218A

218A
IN THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE PEACE PALACE
THE HAGUE
THE NETHERLANDS
2024 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition
THE CASE CONCERNING THE STERREN FORTY
REPUBLIC OF ANTRANO
APPLICANT
v.
THE KINGDOM OF REMISIA
RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for the APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................x
QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................................................................................xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................xii
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..................................................................................................xvi
PLEADINGS..................................................................................................................................1
I.Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of

nationality of its citizens before the Court..................................................................................1
A. Antrano can invoke the international responsibility of Remisia for breach of its
obligations held erga omnes partes.............................................................................................1
1. Antrano is acting in the collective interest of the parties under the CRS.........................2
2. As per the object and purpose of the CRS, its obligations have erga omnes partes
character...................................................................................................................................3
B. Antrano asserts legal interest in the matter of deprivation of the Sterren Forty...................4
1. Arguendo legal interest in the matter of deprivation of the Sterren Forty is not a
prerequisite for standing before this Court...............................................................................4
2. Antrano is not required to suffer any injury to have standing before this Court..................5
C. There is an existence of a dispute between the States............................................................6
II. Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty”, rendering them stateless, is
a violation of international law.....................................................................................................7
A. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty is arbitrary..................................................................8
1. The deprivation of the ‘Sterren Forty’ does not comply with the international standards of
deprivation................................................................................................................................9
i
i. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty does not serve a legitimate purpose........................9
b. Even if Remisia is to charge the Sterren Forty for any offence, the offence cannot be
of a general nature..............................................................................................................10
ii. The deprivation by Remisia is not the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the
aim pursued by the State.....................................................................................................11
iii. Remisia has disregarded the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness..........................11
2. The ‘Sterren Forty’ are not citizens of any other nations, thus rendering them stateless is
arbitrary..................................................................................................................................12
C. The declaration made under Article 8(3) by Remisia on CSR is inconsistent with the object
and purpose of the Treaty...........................................................................................................13
1. Antrano has objected to the reservation made by Remisia.............................................13
2. The reservation does not apply between Antrano and Remisia......................................14
D. Remisia conducted the deprivation of the Sterren Forty under political grounds.................15
1. The Sterren Forty have the right to freedom of expression and opinion........................15
2. The Sterren Forty have the right to peaceful assembly......................................................16
E. Remisia violated other rules of conventional and customary international law....................16
1. Remisia cannot invoke its internal law as an excuse for a failure to comply with
international obligations.........................................................................................................17
2. There is lack of widespread state practice in Remisia to apply the DCA for the
deprivation of the Sterren Forty.............................................................................................17
3. The principle of non-retrogression prevents Remisia from entering into commercial

agreements that prevent it from fulfilling its other conventional obligations........................18
III.Antrano did not violate international law when it did not provide Remisian consular
access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano........................................18
A. Antranan law does not recognize the purchased citizenship of Ms. Saki Shaw.................19
1. The doctrine of real and effective nationality denotes the Molvanian nationality as the
effective nationality................................................................................................................19
ii
B. Antrano has abided by international law in providing consular access as per Article 36 of
Vienna Convention on Consular Relation (VCCR)...................................................................20
1. Antrano was obligated to treat Ms. Shaw as having only one nationality as per Hague
Convention on Nationality.....................................................................................................20
2. Antrano has provided Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw under VCCR...............21
i. Antrano has fulfilled its international obligation owed under VCCR.........................21
ii. Antrano has fulfilled the purpose of consular access guaranteeing Ms. Shaw's rights.. 22
iii. The right to consular access must be exercised in conformity with the laws of Antrano
as per Article 36(2) of the VCCR.......................................................................................23
IV. Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. Tulous Malex
entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997......................................24
A. Remisia is obliged to permit entry to Dr. Malex as per the obligation under CPI.............25
1. Dr. Malex is an expert within the meaning of Section 22 of the CPI.............................25
2. Dr. Tulous Malex should be admitted to Remisia as per the UN Certificate granted by
the UN....................................................................................................................................26
B. The Security Council Resolution 99997 has a binding effect............................................27
1. The language of the Resolution gives rise to a mandatory obligation to Remisia to

cooperate with the mission fully............................................................................................27
i. The adoption of Resolution 99997 was a result of the discussion of the UNSC.............28
ii. Resolution 99997 is adopted under Article 34 of the Charter provisions......................29
2. The decision to investigate under Resolution 99997 adopted as per Article 34 has
binding effects on Member States under Article 25...............................................................30
PRAYER OF RELIEF................................................................................................................33
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

American Convention on Human Rights, July 18,1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.. 8
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the ILC at its
53rd Sess., annexed to G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2001), Article 48(1)(a).......1
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI...........................................................passim
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946, 1 U.N.T.S.
15....................................................................................................................................25, 27, 28
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Dec.13, 1975, U.N.T.S. 989.................................3
CRS................................................................................................................................................15
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act with Commentaries,
adopted by the ILC at its 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001)............................................2, 3
Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, April 13,
1930, 179 L.N.T.S 89...........................................................................................................12, 21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 3..........................15, 16
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.............15
The European Convention on Nationality, Nov. 6, 1997, E.T.S. No. 166, 6.XI.1997....................8
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 596, U.N.T.S. 261...............22, 23, 24
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155, U.N.T.S. 331.......13, 15, 17, 23
ICJ. PCIJ CASES AND ADVISORY OPINIONS

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of
Kosovo Advisory Opinion, 2010, I.C.J. ,442, (July 22)............................................................28
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1989, I.C. J. vol, (Dec. 15)....................................25, 26
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2022 I.C.J. 477........................2, 5, 6
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 1970
I.C.J. 3 ¶ 34 (Feb. 5).....................................................................................................................4
Greco-Bulgarian Communities Advisory Opinion P.C.I.J. 1930, Series B no.17 at 32................18
iv
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory opinion 1950
(July 18).....................................................................................................................................23
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 2001, I.C.J. vol, 466, (June 27)....23
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion, 1970, I.C.J.
52-53, (June 21)..................................................................................................................27, 30
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3, (Aug. 30)...6
Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco Opinion, 1923, Advisory Opinion No. 4, PCIJ Series
B No. 4.......................................................................................................................................17
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Judgement, 1955, I.C. J., 4, (April 6)..........19, 20
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France, New Zealand v France) Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. (Dec. 20).......6
Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to
Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, 2016 I.C.J. (Oct. 5).....................................................................................................6
Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to
Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, 2016 I.C.J. 833 (Oct. 5)..............................................................................................6
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment,
2012, I.C.J. 422...............................................................................................................2, 3, 4, 5
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949,
I.C.J.174.......................................................................................................................................2
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion,1951 I.C.J. 19-51,15 (May 28). 4
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia),' Judgment, 2002, I.C.J.
4,(December 17, 2002)...............................................................................................................23
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
2007 I.C.J. (Dec. 13)....................................................................................................................6
Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
2007 I.C.J. 832 (Dec. 13).............................................................................................................6
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), 2014 I.C.J. ¶ 1 (March
31)................................................................................................................................................5
BOOKS, JOURNALS AND ARTICLES
v
ALFRED DE ZAYAS, BUILDING A JUST WORLD, (Clarity Press, 2021).........................................18
DAVID J. HARRIS ET AL., LAW OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,10-11, 2nd
ed., Oxford University Press, 2009......................................................................................14, 15
F. Shqarri, Reservations to Treaties, Prohibited Reservations and some Unsolved Issued Related
to Them, 6 MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF ROUTELEDGE HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 323-338 (2015)......................................................................................13
Gerard Conway, Ne Bis in Idem in International Law, 3 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
REVIEW, 217-244 (2003).........................................................................................................12
HANS KELSON, THE LAW OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ITS
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS, (George W. Keeton & Georg Shwarzenberge eds., 1st ed.
1950)..........................................................................................................................................30
Ian Hurd, The UN Security Council and the International Rule of Law, THE CHINESE JOURNAL
OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, 1, 4, (2014)................................................................................27
James Crawford, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law, 365 Recueil des
Cours in HAGUE ACADEMY POCKETBOOKS, ¶ 270 (2013)...............................................5
Johannes M. M. Chan, The Right to a Nationality as a Human Right: The Current Trend towards
Recognition, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL, 1991..........................................................9
JORUNN BRANDVOLL, DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY: LIMITATIONS ON
RENDERING PERSONS STATELESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, IN
NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, (Alice
Edwards and Laura Van Waas eds., 2014)................................................................................13
L. Bucken and R. de Groot, Deprivation of nationality under Article 8 (3) of the 1961
Convention on the reduction of statelessness, MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND
COMPARATIVE LAW 25(1), 38, 42 (2018)..................................................................................15
MARK E. VILLIGER, COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES (2009).......................................................................................................................18
Mark J. Kadish, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Search for the
Right to Consul, 18, Michigan Journal of International Law, 566, 569-570, (1997), (discusses
on Article 36 of the VCCR).......................................................................................................22
Pok Yin S. Chow, On Obligations Erga Omnes Partes, 52 GEO. J. INT’L L. 469, 496 (2021)....3
vi
ROSALYN HIGGINS ET AL., OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW, vol. 1, 515 London: Longman,
9th ed., 1992.................................................................................................................................2
Sabina Veneziano, The Right to Consular Notification: The Cultural Bridge to a Foreign
National's Due Process Rights, 49, GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 506,
(2018), (discussing on the interpretation of VCCR)..................................................................23
Shabtai Rosenne , Laws and Practice of the International Court (Martinus Nijhoff eds., 4th ed.
2006)............................................................................................................................................7
THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A COMMENTARY, VOLUME I, (Bruno
Simma et al. eds., 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2012).....................................25, 28, 29, 31
U.S. DEP'T OF STATES, CONSULAR NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS, (5th ed., 2018).......................22
UN DOCUMENTS
1994 U.N. Jurid. Y.B. U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/32...................................................................26
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Objections, Dec.13, 1975, U.N.T.S. 989............14
G.A. Res 46/59(1991)....................................................................................................................29
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948) Article 15..........9
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948)...........................7
G.A. Res. 3274 (XXIX), Dec. 10 1974...........................................................................................3
G.A. Res. 61/137, (Jan. 25, 2007)................................................................................................28
G.A. Res. 61/137, Dec. 19 2006......................................................................................................3
ICCPR, General Comment No.34, CCPR/C/GC/34, (2011)...................................................16, 17
James Crawford, First Report on State Responsibility, [1998], 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, U.N.
Doc. A/CN.4/490.........................................................................................................................4
Report of International Law commisison to the General Assembly, (A/73/10, para. 65), reprinted
in [2018] 2 Y.B Int'l L. Comm'n, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2018/Add.1(Part 2)...................18
Report of the International law Commission to the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/4843 (1961),
reprinted in [1963] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 92, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/141/ 1961........................22
S.C. Res. 15, (Dec. 19, 1946)........................................................................................................29
S.C. Res. 1559, (April 7, 2005).....................................................................................................29
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).................................................................................................30
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022)...............................................................................25, 27, 28, 29
vii
Summary Records and Documents of the First Session including the report of the Commission to
the General Assembly, [1949] Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 245, U.N. Doc. (A/CN.4/2,
A/CN.4/2/Add.1)........................................................................................................................17
U.N. DEP'T OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council,
Supp. 1989-1992, U.N. Doc. ST/PSCA/1/Add.11, U.N. Sales No. 05.VII.1............................28
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement on Israel's failure to grant visas for U.N.
Human Rights Staffs in the opt (August 30, 2022), U.N. Bulletin, XLV..................................26
U.N. Secretary-General, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, ¶ 4, U.N. Doc.
A/HRC/25/28 (Dec.19 2013).................................................................................................9, 10
U.N. Secretary-General, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, U.N. Doc.
A/HRC/13/34 (Dec.14 2009)...................................................................................................8, 9
U.N., Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, for Articles 104-105, Suppl. 8, Vol. VI,
(1989-1994)................................................................................................................................26
U.N., Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, for Articles 34, Vol. 2, (1945-1954)....30,
31
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961
statelessness Convention and Avoiding statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of
Nationality, March 2014.....................................................................................................passim
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No.5, U.N. Doc.
HCR/GS/20/05 (May 2020).......................................................................................8, 10, 11, 12
UN Secretary-General (UNSG), Guidance Note of the Secretary General: The United Nations
and Statelessness, 4 (November 2018)......................................................................................12
OTHER COURTS CASES

Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgement, 012/2015, African Court on
Human Rights and People’s Rights [Afr. Ct. H.P.R.] (March 22, 2018).....................................8
George Pinson case (France v. United Mexican States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards,
327-466......................................................................................................................................20
Kivenmaa v. Finland, CCPR/C/50/D/412/1990, HRC (1994)......................................................17
Mathinson case (Great Britain v. Venezuela), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, (Mixed
Claims Commission Great Britain-Venezula)...........................................................................20
viii
Mergé Case (United States v. Italy), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, (Italian-United
States Conciliation Commission)...............................................................................................20
Partial Award Civilian Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 & 27-32 (Eritrea/Ethiopia) Eritrea-
Ethiopia Claims Commission, XXVI, 374, 397–8 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1910)..................................8
Poplavny and Sudalenko v. Belarus CCPR/C/118/D/2139/2012 HRC, (2016)............................17
Strizhak v. Belarus, CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, HRC (2018)......................................................17
MISCELLANEOUS
Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ISI - Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a
Security Measure, 2020..........................................................................................................8, 12
Mezzera Mateo Verdías, Dominant and Effective Nationality, JUS MUNDI (Oct. 12, 2023),
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-dominant-and-effective-nationality...........20
U.N. Security Council, What is the Security Council?..................................................................30
UNRCCA, United Nations Security Council Resolutions (2020).................................................28
ix
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Republic of Antrano (“Antrano”) and the Kingdom of Remisia (“Remisia”) appear before
the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice through submission of a Special Agreement for resolution of the
differences between them concerning the Sterren Forty. Antrano and Remisia have referred the
dispute to the Court, granting it jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of the Statute. The Parties
concluded the Special Agreement in the Hague, the Netherlands, and jointly notified this Court
of their Special Agreement on 15 September 2023.
x
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether, Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of
nationality of its citizens before the Court.
II. Whether, Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty,” rendering them
stateless, is a violation of international law.
III. Whether, Antrano violated international law when it refused to provide Remisia consular
access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano.
IV. Whether, Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. Tulous
Malex entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997.
xi
STATEMENT OF FACTS
OVERVIEW OF THE PARTIES
The Republic of Antrano (“Antrano”) and the Kingdom of Remisia (“Remisia”), are two
nations, at approximately 11,000 kilometers distance from one another, situated on the Mahali
Archipelago and the Isidra Plateau respectively.
Antrano, has been home for nomadic peoples and has fostered a multi-ethnic and diverse
society. From the time of their first presidency, under Muna Songida, the nation has been
committed to the plight of stateless persons around the globe and persists in taking a leading role
in the promotion of the rights of those who are stateless around the world.
Remisia is ruled by a monarchy that traces its lineage to 561CE. Insulting, defaming, or
threatening this monarchy is a crime punishable by the deprivation of nationality in Remisia.
Both the appointment of the Prime Minister and commander-in-chief, as well as the enforcement
of Legislation in the nation requires royal assent.
THE DISRESPECT TO THE CROWN ACT ("DCA")
The DCA saw, from its adoption more than half a century ago, till the events of the
present dispute, very little use. The act provides that whoever defames, insults, or threatens the
reigning monarch of Remisia, is to be punished with imprisonment of up to 5 years. The loss of
their citizenship thereafter, when ordered, is effective immediately. The DCA, in addition to
being invoked less than a dozen times since its introduction 70 years ago has not resulted in any
citizenships being annulled up until this point.
THE NATURALIZATION BY INVESTMENT ACT AND PROGRAM IN REMISIA
In 2008 Her Majesty, Queen Khasat signed into law, the Naturalization by Investment
Act ("NIA") following which the Home Department of Remisia announced the Naturalization by
Investment Program ("NIP"), a worldwide marketing campaign inviting high-net-worth
xii
individuals to apply for citizenship. As per the Home Department of Remisia, it was a successful
endeavor, generating the equivalent of € 1.5 billion in gross revenue for the nation.
Naturalization through the program required the purchase of real property, contributions to the
National Infrastructure Fund or a direct investment of € 500,000 into the Remisian economy.
One such naturalization through the program was that of Ms. Saki Shaw, a national of
Molvania, naturalized as a citizen of Remisia on the 1st of June 2016 through the NIP. Ms. Shaw
was a member of the prominent Shaw family of Molvania, who owned a substantial portion of
the Shaw Corporation ("Shaw Corp"), which wholly owns the subsidiary company, Lithos
Limited.
THE MINING IN THE ISIDRE PLATEAU
Remisia in 1989 began its first mining expeditions on the Isidre Plateau. These initial
small-scale expeditions saw a resurgence of interest in 2017 when, the Ministry of Mines
provided permits to the Lithos–Remisia Cooperative ("LRC") to begin cobalt mining at three
sites in northern Remisia. These sites immediately proved to generate a great deal of air and
water pollution in the local area.
Wide spread discourse on the pollution followed the establishment of these sites. In the
academic centers of Remisia through impromptu rallies, public lectures and panel discussions
over the next few months the sentiment against the licenses of the LRC grew.
THE ILSA PROTESTS AND THE STERREN FORTY
In October 2019, when the issuance of 4 of 5 additional licenses for mines was made
public ILSA called for the walkout of more than 30,000 students. Throughout these protests
thousands of identical signs, which read “The Queen's friend is threatening our future.” were
held aloft.
On 6 February, in response to the continued use of the permits by the LRC, The Isidre
League of Student Activists ("ILSA") released a communique presenting their disappointment on
the naked display of favoritism and protection granted to the LRC as a result of the personal
relationship between the Queen and Ms. Saki Shaw.
xiii
On 27 February, protestors at the mining sites were subjected to tear gas and those who
had chained themselves to the locations were arrested. More than 1,000 student demonstrators
were detained across Remisia. Of these, the "Sterren Forty” were those who had been arrested at
the gates of the Sterren Palace, where they had formed a human chain marking their protest and
solidarity in a public place for view of the government.
Formal charges against all protestors were promised to be dropped on the condition that a
signed written apology was ensured towards the Monarch. 230 students, among whom were the
“Sterren Forty” refused to apologize and the courts pursued legal action against them. The
hearings for the defendants were conducted through Zoom.
While most convicted protestors, none of whom had denied participating in the
demonstrations against the queen, were sentenced to one to three years of imprisonment, the
disloyalty of the “Sterren Forty” was presented as being "manifest in their actions." The
Remisian nationals were successively stripped of their citizenship
The “Sterren Forty” were immediately taken to the national penitentiary, issued non-
citizen identity and now remain there.
THE ARREST OF MS. SAKI SHAW
On 15 March 2022, Ms. Shaw was arrested by Antranan officers who, citing Antranan
law, recognized only her Molvanian Citizenship. Both she, and the Molvanian Consulate in
Antrano was without delay informed of her arrest, and her rights to consular access as a
Molvanian Citizen Ms. Shaw citing that Antrano did not recognize her Remisian citizenship.
Despite Remisian authorities asserting their rights to consular meetings with Ms. Shaw,
Antrano maintained that Ms. Shaw was a national solely of Molvania, refusing her consular
access to Remisian authorities. Two weeks later Ms. Shaw passed away in jail of natural causes.
THE UN MISSION
On 11 April 2022 the Security Council, founding its authority under Chapter VI of the
UN Charter, through the adoption of Resolution 99997, established the UN Inspection Mission to
Remisia (UNIMR) which for three years, consisting of eight civilian experts and necessary
xiv
support staff, was to operate a system to determine the facts and circumstances underlying the
revocation of the citizenship of prisoners in Remisia. Such investigations were to be conducted
through in-person interviews and in due course the mission was to report its findings and
recommendations to the Security Council. The Resolution called upon the Kingdom of Remisia
to cooperate fully with the Mission.
Remisia determined that Dr. Tulous Malex, selected to lead the UNIMR, would be denied
entry if he lacked the required travel documents and travelled solely on the UN certificate. On
the 9th of August 2022, on arrival, Dr. Malex displayed only the UN Certificate and was placed
on the next plane back to New York.
THE SPECIAL AGREEMENT AND THE PRESENT DISPUTE
On 15 August 2022, the Remisian and Antranan foreign ministers issued a joint announcement
that expressed their goal of submitting legal disputes to the International Court of Justice and on
the 14th of September 2023 the parties had successfully negotiated the terms of the Special
Agreement and submitted it to the Registrar of the Court.
xv
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
PLEADING I
The Republic of Antrano contends that it has standing to bring the dispute to this Court
concerning Remisia's deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty on several grounds. Firstly,
Antrano argues that it can invoke Remisia's international responsibility for breaching obligations
under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (CRS), asserting that it acts in the
collective interest of CRS parties. Secondly, Antrano maintains a legal interest in the matter of
the Sterren Forty. Lastly, Antrano argues that it can stand before this Court without
demonstrating injury establishing the existence of a dispute between the states. In conclusion,
Antrano asserts its standing based on international responsibility, legal interest, and the existence
of a dispute with Remisia.
PLEADING II
Remisia violated international law when it deprived the Sterren Forty of their Remisian
citizenship in accordance with the DCA. Firstly, Antrano asserts that Remisia has failed to
comply international standards of deprivation which constitutes the deprivation arbitrary.
Secondly, the declaration made by Remisia on Article 8(3) of the CRS, defeats the object and
purpose of the Convention. Thirdly, the deprivation is conducted on political grounds which is in
direct violation of the CRS. Lastly, Antrano concludes by emphasizing that Remisia's actions
extend beyond the confines of its internal law, and other customary international laws. As a
result, Remisia’s deprivation of the Sterren Forty leading them to statelessness is a violation of
international law.
PLEADING III
Antrano did not violate international law when it did not provide the Remisian consular access to
Ms. Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano. Antrano, as a party to Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations (VCCR), owes an obligation to to provide consular access to Ms. Shaw, a
Molvanian national, as well as Molvania. According to the doctrine of real and effective
nationality, and the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Question Relating to the Conflict of
xvi
Nationality, Ms. Shaw is effectively a Molvanian national. As per the VCCR, Antrano is obliged
to provide Ms. Shaw with the Molvanian consular access and not the Remisian consular access.
Antrano has abided by international law as it has provided the Molvanian consular access along
with informing Ms. Shaw of her charges and her rights under VCCR. Thus, Antrano has fulfilled
it obligations owed under VCCR.
PLEADING IV
Remisia has violated international law by denying Dr. Tulous Malex entry to Remisa as required
by UNSC Resolution 99997. Dr. Malex is an expert under Article 22 of the Convention on
Privileges and Immunities (CPI) and must be admitted by Remisia as well as grant him speedy
travel facilities as per the UN Certificate granted to him. UNSC Resolution 99997 established a
fact-finding mission under Article 34 of the UN Charter gives the binding effect to the
resolution. Remisia is under an obligation to abide by the decision of the UNSC under Article 25
of the Charter, as the formation of UNIMR is the unanimous decision of the UNSC as per the
Charter. Therefore, Remisia is under an obligation to admit Dr. Malex into Remisia and by
denying the entry to him, Remisia has violated the international law under the CPI, and the UN
Charte
xvii
PLEADINGS
I. Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of

