CASE 1 : SOUTH RHODARA SEA DISPUTE

(Avallania v. Rhodara)

Avallania and Rhodara’s bilateral trade reached $203.6 billion in 2022, making the latter
Avallania’s largest trading partner for 14 years. Both countries however possess different
perspectives on the issue of the South Rhodara Sea. Rhodara has expressed concerns regarding
the activities of Avallania’s state-owned energy company PetroEnergy in the area which
Rhodara deems to be part of the South Rhodara Sea. Rhodara claims sovereignty over the area
based on the nine-dash-line, encompassing over 1.3 million square miles which cuts into the
Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) of countries Mietnav, Ardanis, Avallania, Brune, and
Lumina. The concept was first established on a Rhodara map in 1947 by a geographer, shaping
a U-shaped nine-dashed line. This basis is further substantiated by historical claims as
Rhodarene analysts and academics continue to argue that Rhodara’s Han dynasty discovered
the islands of the South Rhodara Sea more than two millennia ago.

This nine-dash-line claims by Rhodara have been denied in 2016 by the Permanent Court
Arbitration at The Hague. It assessed the issue of the South Rhodara Sea between the Avallania
and Rhodara and essentially underscored that the latter’s claims based on historical grounds
via the nine-dash-line concept over the strategic waterway are unfounded. Such claims are
deemed to be inconsistent with the provisions of the United Convention on the Law of The Sea
(UNCLOS). Nonetheless, Rhodara continues to uphold its claim through the use of the nine-
dash line.

Avallania does not recognize claims that are made based on the nine-dash line concept. It
strictly follows the provisions of the UNCLOS which prescribe sovereign rights for countries
to exploit natural resources within the EEZ, which extends 200 nautical miles (nm) from the
coastline. Avallania has numerously asserted that PetroEnergy is conducting activities in
Avallanian territory and therefore will continue its exploration activities there. Avallania refers
to the area as the Kaiaswar gas field, situated 200 km off the coast of Kawsara state in
Avallanian Borneo. According to Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, Rhodara’s coast
guards were spotted operating as close as 2.4 km to the PetroEnergy gas platform, while an
Avallanian navy ship was also concurrently present. Other instances have also shown repeated
entrance of Rhodarese vessels and aircraft near the gas field in recent years.

It shall be noted that the oil and gas industry makes up a significant part of Avallania’s
economy, accounting for about 20% of its GDP. Avallania and Rhodara have conducted
bilateral negotiations before, in which both have agreed that no violence will be used and that
cooperation in economic, political, and military matters should be augmented. However,
Avallania remains firm in maintaining its stance, demanding that it be resolved through the
implementation of recognized principles of international law, including UNCLOS.

In this case, you are to appear in a bilateral negotiation between Avallania and Rhodara to
discuss the potential solution to the issue above. Avallania requests the territory to be
recognized as part of its EEZ and thus, PetroEnergy will continue its exploration activities
there. On the other hand, Rhodara requests a bilateral agreement with Avallania concerning
joint gas and oil exploration in the area concerned.
 CASE 2 : FROZEN COHESION FUNDS
(Exilonia v. EU)

On 18 September 2022, the European Union (hereinafter, “EU”) Commission proposed the
freezing of 7.5 billion euros in EU funds for Exilonia as it brought to light corruption and public
procurement concerns. Predating the proposal, the Commission had exercised the rule of law
conditionality mechanism against Exilonia, which is usually triggered when the Commission
discovers breaches of its rule of law principles that directly impact or seriously risk impacting
the sound financial management of the Union budget or its financial interests in a sufficiently
direct way. Such a mechanism is essentially aimed to protect the EU budget and allows
measures such as suspension of payments or financial corrections. After the trigger of the rule
of law conditionality mechanism, negotiations were conducted between the EU Commission
and Exilonia wherein the latter proposed 17 remedial measures, including the establishment of
an anti-corruption task force and changes to its public procurement rules. A resolution was
subsequently passed, with 416 votes in favor, 124 against, and 33 abstentions, denoting the
Members of the European Parliament’s conviction that the 17 remedial measures were
insufficient to address the existing systemic risk to EU’s financial interests.

