INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(APPLICANT)
V.
ATLANTIS
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

Styszko & Messerli

April 18, 2022

 TABLE OF CONTENT
INDEX ............................................................................................................................................ 2

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 2

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 4

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE .................................................. 4

THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED ART. 2 OF ICSFT .............................................................. 5

THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED ART. 5, ART.8 AND ART. 18 OF ICSFT THROUGH

NOT TAKING ACTIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT VIOLATION OF THE ART. 2 OF
ICSFT .......................................................................................................................................... 6

THE RESPONDENT WAS MAINTAINING RELATIONS WITH A REGIME THAT WAS

VIOLATING ICSFT ................................................................................................................... 7

REQUEST ...................................................................................................................................... 7

INDEX

Art. – Article
ICSFT– International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism 1999
Vienna Convention – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Applicant – Unites States of America
Respondent – Atlantis

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Charter of the United Nations

Statue of the International Court of Justice
International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism 1999
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001
Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2012), pp. 279–298

2
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands) Judgment of 20 February 1969
Case Concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 1
April 2011
Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism
(Ukraine v. Russian Federation) Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 8 November 2019
Application of ICSFT on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and
Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007

INTRODUCTION

1. The terrorist group League of Shadows since 2018 has committed various crimes on the
territory of United States in order to intimidate the population and to exert pressure on the
government, as they stated in their manifesto form 2018 they will not stop until: “corrupt
American civilization is purified”.
2. The international investigation done on the behalf of the United Nations by Bruce
Wayne/Batman assigned by the Secretary General himself to this role provides us with
direct proves that the Respondent did sponsor the spoken terrorist group.
3. According to Batman Report submitted to the UN General Assembly on 19 February
2019 contains evidence showing that a garrison of 1,200 stingrays (Manta birostris) that
belonged to the Atlantean army was commandeered to transport ammunition and firearms
on 22 May 2016. The supplies were received by the daughter of the head of the group –
Talia al Ghul. At the same port a lesser garrison of transport rays arrived twice more on
13 November 2016 and on 14 February 2017 providing further arms shipments to the
members of the League of Shadows. The same species of fish whose tetroxin was used as
a poison in the first attack of the group is treated as pets in Auqaman - the head of the
Respondent state estate.
4. Auqaman has moreover shown on numerous public occasions his mocking approach to
the tragedy of hundreds of Americans. His public statements indicate not only his lack of
condemnation to the crimes of League of Shadows but also indirect support.
5. In 2017 he also stated in his public speech that it is not possible to call the America and
Europe his friends, expressing his lack of good faith.

3
 6. The lack of good faith form the Respondent regarding the process of arbitration strongly
advocated by the Applicant led to the failure in agreeing on arbitration.
7. The Respondent also remains in diplomatic relations with the state of Themyscira which
is not only a recognized regime but also openly supports the League of Shadows.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

I. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE

8. This Court according to art. 36 (1) of its statute has jurisdiction over “all cases which
the parties refer to it (...) in treaties and conventions in force”
9. The Applicant argues for the jurisdiction of this court regarding its subsequent claims
invoking art. 24 paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism which states that the jurisdiction of this Court covers “any
dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application
of this Convention” The Applicant and the Respondent are parties to ICSFT.
10. The parties to the dispute entertain different views regarding the interpretation of
ICSFT.
11. The Applicant contends that the Respondent violated the principles of ICSFT while the
Respondent denies that it has committed any violation listed by the applicant.
12. The Applicant also contends that “any person…” who performs offenses defined by
art. 2 of ICSFT isn’t limited to private persons but as well states while the Respondent
holds that ICSFT does not define any offenses by states.
13. Moreover the Applicant contends that “with knowledge” is to be understood as
comprising awareness of providing the funds to a terrorist group while the Respondent
argues that knowledge about the plans and actions of the group is required.
14. The parties couldn’t settle through negotiation nor agree on the organization of the
arbitration for much longer than six months from the Applicant’s demand for it, what
meets the criteria stated in art. 24 of ICSFT.
15. The settlement nor arbitration couldn’t be established even though the Applicant had
the best intention and performed genuine trials to do so.

4
 16. The Applicant has sent 11 diplomatic notes to the Respondent since May 2018 and
despite 12 months lasting correspondence the both sides couldn’t agree on any
common ground.
17. 15 November 2019 the Applicant made a demand to the Respondent to proceed to
arbitration but despite ongoing discussion the parties failed to agree on the organization
of the arbitration.
18. The Applicant insisted strongly on arbitration before an ad hoc chamber in the
International Court of Justice but the Respondent was unwilling to agree to it.
19. The Applicant filed its complaint with the ICJ on 1 December 2020 – long after the
required minimum six months period.

II. THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED ART. 2 OF ICSFT

20. As shown in the Batman Report the weaponry supplies were provided by the garrison
of the Respondent’s army to the members of League of Shadows respectively on 22
May 2016, on 13 November 2016 and on 14 February 2017.
21. Crimes committed by League of Shadows aim to intimidate the population and to exert
pressure on the government, thus meeting the definition of an act of terrorism stated in
art. 2 of ICSFT, as the targets of the attacks were important to the American culture
and thus had an impact on the American citizens, and as the head of the terrorist group
on 1 June 2018 published a manifesto where he declared that the attacks would not
cease until "consumerist, corrupt American civilization is purified”.
22. As stated in art. 2 of ICSFT it is an offence of the art. to provide funds to the terrorist
group “with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to
be used” to carry out their terrorist activity.
23. As at the time the League of Shadows have already committed various terrorist crimes,
it is reasonable to assume that they would continue to do so in the future (as they did).
24. To commit an offense to art. 2 of ICSFT there is no need for actual knowledge about
the plans of the group, knowledge that the group carries out terrorist activities, is
sufficient, and the Respondent had this knowledge before being a close associate of
Batman – a direct enemy of the group.
25. It is not required for the funds to be used for specific acts as art. 3 of ICSFT provides.

5
 26. The head of the Respondent state has personal reasons to support the actions of the
League of Shadows and has expressed it numerous times at public encounters. After
the disintegration of the Justice League, Aquaman not only recovered from his public
life in the United States but also started aggressive rhetoric towards it.
27. As ICSFT bounds the states to prevent the financing of acts of terrorism, it would be a
logical paradox not to expand the understanding of “any person (...)” used in art. 2 of
ICSFT to states, and prohibit them from financing the acts of terrorism themselves.
28. This Court has before used similar reasoning in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v
Serbia and Montenegro from 2007, stating that if ICSFT obliges the states to prevent
and punish acts of genocide it is logical for it to imply the prohibition of genocide for
the states themselves. 1
29. As stated in its preamble the purpose of ICSFT is to take “effective measures for the
prevention of the financing of terrorism” , yet not seeing the states as bound by ICSFT
not to finance such acts themselves, makes it inefficient and constitutes breach to art.
31 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from 1969 which states that a treaty
shall be interpreted: “in the light of its object and purpose.” as the purpose isn’t
fulfilled by this interpretation.
30. There is also no direct reason to limit the definition of “any person…” from the article
2 of ICSFT to only private persons. An official or an organ of a state can commit the
offenses defined in art. 2 of ICSFT.
31. According to art. 4 of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001
the actions of an organ of a state shall be regarded as actions of its state.
32. Army of a state is its organ and therefore the offense to art. 2 of ICSFT by the garrison
of Atlantean army subsequently in 2016 and 2017 is to be understood as an offense
committed by Atlantis. Moreover, ICSFT states in art. 5 and art. 18 that also offenses
done by the officials of a state are to be properly addressed by the state.
33. Therefore the responsibility of a state for its organs indicates that states are indeed to
be considered in the application of art. 2 of ICSFT.
III. THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED ART. 5, ART.8 AND ART. 18 OF ICSFT

1
Application of ICSFT on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports
2007, p. 113, para. 166 [hereinafter Bosnia Genocide]

6
 34. Even if, we couldn’t hold the Respondent accountable for the sponsoring of terrorism
by itself, they have still failed to take appropriate measures for such actions to be
prevented and condemned by their nationals and officials.
35. The garrison of the army was composed form nationals of Atlantis, and is a legal entity
- on organ of the state, so according to the art. 7 (c) and art. 5 of ICSFT, a state should
establish its jurisdiction over such activities and take proactive measures for such
behavior to be prosecuted. The Respondent took no such measures failing to fulfill the
agreements of ICSFT.
36. The Respondent didn’t seize the funds used by the garrison , thus violating art. 8 of
ICSFT.
37. The Respondent did not prosecute the actions which allows us to believe that the
Respondent does not only not condemn the actions but might even support it.
38. The Respondent wasn’t willing to cooperate with the Applicant in preventing and
punishing such acts during the negotiations, thus they are liable in accordance to art. 18
of ICSFT.
IV. THE RESPONDENT WAS MAINTAINING RELATIONS WITH A REGIME THAT WAS
VIOLATING ICSFT
39. Themyscira being an isolated regime openly supports the League of Shadows and
sanctions apartheid.
40. Prohibition of apartheid being a peremptory norm constitutes a basic for international
law, therefore is above the international agreements. 2
41. Breach to this law can be committed by every state, regardless of its membership to
any international organization or treaty.
42. Themyscira also openly supports a terrorist organization – League of Shadows.
43. The Respondent through maintaining relations with Themyscira not only fails to
condemn such actions but even expresses their support to it, and thorough such politics
show their careless approach to the international norms and the lack of good intentions
for the international community.
44. It constitutes a basis for a doubt in their innocence regarding not having a knowledge
about the consequences of their actions regarding providing funds for the League of

2
International Law Commission, 2019, Ch.5 Peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens)

7
 Shadows, as it is rational to believe that everyone of good faith would condemn such
behavior as soon as learning about its nature, what the Respondent failed to do.
REQUEST
45. Based on the reasons presented above, the United States of America requests this Court
to declare that:
46. (i) it has jurisdiction over this dispute;
47. (ii) the Respondent committed a breach to ICSFT;
48. (iii) the Respondent violated the basic norms of international law by maintaining
relations with Themyscira.