CLAIM B

Ragnell violated its Treaty obligations with its attacks on both Nant Gateway and
Compound Ardan, and must pay reparations to Aglovale for the deaths of 8
Aglovelean nationals.

Good morning, Your Excellency, and other esteemed members present in the court. It
is an honor to be here today on behalf of the state of Aglovale, defending that Ragnell
violated its Treaty obligations with the attacks on both Nant Gateway and Compound
Ardan, and must provide compensation to Aglovale for the deaths of 8 Aglovelean
nationals, this because of 4 different arguments:

1. The attacks in the Nant Gateway violated the principle of proportionality

Principle of Proportionality Art 14 of the norms of the International

humanitarian law: This principle establishes that attacks directed at military targets
must be proportional to the anticipated harm to be caused to the enemy, and that
collateral damage to the civilian population and their property must be kept to a
minimum in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated. In this case, the
attacks on Nant Gateway and the Ardan Complex violated this principle, as they
caused civilian deaths and damaged civilian property without a clear concrete military
advantage.

2. The attacks on the Compound Ardan violated the Principle of precaution

established in the art 57 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 of August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims
of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

This protocol establishes additional rules for the protection of civilian persons in times
of armed conflict.

Principle of Precaution: This principle requires that parties to an armed conflict take
all necessary precautions to minimize harm to the civilian population and their
property. In this case, Ragnell did not take the necessary precautions to protect the
civilian population, as there were civilian deaths and damage to fundamental civilian
property.

3. The state of Ragnell violated the principle of distinction established in the

Protocol of Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
The Principle of Distinction: This principle requires that parties to an armed conflict
must distinguish between combatants and military targets on the one hand, and
civilians and civilian objects on the other hand. Attacks must be directed only against
military targets and must not affect the civilian population or their property. In this
case, the attacks on Nant Gateway and the Ardan Complex violated this principle, as
both places were civilian and did not have a legitimate military importance.

4. Obligation to allow and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid

established in the art 55 of the norms of the International Humanitarian
Law:

According to international humanitarian law, parties to an armed conflict have an

obligation to allow and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to the needy civilian
population. In this case, it could be argued that Ragnell violated this obligation by
destroying Nant Gateway, which was an important entry point for humanitarian aid,
and by preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid to the needy civilian population.

Reparations

According to Art 150 of the IHL The State responsible for violations of international
humanitarian law is obliged to make full reparation for the loss or injury caused.
Reparation measures are actions that a state responsible for a violation of international
law may take to remedy the harm caused to another state or its nationals. These
measures are provided for in international human rights law, international
humanitarian law, and other areas of international law.

Reparation measures may include:

1. Restitution: restoring the situation to what it was before the violation, for
example, by returning properties illegally confiscated.

2. Compensation: paying a sum of money to compensate for the damages caused.

3. Rehabilitation: providing services or support to help victims recover from the

harm caused, for example, medical or psychological care.

4. Satisfaction: providing measures that satisfy the demands of the victims of the
violation, for example, a public apology.