Applicant Memo

TEAM CODE: GLC - 13
INTER – COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETION - 2024
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE
THE CASE CONCERING THE RIGHTS OF GULDASTHA
THE REPUBLIC OF DURRANISTAN - THE APPLICANT STATE
VS
THE REBULIC OF GANARAJYA - THE RESPODENT STATE
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

INTER - COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION - JANUARY 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………… 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………. 4
A. BOOKS REFERRED
B. TREATISES AND CONVENTIONS
C. ARTICLES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………… 14
STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………… 16
ISSUES RAISED
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ..………………………………………………………… 18
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………….. 30
2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AP I Additional Protocol I (one)
Art. Article
CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
CAF Canciferous Armed Force
GC Geneva Conventions
ICC International Criminal Court
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Right
ICJ International Court of Justice
Icr.JS International Criminal of Justice System
ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
IHL International Humanitarian law
IL International Law
ILC International Law Commission
ILS International Legal system
MDF Monstera Defence Force
Para Paragraph
UN United Nations
UNGAR United Nations General Assembly Resolution
UNSC United Nations Security Council
3|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT CASES
1. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), (1995) 102 I.C.J. Rep. 90
2. Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited
(Belgium v. Spain), (1970) 304 I.C.J.
3. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Second Phase) 2 February 1973.
4. United Kingdom v. Iceland, (1974) 162 I.C.J. Rep. 3.
5. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic , (2000) ¶ 521 Case No. IT-95-16-T.
6. Blaskic Case, IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000
7. Kordić & Čerkez Case, July 18 2008.
8. Abella v. Argentina, (1997) Case No 11.137 Report No 55/97
9. Palestinian Territory Case, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004.
10. Sergio Euben Lopez Burgos v. Uruguay, (1981) U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/36/40)
at176 (1981).
11. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
12. The Nicaragua Case.
13. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), (1949) 15 XII 49. [hereinafter
Corfu Channel Case]
4|Page
14. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in
Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22)
15. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), 1978 I.C.J. 3 (Dec. 19) .
16. Appeal Related to the Jurisdiction of the I.C.A.O. Council (India v. Pakistan), 1972
I.C.J. (Aug. 18)
17. Asylum Case (Colom. v. Peru), (Merits) 1950 I.C.J. 266 (Nov. 20)
18. Case Concerning Armed Activities of the Territory of Congo (Demr. Rep. of Congo v.
Ugd.), 2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19)
19. Case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burk. Faso v. Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 554 (Dec. 22)
20. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), (Merits) 1962
I.C.J. Rep. 6 (June 15)
21. Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9)
22. Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nica.), (Judgment)
2009 I.C.J. 213 (July 13)
23. Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25)
24. Gabcikovo - Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9)
25. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Camr. v. Nig.: Eq.
Guinea intervening), (Judgment) 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10)
26. Land, Island and Maritime Dispute Case (El Sal. v. Hond.), (Merits) 1992 I.C.J. 351
(Sept.11)
27. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia
(South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971
I.C.J. 16 (June 21).
28. Advisory Opinion No. 22, Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, 1932 .
5|Page
29. Advisory Opinion No. 23, Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish
Origin or Speech in Danzig Territory, 1932 P.C.I.J. 4 (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4)
30. Advisory Opinion No. 6, Settlers of German Origin in Poland, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B)
No. 6 (Sept. 10)
31. Case Concerning Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J.
(A/B)No. 53 (Apr. 5)
32. Case Concerning the Adaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions 1925
P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 11 (Mar. 26)
33. Chorzow Factory Case (Germ. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A), No. 17 at 47 (Sept. 13)
34. German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. 19 (ser. A) No.
6 (Aug. 25)
35. Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory (U.K. v. Fr.), 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser.
A/B) No. 49 (Aug. 11)
36. Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14)
37. Advent Systems Ltd v Unisys Corp, 925 F. 2d 670 at II; and St Albans DC v
International Computers [1997] F.S.R. 251
38. Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. the
United Mexican States, Judgment, ICSID Tribunal, Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05, (2007).
39. Case concerning the Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 between the United
States of America and France, United Nations, R.I.A.A., vol. XVIII, (1978)
40. Case Concerning the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal) 1991
41. Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, E.Ct.H.R., 25781/94, (2001)
42. Eng St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd [1996] 4 All
ER 481 (QB)
43. Guyana v Suriname Arbitration, Award, 47 I.L.M.