nationality of its citizens before the Court.
The Republic of Antrano has standing before this Court to bring forward the dispute
concerning the deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty. Antrano can invoke international
responsibility of Remisia for breach of its obligations held erga omnes partes [A], Antrano
asserts a legal interest in the matter of deprivation of the Sterren Forty [B], there is an existence
of a dispute between the states [C].
A. Antrano can invoke the international responsibility of Remisia for breach of its
obligations held erga omnes partes.
Article 48(1)(a) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful

Acts (ARSIWA), provides that any state, ‘other than an injured state’, is entitled to invoke the
responsibility of another state acting in the collective interest of other Parties to the Convention. 1
As per the Article, Antrano may invoke the responsibility of Remisia if two conditions are met:
first, the obligation whose breach has given rise to responsibility must have been owed to a
group to which Antrano belongs. Second, the obligation must have been established for the
1
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the ILC at its
53rd Sess., annexed to G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2001), [ “ARSIWA”], Article
48(1)(a).
1
protection of collective interest.2 Antrano is acting in the collective interest of the parties under
the CRS [1] and, obligations under the CRS have erga omnes partes character [2].
1. Antrano is acting in the collective interest of the parties under the CRS.
In Obligation to Prosecute, this Court held that a collective interest in compliance with a
treaty’s obligations implies that the obligations in question are owed by any state party to all
other states parties to the Convention. 3 Furthermore, in affirming Gambia’s standing to bring its
case against Myanmar, this Court found that all states parties had a common interest to ensure
fulfilling the obligations contained in the Convention.4
Statelessness is a matter of common interest of the contracting parties of Convention on

