6th Justice P.N.

Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the State of Soremon has interfered in the matters of the State of

Boremon?

It is most humbly put forth that the State of Soremon has failed to realize through

concrete efforts, the State’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political

independence1, particularly to the people living in the BoLR region. The principle of non-

intervention in the internal affairs of States also signifies that a State of Soremon should

not otherwise intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs of States of Boremon.

1.1. The State of Soremon has no stake in the affairs Boremon and has illegally

deployed its Army in the BoLR region by violating international law.

I. The UNMOGSB was deployed to supervise the ceasefire between Soremon and

Boremon. Its functions were to investigate complaints of ceasefire violations and

submit findings to each party and to the U.N. secretary-general. Under the terms of

the ceasefire, it was decided that both armies would withdraw and a plebiscite would

be held in Lola and Ramola to give their people the right to self-determination. But,

Soremon chose not to hold the plebiscite2. No State or group of States has the right to

intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external

affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of

interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its

political, economic and cultural elements are in violation of international law 3. The

UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention

1
UN Charter, Article 2(4)-The prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations.
2
¶7 Official Compromis.
3
UN General Assembly, Friendly Relations Declaration, 1970.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

1
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States. The International Court was in no

doubt about the existence of the principle in the Nicaragua case4.

II. In the Corfu Channel case5 the International Court regarded:

“the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as

has, in the past, given right to the most serious abuses and as such cannot, whatever

be the present defects in international organization, find a place in international law”.

Military intervention can also increase the intensity of the violence by adding troops,

firepower and another armed group to an already volatile environment. In Somalia6 in

1993, UN and US forces engaged Somali leader General Muham- mad Farah Aidid in

the most intense fighting since 19917. NATO’s air campaign over Kosovo8 and Serbia

in 1999 led to accelerated expulsion of Albanians by Serb soldiers and to physical

destruction in Belgrade9. Armed groups can manipulate the supply of food to civilians

as a means of repression, political bargaining or forced migration 10. The practice was

common in Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina11 and Ethiopia, for example. Food and

medicine can also be diverted to sustain soldiers12 and militia instead of unarmed

civilians, as happened in Somalia and Sudan.

4
Infra N. 12.
5
Albania v. United Kingdom, ICJ Reports (1949).
6
Taylor B. Seybolt, Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure, 2003.
7
Ibid.
8
J. Eriksson, The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience,
Synthesis Report (Steering Committee of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda,
Copenhagen, 1996)
9
Clarke Independent, Learning from Somalia: The Lessons of Armed Humanitarian Intervention.
10
J.M. Taw, ‘The Perils Of Humanitarian Assistance In Armed Internal Conflicts: Somalia in the 1990s’, Small
Wars and Insurgencies, vol. 15, no. 2 (autumn 2004), pp. 5–19; and Taylor Seybolt, ‘The myth of neutrality’,
Peace Review, vol. 8, no. 4 (Dec. 1996).
11
S.L. Burg and P.S. Shoup, The War in Bosnia–Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and International Intervention.
12
A. De Waal, Famine Crimes: Politics and the Disaster Relief Industry in Africa (Indiana University Press:
Bloomington, Ind., 1997); and J. Macrae and A. Zwi, ‘Famine, Complex Emergencies and International Policy
in Africa: An Overview’.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

2
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

1.2. The State of Soremon has violated the customary rules of international law which

protects the States from the Non-Interference of any other State.

I. The State of Soremon in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying

and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding, and directing military and paramilitary

actions in and against the areas of BoLR, had violated its treaty obligations to BoLR

under Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter13. The State of Soremon had

breached international law by:

i. violating the sovereignty of the State of Boremon by:

 armed attacks against BoLR by air and land;

 aerial trespass into BoLR airspace;

 efforts by direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the

Government of Boremon.

ii. using force and the threat of force against the State of Boremon.

iii. intervening in the internal affairs of the State of Boremon.

iv. killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of the State of Boremon.

In The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America14 ICJ decided that the

United States of America is under an obligation to make reparation to the Republic of

Nicaragua for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under

customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in

its affairs and not to violate its sovereignty. The said violation was not only an

unlawful act but also a breach of the principles of humanitarian law underlying

the Hague Convention No. VIII of 190715. The prohibition of intervention “is a

13
United Nations Charter, Article 2 (4)- All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
14
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, 70 ICJ Report (1986).
15
Hague Conventions, Geneva Academy Of International Humanitarian Law And Human Rights, Rule Of Law
In Armed Conflicts, 1907.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

3
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

corollary of every state’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political

independence16”. What is prohibited is dictatorial interference in what the

International Court of Justice referred to in Nicaragua as “matters which each State is

permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the

choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of

foreign policy.17” Since the reach of international law is constantly changing, so too is

the line between what is, and what is not, covered by the principle of non-

intervention.