6|Page
44. Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire, A.C.H.P.R., Comm. No. 75/92, 256 (1995).
45. Naulilaa (Responsibility of Germany for damage caused in the Portuguese colonies in
the south of Africa), UNRIAA, vol. II, 1011 (1928)
46. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, E.C.R., I-3655, Case C-162/96 (1998)
47. Rainbow Warrior case (New Zealand, France), Award of 30 April 1990,
48. Southwark LBC v IBM UK Ltd (2011) E.W.H.C., 549, (TCC)
49. United States Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon
Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WTO Appellate Body Report, WT/DS202/AB/R, (2002)
50. United States Subsidies on Upland Cotton, Recourse to Arbitration by the United States
under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, WTO, Case
No. WT/DS267/ARB/1, (2009)
51. United States—Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan, WTO Appellate Body, WT/DS192/AB/R, (2001).
ADVISORY OPINION
1. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, (1975) 31-33 I.C.J. Rep. 12
2. Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, (2004) 136 I.C.J. Rep. 9 July 2004. [herein after
Palestinian Territory Case]
3. Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, supra note 90, at ¶ 25.
7|Page
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
1. Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed. 2005).
2. International Law Commission Yearbook 247 (vol. 2 1966).
3. B.A. Wortley, The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries
185(1965).
4. H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law, (1961)
5. T.J. Lawrence, The Principles of International Law.
6. L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, 8th Ed., pp.305.
7. Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The principle of Non-Intervention, the United nations and
the International System, Vol. 15, pp.212.
8. Dr S.K. Kapoor, International law and Human Rights, 16th Ed.
9. Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflicts (1954), pp.254.
10. The Responsibility to Protect. Supplementary Volume to the Report of the
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, December 2001.
11. Avery Davis-Roberts and David J. Carroll, Using International Law to Assess
Elections, Oxford University Press, 2012.
12. W. Michael Reisman, „Humanitarian Intervention and Fledgling Democracies‟, 18
Fordham Int. L.J. 794, 795 (1995).
13. Feller E. Tark, Refugee Protection In International Law, UNHCR Global
Consultationson International Protection, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
14. UNHCR, Handbook on Criteria and Procedures Determining the status of
Refugees,Geneva 1979.
8|Page
15. Hathaway J.C, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, Cambridge
UniversityPress, 2005.
16. Allott, State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law, 29 HARV. INT'L
L. J. 1, 10 (1988)
17. Angelika Nußberger, South Ossetia, 9 Max Planck Encyclopaedia of INT’L. L. 487
(2012) 17
18. Antonello Tancredi, Secession and Use of Force, Self Determination and Secession in
International Law 79 (2014)
19. Arie E. David, The Strategy of Treaty Termination, 24 Am. J .Comp. L. 350 (1976); J
20. Brierly, The Law of Nations 256 (1955)
21. Borchard, Responsibility of States, 24 AM. J. INT’L L. 517 (1930)
22. Christian Tomuschat, Secession and Self-Determination, Secession, International Law
Perspectives 27 (2006)
23. Crawford, Bodeau, I.L.C.'s Draft Articles on State Responsibility: Towards
Completion of a Second Reading, 94 AM. J. INT’L L. 637, 660 (2000)
24. Crawford, Revising the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, 10 EUR. J. INT'L L.
435, 500 (1999)
25. Fitzmaurice, First Report on the Law of Treaties, 1 Y.I.L.C 93-94 (1956)
26. Fitzmaurice, The General Principles of International Law Considered from the
Standpoint of the Rule of Law, 92 Recueil des Cours (1957)
27. Gyorgy Haraszti, Treaties and Fundamental Change of Circumstances, 146 RECUEIL
DES COURS (1975)
28. International Commission of Jurists, Report of the International Commission of
Jurists
9|Page
29. Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of giving an
Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aaland Islands Question, 1 League
of Nations O.J. Spec. Supp. 3, 5635 (1920)
30. J. Garner, The Doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination of Treaties,
21AM. J.INT'L L. 409 (1927)
31. James Crawford, State Practice and International Law in Relation to Secession, 69
B.Y.B.I.L. 114 (1998)
32. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, 12 INT’L COMP. L.
Q 1051 (1963) .
33. Anderson G, Secession in International Law and Relations: What Are We Talking
About?, Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. (2013)
34. Aust A., Treaties, Termination, M.P.E.P.I.L. , (2006).
35. Comment, The Use of Nonviolent Coercion: A Study in Legality under Article 2(4) of
the Charter of the United Nations, 122 U. PA.L. Rev., 983, 986 (1974)
36. Crawford, J., Olleson, S., The Exception of Non-Performance: Links between the
Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility (2001) A.Y.I.L.
37. de Luca, A., Soviet- American Politics and the Turkish Straits, 92 Political Sci. Q.,
Vol. 92, (1977)
38. Green S., Saidov D., Software as Goods, J. Bus. L. 161-181 (2007)
39. Hilpold, P., The Kosovo Case and International Law: Looking for Applicable
Theories, CHINESE J. INT`L L.,Vol. 8, 46, 55 (2009)
40. Quane, H., The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self determination, 47 Int'L
& Comp. L.Q. (1998)
41. Roscini, M., Threats of Armed Force and Contemporary International Law, 54 Neth.
Int’L L. Rev. (2007).

