Karl Anthony T.

Dionisio
Exam Public International Law
2016
Atty. Perete

Finals
April 2,

1. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION

OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THIS CASE, SINCE ARCHEMIA HAS
SUCCEEDED TO GALATIAS STATUS AS A PARTY TO THE
STATUTE OF THE ICJ.
Galatia was a party to the Statute of the ICJ and as well Galatia
accepted the ICJs compulsory jurisdiction in all cases. Although
Galatia was dissolved and its territory was divided into Archemia
and

Restonia,

Archemia

submits

that

the

ICJ

maintains

its

compulsory jurisdiction in all claims by virtue of having succeeded

Galatias membership in the UN and party status to the Statute.

2. ARCHEMIA HAS SATISFIED THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UN AND CAN THUS SUCCEED TO
GALATIASS STATUS AS PARTY TO THE STATUTE OF THE
COURT.
UN membership according to article 4 of the UN charter is open to
all peace-loving states that accepts the obligations contained.
Through the historic diplomatic relations of Archemia and as
evidenced by the institution of the present proceeedings, Archemia
is a peace-loving state.
Archemia as well has taken on the obligations of Galatia to the UN
by first assuming the annual obligation in the multi-year plan to
repay its dues, and in the continuation of of participating in the UN.
As well Archemia has been receiving recognition from the UN

communities in its involvement evidenced by the flag of Archemia

being flown in UN establishments in the place of Galantia.

3. ARCHEMIA NOT BEING A PARTY TO THE STATUTE OF THE

ICJ, RESTONIA
WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICJ.
Upon the application of Restonia for membership in the UN, a
reservation was set stating:

Restonia does not accept the jurisdiction of the

Court over any case in which the opposing state has
not been a party to the Statute of the Court for at
least twelve (12) months at the time of the
application to the Court.
As such the non-accommodation of Archemia to the statute of the
international court of justice would bar

the ICJ from having

jurisdiction over Restonia.

But even in the event that Archemia were to formally apply for UN
membership and waited a year, giving effect to Restonias
reservation of requiring the opposing party to be a party to the
Statute for more than a year, Archemias new application filed in
the ICJ would still be almost identical to the present one as the
current conflict would remain unsettled. It defies common sense to

require Archemia to institute fresh proceedings upon the compliance

with formal UN membership application procedure. This Court
should maintain its compulsory jurisdiction over all claims in this
case.

5. THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE BY

RESTONIA WOULD VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF ARCHEMIA
CITIZENS.
Archemia

states

that

the

damage

attributed

to

the

construction of the pipeline would result in the loss of rights of

Archemia citizens of Cronian heritage since more than half of the
Cronian agricultural lands would be directly destroyed by the
construction process. The Agriculture would severely be suffering.
According to the ILSA report of September 2004, it will no longer be
possible for the Cronian to subsist on the Cronian Fields, or to
practice their traditional way of life. The report concludes: If the
pipeline is built according to plan, each and every Cronian will have
a very simple choice: leave their ancestral homeland for the
inhospitable cities of Archemia and Restonia, or starve.

6. THE SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS OF RESTONIA DO NOT ABSOLVE IT OF

ITS LIABILITY FOR THE BREACHES AS RESTONIAS SOVERIENITY IS
QUALIFIED BY THE CORONIANS RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION

Archemia submits that where territory is acquired by a State in

the fashion of terra nullius, customary international law confers
special rights on those indigenous people. These special rights
qualify

the

sovereignty

rights

of

the

State.

These

rights,

characterised broadly as self-determination rights, include, inter

alia, special property interests in land and natural resources. This
right need not be the absolute form of property rights observable in
many municipal law regimes.1 This right could, in the instant case,
be discharged in a number of ways ranging from consultation and
profit sharing to a rerouting of the pipeline.
Archemia submits that a sense of obligation amongst State actors
that they are bound by customary norm to safeguard these rights is
evident amongst those States in which indigenous peoples reside or
subsist.

6. THE ACTIVITIES OF PROF IN THE CRONIAN ARE VIOLATIONS

OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS AND OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Article 8(3) of ICCPR provides that no one shall be required to
perform

forced

or

compulsory

labour.

ILO

Declaration

on

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work requires Member States

to eliminate all forms of forced and compulsory labour.

By forcing

the Cronian labourers to work on the pipeline project against their

Kuwait Airways Corporation v. Iraqi Airways Co (Nos. 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883

(UK).
1

will, the conduct of PROF fell afoul of the interests protected by

ICCPR Article 8(3) and the ILO Declaration.
Furthermore, the Cronian labourers were forced to work all day
on the pipeline project and they were only given a small bag of
sorghum as payment for their labour. Their rights are violated under
Article 7 of ICSECR which protects a persons right to fair and just
remuneration for work.

7. RESTONIA CAN HE HELD LIABLE FOR THE THE ACTIVITIES

OF PROF IN THE CRONIANS.
A State is also responsible for the acts of non-State entities if
the private conduct is directed or controlled by the State. 2 The nonState entities are not State organs and the conduct does not have to
involve governmental authority.
Restonia may contend that its government is only the minority
shareholder of COG and hence it did not have effective control of
the latters decision.

However, it is submitted that a majority

shareholding is not a prerequisite to effective control over a

corporate entity. In this case, it can be established that Restonia had
effective control over the activities of COG and PROF by way of the
following facts:
(i)

Restonia is responsible for almost half (49%) of the

funding for COG;

International Law Commission, Draft Articles of the Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts, UN GAOR, 56th Session, Supp. No. 10, Article 8, UN
Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter Draft Articles].
2

(ii)

COG was incorporated under the laws of Restonia;

(iii)

The agricultural lands to be exploited for oil are under

the stewardship of the National Parks Authority (NPA),
an agency of the Restonian government; and

(iv)

The Restonian government granted COG the exclusive

rights to operate within the region to COG.

As sunch, Restonia had effective control over COG and is directly

responsible for the human rights violations by PFOF, which acted as
COGs agent

8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE BORIUS LITIGATION DOES NOT

PLACE ARCHEMIA IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 52 OF THE RABBIT.
On

the

principles

of

the

Norms,

entitled

General

Obligations, state that the Norms are in no manner intended to

reduce the obligations of governments to promote, secure the
fulfillment of, respect, ensure respect for, or protect human rights.
The Norms would be misused if they were employed by a
government to justify failing to protect human rights fully or to
provide appropriate remedies for human rights violations. Construed
as diminishing
even under the Norms, of Restonia it is is still obliged to
ensure that human rights are being protected within its territory and
there is no justification for shifting its liability to TNC or any other
corporate entities.