the Reduction of Statelessness (CRS) and Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons
(CSP). Common interest being an exception to the nationality of claim (where the state can only
assert the rights of its nationals) allows the state to bring the case to the ICJ despite the injured
people not being its nationals.5 Here, rendering individuals stateless falls under the general
interest of the state parties.6
2
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act with Commentaries,
adopted by the ILC at its 53rd Sess., U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [“(D)ARSIWA
Commentaries”], ¶ 6 of Art. 48 (1)(a); Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or
Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, 2012, I.C.J. 422, ¶ 69 (July 20) [“Belgium v.
Senegal”]; Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory
Opinion, 1949, I.C.J.174, 181-182 (April 11).
3
Belgium v. Senegal ¶ 68.
4
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2022 I.C.J. 477 ¶ 107 (July 22)
[“The Gambia v. Myanmar”].
5
ROSALYN HIGGINS ET AL., OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW, vol. 1, 515 London: Longman,
9th ed., 1992 [“Oppenheim’s International law”].
6
Id.
2
As per Article 48(1)(a)7 Antrano having a history of acting for the plight of stateless
people around the world8 is acting in the collective interest of members of states under the CRS
that both Antrano and Remisia are parties to.9
Remisia has contravened the CRS and has failed to align with international norms on
nationality.10 This includes disregarding the principle that statelessness should be avoided which
is in direct violation of the collective interest of the Member States. 11 Thus, Antrano can bring
the claim of deprivation of nationality of Sterren Forty in their interest even though they are not
their nationals.
2. As per the object and purpose of the CRS, its obligations have erga omnes partes
character.
The object and purpose of the CRS and the collective interest it seeks to protect identifies
the erga omnes partes character of obligations pertained in it.12 In Obligation to Prosecute, this
Court stated that the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture, as per the preamble,
is to “make more effective the struggle against torture . . . throughout the world.” 13 In the present
case, as indicated by the preamble of CRS, the object and purpose provides “in order to address
the plight of stateless persons around the world” 14 by reducing and preventing statelessness.15
7
ARSIWA, Article 48(1)(a).
8
Statement of Facts, ¶ 3.
9
Statement of Facts, ¶ 62; (D)ARSIWA Commentaries ¶ 1 of Article 48(1)(a).
10
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Dec.13, 1975, U.N.T.S. 989 [“CRS”],
Introductory Note.
11
CRS, Introductory Note.
12
Pok Yin S. Chow, On Obligations Erga Omnes Partes, 52 GEO. J. INT’L L. 469, 496 (2021).
13
Belgium v. Senegal, ¶ 68.
14
CRS, Introductory Note.
15
G.A. Res. 3274 (XXIX), Dec. 10 1974; G.A. 31/36, Dec. 21 1995; G.A. Res. 61/137, Dec. 19
2006.
3
Basically, it is to prevent and reduce statelessness, thereby ensuring every individual’s right to a
nationality.16
Given that, Antrano asserts the object and purpose of the CRS seek to secure the common
interest of preventing statelessness.17 This Court also noted that in this type of treaty, the
contracting states do not have their own interests; they only have an overall common interest, to
attain the purposes that are the raison d’etre of the Convention.18
Moreover, this Court has provided that, erga omnes partes obligations are not limited to
general peremptory norms but rather could be extended to other obligations that contracting
states have a common interest in protecting. 19 Thus, the obligations under CRS have erga omnes
partes character.
B. Antrano asserts legal interest in the matter of deprivation of the Sterren Forty.
This Court has recognized that the term ‘interested’ state is not one that is directly
affected or injured by an internationally wrongful act, rather simply one that has a legal interest
in compliance with the rights involved in the conventions. 20 Antrano is an interested state in the
protection of those human rights within the CSR not because it suffers any form of damage but
because violations of those rights under the convention are ‘specifically prohibited by
international treaties or general international law.’21 Thus, Antrano holds a legal interest to
protect the rights involved in the CRS and CSP. Regardless, legal interest [1], and special injury
16
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961
statelessness Convention and Avoiding statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of
Nationality, March 2014, 428 ¶ 1 ["Tunis Conclusions"].
17
18
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion,1951 I.C.J. 19-51,15, 23 (May
28).
19
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 1970
I.C.J. 3 ¶ 34 (Feb. 5) [“Barcelona Traction”].
20
Barcelona Traction, ¶¶ 33, 34.
21
James Crawford, First Report on State Responsibility, [1998], 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, U.N.
Doc. A/CN.4/490.
4
[2] are not a prerequisite for standing before this Court.
1. Arguendo legal interest in the matter of deprivation of the Sterren Forty is not a
prerequisite for standing before this Court.
The obligations under the CRS and CSP have been established in pursuit of a common
interest. In Obligation to Prosecute this Court stated that “if a legal interest were required to
have standing, in many cases, no State would be in the position to make any claim”. 22 In fact, the
rules of this Court do not explicitly mandate showing legal interest for admissibility. 23 Since,
there is an established common interest among the Member States, Antrano is not required to
demonstrate the existence of a legal interest in order to justify standing before the Court. 24
Hence, its absence does not bar Antrano from bringing the dispute before this Court.
2. Antrano is not required to suffer any injury to have standing before this Court.
Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning the Sterren Forty to the Court
without demonstrating special injury. This Court has acknowledged standing based on erga
omnes partes obligations, allowing states to bring claims even in the absence of direct injury.
In the Whaling in the Antarctic case, this Court found Australia to have standing against
Japan even though the latter had not breached any right of the former and the former had not
suffered any material injury through the breach.25 This Court accepted the claims of Australia,
based on erga omnes partes obligation.26 Furthermore, in The Gambia v. Myanmar, this Court
held that Gambia had prima facie standing before this Court based solely on the erga omnes
22
23
JAMES CRAWFORD, CHANCE, ORDER, CHANGE: THE COURSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 365
Recueil des Cours in HAGUE ACADEMY POCKETBOOKS, ¶ 270 (2013).
24
The Gambia v. Myanmar, 2022 Declaration of Judge Ad Hoc Kreß, ¶ 15 (July 22).
25
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgement, 2014
I.C.J. ¶ 1 (March 31) [“Whaling in the Antarctic”].
26
Whaling in the Antarctic, ¶ 41.
5
partes nature of the obligations it sought to enforce. 27 Here, Antrano does not require to
demonstrate that the alleged victims of the breach of obligations under the CRS are its
nationals.28 Thus, even without any form of injury to its nationals and its state Antrano can bring
the claim regarding the Sterren Forty before this court.
This asserts that Antrano is not obligated to endure any special injury. Therefore, the
Applicant has standing to bring the dispute before the Court, without suffering any injury. The
locus standi to present the claim of a State is not in doubt if it asserts the matter as a violation of
treaty obligation. Here, Antrano is claiming that Remisia is violating CRS and CPS along with
customary international law.
C. There is an existence of a dispute between the States.
The existence of the dispute is the primary condition for the Court to exercise its judicial
function.29 A ‘dispute’ is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or
interests between the parties.30 This Court has identified that, for a dispute to exist, the two
parties must hold opposite views on the matter. 31 Whether a dispute exists is a matter for
objective determination.32 This means that the existence of opposing views between Antrano and
Remisia is a question of fact that can be established by taking into account the statements and
27
The Gambia v. Myanmar, ¶ 114.
28
29
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France, New Zealand v France) Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 253, ¶ 55
(Dec. 20) [“Nuclear Tests”].
30
Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3, 19 (Aug.
30).
31
ICJ with reference to its decision in Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to
Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United
Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2016 I.C.J. 833 (Oct. 5); Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. 832 (Dec. 13);
32
SHABTAI ROSENNE, LAWS AND PRACTICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT 1920-2005, 508
(Martinus Nijhoff eds., 4th ed. 2006).
6
phone calls33 exchanged between the parties.
It is a fact that both states hold opposing views on the matter of the deprivation of
citizenship of the Sterren Forty. The statements given by Antrano in multilateral settings, and the
lectures given by Muna Songida,34 President Iyali35 as well as Antranan representatives to the
United Nations and other international fora regularly proposed resolutions to raise awareness
regarding statelessness36 is also evident to state that there are opposing views between the states.
Since, there is an existence of dispute between the states, the Republic of Antrano holds prima
facie standing against Remisia before this court.
II. Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty”, rendering them stateless, is
a violation of international law.
Antrano and Remisia are both parties to the CRS.37 Loss and deprivation provisions of the
CRS need to be read and interpreted in light of the general prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of
nationality. Whether or not deprivation results in statelessness, as enshrined in Article 15 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, such deprivation must not be arbitrary.38
Any decision to deprive a person of his or her nationality must also follow certain
procedural and substantive standards to avoid being arbitrary. 39 By failing to meet the standards
33
34
Id., ¶ 3.
35
Id., ¶ 36.
36
Id., ¶ 4.
37
Id., ¶ 62.
38
Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 15; G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec.
10, 1948) Article 15.
39
U.N. Secretary-General, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, ¶ 25, U.N.
Doc. A/HRC/13/34 (Dec.14 2009).
7
for non-arbitrary deprivation of nationality,40 the actions of Remisia in stripping the Sterren Forty
of their citizenship has violated international law.41
Remisia violated international law rendering the Sterren Forty stateless as the deprivation
is arbitrary [A], the declaration made under Article 8(3) by Remisia on CSR is inconsistent with
the object and purpose of the Treaty [B], Remisia conducted the deprivation of the Sterren Forty
under political grounds [C] and, Remisia violated other rules of conventional and customary
international law [D].
A. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty is arbitrary.
The deprivation of the Sterren Forty of their citizenship, rendering them stateless, violates
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 42 Remisia’s deprivation destroys the
right to nationality and renders the Sterren Forty stateless, which is contrary to the aims and
objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is thus arbitrary. 43 For a deprivation
to be in line with international law it must comply with international standards [1], the ‘Sterren
40
Security Measure, 2020, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f3bf26d4.html.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No.5, ¶ 66, U.N.
41
Doc. HCR/GS/20/05 (May 2020); Partial Award Civilian Claims—Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23
& 27-32 (Eritrea/Ethiopia) Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, XXVI, 374, 397–8 (Perm. Ct.
Arb. 1910).
42
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948) Article 15;
Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, Judgement, 012/2015, African Court on
Human Rights and People’s Rights [Afr. Ct. H.P.R.], ¶ 88 (March 22, 2018); American
Convention on Human Rights, July 18,1969, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123. Article
20(3; The European Convention on Nationality, Nov. 6, 1997, E.T.S. No. 166,
6.XI.1997. Article 4(c); ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, Nov. 18, 2012, Article 18; Revised
Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004).
43
Johannes M. M. Chan, The Right to a Nationality as a Human Right: The Current Trend
towards Recognition, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL, 1991, at 1-3.
8
Forty’ were not citizens of any other nations at the time they were deprived of their Remisian
citizenship arbitrarily [2].
1. The deprivation of the ‘Sterren Forty’ does not comply with the international standards
of deprivation.
If an individual is to be stripped of their citizenship, both a necessity and proportionality