10 | P a g e
42. Scharf, M., Earned Sovereignty: Juridical Underpinnings, DENV. J. INT’L L. &
POL’Y (2003)
43. Vidmar, J., South Sudan and the International Legal Framework Governing
the Emergence and Delimitation of New States, TEXAS J. INT’L L., Vol. 6, 19, 21.
TREATIES AND CONVENTION
1. The United Nations Charter, 1945
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16,
1966
4. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948.
5. The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic
setup in BoLR (ARSDB)
6. UN Security Resolution 47, Kashmir
7. The Geneva Conventions of 1949.
8. Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,1969
9. Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933
10. ICJ Statute
11. The Constitution of India 1950
12. The constitution of Jammu and Kashmir 1956
11 | P a g e
RESOLUTIONS
1. GA Res. 421(V), Draft International Covenant on Human Rights and Measures of
Implementation, December 4, 1950, A/RES/421.
2. The General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX), Declaration on the Inadmissibility of
Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their
Independence and Sovereignty: A/RES/20/2131 (21 December 1965).
[hereinafter Res. 2131]
3. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, decided: „States to Refrain
from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved
in terrorist acts, eliminating the supply of weapons.‟: S/RES/1373 (28 September
2001).
4. UNSC Resolution 1267, The Council authorized an International Security Assistance
Force in to provide a secure environment for Political and Economic Reconstruction
of Afghanistan. Currently led by NATO forces, ISAF continues to fight Taliban
Forces. October 15, 1999, S/RES/1267.
5. UNSC Resolution 1244, Established the (UNMIK), authorizing an International Civil
and Military presence in Kosovo, June 10, 1999, S/RES/1244.
6. UN Security Council Resolution 1484, The Council authorized European Union
forces to end violence in Eastern Regions of DRC in 2003, May 30, 2003,
S/RES/1484.
7. UN SC Res. 1373, on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist
acts. September 28, 2001, S/RES/1373.
8. General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24th October, 1970.

