and ammunition storage. 43 To ensure that Compound
Ardan was legitimate military objectives, Ragnell collected
additional information through consistent surveillance drone
footage for a month. The attack on the four buildings and Warehouse
15 was launched until it was verified that there were no civilians in
the targeted area.44

As stated in the Final Report to the Prosecutor on the NATO

bombing of Yugoslavia, a military commander as the decision
maker has a standard in authorizing an attack namely “reasonable
military commander” and it should be determined on a case by case
basis.45 In Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, military commander shall
rely on the information that is available, then take on necessary and
reasonable measures.46 State practices of the Netherlands47,
Australia48, and Germany49 established the obligation to take all
feasible precautions that are practicable on the basis of an
assessment of the information available at the time.

Ragnell’s commander has taken all practicable and

reasonable measures to ensure that the target of the attack is
legitimate military objectives by doing an assessment to gain
information available at the time, coming from the informant and
corroborated by the drone footage collected consistently for a
month.

43
Moot Problem, para. 47.
44
Ibid.
45
ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor on the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia para. 50.
46
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Appeal Chamber, para. 62.
47
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsre
cht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0544.
48
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian
Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, Glossary.
49
Germany, Lower House of Parliament, Explanatory memorandum on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva
Conventions, BT-Drucksache 11/6770, 22 March 1990, p. 113.
 Ragnell also did not have to do a background check on the
informant because there is no reasonable doubt regarding the
information available at the time because the informant’s words
were concluded as sufficient and credible information with the
additional surveillance drone’s footage.

b. The Ragnell Attack on Compound Ardan is in Compliance to

Proportionality Principle

Proportionality principle regulates that parties in armed

conflict are prohibited to launch attacks that are expected to harm
civilians and considered excessive compared to the concrete and
direct military advantage that can be foreseen. 50 Primarily attacking
civilians in an attack is prohibited as the attack has to be aimed at
lawful military objectives to achieve military advantage. 51

In Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, the Court concluded that

the attack conducted by the unit of military force of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Sarajevo Romanija Corps (“SRK”), was
disproportionate because they, in fact, targeted civilians considering
they targeted a residential neighborhood, which in this case, the loss
of civilians was expected. 52

In comparison to the SRK attack, Ragnell attack on

Compound Ardan was conducted merely to achieve military
advantage as the Compound was used by the UAC to launch attacks
against Ragnell. Furthermore, the excessive incidental harm caused
by the attack of Compound Ardan was not expected because it was
verified before the attack, by the consistent surveillance drone

50
Protocol I, art. 51 (5b).
51
Bernard L. Brown, “The Proportionality Principle in the Humanitarian Law of Warfare: Recent Efforts at
Codification,” (1976); 10:1 Cornell International Law Journal, at 138-141.
52
ICTY, Judgment in the Case the Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic Stanislav Galic Sentenced to 20 Years’
Imprisonment, (5 December 2003).
 footage, that there were no civilians in the targeted area. Therefore,
the attack of Compound Ardan is concrete and direct to achieve
military value and the incidental harm against Balani civilians is not
foreseeable.

II. RAGNELL ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY IN

TEMPORARILY EMPLOYING UAC DETAINEES IN THE TRANSPORT OF
PLASTIC WASTE TO ETNA, AND IN TEMPORARILY TRANSFERRING THEM
TO CAMLANN
A. The State of Ragnell Does Not Violate the Third Geneva Convention Through
the Employment and Transfer of the UAC Detainees
1. The Detainment of UAC Detainees is in Camlann Correctional Center
is Lawful
Article 22 of the Third Geneva Convention guarantees the hygiene and
healthfulness of prisoners of war in their internment premises. 53 Hence, the
placement of UAC detainees in Camlann Correctional Center is in
compliance with obligations under international humanitarian law.
Moreover, in ensuring the best treatment of the UAC detainees, Ragnell has
permitted the visitation of the International Committee of the Red Cross
(“ICRC”).54 This reflects the common practice by the ICRC to ensure
secure humane treatment and living conditions of the detainees. 55
Therefore, the treatment and the well-being of UAC detainees in Camlann
Correctional Center is ensured and lawful.

2. The Transfer of UAC Detainees was Done Under Safety Reason

Article 47 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the transfer of
prisoners of war is allowed as long as it is conducted safely and if the

53
Geneva Convention Relative to The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War Of 12 August 1945, 75 UNTS 135, Art. 22
[Geneva III].
54
Moot Problem, para. 50.
55
ICRC Annual Report, (2021).
 combat zone draws closer to refrain them from being in a dangerous area. 56
In this regard, UAC’s transfers to Camlann are made to ensure their safety. 57
As stated in Human Rights Council Resolution S-21/1, the Israel Defense
Forces (“IDF”) in approximately 150 cases, the prisoners of war are
transferred to detention facilities in Israel with taking into account for their
safety.58 Hence, this transfer is in compliance with Article 47 of the Third
Geneva Convention.

