BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

CASECONCERNING MILITARY ACTIVITES IN BAYSEA

15TH D.M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE

INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUBMITTEDINTHEREGISTRYOFTHECOURT

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT STATE

-Federal Democratic republic of CORNucopia-

table of contentsIVindex of authorities

XIIIstatement of jurisdiction

XIVstatement of facts

XVIIquestions presented.

XVIIIsummary of arguments

1BODY OF Arguments

11.Ironmaideas military intervention in cornucopia is in breach of international law.

1A.Ironmaideas Military Intervention Violates Norms Of Territorial Sovereignty And Integrity Enshrined In International Law.

1A.1. The intervention into Cornucopias territory is without its consent.

2A.2. The Military Intervention Violates the Principles of Territorial Integrity and Independence Enshrined in the UN Charter

2A.3. The Military Intervention does not fall in any of the exceptions Enshrined in the UN Charter

4B.Ironmaideas Military Intervention is Equivalent to an Act of Aggression and hence Violates International Law.

4C.Ironmaideas Actions Cannot Be Justified Even On The Ground Of Humanitarian Intervention.

4C.1. Humanitarian Intervention Is Not A Customary International Law.

5D.Arguendo, Even If Right Of Humanitarian Intervention Exists, Ironmaideas Action Does Not Satisfy Its Criteria.

6D.1. There Has Been No Genocide Or Any Other War Crime Committed By Cornucopia.

6D.2. Unilateral Intervention By Ironmaidea In Cornucopia Is Unlawful.

72.Minister Maynard Carey is guilty of crimes committed against cornucopias citizens. he should either be prosecuted or extradited.

7A.Crime Against Cornucopias Citizens Was Committed.

7A.1. Genocide Was Committed By Ironmaidea During Its Intervention

8A.2. Crimes Against Humanity Were Committed By Ironmaidea

9B.Principle Of Respondeat Superior Is Applicable

9B.1. The Existence Of A Superior-Subordinate Relationship,

9B.2. Actual Or Imputed Knowledge Of The Superior That Crimes Were Or Are About To Be Committed By His Or Her Subordinates,

10B.3. Failure Of The Superior To Prevent Or Punish Violations Of International Criminal Law.

10C.Elements Of The Crime Are Fulfilled

10C.1. Actus Reus (Material Elements)

10C.2. Mens Rea (Mental Elements)

11D.Minister Carrey Is Liable To Be Prosecuted or Extradited.

11D.1. The principle of aut dedere aut judicare is applicable in the present case.

12D.2. Maynard Carey is not entitled to any immunity

133.There Has Been No Breach of International Investment Law and Cornucopia is Not Liable to Pay Compensation for Alleged Breach

13A.Ironmaidea Must Establish Locus Standi To Bring Claims On Behalf Of Trooper Mobile:

13A.1. States Can Extend Diplomatic Protection Only To Corporate Bodies Incorporated In Their Territories:

13A.2. Ironmaidea Lacks Locus Standi To Represent Trooper Mobile:

13A.3. Assuming that Trooper Mobile is a National of Ironmaidea, the Claim is not Admissible to Due to Rule on Exhaustion of Local Remedies:

14A.4. No Bilateral Investment Treaty Subsists Between Ironmaidea And Cornucopia:

15B. In Arguendo, There Was No Breach Of International Investment Law:

15B.1. The SCARE Act Is Protected Under Security Measures Of The General Agreement On Trade In Services:

15B.2. The Jamming Of Towers Does Not Give Rise To Expropriation:

16B.3. There Is No Breach Of Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard:

174.Cornucopia Has Not Failed To Take Adequate Due DILIGENCE AND Is Not Liable To Make Reparations For Damage Caused

17A.The Respondent Is Foreclosed From Bringing This Claim Before The Court:

18B.Even If This Claim Is Admissible, There Was No Breach Of International Law Due To Inadequate Due Diligence

18B.1. Adequacy Of Due Diligence Cannot Be Brought Before This Court:

18B.2. In Arguendo, Due Diligence Was Carried Out In The Factory

19C.States Are Not Responsible For Acts Of Non-State Actors:

19C.1. States Are Not Responsible For Acts Of Terrorists:

20C.2 The Explosion At The Factory Is Imputable To Terrorists And Not Cornucopia Thus Absolving Cornucopia Of Liability:

21D.Cornucopia Is Not Strictly Liable For Damage Caused To Ironmaidea

21E.The Breach Of The Dam Was Force Majeure

XIXprayer

index of authorities

I.C.J. Cases & Reports

Aerial Incident (Israelv.Bulgaria), 1955, ICJ 127, (July 27).20

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 2007 ICJ 43 . 204 (Feb 26).20

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, 1970 ICJ 3, 32(Sept 12)5

Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 248 (Dec. 15)1

Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur, Advisory Opinion,1999, ICJ 62, 87 (April 29)19

Gabcikovo-Nagumaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, 1997, ICJ 7(Sept. 25)6

Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras), Intervention, 1992, ICJ 92 (Sept 11)6

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South African Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, 1971, ICJ 16, 35 (June 21).3

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 26617

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America), Merits, 1986 ICJ 121 (June 27)3

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark), Merits, 1969, ICJ 3, para.77 (Feb 20).5

Oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. U.S.A.), Judgment, 2003 ICJ 161 (Nov. 6)3

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), 2006 ICJ 113 (April 20).18

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with the Courts Judgment in the Nuclear Tests Case, ICJ Reports 288 (1995).18

Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), 1952 ICJ 176 (Aug. 27)3

TOA \h \c "2" \p

P.C.I.J. Cases

Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), Merits, 1926, PCIJ, (Ser. A), No. 7, 22, (May 25).15

Chorzow Factory (Germany v. Poland) 1927 P.C.I.J (ser. A) No. 9 (July 26, 1927).19

Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10, (Sept. 7).1

TOA \h \c "3" \p

International Arbitration and Claims Commission Cases

Azurix Corp v. Argentine Republic, Award ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, IIC 24 (2006), 36016

BG Group Plc. v Argentine Republic,(UNCITRAL Rules), IIC 321 (2007), . 275310.16

Claim of Kunhardt & Co., Mixed Claim Commission United States-Venezuela, 9 RIAA 172 (Feb. 17, 1903).13

CME Czech Republic BV (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL rules, Partial Award, IIC 61 (2001)17

CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, Annulment proceedings, ICSID Case No. Arb/01/8, 277 (Sept. 25, 2007).16

Eureko BV v. Poland, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 231-35 (Aug. 19, 2005)16

Gill Arbitration (France v. Mexico), 5 RIAA 159 (1931).21

Home Missionary Society Claim (USA v. Grt. Britain), 6 RIAA 42 (Dec. 18, 1920)19

International Thunderbird Gamign Corp. v. Mexico, UNCITRAL, Partial Award 147 (Jan. 26, 2006)16

LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, IIC 152 12 (2006).16

Metalpar SA and Buen Aire SA v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, Award, at 182-88 (June 6, 2008)16

MTD Equity and FTD Chile S.A v. Republic of Chile Award ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, IIC 174 (2004), 109-11316

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Final Award, LCIA Case No UN 3467, IIC 202d (2004), 18316

Occidental Exploration, LCIA Case No. UN 3467 at 183.17

Parkerings-Compagniet v. Republic of Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, IIC 302 (2007), 33216

PSEG Global, Inc., and Konya Ingin Electrik Uretimve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, IIC 198 253254 (2007)17

Salukav. Czech Republic, Partial Award, UNCITRAL 230 (Mar. 17, 2006) [hereinafter Saluka].15

Salvador Commercial Company, 15 RIAA 477 (1902).19

Santa Elena v. Costa Rica 39 ILM, 2000 1317, 132915

OSPAR (Ireland v. UK), Final Award, (July 2, 2003), 144;MasseyCase( ), 4RIAA 155 (1927)19

Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, IIC 304 (2007).15

Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims (Grt. Britain v. Spain), 2 RIAA 615 (1923).20

gBWalter Bau AG v. Thailand, UNCITRAL, Award, 12.1 (July1, 2009).16

Youmans [Thomas H. Youmans (USA) v. United Mexican States), 4 RIAA 110 (Nov. 23, 1926)19

TOA \h \c "4" \p

International Criminal Tribunal Cases

Prosecutor v Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, . 87, 199 (May 21)8

Prosecutor v Musema, Case No. ICTR-96 -13-T, 2000, . 884 (Jan 27, 2000).8

Prosecutor v. Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 439 (Nov 16, 1998).8

Prosecutor v. Furundija, IT-95-17/1-I, (Dec. 10, 1998).8

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 51, (July 3, 2002).9

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, . 731 (Sept. 2, 1998).8

Prosecutor v. Kvoka, Case No. IT-98-30-/1-T, (Nov. 21, 2001).8

Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT -03-06-8-T 293 (June 30, 2006).10

Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No.IT-98-33-T, 590, (Aug. 2, 2001)6

Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic (Celebici Camp Case), Case No. IT-96-21, 2001, 223 (Feb. 20, 2001).9

The Hostage (U.S. v. List, et al.), XI/2 T.W.C. before Nuremberg Mil. Trib., Case No. 10 (Feb. 19, 1948).9

TOA \h \c "6" \p

Other Cases

Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of (Sept. 27, 1997), Application No. 57/1996/676/866.8

C.T. and K.M v. Sweden, Communication No. 279/2005, (Nov. 17 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/279/2005 (2007)8