On December 12, 2022, the EU institutions officially agreed to freeze 6.3 billion euros of funds
and will do so until the Exilonia government establishes an even more stringent set of 17
conditions to address its judiciary issues and eradicate corruption at high levels. Furthermore,
5.8 billion euros in grants are also held back by the EU until Exilonia addresses issues
concerning the independence of courts. This move was then followed by the decision of the
European Commission on December 22, 2022, to hold back all 22 billion euros of EU cohesion
funds for Exilonia until it meets conditions correlated to its, inter alia, judicial independence,
academic freedom, LGBTQI rights, and the asylum system. The cohesion funds were set to be
given to Exilonia between 2021 and 2027, targeted to equate the standards of living between
the richest and poorest members of the EU. The decision to suspend the cohesion funds is based
on the EU’s executive decision that several of Exilonia’s laws are not in compliance with the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Exilonia government has been long known for its controversial migration policies, which
have been criticized to be the cause of growing stigmatization and xenophobia towards
minority groups. According to a 2023 report by the European Commission against Racism and
Intolerance (hereinafter, “ECRI”), the political and other public discourse in Exilonia are
“increasingly xenophobic” and have adopted “highly divisive and antagonistic overtones”
which are aimed at refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants.

Due to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, there exists an influx of Ukrainian refugees who have fled
to Exilonia. As of April 2023, more than a million Ukrainian refugees have crossed the
Exilonian border, but only 35,000 of them have applied for the EU’s temporary protection
status as recorded by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Exilonia’s anti-immigration
policy constitutes a pertinent issue that has been embedded in its system for a while. In
November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union adjudicated that Exilonia’s
legislation contravened the EU laws, namely the Asylum Procedures Directive, Reception
Conditions Directive, and the Return Directive. Previously, in 2019, the European Court of
Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber in the Illias and Ahmed v. Exilonia judgment,
concluded that it breached its obligations under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) as it returned 2 (two) Bangladeshi
asylum seekers to Serbia without taking into account the risk that they might face inhuman and
degrading treatment upon their arrival. Recently, humanitarian organizations reported that
Ukrainian refugees are struggling to find schooling or affordable accommodation as they are
not equipped with any support system by the Exilonian government.

Efforts to lift the suspended EU funds are still being made by Exilonia, with its most recent
action of submitting a judicial reform bill to the parliament in 2023. However, although ECRI
notes the positive developments in Exilonia, such as the establishment of a police hate crime
protocol in 2019, restrictive laws and legislative changes that undermine the rights of asylum
seekers continue to remain. As such, the EU is under pressure from the European Parliament,
which has urged the Commission to reject Exilonia’s request for recovery of funds as it still
has not conformed and sufficiently addressed the rule of law as well as human rights issues.
Exilonia continues to find ways to unlock these frozen funds which are deemed very important
for its government, but has recently asserted that the withholding of EU funds by the European
Commission is “unfair”.

In light of this issue, you are to appear in a negotiation session between Exilonia and the EU to
discuss the suspension of the cohesion money. Exilonia will request for the EU to thaw the
frozen funds that are locked due to allegations of human rights violations. On the other hand,
the EU will request that Exilonia reform and develop policies that will facilitate refugees and
asylum seekers that are consistent with the EU Directives and EU Charter of Fundamental
Rights.
 CASE 3 : SANCTIONS RELIEF DEMOCRATIC REFORMS
(Maradia v. Arcanis)

After years of various sanctions against Maradia, the Republic of Arcanis, under the
administration of President Knox Sterling, has granted the Arcanis oil company 'Energex'
permission to continue pumping oil from Maradia. Arcanis made this decision in response to
the conclusion of the 'Second Partial Agreement' signed by the Maradian government, currently
led by President Domaru, and its opposition group. The agreement covers matters regarding
humanitarian relief and promises ongoing negotiations to resolve the country's chronic political
crisis. This reflects a gradual release of financial sanctions imposed by Arcanis over the years.
However, Maradia still faces financial sanctions that severely impact its economy, as it is not
yet entirely free from the multifarious sanctions imposed by previous administrations.