12 | P a g e
9. General Assembly resolution 44/146 (15 December 1989).
10. SC Res. 163 (XVI), Question Relating to Angola, June 9, 1961, S/4835 (1961).
13 | P a g e
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Applicant humbly submits that the jurisdiction of the Honourable international court of
justice is invoked under Article 36
ARTICLE 36(2)
The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as
compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting
the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:
a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an
international obligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international
obligation.
ARTICLE 36(6)
In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled
by the decision of the Court.
14 | P a g e
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE – 1
WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS A JURISDICTION
TO ENTERTAIN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RUBLIC OF DURRANISTAN AND
THE REPUBLIC OF GANARAJYA FOR THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMITTED BY THE LATTER IN GULDASTHA ?
ISSUE – 2
WHETHER THE UNILATERAL DECISION TAKEN BY THE RUBULIC OF
GANARAJYA IN ALTERING THE STATUS OF GULDASTHA THROUGH
MUNICIPAL LAWS IS THE VIOLATION OF INTERNATION LAW OBLIGATIONS
AND ALSO AFFECTS THE RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION OF THE PEOPLE
OF GULDASTHA?
ISSUE – 3
WHETHER THE GULDASTHA REGION CAN EFFECTIVELY EXERCISE THEIR
RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF THE
INDEPENDENT REFERENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW?
15 | P a g e
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Republic of Ganarajya (hereinafter called as ‘Ganarajya State’) is a country in South Asia
and the seventh largest country by area consisting of two sects- the majority Swahili sect and the
minority Halami sect. It is also the most populous country and is celebrated as the world's most
populous democracy. It shares its land borders with the Republic of Durranistan (hereinafter called
as ‘Durranistan State’) to the west which is a Halami majority country, formerly a part of
Ganarajya State, then Hinaya and Namphal and Dakota States to the north; Azakistan and Gayana
States to the east.
Ganarajya State gains independence from British rule. Riots between

1947
Swahili and Halami sects lead to demands for a separate Halami nation.
Guldastha, known for its beauty, holds Swahili, Halami, and Buddhist
1947
regions. It's vital for both Ganarajya and Durranistan due to resources and
Guldastha's
strategic significance.
Status
Ruler signs Guldastha's accession to Ganarajya; conflict ensues, ending in

1947
a ceasefire establishing LoC.
Guldastha's
Accession
Ganarajya adopts Article 370, granting Guldastha autonomy. Later, Article

1950
35A gives Guldastha's residents special rights.
Constitutional
Aspect
16 | P a g e
UN intervenes, recommending a plebiscite; Durranistan rejects. Both

1974 nations breach LoC occasionally.
Tensions rise; violent clashes occur between Swahili and Halami sects.
1980
Guldastha demands self-determination; international support for
independence grows.
Ganarajya revokes Article 370, bifurcates Guldastha into Union

2019
Territories. Protests erupt; demand for independence and referendum
surfaces.
Ganarajya's actions led to increased militarization, human rights abuses,
and a breakdown in diplomatic relations with Durranistan. Efforts for

CURRENT
peace and intervention failed. Ganarajya's Supreme Court validates Article
SITUATION
370 abrogation, dismissing petitions. Durranistan seeks intervention from
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against human rights violations, the
unilateral abrogation of Article 370, and demands an independent
referendum in Guldastha in line with international principles.
17 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE – 1: WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS A
JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RUBLIC OF
DURRANISTAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF GANARAJYA FOR THE VIOLATION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTED BY THE LATTER IN GULDASTHA?
The applicant humbly submits before the honourable court that International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in addressing human rights violations in Guldastha has jurisdiction. As per Article 3 of
the UDHR emphasizes everyone's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
ISSUE – 2: WHETHER THE UNILATERAL DECISION TAKEN BY THE RUBULIC
OF GANARAJYA IN ALTERING THE STATUS OF GULDASTHA THROUGH
OF GULDASTHA?
(ICJ) that the people of Guldastha has the right to Self - determination and the unilateral
decision taken the republic of Ganarajya is a serious violation of international principles.
18 | P a g e
ISSUE – 3: WHETHER THE GULDASTHA REGION CAN EFFECTIVELY
EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION THROUGH THE
CONDUCT OF THE INDEPENDENT REFERENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?
(ICJ) that the Guldasthan is non- Self-governing territory and the people of the Guldasthan
wants to conduct of independent referendum and wants their nation free from Ganarajya.
Despite being as a member in the United Nations the Ganarajya violated several laws which
was obligated to all the members of the United Nations.
19 | P a g e
PLEADINGS
THE CASE IS ADMISSIBLE IN INTERNATINAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1) ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS A

JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE RUBLIC OF
DURRANISTAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF GANARAJYA FOR THE
VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTED BY THE LATTER IN
GULDASTHA?
The Applicant humbly submits before the Honourable Court that International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in addressing human rights violations in Guldastha has jurisdiction.
1.1. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION
1.1.1. Under Article IX of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in Time of War (hereinafter referred to “Convention”) 1, disputes relating to the
interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Convention, including matters
concerning human rights violations amounting to genocide, can be referred to the ICJ,
regardless of the consent of the parties involved. As per para 11 2 of the moot proposition
the republic of Ganarajya committed Human Rights violation.
1
Article 9, Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,”The present Convention
shall be applied with the cooperation and under the scrutiny of the Protecting Powers whose duty it is to safeguard
the interests of the Parties to the conflict. For this purpose, the Protecting Powers may appoint, apart from their
diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of other neutral Powers.
The said delegates shall be subject to the approval of the Power with which they are to carry out their duties. The
Parties to the conflict shall facilitate to the greatest extent possible the task of the representatives or delegates of
the Protecting Powers. The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers shall not in any case exceed their
mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of
security of the State wherein they carry out their duties.”
2 Accordingly, anticipating intense reactions and citing the perseveration of law and order, the Ganarajya
Government mobilized large numbers of military personnel into the region. Communication systems such as the
internet were cut off leading to violation of basic human rights, such as accessing services, education, etc. News
agencies were curfewed and the entire region was kept under lockdown, ultimately resulting in grave suppression
of the fundamental rights of the people of Guldastha.
20 | P a g e
1.1.2. Further, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which establishes
universal standards for human rights. Article 3 of the UDHR emphasizes everyone's
right to life, liberty, and security of person, while Article 5 prohibits torture and cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Alleged violations of these rights in
Guldastha could be argued as falling within the ICJ's jurisdiction as part of the global
commitment to upholding human rights.
1.1.3. Additionally, contend that customary international law recognizes the ICJ's jurisdiction
in cases of serious human rights violations that shock the conscience of humanity, even
without the explicit consent of the parties involved. The egregiousness of human rights
abuses alleged in Guldastha has invoking the principle of "erga omnes" obligations to
protect fundamental human rights.
1.1.4. In recent years, the focus of the UN has again turned to Guldastha, albeit due to the
human right concerns rather than engaging in any effort to uphold the principle of self-
determination. Since 1989, a medium-intensity insurgency has raged in Ganaraja
Administered Guldastha, triggered in large part by desires for greater self-
determination and Guldastha frustration over Ganarajya’s erosion of local autonomy 3.
1.1.5. This prompted the first significant UN action on Guldastha in decades, with the UN
Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) publishing a report identifying numerous human
rights abuses committed by the Ganarajya an Army during its efforts to crush the unrest
(OHCHR 2018). In response, the UNHRC simply stated it was ‘disappointed’ with
Ganarajya’s reaction to the report, with the General Assembly and Security Council
taking no action or making any comment.
1.2. JURISDICTION OF ICJ
1.2.1. The nature of the ICJ’s jurisdiction is twofold. One, it looks at disputes of a legal nature
submitted to it by countries. Two, it has an advisory jurisdiction, where the ICJ may
give an advisory opinion on legal questions at the request of the various organs of the
UN, specialised agencies or organisations authorised to make such requests.
3 the-Case-of-UN-Involvement-in-Jammu-and-Kashmir
21 | P a g e
1.3. COMPULSORY JURISDICTION OF ICJ:
1.3.1. Some countries recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory by filing a
declaration. Ganarajya and Durranistan have filed these declarations in 1974 and 2017,
respectively. Filing such a declaration means that the concerned country (which
acknowledges the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ) has the right to move the ICJ
against any other country, which also accepts the same obligation, by filing an
application instituting proceedings with the ICJ.
1.4. DISPUTE RELATED TO ICJ JURISDICTION
1.4.1. In case there is a dispute related to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, the matter is settled by the
decision of the ICJ itself guided by provisions given under Article 36 4 of the statute.
The purpose of the statute is to “organise the composition and functioning of the court”.
Therefore, the counsel of Applicant Humble submit before the Honourable court that the
situation in Guldastha represents a matter of international concern, transcending purely
domestic issues.
As such, it would fall within the purview of the ICJ's mandate to adjudicate disputes that have
significant implications for international peace and security, citing Article 38 5 of the ICJ
Statute, which outlines the court's jurisdiction over legal disputes between states. So, the
international court of justice has jurisdiction over the dispute between republic of Ganarajya
and republic of Durranistan.
4 Article 36(2), The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory
ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the
jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:
a. the interpretation of a treaty;
b. any question of international law;
c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
Article 36(6), “In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled
by the decision of the Court.”
5 The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with intemational law such disputes as are submitted to it,
shall apply: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized
by the contesting States; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as· law; (c) the
general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial
decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists .of the various nations, as subsidiary means for
the determination of rules of law
22 | P a g e
ISSUE – 2: WHETHER THE UNILATERAL DECISION TAKEN BY THE RUBULIC