assessment must be applied.44 For withdrawal of nationality to be proportionate, measures
leading to the withdrawal should serve a legitimate purpose that is consistent with the objectives
of international human rights law [i], be the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the aim
pursued by the state [ii], and Remisia is required to consider the principle of avoidance of
statelessness [iii].
i. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty does not serve a legitimate purpose.
For Remisia’s deprivation to serve a legitimate purpose it must fulfill certain criteria.
Firstly, the Sterren Forty must have the capacity to negatively impact the state, their conduct
should be seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the state. 45 Second, the offense conducted
shall not be of a general nature.46 The Sterren Forty have not impacted Remisia negatively as
their acts are consistent with their duty to loyalty [a], thus, even if Remisia is to charge the
Sterren Forty for any offence, the conduct cannot be of a general nature [b].
44
Doc. A/HRC/25/28 (Dec.19 2013); U.N. Secretary-General, Human Rights and Arbitrary
Deprivation of Nationality, ¶ 25, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/34 (Dec.14 2009).
45
Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 68; Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ISI - Principles on
Deprivation of Nationality as a Security Measure, 2020, ¶ 74, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f3bf26d4.html (last visited Dec. 2, 2023).
46
Id.
9
a. The acts of the Sterren Forty are consistent with their duty to loyalty.
Remisia deprived the Sterren Forty of their nationality on the grounds 47 that they had
conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the state. 48 Where a
person has committed acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state, they shall be
deemed to have breached the duty of loyalty which stems from nationality. 49 The ordinary
meaning of the terms ‘seriously prejudicial’ and ‘vital interests’ indicates that the conduct
covered by this exception must threaten the foundations and organization of Remisia. 50 The acts
of the Sterren Forty are required not to be incidental to the harm rather than fundamentally
related to it.51
The free speech made by the Sterren Forty is neither incidentally nor fundamentally
related to or propagates harm towards the Queen. 52 The purpose of the protests was never to
challenge or insult the Crown.53 Here, the Sterren Forty have exercised their freedom of speech
for the collective interest of all the Remisian citizens. Such an act that does not materially affect
Remisia is not seriously prejudicial. 54 Since the Sterren Forty had not acted to impact the state
negatively,55 their acts are not seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the state.
47
CRS, Article 8(3)(a)(ii).
48
49
Doc. A/HRC/25/28 (Dec.19 2013).
50
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No.5, ¶ 66, U.N.
Doc. HCR/GS/20/05 (May 2020).
51
Id., ¶ 61.
52
53
Id.
54
Supra note 51.
55
Id.
10
b. Even if Remisia is to charge the Sterren Forty for any offence, the offence cannot be
of a general nature.
Remisia deprived the Sterren Forty on the grounds that their conduct was offensive
towards the Crown, and that they violated the DCA. 56 Firstly, states are prohibited to explicitly
allow for the deprivation of nationality for a show of disloyalty “by act or speech”, rendering the
grounds for their deprivation against international practice. 57 States must avoid applying such
provisions in a manner that would infringe other human rights norms and standards, such as
freedom of expression.58 Secondly, crimes of a general nature cannot be a reason for the
deprivation of nationality, grave crimes such as treason, espionage are considered the only
legitimate rationale for deprivation.59
Here, the Sterren Forty have simply exercised their right to peaceful assembly and not a
single individual was harmed by the peaceful protests that were conducted.
ii. The deprivation by Remisia is not the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the aim
pursued by the State.
Remisia’s trial court imposing a five-year sentence on each of the Sterren Forty
accompanied by the order of deprivation of their citizenship violates the principle of ne bis in
idem.60 The principle of ne bis in idem provides that a person should not be prosecuted more than
once for the same criminal conduct. 61 The imposition of deprivation of the Remisian nationals, in
addition to their 5 year imprisonment sentence, is a breach of this principle 62 and clearly not the
56
Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 7,34.
57
Supra note 49, ¶ 13.
58
Id.
59
Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 68.
60
61
Gerard Conway, Ne Bis in Idem in International Law, 3 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
REVIEW, 217-244 (2003).
62
11
least intrusive means necessary.63 Thus, Remisia has not applied the least intrusive means
necessary to achieve the desired aim of the state. If they had done so, the sentence itself would be
sufficient for the Sterren Forty. Hence, Remisia violates the principle of ne bis in idem.
iii. Remisia has disregarded the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness.
Remisia has clearly provided under its DCA that if the Remisian court is satisfied that
any party has acted by speech or act disloyal to the Crown, it may deprive them of their
Remisian citizenship.64 Under the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness however, Remisia was
obligated not to pursue deprivation of nationality as their first resort. 65 Remisia has not made any
effort to avoid statelessness through legislative, administrative, or any other measures. 66 Thus, in
resorting to Remisia has disregarded the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness.
2. The ‘Sterren Forty’ are not citizens of any other nations, thus rendering them stateless
is arbitrary.
Remisia stripped the Sterren Forty of their citizenship without assessing whether they had
any other citizenship.67 Article 7 of the 1930 Hague Convention 68 requires the Contracting state
to assess whether it would render the citizens stateless before depriving their nationality. It
requires the state to assess whether they possess another nationality at the instance of their
deprivation.
Supra note 50, ¶ 94; Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 19.

63
64
65
Security Measure, 2020, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5f3bf26d4.html Principle 5
(last accessed Dec. 2, 2023).
66
UN Secretary-General (UNSG), Guidance Note of the Secretary General: The United Nations
and Statelessness, 4 (November 2018).
67
68
Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, April
13, 1930, 179 L.N.T.S 89, [“1930 Hague Convention”] Article 7.
12
Similarly, even under all the exceptions prescribed by the CRS, citizenship shall only be
deprived when the individuals concerned possess or acquire another nationality. 69 Remisia has
failed to conduct any such assessment and was aware that the Sterren Forty did not hold any
nationality other than Remisian,70 thus rendering them stateless in an arbitrary manner.
C. The declaration made under Article 8(3) by Remisia on CSR is inconsistent with the
object and purpose of the Treaty.
While Remisia has made a reservation under Article 8(3), such reservation must be in
conjunction with the general obligations under international law. It shall not be incompatible
with the object and purpose of the treaty. 71 The reservation made by Remisia diminishes the
scope of protection afforded by the treaty.72 The object and purpose of the CRS is to prevent and
reduce statelessness, thereby ensuring the individual’s right to nationality. 73 Additionally,
Antrano objected to the reservation held by Remisia [1], due to which the reservation does not
apply between Antrano and Remisia [2].
1. Antrano has objected to the reservation made by Remisia.
Antrano submitted to the UN Secretary-General an objection to Remisia’s declaration 74

stating that it constituted an impermissible reservation, as it was incompatible with the object and
69
JORUNN BRANDVOLL, DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY: LIMITATIONS ON RENDERING
PERSONS STATELESS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, IN NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, 199-210 (Alice Edwards and Laura Van Waas eds., 2014).
70
71
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155, U.N.T.S. 331 [“VCLT”],
Article 19(c).
72
F. Shqarri, Reservations to Treaties, Prohibited Reservations and some Unsolved Issued
Related to Them, 6 MEDITERRANEAN JOURNAL OF ROUTELEDGE HANDBOOK OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, 323-338 (2015).
73
Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 1.
74
13
purpose of the Convention.75 The declaration held by the Remisian reservation did not pass the
threshold to protect community interests.76
Reservations require community interest or at least the interest of the community of the
parties to the treaty to be preserved. 77 The Republic of Tunisia has held a similar declaration
under the same Article.78 Finland, Germany, Sweden, and Norway objected, claiming that the
declaration therefore amounts to a reservation that restricts one of the essential duties of the
Convention in a way contrary to the object and purpose of the CRS. 79 Furthermore, just 16% of
state parties to CRS have made this declaration, which concludes that the vast majority of
contracting states have committed to refraining from depriving a person of nationality on this
ground if it would lead to statelessness.80 Proportional relationship of declarations submitted to
Article 8(3)(a) in relation to the total amount of state parties has been characterized by an
ongoing decline since the CRS’s entry into force.81 Similarly, as four states including Antrano
objected to the reservation,82 Remisia does not pass this threshold due to which the reservation is
impermissible and consequently null, and void irrespective of any acceptance or objection by
other states.83
75
Statement of Facts, Clarifications ¶ 10.
76
DAVID J. HARRIS ET AL., LAW OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,10-11,
2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2009.
77
Id.
78
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Objections, Dec.13, 1975, U.N.T.S. 989,
https://www.refworld.org/cgi-in/texis/vtx/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4c0f4e592,
(last accessed on 12th Dec. 2023).
79
Id.
80
81
L. Bucken and R. de Groot, Deprivation of nationality under Article 8 (3) of the 1961
Convention on the reduction of statelessness, MAASTRICHT JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AND
COMPARATIVE LAW 25(1), 38, 42 (2018).
82
83
DAVID J. HARRIS ET AL., LAW OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,10-11,
2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2009.
14
2. The reservation does not apply between Antrano and Remisia.
Antrano has explicitly provided that it does not consider this objection to preclude the
entry into force of the Convention between the states. 84 As per Article 21(3) of VCLT when a
state objecting to a reservation has not opposed the entry into force of the treaty between itself
and the reserving state, the provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply between the
two states the extent of the reservation.85 Thus, the reservation does not apply between Antrano
and Remisia.
D. Remisia conducted the deprivation of the Sterren Forty under political grounds.
Remisia cannot seek to rely on the Sterren Forty’s political opinions as a basis for
deprivation of nationality even under Article 8(3) of the Convention. 86 Article 9 of the CRS
provides that a contracting state may not deprive any person or groups of persons of their
nationality on racial, ethical, religious, or ‘political grounds’.87 Under no circumstances can
Remisia deprive its citizens as a means to delegitimize political points of view that are different
from those in power especially when they are consistent with the Sterren Forty’s right to freedom
of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly.88 The Sterren Forty have the right to freedom of
expression and opinion [1], and have the right to peaceful assembly [2].
1. The Sterren Forty have the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
The Sterren Forty hold the right to impart information and the freedom to express it. 89
Remisia was obligated to respect their rights as codified in the ICCPR. Article 19, the right to
84
85
VCLT, Article 21(3).
86
Supra note 50, ¶ 78; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976,
993 U.N.T.S. 3, Article 2; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999
U.N.T.S. 3, Article 2, 26 [“ICCPR”].
87
CRS, Article 9.
88
89
ICCPR, Article 19.
15
freedom of expression and opinion is binding to the state parties. 90 Remisia is required to ensure
that the domestic laws of its State are consistent with the general legal obligations imposed by
the Covenant.91 Any form of expression and opinion held by the Sterren Forty is protected by the
Article.92 Moreover, Remisia arresting the Sterren Forty is also a violation of freedom of
expression and opinion. Even matters that are considered deeply offensive are not in violation of
freedom of expression, thus the Sterren Forty hold the right to freedom of expression.93
2. The Sterren Forty have the right to peaceful assembly.
The Sterren Forty chained themselves in front of the Sterren Palace 94 exercising their
right to peaceful assembly. Article 21 of the ICCPR 95 is a fundamental human right that protects
the Sterren Forty as the protest conducted by them is non-violent and done for a specific
purpose.96 The Sterren Forty can conduct the assembly within the sight and sound of their
Queen97 in front of the Palace gate. 98 Thus, the Sterren Forty in their actions simply exercised
their right to peaceful assembly.
E. Remisia violated other rules of conventional and customary international law.
Remisia in depriving its nations violated various rules of conventional and customary
international law. International law has imposed limitations under conventional as well as
90
ICCPR, General Comment No.34, CCPR/C/GC/34, ¶ 7 (2011) [“ICCPR, GENERAL
COMMENT, 34”].
91
ICCPR, GENERAL COMMENT, 34, ¶ 8.
92
93
94
95
ICCPR, Article 21.
96
Kivenmaa v. Finland, CCPR/C/50/D/412/1990, HRC ¶ 7.6 (1994); Poplavny and Sudalenko v.
Belarus CCPR/C/118/D/2139/2012 HRC, ¶ 8.5 (2016); ICCPR, GENERAL COMMENT, 34, ¶
4.
97
Strizhak v. Belarus, CCPR/C/124/D/2260/2013, HRC ¶ 6.5 (2018).
98
16
customary international law in matters related to nationality. 99 Remisia cannot invoke its internal
law as an excuse for a failure to comply with international obligations [1], there is lack of
widespread state practice in Remisia to apply the DCA for the deprivation of the Sterren Forty
[2], and the principle of non-retrogression prevents Remisia from entering into commercial
agreements [3].
1. Remisia cannot invoke its internal law as an excuse for a failure to comply with
international obligations.
Remisia cannot invoke the provisions of its DCA 100 when it has clearly failed to act in
good faith101 and comply with the treaty obligations to reduce statelessness. 102 As per Article 27
of the VCLT, a state party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its
failure to perform a treaty.103 In relation between Antrano and Remisia to a treaty, the provisions
of Remisia’s DCA cannot prevail over those of the treaty. 104 The effective application of Article
27 obliges Remisia to ensure that all of its domestic provisions are compatible or brought into
line with its international obligations.105
99
Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco Opinion, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. Series B
No. 4, at 24.
100
101
Summary Records and Documents of the First Session including the report of the Commission
to the General Assembly, [1949] Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 245, U.N. Doc. (A/CN.4/2,
A/CN.4/2/Add.1).
102
CRS, Introductory note.
103
VCLT, Article 27.
104
Greco-Bulgarian Communities, Advisory Opinion, 1930 P.C.I.J. Series B no.17 at 32; MARK
E. VILLIGER, COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES, 370
(2009).
105
MARK E. VILLIGER, COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES, 372 (2009).
17
2. There is lack of widespread state practice in Remisia to apply the DCA for the
deprivation of the Sterren Forty.
The DCA, introduced 70 years ago, has been invoked fewer than a dozen times and has
not led to the annulment of any citizenship thus far. 106 State practice consists of conduct of the
state, whether in the exercise of its executive, legislative, judicial or other functions. 107 The
relevant practice must be general, meaning that the use of DCA must be sufficiently widespread
and representative, as well as consistent. 108 Since there is no consistency and widespread use of
DCA, there is lack of state practice in Remisia to deprive the Sterren Forty under the DCA.
3. The principle of non-retrogression prevents Remisia from entering into commercial

