AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, IN NETHERLANDS

IN THE MATTER

BETWEEN

THE PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF HOPE (APPLICANT)

AND

THE REPUBIC OF PENDO ( RESPONDENT)

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………. 3
LIST OF SOURCES …………………………………………………………………. 4

1. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT………………… 5
2. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS……………….. 5
3. INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS ………. 5

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS.…………….………………………………….. 6

JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY & LOCUS STANDI……………………….… 7

SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS
ISSUES 1……………………………………………………. 8-9
ISSUE 2………………………………………………………..10-12
ISSUE 3…………………………………………………………13-15
ISSUE 4………………………………………………………….15-19

PRAYERS………………………………………..………………………………………….. 20

2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. ICJ - International Court of Justice

2. IHL - International Humanitarian Law
3. UN - United Nations
4. GDP - Gross Domestic Product
5. WTO - World Trade Organization
6. UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
7. UN Charter - United Nations Charter
8. VU - Vallerie Union
9. CEO - Chief Executive Officer
10. UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
11. ILC - International Law Commission

3|Page
LIST OF AUTHORITIES

List of Authorities (International Precedents):

1. ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996)
2. ICJ Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. United States) (1986)
3. ICJ Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (2005)
4. ICJ Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited
(Belgium v. Spain) (1970)
5. ICJ Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and
Montenegro) (2007)
List of Authorities (International Laws):
1. United Nations Charter
2. Geneva Conventions of 1949
3. Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions
4. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
6. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
7. International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
8. Vallerie Union Charter
9. Charter on the Welfare and Rights of Children

4|Page
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

The People's Republic of Hope ("Hope") and the Republic of Pendo ("Pendo") are neighboring
countries situated on the Eastern side of the continent of Vallerie. They share land borders and
have access to the Sharon Ocean, which has been pivotal for their economic development due to
trade and customs.
In 2013, Hope was struck by a terrorist crisis when Al-Shabani, a terror group, was believed to
have infiltrated Hope's territory with intentions to launch attacks on Pendo. In response, the
Parliament of Pendo authorized a military operation known as 'Operation Sanitize' in Hope,
supported by the Vallerie Union, to eliminate the terror group. While the operation achieved
military gains, it also resulted in civilian casualties.
The situation escalated in 2015 when Pendo conducted an airstrike within Hope's territory,
targeting an Al-Shabani general. While the general was eliminated, the airstrike caused
significant civilian harm, including the injury of hundreds of women and children, with
unconfirmed reports suggesting child fatalities.
Despite the civilian casualties, Pendo denied any wrongdoing, claiming the airstrike was a
tactical move in line with the risk assessment of the situation. This stance created a rift between
the two countries, as Hope demanded an apology and compensation from Pendo for the civilian
casualties.
In 2018, Pendo acquired new military equipment, including an armored military ship, from an
external source. During its journey, the ship encountered mechanical problems, which led to the
accidental launch of two missiles into Hope's internal waters.
In response, Hope seized the ship and its captain, demanding an apology, compensation, and the
release of both the ship and the captain. This further strained diplomatic relations between the
two nations.
The diplomatic tensions reached a climax in 2020 when both Hope and Pendo lobbied for a non-
permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, as a slot for Vallerie was available.
Pendo's successful election to the Security Council, coupled with Hope's decision to enter the
race, intensified the diplomatic discord. Hope subsequently closed its embassy in Pendo.
The situation took a new twist in 2021 when Mumo and Mumo, a deep-sea exploration company,
discovered substantial natural gas and coal reserves in the disputed maritime area. The
disagreement stemmed from the contrasting interpretations of the maritime boundary.
In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the two countries, with the assistance of the United Nations,
agreed to negotiate the issue. However, Hope set conditions for the talks, demanding an apology,
compensation, and that the negotiations take place in Hope.

5|Page
Pendo's reaction to these conditions was to withdraw its acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the ICJ and deploy forces to the disputed mineral-rich area, further escalating
tensions.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

a. Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the issues and if the application is
admissible before the court
b. Whether the State of Pendo violated the principles of International Humanitarian
Law through the air strike that killed civilians
c. Whether the maritime delimitation adopted by Pendo was the correct one
d. Whether the State of Hope violated the International Principle of Safe passage with
the treatment of the Pendo ship and the captain

6|Page
 Statement of Jurisdiction:
The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in this case is based on the consent of
the parties, as well as established principles of international law.
Both the Applicant (Hope) and the Defendant (Pendo) are signatories to numerous international
treaties and agreements, including but not limited to the United Nations Charter, the Geneva
Conventions, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The United Nations Charter, in Article 36(1), provides for compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in
cases where states have accepted such jurisdiction. In this case, both Hope and Pendo have
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, thereby providing the legal basis for the Court's
jurisdiction.
Additionally, customary international law recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICJ as the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, responsible for settling legal disputes between states. This
customary recognition further reinforces the Court's jurisdiction.

Statement of Admissibility:

The admissibility of this case before the ICJ is firmly established based on the criteria outlined in
the ICJ Statute.
Firstly, this case involves fundamental questions of international law, including allegations of
violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and disputes over maritime delimitation.
Such questions fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Secondly, both Hope and Pendo have pursued diplomatic avenues to resolve the disputes but
have failed to reach a mutually acceptable settlement. The ICJ serves as an appropriate forum for
the resolution of this long-standing and contentious issue.
Thirdly, there are no jurisdictional objections raised by either party, and both parties have
accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ, further underscoring the admissibility of this case.

Statement of Locus Standi:

The Applicant, the People's Republic of Hope, asserts its locus standi as a directly affected party
in the matters brought before the ICJ.

7|Page
Hope is a sovereign state and a party directly involved in the disputes at hand, including
allegations of violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stemming from Pendo's 2015
airstrike and the ongoing dispute over maritime delimitation.
The 2015 airstrike in Mbaria, the capital of Hope, led to civilian casualties, including women and
children, within Hope's territory. This directly implicates Hope as a victim of the alleged
violations of IHL.
Additionally, Hope's interests and rights with regard to the disputed maritime territory in the
Sharon Ocean are directly impacted by the ongoing dispute over maritime delimitation. Hope has
a legitimate interest in seeking resolution and justice for these matters.
Hope's standing as a directly affected party is further reinforced by the fact that both parties,
Hope and Pendo, have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, signifying their
recognition of the ICJ's authority to adjudicate disputes between them.
In conclusion, the Applicant, Hope, has a well-established locus standi as a directly affected
party, and the case is firmly within the ICJ's jurisdiction and admissible based on international
law and the consent of both parties.

8|Page
SUBSTATIVE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE A: Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the issues and if the application is
admissible before the court

The jurisdiction of this court is embedded in article 36(2) of The Statute of the ICJ. A matter
of jurisdiction shall be decided by this court pursuant to article 36(6) of the ICJ Statute.
Jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate matters before it is anchored on consent of the state parties
to the jurisdiction of the court. This is pursuant to article 38(5) of the rules of the court.
Consent may be express under article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute or inferred under the doctrine of
forum prorogatum.

We do note that Pendo withdrew the compulsory jurisdiction of this court just before the
commencement of proceedings.1 But as it may, we aver that the issues before this court are still
admissible under the doctrine of forum prorogatum.

Citing the Corfu Channel case, Albania contended that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction in the matter
before it as they had not submitted to its jurisdiction pursuant to article 36(2) of the ICJ
Statute. However, they submitted written memorials raising a preliminary objection to the
jurisdiction of the court, within the time limits set, pursuant to article 79 of the rules of the
court the court held that Albania had only contested the jurisdiction of the court in any other
proceedings against it that may come before the court. In dismissing their PO, the court relied on
its previous decision in judgment number 12 of April 26th ,1929, page 23 where it stated:” The
acceptance by a State of the Court’s jurisdiction in a particular case is not, under the Statute,
subordinated to the observance of certain forms, such as, for instance, the previous conclusion of
a special agreement.” Under the doctrine of forum prorogatum, a court which initially lacked
jurisdiction may subsequently acquire jurisdiction through the conduct of parties before it.

In Somalia V Kenya, Kenya raised a PO on the court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter and within
the time limit subscribed under article 79 of the rules of the court in its written memorial. The
PO was dismissed by the court in its 2017 judgement. After it lost the PO, Kenya informed the

1
Pursuant to paragraph 15 of the compromi
9|Page
court that it did not intend to participate further in the proceedings. However, it requested to
address the court informally for 30 minutes; a request which was denied. The proceedings
continued and a judgement was entered in favor of the applicant despite Kenya’s non-
appearance.

We note that the courts upheld the doctrine of forum prorogatum in both this cases where once a
party consented to the jurisdiction of the court, that consent could not be withdrawn
subsequently. There exists a fine line between non-participation and non-appearance where the
latter does not necessarily constitute the former.

We contend therefore; that should the respondents in this case appear before this honorable court
that this court ought to find itself as having jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum prorogatum.

JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE

The jurisdiction of this court is founded on article 36(2) of The Statute of The ICJ.It bestows
upon the court jurisdiction in matters pertaining;

(a) interpretation of a treaty,

(b) questions of international law,

(c) the existence of a fact which if proven would constitute a breach of an international
obligation

(d) the extent of reparations in case of breach of an international obligation.

In the instant case, the second issue falls under the ambit of article 36(2)(b) of the statute while
the third and fourth issues fall under article 36(2)(c).

10 | P a g e
ADMISSIBILITY

All issues which the court has jurisdiction are prima facie admissible. The second issue is
premised on article 36(2)(b) of the ICJ Statute while issues 3 and 4 are founded on articles
36(2)(c) and 36(2)(d) of the same statute.

Secondly, there exists a dispute. A dispute was defined in the Mavromattes Case as,

“A disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests between two
persons.”

From the compromi, it is evident that there is a dispute between the two parties on:

(a) The maritime boundary delimitation

(b) The conduct of Pendo in their military activities in Hope.

On the backdrop of this, it is our contention that there exists a dispute.

ISSUE B: Whether the State of Pendo violated the principles of International

Humanitarian Law through the air strike that killed civilians

The Respondents aver that Pendo's 2015 airstrike, which resulted in civilian casualties, did not
constitutes a clear violation of well-established principles of International Humanitarian Law,
including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and the protection of civilians.

Looking in the following limbs

Principle of Distinction: The Principle of Distinction, enshrined in customary international law

and codified in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, requires parties
to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian objects and military objectives.
The airstrike targeted a known terrorist general, a legitimate military objective under
international law.

Military Necessity: Under the principle of military necessity, actions that are necessary to
achieve a legitimate military objective are permitted. The airstrike was conducted to eliminate a

11 | P a g e
high-ranking terrorist general who posed a significant threat to Pendo's security, making it a
necessary military action.

Argument 2: Absence of Deliberate Targeting of Civilians

Pendo denies any deliberate targeting of civilians in the airstrike and asserts that it regrets any
loss of civilian life.

Principle of Prohibition of Direct Attacks Against Civilians: Under customary international

law, as reflected in the Geneva Conventions, it is prohibited to target civilians intentionally.
Pendo emphasizes that its primary aim was to eliminate a military target, and any harm to
civilians was unintentional.

Principle of Precaution: Parties to an armed conflict are obligated to take precautions to

minimize harm to civilians, as per Article 57 of Additional Protocol I. Pendo maintains that it
took precautions to avoid harm to civilians by targeting a known military objective and
employing the appropriate level of force.

Argument 3: Tactical Nature of the Airstrike

Pendo contends that the airstrike was a tactical operation conducted to eliminate a dangerous
terrorist general and was in line with the risk analysis of the situation.

Military Necessity: As previously mentioned, military necessity permits actions necessary to

achieve a legitimate military objective. Pendo argues that the airstrike was a response to a
genuine threat to its national security.

Risk Analysis: While not explicitly codified in international law, military commanders often
conduct risk assessments to minimize harm to civilians while achieving their military objectives.
Pendo asserts that its airstrike was based on a careful analysis of the risks involved and was
conducted with the intention of avoiding civilian casualties.

Argument 4: Regret for Civilian Losses

Pendo acknowledges the loss of civilian lives and maintains that it did not deliberately target
civilians.

12 | P a g e
Principle of Humanity: The principle of humanity is a fundamental tenet of international
humanitarian law. Parties to a conflict are expected to show compassion and respect for the
dignity of civilians. Pendo's expression of regret for civilian losses is consistent with this
principle, demonstrating its commitment to minimizing harm to civilians during military
operations.

In summary, Pendo argues that the 2015 airstrike was conducted in accordance with international
humanitarian law, with a legitimate military objective, proportionality, precautions taken to
minimize civilian harm, and without deliberate targeting of civilians. Pendo regrets the loss of
civilian lives but maintains that the airstrike was a lawful military action aimed at protecting its
national security.

ISSUE C: Whether the maritime delimitation adopted by Pendo was the correct

one

Territorial Sovereignty and Historical Agreements:

We underscore the principle of territorial sovereignty as a cornerstone of international law. The

United Nations Charter, in Article 2(4), affirms the sovereignty of states and their right to
territorial integrity.

Pointing out that during the colonial era, the colonial powers responsible for Pendo and Hope
agreed on the delimitation of the sea between the two territories. This historical agreement not
only reflects the mutual understanding between the parties but also establishes a legal precedent
in the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

We rely on the principle of uti possidetis juris, which suggests that newly independent states
inherit the colonial-era borders unless otherwise agreed. In the absence of any mutually agreed
changes, the colonial-era boundaries remain legally binding (International Court of Justice,
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), 1986).

Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda:

13 | P a g e
Invoking the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which is a customary principle of international law
codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 2This principle underscores that
agreements between states must be honored in good faith.

And therefore argue that international agreements and treaties, including colonial-era
agreements, are legally binding unless explicitly revised or terminated by the parties involved.
The stability of international relations depends on states adhering to their treaty commitments.

Principle of Stability and Legal Certainty:

Pendo emphasizes the importance of stability and legal certainty in international relations. citing
the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (ICJ, 1969) in which the ICJ emphasized the value of
stability and predictability in boundary disputes.

Therefore contending that altering established borders based on changing interpretations of sea
delimitation standards would disrupt the stability and legal certainty that have existed for
decades.

The Effect of Subsequent International Law Developments:

Pendo argues that while international law evolves, the principle of non-retroactivity should
apply. Changes in sea delimitation standards that occurred after the establishment of colonial-era
boundaries should not retroactively affect those boundaries.

We maintain that this approach is consistent with the general practice in international law, as
retroactive application could undermine the stability of existing borders and disrupt peaceful
relations between states.

International Law on Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs):

Citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which recognizes
the rights of coastal states to establish the boundaries of their territorial sea and Exclusive
Economic Zones 3

Pendo asserts that, in line with UNCLOS, it has the sovereign right to determine the limits of its
territorial sea and EEZ, subject to international law.
2
(Article 26).
3
(UNCLOS, Article 3 and Article 57).
14 | P a g e
In conclusion, Pendo's argument on maritime delimitation is grounded in the principles of
territorial sovereignty, historical agreements, pacta sunt servanda, stability, and the non-
retroactivity of international law. Pendo contends that altering established borders based on
changing sea delimitation standards would contravene international law and jeopardize stability
and legal certainty in the region. Pendo seeks the recognition of its historical maritime
boundaries in accordance with established agreements and principles of international law.

ISSUE D : Whether the State of Hope violated the International Principle of Safe passage
with the treatment of the Pendo ship and the captain

International Principle of Safe Passage:

Pendo argues that the International Principle of Safe Passage is a cornerstone of the law of the
sea and is codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article
17 of UNCLOS clearly states that ships of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage through
territorial seas, and this right is subject only to certain specific conditions.

Innocent Passage Definition:

Pendo contends that its military ship was engaged in innocent passage through the territorial
waters of Hope, as defined by Article 19 of UNCLOS. Innocent passage involves the continuous
and expeditious transit of a foreign ship through territorial seas without engaging in any activities
that are prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state.

Proportionality:

Pendo emphasizes that under international law, the principle of proportionality is crucial when a
coastal state exercises its authority over foreign ships in its territorial waters. The actions taken
by Hope in seizing the Pendo military ship and detaining the captain were disproportionate to the
situation. UNCLOS and customary international law require coastal states to use force or take
measures only as a last resort when the security of the coastal state is genuinely threatened.

Duty to Ensure Safe Passage:

15 | P a g e
Pendo asserts that coastal states, in accordance with international law, have a duty to ensure the
safety and security of ships engaged in innocent passage through their territorial seas. Hope's
actions, instead of ensuring safe passage, created a situation of insecurity and mistrust between
the two states.

Lack of Notification and Communication:

Pendo points to the international practice of coastal states providing timely notification and
communication with foreign ships encountering mechanical problems in their territorial waters.
This practice is not only outlined in UNCLOS but also reflects customary international law.
Hope's failure to communicate or attempt peaceful resolution before seizing the ship and
detaining the captain goes against these norms.

Resolution of Disputes:

Pendo highlights the principles of peaceful dispute resolution enshrined in international law,
including the United Nations Charter. It contends that Hope's actions escalated the dispute
between the two states rather than seeking peaceful means to resolve the issue.

Reiteration of Innocence:

Pendo consistently reiterates that its military ship's passage was entirely innocent and in
compliance with international law. The ship was not engaged in any activities that could be
construed as a threat to Hope's security or interests.

In conclusion, Pendo maintains that Hope's actions in seizing the Pendo military ship and
detaining the captain were not in line with the International Principle of Safe Passage, as
established by UNCLOS and customary international law. Pendo argues that these actions were
disproportionate and contrary to the duty of coastal states to ensure the safety and security of
ships engaged in innocent passage. Furthermore, Hope's failure to communicate and seek
peaceful resolution before resorting to extreme measures goes against established international
norms.

PRAYERS

16 | P a g e
We pray to this court to find that:

a. The court has jurisdiction to hear the issues and if the application is admissible before the
court
b. The State of Pendo did not violate the principles of International Humanitarian Law
through the air strike that killed civilians
c. The maritime delimitation adopted by Pendo was the correct one
d. The State of Hope did not violated the International Principle of Safe passage with the
treatment of the Pendo ship and the captain

17 | P a g e