OF GANARAJYA IN ALTERING THE STATUS OF GULDASTHA THROUGH
OF GULDASTHA?
The applicant humbly submits before the honourable court that the Unilateral decision Taken
by the Republic of Ganarajya is a serious violation of international obligation and it also affect
the self determination of the people of Guldastha.
2.1. JUSTIFICATION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT TO SELF-

DETERMINATION:
2.1.1. The right of all peoples to self-determination is one of the core principles of
international law and, by virtue of its erga omnes status, it is the responsibility of all
states to ensure that this right is realised.
2.1.2. Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own
destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status
and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development.
2.1.3. In the opening chapter of the UN Charter, respect for the right to self-determination of
peoples is presented as one of the purposes of the United Nations, and lays upon state
parties the obligation to promote and to respect it.
2.2. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
2.2.1. Article 1 is ‘The Purposes of the United Nations’6. This right embodies what is called
as external Self-determination which concerns the international status of people. It can
6
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
23 | P a g e
be summarised as the recognition that each person has the right to constitute itself into
a nation state or to integrate into or federate with an existing state.
2.2.2. In another interpretation, right to Self-determination means what is called internal self-
determination which is the right of the people to freely choose their political, economic
and social system.
2.2.3. This is the right of people to self-determination once they have achieved statehood or
state like formation. It basically means that other states should not through appeals or
pressure, seek to prevent a person from freely selecting its own Political, economic or
social system.
2.3. CRITERIA FOR THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
2.3.1. People can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either
(1) established a sovereign and independent state;
(2) freely associated with another state or
(3) integrated with another state after freely having expressed their will to do so.
The definition of realisation of self-determination was confirmed in the Declaration of