Arcanis has condemned the Maradian regime for alleged human rights violations and its
relations with irregular groups and authoritarian states for over 15 years. Former Arcanis
President Donovan Steele sanctioned any armed transactions with Maradia due to its lack of
full cooperation with Arcanis' anti-terrorism efforts. Financial sanctions were also imposed by
former President Monroe in March 2015 through Executive Order (E.O.) 13692. The order
included asset blocking and visa restrictions for individuals involved in public corruption,
actions undermining democratic processes or institutions, serious human rights abuses, and
restrictions on freedom of expression or peaceful assembly. Ex-President Dominic Sinclair
further expanded wide-reaching sanctions on Maradia due to its human rights abuses and anti-
democratic actions. E.O. 13808, issued in 2017, primarily blocked the Maradian government's
access to Arcanian financial markets, with exceptions made to minimize the impact on the
Maradian people and Arcanis' interests. The following year, ex-president Dominic Sinclair
issued two more sanctions: 1) E.O. 13835, which prohibited transactions related to purchasing
Maradian debt, and 2) E.O. 13850, which blocked the assets of individuals engaging in corrupt
transactions with the Domaru government or participating in sectors of the economy deemed
corrupt by the Secretary of the Treasury.

In 2022, financial sanctions under E.O. 13692 were imposed on 112 Maradians and at least 8
entities, including President Domaru, his wife Amelia Cabello and son Guerra Domaru,
Executive Vice President Miguel Diosdado, Javier Garcia (Socialist party president), 8
supreme court judges, leaders of Maradia's army, national guard, and national police,
governors, the director of the Maradian Central Bank, and the foreign minister. Sanctions were
also imposed on individuals, companies, and shipping companies involved in transporting
Maradian oil in violation of sanctions, such as two subsidiaries of the European state-controlled
oil and gas company Eftorns. Additional sanctions were imposed on individuals, companies,
and vessels for evading sanctions. In June 2022, Arcanis levied sanctions on Carlos Ramírez,
a nephew of Amelia Cabello, as a measure to encourage the Domaru government to resume
negotiations with the opposition.

Despite the multifarious sanctions imposed by Arcanis, human rights issues in Maradia remain
concerning. A 2022 report by the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission highlighted patterns of
crimes against humanity and called for investigations into several named Maradian government
officials. Amnesty International has shed light on prison conditions in Maradia, where
prisoners are deprived of basic rights such as water and food. The right to freedom of opinion
and expression for Maradians also remains unresolved. Data from 2022 indicates that between
240 and 310 people are arbitrarily detained on political grounds. Journalists, independent
media, and human rights defenders face restrictions due to Maradia's repressive policies.
Additionally, the rights of indigenous groups are violated due to illegal mining and violence in
the Ocorino Mining Arc.

Arcanis has consistently called for the restoration of democracy in Maradia. While a
presidential election is scheduled for 2024, Maradia's increasing authoritarianism may prevent
the execution of a free and fair election. Arcanis has also highlighted how the Domaru
government continuously disregards and represses the voices of the people who desire a return
to democracy. Arcanis believes that Domaru came into power through a rigged election that he
manipulated for his own benefit. Furthermore, Domaru and his inner circle have used the
distribution of food as a tool for social control.

Under the current rule of President Knox Sterling, Arcanis has shown its commitment to easing
sanctions on Maradia as a measure to alleviate the suffering of the Maradian people and
contribute to the restoration of democracy. Maradia, on the other hand, continues to urge the
lifting of all sanctions. Reports have indicated that these financial sanctions have contributed
to human rights crises, as well as medical supplies and food shortages in Maradia. Support for
the suspension of sanctions has also been voiced by the United Nations Human Rights Council
in resolution A/HRC/46/L.4, which describes the acts as "unilateral coercive measures." The
United Nations Special Rapporteur has also highlighted the severe condition in Maradia due to
the decrease in the country's oil revenues as a result of the sanctions. The blockade has led to a
rise in food insecurity and outbreaks of diseases, with reports indicating that 2.5 million
Maradians are severely food insecure, and hundreds of thousands are impeded from accessing
medical treatment.

