Republic of Racel- ORALS

Your honors and distinguish ladies and gentlemen, good day! May it please the court, I
am Edward John Nerosa, the counsel for the applicant, the Republic of Racel, and with
me is my co-counsel Ms. Stella Lynn Amistad.

It is a privilege to appear before the International Court of Justice to plead on behalf of

the Republic of Racel. May I also please the court in discussing our first and second
points for 10 minutes and my co-cousel will be discussing the 3rd and 4th points for
another 10 minutes. We will reserve the remaining time for questions, rebuttals and our
prayer for relief.

PRAYERS:

Your Honors, we are here to respectfully request the Honorable International Court of
Justice to adjudge and declare that:

1. The jurisdiction over the dispute remain with the same for the
determination of the liability of Anlusan in violating the right of Racel to self-
determination as well as the rest of the issues submitted to it.

2. The Federation of Anlusan committed an internationally wrongful act when

it intervened with the Racel elections constituting of a series of acts through
harassment, intimidation and finally coercion to protect its interests in Racel’s oil
and steel resources.

3. Satellite Corporation, Feznote, Chirper and the International Media

Companies are liable for hosting the hostile videos before, during and even after
the election despite the media blackout ordered by Bellonian President Anzi
Olandes.
4. The sanctions imposed on Anlusan by Racel are in the exercise of its
inherent sovereignty over the exploitation of its territory and the natural
resources are justified and therefore a valid act of the state.

I. Banner Statement:

The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the case.

A. The ICJ has jurisdiction over the case as referred to it by virtue of Article 36
in relation to Article 38 of the ICJ Statute.

Under the ICJ Statute jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the
parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United
Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. In the event of a dispute as to whether
the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.

B. Jurisdiction by the ICJ is expressly recognized by the parties by virtue of the

Special Agreement signed by them.

Article 40, paragraph 1 of the ICJ Statute provides that:

Cases are brought before the Court, as the case may be, either by the
notification of the special agreement or by a written application addressed to the
Registrar. In either case the subject of the dispute and the parties shall be indicated.

Application:

In applying the provisions of the ICJ Statute in the present case, the States in
dispute can seek the competence of the International Court of Justice to decide on
matters brought before it, should the issues raise remain unresolved. The Court shall
rule on the matters brought to it pursuant to international laws, treaties and conventions,
by which the parties are members or signatories thereto.

In addition, the parties voluntarily submitted the jurisdiction of the case through a
Special Agreement, with regard the disputes concerning the secession of Racel from
Bellona and the subsequent economic measures imposed by the newly-independent
state, Republic of Racel against the Federation of Anlusan.

Conclusion:
Your Honors, in line with the foregoing, it could therefore be said that the International
Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the dispute.

II. Secondary Argument

Your Honors, it must be taken into consideration that the Federation of Anlusan
committed an internationally wrongful act when it intervened with the Racelian
Referendum.

Basis:
A. The series of acts by Anlusan constitutes intervention on the Racelian
election.
Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, provides that:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.1
 B. 1 The effective intervention on the part of Anlusan before and during the
election constitutes an Internationally Wrongful Act.

Article 2 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provides

that:
“There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct
consisting of an action or omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.”

B. 2 The statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs reveal Anlusan’s

interests against the secession of Racel.

The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under
international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any
other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever
its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the
internal law of the State.

Racel’s secession makes it a newly independent state which is not bound to

accept treaties entered into by its predecessor state as enunciated in Article 16 of the
1978 Vienna Convention and the Clean Slate Principle. It is not bound to the treaties
entered into by Bellona unless consent was given to be bound to the treaty. The
secession will terminate the treaty obligations of Racel to Anlusan which is highly
detrimental to Anlusan’s economy and can be gleaned from the statement of Garcha.
 B.3 Exelsia security experts traced the threatening Chirps to computers
from Anlusan and Flovirien’s cybersecurity report indicated that ten percent of
the videos came from Anlusan computers.2

One of the IP addresses was similar to the other addresses of the computers of
the Anlusanian intelligence service and another IP address indicated the servers of
Satellite.

IP addresses or Internet Protocol Addresses are unique for each computer

connected to a Local Area Network or LAN with its own IP address range and indicates
the computer’s location.
B. 4 The deployment of Anlusanian navy boats towards the Racel region on
the day of the election itself is an overt act of threat and coercion.

"Intervention may or may not involve the use of force. It is frequently possible for
a powerful state to impair the political independence of another weaker state without
actually utilizing its armed forces. It may be accomplished by the withholding of
recognition of a new government, combined with various forms of economic and
financial pressure until the will of the stronger state prevails through the resignation or
overthrow of the government disapproved."

C. Anlusan’s acts were in blatant violation of the principle of equal rights

and self- determination.

The purpose of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations
based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and
to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Application:

In applying the forgoing principles in the present case, the principle of non-intervention
includes, but is not limited to the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state. As provided under the
compromise, on the day of the Racelian Referendum, there is presence of the Anlusan
Navy within the Anlusan side of the lake Cherno, which gave the Racelians fear for their
safety during and in effect hindered and curtailed the right of the Racelians to exercise
their right to vote in the referendum. The act done by the Anlusan Navy is considered as
an act of intervention which effectively prevented the self-determination of Racel.

In addition, the threats and attacks posted in Feznote and Chriper constitute overt acts
with regard the election intervention during Racelian Referendum, and the IP addresses
of which are found to be similar to that of the Anlusanian intelligence service and
another IP address indicated the servers of Satellite. Lastly, as stated in the
compromis, it has been confirmed by the Flovirien’s cybersecurity and Exelcia Security
Experts that 10% of the cyberattacks against the Racelians on the night and during the
day of the Referendum came from the Anlusan government computers.

Conclusion:

Your Honors, with the foregoing circumstances of this case, it could be concluded that
the Anlusan government is responsible for the commission of an Internationally
Wrongful Act through election intervention.

(Transition)
 To proceed your honors, I will now call on my co-counsel, Ms. Stella Lynn
Amistad, to discuss the 2nd and 3rd proposition on behalf of the Federation of Anlusan.