People of Israel v. Eichmann 36 I.L.R. 306, 377 (Supreme Court of Israel 1962)12

R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 3), 2 All E.R. 97(1999), 2 W.L.R. 827 (H.L.) at 11912

R. v. Finta, 1 S.C.R. 701 (Supreme Court of Canada, 1994).12

V.L. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 262/2005, (Nov. 20, 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 (2007)8

TOA \h \c "7" \p

International Conventions Treaties & Resolutions

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 7, June 26, 1987, GA res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984); 1465 UNTS 8511

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. 2, opened for signature Dec 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered in force Jan. 12, 1951)6

Convention on the Repression and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, art. 4., Dec. 9, 1948, 78 U.N.T.S. 277.12

Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States art. 3, 1949-12-06, 1949 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 178.2

General Agreement on Trade in Services, art.11 (Jan. 1, 1995) 1869 UNTS 183; 33 ILM 1167 (1994).15

Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, Art. 136, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135.11

International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly, 9 December 1999, UN Doc A/RES/54/109 (1997).20

Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. 8, 165 LNTS 19 (entered into force Dec. 26, 1934)2

UN General Assembly, Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide, art. 2., Dec. 9, 1948, U.N. Doc. A/RES/260.7

United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janerio, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development Principle 17, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 1992 [hereinafter Rio Declaration, 1992.].18

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art.11 & 12, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, (in force 27 January 1980)14

TOA \h \c "8" \p

U.N. Documents, Reports & General Assembly Resolutions

Commentary on the Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, 2001, Report of the ILC on its 53rd Session, A/56/10, at 183.21

Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection art. 11, Geneva, Switzerland, Rep. of Intl Law Commn, 58th Sess., May 1-June 9&July 3 to Aug. 11, 200613

Draft Articles on International Liability, Art. 11, UN Doc A/CN 4/ 428 (1990).18

Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities art. 3- 7, Report of the ILC on its 53rd Session, 159, UN Doc. A/56/10.18

Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts art. 8, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess.,Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), reprinted in [2001] 2 Y.B. INTL L. COMMN 26, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (Part 2).19

Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Chapter V,, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), reprinted in [2001] 2 Y.B. INTL L. COMMN 26, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add. 1 (Part 2).17

G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2131(XX), (21st Dec, 1965).1

G.A. Res. 2793 (XXVI), 1, UN Doc A/L.647/Rev.1 (Dec. 4, 1971)5

G.A. Res. 2840 (XXVI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2840 (Dec. 18, 1971)11

G.A. Res. 3020 (XXVII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2114th plen. mtg. at 68, UN Doc. A/RES/3020/(XXVII), (Dec. 3, 1973)11

G.A. Res. 3074 (XXVIII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2185th plen. mtg. at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/1973, (Nov. 30, 1973).11

G.A. Res. ES-6/2, U.N.G.A.O.R., 6thEmerg. Sp. Sess., Supp. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/E-6/ (1980) at 2 (1980)1

ILC Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses art. 28, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/49/10 (1994).19

Secretary-Generals High-Level Panel, Threats, Challenges And Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, 65-66 (2004)7

U.N. Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 33, UN Doc. A/59/2005 (2005).7

UN General Assembly, Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States: resolution adopted by the General Assembly, art. 2 (2) (c), UN Doc A/RES/29/3281, (Dec. 12, 1974).15

UN General Assembly, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970)6

UNGA Res 2625, UN Doc A/8082, at 121 (24 Oct 1970)1

UNSC SCOR, 26th Sess., 1606th mtg. at 18 UN Doc S/10416 (Dec. 4, 1971)5

Yearbook of the ILC, 1961, vol. II, p. 46 and ILC Commentary 2001, p. 183.21

Yearbook of the ILC, 1979, vol. II, p. 133.21

TOA \h \c "9" \p

Books.

1Sir Robert Jennings et al., Oppenheims International law, 382 (Longman London, Sir Arthur Watts et al., 9th Ed., 1994)1

2 Simma Bruno et al., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Hermann Mosler et al., IInd edition, 2002)1

Albrecht Schnabel & Ramesh Thakur, Kosovo And The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, And International Citizenship, 319 (United Nations Univ. Press, Schnabel et al., 2000)7

Andre Nollkaemper, National Courts And International Rule Of Law, (Oxford University Press, 2011)7

Avra Constantinou, The Right Of Self-Defense Under Customary International Law And Article 51 Of The UN Charter, 57 (Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000).3

Brownlie, International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, 255, Recueil des Cours de lAcadmie de Droit International 9, 49(1995).4

Christine D. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 100 (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2004)3

Erika De Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, 268(Hart Publishing, 1st ed., 2004)3

Gary D Solis, The law of armed conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, 381 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)9

George L Coil, War Crimes in the American revolution, 82 Mil. L. Rev. 171, 197 (1978); Col. William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, 297 (Washington: Gpo, 2d ed., 1920).9

Hugo Grotius, The law of war and Peace, 2 bkII Ch. XXI 331, 138 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Francis Kelsey trans., 1925)9

James Crawford, The International Law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, 188 (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002)5

Leslie C. Green, Essays on the modern law of war, 283 (Transitional publishers, 2d ed., 1999)9

McDougal and Feliciano, The International Law of War, 177 [Martinus Nijhoff, 1st ed., Dordrecht 1994]2

Phillip C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, 169-70 [The Macmillan Company, New York, 1st ed. 1948].2

R Dolzer & M Stevens,Bilateral Investment Treaties59 (Martinus Nijhoff, ed., 1995)16

RenLefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability, 182-183, (Kluwer Law International, 1996).21

Russel Ruth B., and Jeannette E. Muther, A History Of The United Nations Charter, (The Brookings Institution, 1958)1

Thomas M. Frank, Recourse to Force, (Cambridge University Press, 2002).1

TOA \h \c "10" \p Articles

Andre Nollkaemper, Concurrence between Individual Responsibility and State Responsibility in International Law, 52 ICLQ 615 (2003).19

Bruno Simma, The charter of the United Nations: a commentary.BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW474-474 (1996).6

Buhm-Suk Baek, The Definition and Jurisdiction of the Crime of Aggression and the International Criminal Court,19 Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers(2006).4

Christopher Stalker, Diplomatic Protection of Private Business Companies: Determining Corporate Personality for International Law Purpose, 61.3 BYBIL (1990).13

E. Jimenez de Arechaga, International Responsibility, 531 Manual of Public International Law, 531-534(1968).14

G. Handl, State Liability, 33 AJIL 53.053.43 (1939).21

G.A. Christenson, Attributing Acts of Omission to the State, 12Michigan Journal of International Law, 316-317 (1991)20

George A. Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, 41, No. 1, AJIL, 20-37, (1947).9

John Quigley, The Privatization of Security Council Enforcement Action: A Threat to Multilateralism Vol. 17, MJIL, 249, [1996]7

Kelly D. Askin, A Decade of the Development of Gender Crimes in International Courts and Tribunals: 1993 to 2003."11.3, Human Rights Brief,19; (2004).8

Oscar Schacter, SovereigntyThen and Now, Essays in Honor of Wang Tiyes, 671(1993).6

R.J. Erickson, Legitimate Use of Military Force against State Sponsored International Terrorism, AIR UNIV MAXWELL AFB AL,100-103, 1989.20

Wolfgang Schomburg and Ines Peterson, Genuine Consent to sexual violence Under International Criminal Law, 101 AJIL 121-122 (2007).8

Yoram Dinstein, Right to Life, Physical Integrity and Liberty, 115, The International Bill of Rights (1981).7

Young Sok Kim, General Principle of the Criminal Law in the Statute of the International Criminal Law, 2 Mofat Intl L. Rev 29 (2003).10

Zachary Dogulas, The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 74 BYIL 152 (2003).14

Statutes

Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945, art. 6 (c) 82 UNTS 279; 59 Stat. 1544; 3 Bevans 1238; 39 AJILs 258 (entered into force Aug. 8, 1945)8

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002, 8 bis, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90 (July 1, 2002)4

Statute of the International Court Justice, 1945, 1 UNTS 9935

United Nations Charter, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI1

statement of jurisdictionOn behalf of The Federal Democratic Republic of Cornucopia (the Applicant), in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, we have the honor to come to this honorable Court for resolving the differences between the Applicant and the Respondent concerning military activities in Baysea.

