MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY

MOOT COURT, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO._________________OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

CRIMINAL APPEAL NUMBER.____ OF 2023

APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE DECISSION OF KRIMIAN COURT BEFORE THE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

ARBENIAN AUTHORITY V. KRIMIAN AUTHORITY

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMORIAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS_____________________________________ PAGE 3

Page 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES______________________________________ PAGE 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION______________________________ PAGE 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS________________________________________ PAGE 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES_______________________________________ PAGE 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS __________________________________ PAGE 8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ____________________________________ PAGE 9-12

PRAYER_________________________________________________________
PAGE 13
_

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

UN United Nations

Page 2
 ECHR European Court of Human Rights

¶ Paragraph
United Nations Convention Against Torture, Inhuman or
UNCAT
Degrading Treatment or Punishment
SPAS Slytherin Protection and Advancement Society

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Hon'ble Honourable

IACHR Inter-American Court of Human Rights

ACHPR American Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

ECHR European Convention of Human Rights

ILC International Law Commission

EU European Union

Doc. Document

ICC International Criminal Court

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

ICJ International Court of Justice

par. Paragraph

OAS Organization of American States

Vol. Volume

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. LIST OF CASES

SERIAL NO. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

Page 3
 1. S. S. LOTUS CASE 1927

2. SOUTH CHINA CASE

II. LIST OF STATUTES

SERIAL
NAMES
NO.

1. Tandon’s Public International Law, ALA, Revised by S.K. Raghuvanshi

2. PIONEER INTERNATIONAL LAW

3. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW BY H.O AGARWAL

4. CHARTER OF UNITED NATIONS

1. WEB RESOURCES

SERIAL
NAMES
NO.

1. manupatrafast.com

2. scconline.com

3. academia.edu/40497350/ICJ_Moot_Memorial

4. ruwanthikagunaratne.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/lotus-case-summary/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THIS CASE IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF INTERNATIONAL COURT 0F JUSTICE.

Page 4
ARTICLE 35 ANY MEMBER OF THE UNITED NATION MAY BRING ANY DISPUTE OR ANY SITUTION OF
THE NATURE REFERED TO IN ARTICLE 34 OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL COUNCIL.

Page 5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. A Collision occurred on the high seas between two sea vessels, 'Plano' and 'Diano,'

belonging to the countries of Arbenia and Krimia, respectively, on December 10, 2021.

2. The vessel 'Diano' (belonging to Krimia) suffered severe damage and sank as a result of

the collision.

3. Eight crew members on board the 'Diano' lost their lives, while six people, including the

captain, were saved.

4. The captain of the 'Plano' ship, named Adam, was asked by the Krimian authorities to go

ashore and provide evidence regarding the incident on December 14, 2021.

5. The Krimian courts convicted Captain Adam of the 'Plano' ship for negligence conduct,

holding him responsible for allowing the accident to occur.

Page 6
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE:1

1. WHEATHER THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISIDICATION BY

THE KRIMIAN COURTS OVER CAPATAIN ADAM OF THE PIANO
SHIP, FOR AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON THE HIGH SEAS,
CONTRAVENED INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

ISSUE:2

2. WHEATHER THE KRIMIAN COURT AUTHORITIES HAD THE

LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE AND CONVICT CAPATAIN
ADAM OF THE PIANO SHIP FOR COLLISION THAT TOOK PLACE ON
THE HIGH SEAS, BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
KRIMIA.

Page 7
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1-WHEATHER THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISIDICATION BY

THE KRIMIAN COURTS OVER CAPATAIN ADAM OF THE PIANO
SHIP,FOR AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON THE HIGH SEAS,
CONTRAVENED INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

Under the principle of territory, a state exercises jurisdiction over acts

committed within the territory, the collision between the piano and diano
ships occurred on the high seas which are beyond the jurisdiction of a
particular state , therefore the krimin court , as a national court , lacks
jurisdiction to prosecute captain Adam for an incident that took place
outside krimian territory.

2.WHEATHER THE KRIMIAN COURT AUTHORITIES HAD THE

LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE AND CONVICT CAPATAIN
ADAM OF THE PIANO SHIP FOR COLLISION THAT TOOK PLACE ON
THE HIGH SEAS, BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF
KRIMIA.

International law on high seas, the incident occurred on the high seas which is
governed by international law. The high seas are considered res communis, belong
to all states, jurisdiction over activities and incident on the high seas is generally
governed by international agreements and convection. as such, the krimian courts
exercise of jurisdiction without a valid legal basis under international law is a
violation of captain adam rights.

Page 8
 ARGUMENT IN ADVANCED

1-WHEATHER THE EXERCISE OF CRIMINAL JURISIDICATION BY THE

KRIMIAN COURTS OVER CAPATAIN ADAM OF THE PIANO SHIP FOR
AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON THE HIGH SEAS, CONTRAVENED
INTERNATIONAL LAWS.

INTERNATIONAL laws on the high seas which governed by international law.

The high seas are considered re s communis, belong to all states Jurisdiction over
activities and incidents on the high seas is generally governed by international
agreement and convention. As such, krimian courts exercise of jurisdiction without
a valid legal basis under international law is violation of captain adams rights.

PRINCIPLE OF FLAG STATE JURISDICTION

According to the principle of flag state jurisdiction, on the state whose flag a vessel
is flying has exclusive jurisdiction over that vessel and its crew. The plano ship
was flying the flag of arbenia , indicating that arbenia has jurisdiction over the
vessel and its crew . Therefore, the krimian court , as a national court , lacks
jurisdiction to prosecution capatain adam for an incident that took place outside
krimian territory.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ON HIGH SEAS

The incident occurred on the high seas , which are governed by international law.
The high seas are considered res communis. belonging to all states. jurisdiction
over activities and incidents on the high seas is generally governed by international
agreement and convention, As such . the krimian courts exercise of jurisdiction
without the legal basis under the international law is violation of captain Adams
right.

