Agent 861

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING THE DESTRUCTION OF A SATELLITE

THE STATE OF ALDO

..................................................
APPLICANT
AGAINST

THE STATE OF PRADA

...............................................
RESPONDENT

BY SPECIAL AGREEMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Page |2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
AGENT FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TITLE
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
PRAYER

PAGE
3
4
5
6
7
9
15

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Articles
1. Thomas Graham, THE LAW AND THE MILITARY USE OF OUTER SPACE,
Published in Safeguarding Space for All: Security and Peaceful UsesConference
Report, 2526 March 2004, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research
(UNIDIR), 2005.
2. Michael N Schmitt, International Law and Military Operations in Space, Max Planck
Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 10, 2006, Pg 89-125
3. Andre G. De Busschere, Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects, 3 J. Intl L. &
Prac. 97 (1994).
4. Cosmos 954 incident, 18 I.L.M. 899 (1979)
5. K. H. Bockstiegel, The Term Launching State in International Space Law, 37
I.I.S.L. Proc 80, 81 (1994)
6. M. Mejia Kaiser, Collision Course: 2009 Iridium-Cosmos Crash, 52 I.I.S.L. Proc. 274
(2009)
7. Paul G. Dembling, Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Bodies, in Manual
of Space Law 20-22 (Jasentuliyana and Lee eds., Oceana Publications, 1979)
Treaties and conventions
1. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts, and the Return of
Objects Launched Into Outer Space, entered into force Dec. 3, 1968, 19 U.S.T. 7570,
672 U.N.T.S. 119
2. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, entered
into force Oct. 9, 1973, Preamble, 24 U.S.T. 2389, 961 U.N.T.S. 187
3. Statute of the International Court of Justice

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |4
4. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force Oct.
10, 1967, Art. VII, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205
5. Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Prada and the State of Aldo have submitted the present dispute to this Court by
Special Agreement and have thus accepted the jurisdiction of the Court. Both parties shall
accept the judgment of this Court as final and binding and execute it in good faith in its
entirety.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |5

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I
Aldo and Prada are two powerful space faring nations. Since the 1950s the two nations have
spearheaded many missions into Outer Space. Gucci is a country neighbouring Aldo and the two
countries have always been in conflict due to petty border skirmishes. Aldo has complained of
infiltration into its borders by Guccinese militants and has in the past made pre emptive strikes.

II
Aldo has launched a series of satellites in the last decade including the Travian series of spy
satellites which take images of strategic military targets in Prada and Gucci. Aldo has also used
the Travian 7 in the past to help its allies guide their military during wartime, particularly the
military of Versace, a country that was in war with Prada for a better part of the 1990s. The
launch of the entire Travian series was protested by many countries, including Prada which
considers this a violation of international law since Outer Space may only be used for peaceful
purposes.

III

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |6
The Counterstrike 1 satellite was launched to detect the activities of the Travian series. The
entire project was accomplished and funded by Prada and bore Pradas flag. However, the
satellite was launched from a base near Jonas, the capital of Gucci. In the year 2009, a technical
snag was detected in the Counterstrike 1 and it was recalled to the earth. While the spaceship was
entering the Earths orbit at a height of 100 km above the Earths surface, the ground systems at
Aldo, alerted by the Travian 7 was recognised it to be a ballistic missile heading towards Aldo.
Immediately, Aldo attacked the Counterstrike 1 using its Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) system
destroying the Counterstrike 1.

IV
This sent debris from the Counterstrike 1 flying into Outer Space and it collided with the
Counterstrike 2 causing it damage. Prada claimed damages worth $45 million to which Aldo
replied saying Gucci was the launching state and Aldos liabilities are only towards the launching
state.

V
A few months later Aldo sent a manned expedition on board the Dota Space Schuttle to launch
the Travian 8. On its way back into the Earths orbit, the Dota experienced a few problems due to
which it had to make an emergency landing at Monas, the capital of Prada. On landing, the
captain of Dota was recognised to be the same person who launched and controlled the Travian
7. He was arrested immediately and on Guccis request extradited to Gucci where he was
convicted for espionage. Aldo protested this Act as a violation of international law contending
that the astronauts should have been returned to their home state unharmed. Prada, on the other
hand contended that its duties ended on the safe landing of the Dota and at any rate, international
law entitles a party to convict spies.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |7

Hence, the present matter

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Prada respectfully asks this Court:

I.