As the International Court of Justice said in its 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua case,

"the principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign State to

conduct its affairs without outside interference; though examples of trespass against

this principle are not infrequent, the Court considers that it is part and parcel of

customary international law. [ ...] international law requires political integrity [ ... ]

to be respected18".

2. The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic principles

of international law and were necessary to maintain the unity and integrity in the

nation.

It is most humbly put forth that Mr. Kamaal Khan attempted to bring into hatred and

contempt towards the Government of Boremon established and thus acted against the

laws of Sedition and also the elections of 2015 were fair and genuine. Therefore, the State

of Boremon denies all such perfidious allegations by the State of Soremon.

16
Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim; International Law: Volume I, Peace (1905); Volume II, War, (1906).
17
Operative Part Of The Court's Judgment: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. United States of America, ICJ Reports 1986).
18
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, ICJ Reports (1986) p.106, para. 202.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

4
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

2.1. The arrest of Late Mr. Kamaal Khan was justified and in fact necessary to defend

integrity of Boremon.

I. Late Mr. Kamaal Khan, who was the president of Gilly Bucket United Movement

(GBUM), in his speech stated that, “it is high time that the people of the BoLR must

either join the Soremon Union or self-proclaim independence as „self-determination

is their basic fundamental internally recognized right”.19 Even in India waging, or

attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India

grants Capital Punishment20.

According to the United States Code, If two or more persons in any State or

Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the States, conspire to

overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the States, or to levy

war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent,

hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the States, or by force to seize, take, or

possess any property of the States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be

fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both21.

II. This was clear attempt to bring into hatred and contempt or disaffection towards, the

Central Government of Boremon established by law. This excerpt, being against the

integrity and sovereignty of the State of Boremon, was an act of sedition22. Hence the

arrest of Mr. Kamaal Khan was necessary. The arrest was not a planned massacre.

The death of Mr. Kamaal Khan is an internal criminal matter of the State of Boremon.

Thorough investigations are required in this case so that the real enemy of democracy

can be sought out. The State of Boremon is ready to allow maintain full transparency

regarding the investigation of the case

19
¶16 Official Compromise.
20
Indian Penal Code, Section 121- Waging, or Attempting To Wage War, or Abetting Waging of War, Against
The Government Of India.
21
United States Code, Chapter 115, Title 18, Section 2384 - Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities.
22
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, 124(A)- Sedition.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

5
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

2.2 Government of Boremon aims at bringing peace and security to the land and to

build lives of dignity and respect.

I. Much before the adoption of Human Rights Declaration by UN the sacred faith in

Islam of the State had exhorted human beings to follow tenets of human values23.

Under Article 8 and 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, every human life has been

given inflexible importance. In the case of Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan24 it

has been observed, that while interpreting fundamental rights, the approach of the

Court should be keeping in view the ideas of the people, socio-economic and politico

culture values which in Pakistan are enshrined in the Objective Resolution25 so as to

extend benefit of the same to the maximum possible. In the case of Arshad Mahmood

v. Government of Punjab26 it is held that the Constitution is a living document which

portrays the aspirations and genius of the people and aims at creating progress, peace,

welfare, amity among the citizens.

II. Article 927 stipulates that no person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in

accordance with law. Article 428 deals with the right of individuals to be dealt with in

accordance with law. The said Article stipulates; “to enjoy the protection of law and

to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever

he may be and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan”.

Therefore under the light of the evidence of law and judgment of cases produced,

State of Boremon denies its involvement in any state sponsored riots in the region of

23
Ministry Of Human Rights: Message from the Prime Minister of Pakistan on International Human Rights
Day, 10th December, 2014.
24
Benazir Bhutto v. President of Pakistan, PLD (1998) SC 388.
25
Objectives Resolution, 1949, Principle 11: The integrity of the territories of the federation, its independence
and all its rights, including its sovereign rights on land, sea and air shall be safeguarded.
The Constitution of Pakistan, Article 2A: The objectives Resolution to form part of substantive provisions.
26
Arshad Mahmood v. Government of Punjab, PLD (2005) SC 193.
27
Constitution of Pakistan, Article 9- Security of Person.
28
Constitution of Pakistan, Article 4- Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, etc.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

6
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

BoLR or any other place in the country itself. Since the government is bound to

protect its people.