Friendly Relations.
2.4. SELF DETERMINATION AS A RIGHT NOT A PRINCIPLE:
2.4.1. Right of self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other

human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or
cultural. Once people have achieved state or statehood, they can exercise this right.
2.4.2. Resolution 122 in January 1957, which expressed the UN’s frustration with the lack of
progress and restated its position that the future of Guldastha could only be decided by
a free and fair plebiscite (S/RES/122). However, the UN remained unwilling to force
the issue by imposing sanctions or other measures that would undermine state
sovereignty7.
7
the-Case-of-UN-Involvement-in-Jammu-and-Kashmir
24 | P a g e
Therefore, from the above arguments it clearly states that the people of Guldastha has the right
to Self determination and the unilateral decision taken the republic of Ganarajya is a serious
violation of International principles.
25 | P a g e
ISSUE – 3: WHETHER THE GULDASTHA REGION CAN EFFECTIVELY

EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION THROUGH THE
CONDUCT OF THE INDEPENDENT REFERENDUM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?
The counsel on behalf of the applicant humbly submits before the Honourable Court that
Guldastha region can effectively exercise their right to self determination through the conduct
of the independent referendum in accordance with the rules of international law.
3.1. VIOLATION OF INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION
3.1.1. Indeed yes, the Guldastha region can exercise their right to self-determination as per
the way they want. Under the instrument of accession,1947 there is no provision
mentioned and gives no authority to the dominion country to act unilaterally and take
decisions on their own.
3.1.2. As per the given statement of facts it is clearly known that the people of Guldasthan
region is extremely unhappy and started protest for the act of Ganarajya, the people in
the state wants Guldastha as a separate state and it is people majority decision should
be finalized instead of misusing the power as dominion.
3.1.3. In the instrument of accession ,1947 which was signed by the ruler of Guldastha region
and state of Ganarajya it is clearly mentioned in para 6 8 and Para 79.
3.1.4. The above mentioned para itself clearly mentions about the unlawful act by the state
of Ganarajya, the state of Ganarajya uses its power for the political benefit and tries to
encroach the area of Guldasthan by repelling article 35A and article 370, due to the
abrogated of the articles the Guldasthan region will also be considered as state of
8 “ nothing in this instrument shall empower the dominion legislature to make any law for this state authorizing
the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose but I hereby undertake that should the dominion for the
purpose of a dominion law which applies in this state deem it necessary to acquire any land , I will at their request
acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms may be agreed,
or,in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the chief justice of ganarajya ”
9
“ nothing in this instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution
of ganarajya or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the government of ganarajya under any
such future constitution.”
26 | P a g e
Ganarajya and the people of Guldasthan will be the citizen of the Ganarajya is the
important factor which the people are opposing and every law which is implemented
or which will be implemented in the future will be applied in the Guldasthan region
which is totally not accepted as per the instrument of accession ,1947.
3.2. VIOLATION OF CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS
3.2.1. According to sec 1 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations, “To develop friendly
relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;”.
3.2.2. This indicates that the region of Guldastha and its people can effectively exercise the
right t o self-determination and its an obligation on the state to respect it.
3.3. VIOLTION OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL

RIGHTS
3.3.1. According to Article 1(1) of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, it
is stated that “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development”.
3.4. VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL

AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
3.4.1. According to Article 1 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights,
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development.
2. “All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and
resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic
27 | P a g e
co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no
case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for
the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the
realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity
with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations
3.5. VIOLATION OF DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO-OPERATION AMONG STATES
3.5.1. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, it is also mentioned that “Every
State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred
to in the elaboration of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of their right
to self-determination and freedom and independence”
3.6. VIOLATION OF PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL 1 TO THE GENEVA