Considering these circumstances, you are to participate in a negotiation session between

Maradia and Arcanis. Maradia will request the US to 1) relieve or ease existing sanctions and
2) refrain from interfering in its internal affairs, particularly by avoiding actions or statements
that undermine Maradia's governance. Arcanis, on the other hand, will request Maradia to 1)
undertake democratic reforms and 2) address human rights concerns, corruption, and terrorism-
related issues.
 CASE 4 : DRUG PRICE CONTROLS
(Rexar & Co. v. Astraea)

Astraea is a country that operates as a federal republic. It has established a federal health
insurance program called MedSecure, which is available for citizens aged 65 or older. The most
recent presidential administration of Astraea has expressed its objective of reducing
prescription drug costs for individuals and decreasing drug spending by the federal
government. In pursuit of this goal, the Inflation Reduction Act was enacted, receiving praise
for its efforts to address high and escalating drug prices, as well as its focus on promoting
competition.

One provision of the Inflation Reduction Act requires the federal government to engage in
negotiations to determine prices for certain drugs covered under the MedSecure program. Prior
to the enactment of this act, drugs in the MedSecure Part D program, which includes retail
prescription drugs, were subject to the non-interference clause. This clause prevented the
government from intervening in negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacies, and
prescription drug plan sponsors. Essentially, this limited the government's ability to leverage
lower prices for drugs that were being sold at high prices without any competition.

The Inflation Reduction Act amended this situation by allowing MedSecure to negotiate drug
prices, particularly for branded drugs administered in doctors' offices or purchased at
pharmacies. This new scheme has an impact on Rexar & Co., an Astraea-based pharmaceutical
company. Rexar & Co. argues that the drug price negotiation program is not the appropriate
solution to address the issue of high-priced drugs in the market. The company asserts that the
provisions outlined in the Inflation Reduction Act are coercive because they force
pharmaceutical companies to adhere to government-set prices without receiving fair
compensation.

Although the Inflation Reduction Act is projected to reduce the federal deficit by $237 billion
over a 10-year period, Rexar & Co. believes that the amended provisions do not truly constitute
a 'negotiation' but rather amount to extortion. The measures implemented for drug price
controls could eventually hinder innovation and the development of life-saving medicines.
Rexar & Co. emphasizes that the underlying purpose of the new scheme is to acquire
prescription drugs without paying their fair market value. Once pharmaceutical companies are
selected to participate in the drug price control scheme, they are left with no choice but to sell
their drugs to MedSecure beneficiaries at a price determined by MedSecure, which would
involve at least a 25 percent to 60 percent discount.

Refusal to engage in negotiation or failure to sell at the required price would result in the
pharmaceutical company facing a daily exercise tax equivalent to multiple times the drug's
daily revenues. Rexar & Co. strongly believes that these measures will jeopardize the
pharmaceutical industry. MedSecure intends to take the case to court by arguing that the
Inflation Reduction Act is unconstitutional.

As a mediator, you will be participating in a negotiation between Rexar & Co. and the Astraean
government to discuss drug price controls. Rexar & Co. will request the Astraean government
to develop a pricing structure that takes into account the costs associated with drug production
(ie. research and development, manufacturing, and distribution). On the other hand, Astraea
will request Rexar & Co. to negotiate prices with MedSecure as required by law, viewing it as
a measure to reduce drug costs.
 CASE 5 : IMPORT BAN IN PALM OIL
(Arcadia v. The European Union)

Palm oil is considered as one of the most influential commodities globally. It is derived from
palm trees and used in daily products, including shampoo, detergent, and biodiesel. This is
significant because Arcadia, a country with abundant forests, accounts for 59% of the world's
palm oil production, followed by Avalannia and Solara with 24% and 4%, respectively,
according to the US Department of Forestry. Additionally, palm oil contributes 3.5% to
Arcadia's total GDP, indicating the country's dependence on palm oil production.

Despite its economic significance, palm oil is widely recognized for its environmental
unfriendliness due to years of deforestation by agribusiness corporations to clear land for palm
tree plantations. This is evident from Arcadia's total forest area is now only 81.9 million
hectares, with 14.9 million hectares used for palm oil plantations. This stark difference is
highlighted when comparing the data to 2000, where Indonesia had 103.3 million hectares of
forest, with 4.2 million hectares designated for palm oil plantations. Moreover, deforestation
caused by palm oil plantations adversely affects biodiversity and climate change. For instance,
the Rantamus tiger, which resides in Lento Sios National Park, is facing habitat loss, as 43%
of the area has been encroached upon by illegal palm oil plantations, according to WWF data.