statement of facts

1. Cornucopia:Cornucopia is a multi-cultural country, founded on principles of democracy and equal rights. It was amongst the first to introduce universal adult suffrage and was a leading proponent of womens rights. A largely peaceful nation, it is one of the most poorly armed developed nations. A federation, its provinces enjoy significant financial and political autonomy. Foofistan and Ironmaidea are western and eastern neighbors of Cornucopia respectively. River Grohl flows downstream from Cornucopia to Ironmaidea. 2. Ironmaidea:Ironmaidea is a landlocked country. Its leadership always worked towards ensuring that it had powerful armed forces. As of 2012, it has a huge standing army and is one of the largest importers of defense equipment in the world. Most political leaders have a military background. All the Presidents after Hanneman have held senior posts in defense prior to being elected. The government exercises significant control over armed forces. General Carey, the Chief of Armed Forces, resigned, becoming a minister in the government. He is regarded as the sole liaison between government and the armed forces; the Super General with ultimate oversight over key strategic decisions. Metalism, recognized only by Ironmaidea, is followed by the majority. 3. Baysea:This southernmost province of Cornucopia is regarded as home to the second largest population of Metalists after Ironmaidea. The Cornucopian government does not recognize this religion. In 1956, movement for Independence in Baysea started. It subsequently got violent and arrests were made. In 1962, 4 leading independence figures were executed for treason. The movement lost steam eventually, when the funds from Ironmaidea dried up.4. AMPPAD:After extensive negotiations between Ironmaidea and Cornucopia, the Ancient Mariner Power Project and Dam (AMPPAD) was built on the Grohl in Ironmaidea, 5 km from the International border. Ironmaidea agreed to provide Cornucopia with subsidized power generated by the project; Ironmaideas enterprises could own up to 49% of companies and factories in Cornucopia involved in the production of dioxin. Such enterprises had the permit to export all of their production to Ironmaidea.5. COMA:Ironmaidea, through its state-owned National Chemical Production Factory (NCPF) made 49% investment in Chemicals Organization and Manufacturing Agency (COMA). COMA agreed to export 90% of its dioxin production to Ironmaidea. Environmental Due Diligence on Schemes Act, 1979 (EDDOSA) was enacted in Cornucopia. The EDDOSA process lasted for 7 months and in 1980, license was granted. In June 1993, due to unusually heavy rains, the factory and power plant were flooded. A chemical storage tank leaked, but was quickly contained. NCPF thereafter sold its share. In 2012, bomb blasts resulted in storage tanks being ruptured. Gallons of metadioxin washed into the Grohl. The dam breached, resulting in heavy flooding damage. 6. Telecom Sector:The telecom revolution of the 1980s was dominated by Cornucopian companies, such as Trooper Mobile (TM) which was subsequently bought by Ironmaidea and Foofistan in violation of accords. Icarus telecommunications (a Cornucopian enterprise) had an effective monopoly in the construction and provision of cellular towers. During the military conflict, Strategic Cooperation and Riposte to Emergencies Act (SCARE Act) was passed. BFG turned to cellular phones after its communication was blocked by radio frequency jammers. Icarus, a responsible corporation, blocked the numbers used by the BFG. Incidentally majority of these numbers were of TM, which started incurring losses. Arbitration proceedings are ongoing with respect to the claim of TM against Icarus.7. Movement of Independence:To negotiate Bayseas independence, three Conferences on the Viability of an Independent Baysea (COVIB) took place. After the third COVIB, a referendum on the Independence of Baysea was held, voting against Bayseas independence. Progress for Baysea Party, a political front for a violent faction, BFG, came to power. In 1998, an insurgency movement led by the BFG (self-declared as Bayseas Army) began and terror attacks commenced. BFG refused an amnesty scheme and continued their insurgent activities. They were given an ultimatum and following the deadlines lapse, Cornucopian army commenced its operation.8. Intervention of Ironmaidea:Cornucopias action against the terrorists (BFG) resulted in certain collateral damages. Cornucopia was finally close to unifying the country once divided by terrorist factions. Baysea, in the face of defeat sought help from UNSC and Ironmaidea. UNSC did not intervene but Ironmaidea did, deploying battalions which committed grave Crimes Against Humanity. 50,000 non-Metalists were killed by them in less than a month. With Ironmaideas help, BFG resumed its attacks on Cornucopia. To curtail BFGs ability to recruit volunteers, Icarus again blocked the cellular towers in Baysea. By 2012 a UN brokered a cease fire and by October 15 all of Ironmaideas forces had withdrawn from Baysea. The warrant against Maynard Carey was issued by a local court under well-established principle of exercising jurisdiction over the actions considered to be crime in international law. But Ironmaidea paid no heed to Cornucopian demands.

questions presented.1. Whether the Military Intervention by Ironmaidean forces on Cornucopian land violates International Law?

2. Whether Minister Maynard Carey can be prosecuted or extradited to Cornucopia for the War Crimes during the Military Intervention in Cornucopia?

3. Whether the jamming of cellular towers in Baysea and the Applicants subsequent failure to compensate Trooper Mobile has resulted in the Applicant breaching International Investment Law?4. Whether Cornucopia is liable to make reparations for damage so caused in the territory of Ironmaidea further whether Cornucopia has failed to take adequate due diligence in respect of the COMA riverside?

summary of arguments1. Ironmaidea By Its Military Intervention Has Breached International Law.

Ironmaideas Military Intervention violates norms of Territorial Sovereignty and Integrity enshrined in International Law. Ironmaideas Action cannot be justified on the ground of Humanitarian Intervention. Arguendo, Even if Right of Humanitarian Intervention exists, Ironmaideas actions do not satisfy its criteria.2. Minister Maynard Carey Is Guilty Of Crimes Committed Against Cornucopias Citizens. He Should Either Be Prosecuted Or Extradited. Crime against Cornucopias citizens was committed. Principle of Respondeat Superior is applicable. Elements of the Crime are fulfilled. Minister Carrey is liable to be prosecuted.3. There Has Been No Breach Of International Investment Law And Cornucopia Is Not Liable To Pay Compensation For Alleged Breach.

Ironmaidea lacks Locus Standi in bringing claims on behalf of Trooper Mobile.

In Arguendo, there was no breach of International Investment Law.

4. Cornucopia Has Not Failed To Take Adequate Due Diligence And Is Not Liable To Make Reparations For Damage Caused.

Ironmaidea is foreclosed from bringing this claim before the court.

Even if this claim is admissible, there was no breach of International Law due to inadequate due diligence.

Cornucopia is not responsible for acts of non-state actors.

Cornucopia is not strictly liable for damage caused to Ironmaidea.

BODY OF Arguments1. Ironmaideas military intervention in cornucopia is in breach of international law.

The State of Ironmaidea has violated the principles of non-intervention enshrined in the UN Charter which prohibits States from using force in any manner inconsistent with its purposes. Thus, any use of force will tantamount to violation of Cornucopias sovereignty.

A. Ironmaideas Military Intervention Violates Norms Of Territorial Sovereignty And Integrity Enshrined In International Law.

A.1. The intervention into Cornucopias territory is without its consent.

Sovereign equality of states is the basic principle of International Law. The sovereignty of a nation involves territorial sovereignty (supremacy of sovereign within the state), an object of International Law. It is fundamental in International Law to require a states consent for any incursion in its territory. Ironmaideas military incursion into Cornucopia occurred without the latters consent and hence it violates its sovereignty, protected under UN Charter and Customary International Law.

A.2. The Military Intervention Violates the Principles of Territorial Integrity and Independence Enshrined in the UN Charter

Independence and Territorial Authority are the two main aspects of sovereignty of a State as recognized by the UN Charter, which requires all members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Territorial integrity denotes the inviolability of a States physical territory and the proscription of forcible trespassing of any kind and the same is infringed by the mere landing of military troops of one State on the territory of another. Minister Maynard Careys ultimatum to Cornucopia, air strikes on the Cornucopian military bases, dispatching of ground troops by Ironmaidea to the Baysea-Cornucopia border and capturing of the oil fields all constitute threat to or unlawful use of force.

A.3. The Military Intervention does not fall in any of the exceptions Enshrined in the UN Charter

Exceptionally, the Charter provides for the right of States to use force either in self-defense or upon the Security Councils exercise of its Chapter VII powers. However, neither of these exceptions can be successfully invoked by Ironmaidea:A.3.1. The requisites of Self-defense are not fulfilled.The intervention cannot be considered as exercise of right of self-defense. Occurrence of an armed attack (grave in nature) is a primary condition for the exercising self-defense. Armed attack constitutes the gravest form of the use of force, in contrast with less grave forms, which do not trigger the right. Therefore, it is for the responding state to face an attack of a grave level, beyond the simple use of force. No use of gravest form was faced by Ironmaidea. Hence it cannot invoke right of self-defense. Moreover the inflow of refugees in the Respondents land cannot be attributed to the armed bands or groups which are sent by state to carry out acts of armed force on another states land, which according to Nicaragua Case is an actual armed attack conducted by regular forces. Henceforth no armed attack can be contended from Respondents side.A.3.2. Military Intervention Lacks Authorization of the Security Council.

Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council in some exceptional cases has the sole authority to determine when a threat to, or breach of, the peace has occurred and thus to authorize the use of force. The Security Councils authorization must be explicit and in the absence of such clarity any subsequent use of force will be unlawful. The resolution regarding the authorization of the military intervention in Baysea was tabled in UNSC on 10th May 2012 but was never passed.

B. Ironmaideas Military Intervention is Equivalent to an Act of Aggression and hence Violates International Law.

Act of Aggression means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. An act of invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State on the territory of another State or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, or bombardment, use of weapons by a state against another state, qualify as an Act of Aggression. It is desirable to recognize the customary nature of the definition of Act of Aggression in resolution (3314), which has hardened in to Customary Law. The acts of Ironmaidea like entering in Baysea and occupying the oilfields, the heavy bombardments by Ironmiadean Air force, constitute as aggression.

C. Ironmaideas Actions Cannot Be Justified Even On The Ground Of Humanitarian Intervention.

C.1. Humanitarian Intervention Is Not A Customary International Law.

Customary International Law operates on two basic principles i.e. state equality and rule of the opinion.Unless the following conditions are fulfilled, it is not a Customary International Law.

C.1.1. There must be a consistent State Practice.

