 Good morning/afternoon, Mr/Madam President and your excellences, my name is Novita Sri

Desi Angraini along with my co-counsel, rani harahap will be appealing on the present case
on behalf of the respondent, the State/Republic of Rupta, may it please?
 I will be submitting our submission in regards to CASE CONCERNING THE SOUTH
YULA OCEAN AND MIBACO VIRUS OUTBREAK
(of the case) for 3 minutes.

I. RUPTA’S ATTACK ON A AHA SHIP DID NOT VIOLATE

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
An armed conflict is considered as international armed conflict [hereinafter, the “IAC”] if it
takes place between two State or more and involves the armed forces. 1 As it happened in
this proceeding, it indicated the element of IAC between Rupta and Alzaf. Attack on an AHA
Ship was compliant with international human law, since: (A) the attack does fall under
military necessity (B) the attack in conformity with international law principle.

A. The attack does fall under military necessity

When there is probability of threat may exist in the State, thus, they are not required to
remain passive in the face of threats to their existence. 2Rupta’s government declared that
Alzaf’s conduct in AHA Ship is a threat to international peace and security. The attack does
fall under military necessity since: (A) AHA Ship is a non-the military advantage.

1. AHA Ship is a non-innocent passage and is a valid military objective

As the enforcement regarding the rights of protection of the coastal States under Article 25
of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [hereinafter, the “UNCLOS”], Rupta had an
inspection3 towards AHA Ship to ensure that AHA Ship is a non-innocent passage and indeed
military objective. Non-innocent activity of arms supply between Aya Justice Front and Alzaf,
falls under the non-threatening activity which does not violate or break any statements in
said passage. Thus, it is plausible for prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the
coastal State,4 as the anticipatory measures, Rupta took all steps and ensured that AHA
Ships is a non-innocent passage and thereby becoming military objectives.

2. The attack will contribute to the military advantage

1
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision) [2007] ICC-01/04-01/06-803, ¶ 209.
2
Report of the United Nations Secretary General, ‘Relationship between Disarmament and
International Security’ (1982) UN Doc A/36/597, [124].
3
Oxford Public International Law, Innocent Passage, Oxford University Press (2015), p. 6.
4
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (16 November 1994) 1883 UNTS 397Art. 19(1)
Provision of prohibition to use of force is not solely absolute. 5Unless it is directed only
against legitimate military objectives that are defined by their nature, location, purpose or
use6 will provide an effective contribution and particular military advantage when attacking
them. The attack was proportionate as it was limited tofall under military necessity related
to the purpose of safeguarding the peace and security of Rupta as a State.

 Are there any further question, your excellences?

 So my co-counsel will continue with the second point

5
UN Charter, n. 12, art. 2(4); James A Green, Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of
the

Use of Force (2011) 32 MitchelL 215, 229.

6
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention, International Committee on the Red Cross [ICRC], 8

June 1977, arts. 51, 52(2).