WHETHER THE LAUNCH OF TRAVIAN SERIES OF SATELLITES IS

IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

II.

WHETHER PRADA MAY BE CONSIDERED A SOLE LAUNCHING

STATEOF THE COUNTERSTRIKE I SATELLITE? WHETHER GUCCI
IS A NECESSARY PARTY IN DETERMINING ALDOS LIABILITY FOR
THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE?

III.

WHETHER ALDO IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO

COUNTERSTRIKE II?

IV.

WHETHER PRADA WAS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE DOTA?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE NO. 1 WHETHER

THE LAUNCH OF THE

TRAVIAN

SERIES OF SPY SATELLITES WAS A

VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

The Outer Space treaty provides for the peaceful use of outer space by all nations. By sending
spy satellites into orbit in outer space, the Respondent has violated international law. The use
of these satellites was to spy on strategic military targets in the Applicant state and in the
state of Gucci which is a neighbouring state of the Respondent. This is a clear violation of the
treaty.
ISSUE NO. 2: WHETHER PRADA
THE

MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SOLE LAUNCHING STATE OF

COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE? ACCORDINGLY, IS GUCCI A NECESSARY PARTY IN ITS

CAPACITY OF A JOINT LAUNCHING STATE IN DETERMINING

DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE

ALDOS

LIABILITY FOR THE

COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE?

According to Article I of the Liability Convention, the launching state may be one which has
either launched or procured the launching of the satellite, or whose territory has been used for
the launching. The Applicant state cannot be considered the sole launching state in this case
because Counterstrike 1 was launched from Jonas, the capital of Gucci, and all pre launch
expenditure was borne by Gucci.
However, the project was funded by the Respondent, which is one of the launching states.
Liability of the Applicant is towards each of the launching states, and hence it is not
necessary to attach Gucci as a necessary party only for the question of determining the
liability of the Applicant.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page |9
ISSUE NO. 3: WITH

ALDO

LIABLE IN INTERNATIONAL

COUNTERSTRIKE 2

FROM THE DEBRIS OF THE

NO PREJUDICE TO QUESTION

LAW FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE

2,

IS

COUNTERSTRIKE 1?
Liability for damage caused in outer space is based on the principle of fault. In using an AntiBallistic missile to destroy Counterstrike 1, the Respondent state could have reasonably
foreseen that damage would be caused to Counterstrike 2 by the debris. The damage caused
was only due to the destruction of Counterstrike 1 by the anti-ballistic missile attack by the
Respondent state. Thus, the Respondent state is liable in international law for the damage
caused to the Counterstrike 2 from the debris of the Counterstrike 1.
ISSUE NO. 4: WHETHER PRADA

WAS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS

TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN OF THE

DOTA?

The Applicant state had signed a treaty with Gucci for unconditional extradition of an enemy
of the state. There is no law prohibiting the signing of such a treaty. The officials of the
Applicant state gave full support and cooperation for the safe landing of the Dota shuttle. It
was only after the landing that the captain was arrested, for his role in the launch and control
of Travian 7 and subsequent destruction of the Counterstrike 1 satellite. The duties of the
Applicant state ended with the safe landing of the shuttle. International law allows for spies to
be convicted and extradited, and hence there has been no violation of international law by the
Applicant in its treatment of the captain of the Dota.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE NO. 1
THE LAUNCH OF THE

TRAVIAN

SERIES OF SPY SATELLITES WAS A VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW?

1.1.

Aldo and Prada are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty, Liability Convention,

Rescue Agreement, Moon Treaty, Registration Convention and the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties. Both the countries have ratified the Outer Space Treaty and the Registration
Convention.
1.2.

The following articles of the Outer Space Treaty are sought to be applied in this case:

Article I
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall
be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.
Article III
States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space,
including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including
the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and
security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.
1.3.