It is submitted that the instances in which a right of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention have been claimed over the last half century, in particular, Indias 1971 intervention in East Pakistan, Vietnams 1978 intervention in Kampuchea and Tanzanias 1978 intervention in Uganda, constitute insufficient State practice to amount to a new rule of customary law as each was severely contested by the generality of the international community.

C.1.2. There must be an emergence of Opinio Juris.

The absence of opinion juris is indicated by the fact that, notwithstanding variously asserted humanitarian motives, in each case the formal legal justification offered was self-defence. In absence of these two crucial factors, it is very difficult to prove the legality of this intervention on the ground of Customary Law. As a matter of Customary International Law, custom does not permit Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention.

D. Arguendo, Even If Right Of Humanitarian Intervention Exists, Ironmaideas Action Does Not Satisfy Its Criteria.

If there is a right of Humanitarian Intervention in International Law, its requisite criteria would necessarily include (but not be limited to) prohibition from Unilateral Military Intervention and presence of Genocide or Crime against Humanity or any other War Crimes in the country where such intervention is being done.

D.1. There Has Been No Genocide Or Any Other War Crime Committed By Cornucopia.

D.1.1. The prerequisites set according to the ICC statute for committing Genocide or any War Crime are not fulfilled.

[i] No Genocidal intent was present while killing the people. Genocide is defined inter alia as the

Killing of members of a group or intentionally inflicting on a group, conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction with intent to destroy it in whole or in part.In the instant case, there is neither Genocide nor Crime against Humanity for want of intent as the acts of government were directed against the supporters of division of a state, to protect the territorial integrity. An organized killing carried out by the government of a state for such reasons cannot be attributed to Genocide.[ii] Crime of Genocide requires killing of people of a particular groupa distinct element. In the case in hand, the attacks by the Cornucopian government were to curb the insurgency and the violent attacks by the BFG. The people killed due to such attacks were mostly the members of BFG. BFG does not constitute a particular group having a distinct element.D.2. Unilateral Intervention By Ironmaidea In Cornucopia Is Unlawful.

The UN charter does not exempt Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention from the prohibition of use of force.Ensuing to ECOWAS interventions in Liberia and NATOs intervention, many writers have acknowledged that some form of exception to the use of force may be gaining acceptance. Nevertheless, in the past few years, at least 133 states have issued individual or joint statements opposing legalization of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention. Furthermore, despite the prospects of wide-ranging UN reforms, Security Councils legal monopoly over the use of force for humanitarian purpose is still maintained. Thus legal prohibition on Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention remains largely in place, and powerful international actors are not inclined to support a fundamental revision of it. Hence it is humbly submitted that Ironmaideas Military Intervention on Cornucopian land is illegal and violates International Law.

2. Minister Maynard Carey is guilty of crimes committed against cornucopias citizens. he should either be prosecuted or extradited.

A. Crime Against Cornucopias Citizens Was Committed.A.1. Genocide Was Committed By Ironmaidea During Its Intervention

The intent to eradicate a group within a limited geographical area, a region of the country or even a municipality, could be characterized as Genocide. A conviction for Genocide relies on the intent to destroy the group in part. Genocide Convention aims to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups. It was held that sexual violence was an integral part of the process of destruction specifically contributing to the groups destruction as a whole. Rape is also widely considered as an instrument of Genocide.In absence of confession, inference may be made from the facts. Intent can be easily inferred from the fact that most deaths were of non-Metalists.

A.2. Crimes Against Humanity Were Committed By Ironmaidea

Intent to kill is required to elevate killings into Crimes against Humanity. These are defined as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds. Ill-treatment of civilian population is also a war crime. The fact that rape and other acts of sexual violence entail individual criminal responsibility under International Law has been firmly established. Rape is not only a Crime against Humanity, it is also a Crime of Torture, for the pain and suffering it causes. Even the Convention Against Torture (CAT) endorses the above contention. It is also recognized as a war crime. There was widespread rape committed by the three battalions of Ironmaidea soldiers deployed in Baysea.

B. Principle Of Respondeat Superior Is Applicable

The commanders liability for the actions of his subordinates has been accepted all over the world by various military powers. It can very well be considered to be a Customary International Law. Under Respondeat Superior, the commander is criminally responsible for the subordinates actions, even if order for the wrongful act is not given by him. Military Intervention by Ironmaidea in Cornucopia was unlawful. Also, Maynard Carey is in a position of power, being the Super General. Thousands of Cornucopians were killed by the Ironamadeas armed forces that were deployed in the Cornucopian territory. Oxfam reports confirmed this.

The three elements of command responsibility apply and are here explained here under.

B.1. The Existence Of A Superior-Subordinate Relationship,

Command responsibility applies to both military and civilian superiors and a sufficient superior-subordinate relationship exists if the accuseds control was such that they could have prevented or punished the crimes in question.

B.2. Actual Or Imputed Knowledge Of The Superior That Crimes Were Or Are About To Be Committed By His Or Her Subordinates,

The fact that the commander had no hand in the actual crime is immaterial. Also, ignorance may not be pleaded by the commanders. The commander, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known, through reports received by him or through other means, that the troops are committing unlawful acts. Being the super general, he would have had reports from his subordinates. Also, numerous international reports pointed out the human rights violations. This would have been enough source of information.

B.3. Failure Of The Superior To Prevent Or Punish Violations Of International Criminal Law.

The superior bears responsibility for his own omission in failing to act. The superior is responsible for the neglect of duty with regards to the crime committed by his subordinates.

C. Elements Of The Crime Are Fulfilled

Elements of the crime are considered as basic building blocks that fit together to constitute a crime.

C.1. Actus Reus (Material Elements)

Circumstances, conduct and consequences of the crime in consideration constitute material elements. The material element of the crime is quite clear from the statements given by Carey, the letter that he sent, his position as the Super General and the number of Cornucopian deaths.

C.2. Mens Rea (Mental Elements)

Mental elements in the ICC Statute are intent and knowledge. There can be no criminal responsibility in their absence.Mens Rea has been clearly proved in earlier submissions.

D. Minister Carrey Is Liable To Be Prosecuted or Extradited.Crimes that are prohibited by peremptory rules of international law are concerned, states are not only entitled to exercise jurisdiction but are obliged to prosecute, or to surrender the offender to another state or a competent international tribunal for the purposes of prosecution.

D.1. The principle of aut dedere aut judicare is applicable in the present case.

The customary principle of aut dedere aut judicare requires States to prosecute or surrender individuals suspected of having committed crimes triggering universal jurisdiction, this view was also taken by ICTY in Blaki case. This principle has also been put forth in the Geneva Convention (Ironmaidea and Cornucopia are both parties to this convention). Further, vide a resolution of the Security Council, the principles of the Geneva Conventions have crystallised into customary international law. A number of general Assembly resolution also place importance on the duty to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators of Crimes against Humanity. International humanitarian and human rights law provides a basis for extradition in the absence of inter- State agreements with respect to certain crimes(Genocide or Apartheid), and in some cases even imposes an obligation on States to extradite or prosecute the alleged perpetrators of such crimes. Also, the Convention Against Torture provides the legal basis for extradition in absence of any extradition treaty between the two concerned state parties.

D.2. Maynard Carey is not entitled to any immunity

State immunity can only be waived expressly. Accordingly, the Convention against Genocide explicitly lifts State immunity, affirming that any person who violates the Convention shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Municipal court has waived immunity to prosecute a State official, the crimes in question were on a massive and systematic scale, often connected to Genocide. The immunity would thus not apply to Carey as his actions have resulted in a Genocide in Cornucopia.

D.2.1. No personal immunity or functional immunity can be claimed.

In a recent case a court noted that a rule of customary international law was emerging that appeared to limit such immunity in cases of serious international crimes. The plea of immunity ratione materiae is not available in respect of an offence committed in the forum state. The concept of functional immunity if said to be co-existent with the Torture Convention would not make sense as the torture is bound to be committed and sanctioned by the state officials and the Torture convention would be rendered redundant. This exception could very well extend to other crime like Genocide and Crimes against humanity.

3. There Has Been No Breach of International Investment Law and Cornucopia is Not Liable to Pay Compensation for Alleged Breach

A. Ironmaidea Must Establish Locus Standi To Bring Claims On Behalf Of Trooper Mobile:

A.1. States Can Extend Diplomatic Protection Only To Corporate Bodies Incorporated In Their Territories:

A corporation is a juridical person distinct from its members. The state of nationality of shareholders shall not be entitled to provide diplomatic protection to shareholders where the injury is to the corporation. The right to protect the companys interest belongs only to the State where the company is incorporated and registered and not to the State to which the shareholders belong.

A.2. Ironmaidea Lacks Locus Standi To Represent Trooper Mobile:

It is submitted that TM, is a registered legal entity of Foofistan (majority shareholder with 55% of the shares) and can only be represented by Foofistan. Ironmaidea is precluded from bringing a claim on behalf of TM as it is not its national.

A.3. Assuming that Trooper Mobile is a National of Ironmaidea, the Claim is not Admissible to Due to Rule on Exhaustion of Local Remedies:

The international minimum standard is a norm of customary international law which governs the treatment of aliens. Violation of this norm endangers the international responsibility of the host State and may open the way for international action on behalf of the injured alien provided that the alien has exhausted local remedies. State responsibility may not be invoked if available and effective local remedy has not been exhausted. The rule of exhaustion of local remedies applies when the state is complaining of injury of its nationals. No international claim in respect of an injury to a national may be presented before that national has exhausted local remedies. Therefore, it follows that if Trooper Mobile is a national of Ironmaidea (by extension of diplomatic protection), it must first exhaust local remedies.