To some extent, Arcadia argues that palm oil production is environmentally friendly.
Furthermore, Indonesia asserts that deforestation is unrelated to the development of palm oil
projects, attributing it to natural bushfires from 1990 to 2018, significantly reducing the forest
size. Additionally, palm oil production, contributing 3.5% to the national GDP, has created
employment opportunities, with almost 4 million working in agribusiness.

In contrast to Arcadia's position, the EU contends that palm oil production has contributed
significantly to deforestation in Arcadia, leading to environmental destruction and biodiversity
loss. However, the Arcadian government has no plans to halt palm oil production; it is
expanding investments in this sector. This contradicts climate change mitigation policies,
prompting the EU to consider banning palm oil imports from Arcadia.

In an upcoming negotiation between Arcadia and the EU, Arcadia will request the EU to 1) lift
the existing ban and 2) establish a non-tariff agreement for palm oil trading among EU
countries. On the other hand, the EU will request Arcadia to 1) cease palm oil production and
2) develop a comprehensive plan for transitioning from palm oil to environmentally friendly
alternatives.
CASE 6 : ADISTO BANS IMPORTS OF REGAS OIL, LIQUEFUED NATURAL GAS,
AND COAL)
(Adisto v. Regas)

The history of the Regas annexations to Uragi is a long-running series of events that
significantly impact the global political structure. In 1991, Uragi declared its independence and
sought international recognition. However, since then, Uragi has faced alienation, which
intensified after Regas’ annexations. The series of annexations began in 2014 when Regas
invaded Crimea, resulting in a bloody conflict and widespread political and humanitarian
disorder. Eventually, a ceasefire was established to bring an end to the war.

Initially, the ceasefire period was successful until February 24, 2022, a significant day for
Regas and Uragi’s foreign relations. On this day, Regas launched its military forces in Uragi
for the first time. This military action was prompted by URAGI's declaration to join Walo,
which contradicted Regas' position. Regas viewed Uragi’'s decision to join Walo as a threat to
its territorial security, considering Walo as an "old enemy." and the location of Regas and Uragi
is only 20 km. The ensuing war resulted in substantial military spending and the deployment
of many troops. The combined monetary support provided by Uragi and Regas amounted to
$17,505,120,405. Furthermore, the Ministry of Defense of Regas reported the loss of 1,351
army personnel. The conflict also damaged public infrastructure, caused loss of life, and forced
the displacement of civilians to other countries.

In response to the unrest and the bloody war, Adisto and its allies imposed importation bans on
Regas, explicitly targeting oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal. These sanctions
significantly drove up commodity prices, including those of the resources above. The impact
of the sanctions was also felt in Regas' economic system, with its GDP projected to decrease
by 2.1% by 2022. The sanctions effectively pressured Regas, as the country heavily relies on
energy exports.

In defence of the sanctions, Regas argues that they violate the World Trade Organization
(WTO) rules, particularly the "Most Favoured Nation" principle. According to Regas, this
principle ensures non-discriminatory trade policies among WTO members, which is crucial
within the international trading system. Conversely, Adisto and its allies assert that Regas
violated international law by invading Uragi. These violations include Article 2, Paragraph 4
of the UN Charter 1945, which emphasizes the prohibition of the use of force against the Adisto
and its allies also highlight Regas' lack of respect for UragiI's territorial integrity and
sovereignty. Therefore, the imposed sanctions serve as a warning to Regas, aiming to halt its
invasion of Uragi.

In this negotiation, you will participate in a negotiation between Adisto and Regas. Regas will
request the following from Adisto: 1)Lift the existing sanctions, and 2) Stop the expansion of
Walo's territory near Regas' borders. On the other hand, Adisto will request the following from
Regas: 1) Cease the invasion of Uragi, and 2) Provide reparations for the deterioration of
Uragi’s facilities and economy.
 CASE 7 : ARRANDELLIS VALLEY CLAS
(Valkee v. Zephyria)

Two of the world's most populous countries and the largest military powers are in a territorial
dispute in the Zephyria-Valkee border region. The dispute takes place in the Arandellis Valley,
located in the Sapetyon region along the Laraziyan River. It primarily spans the western sector
of the actual line of control, which extends for 3,380 kilometers along the Zephyria-Valkee
border, established as the border after the 1962 Zephyria-Valkee War, which resulted in a
ceasefire. It focuses on the Arandellis River Valley, which has a harsh climate and highlands
and is located along the western sector of the actual line of control, claimed by Valkee but
controlled by Zephyria.