International law of the sea is law of maritime space that peacefully settles the
global disputes on maritime boundary between or among the states and defines
various jurisdictions of maritime zones well as the rights and obligations of the
coastal states in these zones, especially with regard to the seas law.

CASE LAW
THE SOUTH CHINA DISPUTE

Page 9
FACTS

5000 years ago , china was goverened by the ming dynasty who were also famous
as terracotta warriors.

In a navel map , at the times of the Ming period ,the entire region , boarding the
south china sea along the coast Vietnam , Indonesia and Philippines were shown to
be Chinese territory.

In the present times, the Chinese government has claimed these areas under the
south china , coming within the territorial waters of many southeast Asian as its
own territory.

In1988 the imperial Chinese navy with the support of the Chinese air force
repeatedly intruded into the territory of water of the Philippines and started the
construction of artificial Islands called the Spratly and john son group of islands

The Philippine government strongly protested this movement on the grounds that
disputed territory was within the maritime limit of Philippine sea water and china
had violated the territorial sovereignty of Philippine.

Repeated requests were made by philippino government to the Chinese authority to

stop construction in the disputed territories , but it was open igonered by the
communist has built a series of smaller artificial islands , military installation , air
force and naval bases to further strengthen the spartly and johnson islands.

In 2015 , the philippino government approached the PCA (permanent court of

arbitration ) to resolve the south china sea dispute , were the Chinese government
did not appear before pca categorically held that theory of china was grossly
inaccurate, construction of spartly and johnson island were illegal, china had
violated almost all its treaty and obligations, which are coming under UNCLOS
and violation of customary international law and more specifically in article 2(4) of
the un charter.

if we follow up this case where china present in the Philippines sea area was
violation of the international law not the violation of the personal law of
Philippines.so in this case krimian authority to go shore to give evidence, after the
captain of the piano ship adam was convicted. The conviction of captain Adam
was wrong because the krimian authority has no jurisdiction to give judgment on

Page
10
this matter.

So the krimian court have no criminal jurisdiction over trial of captain adam. The
authority contravened the international law on the high sea.
Arbenia as flag state should have been given the opportunity to assert its
jurisdiction over captain adam , as it has direct interest and responsibility and
regulating and enforcing the conduct of its vessels.

2.WHEATHER THE KRIMIAN COURT AUTHORITIES HAD THE LEGAL

AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE AND CONVICT CAPATAIN ADAM OF THE
PIANO SHIP FOR COLLISION THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE HIGH SEAS,
BEYOND THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF KRIMIA.

The krimian court lacked jurisdiction over captain Adam of the ‘piano’ ship of the
collision incident on the high seas the collision occurred in international waters,
which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of any specific state.

According to the principle of territoriality, a state’s jurisdiction is generally limited

to its own territory. the collision did not take place within the territorial waters of
krimia, nor did it involves any krimian vessels or citizen directly.

The exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the krimian courts over captain adam
raises concern of extraterritoriality. it is a fundamental principle of international
law that states should not assert jurisdiction over acts that occur outside their
territory, unless there is a clear basis for such jurisdiction established by
international agreements or customary law.

UNITED NATION CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

Article 2 of the UNCLOS established the principle of territorial sovereignty,

stating that the sovereignty of coastal state extends , beyond its land territory and
internal waters , to an adjacent belt of the sea. The principle supports the argument
that jurisdiction over the collision incident falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the flag state, arbenia, rather than krimia.

PRINCIPLE OF EXTRATERRITORIALITY

The principle of extraterritoriality in international law restricts the exercise

jurisdiction by states beyond their territorial boundaries. States generally do not
have the authority to assert jurisdiction over acts that occur outside their territory

Page
11
unless there is a clear basis for such jurisdiction established by international
agreement or customary law. The appellant can rely on the principle to argue that
the exercise of criminal courts over captain adam contravenes the principle of
international law.

CASE LAWS: S s lotus case

Lays down the foundation of international laws, says that sovereign states act in
any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition.

Facts of the case

1- The lotus case is about a criminal trial resulting from a crash between the s.s
lotus, a French steamship, and s.s Bozkurt, a Turkish vessel , on august 2 1926 , in
an area just north of Mytilene.

2- Eight Turkish people on the boat the Bozkurt drowned because of the
catastrophe when the lotus ripped the vessel apart.

Issues

The question was whether turkey had the authority to trial monsieur demons the
French office on the duty at the same time of the crash. Franche asserted that
because the incident happened on the high seas, the nation whose flag the vessel
flew should have the exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

Holding the court

The first principle that emerges of the lotus case is that a nation cannot exert its
jurisdiction outside its borders unless authorized by an international treaty or
customary law.

The second important principle that emerges out of the lotus case is that a nation
may exert its jurisdiction in any subject rule of international lea allows it to do so.
government have board latitude in these cases, which only restricted by the
prohibitive standards of international law.

So if we follow up this case then we can say that the exercise of the jurisdiction by
the krimian courts over the captain adam contravenes the principles of comity and
respect for the sovereignty of other state.

Page
12
 PRAYER
In the light of the facts submitted, issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff humbly prays before the court of
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE.

1. First that krimian court have no authority to convict the piano ship captain
ADAM

2. The krimian court should have follow the international rules as that arbenia
as flagship country.

Or to pass any reasonable & justified relief to the respondent as the Hon’ble
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE may deem fit in the best interest of
equality & justice.

Hence, the appellant rests its case for the humble determination of the appropriate
relief.

Date:

Attorney for the appellant

Page
13