A.4. No Bilateral Investment Treaty Subsists Between Ironmaidea And Cornucopia:State responsibility requires a legal obligation in force between two states, to which States have expressed consent to be bound.The objective of concluding investment agreements is to avoid he deficient rules of Customary International Law. Investment treaty norms should not be construed in analogy to customary rules if it was the very intention of the concluded treaty to superpose these particular customary rules; lex specialis, takes precedence over arguments from the more general norm. It is submitted that the two States had extensively negotiated a bilateral investment treaty, intending to be bound by a special agreement, distinct and uniquely constructed to meet the trading terms of the party states. However, as no treaty was concluded, no breach of laws contemplated to be a specific agreement has occurred.B. In Arguendo, There Was No Breach Of International Investment Law:

B.1. The SCARE Act Is Protected Under Security Measures Of The General Agreement On Trade In Services:

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter GATS) provides that States, onsidering essential security interests can implement necessary measures to maintain public order or to protect human life for the preservation of the fundamental interests of a society, as reflected in public policy and law. It is submitted that the SCARE Act was enacted in light of serious security circumstances, aimed at protecting the sovereignty of Cornucopia from terrorist operations of the BFG. The cooperation of Icarus Telecommunications and subsequent jamming is justified as an essential security interest.

B.2. The Jamming Of Towers Does Not Give Rise To Expropriation:Expropriation, be it directly, or indirectly, by measures resulting in a substantial deprivation of the use and value of the investment even though the actual title of the asset remains with the investor. Measures taken on a non-discriminatory basis for the public good, public purpose, judicial liquidation and similar measures would not constitute unlawful expropriation.

The jamming of the towers in 2012 was done based on earlier success in combating BFG in 2009. International law recognizes the right of the state to take measures to protect its security interests notwithstanding trade agreement provisions. The release of the list of numbers and the measures taken under the SCARE Act are protected under the well-established principle of a sovereigns right to take necessary steps to protect its population.

B.3. There Is No Breach Of Fair And Equitable Treatment Standard:

The fair and equitable treatment standard is recognized in law relating to transnational corporations.It contemplates the protection of the investors legitimate expectation and stability of the legal and business framework in the state. Lack of a fair, predictable and stable framework for investment is contrary to legitimate expectations of the investor (upon which the foreign investor was induced to invest)and commitments made by the host State, and are breaches of fair and equitable treatment standards.

It is submitted that the investment made by Ironmaidea in Trooper Mobile was in violation of agreements with Cornucopia with regards to the telecom industry, and Ironmaidea is foreclosed from bringing this claim due to its own unequitable conduct. Notwithstanding this, the investment (widely regarded as silly money) made in Trooper Mobile was done so as to prevent the growth of Cornucopian enterprises. No commitments guaranteeing a national treatment agreement or market access (both of which are specific agreements found in express treaty obligations) are known to subsist between the two countries, based on which Ironmaidea can be said to have been induced to invest in this sector, thus rendering the grounds for legitimate expectation baseless.4. Cornucopia Has Not Failed To Take Adequate Due DILIGENCE AND Is Not Liable To Make Reparations For Damage Caused

A. The Respondent Is Foreclosed From Bringing This Claim Before The Court:

State responsibility in Customary International Law is to be seen in light of circumstances like consent. The COMA Riverside Factory was set up under joint ownership of both states and the primary beneficiary of this agreement was Ironmaidea, to whom 90% of all the dioxin produced by COMA would be exported. Due diligence requires all appropriate measures to prevent and minimize risk, with co-operation of other states where necessary.The bombings were executed by terrorists who had direct assistance from Ironmaidea, thus foreclosing it from bringing a claim against Cornucopia for collateral consequences of activities of the terrorists to whom it had given assistance.

B. Even If This Claim Is Admissible, There Was No Breach Of International Law Due To Inadequate Due Diligence

B.1. Adequacy Of Due Diligence Cannot Be Brought Before This Court:

International Law requires states to conduct assessments for both domestic and transnational environment. This has been reiterated by the International Law Commission, and enjoys widespread recognition. Even if due diligence is an internationally accepted mandate before taking up any activity; this court cannot review the adequacy of such an assessment. In Request for an Examination of the Situation Case, ICJ did not make a judgment on this point for want of jurisdiction to test adequacy of due diligence.

B.2. In Arguendo, Due Diligence Was Carried Out In The Factory

It is submitted that under the Environmental Due Diligence on Schemes Act (hereinafter EDDOSA), proper due diligence was carried out by the authorities, over a period of seven months. Concerns of environmental groups, civil society, political parties and local population were taken into account, after which a license for operations was granted. The factory in 2003 was faced with flooding following unusually heavy rains. The prescribed emergency procedures were followed, and the leak was quickly contained. Thus, there were proper procedures in place if an unfortunate emergency occurred, in accordance with the duty on the part of a state within whose territory an emergency originates to immediately take all practicable measures necessitated by the circumstances to prevent, mitigate, and eliminate harmful effects of the emergency.

C. States Are Not Responsible For Acts Of Non-State Actors:

C.1. States Are Not Responsible For Acts Of Terrorists:

States are not liable for the conduct of private actors, and non-state actors.Any breach must be attributable to the State, and no liability lies for the actions of rioters or rebels causing loss or damage. State responsibility may co-exist with individual responsibility, and the act in question must be attributable to the conduct of any organ of the state. State responsibility is attracted only when the state controls or directs the non-state actors and such actors become the states de facto agents. Such effective control requires the state to participate in the planning, direction, support and execution of specific instructions or directions from the host state relating to the illegal act. Only when a state actively participates in an act of terrorism, or fails to prevent a terrorist offence, or fails to extradite a terrorist actor to prosecution, then even one act of terrorism would attract liability. This position is also found in Case law.

C.2 The Explosion At The Factory Is Imputable To Terrorists And Not Cornucopia Thus Absolving Cornucopia Of Liability:

The act must be imputable to the State and there must be clear and convincing evidence to support findings to attract liability. Where direct evidence is unavailable, circumstantial evidence may be considered. The party asserting a fact must prove it.Notwithstanding this point on burden of proof, it is submitted that the bombings were carried out by terrorists of the BGF, who had become violent post the unlawful intervention by Ironmaidea. The bombs at the factory were crude bombs, (modus operandi peculiar to the BFG) specifically targeted at state owned enterprises. Any violation by a state gives rise to state responsibility and consequently to the duty of reparation i.e., responsibility results in the duty to make reparation if an obligation in question is not met. If a state has taken appropriate actions against terrorist threats emanating from its territory but terrorists there still succeed in carrying out an attack, the former state cannot be deemed responsible. States can be held responsible only for those acts or omissions which it is culpable for. Therefore in the present Case, Cornucopia cannot be made liable for the acts of terrorists in its territory or the consequences of such acts, as all necessary defense measures were undertaken.

D. Cornucopia Is Not Strictly Liable For Damage Caused To Ironmaidea

A general principle of strict liability, particularly in hazardous activities has been applied in matters of transboundary damage only in peculiar circumstances. In Gut Dam Arbitration Case, the award was given not on the basis of strict liability, but on a specific indemnity clause in the agreement between the two states. Thus, in absence of a special agreement to indemnify, Cornucopia cannot be made liable to Ironmaidea.

E. The Breach Of The Dam Was Force MajeureForce majeure has long been accepted as precluding wrongfulness.To attract this defense, there has to be a constraint which the state was unable to avoid or to oppose by its own power. The conduct of the state is involuntary or at least involves no element of free choice. The bombing of the factories in the present case was unexpected and consequential flooding could not have been foreseen and was beyond the reasonable control of Cornucopia.prayer

For the foregoing reasons, the State of Ironmaidea respectfully requests the honorable Court to adjudicate and declare that:

I. The use of force by Ironmaidea is unlawful and does not violate International Law.

II. Minister Maynard Carey is guilty of Crimes committed against Cornucopias citizens. He should be either prosecuted for crime of aggression or be extradited to Cornucopia.

III. Cornucopia has not breached International Investment Law and is no liable to pay any compensation.

IV. Cornucopia has not failed to take adequate Due Diligence in respect of the coma riverside factory and is not liable to make reparations for damage so caused in the territory of Ironmaidea.

The Applicant State additionally prays that the Court may grant any provisional relief that it may deem fit. The Court may also make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience.

And for this act of kindness the Applicant State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.All of which is respectfully submitted,.(Agents for the Applicant State)TEAM CODE 1511

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CORNUCOPIA (THE APPLICANT STATE)

REPUBLIC OF IRONMAIDEA (THE RESPONDENT STATE)

V.

United Nations Charter, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI TA \l "United Nations Charter, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI" \s "United Nations Charter, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI" \c 12 , Article 2(4) [hereinafter UN Charter]; See also, Russel Ruth B., and Jeannette E. Muther, A History Of The United Nations Charter, (The Brookings Institution, 1958) TA \l "Russel Ruth B., and Jeannette E. Muther, A History Of The United Nations Charter, (The Brookings Institution, 1958)" \s "Russel Ruth B., and Jeannette E. Muther, A History Of The United Nations Charter, (The Brookings Institution, 1958)" \c 9 ; 2 Simma Bruno et al., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Hermann Mosler et al., IInd edition, 2002) TA \l "2 Simma Bruno et al., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Hermann Mosler et al., IInd edition, 2002)" \s "2 Simma Bruno et al., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, Hermann Mosler et al., IInd edition, 2002)" \c 9 ; Thomas M. Frank, Recourse to Force, (Cambridge University Press, 2002). TA \l "Thomas M. Frank, Recourse to Force, (Cambridge University Press, 2002)." \s "Thomas M. Frank, Recourse to Force, (Cambridge University Press, 2002)." \c 9

UN Charter, Art. 2(1).