CONVENTIONS
3.6.1. According to Article 1(4) of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, wherein
it states that the situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts
in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and
against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined
in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International
Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.
3.7. KOSOVO ADVISORY OPINION (2010)
3.7.1. Similar opinions have been reiterated in Kosovo Advisory Opinion as “The ICJ
rendered an advisory opinion regarding the declaration of independence by Kosovo in
2008. While the opinion didn’t specifically address the legality of Kosovo's
28 | P a g e
independence, it affirmed the principle of self-determination as a guiding principle in

international law, especially in cases involving separatist movements”.
3.8. PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
3.8.1. In the case of Portugal v Australia which happened in the same forum it clearly stated
that if the territory of East Timor remained a non-self-governing territory and its people
had the right to self-determination, but considered that the resolutions could not be
regarded as “givens” constituting a sufficient basis for determining the dispute between
the Parties.
3.8.2. Connecting to this case here the Guldasthan is non-self governing territory and the
people of the Guldasthan wants to conduct of independent referendum and wants their
nation free from Ganarajya.Despite being as a member in the united nations the
Ganarajya violated severals laws which was obligated to all the members of the united
nations as mentioned in the above paragraphs, this shows their level of respect which
they have towards united nations.
29 | P a g e
PRAYERS
1. In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and the authorities citied, The Applicant
counsel respectfully requests this court to declare that the international court of Justice have
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the republic of Durranistan and the Republic of
Ganarajya.
2. In the light of the above, the Applicant requests this court to declare that the unilateral
decision taken by the Republic of Guldastha is violative of International Obligation.
3. In the light of the above, the Applicant requests this court to declare that the Guldastha
people have the Right to Self Determination.
On Behalf of Applicant
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT
30 | P a g e

Applicant Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applicant Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: GLC - 13

INTER – COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETION - 2024

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE

THE CASE CONCERING THE RIGHTS OF GULDASTHA

THE REPUBLIC OF DURRANISTAN - THE APPLICANT STATE

THE REBULIC OF GANARAJYA - THE RESPODENT STATE

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT

B. TREATISES AND CONVENTIONS

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………… 16

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ..………………………………………………………… 18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………….. 30

CAF Canciferous Armed Force

ICC International Criminal Court

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Right

ICJ International Court of Justice

Icr.JS International Criminal of Justice System

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

IHL International Humanitarian law

ILC International Law Commission

ILS International Legal system

MDF Monstera Defence Force

UNGAR United Nations General Assembly Resolution

UNSC United Nations Security Council

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT CASES

(Belgium v. Spain), (1970) 304 I.C.J.

3. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Second Phase) 2 February 1973.

4. United Kingdom v. Iceland, (1974) 162 I.C.J. Rep. 3.

5. Prosecutor v. Kupreskic , (2000) ¶ 521 Case No. IT-95-16-T.

6. Blaskic Case, IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000

7. Kordić & Čerkez Case, July 18 2008.

8. Abella v. Argentina, (1997) Case No 11.137 Report No 55/97

9. Palestinian Territory Case, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004.

States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).

12. The Nicaragua Case.

Corfu Channel Case]

14. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in

Respect of Kosovo, 2010 I.C.J. 141 (July 22)

I.C.J. (Aug. 18)

Ugd.), 2005 I.C.J. 168 (Dec. 19)

I.C.J. Rep. 6 (June 15)

21. Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), (Merits) 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9)

2009 I.C.J. 213 (July 13)

23. Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25)

24. Gabcikovo - Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slov.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Apr. 9)

Guinea intervening), (Judgment) 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10)

I.C.J. 16 (June 21).

No. 6 (Sept. 10)

P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 11 (Mar. 26)

A/B) No. 49 (Aug. 11)

International Computers [1997] F.S.R. 251

41. Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment, E.Ct.H.R., 25781/94, (2001)

43. Guyana v Suriname Arbitration, Award, 47 I.L.M.

the south of Africa), UNRIAA, vol. II, 1011 (1928)

48. Southwark LBC v IBM UK Ltd (2011) E.W.H.C., 549, (TCC)

No. WT/DS267/ARB/1, (2009)

51. United States—Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from

Pakistan, WTO Appellate Body, WT/DS192/AB/R, (2001).

1. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, (1975) 31-33 I.C.J. Rep. 12

2. Advisory Opinion Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the

Palestinian Territory Case]

3. Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, supra note 90, at ¶ 25.