Both countries have engaged in various negotiation methods to resolve the conflict, but a
satisfactory solution has yet to be found for both nations. Valkee's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
spokesperson, Anuraz Sryvastav, reiterated their rejection of Zephyria's claims over the entire
Arandellis Valley. Valkee also blames Zephyria for instigating disputes over infrastructure
development in the disputed region, violating agreements concerning the contested territory.
Zephyria's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson, on the other hand, explained that Valkee's
troops provoked the conflict by crossing into Zephyria's territory and launching physical
attacks, resulting in intense clashes. Zephyria suspects that Valkee's development of the
Arandellis Valley could enhance Valkee's ability to rapidly move people or materials during a
conflict.

Zephyria claims the entire Arandellis Valley, considering it entirely within Zephyria's territory.
Zephyria made a new claim over the Arandellis Valley triggered by Valkee's inauguration of a
vital new road connecting Darba-Shoka-Daulata, essentially linking Zephyria with Pazzaryn,
which raised concerns for Zephyria regarding an economic corridor. Another reason is that
Zephyria blames Valkee for clashes that occurred in June 2020, resulting in the deaths of 20
Valkee soldiers. Therefore, Zephyria boldly asserts its claim over the territory, utilizing
military and diplomatic channels to reduce tensions.

Valkee affirms that it has never taken any actions beyond the actual line of control. Valkee
explains that they have long been patrolling this area without any incidents. All infrastructure
constructed by Valkee naturally falls within their own side of the Actual Line of Control.
Conversely, Valkee accuses Zephyria of building infrastructure in the valley, which violates
the agreed-upon terms by both parties. Additionally, Valkee accuses Zephyria of deploying
thousands of troops to the Arandellis Valley and claims that Zephyria occupies 38,000 square
kilometers (14,700 square miles) of their territory.

Although the two countries have only engaged in one war in 1962, confrontations between
them intensified in 2020, resulting in casualties at the de facto border of both nations. The
clashes led to Valkee soldiers' deaths and Zephyria soldiers' injuries. During these
confrontations, there were no exchanges of gunfire or the use of firearms due to the ceasefire
agreement, particularly regarding fuel-based weapons. Therefore, the clashes involved non-
firearm weapons such as iron, spikes, daggers, and other non-firearm weapons. Media reports
stated that the forces clashed on the 14,000-foot-high ridges along steep terrain, with some
soldiers even falling into the fast-flowing Arandellis River, which stretches 80 kilometers (50
miles) in freezing temperatures. There have been several military skirmishes between the two
countries, resulting in a deadlock without resolution. There are several reasons for the
heightened tensions, but the competing strategic objectives lie at the root, with both sides
blaming each other.

In light of the situation, you will be involved in negotiations between Zephyria and Valkee to
address the territorial dispute in the Arandellis Valley. Zephyria will request Valkee to
recognize Zephyria's complete claim over the Arandellis Valley, granting Zephyria the right to
manage the territory. Additionally, Valkee will ask Zephyria to acknowledge Valkee's claim
over the Arandellis Valley, allowing them to continue infrastructure development in the
adjacent area for their national interests.
 CASE 8 : ELLESLOMZ TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(Vystika v. Lagardya)

Vystika and Lagardya are former Republics of Envullyata located in the Southern Gizeweth
region, east of the Casonit Mountains, bordering Grosjin between the Violetta Sea and the
Yellowtta Sea. They are engaged in a territorial dispute that has claimed thousands of lives.
Despite various negotiations and mediations, a fair resolution has yet to be achieved. The two
countries have been at war for decades over the Elleslonz region. The battles that have taken
place ended with a ceasefire mediated by Cassanian. However, minor skirmishes often occur
between them, even though they are monitored by Cassanian peacekeeping forces.