1Sir Robert Jennings et al., Oppenheims International law, 382 (Longman London, Sir Arthur Watts et al., 9th Ed., 1994) TA \l "1Sir Robert Jennings et al., Oppenheims International law, 382 (Longman London, Sir Arthur Watts et al., 9th Ed., 1994)" \s "1Sir Robert Jennings et al., Oppenheims International law, 382 (Longman London, Sir Arthur Watts et al., 9th Ed., 1994)" \c 9 [hereinafter Oppenheim]; See also, Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10, (Sept. 7). TA \l "Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10, (Sept. 7)." \s "Lotus (France v. Turkey), 1927 PCIJ (Ser. A) No. 10, (Sept. 7)." \c 2

G.A. Res. ES-6/2, U.N.G.A.O.R., 6thEmerg. Sp. Sess., Supp. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/E-6/ (1980) at 2 (1980) TA \l "G.A. Res. ES-6/2, U.N.G.A.O.R., 6thEmerg. Sp. Sess., Supp. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/E-6/ (1980) at 2 (1980)" \s "G.A. Res. ES-6/2, U.N.G.A.O.R., 6thEmerg. Sp. Sess., Supp. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/E-6/ (1980) at 2 (1980)" \c 8 ; G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2131(XX), (21st Dec, 1965). TA \l "G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2131(XX), (21st Dec, 1965)." \s "G.A. Res. 2131 (XX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2131(XX), (21st Dec, 1965)." \c 8

UNGA Res 2625, UN Doc A/8082, at 121 (24 Oct 1970) TA \l "UNGA Res 2625, UN Doc A/8082, at 121 (24 Oct 1970)" \s "UNGA Res 2625, UN Doc A/8082, at 121 (24 Oct 1970)" \c 8 ; Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 248 (Dec. 15) TA \l "Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 248 (Dec. 15)" \s "Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 248 (Dec. 15)" \c 1 [hereinafter Corfu Channel].

UN Charter Article 2(4); Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. 8, 165 LNTS 19 (entered into force Dec. 26, 1934) TA \l "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. 8, 165 LNTS 19 (entered into force Dec. 26, 1934)" \s "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, art. 8, 165 LNTS 19 (entered into force Dec. 26, 1934)" \c 7 [hereinafter Montevideo Convention]. TA \l "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States art. 3, 1949-12-06, 1949 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 178." \s "Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States art. 3, 1949-12-06, 1949 Y.B. Int'l L. Comm'n 178." \c 7

Document concerning Israeli Military Attacks from the Air on Iraqi Nuclear Research Centre, 7th June, 1981 in I.L.M. 20 (1981), p. 963-97; SC Res. 487 (1981), Documents concerning Israeli attack on Tunisian territory, I.L.M(International Legal Materials)., 24 (1985), p. 1740.

McDougal and Feliciano, The International Law of War, 177 [Martinus Nijhoff, 1st ed., Dordrecht 1994] TA \l "McDougal and Feliciano, The International Law of War, 177 [Martinus Nijhoff, 1st ed., Dordrecht 1994]" \s "McDougal and Feliciano, The International Law of War, 177 [Martinus Nijhoff, 1st ed., Dordrecht 1994]" \c 9 ; See Corfu channel, Supra note 5, at 34.

Randelzhofer, The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, in Simma, 123 (2nd ed. 2002) TA \l "Randelzhofer, The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, in Simma, 123 (2nd ed. 2002)" \s "Randelzhofer, The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, in Simma, 123 (2nd ed. 2002)" \c 9 ; See also, Phillip C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, 169-70 [The Macmillan Company, New York, 1st ed. 1948]. TA \l "Phillip C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, 169-70 [The Macmillan Company, New York, 1st ed. 1948]." \s "Phillip C. Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations, 169-70 [The Macmillan Company, New York, 1st ed. 1948]." \c 9

Compromis, 71.

UN Charter, Article 51.

UN Charter, Articles 43-48.

UN Charter, Article 51;Jessup, Supra note 9.

Oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. U.S.A.), Judgment, 2003 ICJ 161 (Nov. 6) TA \l "Oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. U.S.A.), Judgment, 2003 ICJ 161 (Nov. 6)" \s "Oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. U.S.A.), Judgment, 2003 ICJ 161 (Nov. 6)" \c 1 ; Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), 1952 ICJ 176 (Aug. 27) TA \l "Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), 1952 ICJ 176 (Aug. 27)" \s "Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), 1952 ICJ 176 (Aug. 27)" \c 1 [hereinafter Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco]; Avra Constantinou, The Right Of Self-Defense Under Customary International Law And Article 51 Of The UN Charter, 57 (Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000). TA \l "Avra Constantinou, The Right Of Self-Defense Under Customary International Law And Article 51 Of The UN Charter, 57 (Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000)." \s "Avra Constantinou, The Right Of Self-Defense Under Customary International Law And Article 51 Of The UN Charter, 57 (Ant. N. Sakkoulas, 2000)." \c 9

Christine D. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 100 (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2004) TA \l "Christine D. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 100 (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2004)" \s "Christine D. Gray, International Law and the Use of Force, 100 (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2004)" \c 9 ; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America), Merits, 1986 ICJ 121 (June 27) TA \l "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua(The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America), Merits, 1986 ICJ 121 (June 27)" \s "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America), Merits, 1986 ICJ 121 (June 27)" \c 1 [hereinafter Nicaragua].

Nicaragua, Supra note 15, at 194.

UN Charter, Article 39.

UN Charter, Article 24; Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, 215(Clarendon Press, 1st ed., 1986). TA \l "Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, 215(Clarendon Press, 1st ed., 1986)." \s "Antonio Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, 215(Clarendon Press, 1st ed., 1986)." \c 9

Erika De Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, 268(Hart Publishing, 1st ed., 2004) TA \l "Erika De Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, 268(Hart Publishing, 1st ed., 2004)" \s "Erika De Wet, The Chapter VII Powers of the United Nations Security Council, 268(Hart Publishing, 1st ed., 2004)" \c 9 ; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South African Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, 1971, ICJ 16, 35 (June 21). TA \l "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South African Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, 1971, ICJ 16, 35 (June 21)." \s "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South African Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, 1971, ICJ 16, 35 (June 21)." \c 1

Compromis, 68.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002, 8 bis, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90 (July 1, 2002) TA \l "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002, 8 bis, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90 (July 1, 2002)" \s "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2002, 8 bis, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9; 37 ILM 1002 (1998); 2187 UNTS 90 (July 1, 2002)" \c 12 [hereinafter Rome Statute 2002].

Id., art. 8bis 2 (d).

Id., art. 8bis 2 (b).

Introduction to Elements of Aggression, Annex I, U.N. Doc. ICC-ASP/8/INF.2, Informal inter-sessional meeting on the Crime of Aggression, the Princeton Club, New York, from 8 to 10 June 2009, Doc ICC-ASP/8/INF.2 (2009) (2009 Inter-sessional Report), at 12, Annex I (Draft Elements of Crimes); See also, Rome Statute, art. 9 & 8 bis.

Mohammed M. Gomaa, The Definition of the Crime of Aggression and the ICC Jurisdiction over that Crime, in The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004); See also,Nicaragua, Supra note 15, at 14.

Buhm-Suk Baek, The Definition and Jurisdiction of the Crime of Aggression and the International Criminal Court,19 Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers(2006). TA \l "Buhm-Suk Baek, The Definition and Jurisdiction of the Crime of Aggression and the International Criminal Court,19 Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers(2006)." \s "Buhm-Suk Baek, The Definition and Jurisdiction of the Crime of Aggression and the International Criminal Court, 19 Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers (2006)." \c 10

Brownlie, International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, 255, Recueil des Cours de lAcadmie de Droit International 9, 49(1995). TA \l "Brownlie, International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, 255, Recueil des Cours de lAcadmie de Droit International 9, 49(1995)." \s "Brownlie, International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, 255, Recueil des Cours de lAcadmie de Droit International 9, 49(1995)." \c 9

Statute of the International Court Justice, 1945, 1 UNTS 993 TA \l "Statute of the International Court Justice, 1945, 1 UNTS 993" \s "Statute of the International Court Justice, 1945, 1 UNTS 993" \c 12 , Article 38(1) (b) [hereinafter ICJ Statute]; North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark), Merits, 1969, ICJ 3, para.77 (Feb 20). TA \l "North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark), Merits, 1969, ICJ 3, para.77 (Feb 20)." \s "North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark), Merits, 1969, ICJ 3, para.77 (Feb 20)." \c 1

UNSC SCOR, 26th Sess., 1606th mtg. at 18 UN Doc S/10416 (Dec. 4, 1971) TA \l "UNSC SCOR, 26th Sess., 1606th mtg. at 18 UN Doc S/10416 (Dec. 4, 1971)" \s "UNSC SCOR, 26th Sess., 1606th mtg. at 18 UN Doc S/10416 (Dec. 4, 1971)" \c 8 ; G.A. Res. 2793 (XXVI), 1, UN Doc A/L.647/Rev.1 (Dec. 4, 1971) TA \l "G.A. Res. 2793 (XXVI), 1, UN Doc A/L.647/Rev.1 (Dec. 4, 1971)" \s "G.A. Res. 2793 (XXVI), 1, UN Doc A/L.647/Rev.1 (Dec. 4, 1971)" \c 8 ; UN SCOR, 5th Sess., 473rd mtg., at 3, UN Doc S/12962 (Dec. 11, 1978).

