REPUBLIC OF RACEL

WHETHER OR NOT THE ICJ HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE

WHETHER OR NOT ANLUSAN CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMITTING AN

INTERNATIONALLY WRONGFUL ACT FOR THE SUPPOSED INTERVENTION IN THE
ELECTIONS.
I. Anlusan Can Be Held Responsible For Committing An Internationally Wrongful Act

The United Nations Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act (Article 2, UN
RSIWA) sets out the two elements for the existence of an internationally wrongful act pertaining to (a)
conduct attributable to the State, which (b) is inconsistent with its international obligations. This means
that a State can only be held liable for committing an internationally wrongful act upon the concurrence
of the two elements. For the case of the Federation of Anlusan, the two elements can be clearly
established.

A. The Federation of Anlusan maliciously intervened in the election, an act which attributable
to the said state.
The first element for the existence of internationally wrongful act pertains to an act attributable to
the State. (Art. 2 UN RSIWA) Chapter II of the United Nations Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Act sets out what constitutes as acts attributable to a state, which may be done
by an organ of a State (Article 4) , of a person or group directed or controlled by the State (Article 8), of
an organ placed at the disposal of the State by another State (Article 6), of a person exercising elements of
governmental authority (Article 5), of persons or groups acting in the absence or default of official
authorities (article 9) and of acts of insurrectional or other movements (article 10). Moreover, the said law
also creates responsibility for conduct acknowledged and accepted by a State as its own (article 11).
The Federation of Anlusan maliciously intervened in the election held by the Republic of Racel
by sending out its military and patrol boats on the Bellonese side of the lake (Compromis) and by causing
the spread of misinformation and acts of terror through social media (Compromis).
i. Anlusanian Intervention by Sending Military Forces

The Federation of Anlusan sent out its military and navy patrol boats towards the Bellonese side
of the lake, which the Anlusanian government later acknowledged, but alleged that the military
intervention was only to protect the Recelians from the unidentified tanks. (Compromis)

The said military intervention is an act that can be attributed to the Federation of Anlusan. Firstly,
the military intervention was made through the instruction of the Anlusanian government itself. Secondly,
they subsequently acknowledged as the said military intervention as their own act.

ii. No Requirement of Fault or Wrongful Intent

iii.
 It can be argued that the military intervention by the Federation of Anlusan was not done to
intimidate Racel into staying with Bellona and that the same was done only to protect the Racelians from
the unidentified tanks. Nevertheless, it can be gleaned from Article 2 of UN RSIWA, that fault or
wrongful intent is not a requisite for responsibility arising from an internationally wrongful act to attach.
(Commentary on RSIWA) Simply stated, the provision does not require fault or wrongful intent. The
mere commission of an internationally wrongful act, even with all good intention, can still hold the State
liable.

The position expressed by the Articles indicates that fault is not necessarily required in every case for
international responsibility to arise. It may be required, of course, in some or even many cases, but this
determination is left to primary rules on State obligations, with the Articles taking a neutral position in
this regard, neither requiring nor excluding these elements in any given case.

iv. Anlusanian Intervention by Spreading Misinformation and Acts of Terror Through

Social Media

Article 4 Conduct of organs of a State 1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that
State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other
functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an
organ of the central government or of a territorial unit of the State.

B. The Federation of Anlusan breached its international obligation by violating the norm of
non-intervention and protection of sovereignty of states.

i. Anlusan committed breach of obligation

a. Anlusan violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

(prohibition on the use of force or threat to use force. Definition of force. Naval seal
as a form of force and cyber attack as a form of force. There was force in this case.)
b. Anlusan violated the doctrine of non-interference
(interference by means of physical (navy seal) and social media campaigns)
(use of “force” not only physical)

v. Anlusan’s Intervention in the Election was a denial of Racel’s Right to Self-

Determination
WHETHER OR NOT SATELLITE, FEZNOTE, CHIRPER AND THE INTERNATIONAL
MEDIA COMPANIES CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR
THE SPREAD OF THE VIDEOS AND HOSTILE MESSAGES BEFORE THE ELECTION

I. Satellite, Feznote, Chirper And The International Media Companies can be held liable

i. Limitation of Freedom of Expression

ii. Cyber Attack Argument

(information campaign argument, propaganda, etc.)

II. Self Restriction on Social

WHETHER OR NOT THE SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY RACEL ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. Sanctions imposed by Racel are Justified as a form of a Necessary Countermeasure

II.