● · What is the binding effect of that cited material?

(referring to UN CRC)
● · As of today, to your knowledge, are the children in question under the territorial juris
of Albion?
○ No, they are in the territory of Assur, an area captured by the Batavians.
The Batavians are politically supported by the State of Qin, which means
that Qin has jurisdiction over the area that the Batavians control. (R
Memorial, p.1; brief explanation below.)
● · Why would you refer to the children as captives when the facts do not say that they
are captives?
● · Is it not true that they went there in their own volition?
● · Can you give some examples of interim measures?
● · Agent do you have a precedent where the interim measure is practiced in the
jurisdiction of this court?
● · How do you define irreparable harm? What harm is present in this case?
● · What is the basis of that definition? (referring to irreparable harm) Yung basis pwede
sa ibang tribunal na case galing. Hanap na lang ng definition na related sa kaso.
● · Since you have mentioned in the Northern part of Assur why not make Assur offer
these rights to the children and not Albion?
○ Hard question to answer, pero applying the control test with regard to
jurisdiction (R Memorial, p.1):
■ We can easily implicate Assur is obligated since generally
jurisdiction is territorial. However, pwede nila iargue or pwedeng
maging relevant tong loss of control as they does not have
jurisdiction over the children as they have no control over the area.
They have not exercised any acts, nor can they do so (no
government functions available in the area of the Desert Camp), in
any individuals in the area where the Desert Camp is located. Pero I
think we need to research more on what constitutes loss of
jurisdiction.
■ The state of Qin has jurisdiction over the area since they have
extended their jurisdiction through control over the area as they are
politically supporting and ensuring the survival of the organization
of the Batavians. They also have exercised control over individuals
sa Desert Camp since yung act of detainment is already
contemplated in jurisprudence. These two would constitute as
extra-territorial jurisdiction which would lead to the children being
under their jurisdiction (refer to R memorial). However, Qin is not a
signatory to the treaty.
● · The purpose of interim measures is to maintain a status quo until further proceedings
are made. Am I correct?
○ No, interim measures may also mandate states to take actions.
● · So assuming that an interim measure would be granted and these people are
repatriated, what happens when they lose the case? If it is decided that there is no
obligation. Do we return them to the war(eme) area?
○ What the question is trying to point to here is that there are things called
interim judgments. There are two kinds of interim measures:
■ When the interim measures are essentially asking for the
satisfaction of a substantial part of a claim. The interim measures
 are asking for the immediate repatriation of the children, which is
literally one of the remedies sought for in their communication.
■ When the interim measures cannot be reversed on the event that the
party that requested the measures lose the case. I think I cited a
case in the memorial that states that if the reversal would be absurd,
it should not be done. It is unreasonable to return the children to the
Desert Camp in the event Albion wins the case as they cannot return
them to the Desert Camp.
○ I feel like pwedeng i-argue dito na hindi natin problema kung sino yung
may jurisdiction once we prove na we don’t have jurisdiction since
obligation nung applicant na implicate tayo.
● Does the right exist? Up to what extent does the right exist?
● Hanap ng application ng articles sa cases.
● Hanap ng relevant case: Format: Relevant Facts, Application of the Principle, Relevancy
to R. and others vs. Albion
● Make an alternative submission
● Check Nuclear Weapons Test Case regarding the utterances of heads of State as
binding to the State
● Minimum Compliance of Albion. (Research on this)
● Check the rights if jus cogens. (dapat may case na mag-back up and relate sa Child
RIghts kasi parehong Human Rights)
● With regard to the territoriality rule, Are states only required to extend protection
for children under the convention to their citizens?
○ No, UNCRC provides children under their jurisdiction. These general
rule is jurisdiction is territorial, which means it includes non-citizens
similar to the laws on refugees, EXCEPT:
■ State has control over the area either through direct control
through their armed forces or through indirect control through
a subordinate administration subjected to its influence. (R
Memorial, p.1)
■ State has exercised control over certain individuals, which
would extend such state’s jurisdiction over to and ONLY these
particular individuals. (R Memorial, p.1l)
● So with that argument, are you implying that states can violate these rights if it involves
children which are not citizens of their state?
○ No, refer to above.
● But non-protection of these rights constitutes violation, right? How can you reconcile the
fact that your argument poses that you are not obliged to protect the rights of non-citizen
children but the rights can be violated by omission?
○ You can reconcile this by proving that it is the state of Qin who has
jurisdiction over the children in the Desert Camp. The UNCRC itself states
that the obligations of a state only extend to children within its jurisdiction.
● What is the quantum of proof needed to prove the citizenship of a child? Since even if
the records of the children was lost, it can still be gleaned from the case that the said
children are Albion citizens. Is the loss of said record enough to derogate the right of the
children to acquire citizenship under Albion Laws?
○ I’m not sure how to provide for this, most of the things I found is that the
quantum of proof for identification solely depends on domestic law.
Citizenship POE-LLAMANZARES v. CA case, nationality foundling
● The Minister of Foreign Affairs already recognized R. and others as citizens. Is this
binding to Albion?