The use of outer space for the launch and operation of the Travian series is a violation

of international law. The satellites were used by the Applicant to spy on strategic military
targets in the territory of the Respondent state as well as the state of Gucci, which is a
neighbouring state of the Applicant. This violates the provisions of the Outer space treaty,
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 11
which expressly states that outer space may only be used for peaceful purposes and in the
interest of all nations. Such use is against the common interest of all nations of maintaining
international peace and security, and promoting international cooperation and understanding.
It also violates the right of the Respondent state and Gucci to sovereignty over their
respective territories by providing the Applicant state with images of military targets.

ISSUE NO. 2
PRADA

MAY BE CONSIDERED THE SOLE LAUNCHING STATE OF THE

SATELLITE.

ACCORDINGLY, GUCCI

LAUNCHING

COUNTERSTRIKE 1

IS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN ITS CAPACITY OF A JOINT

STATE IN DETERMINING

ALDOS

LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE

COUNTERSTRIKE 1 SATELLITE?
UNDER THE REGISTRATION CONVENTION, IT IS STATED IN
Article I
For the purposes of this Convention:
(a) The term "launching State" means:
(i) A State which launches or procures the launching of a space object;
(ii) A State from whose territory or facility a space object is launched;
(b) The term "space object" includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch
vehicle and parts thereof;
(c) The term "State of registry" means a launching State on whose registry a space object is
carried in accordance with article II.
Article VII
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose
territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 12
Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts
on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.
According to Article I of the Liability Convention, the launching state may be one which has
either launched or procured the launching of the satellite, or whose territory has been used for
the launching. The Applicant state cannot be considered the sole launching state in this case
because Counterstrike 1 was launched from Jonas, the capital of Gucci, and all pre launch
expenditure was borne by Gucci. The venture was also supported by the government of
Gucci.
However, the project was funded by the Applicant, which is one of the launching states. The
project was owned by and carried out mainly for the use of the Applicant State. Liability
under the Registration Convention and Liability Convention is towards the Launching state.
Damages may be claimed by the state in whose name the satellite is registered. Since the
facts are silent on the registration of the satellite, it may be presumed that it was done in the
name of the Applicant state. Neither Gucci nor the Applicant state was the sole launching
state of the Counterstrike series. Liability of the Respondent is towards each of the launching
states, and hence it is not necessary to attach Gucci as a necessary party only for the question
of determining the liability of the Respondent.

ISSUE NO. 3
WITH

NO PREJUDICE TO QUESTION

DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE

2, ALDO

IS

LIABLE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE

COUNTERSTRIKE 2 FROM THE DEBRIS OF THE COUNTERSTRIKE 1?

3.1. Provisions of liability convention:

Article I
For the purposes of this Convention:
(a)

The term "damage" means loss of life, personal injury or other impairment of health;

or loss of or damage to property of States or of persons, natural or juridical, or property of

international intergovernmental organizations;
(b)

...

Article III
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 13
In the event of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space
object of one launching State or to persons or property on board such a space object by a
space object of another launching State, the latter shall be liable only if the damage is due to
its fault or the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.
Article VI
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, exoneration from absolute liability
shall be granted to the extent that a launching State establishes that the damage has resulted
either wholly or partially from gross negligence or from an act or omission done with intent
to cause damage on the part of a claimant State or of natural or juridical persons it represents.
2. No exoneration whatever shall be granted in cases where the damage has resulted from
activities conducted by a launching State which are not in conformity with international law
including, in particular, the Charter of the United Nations and the Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
3.2. If damage is caused by one state's space object to another state's space object other than
on the surface of the earth, then liability is not absolute but depends on fault. In the case of
collisions between satellites, both of the launching states involved can be held jointly and
severally liable to third states and their citizens.1
3.3. Attack may only be conducted against military objectives and must comply with the
principle of proportionality. ... In strikes against space-based assets, the primary concern is
the creation of space debris. As a result, the attacker might be required to employ a soft kill
technique, such as computer network attack, in lieu of kinetic means if the former would
result in less collateral damage.2
3.4. States bear international responsibility for all space objects that are launched within their
territory. This means that regardless of who launches the space object, if it was launched
from State As territory, or from State As facility, or if State A caused the launch to happen,
then State A is fully liable for damages that result from that space object.

