DMH

20th DM HARISH MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2019
TEAM CODE –Z
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS
GENERAL LIST NO
YEAR 2018
CASE CONCERNING ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF BESELF ACCORD, CLAIMS OF
ASYLUM AND SOVEREIGN INTEGRITY
20TH D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL

INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
THE UNITED STATES THE REPUBLIC

OF V. OF
ENDARABOO GONDON
SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................... IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................. X
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... XI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................................... XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... XIV
BODY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................................. 1
1. GONDON IS VIOLATING THE BESELF ACCORD BY TAKING THE
INTERCEPTED PEOPLE TO ITS OWN TERRITORY. .......................................................... 1
1.1 Gondon is in violation of the Beself Accord in taking the intercepted people to
Gondon. ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Interception of the Boat People was Mala Fide on the part of Gondon. ............... 2
1.3. Gondon has violated theInternational Laws in treatment of the rescued boat people. . 3
1.4. Gondon has violated the Right to Liberty of the Boat People. ..................................... 4
1.5. Violations of ECHR and Fundamental Freedoms Charter of Fundamental Rights of

The European Union ................................................................................................................ 5
2. THAT BESELF ACCORD PROHIBITS GONDON‟S USE OF INVESTIGATIVE

EXAMINATIONS IN ASSESSING THE HOMOSEXUAL ASYLUM CLAIMS. .................. 7
2.1 Gondon is in Violation of Beself Accord. .................................................................... 7
2.2 Gondon is in Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Refugees. ................................. 8
2.3 Gondon has violated International Laws in treatment of the Intercepted Boat
People… ................................................................................................................................ 10
3. GONDON BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BESELF ACCORD BY

CARRYING OUT THE ASSASSINATION OF HAN KIRK. ................................................ 14
3.1 Gondon has Violated the Article 2 of the Beself Accord. .......................................... 14
3.2 Gondon has violated the Article 2 of The Charter of The United Nations. ................ 15
II
3.3 Gondon has violated Customary Laws by Assassinating Han Kirk. ......................... 17
3.4 Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against Internationally

Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents .................................................................. 18
4. ENDARABOO‟S WHALING PROGRAMME IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH BESELF

ACCORD. ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1 Endaraboo has not violated the Beself Accord. .......................................................... 21
4.2 Endaraboo has ceased to be a party to any international agreement or treaty for the
conservation of whales .......................................................................................................... 21
4.3 Whaling moratorium if imposed will violate Article 1 of ICCPR. ............................ 23
4.4. Restriction, if Imposed will bring Grave and Imminent Peril to the Economy of
Endaraboo. ............................................................................................................................. 24
PRAYER ......................................................................................................................................XV
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS & SCHOLARLY ARTICLES
1. Abraham D. Sofaer, The Sixth Annual Waldemar A. Solf Lecture in International Law:
Terrorism, the Law, and the National Defense, 26 MIL. L. REV. 89, 117 (1989)
……………………………………………………………………………………………14
2. AgyebenKissi, Theory in Search of Practice: The Right of Innocent Passage in the
Territorial Sea9 (Oct. 31, 2005)…………………………………………………….……..3
3. Alain Pellet, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary of Bruno Simma's
Commentary, 25 MICH. J. INT'L L. 135 (2003)………………………………….………..15
4. Amy L. CatalinacandGerald Chan, Japan, The West, And The Whaling issue:
Understanding The Japanese side, Japan forum 17(1) 2005: 133-163
…..……………………………………………………………………………..…………23
5. Anthony Clark Arend&Robert J. Beck, International Law &The Use Of Force: Beyond
The Un Charter Paradigm, 31 (1993)……………………………………………..……..19
6. ArtanMurati, Legal Rights and Obligations of States with Regard to Interception at Sea:
Extraterritorial Application of the Principle of Non-refoulement (2012)……………….12
7. Bert Brandenburg, The Legality of Assassination as an Aspect of Foreign Policy, 27
VA.J. INT‟L L., 655 (1987)…………………………………………………………......14
8. Brownlie, Principles of International Law, 421 (Oxford University Press, 2003)
……..……………………………………………………………………………………..25
9. Charles E. Pirtle, Military Uses of Ocean Space and the Law of the Sea in the New
Millennium, 31 Ocean Devel.& INT‟L L. 7, 10 (2000)………………………………...….4
10. Cunningham, A. Critical perspectives on government-sponsored assassinations (New
York Enslow Publishing, LLC, 2018)…....………………………………………...……17
11. David Weissbrodt and Isabel Hortreiter, The Principle of Non-Refoulement: Article 3 of
the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment in Comparison with the Non-Refoulement Provisions of Other International
Human Rights Treaties, 5 BUFF. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 1
(1999)…………………………………………………………………………..………….6
IV
12. JAMES C. HATHAWAY, THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW335