2.3.The State of Boremon has conducted the free and fair elections in the BoLR region as

agreed in the treaty of Romia.

I. The elections were free and fair as it was based on popular adult franchise and one

vote one value. In September, 2015 the State of Boremon agreed that it shall release

Mr. Kamaal Khan and provided opportunity to the people of BoLR to establish a

democracy which will be free from interference from the State of Boremon and in

turn, the State of Soremon shall not indulge in any deployment of its forces in BoLR

or Boremonian region. In the month of October, 2015 a fresh elections were held in

BoLR by the Boremon government. Mr. Zakeer Sakia, the President of the Boremon

United Mission was declared to have won the elections29.

II. A neutral, impartial and balanced mechanism for the management of elections to

ensure transparency through the presence of party agents and observers, and to ensure

that complaints are determined promptly and effectively by an independent and

impartial authority, such as an electoral commission or the courts30 were conducted.

Everyone had the right to take part in the government of their country and had an

equal opportunity to become a candidate for election. The criteria for participation in

government was determined in accordance with national constitutions and laws and

was not be inconsistent with the State's international obligations. Thus as a universal,

equal and sacred suffrage31, the elections of 2015 were fair.

29
¶20 and ¶21 Official Compromise.
30
Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections, Paris, 26 March 1994.
31
DCFFE, Principles And Standard No. 3- Candidature, Party and Campaign Rights and Responsibilities.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

7
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

3. Whether the State of Soremon has acted in violation and has breached the spirit of

international law by deploying is Army.

It is most humbly put forth that State of Soremon has illegally deployed its Army in the

BoLR region by violating international law which is causing loss of lives and property of

the people of BoLR and therefore is under obligation to make full reparation for the

injury caused by that act.

3.1. The State of Soremon has illegally deployed its Army in the BoLR region by

violating international law which is causing loss of lives and property of the people

of BoLR.

I. The International Court of Justice in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo32

found that the acts committed by the UPDF and officers and soldiers of the UPDF

were in clear violation of the obligations under the Hague Regulations of 190733,

Articles 25, 27 and 28, as well as Articles 43, 46 and 47 with regard to obligations of

an occupying Power. These obligations are binding on the Parties as customary

international law. Uganda also violated the following provisions of the international

humanitarian law and international human rights law instruments, to which both

Uganda and the DRC are parties:

i. Fourth Geneva Convention34- Articles 27 and 32 as well as Article 53 with

regard to obligations of an occupying Power;

ii. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights35- Articles 6, paragraph 1,

and 7;

32
Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, ICJ Report 2005.
33
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land,Convention (IV),The Hague, 18 October
1907.
34
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949.
35
General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16
December 1966 .

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

8
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

iii. First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions36- Articles 48, 51, 52, 57,

58 and 75, Paragraphs 1 and 2;

iv. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights37- Articles 4 and 5;

II. According to a well-established rule of a customary nature, as reflected in Article 3 of

the Fourth Hague Convention38 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of

1907 as well as in Article 91 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions39 of

1949, a party to an armed conflict shall be responsible for all acts by persons forming

part of its armed forces. A troop of 600 Soremon’s well trained and deadly members

of a special Black Panther Battalion force entered BoLR and established a temporary

camp at the Hills in 201540. The State of Soremon did not even adhere to the ARSDB

in which Boremon agreed that it shall provide opportunity to the people of BoLR to

establish a democracy and in turn, the State of Soremon shall not indulge in any

deployment of its forces in BoLR or Boremonian region. But out of 600 members of

troop who were camping at BoLR hills and waiting for the Soremon Government’s

orders to attack, only 400 members were ordered to return to Soremon and rest of the

200 were ordered to remain in BoLR41.

3.2. The State of Soremon has illegally annexed the area of BoLR is under obligation

to make full reparation for the injury caused by that act.