agreements that prevent it from fulfilling its other conventional obligations.
The principle of non-retrogression in human rights prevents Remisia from entering into
commercial agreements such as the formulation of Lithos–Remisia Cooperative (LRC) which
prevents it from fulfilling its obligations under ICCPR, ICESCR, and various other
conventions.109 Remisia is obliged to ensure that enterprises registered and/or operating under
their jurisdiction do not adversely impact human rights. LRC and its mining operation have
caused several issues for Remisian Citizens. 110 Thus, Remisia violates the principle of non-
retrogression.
III. Antrano did not violate international law when it did not provide Remisian
consular access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano.
106
107
Report of International Law commisison to the General Assembly, (A/73/10, para. 65),
reprinted in [2018] 2 Y.B Int'l L. Comm'n, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2018/Add.1(Part 2).
108
Id.
109
ALFRED DE ZAYAS, BUILDING A JUST WORLD, (Clarity Press, 2021).
110
18
Antrano had no obligation to provide Remisian consular access to Ms. Saki Shaw during
her time as a prisoner in Antrano. Antrano did not violate international law when it did not
provide the Remisian Consular access to Ms. Shaw as; Antranan law does not recognise the
purchased citizenship of Ms. Saki Shaw [A], and Antrano has abided by international law in
providing the Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw [B].
A. Antranan law does not recognize the purchased citizenship of Ms. Saki Shaw.
Antrano has no obligation to recognize the purchased citizenship acquired by Ms. Saki
Shaw as per the principle of effective nationality. 111 Antrano does not recognize the Remisian
citizenship acquired by Ms. Shaw as; the doctrine of real and effective nationality denotes the
Molvanian nationality as the effective nationality [1].
1. The doctrine of real and effective nationality denotes the Molvanian nationality as
the effective nationality.
The real and effective nationality as established by the Nottebohm case inspects the
requirements for stronger factual ties between the person and the concerned state. 112 In the
present case, the factual ties between Ms. Shaw and Molvania are to be examined to determine
effective nationality. The doctrine determines the effective nationality by considering the
habitual residence of the individual concerned, along with the center of one’s interests, family
ties, and attachment shown by the individual. 113 To determine Ms. Shaw’s effective nationality,
the Court must consider her habitual residence, interests, and family ties.
Several international courts in the cases of Mergé,114 Mathinson,115 and Pinson116 have
held that habitual residence of the person, and their interests are the factors of determination of
111
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Judgement, 1955, I.C. J., 4, (April 6)
[“Nottebohm case”].
112
Nottebohm Case.
113
Mezzera Mateo Verdías, Dominant and Effective Nationality, JUS MUNDI (Oct. 12, 2023),
https://jusmundi.com/en/document/publication/en-dominant-and-effective-nationality.
114
Mergé Case (United States v. Italy), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 1955, 236-248
(Italian-United States Conciliation Commission).
19
effective nationality. In the present case, Ms. Shaw has not visited Remisia since the coronation
of Queen Khasat in 2006,117 and was a principal resident of Molvania for a significant period of
time from 1970 to 2012 after which she moved to Italy. 118 Shaw Corp. wherein 50% of the shares
are owned by the Shaw Family,119 also owns the subsidiary company, Lithos Limited, which is
headquartered in Molvania.120 As the holding company of the Lithos Limited also lay in
Molvania, it was the main seat of her interests, 121 Ms. Shaw possessed Molvanian citizenship as
the effective nationality as the center of her interests, and her attachment lay in Molvania,
specifically in the functioning of Lithos Limited economically. Therefore, Ms. Saki Shaw’s
Remisian nationality cannot be maintained as her effective nationality.
B. Antrano has abided by international law in providing consular access as per Article
36 of Vienna Convention on Consular Relation (VCCR).
Antrano has abided by its international obligations in its actions in relation to Ms. Shaw
as; Antrano was obligated to treat Ms. Shaw as having only one nationality in accordance with
the 1930 Hague Convention on Nationality [1], and Antrano has provided Molvanian consular
access to Ms. Shaw under VCCR [2].
115
Mathinson case (Great Britain v. Venezuela), Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1903,
485 (Mixed Claims Commission Great Britain-Venezula).
116
George Pinson case (France v. United Mexican States), Reports of International Arbitral
Awards 1928, 327-466.
117
118
Id. ¶ 16.
119
Id. ¶ 14.
120
Id. ¶ 15.
121
Nottebohm Case.
20
1. Antrano was obligated to treat Ms. Shaw as having only one nationality as per
Hague Convention on Nationality.
Antrano, in relation to the nationality Ms. Shaw, is a ‘third state’ in the present case. A
third state is required by the 1930 Hague Convention to treat a person with multiple nationalities
as having only one nationality when they are within its territory. 122 The 1930 Hague Convention
also requires that while recognizing one nationality, certain factors are to be examined. Those
factors are the person’s principal residence or circumstances where the person seems to be
closely connected.123
Examining both her relations to the Molvanian and Remisian state, Saki Shaw has not
been to Remisia since the coronation of Queen Khasat in 2006. 124 Meanwhile, Molvania, along
with being her place of principal residence, is also the nation with which in the circumstances
present she appears most closely connected. 125 The headquarter of Lithos Limited, which is
controlled and managed by Ms. Shaw 126 lies in Molvania, indicating Molvania as her main seat
of interest. Thusly, as identified by Antrano, the nationality of Ms. Shaw, is Molvanian, not
Remisian.
2. Antrano has provided Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw under VCCR.
Antrano has recognized Ms. Shaw as a Molvanian national127 and has provided her with
Molvanian consular access.128 Antrano has fulfilled its international obligation owed under
VCCR [i], Antrano has fulfilled the purpose of consular access guaranteeing Ms. Shaw rights
[ii], and the right to consular access must be exercised in conformity with the laws of Antrano as
per Article 36(2) of the VCCR [iii].
122
Supra note 68.
123
Id.
124
125
Id., see supra § III.1.A.
126
127
See Supra § §III.A.1, III.B.1.
128
Statement of Facts, Clarification, ¶ 44.
21
i. Antrano has fulfilled its international obligation owed under VCCR.
Antrano as a party to VCCR,129 must provide consular access to Ms. Shaw as per the
requirement of international law. According to Article 36(1)(a) of the VCCR, the receiving state
must provide the arrested nationals of the sending state with consular access for communication
and other purposes.130 Upon the detainee's request, the receiving state is obliged to inform the
consular post of the sending state without any undue delay. 131 As per the request of Ms. Shaw,
Antrano had informed the Consul General of Molvania, on the same day of her arrest without
delay.132
According to Article 36(1)(b), the receiving State is required to inform detained or