Article IV of the 1972 Liability Convention.

Michael N Schmitt, International Law and Military Operations in Space, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 10,
2006, Pg 89-125.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 14
3.5. The Liability Convention of 1972 expands upon the principles of liability for damage
caused by space objects introduced in Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. There
are two scenarios where damage could be caused by a space object. The first scenario
envisions a space object that causes damage to the surface of the Earth or an aircraft in flight,
and the second scenario deals with an event where a space object causes damage someplace
other than the surface of the Earth, i.e. a space object, outer space, or another celestial body.
3.6. The standard of liability applied under the second scenario is a more arduous one in that
it applies a fault liability standard whereby a state will be considered liable only if it can be
shown that the damage caused was due to the fault of the state or states responsible for the
launch of the space object as the case may be. To date, there have been no instances where
the second scenario of the Liability Convention has been applied.
3.7. The respondent has used a ballistic missile which can be considered a weapon of mass
destruction to destroy a satellite of the applicant which was returning from outer space. This
was done based on a detection of its own satellite that it was a ballistic missile. This could
have been an error made by Travian 7 in detection, as the facts clearly state that Travian 8
was launched in order to avoid further mistakes such as the one made by the Travian 7. This
deployment of anti-satellite weapons was clearly a violation of the law of peaceful use of
outer space and the Respondent should thus be liable for the damage so caused.
3.8. The Respondent undertook the measure of attacking Counterstrike 1 with the knowledge
that it would lead to creation of space debris which is inherently dangerous and poses damage
to other space objects. But for this measure being taken, Counterstrike 1 would not have been
destroyed, and no damage would have resulted to Counterstrike 2.
3.9. The Respondent has also violated article IX of the Outer Space Treaty by not
undertaking appropriate international consultations before proceeding. According to this
article if a State Party to the Treaty has reason to believe that an activity or experiment
planned by it or its nationals in outer space () would cause potentially harmful interference
with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space (...) it
shall undertake appropriate international consultations before proceeding with any such
activity or experiment.

ISSUE NO. 4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 15
PRADA WAS NOT
OF THE

IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ITS TREATMENT OF THE CAPTAIN

DOTA?

4.1. Provisions of Outer Space treaty

Article V
States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and
shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency
landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When astronauts make
such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of registry of their
space vehicle.
In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, the astronauts of one State
Party shall render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other States Parties.
Article VII
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer
space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose
territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State
Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts
on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies.
4.2. Gucci and Prada have signed the 1980 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Assistance
(FCA). The terms of the FCA mandate both the parties to do the following:
1. Lend the other party military assistance on request, other than in a situation of armed
conflict.
2. Unconditionally extradite any person considered by the other party to be an Enemy of the
State.
4.3 On landing in Monas, the Captain of the Dota and the crew were within the territory of
the Applicant state and shall be subject to the municipal laws for acts committed by them.
The Captain was responsible in part for the control of the Travian 7 satellite and consequently
for the destruction of Counterstrike 1 and damage to Counterstrike 2. He would be liable for
this damage to the property of the Applicant state as an agent of the Respondent state.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 16
4.4. There is no law which prohibits the signing of such a treaty of extradition. The duties of
the Applicant state ended with the safe landing of the shuttle. International law allows for
spies to be convicted and extradited, and hence there has been no violation of international
law by the Applicant in its treatment of the captain of the Dota.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited it is most humbly and respectfully submitted before this Honourable Court that it may
be pleased to
1. DECLARE that launch of the Travian series of spy satellites was in violation of
international law; and
2. DECLARE that Gucci a necessary party in its capacity of a joint launching state in
determining Aldos liability for the damage caused to the Counterstrike 1; and
3. DECLARE that Aldo is liable in international law for the damage caused to the
Counterstrike 2; and
4. DECLARE that Prada was not in violation of international law in its treatment of the
captain of the Dota

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

P a g e | 17
AGENT FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT