team code - 16 in the international court of … · team code - 16 in the international court of...
TRANSCRIPT
Team Code - 16
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE
NETHERLANDS
________________________________________________________________
THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH (APPLICANT)
V.
THE STATE OF WINROTH (RESPONDENT)
LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE NIMROTH (DEMANDEUR)
V.
L'ÉTAT DE WINROTH (DEFENDEUR)
THE CASE CONCERNING THE DEMARCATION OF ELIN RIVER BOUNDARY AND
CORRESPONDING MARITIME BOUNDARY IN NIMROTH OCEAN
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’/
MÉMORIAL POUR LE DEMANDEUR ‘LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE NIMROTH’
THE 2013 VIPS INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION
ii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
ON SUBMISSION TO
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH
iii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................................................................................................vi
TREATIES.......................................................................................................................vi
DECLARATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS...............................................................................vi
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS...........................................vi
INTERNATIONAL CASES AND ARBITRAL DECISIONS.....................................................vii
ICJ AND PCIJ DECISIONS..................................................................................vii
OTHER DECISIONS .............................................................................................ix
MUNICIPAL CASES..........................................................................................................x
BOOKS.............................................................................................................................x
JOURNAL ARTICLES.....................................................................................................xiii
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS......................................................................................xv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................xvi
QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT.....................................................................xvii
STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................xviii
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS.......................................................................................................xix
PLEADINGS.................................................................................................................................1
[I.] THE ENTIRE ELIN RIVER UPTO THE EASTERN BANK OF THE RIVER BELONGS TO
NIMROTH...................................................................................................................................1
[I.A.] Boundaries fixed by the Agreement between Acadia and Gundustan will
have binding value........................................................................................................1
[I.B.] Principle of cession is applicable in the present dispute.................................2
[I.B.1] There was a treaty of cession between Raja of Gundustan and
Acadia.................................................................................................................2
[I.B.2] Rights are crystallized during cession....................................................2
[I.C.] Principle of uti possidetis is applicable in the present dispute........................3
[I.C.1.] Intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization...........................4
[I.D.] Boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State was
crystallised on the Critical Date..................................................................................5
[I.E.] Map annexed to the Agreement is authoritative.............................................6
iv MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[I.F.] The Applicant State’s consent to the usage of river water by the
Respondent State was a ‘Gesture of Goodwill’.........................................................6
[I.F.1.] The necessary opinio juris could not be determined.............................7
[I.G.] There was no sovereignty established by the Respondent State over the
river water by acquisitive prescription......................................................................8
[I.G.1.] The acts for which river water was used did not amount to sovereign
acts.....................................................................................................................8
[I.G.2.] There was no uninterrupted use of water by the Respondent State......9
[II.] THE LAST BASE POINT (OF THE BASELINE) FOR THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF NIMROTH
IS THE PLACE WHERE THE EAST BANK OF ELIN RIVER MEETS THE NIMROTH
OCEAN......................................................................................................................................10
[II.A] Boundary agreements between states are not terminated by fundamental
change of circumstances............................................................................................10
[II.B] Interpretation of the Agreement between Acadia and Gundustan
establishes the eastern bank as boundary between the Applicant and the
Respondent State........................................................................................................11
[II.B.1.] In the light of actual text of the Agreement and emphasis on the
analysis of the words used................................................................................12
[II.B.2] In the light of the intention of the parties to the Agreement................12
[II.B.3] In the light of the object and purpose of the Treaty............................12
[II.C.] Boundary should follow the changed course of the River..........................13
[II.D.] Thalweg Principle will not be followed.........................................................13
[II.D.1] A treaty pre-empts customary international law................................13
[II.D.2] The rule of thalweg is not absolute.....................................................14
[II.D.3] Thalweg is pre-empted through historical title..................................14
[III.] THE ISLANDS WHICH ARE NOW LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
NIMROTH ARE THE TERRITORY OF NIMROTH, AND WINROTH IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS..........................16
[III.A.] Tokano Island is the territory of the Applicant State................................16
[III.A.1] Tokano Island falls within the territorial waters of the Applicant
State..................................................................................................................16
[III.A.2] Title of Tokano Island will transfer from the Respondent to the
Applicant State.................................................................................................16
v MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[III.B.] Newly emerged Island is in the territory of the Applicant State...............17
[III.B.1.] New Island falls within the territorial waters of the Applicant
State..................................................................................................................17
[III.B.2] The Applicant State exercised its sovereignty over the new
Island................................................................................................................17
[III.C.] The Respondent State is not entitled under International law to exercise
its sovereignty over the Islands.................................................................................17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................................19
vi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
TREATIES
1. Anglo-Siam Boundary Treaty (United Kingdom/Kingdom of Siam), No. 19 (July 9,
1909).........................................................................................................................................13
2. Convention between Norway and Finland Relative to the Frontier between the Province of
Finmark and the District of Petsamo, 1924, Art. IV, 120 B.S.P. 341 (Apr.
28).............................................................................................................................................12
3. Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 1997,
G.A. Res. 51/229, U.N. GAOR, 51st Sess., 99th mtg., UN Doc A/RES/51/229
(1997).........................................................................................................................................6
4. Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African
Union, Adopted by the 1st Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union, Durban,
9 July 2002. Entered into force on 26 December 2003..............................................................4
5. Preamble to the Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation adopted by the
Southern African Development Community, August 14, 2001.................................................4
6. Treaty of Meppen, Treaty of the Borders Between Their Majesties the King of Prussia and
the King of the Netherlands, June 26, 1816...............................................................................2
7. United Nations Convention on Laws of Seas, December. 10, 1982, 1983 U.N.T.S.
397......................................................................................................................................16, 17
8. Vienna Convention on the Law Of Treaties, January 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S.
331..................................................................................................................................2, 10, 11
DECLARATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
1. Organization of African Union, Assembly of Heads of State and Government Resolution,
Resolution AHG/16(1)...............................................................................................................4
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
1. 2 Digest of Decisions of National Courts relating to Succession of States and Governments:
Study prepared by the Secretariat, Succession of States and Governments, Yearbook of
International Law Commission, Document A/CN.4/157 (1963)...............................................3
vii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
2. United Nations, Yearbook Of The International Law Commission, Documents Of The Fifty –
Second Session, A/CN.4/513 (2000).[ General Assembly Official Records Fifty-fifth session
Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10)]...................................................................................................6
3. United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties: Official Records,
A/CONF.80/16/Add.2 (1977-1978).........................................................................................10
4. Declaration On The Granting Of Independence To Colonial Countries And Peoples, G.A.
Res. 1514 (XV), December 14, 1960, UN Doc. A/4684 (1961) [15 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16)
at 66]...........................................................................................................................................4
5. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Fifteenth Session, July 6,
1963, Official Records of the General Assembly, Eighteenth Session, Supplement No 9
(A/5509), U.N A/CN.4/163 (July 6-12, 1963)...........................................................................3
6. Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session, U.N.
Doc. A/49/10 236 (1994)...........................................................................................................7
7. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirtieth session, U.N Doc.
A/33/10, (8 May-28 July 1978)..................................................................................................3
8. Report of the International Law Commission Sixtieth Session, May 5, 2008 UN Doc A/63/10
(2008).
9. Statute of the International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 993.......................xiii
10. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1234, April 9, 1999, S/RES/1234 (1999)...........4
INTERNATIONAL CASES AND ARBITRAL DECISIONS
-ICJ AND PCIJ DECISIONS-
1. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (Greece v. Turkey), 1976 I.C.J. 3 (Sept.
11).............................................................................................................................................11
2. Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway), 1951 I.C.J. 117 (Jan.
18)..........................................................................................................................................8,16
3. Case Concerning Kasikilil/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia,), 1999 I.C.J. 1045 (Dec.
13).........................................................................................................................................8, 11
4. Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge (Malaysia v. Singapore), 2008 I.C.J. General List No. 130 (May
23)............................................................................................................................................5,8
5. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J. 3 (Jan.
10).............................................................................................................................4, 5, 6, 8, 14
viii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
6. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962 I.C.J. 6(June
15).............................................................................................................................................10
7. Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad), 1994 I.C.J. 7 (Feb.
3)...............................................................................................................................................10
8. Continental Shelf case (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), 1985 I.C.J 13 (June
3).................................................................................................................................................7
9. Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), 2009 ICJ Rep.
213 (July 13).............................................................................................................................10
10. Diversion of Water from Meuse (Netherlands v. Belgium), 1937 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No.
70..............................................................................................................................................13
11. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J. 175 (July
25)...............................................................................................................................................6
12. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July
25)...............................................................................................................................................6
13. Frontier Dispute Case (Benin v. Niger), 2005 I.C.J. 90 (July 12).........................................4, 5
14. Gabcikovo-Nagumaros Project, (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept.
25).........................................................................................................................................6, 13
15. International Status of South West Africa (Advisory Opinion), 1950 I.C.J. 128 (July
11)...............................................................................................................................................3
16. Interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne (frontier between Turkey and Iraq), Advisory
Opinion, 1925, PCIJ 1925, Series B, No. 12 (Nov. 21st).........................................................11
17. La Grande Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. United States of America), 2001 I.C.J. 466
(June 27)...................................................................................................................................11
18. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras), 1992 I.C.J. 351
(Sept. 11).......................................................................................................................4,5,14,17
19. Landand Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1999
I.C.J. 983 (June 30)............................................................................................................3, 6, 8
20. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (Advisory Opinion), 1996 I.C.J. 64
(July 8)................................................................................................................................1,7,13
21. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. United
States of America), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27)...................................................................1,13,18
22. Minquiers and Ecrehos case (France. v. United Kingdom), 1953 I.C.J. 47 (Nov. 17)...........5,8
ix MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
23. Reservations to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide,
1951I.C.J. 23Advisory opinion (May 28)................................................................................11
24. Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco case (France v. United States
of America), 1952 I.C.J. 212 (Aug. 27).....................................................................................1
25. Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium v. Netherlands), 1959 I.C.J. 209 (June
20).............................................................................................................................................14
26. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia. v. Malaysia), 2002 I.C.J. 625
(Dec. 17).....................................................................................................................................5
27. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2008 I.C.J. 34 (Dec. 18).........9,10
28. Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), 2007 I.C.J. 659 (Oct. 8)..........................................................5,16,17
29. The Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1949 I.C.J 244 (Apr. 9)....................17
30. The Nuclear Test case (Australia v. France), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20)...................................1
31. Tunisia Libya Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), 1982 I.C.J. 18
(Feb. 24)...................................................................................................................................13
32. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16)...................................................8
-OTHER DECISIONS-
1. Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, (1871) 29 R.I.A.A.
(May 8).......................................................................................................................................7
2. Beagle Channel Case(Argentina v. Chile), 21 R.I.A.A. 53 (Feb. 18, 1977)............................13
3. Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration (Dubai v. Sharjah), 91 I.L.R 543 (1993).......................8,10
4. Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary Delimitation Decision (Eritrea v. Ethopia) 130 ILR 1 (2002).......6
5. German External Debts Arbitration (Swiss Confideration v. Federal Republic of Germany),
19 ILM 1980.............................................................................................................................11
6. Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands v. United States of America), (1928) 2 R.I.A.A. 829
(Apr. 4)....................................................................................................................................3,4
7. Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), (2001) 126 ILR 310 (Dec. 13).........................6
8. North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (Great Britain v. United States of America), 11
R.I.A.A 188 (Sept. 7, 1910)....................................................................................................1,2
9. Prussia v. Netherlands, 3 B.S.P. 729 (1816)..............................................................................2
10. Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea v. Yemen) 22 R.I.A.A. 209 (Oct. 7,
1998)........................................................................................................................................6,8
x MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
11. The Chamizal Case (Mexico v. United States of America) 11 R.I.A.A. 309
(1911)...............................................................................................................................9,11,14
MUNICIPAL CASES
1. Christian v. The Queen (2006) UKPC 47................................................................................12
2. Henderson v. Poindexter, 25 U.S. 530 (1827)...........................................................................1
3. King v. Wilson, (1843) 6 Beav. 124.....................................................................................1,13
4. Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1 (1906)............................................................................14
5. Mitchel V. United States, 34 U.S. 711 (1835)...........................................................................2
6. United States v. Stone, 69 U.S 525 (1864).................................................................................1
7. United States v. Texas, 162 U.S 1 (1896)..................................................................................6
BOOKS
1. 1 C. ROUSSEAU, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC (1970)............................................................1
2. 1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE, PEACE (1905)..................2,3,14,16,17,18
3. 106 SIR CLAUD HUMPHREY MEREDITHWALDOCK, GENERAL COURSE ON PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW (1962)....................................................................................................13
4. 3(2) GIDEL, DELIMITATION OF INTERNAL WATERS (1934).......................................................16
5. 4 STEINBERGER HELMUT, SOVEREIGNTY: ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
(2000).......................................................................................................................................17
6. A. VERDROSS & B. SIMMA, UNIVERSELLES VOLKERRECHT (1976)............................................1
7. A.O. CUKWURAH, THE SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
(1967)............................................................................................................................1,2,14,16
8. ANTHONY D’AMATO, THE CONCEPT OF CUSTOM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1971).....................7
9. ANTONIO CASSESE, INTERNATIONAL LAW (2nd
ed. 2005)......................................................5,13
10. BRYAN GARNER ed., BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (7th
ed., 1999).............................................3
11. C. H. ALEXANDROWICZ, THE EUROPEAN–AFRICANCONFRONTATION (1973)............................8
12. C. JENKS, THE COMMON LAW OF MANKIND (1958)...................................................................1
13. C.N. OKEKE, THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN NIGERIA
(1986)......................................................................................................................................2,3
14. CHRISTINA LEB, COOPERATION IN THE LAW OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES
(2013).........................................................................................................................................6
xi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
15. D. ANZILOTTI, INTORNO AGLI EFETTI DELLE MODIFICAZIONI DEL CORSO DI UN FIUME SUL
CONFINE FRA DUE STATIIN (1956) ..........................................................................................13
16. D. P. O’CONNELL, THE INFLUENCE OF LAW ON SEA POWER (1975).........................................16
17. D.J. HARRIS, CASES AND MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW (4th
ed., 1991).........................2
18. D.O’CONNELL, STATE SUCCESSION IN MUNICIPAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
(1967).........................................................................................................................................1
19. DONALD ROTHWELL , AFSHIN A-KHAVARI, INTERNATIONAL LAW (2011)..............................10
20. EVA RIETER, HENRI DE WAELE, EVOLVING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: STUDIES IN
HONOUR OF KAREL C. WELLENS (2012)...................................................................................10
21. F.A. MANN, STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1973)...............................................................1
22. FISCHER WILLIAMS, SOME ASPECTS OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1934).........................7
23. G. FITZMAURICE, THE LAW AND PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
(1986)....................................................................................................................................5,11
24. G. I. TUNKIN, THE CONTEMPORARY SOVIET THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1978)............7
25. H.W BRIGGS, THE LAW OF NATIONS 93 (2nd
ed., 1952).............................................................7
26. HANQUIN XUE, TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (2003)...........................7
27. HANS KELSON, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (1952)...................................................18
28. IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW(7th ed. 2008)..........................8,9
29. IGE F. DEKKER, THE GULF WAR 1980-1988: THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE (H.G POST eds., 1926)........................................................................................14
30. J. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS (5th
ed., 1996)......................................................................1
31. J. CRIAG BARKER, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (2000)...................7
32. J.R.V. PRESCOTT, POLITICAL FRONTIERS AND BOUNDARIES (1987)...........................................3
33. JAMES CABLE, GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY- 1919-1991 (1994).......................................................17
34. JAMES SUMMERS, KOSOVA: A PRECEDENT, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE
ADVISORY OPINION AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR STATEHOOD, SELF-DETERMINATION AND
MINORITY RIGHTS (2011)...........................................................................................................3
35. JAMES SUMMERS, PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW NATIONALISM AND SELF-
DETERMINATION SHAPE A CONTEMPORARY LAW OF NATIONS (2007).......................................4
36. KIRSTEN SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES: A COMMENTARY
(2011).......................................................................................................................................10
37. M. MCDOUGAL & W. REISMAN, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CONTEMPORARY
PERSPECTIVE(1979).................................................................................................................1,2
xii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
38. MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (6th
ed.
2008)........................................................................................................1,2, 3,7,10,11,12,16,17
39. MALCOM N. SHAW, TITLE TO TERRITORY IN AFRICA: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES 185
(1986)....................................................................................................................................4,10
40. MALGOSIA FITZMAURICE, O. A. ELIAS, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN THE LAW OF TREATIES
(2005).......................................................................................................................................10
41. MARK W. JANIS, AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (3rd
ed., 1999).........................18
42. MATTHEW CRAVEN, THE DECOLONIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: STATE SUCCESSION AND
THE LAW OF TREATIES (2009)...................................................................................................12
43. O. UDOKANG, SUCCESSION OF NEW STATES TO INTERNATINAL TREATIES (1972)....................1
44. OWEN MCINTYRE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW (2007)......................................................................................................6
45. P. MALANCZUK, AKEHURST’S MODERN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW (7th
ed.,
2002)........................................................................................................................................3,4
46. P. RADAN, THE BREAK-UP OF YUGOSLAVIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (2002).........................5
47. PATRICIA BIRNNIE, ALAN BOYLE, et al, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENVIRONMENT (3 ed.
2009)...........................................................................................................................................7
48. PHILIPPE JOSEPH SANDS, MARY WEISS, RICHARD TARASOFSKY, DOCUMENTS IN
INTERNATIONAL ENVIORNMETAL LAW (1994)..........................................................................6
49. PHILIPPE SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (2nd
ed. 2003).........6
50. PLAKOKEFALOS ELIAS, THE TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION UNDER PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW (2011)......................................................................................................6
51. R. JENNINGS, THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1963).......................2
52. ROBERT HOME, ESSAYS IN AFRICAN LAND LAW (2011)............................................................8
53. S. AKWEENDA, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE PROTECTION OF NAMIBIA’S TERRITORIAL
INTEGRITY (1997).............................................................................................................3,10,14
54. S. LALONDE, DETERMINIG BOUNDARIES IN CONFLICTED WORLD (2002)...............................3,8
55. S. MCCAFFREY, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES (2nd
ed., 2007)......................13
56. SANDS PHILIPPE, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (2nd
ed.
2003)...........................................................................................................................................6
57. SEAN D. MURPHY, UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1999-2001 (2002).....7
58. SUZANNE LALONDE, DETERMINING BOUNDARIES IN A CONFLICTED WORLD: THE ROLE OF UTI
POSSIDETIS (2002)......................................................................................................................4
xiii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
59. U.O. UMOZURIKE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COLONIALISM IN AFRICA (1979)........................2
60. W. HOLDER & G. BRENNAN, THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (1972)............................1,2
61. W. MICHAEL REISMAN, MAHNOUSH ARSANJANI, SIEGFRIED WIESSNER, et al., INTERNATIONAL
LAW IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE (2004)..........................................................................4
62. Y. BLUM, HISTORIC TITLES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 208 (1965)...............................................5
JOURNAL ARTICLES
1. Andrew D. Mitchell, Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement, 7(2) Melb. J. Int'l. L. 339
(2006)......................................................................................................................................1,2
2. Baxter, Treaties and Custom, 129 Recueil des cours 44 (1970)................................................1
3. C. Parry, The Delagoa Bay case, , 5 B.Y.I.L 535 (1965)...........................................................8
4. D. H. N. Johnson, Acquisitive Prescription in International Law, 27 B.Y.I.L. 332 (1950)......8
5. E. Lauterpacht, River boundaries: Legal aspects of the Shatt-al-Arab frontier. 9 Int’l &
Comp. L.Q. 2 (1960)................................................................................................................13
6. G. Schwarzenberger, The Fundamental Principles of International Law, 87 Recueil des cours
193 (1955)..................................................................................................................................6
7. H Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989, 7 66
B.Y.I.L. 33 (1996)......................................................................................................................5
8. IBC (International Boundary Commission), Award before the International Boundary
Commission, enlarged by the Convention between the United States and Mexico, in the
matter of the international title to the Chamizal tract – section Fixed Line Theory, 5(3) Am.
J. Int’l. L. 791..........................................................................................................................11
9. John W. Donaldson, Paradox of the Moving Boundary: Legal Heredity of River Accretion
and Avulsion, 4(2) Water Alternatives (2011)..........................................................................11
10. Jonathan I. Charney, Customary International Law in the Nicaragua: Case Judgment on the
Merits, 1 Hague Y.B.Int'l L 16 (1988).......................................................................................7
11. K.H Kaikobad, Some Obsevations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of Boundaries,
54 B.Y.I.L 119 (1983)..............................................................................................................10
12. K.H. Kaikobad, The Shatt-al-Arab River Boundary: A Legal Reappraisal, 56 B.Y.I.L. 49
(1985).......................................................................................................................................13
13. Klara Kanska and Rafal Manko, Shifts in International Boundaries, 26 Polish Y.I.L (2002-
03)........................................................................................................................................11,14
xiv MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
14. L.F.E. Goldie, The Critical Date, 12 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 1963.................................................5
15. L.J Bouchez, The Fixing of Boundaries in International Boundary Rivers. 12 Int’l & Comp.
L.Q. 3 (1963)............................................................................................................................11
16. M. N. Shaw, Case Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, 42 Int’l &
Comp. L. Q 929 (1993)..............................................................................................................4
17. Malcom N. Shaw, Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries, 3 Am. J. Int’L L. 478
(1997).....................................................................................................................................4, 8
18. Malcom N. Shaw, Title, Control and Closure? The Experience of the Eritrea–Ethiopia
Boundary Commission, 56 Int’l & Comp. L. Q 755 (2007).......................................................5
19. Malcom. N. Shaw, The Heritage of States: The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today, 67
B.Y.I.L 75 (1996)..................................................................................................................5,10
20. Mark W. Zacher, The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of
Force, 55(2) International Organization (2001).........................................................................4
21. P.Wouters, The Legal Response to International Water Conflicts: The UN Watercourses and
Beyond, 42 G.Y.I.L. 293 (1999)...............................................................................................13
22. Philip C. Jessup, The Palmas Island Arbitration, 22 Am. J. Int’l. L (1928)..............................6
23. R. Lesaffer, Argument from Roman Law in Current International Law: Occupation and
Acquisitive Prescription, 16(1) E.J Int‘l L. 50 (2005)................................................................8
24. Sangh-Myon Rhee, Sea Boundary Delimitation between States before World War II, 76 Am.
J. Int’L L. 555 (1982)...............................................................................................................14
25. Sikander Shah, An In-depth Analysis of the Evolution of Self-Determination Under
International Law andthe Ensuing Impact on the Kashmiri Freedom Struggle, Past and
Present, 34 N. Ky. L. Rev. 29 (2007)........................................................................................5
26. Sikander Shah, River Boundary Delimitation And The Resolution Of The Sir Creek Dispute
Between Pakistan And India, Vt. L. R. (2009)...................................................................4,5,14
27. Sir Claud Humphrey Meredith Waldock, Second Report on Law of Treatises, 2 Int’l L.
Comm’n. Y.B. 36 (1963)...........................................................................................................1
28. Steven R. Ratner, Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Border of New States, 90
Am.J.Int’l.L. 4 (1996)..........................................................................................................3,4,5
29. The Chamizal Arbitration Between the United States and Mexico: Minutes of Meeting of the
Joint Commission, 5 Am. J. Int’l L. 782 (1911).......................................................................14
30. Thomas W. Donovan, Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis, 32
Ga. J. Int’l. & Comp. L. 661 (2004).........................................................................................14
xv MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTS
1. C.H Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, 421 U.S. Government Printing Office
(1940).........................................................................................................................................3
2. Committee on the United Nations, The Legal Issues Involved In The Western Sahara Dispute:
The Principle of Self-Determination and the Legal Claims of Morocco (June 2012)..............8
3. Fernanda Fernandez Jankov & Vesna Ćorić, The legality of Uti Possidetis in the definition of
Kovoso’s legal status,
http://www.esilsedi.eu/sites/default/files/Agora%207%20Fernandez.pdf.................................4
4. Henry Maine, International Law: Territorial Rights of Sovereignty (Lecture IV),
http://www.gistprobono.org/id147.html...................................................................................16
5. ILA, Berlin Rules on Water Resources Law (2004)..................................................................6
6. Masahiro Miyoshi, The Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas in Relation to Maritime,
5(2) International Boundaries Research Unit, Maritime Briefing 6 (1999).............................11
7. Miyoshi Masahiro, Sovereignty and International Law (2013),
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/masahiro_miyoshi_paper.pdf............17
8. Nugzar Dundua, Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries between Adjacent States, United
Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow (2006-07),
http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/
dundua_0607_georgia.pdf..........................................................................................................2
9. Øystein Jensen, Coastal State Jurisdiction and Vessel Source Pollution: The International
Law of the Sea Framework for Norwegian Legislation, FNI Report March 2006..................17
10. Paul R. Hensel, An Evolutionary Approach to the Study of Interstate Rivalry, 17(2) Conflict
Management and Peace Science 179-206 (1999).......................................................................4
11. Pieter Bekker & Ana Stanic, The I.C.J. Awards Sovereignty over Four Caribbean Islands to
Honduras and Fixes a Single Maritime Boundary between Nicaragua and Honduras,11(26)
ASIL INSIGHTS, http://www.asil.org/insights/2007/10/insights071017.html..............................5
xvi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Republic of Nimroth and The State of Winroth submit the following dispute to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ). The International Court of Justice has contentious
jurisdiction over this case based on the Special Agreement of the parties dated 11 September
2013 and in accordance with Articles 36 and 40 of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice.
xvii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
QUESTIONS PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT
The Republic of Nimroth respectfully submits the following issues for consideration
before this Hon’ble Court:
I.WHETHER THE ENTIRE ELIN RIVER UP TO THE EASTERN BANK OF THE RIVER BELONGS TO
NIMROTH.
II. WHETHER THE LAST BASE POINT (OF THE BASELINE) FOR THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF
NIMROTH IS THE PLACE WHERE THE EAST BANK OF ELIN RIVER MEETS THE NIMROTH OCEAN.
III. WHETHER THE ISLANDS WHICH ARE NOW LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
NIMROTH ARE THE TERRITORY OF NIMROTH, AND WINROTH IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS.
xviii MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Republic of Nimroth (hereinafter, ‘Applicant State’) – It had been a colony of Acadia since
1600 AD. In 1964, it gained independence from the Acadian rule as a result of a long
bloodless freedom struggle and became the member of UN. Its economy is a prosperous
mixed economy.
2. State of Winroth (hereinafter, ‘Respondent’) – It was ceded to Acadia by Raja of Gundustan
(hereinafter, ‘Gundustan’) in 1924 through an agreement. In 1964, it got separated from
Nimroth and joined UN. It is a small developing country.
3. The 1924 Agreement (hereinafter, ‘the agreement’) – According to the agreement the
eastern bank of the river Elin (hereinafter, ‘river’) was marked with a green ribbon (line)
signifying the boundary between Gundustan and Acadian Nimroth. The River is located in a
seismic zone.
4. Events of 1964 –The boundary between the two nations decided was the natural boundary
that separated the Applicant state and Gundustan before 1924.
5. Negotiation in April 2002 – The old and unresolved territorial dispute and the understanding
pending demarcation of boundary was reconsidered. As per the understanding both nations
agreed to use the water without prejudice to the demarcation of boundary based on the
agreement.
6. Tsunami in December 2002 –An unprecedented flood changed the river’s course to the East
of its original path swallowing 24 kms stretch of the Respondent State’s agricultural land.
7. Earthquake in November 2011 – The river branched out 19 kms in east, from its 2002-
position. Much of the arable land of the Respondent State was swallowed. The new tributary
of almost became the main channel leaving the old channel sand bed with few water courses.
A new island six nautical miles south of the Tokano, was also formed.
The present matter is dispute regarding the demarcation of the river and corresponding
maritime boundary in Nimroth Ocean.
8. Submission to the ICJ – On 4th October, 2013, both the nations submitted the dispute by
way of a special agreement to the ICJ.
xix MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
[I] THE ENTIRE ELIN RIVER UP TO THE EASTERN BANK OF THE RIVER BELONGS TO THE
APPLICANT STATE.
The entire river upto the eastern bank of the river as was provided in the agreement
belongs to the Applicant State.
Firstly, the boundary delimiting agreements are binding upon the states. They
attribute a permanence to the boundaries and territorial regime set up by it. Acadia and
Gundustan had clearly entered into an agreement which established the boundary between
two nations which is eastern bank of the river.
Secondly, the principle of cession states that when some territory is ceded by one
sovereign to the other, there is replacement of sovereignty by the latter and the
transferring sovereign cannot cede title more than he himself had. When the territory of
the Respondent State was ceded to Acadia it did not include the river in it. Thus, the
Respondent State did not have any title over the river.
Thirdly, as per the principle of uti possidetis the states inherit the boundaries
which were created during the colonial rule. The boundaries thus established are
intangible in the sense that they are final. The boundary during Acadian rule between the
Applicant and the Respondent State was the eastern bank, thus, they will inherit the same.
Fourthly, the boundaries between the two nations were crystallised on two critical
dates. The one was at the time of agreement and the other was when in 1964, the
Respondent State agreed the eastern bnak to be the boundary between the Applicant and
the Respondent State.
Fifthly, the usage of water by the Respondent State did not give it any sovereign
rights as the allowance by the Applicant State to use the water was a mere ‘gesture of
goodwill’ and it was done to maintain harmonious relations with the neighbouring state.
Finally, the Respondent State cannot acquire rights over the river through
acquisitive principle. The acts performed by the Respondent State did not amount to
sovereign acts and the performance was not uninterrupted.
xx MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[II] THE LAST BASE POINT (OF THE BASELINE) FOR THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF NIMROTH
IS THE PLACE WHERE THE EAST BANK OF ELIN RIVER MEETS THE NIMROTH OCEAN.
Even after the shifts in the river the boundary will remain same i.e. the eastern bank of
the river. The boundary will follow the changed course of the river because of the
following reasons:
Firstly, the boundary delimiting agreements are binding in all circumstances. They
cannot be terminated even on the grounds of fundamental changes. Therefore, the
agreement between Acadia and Gundustan which established the respective boundary
between the Applicant and the Respondent State will be binding. Consequently, the
boundary between two nations will remain eastern bank even after encountering
earthquake and tsunami.
Secondly, the cases which involve the river boundaries to be delimited between
the nations are to be governed on the basis of their own facts and circumastances. In the
present case the interpretation of the agreement is such that the established boundary
between the Applicant and the Respondent State should be the eastern bank of the river.
Actual text, object and intention of the agreement revelas the same stance.
Moreover, there are many stances under international law which states that in
cases where the boundary changes due to violent shifts in river then the boundary should
follow the changed course of the river. One view also depicts that where boundary is
agreed to be one bank of the river it will follow the same.
xxi MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[III] THE ISLANDS WHICH ARE NOW LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
NIMROTH ARE THE TERRITORY OF NIMROTH, AND THE RESPONDENT STATE IS NOT
ENTITLED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE
ISLANDS.
Both the islands, Tokano and newly emerged island belong to the Applicant State after
the shifts in the river.
The Tokano Island belongs to the Applicant State because first of all it falls within
the territorial sea of the Applicant State. States have territorial sea up to the limit of 12
nautical miles and Tokano Island is situated 6 kilometres east of mouth of the river. When
any island, due to some natural changes joins the territorial sea of another state, the
sovereignty over the island passes from the former to the latter nations. Thus, the
sovereignty over the Tokano would pass from the Respondent State to the Applicant
State.
The new island is six nautical miles south of Tokano Island. The northern end of
the island will clearly fall within the territorial sea of the Applicant State and the rest of
the island falls in the contiguous zone of the Applicant State. Therefore, the Applicant
State may exercise its particular jurisdiction over the new island.
The Applicant State State displayed its sovereignty over the new island by sending
its navy to guard the island. Nimrothian flag was also planted on the island.
In order to respect the territorial supremacy of the Applicant State, the Respondent
State is prohibited under international law from exercising its sovereignty over the new
island
Further, after the boundary shifts, the new island is clearly in the territory of the
Applicant State therefore any action of the Respondent State which would encroach upon
the Applicant State’s rights would violate the principles of international law.
1 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
PLEADINGS
[I.]THE ENTIRE ELIN RIVER UPTO THE EASTERN BANK OF THE RIVER BELONGS TO
NIMROTH.
It is humbly submitted that the entire Elin River belongs to the Applicant State because:
A. Boundaries fixed by an agreement have binding value.
B. Principle of cession is applicable in the present dispute.
C. Principle of uti possidetis is applicable in the present dispute.
D. Map annexed to the agreement is authoritative.
[I.A.] Boundaries fixed by the Agreement between Acadia and Gundustan will have
binding value.
The fundamental principle of treaty law is undoubtedly the proposition that treaties are
binding upon the parties1 and must be performed (Pacta Sunt Servanda).
2 This obligation to
implement bona fide the obligations deriving from a treaty has been stressed by this Court on
several occasions.3 It is one of the oldest customary International laws.
4 Further, boundaries
fixed by an agreement5 are conclusive.
6 The settlement of river boundary disputes in
international law is determined by the boundary delimiting agreements which have been
concluded by the concerned states7 or their predecessors.
8 The agreement between Acadia
1 Andrew D. Mitchell, Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement, 7(2) Melb. J. Int'l. L. 339 (2006).
2 The Nuclear Test case (Australia v. France), 1974 I.C.J. 253, 268 (December 20); Military and Paramilitary
Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. U.S.A) (Merits), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 418 (June 27); Legality
of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (Advisory Opinion), 1996 I.C.J. 64 (July 8). 3 Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco case (France v. U.S.A), 1952 I.C.J. 212 (Aug.
27); North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (Great Britain v. U.S.A), 11 R.I.A.A. 188 (Sept. 7, 1910); C.
JENKS, THE COMMON LAW OF MANKIND 94 (1958); F.A. MANN, STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 59 (1973). 4 MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 963 (6
th ed. 2008); 1 C. ROUSSEAU, DROIT INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC
53 (1970); W. HOLDER & G. BRENNAN, THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM (1972); J. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF
NATIONS (5th
ed., 1996); Sir Claud Humphrey Meredith Waldock, Second Report on Law of Treatises, 2 Int’l L.
Comm’n. Y.B. 36 (1963); D.O’ CONNELL, STATE SUCCESSION IN MUNICIPAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
352 (1967). 5 King v.Wilson (1843) 6 Beav. 124; M. MCDOUGAL & W. REISMAN, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CONTEMPORARY
PERSPECTIVE 1119 (1979); O. UDOKANG, SUCCESSION OF NEW STATES TO INTERNATINAL TREATIES (1972). 6 Henderson v. Pointexter, 25 U.S 530 (1827); United States v. Stone, 69 U.S 525 (1864); A. VERDROSS & B.
SIMMA, UNIVERSELLES VOLKERRECHT 270 (1976); Baxter, Treaties and Custom, 129 Recueil des cours 44
(1970). 7 A.O. CUKWURAH, THE SETTLEMENT OF BOUNDARY DISPUTES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 46, 799 (1967).
8 Article XXVII of the Treaty of Meppen between Netherland and Prussia stated “in all cases where streams or
rivers form the frontiers they shall be common to the two States unless the contrary is expressly stipulated”;
2 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
and Gundustan delimited the eastern bank as the boundary between both the nations.9 Hence,
the “treaty is to be obeyed”10
and parties are bound to act in such a manner that it must not
challenge the provision of the 1924 Agreement.
[I.B.] Principle of cession is applicable in the present dispute.
Cession of the state territory is the transfer of the sovereignty over a territory by the owner
state to another state.11
The Respondent State was ceded to Acadia from Gundustan through
an agreement to that effect.12
The boundary was eastern bank of the river.13
Hence, the
Respondent State does not have title over the Elin River.
[I.B.1] There was a treaty of cession between Raja of Gundustan and Acadia.
A cession can be affected through an agreement embodied between the ceding and the
acquiring state.14
The agreement to cede the Respondent State was concluded between
Gundustan and Acadia.15
[I.B.2] Rights are crystallized during cession.
During cession, the acquiring state cannot possess more rights over the land than its
predecessor had.16
Thus, the maxims Res traxnsit cum suo onere (territory passes to a new
Treaty of the Borders Between Their Majesties the King of Prussia and the King of the Netherlands (June 26,
1816); Prussia v. Netherland, 3 B.S.P. 729 (1816); A.O. CUKWURAH, id. 9 Ist VIPS International Moot Court Competition Problem 2013, Moot Problem, ¶1 (hereinafter referred as
‘Compromis’). 10
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 26, January 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (VCLT); Andrew D.
Mitchell, supra note 1; A. O. CUKWURAH, supra note 7, at 824; North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration,
supra note 3; W. HOLDER & G. BRENNAN, supra note 4. 11
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE, PEACE, 268 (1905); D.J. HARRIS, CASES AND
MATERIALS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW 209 (4th
ed., 1991); U.O. UMOZURIKE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
COLONIALISM IN AFRICA 36 (1979); C.N. OKEKE, THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN
NIGERIA 21 (1986); MALCOLM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 499. 12
Compromis ¶1. 13
Id. 14
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 272; R. JENNINGS, THE ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
115(1963); MALCOLM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 499; C.N. OKEKE, supra note 11; Nugzar Dundua,
Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries between Adjacent States, United Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow
(2006-07),
http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/dundua_0607_geor
gia.pdf (Sept. 11, 2013). 15
Compromis ¶1. 16
MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 499; Mitchel V. United States, 34 U.S. 711 (1835); R. JENNINGS, supra
note 14; M. MCDOUGAL & W. REISMAN, supra note 5.
3 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
sovereign with all burdens connected to it)17
and Nemo plus iuris transferre pottest quam ipse
habet (no man can give another any better title than he himself has)18
hold true. The ceded
territory is transferred to the new sovereign with all the international obligations19
.
In the case of Island of Palmas20
it was stated that:
“The title alleged by the United States of America as constituting the immediate
foundation of its claim is that of cession, brought about by the treaty of Paris, which cession
transferred all rights of sovereignty which Spain might have possessed in the region… It is
evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed.”21
In the present matter, the Respondent State was ceded to Acadia in 1924 through an
agreement.22
According to the agreement, the eastern bank of the river Elin was marked with
a green ribbon (line) signifying the boundary between Gundustan and Acadian Nimroth.23
Therefore, the Respondent State never had any title over the Elin River and what it ceded
from Gundustan was the territory beyond the eastern bank of the River. Consequently, the
boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State would be the eastern bank of the
river.
[I.C.] Principle of uti possidetis is applicable in the present dispute.
The principle of uti possidetis provides that states emerging from decolonization shall
presumptively inherit the colonial boundaries that they held at the time of independence24
.
17
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), 1999 I.C.J 983 (June
30); Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fifteenth session, U.N. Document
A/5509 (6-12 July 1963). 18
Landand Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, id; P. MALANCZUK, AKEHURST’S MODERN
INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL LAW 148 (7th
ed., 2002); Yearbook of the International Law Commission,
Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its thirtieth session, U.N. Doc A/33/10 (8 May-28
July 1978). 19
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 272; C.H Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. I, 421 U.S.
Government Printing office (1940); International Status of South West Africa (Advisory Opinion), 1950 I.C.J.
128 (July 11); 2 Digest of Decisions of National Courts relating to Succession of States and Governments: Study
prepared by the Secretariat, Succession of States and Governments, Yearbook of International Law Commission,
Document A/CN.4/157 (1963). 20
Island of Palmas Case (United States v. Netherlands), (1928) 2 R.I.A.A 829 (April 4). 21
Island of Palmas Case, Id., at 103. Also cited in S. AKWEENDA, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE PROTECTION
OF NAMIBIA’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY 141 (1997); SUZANNE LALONDE, DETERMINING BOUNDARIES IN A
CONFLICTED WORLD: THE ROLE OF UTI POSSIDETIS 151 (2002); JAMES SUMMERS, KOSOVA: A PRECEDENT, THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE ADVISORY OPINION AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR STATEHOOD, SELF-
DETERMINATION AND MINORITY RIGHTS (2011). 22
Compromis ¶1. 23
Id. 24
Steven R. Ratner, Drawing a Better Line: Uti Possidetis and the Border of New States, 90 Am. J. Int’l. L 4,
590 (1996); P. MALANCZUK, supra note 18, at 162-163; J.R.V. PRESCOTT, POLITICAL FRONTIERS AND
BOUNDARIES 105-106 (1987); BRYAN GARNER ed., BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1544 (7th
ed., 1999).
4 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
Hence, in the present matter the Applicant and the Respondent states will inherit the eastern
bank of the river as boundary as it exited during colonial rule and at the time of independence
as well.
[I.C.1.] Intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization.
As per the principle of uti possidetis, colonial frontiers existing at the date of independence
constitute a tangible reality25
and that all member states pledged themselves to respect such
borders.26
A country gaining independence inherits the original borders of the predecessor
state27
and the aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries28
which existed at the
time when independence was achieved.29
In the case of Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali30
the chamber discussed the application of
the principle31
which gives rise to respect for ‘intangibility of frontiers inherited from
colonization’32
. It was noted that the principle is a general rule of international law and
cannot be disregarded.33
International judgments have lucidly upheld the supremacy of the
25
Declaration On The Granting Of Independence To Colonial Countries And Peoples, G.A. Res. 1514 (XV),
December 14, 1960, UN Doc. A/4684 (1961). 26
Organization of African Union, Assembly of Heads of State and Government, Resolution 16(1). Also cited in
Malcom N. Shaw, Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries, 3 Am. J. Int’L L. 478-507 (1997); JAMES SUMMERS,
PEOPLES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW NATIONALISM AND SELF-DETERMINATION SHAPE A CONTEMPORARY
LAW OF NATIONS (2007); The Arbitration Commission of the European Conference on Yugoslavia emphasised
in Opinion No. 2 that ‘it is well established that, whatever the circumstances, the right to self-determination
must not involve changes to existing frontiers at the time of independence (uti possidetis juris) except where the
states concerned agree otherwise’. 27
Steven R. Ratner, supra note 24; Frontier Dispute case (Benin v. Niger), 2005 I.C.J. 90, 108 (July 12); Mark
W. Zacher, The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force, 55(2) International
Organization 215-250 (2001); Security Council Resolution 1234 (1999) which refers directly to OAU resolution
16(1); Article 4(i) of the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African
Union, 2002; Preamble to the Protocol on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation adopted by the Southern
African Development Community, 2001; MALCOM N. SHAW, TITLE TO TERRITORY IN AFRICA: INTERNATIONAL
LEGAL ISSUES 185 (1986). 28
Paul R. Hensel, An Evolutionary Approach to the Study of Interstate Rivalry, 17(2) Conflict Management and
Peace Science 179-206 (1999); Mark W. Zacher, id. 29
Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J 3, 462 (Jan. 10); Steven
R. Ratner, supra note 24; Benin/Niger Frontier Dispute case, supra note 27; Arie Kacowicz, The Problem of
Peaceful Territorial Change, 38(2) International Studies Quarterly 219-254 (1994). 30
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, id. 31
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras), 1992 I.C.J. 351, 386–388 (Sept. 11);
P. MALANCZUK, supra note 18; Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29; M. N. Shaw, Case
Concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, 42 Int’l & Comp. L. Q 929 (1993). 32
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29, at 554; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Disput, id. 33
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29; Sikander Shah, River Boundary Delimitation And The
Resolution Of The Sir Creek Dispute Between Pakistan And India, Vt. L. R. (2009); W. MICHAEL REISMAN,
MAHNOUSH ARSANJANI, SIEGFRIED WIESSNER, et al., INTERNATIONAL LAW IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE
194 (2004); Fernanda Fernandez Jankov & Vesna Ćorić, The legality of Uti Possidetis in the definition of
Kovoso’s legal status, http://www.esil-sedi.eu/sites/default/files/Agora%207%20Fernandez.pdf (Sept. 11,2013).
5 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
principle of uti possidetis juris34
which is established through colonial effectivités35
(conduct),
as colonial powers divide and create borders.36
The principle has been established as non-
deragoable37
under the international law.38
Therefore, in the present matter as well the boundary at the time of decolonization should be
regarded as intangible and hence it should be followed.
[I.D.] Boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State was crystallized on
the Critical Date.
Critical Date basically refers to some determining moments, which may exist, at which it
might be inferred that the rights of the parties have crystallized39
so that acts after that date
cannot alter the legal position.40
Basically critical date is significant to determine which acts
should be taken into consideration for the purpose of establishing sovereignty.41
Further, the
new state has the boundaries of the predecessor entity, so that the moment of independence
itself is the critical date42
. Acts after the critical date cannot be considered because the State
could have taken those actions purely to buttress its claims of sovereignty.43
In the present
matter there are two critical dates when the boundary between the Applicant and the
34
Benin/Niger Frontier Dispute, supra note 27; Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29, at 554,
566, 586–87; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, supra note 31, at 386-388; Sikander Shah, An In-
depth Analysis of the Evolution of Self-Determination Under International Law and the Ensuing Impact on the
Kashmiri Freedom Struggle, Past and Present, 34 N. KY. L. REV. 29, 34 (2007); ANTONIO CASSESE,
INTERNATIONAL LAW 83-84 (2nd
ed., 2005). 35
Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.
Honduras), 2007 I.C.J. 659, Unofficial Press Release (Oct. 8, 2007); Malcom N. Shaw, The Heritage of States:
The Principle of Uti Possidetis Juris Today, 67 B.Y.I.L 75 (1996); P. RADAN, THE BREAK-UP OF YUGOSLAVIA
AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (2002); Sikander Shah, supra note 33; Pieter Bekker & Ana Stanic, The I.C.J.
Awards Sovereignty over Four Caribbean Islands to Honduras and Fixes a Single Maritime Boundary between
Nicaragua and Honduras, 11(26) A.S.I.L Insights (Oct. 17, 2007).
http://www.asil.org/insights/2007/10/insights071017.html. (July 24, 2013). 36
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29. 37
Benin/Niger Frontier Dispute case,supra note 27; Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29; Land,
Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, supra note 31. 38
ANTONIO CASSESE, supra note 34; Benin/Niger Frontier Dispute case, supra note 27, at 84. 39
L.F.E. Goldie, The Critical Date, 12 Int’l. & Comp. L.Q.1963, 1251; G. FITZMAURICE, THE LAW AND
PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 4(1986); Y. BLUM, HISTORIC TITLES IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW 208 (1965); Malcom N. Shaw, supra note 35, at 75,130. 40
Minquiers and Ecrehos case (France v. U.K.), 1953 I.C.J. 47, 59-60 (Nov. 17); Sovereignty over Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia. v. Malaysia), 2002 I.C.J. 625, ¶ 135 (Dec. 17); Malcom N. Shaw, Title,
Control and Closure? The Experience of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission, 56 Int’l & Comp. L. Q
755 (2007). 41
Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia v. Singapore.), 2008 I.C.J. , General List no. 130, ¶ 32 (May 23, 2008) (Pedra Branca). 42
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29, at 351; MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 510. 43
Minquiers and Ecrehos case, supra note 40; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, supra note
40; Pedra Branca, supra note 41; H Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice
1960-1989, 7 66 B.Y.I.L 33 (1996).
6 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
Respondent State was crystallized to be the eastern bank of the river. The first was in 1924
when the Respondent State was ceded to Acadia, and the second was in 1964 when both the
parties gained independence and became member of the UN.44
[I.E.] Map annexed to the Agreement is authoritative.
A map referred for descriptions in an agreement fixing a boundary between nations is to be
given the same effect as if it had been expressly made a part of the treaty.45
In the case of
Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali46
, it was stated that Maps annexed to agreements
illustrating the boundary so delimited will be accepted as authoritative. Maps annexed to
territories indicate general acquiescence in a pre-established claim of title.47
In the instant case there was a map attached to the agreement,48
according to which the
eastern bank of the river was the boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State
signified by green ribbon line.
[I.F.] The Applicant State’s consent to the usage of river water by the Respondent State
was a ‘Gesture of Goodwill’.
Cooperation in good faith49
is part of general international law.50
This cooperation includes
sharing natural resources.51
This legal doctrine52
even obliges one state to prevent appreciable
harm to its neighbour state53
by exercising due diligence54
.
44
Compromis ¶2. 45
United States v. State of Texas, 162 U.S 1, 16 (1896). 46
Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29. 47
Philip C. Jessup, The Palmas Island Arbitration, 22 Am. J. Int’l. L 4 (1928); Territorial Sovereignty and
Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea v. Yemen) 22 R.I.A.A. 209, 1, 94 (Oct. 7, 1998); Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary
Delimitation Decision (Eritrea v. Ethopia) 130 ILR 1 (2002). 48
Compromis ¶1. 49
Convention on the Law of Non-navigational uses of International Watercourses G.A. Res. 51/229, U.N.
GAOR, 51st Sess., 99th mtg., UN Doc A/RES/51/229 (1997); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v. Iceland),
1974 I.C.J. 175 (July 25); PLAKOKEFALOS ELIAS, THE TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION UNDER
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 20 (2011). 50
Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. U.K), (2001) 126 ILR 310 (December 13); PHILIPPE SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 840 (2nd
ed. 2003); United Nations, Yearbook Of The International Law
Commission, Documents Of The Fifty –Second Session 133 (2000); Land and Maritime Boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 17, Preliminary objections ¶38; G. Schwarzenberger, The Fundamental
Principles of International Law, 87 Recueil des cours 193-383 (1955); CHRISTINA LEB, COOPERATION IN THE
LAW OF TRANSBOUNDARY WATER RESOURCES 82 (2013) 51
Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J 3, ¶¶ 68, 78, 29, 33 (July 25); Gabčíkovo-
Nagumaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J 7, ¶78, 54 (Sept. 25); PHILIPPE SANDS, id., at 204; United
Nations, Reports Of International Law Commission, Sixtieth Session, draft artice 6, 48 (2008); ILA, Berlin
Rules on Water Resources Law 20 (2004); OWEN MCINTYRE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF
INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 227 (2007); PHILIPPE JOSEPH SANDS, MARY
WEISS, RICHARD TARASOFSKY, DOCUMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIORNMETAL LAW 695 (1994).
7 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
Therefore, knowing the economic conditions of the Respondent State, the Applicant State
shared the river water with it. According to understanding55
, the river water could be used by
the people from both sides of the river in a manner they had been using since time
immemorial, without prejudice to the demarcation of boundary based on the agreement
between Acadia and Gundustan. Therefore, it is submitted that the Applicant State did not
intend to give the title rights of river to the Respondent State. The Applicant State’s consent
to use of water by the Respondent State was a mere ‘gesture of goodwill’ and it was only to
the extent that it will be used only for fishing and navigation56
. Any action from the
Respondent State to contend the sovereignty over that river should not be allowed.
[I.F.1.] The necessary opinio juris could not be determined.
A customary law to be established needs to have opinio juris in the practice of states.57
To
understand if state practice amounts to custom it is vital to determine whether it was a legal
obligation or a mere social usage.58
If a particular practice is done without any consciousness
of a legal duty to do so, the practice will not be binding on the state.59
It is submitted that the Applicant State acted without any intention to create any legal
obligation under customary international law as it took itself to be acting in accordance to
mere social usage. The act of allowing the Respondent State to use the water of the river was
done as a mere principle of morality or social usage and in light of this, should not be taken
as a legally binding upon the Applicant State in terms of demarcation of boundaries.
Therefore, in light of the above stated arguments it is submitted that the entire Elin River up
to the eastern bank belongs to the the Applicant State.
52
United Kingdom/Iceland Fisheries Jurisdiction, id. 53
PATRICIA BIRNNIE, ALAN BOYLE, et al, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ENVIRONMENT 549 (3rd
ed., 2009); Report
of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Forty-Sixth Session, U.N. GAOR 49th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/49/10 236 , draft art. 7, 79 (1994). 54
HANQUIN XUE, TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 169 (2003); Alabama claims of the
United States of America against Great Britain (1871) 29 R.I.A.A 129 (May 8). 55
Compromis ¶11. 56
Compromis ¶1. 57
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 2, at 226, 253; Continental Shelf case (Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), 1985 I.C.J 13, ¶ 27, 29-30 (June 3); JONATHAN I. CHARNEY, CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE NICARAGUA CASE JUDGEMENT ON MERITS: HAGUE YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW 22 (1988); J. CRIAG BARKER, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 61 (2000); G. I.
TUNKIN, THE CONTEMPORARY SOVIET THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 177 (1978); MALCOM N. SHAW, supra
note 4, at 34; SEAN D. MURPHY, UNITED STATES PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: 1999-2001 386 (2002). 58
MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 78; H.W BRIGGS, THE LAW OF NATIONS 93 (2nd
ed., 1952). 59
FISCHER WILLIAMS, SOME ASPECTS OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW 312 (1934); ANTHONY D’AMATO, THE
CONCEPT OF CUSTOM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 47-55, 66-73 (1971).
8 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[I.G.] There was no sovereignty established by the Respondent State over the river
water by acquisitive prescription.
In order to invoke acquisitive prescription the prerequisites are the possession to be pursuant
to á titre de souverain (Acts consistent with sovereignty), as well as peaceful60
, uninterrupted,
public and persistent61
or when the holder consents to the passing of the title.62
In practical terms given the unclear nature of many international boundaries its use in the
legal sense is intended to convey that definition of boundaries cannot be touched unilaterally
by one neighbouring state or another.63
It is humbly submitted that in the present case neither the acts by the Respondent State over
the river water tantamount to sovereign acts nor the use was uninterrupted.
[I.G.1] The acts for which river water was used did not amount to sovereign acts.
The use of the disputed territory by private individuals for their private ends is irrelevant as to
a State’s claim of sovereignty.64
In the case of Sedadu Islands,65
the Court held that since the Masubia tribe “used the island
intermittently, according to the seasons and their needs, for exclusively agricultural
purposes”, it was insufficient to establish Namibia’s sovereignty.66
In the present case, the
Respondent State used the river for the purpose of fishing and navigation.67
It is humbly
contented that these private acts of fishing and collecting forest products cannot establish
sovereignty over the river.68
60
Dubai-Sharjah Border Award (Dubai v. Sharjah) (1993) 91 I.L.R 543, ¶ 156, 624; Pedra Branca, supra note
41, at ¶37; Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia), 1999 I.C.J. 1045, ¶¶94, 97, 1103,
1105 (Dec. 13); D.H.N. Johnson, Acquisitive Prescription in International Law, 27 B.Y.I.L. 332, 344-347
(1950) (Johnson); R. Lesaffer, Argument from Roman Law in Current International Law: Occupation and
Acquisitive Prescription, 16(1) E.J Int‘l L. 50 (2005); Committee on the United Nations, The Legal Issues
Involved In The Western Sahara Dispute: The Principle of Self-Determination and the Legal Claims of
Morocco (June 2012). 61
IAN BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 148-149 (7th
ed., 2008); Malcom N. Shaw, supra
note 26; C. H. ALEXANDROWICZ, THE EUROPEAN–AFRICANCONFRONTATION (1973); Burkina Faso/Mali
Frontier Dispute, supra note 29; D.H.N. Johnson, id. 62
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, supra note 17, at ¶67; C. Parry, The Delagoa
Bay case, , 5 B.Y.I.L 535 (1965). 63
ROBERT HOME, ESSAYS IN AFRICAN LAND LAW 17 (2011); SUZANNA LALONDE, supra note 21, at 30-32. 64
Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island , supra note 60, at ¶ 94; Anglo Norwegian Fisheries case (U.K. v.
Norway), 1951 I.C.J. 117, 184 (Jan. 18) (Dissenting Opinion of Sir Arnold McNair); Territorial Sovereignty
and Scope of the Dispute, supra note 47, at 283-284. 65
Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island, supra note 60. 66
Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island, supra note 60, at 1105. 67
Compromis ¶1 68
Minquiers and Ecrehos case, supra note 40, at 669-670, 675; Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 12, ¶ 95 (Advisory
Opinion) (Oct. 16); Burkina Faso/Mali Frontier Dispute, supra note 29, at ¶15.
9 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[I.G.2] There was no uninterrupted use of water by the Respondent State.
The pertinent legal test to determine sovereignty is manifestation of an undisturbed,
uninterrupted and unchallenged possession/occupation69
of the territory or water. In this
context, opposition to the unlawful occupation of a territory attains prominence.70
In the present case, the Applicant State did not give any right of title of river to the
Respondent State since at the time of implementation of understanding the Applicant State
argued that the entire river belongs to it. This clearly shows that there was no uninterrupted or
undisturbed use of water by the Respondent State. The acquiescence to the Respondent State
for using the river water was a ‘gesture of goodwill’ done to maintain harmonious relations
with the neighboring State. Therefore, the acts of the Respondent State cannot establish its
sovereignty on the river by customary usage.
Hence, it is humbly contented that the boundary decided at the time of cession of the
Respondent State from Gundustan to Acadia and at the time of partition of the Respondent
and the Applicant State in 1964, will be binding on both the parties. Consequently, the entire
river will belong to the Applicant State.
69
The Chamizal Case (Mexico v. U.S.A), 11 R.I.A.A. 309, 328 (1911), peacable meant acquiescence by the
opposing party; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) 2008 ICJ 34, ¶84 (Dec. 18). 70
IAN BROWNLIE, supra note 61, at 620.
10 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[II.] THE LAST BASE POINT (OF THE BASELINE) FOR THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF NIMROTH
IS THE PLACE WHERE THE EAST BANK OF ELIN RIVER MEETS THE NIMROTH OCEAN.
The boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State was the eastern bank of the
river. Even after the shifts in the course of river after earthquakes and tsunami, the boundary
remains the eastern bank of the river such that the last base point (of the baseline) for the
maritime boundary of the Applicant State is the place where the east bank of the river meets
the Nimroth Ocean. The boundary will follow the changed course of the river because
boundary agreements are binding in all circumstances and even fundamental changes cannot
terminate them. Further, there are no general laws under international law which govern the
shift in river boundaries. In such circumstances it is the facts and circumstances of a
particular case which should be taken into consideration in order to decide the boundary.
[II.A.] Boundary agreements between states are not terminated by fundamental change
of circumstances.
The territorial regime and boundaries71
established by a treaty achieves permanence.72
The
main aim of boundary delimiting agreements is to attain ‘stability’and ‘finality ‘of
international borders.73
Even fundamental changes do not terminate the treaty which
establishes a boundary.74
Here, the treaty is clearly the boundary delimiting one hence, it
prevails even after the earthquake and tsunami. Consequently, boundary between the
Applicant and the Respondent State will be eastern bank as provided in the Agreement.
71
Case Concerning Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad), 1994 I.C.J 7, ¶73, 37 (Feb. 3); EVA RIETER, HENRI DE
WAELE, EVOLVING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: STUDIES IN HONOUR OF KAREL C. WELLENS 240
(2012); Nicaragua/Columbia Territorial and Maritime Dispute, supra note 69; Dispute Regarding Navigational
and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), 2009 I.C.J. Rep. 213, ¶68 (July 13) 72
Nicaragua/Columbia Territorial and Maritime Dispute, supra note 69, at ¶ 89, 861; Libya/Chad Case
Concerning Territorial Dispute, id.; KIRSTEN SCHMALENBACH, VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES: A COMMENTARY 631 (2011). 73
Case Concerning Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), 1962 I.C.J. 6, 34, (June 15); MALCOM N.
SHAW, supra note 4, at 426; K.H Kaikobad, Some Obsevations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of
Boundaries, 54 B.Y.I.L 119 (1983); Malcom N. Shaw, supra note 35; Libya/Chad Case Concerning Territorial
Dispute, supra note 71; Dubai-Sharjah Border Award, supra note 60; MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 27, at 244. 74
VCLT, art. 62, ¶ 2. Also cited in MALGOSIA FITZMAURICE, O. A. ELIAS, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN THE LAW
OF TREATIES 177 (2005); S. AKWEENDA, supra note 21, at 45; DONALD ROTHWELL , AFSHIN A-KHAVARI,
INTERNATIONAL LAW 152 (2011); United Nations Conference on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties:
Official Records, Vol. III (1979).
11 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[II.B] Interpretation of the Agreement between Acadia and Gundustan establishes the
eastern bank as boundary between Applicant and the Respondent State.
In cases where boundary shifts due to change in course of river, the boundary between two
nations should be decided taking all circumstances under consideration as each particular
occasion requires a separate regulation.75
In the present case the boundary should be
delimited as per the agreement.
Delimitation of a boundary is solely a product of the will of the States.76
Where there is
inconsistency in the actual boundary agreement,77
between states instructing governments on
what happens to the boundary when a river shifts;78
the interpretation of each agreement will
reveal the object79
and will of the parties, according to which any particular case can be
decided.80
Further, a treaty is to be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be
given to the terms of the treaty81
in the light of its object and purpose.82
The nature of the
treaty is also significant to its interpretation.83
Therefore, while reading a treaty, the treaty
must be interpreted in the light of:
Actual text of the agreement and emphasis on the analysis of the words used84
Intention of parties85
Object and purpose86
.
75
L.J Bouchez, The Fixing of Boundaries in International Boundary Rivers. 12 Int’l. & Comp. L. Q 3, 789, 807
(1963); Case Concerning kasikili/Sedudu Island, supra note 60. 76
Klara Kanska and Rafal Manko, Shifts in International Boundaries, 26 Polish Y.I.L (2002-03); Masahiro
Miyoshi, The Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas in Relation to Maritime, 5(2) International Boundaries
Research Unit, Maritime Briefing 6 (1999). 77
The Chamizal Case, supra note 69. 78
IBC (International Boundary Commission), Award before the International Boundary Commission, enlarged
by the Convention between the United States and Mexico, in the matter of the international title to the Chamizal
tract – section Fixed Line Theory, 5(3) Am. J. Int’l. L. 791-805. 79
Interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne (frontier between Turkey and Iraq), Advisory Opinion, PCIJ (Ser. B)
No. 12, Art. 3, ¶2, 20 (Nov. 21, 1925); John W. Donaldson, Paradox of the Moving Boundary: Legal Heredity
of River Accretion and Avulsion, 4(2) Water Alternatives (2011). 80
Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (Greece v. Turkey), 1976 I.C.J. 3, ¶84, 35 (Sept. 11). 81
German External Debts Arbitration (Swiss Confederation v. Federal Republic of Germany), 19 I.L.M 1980,
1357, 1377; La Grande Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. U.S), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June27); VCLT, art. 31 82
VCLT, art. 31(1). 83
Reservations to the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, 1951 I.C.J. 23
Advisory opinion (May 28). 84
G. FITZMAURICE, supra note 39, at 204. 85
MALCOLM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 932. 86
MALCOLM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 933.
12 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[II.B.1] In the light of actual text of the Agreement and emphasis on the analysis of
the words used.
The actual text of the 1924 Agreement specifies that the “eastern bank of River Elin was
marked with a green ribbon line signifying the boundary between Gundustan and Acadian
Nimroth”.87
The treaty uses the word “eastern bank” in its ordinary and general sense or
meaning without any reference to its position at any particular time-period. Therefore, it
implies that the treaty makes the boundary change automatic, concurrently adjusting it when
the course of the river changes.
[II.B.2]In the light of the intention of the parties to the Agreement.
The intention of the parties was to cede the territory of the Respondent State to Acadia.
Cession has the effect of replacing one sovereign by another88
over a particular piece of
territory and the acquiring state cannot possess more rights over the land than its predecessor
had. In other words the rights of the territorial sovereignty are derived from a previous
sovereign, who could not, therefore, dispose of more than he had. 89
So, it follows that the
territory which Raja of Gundustan ceded was the territory of the Respondent State and it did
not include in it River Elin.
[II.B.3.] In the light of the object and purpose of the Treaty.
The object and purpose of the treaty was to determine the territory that the Respondent State
possessed and which was being ceded by one party to another. The boundary of the
Respondent State decided was the eastern bank of the river signified by the green ribbon line.
It is, therefore, humbly submitted that any movement of the river would alter the international
boundary according to the position of the eastern bank of the river, as there is nothing in the
1924 Agreement that alludes to the fixed nature of the river boundary.90
87
Compromis ¶1. 88
Christian v. The Queen (2006) UKPC 47, ¶11; MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 499; MATTHEW CRAVEN,
THE DECOLONIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: STATE SUCCESSION AND THE LAW OF TREATIES 43 (2009). 89
MALCOLM N. SHAW, supra note 4. 90
Convention between Norway and Finland: Relative to the Frontier Between the Province of Finmark and the
District of Petsamo, Art. IV, 120 B.S.P. 341 (April 28, 1924).
13 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[II.C.] Boundary should follow the changed course of the River.
There are views which suggest that in cases where the boundary between two nations is
shifted due to change in course of river the boundary should follow the changed course of the
river.
E. Lauterpacht has opined that the boundary remains with the river91
whenever the course of
the river is affected in the future.92
D. Anzilotti93
stated that in the case of violent changes;94
the boundary should follow the
changed course of the river.95
Moreover, it is possible for the boundary to follow one of the banks of the river96
where this
has been expressly agreed,97
thus putting it entirely within the territory of one of the states
concerned.98
Hence, in the present matter as well the boundary will continue to remain the eastern bank of
the river and will follow the changed course of the river.
[II.D.] Thalweg Principle will not be followed.
In the present matter the thalweg principle will not be used to delimit the boundary between
the Applicant and the Respondent State because it is preempted by the treaty, historical title
and acquiescence by the state. Also, the principle is not absolute.
[II.D.1.] A treaty pre-empts customary international law.
A law special in nature pre-empts a general law99
under International Law (Lexspecialis
derogate generali).100
If the concerned states have entered into a boundary delimitation
91
E. Lauterpacht, River boundaries: Legal aspects of the Shatt-al-Arab frontier, 9 Int’l & Comp. Q. L 2, 208-
236 (1960). 92
Id; Diversion of water from Meuse (Netherlands v. Belguim), 1937 P.C.I.J (Ser. A/B) no. 70; Anglo Siam
boundary treaty (United Kingdom/Kingdom of Siam), no. 19 (July 9, 1909). 93
D. ANZILOTTI, INTORNO AGLI EFETTI DELLE MODIFICAZIONI DEL CORSO DI UN FIUME SUL CONFINE FRA DUE
STATIIN 685 (1956). 94
Id at 701. 95
King v. Wilson, supra note 5, at 147. 96
K. H. Kaikobad, The Shatt-al-Arab River Boundary: A Legal Reappraisal, 56 B.Y.I.L, 49 (1985); 106 SIR
CLAUD HUMPHERY MEREDITH WALDOCK, GENERAL COURSES ON PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 54 (1962). 97
P.Wouters, The Legal Response to International Water Conflicts: The UN Watercourses and Beyond, 42
G.Y.I.L 293 (1999). 98
E. Lauterpacht supra note 91, at 208; K. H. Kaikobad, supra note 73; S. MCCAFFREY, THE LAW OF
INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES (2nd
ed., 2007); Gabčíkovo-Nagumaros Project, supra note 51. 99
Beagle Channel Case (Argentina v. Chile) 21 R.I.A.A 53 (Feb. 18, 1977); Legality of Threat or use of
Nuclear Weapons Case, supra note 2, at 226-240.
14 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
treaty, the mode of delimitation in the treaty pre-empts norms of customary international
law.101
Therefore in cases when states have prior agreement on how to delimit the river
boundary,102
thalweg will not be applicable.103
On that ground, the boundary demarcation in
the 1924 treaty would over-ride the customary international law and hence, the boundary
would be the eastern bank between the Applicant and the Respondent State.
[II.D.2.] The rule of thalweg is not absolute.
Thalweg principle is not absolute, i.e., not a rule to be followed in every case where
navigable river serves as a boundary between states.104
Oppenheim stated that when river
changes its course, the boundary lines follow the change.105
Therefore, in the present case the
boundary will follow the changed course of the river and it will be new eastern bank of the
river.
[II.D.3.] Thalweg is pre-empted through historical title.
The preemption of the thalweg principle can also come through historical title106
or where
one state has acquiesced to it.107
In the present case, the boundary agreement between Acadia
and Gundustan stipulated eastern bank to be the boundary and later the Respondent State
recognized the same as boundary at the time of independence in 1964.108
100
ANTONIO CASSESE, supra note 34; Tunisia Libya Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya Arab Jamahiriya)
1982 I.C.J 18 (Feb. 24); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra note 2, at ¶274,
137, Court said: “In general, treaty rules being lex specialis, it would not be appropriate that a State should
bring a claim based on a customary-law rule if it has by treaty already provided means for settlement of a such a
claim.” 101
Sangh-Myon Rhee, Sea Boundary Delimitation between States before World War II, 76 Am. J. Int’L L. 555
(1982); Sikander Shah, supra note 33, at 387-388. 102
A.O. CUKWURAH, supra note 7. 103
Klara Kanska and Rafal Manko, supra note 76. 104
IGE F. DEKKER, THE GULF WAR 1980-1988: THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR IN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
26 (H.G POST eds., 1926). 105
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 254. 106
Thomas W. Donovan, Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis, 32 GA. J. INT’L
& COMP. L. 661, 93 (2004); Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, supra note 31 (noting that what is
‘always’ true” must give way to “the position in this particular case, in which the maritime area in question had
long been historic waters under a single State’s sovereignty”); Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land
(Belgium v. Netherlands), 1959 I.C.J. 209 (June 20) (discussing a border dispute between Belgium and the
Netherlands, where Belgium agreed to cede the two disputed plots to the Netherlands); The Chamizal
Arbitration Between the United States and Mexico: Minutes of Meeting of the Joint Commission, 5 AM. J.
INT’L L. 782 (June 10, 1911) [hereinafter Chamizal Arbitration] (discussing the border dispute along the Rio
Grande River between the United States and Mexico); S. AKWEENDA, supra note 21, at 15. 107
Thomas W. Donovan, Id, at 82–83; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 53 (1906); Burkina Faso/Mali
Frontier Dispute, supra note 29; The Chamizal Case, supra note 69. 108
Compromis ¶1.
15 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
Hence, the rule of thalweg is preempted in the present matter because the Applicant had
historical title over the entire river which is affected by the agreement between Acadia and
Gundustan and the acquiescence by the Respondent State in 1964.
It is therefore, submitted that in the present matter the agreement between Acadia and
Gundustan, being a boundary delimiting one is not terminated even by the fundamental
changes occurred in the course of the river. The interpretation of the said agreement clearly
establishes the eastern bank as the boundary between the Applicant and the Respondent State.
Moreover, there are views and opinion of the eminent jurists of international law which says
that the boundary should follow the changed course of the river. Also in the present case the
preemption of thalweg principle establishes the eastern bank to be the boundary.
16 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[III.] THE ISLANDS WHICH ARE NOW LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
NIMROTH ARE THE TERRITORY OF NIMROTH, AND WINROTH IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS.
[III.A.] Tokano Island is in the territory of the Applicant State.
[III.A.1.] Tokano Island falls within the territorial waters of the Applicant State.
The sovereignty of a Coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters to an
adjacent belt of sea,109
described as the territorial sea110
. All states have the right to establish
the breadth of the territorial sea up to a 12 nautical miles from the baselines.111
A coastal state
enjoys sovereign rights over territorial sea and extensive jurisdictional control over it.112
Here, after the river shifts, the boundary which lies upon eastern bank also shifts so that
Tokano Island now lies within in the territorial sea of Nimroth. It is situated six kilometers
east of the mouth of the river.113
The island thus, lies within the territorial sea of the
Applicant State and hence it has complete sovereignty over the island.
[III.A.2] Title of Tokano Island will transfer from the Respondent to the Applicant
State.
The title to Tokano Island will transfer to the Applicant State. Firstly, because the island now
falls in the territorial waters of the Applicant State. Secondly, when an island belonging to
one state subsequently, lies in the territory of other state due to some changes, then title to the
island transfers.114
Also, the administration of Tokano would be convenient if it is transferred
to the Applicant State, because of the fact that now it lies within the territory of the Applicant
State.
109
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 600; 3(2) GIDEL, DELIMITATION OF INTERNAL WATERS 181 (1934); D. P.
O’CONNELL, THE INFLUENCE OF LAW ON SEA POWER 303 (1975); Henry Maine, International Law: Territorial
Rights of Sovereignty (Lecture IV), http://www.gistprobono.org/id147.html (Sept. 13, 2013). 110
UNCLOS, art. 2; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea,
supra note 35, at ¶234. 111
UNCLOS, art. 3; MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 569 (The notice issued by the Hydrographic
Department of the Royal Navy on 1 January 2008 shows that 156 states or territories claim a 12-mile territorial
sea, with 16 states or territories claiming less than this and only 7 states claiming more than 12 miles). 112
MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the
Caribbean Sea, supra note 35, at ¶234; Anglo Norwegian Fisheries case, supra note 64, at 116, 160. 113
Compromis ¶7. 114
A.O. CUKWURAH, supra note 7, at 65.
17 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
[III.B.] Newly emerged Island is in the territory of the Applicant State.
[III.B.1] New Island falls within the territorial waters of the Applicant State.
A coastal state may claim a contiguous zone up to 24 nautical miles from the baselines.115
Coastal states may exercise particular jurisdictional functions in the contiguous zone.116
Here,
the new island is located six nautical miles south of Tokano Island.117
Thus, the island will lie
in the contiguous zone118
of the Applicant State, with its northern end in its territorial sea.
[III.B.2] The Applicant State exercised its sovereignty over the new Island.
Intention or will to act as a sovereign may be inferred from different facts such as legislative
and administrative control, application and enforcement of civil and criminal law etc.119
It can
also be performed either by the publication of a proclamation or by the hoisting of a flag.120
.
When the news of emergence of island was reported to the Applicant State, Prime Minister of
the Applicant State took a special cabinet meeting and it was decided in the meeting to send
the navy of the Applicant State to guard the new island. The navy so sent planted the the
Applicant State flag on the island.121
Thus, evidently the Applicant State established its
sovereignty over the new island.
[III.C.] The Respondent State is not entitled under international law to exercise its
sovereignty over the Islands.
Territorial sovereignty of a nation means supreme political authority, exclusive jurisdiction122
and supremacy123
over its own independent territory. It also implies that a state is obliged to
115
UNCLOS, art. 33(2), MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 580.
116
MALCOM N. SHAW, supra note 4, at 554; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (Nicaragua
Intervening), supra note 31, at 92, 126; UNLOS, art. 2 and art. 3; Øystein Jensen, Coastal State Jurisdiction and
Vessel Source Pollution: The International Law of the Sea Framework for Norwegian Legislation, FNI Report
3/2006 (2206). 117
Compromis ¶13. 118
JAMES CABLE, GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY- 1919-1991 14 (1994). 119
Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea, supra note 35. 120
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 277. 121
Compromis ¶14. 122
The Corfu Channel case (United Kindgdom v. Albania) 1949 I.C.J 244, 35 (April 9); Miyoshi Masahiro,
Sovereignty and International Law (2013),
https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/conferences/sos/masahiro_miyoshi_paper.pdf. 123
4 STEINBERGER HELMUT, SOVEREIGNTY: ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 507 (2000).
18 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
refrain from performing certain acts within that space which is the ‘territory’ of another
state.124
The principle provides for respecting the borders of other states and is considered as
an essential foundation of international relations.125
Thus, the Respondent State should
respect the territorial sovereignty of the Applicant State and should not try to encroach upon
its territorial areas. the Respondent State’s act of notifying in its official Gazette that the new
island is part of its territory and that all the laws of the Respondent State are extended to this
island126
violates the said principle of territorial integrity and therefore prohibits the
Respondent State to exercise its sovereignty over the island.
Hence the humble submission is that both the islands, Tokano and newly emerged island falls
within the territorial limits of the Applicant State and thus belongs to it. Therefore, the
Respondent State under the principles of international law is prohibited to exercise its
sovereignty over the islands.
124
HANS KELSON, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 151(1952); MARK W. JANIS, AN INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW 157 (3rd
ed., 1999) (The idea behind state sovereignty is that a state ought to be able to
govern itself, free from outside interference.). 125
OPPENHEIM, supra note 11, at 173; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case,
supra note 2. 126
Compromis ¶14.
19 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ‘THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH’
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, THE REPUBLIC OF NIMROTH, Applicant respectfully requests the
Court to adjudge and declare that:
I. THE ENTIRE ELIN RIVER UP TO THE EASTERN BANK OF THE RIVER BELONGS TO
NIMROTH.
II. THE LAST BASE POINT (OF THE BASELINE) FOR THE MARITIME BOUNDARY OF NIMROTH
IS THE PLACE WHERE THE EAST BANK OF ELIN RIVER MEETS THE NIMROTH OCEAN.
III. THE ISLANDS WHICH ARE NOW LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF
NIMROTH ARE THE TERRITORY OF NIMROTH, AND WINROTH IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW TO EXERCISE ITS SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE ISLANDS.
Respectfully Submitted:
Agents for The Republic of Nimroth