ICJ Statute, Article 38(1) (b); See also Oppenheim, Supra note 3, at 22.

Nicaragua, Supra note 15, at 194.

James Crawford, The International Law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, 188 (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002) TA \l "James Crawford, The International Law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, 188 (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002)" \s "James Crawford, The International Law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries, 188 (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002)" \c 9 ; See also, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, 1970 ICJ 3, 32(Sept 12) TA \l "Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, 1970 ICJ 3, 32(Sept 12)" \s "Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, 1970 ICJ 3, 32(Sept 12)" \c 1 [hereinafter Barcelona Traction].

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. 2, opened for signature Dec 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered in force Jan. 12, 1951) TA \l "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. 2, opened for signature Dec 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered in force Jan. 12, 1951)" \s "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. 2, opened for signature Dec 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered in force Jan. 12, 1951)" \c 7 ; Gabcikovo-Nagumaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, 1997, ICJ 7(Sept. 25) TA \l "Gabcikovo-Nagumaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, 1997, ICJ 7(Sept. 25)" \s "Gabcikovo-Nagumaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Judgment, 1997, ICJ 7(Sept. 25)" \c 1 ; Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Supra note 14, at 176; Oscar Schacter, SovereigntyThen and Now, Essays in Honor of Wang Tiyes, 671(1993). TA \l "Oscar Schacter, SovereigntyThen and Now, Essays in Honor of Wang Tiyes, 671(1993)." \s "Oscar Schacter, SovereigntyThen and Now, Essays in Honor of Wang Tiyes, 671(1993)." \c 10

Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General pursuant to SC Res.1564, 518, of 18 September 2004,25 January 2005, 518

Rome Statute, art.6 (a).

Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No.IT-98-33-T, 590, (Aug. 2, 2001) TA \l "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No.IT-98-33-T, 590, (Aug. 2, 2001)" \s "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No.IT-98-33-T, 590, (Aug. 2, 2001)" \c 4 ; See also, Rome Statute, 2002, Art. 6 (a).

UN General Assembly, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970) TA \l "UN General Assembly, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970)" \s "UN General Assembly, Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970)" \c 8 ; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras), Intervention, 1992, ICJ 92 (Sept 11) TA \l "Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras), Intervention, 1992, ICJ 92 (Sept 11)" \s "Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras), Intervention, 1992, ICJ 92 (Sept 11)" \c 1 ; Bruno Simma, The charter of the United Nations: a commentary.BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW474-474 (1996). TA \l "Bruno Simma, The charter of the United Nations: a commentary.BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW474-474 (1996)." \s "Bruno Simma, The charter of the United Nations: a commentary. BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 474-474 (1996)." \c 10

Christine D. Gray,Supra note 15 at 99.

Declaration of the South Summit, Havana, Cuba, Apr. 10-14, 2000, . 54, at http://www.g77.org/Docs/Declaration_G77Summit.htm (last accessed date: 10/2/2013 at 5:20).

Secretary-Generals High-Level Panel, Threats, Challenges And Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, 65-66 (2004) TA \l "Secretary-Generals High-Level Panel, Threats, Challenges And Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, 65-66 (2004)" \s "Secretary-Generals High-Level Panel, Threats, Challenges And Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, 65-66 (2004)" \c 8 ; John Quigley, The Privatization of Security Council Enforcement Action: A Threat to Multilateralism Vol. 17, MJIL, 249, [1996] TA \l "John Quigley, The \Privatization\ of Security Council Enforcement Action: A Threat to Multilateralism Vol. 17, MJIL, 249, [1996]" \s "John Quigley, The \"Privatization\" of Security Council Enforcement Action: A Threat to Multilateralism Vol. 17, MJIL, 249, [1996]" \c 10 ; U.N. Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 33, UN Doc. A/59/2005 (2005). TA \l "U.N. Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 33, UN Doc. A/59/2005 (2005)." \s "U.N. Secretary-General, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 33, UN Doc. A/59/2005 (2005)." \c 8

Albrecht Schnabel & Ramesh Thakur, Kosovo And The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, And International Citizenship, 319 (United Nations Univ. Press, Schnabel et al., 2000) TA \l "Albrecht Schnabel & Ramesh Thakur, Kosovo And The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, And International Citizenship, 319 (United Nations Univ. Press, Schnabel et al., 2000)" \s "Albrecht Schnabel & Ramesh Thakur, Kosovo And The Challenge Of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Indignation, Collective Action, And International Citizenship, 319 (United Nations Univ. Press, Schnabel et al., 2000)" \c 9 ; Andre Nollkaemper, National Courts And International Rule Of Law, (Oxford University Press, 2011) TA \l "Andre Nollkaemper, National Courts And International Rule Of Law, (Oxford University Press, 2011)" \s "Andre Nollkaemper, National Courts And International Rule Of Law, (Oxford University Press, 2011)" \c 9 ; Yoram Dinstein, Right to Life, Physical Integrity and Liberty, 115, The International Bill of Rights (1981). TA \l "Yoram Dinstein, Right to Life, Physical Integrity and Liberty, 115, The International Bill of Rights (1981)." \s "Yoram Dinstein, Right to Life, Physical Integrity and Liberty, 115, The International Bill of Rights (1981)." \c 10

Krstic, Supra note 36 at 589. TA \l "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 589 (Aug 2, 2001)." \s "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 589 (Aug 2, 2001)." \c 4

Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 8 (Apr. 19, 2004). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 8 (Apr. 19, 2004)." \s "Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, 8 (Apr. 19, 2004)." \c 4

UN General Assembly, Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide, art. 2., Dec. 9, 1948, U.N. Doc. A/RES/260. TA \l "UN General Assembly, Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide, art. 2., Dec. 9, 1948, U.N. Doc. A/RES/260." \s "UN General Assembly, Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide, art. 2., Dec. 9, 1948, U.N. Doc. A/RES/260." \c 7

Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, . 731 (Sept. 2, 1998). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, . 731 (Sept. 2, 1998)." \s "Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, . 731 (Sept. 2, 1998)." \c 4

Kelly D. Askin, A Decade of the Development of Gender Crimes in International Courts and Tribunals: 1993 to 2003."11.3, Human Rights Brief,19; (2004). TA \l "Kelly D. Askin, A Decade of the Development of Gender Crimes in International Courts and Tribunals: 1993 to 2003.\"11.3, Human Rights Brief,19; (2004)." \s "Kelly D. Askin, A Decade of the Development of Gender Crimes in International Courts and Tribunals: 1993 to 2003.\" 11.3, Human Rights Brief, 19; (2004)." \c 10

See e.g. Prosecutor v Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, . 87, 199 (May 21) TA \l "Prosecutor v Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, . 87, 199 (May 21)" \s "Prosecutor v Clement Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, . 87, 199 (May 21)" \c 4 ; Prosecutor v Musema, Case No. ICTR-96 -13-T, 2000, . 884 (Jan 27, 2000). TA \l "Prosecutor v Musema, Case No. ICTR-96 -13-T, 2000, . 884 (Jan 27, 2000)." \s "Prosecutor v Musema, Case No. ICTR-96 -13-T, 2000, . 884 (Jan 27, 2000)." \c 4

Prosecutor v. Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 439 (Nov 16, 1998). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 439 (Nov 16, 1998)." \s "Prosecutor v. Delalic, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 439 (Nov 16, 1998)." \c 4

Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945, art. 6 (c) 82 UNTS 279; 59 Stat. 1544; 3 Bevans 1238; 39 AJILs 258 (entered into force Aug. 8, 1945) TA \l "Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945, art. 6 (c) 82 UNTS 279; 59 Stat. 1544; 3 Bevans 1238; 39 AJILs 258 (entered into force Aug. 8, 1945)" \s "Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 1945, art. 6 (c) 82 UNTS 279; 59 Stat. 1544; 3 Bevans 1238; 39 AJILs 258 (entered into force Aug. 8, 1945)" \c 12 , [hereinafter Charter on Nuremberg Trial].

London Charter, Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, re-printed in The Manual of the Law of the Armed Conflict, 422 (Oxford University Press 2004).

