Issues from the Petitioner side ( Uraine)

1. Is the military intervention conducted by ROOS against Uraine

considered a breach of Uraine soveregnity and territorial
integrity according to international law? Additionally does this
military action infringe upon fundamental rights, such as right
to life and right to self determination of the people of Uraine ?

= Uraine is a sovereign country which means the country has

power to control its own govt. and ROOS’s military intervention
would be considered a breach of Uraine’s sovereignty and
territorial integrity. In accordance with provisions of UN Charter
and principle of International Law which state that every State
in international relations is prohibited from threatening or
acting on military violence against the territorial integrity of the
state. UN Charter stated that protection of territorial integrity
mentioned as a crucial component of the prohibition of the use
of force as provided for in Article 2 (4): “ All members shall
refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity of any state. On a
judgement of the case Island of Palmas, a definition was drawn
on sovereignty that it is the relation between states means
Independence. Independence in relation to an area of the globe
is the right to exercise his functions within the state. In the
Corfu Channel case, sovereignty is defined as asset of rights and
attributes possessed by the state in its territory excluding other
State, and also in his relations with other states. The
Sovereignty of state provides the right of protection
responsibility for the sovereignty of its people, respecting and
fulfilling it’s a citizen right and cooperate on the international
community. On the Nicaragua Case, United states violated
Nicaragua’s sovereignty by committing a war against
Nicaragua which resulted in violation of the most universally
accepted principles of International Law . The violation was
made by several allegations: mining of nicaraguan harbors;
attacking of oil installations, exerting various form of economic
pressure of Nicaragua. The dispute was settled before the
International Court of Justice where United States argues that
their acts were collective self defense. Nicaragua filed an
application on April 9,1984, for proceeding against the US citing
and support of military in and against Nicaragua. This included
armed attacks against Niucaragua, incursions into territorial
waters, aerial trespass, indirect and direct means to coerce the
Nicaraguan govt. On its judgements, the court rejected the
justification of collective self defence by the United States and
stated it had violated the obligations imposed by the customary
International law not to intervene in the affairs of another state

ROOS’s military action

infringe upon fundamental rights such as right to life and right
to self determination of the people of Uraine . Uraine and ROOS
are both party to a number of regional and international
human rights treaties , including the European Convention
against Torture and other cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT). These treaties outlines
gurantees for fundamental rights such as prohibition on torture
and inhuman and degrading treatment , the rights to fair trail
which have been breached by the ROOS’s military action. The
law of war limits attacks to “military objectives”. Military
objectives are personnel and objects that are making an
effective contribution to military action and whose destruction,
capture or neutralization offers military advantage. Prohibited
indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are
attacks by artillery and military commanders must choose a
means of attacks that can be directed at military attack and
will minimize incidental harm to civilians. Parties in conflict
 must take feasible precautions to verify that the object of attack
are military objectives and not civilians objects and giving
“effective advance warning” of attacks when cimstances permit
but these principles of International humanitarian law were not
followed or implemented from the side of ROOS.

2. Whether ROOS’s military action, resulting in civilian casualties

and displacement , constitutes a breach of International
humanitarian law?
= Yes, ROOS’s military action , resulting in civilian casualties and
displacement, constitutes a breach of International
humanitarian law. Hostilites between ROOS’s armed force
Uranian armed force constitute an international armed conflict
governed by International humanitarian treaty law ( primarily
the four Geneva Convention of 1949 and its first additional
protocol of 1977( protocol 1) , the Hague conventions of 1907
regulating the means and methods of welfare as well as the
rules of customary international humanitarian law.
International humanitarian law, or the laws of war, provides
protections to civilians and other non combatants from the
hazard of armed conflict. Foremost is the rule that parties to a
conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and
civilians. Civilians may never be the deliberate target of attacks.
Parties to conflict are required to take all feasible precautions to
minimize harm to civilians and civilian object and not to
conduct attacks that fail to discriminate between combatants
and civilians or would cause disproportionate harm to the
civilian population. The law of war also protect “civilian object”,
which are defined as anything not considered a military
objective. Direct attacks against civilian objects such as homes,
appartments and businesses, place of worship, hospitals,
schools and cultural monuments – are prohibited unless they
are being used for military purposes and thus become military
objectives. Direct attack on civilians and civilian objects are
prohibited . the law of war also prohibit indiscriminate attacks.
Examples of indiscriminate are those that are not directed at a
specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be
directed ata specific military objective. But ROOS’s with its
military intervention breached the international humanitarian
law. Case law : Russia vs Ukraine

Issues of the respondent

1. Did the military action undertaken by the state of ROOS
against Uraine constitute a lawfull exercise of self defense
under international law, considering the alleged
involvement of Uraine in supporting internal unrest within
ROOS and the perceived threat posed by Uraine’s potential
alignment with the joint action natos alliance?
= The military action undertaken by the state of ROOS against
Uraine constitute a lawfull exercise of self defense under
international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter justifies the
action undertaken by the state of ROOS. It states “ Nothing in
the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self defense if an armed attack occurred against a
Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has
taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. As per Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, that
determination is made, as a matter of practicality , by the
victim state. Where a territorial state is unwilling or unable , the
victim state may consider it use of force to be necessary and
lawfull. The measures taken by Members in the exercise of this
right of self defense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in way effect the authority and
responsibility of the Security council under the present charter
to take at any time such action as it deems necessary In order
to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article
51 has become one of the mosty important, if not the most
impotant article in the charter. It serves the basis of defense in
seven multilateral security arrangements of 67 states. It is
employed in many bilateral pacts and has found other
important application since its inception in 1945. Article 51
have become the keystone of international organization for
security during the present era .Article 51 gives lergal blessing
to the concept that one or more states may lend assistance to
one or more other states, if the latter are being subjected to
armed attack. This principle of collective defense is no means
new to international law
2. Whether the principles of sovereignty and self
determination apply in the conflict between ROOS and
URAINE?
= The principles of sovereignty and self determination applies
at all times in the conflict between ROOS and URAINE. But
the principles of sovereignty breached by the Uraine.
Sovereignty underlies several rights recognized by the
International law, for eg : the right of equality, territorial
jurisdiction, the right to determine nationality for the
population its territory, the right to allow or refuse or
prohibit people from entering and leaving their territory and
the right to nationalize. These principles are deliberately
breached by the Uraine. It does not facilitates right of
equality. The new govt. elected in the Uraine is impartial and
does not fullfill the needs and requirement of the tribal
groups of KREEMA and also termed them Pro ROOS groups.
Even when Uraine was given an option to merge with ROOS
or elect for an independent nation . The tribal groups wanted
and had an desire to be part of ROOS but the native
Urainians neglected their vote . Territorial jurisdiction , right
to determine nationality for the population of its territory,
the right to allow or refuse people from entering and leaving
their territory are not exercised by the govt. of Uraine. So,
the principles of sovereignty and self determination that are
continuously claimed by the Uraine should not be considered
valid