(Cambridge University Press 2005)………………………………………….…………..13
13. Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law 21(Oxford
University Press, 2007)………………………………………………………..…………13
14. Jordan J.Paust, Aggression Against Authority: The Crime of Oppression, Politicide and
Other Crimes Against Human Rights, 18 CASEW. RES. J. INT'L L. 283, 299 (1986)
………………………………………………………………………...………………….20
15. Louis Rene Beres, On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel, 20
HOFSTRA L. REV. 321 (1991)…………………………………………………………….20
16. MarjolieneZieck, Refugees and the Right to freedom of Movement: from Flight to
Return, 39 MICH. J. INT‟L L. 19(2018)……………………………………………….…5
17. Mark V. Vlasic, Assassination & Targeted Killing - A Historical and Post-Bin Laden
Legal Analysis, 43 GEO. J. INT‟L L.,259, 334 (2012)…………………………………….19
18. Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law,
17 YALE J. INT'L L., 609 (1992)…………………………………………………...……..16
19. Michael O‟Flaherty & John Fisher, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International
Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles, 8 (2), 207-248, HRLR
(2008)………………………………………….…………………………………………..7
20. Michelle Foster, Protection Elsewhere: The Legal Implications of Requiring Refugees to
Seek Protection in Another State, 28 MICH. J. INTL L. 223 (2007)………………………12
21. Percy Thomas Fenn, Jr., Origins of the Theory of Territorial Waters, 20 AJIL 465, 465
(1926)………………………………………………………………………………..……4
22. Peter G. G. Davies, Legality of Norwegian Commercial Whaling Under the Whaling
Convention and its Compatibility with European Community Law, 43 INT‟L COM.
L.QUA‟LY , 270-295 (1994)………………………………………….…………………..22
23. Sarah Ignatius, Restricting the Rights of Asylum Seekers: The New Legislative and
Administrative Proposals, 7 HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 225 (1994)…………………………….9
24. Solomon Slonim, The Right of Innocent Passage and the 1958 Geneva Conference on the
Law of the Sea, 5 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT‟L L………………………………………..…….4
V
25. Stephen H. Legomsky, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers
to Third Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection, 15 INT‟L J. REFUGEE L. 567,
573 (2003)………………………………………………………………………………..11
26. William Aron&et al, The Whaling Issue, 24 MARINE POL'Y179, 187 (2000)
……………………………………………………………………………………………25
CASES
27. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua
(Nicaragua v. United States of America); Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 110- 211 (June 27)
…..………………………………………………………………………………………..15
28. Chahal v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 22414/93 Eur. Ct.H.R(1996)……………………9
29. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Assessment of Compensation, 1949 I.C.J.
244 (Dec. 15)……………………………………………………………………………...4
30. Crown v. Al-Banna, [1984] 6 Crim. App. R. 426 (HL)……………………...…………..16
31. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ Rep. 1997, 7, 40,401¶ 51
(1999)…………………………………………………………………………………….25
32. Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, App. no. 43174/10, Eur. Ct.H.R, ¶6 (2011)…….2
33. Greek Case, 1969 Y.B. EUR. CON. H.R., ¶12 (Eur. Comm‟n of H.R.)…………………...5
34. HirsiJamaa and Otrs. v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09, Eur. Ct.H.R, p.60 (2012)…………13
35. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987)
…………………………………………………………………………………………….9
36. Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429 (SCOTUS)
…………………………………………………………………………………………...11
37. Ireland v. United Kingdom, 23 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. B) at 23 (1976)……………………...6
38. Judgment of Sept. 30, 1946, 22; The Trial of German Major War Criminals 411,467 (Int‟l
Mil. Trib. at Nuremberg) ………………………………………………………………..16