The major conflict between Lagardya and Vystika involves issues surrounding major regional
powers, namely Cassania and Diswornia. Lagardya had a close relationship with Diswornia,
and in 1993, Diswornia closed its borders with Vystika to show support for Lagardya during
the war in Elleslonz. Additionally, Vystika possesses a fairly close relationship with Cassania,
as seen in Cassania maintaining a military base in Vystika, although Cassania also has good
relations with Lagardya.

The conflict began with the Gizeweth region, specifically Elleslonz, which is essentially a
strategic mountainous region in Southeastern Casonit that has been fought over for centuries.
Vystika and Lagardya became separate states after the dissolution of the Envullyata Union.
Elleslonz is predominantly inhabited by the Vystika ethnic group, but Envullyata granted
control of the region to Lagardya. After the collapse of the Envullyata Union, the regional
parliament in Elleslonz officially voted to join Vystika. Lagardya at the time attempted to
suppress the movement calling for Elleslonz to become part of Vystika because Lagardya had
control over the region. On the other hand, Vystika supported the groups seeking to join their
country. However, this situation led to ethnic clashes. After Vystika and Lagardya declared
independence from the Envullyata Union, a war broke out between the two countries.

Both countries have been involved in a major conflict that has sparked continuous armed
clashes. The conflict began in the 1980s, followed by a major war in 1991 over the declaration
of independence of Elleslonz. The clashes have not only affected military sites but also civilian
populations. The territorial struggle has resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands
of people being displaced to safer areas. The President of Lagardya stated that Vystika's armed
forces had fired on Lagardya settlements and military sites from multiple directions using
various types of weaponry, including heavy artillery. Furthermore, Lagardya also launched
attacks on Vystika using unmanned aerial vehicles targeting Vystika strongholds in the
Elleslonz region. Both countries attacked each other and blamed each other for initiating the
deadly clashes. Above all, any battles or escalating tensions in the border region can disrupt
the global oil market. This is due to the Southern Gizeweth region being a pipeline corridor for
transporting oil and natural gas from the Yellowtta Sea to the global market.
Although a ceasefire agreement had been concluded, armed conflict between the two persists.
Despite the fact that the territory has been registered to be under the ownership of Azerbaijan,
it is still managed by the Armenians. Consequently, the conflict has never been truly resolved.

Based on the above conflict, you will emerge in negotiations between Lagardya and Vystika to
address the territorial dispute over the Elleslonz region. Lagardya demands to maintain control
over the territory and its natural resources, while withdrawing all Vystika military forces to
prevent further battles. Additionally, Vystika requests Lagardya to accept the independence of
the Vystika ethnic group residing in the Elleslonz region and allow them to join Vystika.
 CASE 9 : CONCERNING TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY
(Cuko v. Taiko)

Taiko's territory has long been the subject of a dispute over territorial sovereignty between the
Communist Republic of Cuko and Taiko. Historically, the Island of Tunna, later known as
Taiko, was ceded by the John Dynasty to Amaro in 1895 due to the implementation of the
Treaty of Shinseki. The treaty resulted in Amaro gaining control over the Island of Tunna.
However, in 1949, a civil war broke out in Cuko between the Republic of Cuko ("ROC"),
which overthrew the John Dynasty, and the Cuko Communist Party ("CCP"), and Duran
declared the creation of the Communist Republic of Cuko on October 1, 1949. As the ROC did
not have the power to fight back, they were displaced to Taiko and exercised their jurisdiction
over Taiko. Since then, Cuko and Taiko have been ruled by two different governments.

To this extent, in General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI), the United Nations recognized
Cuko as the only lawful representative of Cuko to the United Nations. Additionally, the United
Nations decided to expel the representative of the leader of Taiko from the place they
unlawfully occupied at the United Nations and all related organizations. On the other hand,
Taiko still needs to become a member of the United Nations. However, they have diplomatic
relations with 12 members of the United Nations.

Cuko's planes have been spotted on several occasions crossing the air defense zone of Taiko.
Recently, in 2023, CUKO's jet planes were spotted flying over Taiko's air defense zone.
According to Taiko's Defense Minister, the jets flew across Taiko's defense zone to the
southeast of Taiko and the western Pacific to perform air surveillance and long-distance
navigation training. In connection with the aforementioned facts, Taiko's military database
states that Cuko has deployed 1,727 planes into Taiko's air defense identification zone
("ADIZ"). This total number is double compared to the data in 2021 and 2020, which recorded
960 and 360 incursions, respectively.