3. The UAC Detainees were Not Subjected to Hazardous Conditions

During their Employment
Article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits the employment of
prisoners of war in an unhealthy or dangerous nature, such as mine
withdrawal, and prohibits assigning them to labour that is looked upon as
humiliating for a member of the Detaining Power’s own forces.59 Taking
into account that the UAC detainees are in Fort Caerleon only to assist
Ragnellian workers to load the waste into ship,60 employing UAC detainees
is in compliance with international standards. In addition, the UAC
detainees are in a condition of being protected with basic safety gear, which
includes masks and gloves. 61
As for humiliating labour, in the Simić trial, humiliating treatment
is defined by a work that reflects the feeling of subordination and fear. 62 For
instance from the Simić case, the humiliating work is reflected through
forcing an owner of a company to clean in front of their office and cleaning
the street in front of people.63 Accordingly, humiliating labour includes the
intention from the detaining power to inflict a sense of humiliation among

56
Geneva III, Art.47.
57
Moot Problem, para. 50.
58
UN, Report of the detailed findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry established pursuant to Human
Rights Council Resolution S-21/1, A/HRC/29/CRP.4, 24 June 2015
59
Geneva III, Art.52.
60
Moot Problem, para. 44.
61
Ibid.
62
Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simić, Trial Judgement, [2003], ICTY, IT-95-9-T, [Simić Trial].
63
Ibid.
 the worker. During the employment Ragnell paid the UAC detainees wage
and provided them with safety equipment. 64 Therefore, the UAC detainees
are not at risk of danger and not subject to humiliating labour. Accordingly,
the employment of UAC detainees does not violate Article 52 GC III.

B. The State of Ragnell Does Not Violate the Fourth Geneva Convention Through
The Employment and Transfer of The UAC Detainees
1. Individuals Affiliated With UAC Do Not Fall Under The Category of
‘Protected Persons’
Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention outlined that individuals who
can be categorized as ‘protected persons’ are those who, during an armed
conflict, find themselves in the custody of a party or any other party
involved in the armed conflict that is not of their own nationality. 65 It is
important to acknowledge that the UAC detainees are considered unlawful
combatants due to their direct involvement in acts of warfare without being
affiliated with any recognized armed forces. 66 Hence, they do not meet the
criteria to be classified as a protected persons under the Geneva Convention.
As a result, they have fallen into the custody of the opposing side, which in
this case is Ragnell’s forces, as the “enemy”. Although these detainees are
no longer actively participating in hostilities, their previous consistent and
direct engagement in combat alongside Ragnell places them in the category
of unlawful combatants. 67 Considering their classification as unlawful
combatants, their transfer to another location or employment would not be
seen unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

64
Moot Problem, para. 44.
65
Geneva IV, Art. 4.
66
Knut Dörmann, “The Legal Situation of ‘Unlawful/Unprivileged Combatants,” International Review of the Red
Cross, Vol. 85, No. 849, (March, 2003), at 45-74.
67
ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, Report prepared
by the International Committee of the Red Cross for the 32nd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent, October 2015, at 17.
 2. The UAC Detainees Employment Is Unlawful Regarding International
Humanitarian Law
According to Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying
power is permitted to utilize protected persons for work under certain
conditions. These conditions include the individuals being over 18 years
old, receiving a fair wage, and being provided with the same level of
protection as those within the occupied territory. 68 The work that can be
assigned to these individuals should serve the needs of the occupying army
or contribute to public utility services, such as healthcare.
In the current situation, all the requirements for the lawful employment of
the detainees were met. They were of legal age, 69 received a wage,70 were
granted the same level of protection as other workers from Ragnell, 71 and
their employment was aimed at safeguarding public health and preventing
a potential environmental disaster. 72 As a result, the employment of the
UAC detainees did not violate Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In addition, concerning the working environment in which the detainees
were involved in the distribution of waste containing CA-MRSA bacteria,
the Canadian government's public health agency has stated that the bacteria
are primarily transmitted through physical contact. Therefore, wearing
masks and gloves would be adequate to prevent the bacteria from entering
wounds or being transmitted through contact, such as via the mouth.
Furthermore, even if the safety gear were not entirely effective in preventing
the spread of the bacteria, the same sources also assert that these bacteria do
not pose a significant risk to healthy individuals.73

68
Geneva IV, Art. 51.
69
Moot Clarification, para 5.
70
Moot Problem, para 44.
71
Moot Clarification, para 5.
72
Moot Problem, para 38.
73
Canada, “Fact Sheet - Community-Acquired Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA).”
 3. The Transfer of The UAC Increase the Potential Danger They Face
According to Article 127 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the transfer of
detainees is generally prohibited, unless there is a compelling reason to
believe that they are at a greater risk if they remain in their current place of
internment.74 In the case of the detainees from Fort Caerleon, there was a
significant risk of them getting caught in the midst of ongoing fighting if
they were not relocated. Therefore, the decision to transfer them was made
with the intention of safeguarding their well-being.
As a result, the transfer of the detainees from Fort Caerleon did not violate
Article 127 of the Geneva Convention. The purpose of the transfer was to
protect them from the potential dangers they could face if they were to
remain in their original location. By moving them to a safer environment, the
State of Ragnell aimed to ensure their safety and minimize the risk of harm.

74
Geneva IV, Art. 127.
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests this honorable Court to find,
adjudge, and declare that:

I. The initiation of “Operation Shining Star” and the targeting of Nant

Gateway and Compound Ardan were in conformity with Treaty, and do not
give rise to any obligation to compensate;

II. Ragnell acted in accordance with the Treaty in temporarily employing

UAC detainees in the transport of plastic waste to Etna, and in temporarily
transferring them to Camlann

III. Aglovale is violated its Treaty obligations by unilaterally imposing

disproportionate and coercive sanctions against Ragnell and Ragnellian
nationals, and must immediately withdraw those sanctions, releasing all
Ragnellian property frozen and reinstating all assets seized pursuant to them,
and compensate Ragnell for their impact; and

IV. Aglovale violated the Treaty by refusing to cooperate in good faith in the
management of the plastic waste, whereas Ragnell complied with its
obligations when it was forced by that refusal to export the waste to Etna for
processing and disposal.

Respectfully submitted,

AGENTS OF THE RESPONDENT