Wolfgang Schomburg and Ines Peterson, Genuine Consent to sexual violence Under International Criminal Law, 101 AJIL 121-122 (2007). TA \l "Wolfgang Schomburg and Ines Peterson, Genuine Consent to sexual violence Under International Criminal Law, 101 AJIL 121-122 (2007)." \s "Wolfgang Schomburg and Ines Peterson, Genuine Consent to sexual violence Under International Criminal Law, 101 AJIL 121-122 (2007)." \c 10

C.T. and K.M v. Sweden, Communication No. 279/2005, (Nov. 17 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/279/2005 (2007) TA \l "C.T. and K.M v. Sweden, Communication No. 279/2005, (Nov. 17 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/279/2005 (2007)" \s "C.T. and K.M v. Sweden, Communication No. 279/2005, (Nov. 17 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/279/2005 (2007)" \c 6 ; See also, V.L. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 262/2005, (Nov. 20, 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 (2007) TA \l "V.L. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 262/2005, (Nov. 20, 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 (2007)" \s "V.L. v. Switzerland, Communication No. 262/2005, (Nov. 20, 2006), UN Doc. CAT/C/37/D/262/2005 (2007)" \c 6 ; Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of (Sept. 27, 1997), Application No. 57/1996/676/866. TA \l "Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of (Sept. 27, 1997), Application No. 57/1996/676/866." \s "Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of (Sept. 27, 1997), Application No. 57/1996/676/866." \c 6

Prosecutor v. Kvoka, Case No. IT-98-30-/1-T, (Nov. 21, 2001). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Kvoka, Case No. IT-98-30-/1-T, (Nov. 21, 2001)." \s "Prosecutor v. Kvoka, Case No. IT-98-30-/1-T, (Nov. 21, 2001)." \c 4

Prosecutor v. Furundija, IT-95-17/1-I, (Dec. 10, 1998). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Furundija, IT-95-17/1-I, (Dec. 10, 1998)." \s "Prosecutor v. Furundija, IT-95-17/1-I, (Dec. 10, 1998)." \c 4

Leslie C. Green, Essays on the modern law of war, 283 (Transitional publishers, 2d ed., 1999) TA \l "Leslie C. Green, Essays on the modern law of war, 283 (Transitional publishers, 2d ed., 1999)" \s "Leslie C. Green, Essays on the modern law of war, 283 (Transitional publishers, 2d ed., 1999)" \c 9 ;Hugo Grotius, The law of war and Peace, 2 bkII Ch. XXI 331, 138 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Francis Kelsey trans., 1925) TA \l "Hugo Grotius, The law of war and Peace, 2 bkII Ch. XXI 331, 138 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Francis Kelsey trans., 1925)" \s "Hugo Grotius, The law of war and Peace, 2 BKII Ch. XXI 331, 138 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Francis Kelsey trans., 1925)" \c 9 ;George L Coil, War Crimes in the American revolution, 82 Mil. L. Rev. 171, 197 (1978); Col. William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, 297 (Washington: Gpo, 2d ed., 1920). TA \l "George L Coil, War Crimes in the American revolution, 82 Mil. L. Rev. 171, 197 (1978); Col. William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, 297 (Washington: Gpo, 2d ed., 1920)." \s "George L Coil, War Crimes in the American revolution, 82 Mil. L. Rev. 171, 197 (1978); Col. William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, 297 (Washington: Gpo, 2d ed., 1920)." \c 9

George A. Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, 41, No. 1, AJIL, 20-37, (1947). TA \l "George A. Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, 41, No. 1, AJIL, 20-37, (1947)." \s "George A. Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, 41, No. 1, AJIL, 20-37, (1947)." \c 10

Gary D Solis, The law of armed conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, 381 (Cambridge University Press, 2010) TA \l "Gary D Solis, The law of armed conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, 381 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)" \s "Gary D Solis, The law of armed conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, 381 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)" \c 9 [hereinafter Solis].

Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 51, (July 3, 2002). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 51, (July 3, 2002)." \s "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 51, (July 3, 2002)." \c 4

Id at, 53. TA \l "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema,Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 53, (July 3, 2002)." \s "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema,Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 53, (July 3, 2002)." \c 4

Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic (Celebici Camp Case), Case No. IT-96-21, 2001, 223 (Feb. 20, 2001). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic (Celebici Camp Case), Case No. IT-96-21, 2001, 223 (Feb. 20, 2001)." \s "Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucic (Celebici Camp Case), Case No. IT-96-21, 2001, 223 (Feb. 20, 2001)." \c 4

Solis, Supra note 64, at 385.

The Hostage (U.S. v. List, et al.), XI/2 T.W.C. before Nuremberg Mil. Trib., Case No. 10 (Feb. 19, 1948). TA \l "The Hostage (U.S. v. List, et al.), XI/2 T.W.C. before Nuremberg Mil. Trib., Case No. 10 (Feb. 19, 1948)." \s "The Hostage (U.S. v. List, et al.), XI/2 T.W.C. before Nuremberg Mil. Trib., Case No. 10 (Feb. 19, 1948)." \c 4

The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, UK Ministry of Defence, L.O.A.C. Manual, 16.36 (July 1, 2004).

Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 501 at 178 (July 18, 1956).

Bagilishema, Supra note 58 at 53. TA \l "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 53 (July 3, 2002)." \s "Prosecutor v. Ignace Bagilishema, Case No. ICTR-95-1A-A, 53 (July 3, 2002)." \c 4

Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT -03-06-8-T 293 (June 30, 2006). TA \l "Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT -03-06-8-T 293 (June 30, 2006)." \s "Prosecutor v. Oric, Case No. IT -03-06-8-T 293 (June 30, 2006)." \c 4

Solis, Supra note 64, at 381.

Roger S Clark, "Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court" 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 859-890 (2002). TA \l "Roger S Clark, \"Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court\" 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 859-890 (2002)." \s "Roger S Clark, \"Rethinking Aggression as a Crime and Formulating Its Elements: The Final Work-Product of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court\" 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 859-890 (2002)." \c 10

Young Sok Kim, General Principle of the Criminal Law in the Statute of the International Criminal Law, 2 Mofat Intl L. Rev 29 (2003). TA \l "Young Sok Kim, \General Principle of the Criminal Law in the Statute of the International Criminal Law\, 2 Mofat Intl L. Rev 29 (2003)." \s "Young Sok Kim, \"General Principle of the Criminal Law in the Statute of the International Criminal Law\", 2 Mofat Intl L. Rev 29 (2003)." \c 10

Rome Statue, art. 30.

Id.; See also, Elements of the Crime of Aggression in Discussion paper proposed by the Coordinator, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2002/WGCA/RT.1 /Rev.1, (2002).

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 7, June 26, 1987, GA res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984); 1465 UNTS 85 TA \l "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 7, June 26, 1987, GA res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984); 1465 UNTS 85" \s "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 7, June 26, 1987, GA res. 39/46, annex, 39 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, UN Doc. A/39/51 (1984); 1465 UNTS 85" \c 7 [hereinafter Torture Convention].

See, for example, Goodwin-Gill, Crime in International Law, p. 220.

Bassiouni & Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) TA \l "assiouni & Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995)" \s "assiouni & Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty to Extradite or Prosecute in International Law, (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995)" \c 9 ; Bantekas & Nash, International Criminal Law, 91 (Cavendish Publishing, 2003) TA \l "Bantekas & Nash, International Criminal Law, 91 (Cavendish Publishing, 2003)" \s "Bantekas & Nash, International Criminal Law, 91 (Cavendish Publishing, 2003)" \c 9 ; Colleen Brown& Ari Fried, Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: The Obligation of Aut Dedere Aut Judicare in International Law, 43 McGill L.J. 613 (1997) TA \l "Colleen Brown& Ari Fried, Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: The Obligation of Aut Dedere Aut Judicare in International Law, 43 McGill L.J. 613 (1997)" \s "Colleen Brown& Ari Fried, Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: The Obligation of Aut Dedere Aut Judicare in International Law, 43 McGill L.J. 613 (1997)" \c 10 ; Sibylle Kapferer.The interface between extradition and asylum. UNHCR Department of International Protection, 2003.

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blakic, Case No. IT-95-14-AR, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for e

Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, Art. 136, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135. TA \l "Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, Art. 136, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135." \s "Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War, Art. 136, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135." \c 7

Solis, supra note 64, at 134.

UN SCOR, 47th Sess., 3175th mtg. UN Doc. S/RES/808 (Feb. 22, 1993). TA \l "UN SCOR, 47th Sess., 3175th mtg. UN Doc. S/RES/808 (Feb. 22, 1993)." \s "UN SCOR, 47th Sess., 3175th mtg. UN Doc. S/RES/808 (Feb. 22, 1993)." \c 8

G.A. Res. 2840 (XXVI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2840 (Dec. 18, 1971) TA \l "G.A. Res. 2840 (XXVI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2840 (Dec. 18, 1971)" \s "G.A. Res. 2840 (XXVI), U.N. Doc. A/RES/2840 (Dec. 18, 1971)" \c 8 ; G.A. Res. 3020 (XXVII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2114th plen. mtg. at 68, UN Doc. A/RES/3020/(XXVII), (Dec. 3, 1973) TA \l "G.A. Res. 3020 (XXVII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2114th plen. mtg. at 68, UN Doc. A/RES/3020/(XXVII), (Dec. 3, 1973)" \s "G.A. Res. 3020 (XXVII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2114th plen. mtg. at 68, UN Doc. A/RES/3020/(XXVII), (Dec. 3, 1973)" \c 8 ; G.A. Res. 3074 (XXVIII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2185th plen. mtg. at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/1973, (Nov. 30, 1973). TA \l "G.A. Res. 3074 (XXVIII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2185th plen. mtg. at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/1973, (Nov. 30, 1973)." \s "G.A. Res. 3074 (XXVIII), UNAOR, 30th Sess., 2185th plen. mtg. at 78, UN Doc. A/9030/1973, (Nov. 30, 1973)." \c 8

Kapferer, Supra note 74.

Torture Convention, Art 8 (2).

Jennings, Supra note 3 at 351-355, 1992. TA \l "1 Sir Robert Jennings et al., Oppenheims International law, 351-355 (Longm