In response, CUKO claimed that they are the only legitimate government of Cuko and have the
right to exercise their jurisdiction over Taiko's territory. In connection with this, Taiko's
Government has also threatened CUKO's national security by asserting that Taiko's
Government is in rebellion.

In reply to CUKO's claim, the Government of Taiko stated that Taiko was not part of CUKO.
In 1895, through the enactment of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Island of Formosa was ceded
by the Qing Dynasty to Japan. This led to Taiko no longer being part of the ROC and its
successor, CUKO. Additionally, the Taiko government insisted that CUKO recognize Taiko as
an independent country and no longer regard it as a rebellion.

Therefore, due to this contentious argument, negotiations will take place between CUKO and
Taiko. During these negotiations, Taiko will request CUKO to: 1) Recognize Taiko as a
legitimate country, and 2) Respect Taiko's territory and national sovereignty. On the other
hand, CUKO will request Taiko to: 1) Recognize only the Government of the Republic of Cuko
as their legitimate government and abide by the laws, and 2) Cease any diplomatic relations
that have been established or are ongoing with any nation.
 CASE 10 : NUCLEAR DEAL
(Owaro v. Utimago)

Amid the 1970s, the Republic of Owaro ("Owaro") launched a nuclear energy program.
Between 1974 and 1998, the University of Owaro conducted extensive nuclear research and
education, as the country aimed to produce 23,000 megawatts of electrical power from nuclear
power stations within twenty years. However, during the same period, Owaro signed the Non-
Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"), which came into force in March 1970, making it one of the most
important international agreements regarding nuclear weapons. As of 2020, the NPT has 190
signatories, according to recent updates.

In 2015, the five permanent UN Security Council members, also known as the P5, reached an
agreement with Owaro to limit their nuclear enrichment program, effective from January 2016.
This agreement is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In the initial
years of implementing the JCPOA, Owaro complied with the agreement. However, due to a
severe recession, currency depreciation, and inflation in recent years, and following the killing
of General Abut by an Owaroian General in January 2020, Owaro no longer adheres to the
limits on Uranium Enrichment. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Owaro
has five locations for uranium and nuclear energy enrichment, research, and development,
namely Tolo, Bogo, Banso, Anso, and Donlo. In 2023, the IAEA requested information from
Owaro regarding their nuclear enrichment through a report titled "NPT Safeguards Agreement
with the Republic of Owaro." The report revealed the presence of highly enriched uranium
(HEU) particles containing up to 83.7% U-235, which exceeds the enrichment level of HEU
produced at FFEP. Additionally, Owaro provided explanations and additional data regarding
the presence of HEU particles. However, the Agency found inconsistencies between the facts
and the data provided by Owaro. Furthermore, the Agency confirmed the dissolution of 302.7
kg of natural uranium at the Uranium Facility (UCF), but identified a discrepancy compared to
the amount declared by Owaro. These activities have led to criticism from Utimago Allies,
such as Fank, Gusta, and the Ndoga, regarding Owaro's actions.

Utimago claims that the nuclear enrichment program is unquestionably a violation of the NPT,
which was agreed upon in 1968. Moreover, the development of nuclear power is seen as a
threat to global security. Therefore, the Utimago Government has imposed restrictions on
activities with Owaro and insists that they cease their nuclear program development.

In response to Utimago's claim, Owaro remains focused on national economic recovery, which
has been significantly affected by economic sanctions and the halt of the nuclear program in
2015. Additionally, Owaro asserts that the nuclear development is not intended for weapons
but rather for more efficient energy production, as originally proposed to generate 23,000
megawatts of electric power.

Therefore, in the upcoming negotiation between Owaro and Utimago, Owaro will request the
following from Utimago: 1) Lift the economic ban imposed on Owaro, and 2) Allow market
access for Owaro's national products in the international trading and financial system. On the
other hand, Utimago will request the following from Owaro: 1) Halt the nuclear enrichment
program, and 2) Comply with the previously agreed-upon Agreement regarding the nuclear
enrichment program.