May it please this honourable Court, this is Agent number 1950 representing the State of Shekarpur

in the matters of State of Gogolia v. State of Shekarpur. The agent seeks permission to address the
bench as your Excellency.

Much Obliged, your excellency.

If your excellency is well versed with the facts of the case the agent seeks to move to the issues for
consideration.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
-I-

The “Republic of Shekharpur” is a land-locked country situated on the continent of

Mandoristan. . Gogolia is a developing country which gained independence from Shekharpur
in 1950 by way of violent war of independence. The two countries fought three wars in the
course of 15 years.

-II-

The third and bloodiest war between Shekharpur and Gogolia ended in 1965 with the defeat
of Gogolia. At the peace negotiations brokered by the UN, the two countries signed a
Bilateral Treaty on Peace and Friendship. Shekharpur managed to obtain the province of
Legendipity on lease for 55 years starting 1965 on payment of an annual fee to Gogolia.

-III-

A considerable Shekharpurian population resided in Legendipity. In short, the province and

its coast contributed enormously to the economic development of Shekharpur. There were
many occasions when Gogolia witnessed numerous civil insurrections and violent attempts to
topple the regime.

-IV-

This enabled the rise of various ultra-nationalist forces which objected to the leasing of
Legendipity to Shekharpur. One such organisation was Bhamashah Liberation Front (“BLF”).
After the 2019 General Elections in Shekharpur, the Amir Ali United Front (“AAUF”) came
to power. The leader of the AAUF, Motilal Nayak became the Prime Minister of Shekharpur.
AAUF’s rise to power cause a significant uproar in Gogolia and generated a lot of tensions.

-V-

BLF started resorting to terrorist attacks and cyber-attacks in Legendipity against

Shekharpurian nationals. The Prime Minister of Gogolia, RajSa had on numerous occasions
1
condemned the terrorist attacks and promised action against BLF which was operating from
the territory of Gogolia. The Gogolian police arrested numerous people associated with BLF,
choked their funding and banned the organisation.

-VI-

During one such terrorist attack, 54 Shekharpurian nationals and 19 Gogolian nationals were
killed. In the following week, Motilal ordered a special military operation in Legendipity
with the declared aim of wiping out BLF’s terrorists. Armoured vehicles and Shekharpurian
military battalions entered Legendipity for the first time since the end of the 1965 War.

-VII-

Gogolia has initiated proceedings against Shekharpur in the International Court of Justice
under Article 41 of the Bilateral Treaty on Peace and Friendship which mandated peaceful
settlement of any dispute by the International Court of Justice.

Hence, the matters before this honourable court.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. Whether Legendipity is under the sovereignty of Shekhapur.

II. Whether Shekarpur has a right to self-defence against BLF.

The agent seeks permission to move to the pleadings.

2
PLEADINGS:
I. Legendipity is under the sovereignty of Shekhapur.

1. The Lease Agreement transfers sovereignty of Legendipity to Shekhapur.

2. Shekhapur exercises effective control/ effectivit´es over the territory of Legendipity.
3. The actions of Shekarpur do not constitute use of force/aggression.

1. The Lease Agreement transfers sovereignty of Legendipity to Shekhapur.

Renowned authors such as Malcolm Shaw and Antony Aust state that
sovereignty will be passed to the lessee for the duration of the lease.
The New Territories were leased by China to the United Kingdom for
99 years in 1898,1 and during that period the whole of Hong Kong was
under British sovereignty.2

The lease period has not yet expired and therefore, Legendipity is under
Shekhapur sovereignty. Since sovereignty has been transferred, title has
been transferred and the military forces entering Legendipity cannot be
said to be a violation of the territorial integrity and political
independence of Gogolia.

2. Shekhapur exercises effective control/ effectivit´es over the territory of Legendipity.

In the Minquiers and Ecrehos case,3 the International Court of Justice

based its decision relatively recent acts pertaining to the exercise of
jurisdiction and local administration as well as the type of legislative
enactments applicable to the territory in question. British sovereignty
was upheld on the basis of these arguments. The verdict was rendered in
consideration of competing/relative state actions.

1
90 BSP 17.
2
Id., see also, Aust, supra note 3.
3
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom), 8 ICJ Reports, 1953, p. 47; 20 ILR, p. 94.