I. The will of the people to freely determine their political status goes back many years

and was clear to all participants in the Rambouillet Conference42. One of the

conditions of the partition of Soremon imposed by Great Kritain was that the rulers of

36
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August, 1949.
37
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter), 1960.
38
The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907, Art. 3- A belligerent
party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay
compensation.
39
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention, 1949, Article 91- Responsibility.
40
¶18 Official Compromise.
41
¶20 Official Compromise.
42
Rambouillet Conference on Kosovo, 1999.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

9
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

princely states would have the right to opt for either Soremon or Boremon or remain

independent Though King Tintumon signed the Instrument of Accession on 26

October 1947, Soremon’s Governor-General who was a Kritish National accepted the

accession, added the proviso that it would be submitted to a popular referendum since

"only the people, not the King Tintumon, could decide where the Lola-Ramola wanted

to live."43. The people of the 'Northern Areas' had revolted against the Maharaja of

Lola & Ramola on the eve of the lapse of Great Kritish paramountcy in June 1947 and

opted to join Boremon. Hence, these areas were no longer part of Maharaja's

kingdom44. The preamble45 of The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and

to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR, to which The State of Soremon and The

State of Boremon had agreed to realizes the notion of democracy. Thus by forcefully

imposing its jurisdiction on BoLR, the State of Soremon is has illegally annexed the

area of BoLR and is liable for reparation of the damages as the people are the region

are deprived of their right to self-determination.

II. In Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda46 the DRC asks the Court to adjudge

and declare that Uganda is under an obligation to make reparation to the DRC for all

injury caused by the violation by Uganda of its obligations under international law.

The Court observes that it is well established in general international law that a State

which bears responsibility for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to

make full reparation for the injury caused by that act. Upon examination of the case

file, given the character of the internationally wrongful acts for which Uganda has

been found responsible, the Court considers that those acts resulted in injury to the

DRC and to persons on its territory. Having satisfied itself that this injury was caused

43
¶6 Official Compromis.
44
¶9 Official Compromis.
45
ARSDB, 2015, Preamble- “…Realizing the significance of the notion of Democracy Realizing the
significance of the notion of Democracy…”
46
Supra N. 32.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

10
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

to the DRC by Uganda, the Court finds that Uganda has an obligation to make

reparation accordingly.

3.3. The State of Soremon broke the agreement of compensation towards the State of

Boremon and therefore owes a sum of Rs 55 crores (with interest).

I. It’s not just the territorial disputes that refuse to fade away between the two states

even after 67 years of the Partition. The division of assets and liabilities of the country

post-1947 remains incomplete to this day. The State of Soremon has yet to cough up

money equivalent to the present-day value of the assets the State of Boremon was

entitled to receive them post-Partition. As per the agreement between political

leaderships of the two sides.

II. As a part of agreement of partition the State of Soremon owed a sum of Rs. 75 crores

to the Sate of Boremon. The Government of Soremon paid only the first installment

of Rs. 20 crores47. Boremon was a newly formed country. It needed to set up an entire

new system of government, constituencies and infrastructures. It was practically

impossible to start a country from a scratch with no financial support. The Sate of

Soremon broke the agreement and thus owes the Sate of Boremon the left over sum of

money and since more than 60 years have passed, they also should pay a nominal

interest on such amount.

4. Whether the State of Soremon is constantly depriving the people of BoLR region

their basic human rights?

It is most humbly put forth that Soremon has violated several human rights of the people

of ‘Azad Lola & Ramola (ALR)’ and ‘Gilly Buket’. Adopted by the General Assembly on

December 10, 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights48 (UDHR) is one of the

47
¶5 Official Compromis.
48
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, 1948.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

11
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

first major achievements of the United Nations. Human rights are much more than well-

meaning aspirations set to legal language. They are an essential part of United Nations

Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various Customary International

Law as well as International Humanitarian Law.

4.1. The State of Soremon has deprived the people of BoLR, especially in the ALR

region, their right to live quality life with peace.

I. Frequent clashes of army troops have created havoc in the BoLR region and this has

been depriving the citizens of their right to live their lives with peace. On a similar

stance, claims of human rights abuses have been made against the Indian Armed

Forces and armed insurgents operating in Jammu and Kashmir49 which has gained

enough global criticism by various Human Rights organizations and activists. Human

life is considered very important under the constitutions of both India and Pakistan. In

Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and 4 Others v. Government of Punjab, Through Housing,

Physical and Environmental Pln.50 the court stated that the Constitution of Pakistan

under the Article 951 protects the life of person. The cases where life of citizen is

degraded, the quality of life is adversely affected and health hazards are created

affecting large number of people, amounts to deprivation of life, which referred article

prohibits. “Life”, in the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution52

corresponding to Article 2153 as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois54, means

“something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the

deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed…”

49
Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), 1992.
50
Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and 4 Others v. Government of Punjab, Through Housing, Physical and
Environmental Pln., P L D (2007) Lahore 403.
51
Constitution of Pakistan, Article 9- Security of Person.
52
Constitution of the United States of America- Amendment XIV.
53
Constitution of India, Article 2- Right to Life and Personal Liberty
54
Munn v. Illinois, (1876) 94 US 113 at page 142.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

12
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

Supreme Court in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.55 earmarked this very wide field for

the operation of Article 21. In Shehla Zia v. WAPDA56 the court stated that life is

more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life

extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed under Article 9 of the

constitution of Pakistan. Similar instance in Ethiopia has gained global disgrace57.

II. The elimination of war, violence, and armed conflict has been a political and

humanitarian objective of the global community. Yet that objective remains

unachieved58. War-related health threats are a rising concern as the number of people

forced to flee their homes due to violent conflict has currently exceeded 51 million,

the highest levels since the Second World War. This includes both internally

displaced persons and refugees. Half of these are children59. The UN General

Assembly and the former UN Commission on Human Rights have emphasized on

necessity of peace in “Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace60”

and the “Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace61”. The WHO was incepted

with the spirit of promoting the health of all peoples and recognizes in the Preamble

of its Constitution that health and peace are interrelated notions, stating that, “the

health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is

dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.62” Violence has

devastating consequences on human health, affecting both combatants and civilians63.

While some of the morbidity and mortality relates to the direct effects of violence,

much of the civilian health impact is due to indirect consequences such as

55
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR (1963) SC 1295 para 17
56
Shehla Zia v.WAPDA, PLD (1994) SC
57
Ethiopia: Lethal Force Against Protesters Military Deployment, Terrorism Rhetoric Risk Escalating Violence.
58
Health And Human Rights Journal, The Right to Life in Peace: An Essential Condition for Realizing the
Right to Health, Number 1, Volume 17, June 4, 2015.
59
S. Schmemann, “In Refugee Statistics, A Stark Tale Of Global Strife,” The New York Times (June 20, 2014).
60
Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, (A/RES/33/73), 15 December 1978.
61
Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace (A/RES/39/11), 12 November 1984.
62
World Health Organization, Constitution of the World Health Organization. Preamble, ¶3 (July 22, 1946)
63
Ibid.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

13
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

displacement and limited access to food, clean water, and health care64. In fact, in the

agreement of ARSDB65 the Parties agreed to establish, by mutual efforts, peace in the

territory of BoLR, to decline to resort to any violent activities and to refrain from

intervention of any kind into the affairs of BoLR, which the State of Soremon failed

to do.

64
R. Waldman, “Public Health In War: Pursuing The Impossible,” Harvard International Review 27/1 (Spring
2005), pp. 60-63.
65
The Agreement for the Right of Self-Determination and to establish a Democratic set up in BoLR, Romia,
September 6, 2015, Article 1- Obligation to establish peace in the territory of BoLR and adherence to the
principle of Non-intervention.

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

14
 6th Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, 2016

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the Facts Stated, Issues Raised, Argument Advanced and

Authorities Citied, it is most humbly prayed by the State of Boremon that the Hon’ble Cour

Internationale De Justice may on the differences between the State of Boreman and the State

of Soreman on Right to Self-Determination and Establishment of Democracy in BoLR that:

1. The State of Soremon has interfered in the matters of the State of Boremon.

Therefore the State of Soremon should withdraw its troop from the BoLR region.

2. The actions of the State of Boremon are fully in conformity with the basic

principles of international law. Therefore the State of Soremon must refrain from

making such assertions.

3. The State of Soremon has acted in violation of human rights and has breached the

spirit of international law. There the State of Soremon must make reparation.

4. The State of Soremon must cough up money equivalent to the present-day value

of the assets the State of Boremon was entitled to receive post-partition

5. A State of Democracy, in the territory of BoLR must be instated by the ICJ either

by allowing BoLR to merge with Boremon or by establishing a full-fledged

democracy in the region.

And to pass any such other Order, Discretion and Judgment as this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted

SD/- ______________________

Counsel for the State of Boremon

Place: The Hague, The Netherlands

-Memorial on behalf of the Respondent-

15