arrested foreign nationals of their right to contact their national consul. 133 The receiving state is to
inform the national of the sending state of their individual right within 24 and certainly 72
hours.134 Antranan police had informed Ms. Shaw of the charges against her and her rights under
VCCR, upon her arrest.135 Hence, Antrano has fulfilled its international obligations owed under
VCCR.
ii. Antrano has fulfilled the purpose of consular access guaranteeing Ms. Shaw's rights.
129
130
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 596, U.N.T.S. 261, [“VCCR”]
Article 36(1).
131
Report of the International law Commission to the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/4843
(1961), reprinted in [1963] 2 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 92, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/141/ 1961.
132
133
Mark J. Kadish, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Search for the
Right to Consul, 18, MICHIGAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 566, 569-570, (1997),
(discusses on Article 36 of the VCCR).
134
U.S. DEP'T OF STATES, CONSULAR NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS, 25, (5th ed., 2018).
135
Statement of Facts, Clarification ¶ 7.
22
Antrano, by providing the Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw 136 has abided by the
international obligation it owed to Molvania, as a party to VCCR.137
According to the general rule of interpretation of the treaty, 138 interpreting VCCR in good
faith, the object and purpose are sought in the letter and spirit, 139 and the treaty's preamble.140
Article 36 of the VCCR intends to confer individual rights to provide the consular officers the
freedom to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. 141 The
purpose of the VCCR is to promote friendly relations of states and peace among them and not to
benefit the individuals.142 However, recognizing the individual right of consular notification
ensures the promotion of friendly relations among the states.143
The Court in the LaGrand case, has determined that Article 36(1) creates both individual
rights for the detained person as well as the rights of the sending states. 144 Antrano, as per its
obligation under VCCR has provided the Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw 145 has ensured
the rights of both Molvania and Ms. Shaw.
136
137
Id. ¶ 62.
138
VCLT, Article 31.
139
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory opinion
1950 at 229 (July 18).
140
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia),' Judgment, 2002,
I.C.J. 4, ¶ 51(December 17, 2002); Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 13.
141
VCCR, Article 36(1).
142
Id., preamble.
143
Sabina Veneziano, The Right to Consular Notification: The Cultural Bridge to a Foreign
National's Due Process Rights, 49, GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 506, 511,
(2018), (discussing on the interpretation of VCCR).
144
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 2001, I.C.J. vol, 466, ¶ 89 (June
27).
145
23
iii. The right to consular access must be exercised in conformity with the laws of Antrano
as per Article 36(2) of the VCCR.
Ms. Shaw has been able to exercise her right to consular access in conformity with both
the laws of Antrano as well as per the VCCR. According to Article 36(2) of VCCR, the rights to
inform the consulate, forward the request to, and communicate with the consul general 146 are to
be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving state.147
Antrano has implemented a legal provision through which the purchased citizenships
have not been recognized under the law since 2017. 148 According to the requirement of the 1930
Hague Convention, Antrano is to recognize only one nationality of Ms. Shaw. 149Antrano’s
recognition of the Molvanian nationality of Ms. Shaw is in conformity with the national
legislation150 as well as the 1930 Hague Convention. 151 As per Article 36(2) of the VCCR, it
authorizes Antrano to provide the rights under Article 36(1) as per the national laws of Antrano.
Thus, Antrano’s recognition of Molvanian nationality and providing of the Molvanian Consular
access is in conformity with the national legislation of Antrano, the 1930 Hague Convention and
Article 36(2) of the VCCR. Thus, Antrano has fulfilled the rights guaranteed under Article 36(1)
of VCCR, as it has provided the Molvanian consular access to Ms. Shaw.152
Hence, Antrano did not violate international law as it provided Ms. Shaw with the
Molvanian Consular access during her time as a prisoner in Antrano because Antrano does not
recognise purchased citizenship.
146
VCCR, Article 36(1).
147
Id.
148
149
See supra § III.B.1.
150
151
Supra note 68.
152
24
IV. Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. Tulous Malex
entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997.
Remisia is obligated to provide full cooperation to the UN in any action taken as per the
UN Charter.153 Remisia is required to admit Dr. Tulous Malex as per the UNSC Resolution
99997. In accordance with the treaty obligations of the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the United Nations (CPI), 154 and the UN Charter,155 the refusal by Remisia to
admit Dr. Tulous Malex into the country as required by the UNSC resolution, has violated
international law as: Remisia was obliged to permit entry to Dr. Malex as per the obligation
under CPI [A], and the Security Council Resolution 99997 has a binding effect [B].
A. Remisia is obliged to permit entry to Dr. Malex as per the obligation under CPI.
Remisia, as a party to CPI, 156 is obligated to admit Dr. Malex into Remisia as: Dr. Malex
is an expert within the meaning of Section 22 of CPI [1], and Dr. Tulous Malex should be
admitted to Remisia as per the United Nations Certificate granted by the UN [2].
1. Dr. Malex is an expert within the meaning of Section 22 of the CPI.
Dr. Tulous Malex was selected to lead the UNIMR, 157 and must be admitted to Remisia
as per the resolution to the effective discharge of the duties of the UNSC. 158 Dr. Malex has been
entrusted by Resolution 99997 with preparing reports, conducting investigations, and finding and
153
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, [“U.N. Charter”], Article 2(5).
154
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Feb. 13, 1946, 1
U.N.T.S. 15 [“CPI”].
155
U.N. Charter.
156
157
158
THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A COMMENTARY, VOLUME I, 794, (Bruno Simma
et al. eds., 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2012).
25
establishing facts.159 As an expert under Section 22 of the Convention, 160 Dr Malex is entitled to
the privileges and immunities outlined in Article VI. These immunities ensure the independence
of international officials and experts in the interests of the Organization which must be respected
by all the states.161 Hence, in order to ensure the promotion of the interests of the Organization,
Dr. Malex must be provided with the immunities under the CPI.
2. Dr. Tulous Malex should be admitted to Remisia as per the UN Certificate granted
by the UN.
Antrano and Remisia are both parties to CPI. 162 According to Section 26 of the CPI,
experts holding a certificate for travelling on the business of the United Nations shall be dealt as
speedily as possible and granted facilities for speedy travel.163 Remisia’s denial of admission of
Dr. Malex into Remisia has violated international law. The Secretary-General, on various
missions, has expressed the need for the removal of the travel restrictions by the host country as
soon as possible.164 Similarly, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has, in the past,
urged Israel to grant an exemption to the UN officials from immigration restrictions and to deal
with the applications for visas as speedily as possible.165
159
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
160
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1989, I.C. J. vol, ¶ 48 (Dec. 15) [“Applicability of Article
VI of CPI, Advisory Opinion”].
161
Applicability of Article VI of CPI, Advisory Opinion, ¶ 55.
162
163
CPI, Article VII, § 26.
164
U.N. Secretary-General, Respect for the Privileges and Immunities of officials of the United
Nations and the Specialized Agencies, ¶ 20-21, U.N. Doc. A/C. S/47/14 (Oct. 15, 1992); G.A.
Res 72/195, ¶ 6 (Dec. 30, 2019).
165
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Statement on Israel's failure to grant visas for
U.N. Human Rights Staffs in the opt (August 30, 2022), U.N. Bulletin, XLV, 26,
https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/MBAUG22FINAL_120922.pdf.
26
Article 105 of the Charter of the UN provides that the Organization should not be
impeded in the fulfilment of its purposes, and its officials should not be impeded in the
independent exercise of their functions.166 UNMIR is a subsidiary organ created by UNSC 167 to
carry out its function of the maintenance of international peace and security. 168 Similarly, Dr.
Malex should be accorded the privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent
exercise of their functions during the functioning of the UNIMR. 169 The UN Certificate granted
allows Dr. Malex to travel with similar facilities to the holders of the UNLP, 170 and deal with the
travel as speedily as possible.171 Restriction of UN staff’s access has been recognized to be
inconsistent with international standards and denotes non-compliance with a state's international
obligations.172 Hence, Dr. Malex should be admitted to Remisia as per the UN Certificate granted
by the UN.
B. The Security Council Resolution 99997 has a binding effect.
The decisions of the Security Council are binding on Member States, with no channels
for appeals or dissent, all states commit themselves upon joining the UN to go along with all
Council decisions and demands.173 The Security Council Resolution 99997 has binding and
authorizing effect as: the language of the Resolution gives rise to a mandatory obligation to the
166
U.N. Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, for Articles 104-105, Suppl. 8, Vol. VI,
¶ 220 (1989-1994).
167
U.N. Charter, Article 29.
168
Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Charter), Advisory
Opinion, 1962, I.C.J. 151 (July 20) ["Certain Expenses of the United Nations"].
169
1994 U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 440-441, U.N. Doc. ST/LEG/SER.C/32.
170
Id., 456-457.
171
CPI, Article VII, , § 25.
172
Supra note 165.
173
Ian Hurd, The UN Security Council and the International Rule of Law, THE CHINESE
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, 1, 4, (2014).
27
Remisia to cooperate with the mission [1], and the decision to investigate under Resolution
99997 adopted as per Article 34 has binding effects on Member States under Article 25 [2].
1. The language of the Resolution gives rise to a mandatory obligation to Remisia to

cooperate with the mission fully.
Resolution 99997 obliges Remisia to cooperate with the mission fully. 174 The language of
Resolution 99997 of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed before a conclusion can
be made regarding its binding effect.175 While determining the bindingness of the UNSC
Resolution in Namibia Advisory Opinion, the Court regarded the following:176 the discussions
leading to it [i], and the Charter provisions invoked, Resolution 99997 is adopted under Article
34 of the Charter [ii].
i. The adoption of Resolution 99997 was a result of the discussion of the UNSC.
The decisions of the UNSC need to be confirmed by an affirmative vote of nine

members,177 including the concurrent votes of the permanent members, 178 and they pass so long
as they are not vetoed by any of the five permanent members. 179 The wording of the article
implies that at least nine members must vote ‘yes’ in order to bring about the adoption of a
decision by the Council.180 In the UNSC meeting regarding the ‘Situation in the occupied Arab
174
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
175
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion, 1970, I.C.J.
52-53, ¶ 113-114 (June 21)[“Namibia Advisory Opinion”].
176
Id.
177
U.N. Charter, Article 27(2).
178
U.N. Charter, Article 27(3).
179
UNRCCA, United Nations Security Council Resolutions (2020),
https://unrcca.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/6-
unrcca_handout_unsc_resolutions_eng_2020_1_2.pdf.
180
THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A COMMENTARY, supra note 158, at 1002.
28
territories’, the draft resolution was put to vote and the adoption was processed through the
unanimous decision, as resolution 672 (1990).181
Resolution 99997 was, similarly, unanimously adopted by all UNSC members. 182 The
Resolution was adopted unanimously after hearing both Parties as per the scheduled meeting
between the Parties and the Security Council. 183 Resolution 99997 places extensive emphasis on
the ongoing commitment of the UNGA that sets prevention and reduction of statelessness as the
primary responsibility of states184 in its preambular paragraphs.185 Along with these, it also bears
recalling the relevant principle of CRS and CSP in its preambular paragraphs. 186
The discussions after hearing both the parties and the UNSC, altogether unanimously
adopted the resolution determining the need for the establishment of a committee to determine
the facts and circumstances underlying the deprivation of the citizenship of certain prisoners in
Remisia.187
ii. Resolution 99997 is adopted under Article 34 of the Charter provisions.
Resolution 99997 was adopted as per Article 34 of the Charter which allows the Council
to investigate the disputed matter for fact-finding. 188 Article 34 provides for the UNSC to
investigate any dispute or situation that might lead to international friction and whether its
continuance will likely endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. 189 The
181
U.N. DEP'T OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS, Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council, Supp.
1989-1992, at 856, U.N. Doc. ST/PSCA/1/Add.11, U.N. Sales No. 05.VII.1.
182
183
Id.
184
G.A. Res. 61/137, ¶ 7 (Jan. 25, 2007).
185
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
186
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect
of Kosovo Advisory Opinion, 2010, I.C.J. ,442 ¶ 94 (July 22) [“Kosovo Advisory Opinion”];
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
187
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
188
G.A. Res 46/59(1991); S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
189
29
mere presumption of the possible emergence of friction or dispute is a sufficient ground for
investigation by the UNSC.190
The investigation missions established under this Article are to clarify certain incidents 191
and do not need the prior consent of the host country. 192 The unanimously adopted Resolution
99997193 has mandated the formation of the UNIMR to ascertain the facts 194
relating to the
circumstances underlying the deprivation of the citizenship of certain prisoners in Remisia. 195
The admission of investigators is essential for the effective discharge by the UNSC of its
functions and obliges the members to tolerate an investigation carried out in their territory. 196
Hence, the UNSC has the authority to investigate any situation or dispute for fact-finding for
which Dr. Malex must be admitted to Remisia.
2. The decision to investigate under Resolution 99997 adopted as per Article 34 has
binding effects on Member States under Article 25.
190
191
S.C. Res. 1559, (April 7, 2005); The Council has established an investigative body to clarify
certain incidents, such as the International Independent Investigation Commission with the
mandate to assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects of the assassination
of former Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Hariri.
192
193
194
S.C. Res. 15, (Dec. 19, 1946); The Security Council under Article 34 of the Charter establish
a Commission of Investigation to ascertain the facts relating to the alleged border violations
along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia on the
other.
195
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
196
30
Remisia has failed to abide by the decisions of the Council that Member States must
implement under the Charter.197 As per Article 25, the members of the UN agree to accept and
carry out the decisions of the UNSC under the present Charter. 198 Thus, under Article 25,
Remisia is obliged to carry out the decisions under Resolution 99997 as it applies to all ‘ the
decisions of the Security Council’ adopted under the Charter,199 and precisely extends to other
chapters, particularly Chapter VI.200
Resolution 99997 adopted as per Chapter VI, 201 has decided the formation of an
investigating committee to determine the facts and circumstances underlying the deprivation of
the citizenship of the Sterren Forty in Remisia.202
Decisions of the Security Council taken under Article 34 referring to an investigation do

not have the character of ‘recommendations’ instead, the ‘decisions’ in the narrower sense of
Article 25 are binding upon the states concerned. 203 The decision to investigate under Resolution
99997 was adopted as per Article 34 and is applicable as an injunction and has binding effects on
Member States under Article 25.204 In the Greek Question, the resolution of the UNSC adopted
under Article 34, established a subsidiary group which was binding on the concerned four states,
197
U.N. Security Council, What is the Security Council?,
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/what-security-council#:~:text=All%20members
%20of%20the%20United,to%20implement%20under%20the%20Charter (last visited on Oct. 5,
2023).
198
199
Namibia advisory opinion, ¶ 113.
200
201
202
S.C. Res. 99997, (April 11, 2022).
203
HANS KELSON, THE LAW OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ITS
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS, 445, (George W. Keeton & Georg Shwarzenberge eds., 1st ed.
1950).
204
U.N., Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs, for Articles 34, Vol. 2, ¶ 40 (1945-
1954).
31
along with the decisions taken by it in pursuance of the resolution. 205 Remisia is bound by the
UNIMR and the decisions taken by it as per Resolution 99997.
The primary function of maintenance of peace and security of the UNSC 206 can be
ensured by the entry of investigators, which also obliges the Members to tolerate any
investigation carried out within their territory.207 UNIMR were undertaken to fulfil the prime
purpose of the UN that is to promote and to a peaceful settlement of the situations. 208 Remisia
must allow the entrance of Dr. Malex to ensure the effective discharge of the duties of the
UNSC. The denial by the Remisian border agents to the entrance of Dr. Malex into Remisia 209
has violated international law.
205
Id.
206
207
U.N. Charter, Article 24, 25; THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: A COMMENTARY,
supra note 158, at 794.
208
Certain Expenses of the United Nations.
209
32
PRAYER OF RELIEF
For the aforementioned reasons, the Republic of Antrano, the Applicant, respectfully prays that
this Honorable Court adjudge and declare that:
I. DECLARE THAT Antrano has standing to bring the matter of the deprivation of
nationality of the “Sterren Forty” to this Court;
II. DECLARE THAT Remisia has violated international law when it deprived the “Sterren
Forty” of their Remisian citizenship in accordance with the DCA.
III. DECLARE THAT Antrano did not violate international law when it did not provide
Ms. Saki Shaw with Remisian consular access while she was held prisoner in Antrano.
IV. DECLARE THAT Remisia violated international law by refusing Dr. Malex to enter
Remisia as per Resolution 99997.
Antrano reserves the right to revise, supplement or amend the terms of its submission, as well as
the grounds invoked in this Memorial.
Respectfully submitted,
Agents for the State of Antrano
33

218A

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

218A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

218A

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE

2024 Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition

THE CASE CONCERNING THE STERREN FORTY

THE KINGDOM OF REMISIA

MEMORIAL for the APPLICANT

I.Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of

C. There is an existence of a dispute between the States............................................................6

A. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty is arbitrary..................................................................8

iii. Remisia has disregarded the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness..........................11

1. Antrano has objected to the reservation made by Remisia.............................................13

2. The reservation does not apply between Antrano and Remisia......................................14

2. The Sterren Forty have the right to peaceful assembly......................................................16

E. Remisia violated other rules of conventional and customary international law....................16

3. The principle of non-retrogression prevents Remisia from entering into commercial

i. Antrano has fulfilled its international obligation owed under VCCR.........................21

1. Dr. Malex is an expert within the meaning of Section 22 of the CPI.............................25

B. The Security Council Resolution 99997 has a binding effect............................................27

1. The language of the Resolution gives rise to a mandatory obligation to Remisia to

ii. Resolution 99997 is adopted under Article 34 of the Charter provisions......................29

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

ICJ. PCIJ CASES AND ADVISORY OPINIONS

BOOKS, JOURNALS AND ARTICLES

OTHER COURTS CASES

OVERVIEW OF THE PARTIES

THE DISRESPECT TO THE CROWN ACT ("DCA")

THE NATURALIZATION BY INVESTMENT ACT AND PROGRAM IN REMISIA

THE MINING IN THE ISIDRE PLATEAU

THE ILSA PROTESTS AND THE STERREN FORTY

THE ARREST OF MS. SAKI SHAW

THE SPECIAL AGREEMENT AND THE PRESENT DISPUTE

I. Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of

Article 48(1)(a) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful

Statelessness is a matter of common interest of the contracting parties of Convention on

C. There is an existence of a dispute between the States.

A. The deprivation of the Sterren Forty is arbitrary.

If an individual is to be stripped of their citizenship, both a necessity and proportionality

iii. Remisia has disregarded the principle of Avoidance of Statelessness.

Supra note 50, ¶ 94; Tunis Conclusions, ¶ 19.

1. Antrano has objected to the reservation made by Remisia.

Antrano submitted to the UN Secretary-General an objection to Remisia’s declaration 74

2. The Sterren Forty have the right to peaceful assembly.

E. Remisia violated other rules of conventional and customary international law.

3. The principle of non-retrogression prevents Remisia from entering into commercial

According to Article 36(1)(b), the receiving State is required to inform detained or

1. Dr. Malex is an expert within the meaning of Section 22 of the CPI.

B. The Security Council Resolution 99997 has a binding effect.

1. The language of the Resolution gives rise to a mandatory obligation to Remisia to

The decisions of the UNSC need to be confirmed by an affirmative vote of nine

ii. Resolution 99997 is adopted under Article 34 of the Charter provisions.

Decisions of the Security Council taken under Article 34 referring to an investigation do

Agents for the State of Antrano

You might also like