3
 As Huber in the Island Palmas case argued, and I quote, “the actual
continuous and peaceful display of state functions is, in case of dispute,
the sound and natural criterion of territorial sovereignty” displayed by
performance of administrative acts.4

There are a few criteria to be fulfilled for effective control, being:

a. Eritrea/Yemen case: Such activity in establishing a claim to territory must
be performed by the state in the exercise of sovereign powers (a titre de
souverain),5 or,
b. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case: By corporations or companies permitted by
the state to engage in such operations and thus performed on behalf of the
sovereign.6
c. Eastern Greenland Case: Requirement of the intention by the state in
performing various activities to assert claim in its sovereign capacity.7

It is argued that Shekhapur exercises effective control over the territory of

Legendipity, since:

The actions are performed by the State and on behalf of the State, and the
establishment of law/order, deployment of police forces and allowing the
settlement of Shekarpurian population, setting up of factories and industries
clearly fulfils all the above mentioned criteria.

Along with the title Shekhapur enjoys via the lease, Shekharpur enjoys effective
control over Legendipity and therefore the territorial sovereignty of Shekhapur
over Legendipity is confirmed.

4
Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. United States) 2 RIAA, pp. 829, 840 (1928).
5
That is, those made as a ‘public claim of right or assertion of sovereignty . . . as well as legislative acts’,
Eritrea/Yemen, 114 ILR, pp. 1, 69.
6
See Judge McNair, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, ICJ Reports, 1951, pp. 116, 184; 18 ILR, pp. 86, 113,
and McNair, International Law Opinions, Cambridge, 1956, vol. I, p. 21. See also O’Connell, International Law,
pp. 417–19.
7
Eastern Greenland Case, 3 PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 53, 1933, p. 46; 6 AD, p. 95.

4
 3. The actions of Shekarpur do not constitute use of force/aggression.

Since Legendipity falls within the sovereign of Shekarpur, any military action of
deployment of military forces will become an internal matter of the State which
must not be interfered with by other States as per Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.
Shekharpur is not violating the territorial integrity or political independence of
Gogolia and hence does not violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

II. Even if Legendipity is not a under the Shekarpur sovereign, the special military
operation (SMO) was targeted in self-defence at the non-State actors (BLF’s Terrorists)
and not against the State of Gogolia.

1.1.Shekhapur has the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the

U.N. Charter.

The language of Article 51, does not mention that the armed attack must
be by a State.

Therefore, it has been acknowledged by authors and through state

practices /representations made by various states such as the US, UK,
France and Turkey that the right of self-defence exists against non-state
actors. The following States have made representations to the UN
That if the State from where the non-state actor is operating is “unwilling
or unable” to deal with the non-state actors, then the State attacked by
the non-state actor inherits the right to self-defence.8

8
Permanent Rep. of the United States to the U.N., Letter dated September 23, 2014 from the Permanent Rep. of
the United States to the United Nations addressed to the U.N. Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. S/2014/695 (Sept.
14, 2014); Permanent Rep. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the U.N., Identical
letters dated November 25, 2014 from the Permanent Rep. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland addressed to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security
Council, U.N. Doc. S/2014/851 (Nov. 26, 2014); Permanent Rep. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland to the U.N., Letter dated September 7, 2015 from the Permanent Rep. of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council,
U.N. Doc. S/2015/688 (Sept. 8, 2015); Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the U.N.,
Letter dated July 24, 2015 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United
Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2015/563 (July 24, 2015); Permanent

5
 The efforts of Gogolia to nullify the BLF have been proven futile and
therefore, Shekhapur has the right to self defence against a non-state
actor in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

1.2.Shekhapur has the right to self-defence under customary

international law.

The text of Article 51 describes the right of self-defence as “inherent”,9

and this implies that the latter right is a part of customary international
law, and Article 51 simply recognizes an existing right. The Caroline
case10 established the right to self-defence against non-state actors in the
territory of another State. Webster acknowledging the presence of the
right to self-defence but restricted cases to where the “necessity of that
self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means,
and no moment for deliberation”.11

The efforts of Gogolia had failed and numerous terrorist attacks are
taking place. Shekhapur has not yet used force but has placed its military
in Legendipity. The imminent nature of the danger has forced Shekarpur
to deploy its military in Legendipity.

SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

Rep. of France to the U.N., Identical letters dated September 8, 2015 from the Permanent Rep. of France to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc.
S/2015/745 (Sept. 9, 2015).
9
Article 51, U.N. CHARTER.
10
For details of the Caroline incident, see Michael Wood, The Caroline Incident-1837, in The Use of Force in
International Law: A Case-Based Approach 5 (Tom Ruys et al. eds., 2018); see also Abraham Sofaer, On the
Necessity of Pre-Emption, 14 European Journal of International Law 209, 214–20 (2003)
11
Id. at 412.

6
For the forgoing reasons the State of Shekarpur (Respondent), respectfully
requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. Legendipity is under the sovereignty of Shekarpur.

2. The military action in Legendipity is legal.