39. K v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2005]2, NZAR 441 ¶26(HC) ..........................11
40. Kurt v. Turkey, Appl. No. 15/1997/799/1002, Eur. Ct.H.R., ¶ 212 (1998)………………1
41. Kuzmenko v. Russia, Appl. No. 18541/04, Eur. Ct.H.R., ¶58 (2010)……………………1
42. LG & E Capital Corp. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Award, ¶ 257 (Oct. 3,
2006).……………………………………………………………………………….……24
43. M.B. v. The Netherlands, Appl. No. 63890/16, Eur. Ct.H.R (2017)……………………..8
VI
44. NAFG v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC
152 (FCA)…………………………………...………………………………………...…11
45. Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14038/88, Eur. Ct.H.R, ¶88 (1989)
……...……………………………………………………………………………….……11
46. Tarakhel v. Switzerland,App. No. 29217/12, Eur. Ct.H.R(GC) (2014)………………......6
47. U.S. Supreme Court in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 88 AJIL 114 (1994)
……...………………………………………………………………………………….…10
48. Zentsov and Ors. v. Russia, App. No. 35297/05, Eur. Ct. H.R (2012)…………………....2
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
49. American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 21, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 143……….….13
50. Charter of the Organization of African Unity, May 25, 1963, 2 I.L.M. 766 (1963)
…………………………………………………………………………..………………..17
51. Charter of United Nations, Oct. 24, 1945, 1945 ATS 1…………………………….……14
52. Constitutive Act of the African Union, Art. 4(o), July 11, 2000, 2158 U.N.T.S
………..…………………………………………………………………………………..17
53. Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, 19 L.N.O.J. 23, League of
Nations Doc C.456(I). M.383(I). 1937.V(1938)…………………………………………21
54. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, May 2,
1968, E.T.S. No.46………………………………………………………………………...9
55. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally
Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, Art 1 ¶28, Dec. 14, 1973, U.S.T. 1975,
1035 U.N.T.S. 167……………………………………………………………….………16
56. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9,
1948, 277 U.N.T.S. 78………………………………………………………………..….21
57. European Convention on Human Rights, 1 November 1998, ETS No. 155……..……….5
58. International Convention for The Regulation Of Whaling, Preamble, Dec. 2, 1946, 161
U.N.T.S. 72……………………………………………………………………………....22
59. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.12(4), Mar. 23, 1976, 999
U.N.T.S. 171………………………………………………………...……………………4
60. OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, Sep.
10, 1969, 1001 U.N.T.S. 45…………………………………………..………………….13
VII
61. United Nations Convention on Laws of Seas, art. 17, Dec. 10, 1982, 1983 U.N.T.S. 397
………………………………………………………………..…………………………...3
62. United Nations Refugee Convention, April 22, 1954. 189 U.N.T.S. 150
…………………………………...………………………………………………………10
63. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 14(1), G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc A/810
(Dec. 10, 1948)…………………………………………………………………….…….12
64. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 340
………………………………………….………………………………………………..15
UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS
65. Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, Rep. On its 54thsession.,

June 9, 2000, UNGA Doc. A/ac.96/987 (Oct. 10, 2003)………………………………...2
66. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res.
2625, U.N.GAOR, 25thSess., Supp. No. 28 at 121, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (1971)
……...……………………………………………………………………...……………..19
67. Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-
operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A.Res.
2625(XXV), U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625(Oct. 24, 1970)…………………….……………20
68. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs
of States, G.A.Res. 36/103, U.N.Doc.A/RES/36/103 (Dec. 9, 1981)…………………....20
69. Definition of Aggression, G.A.Res. 3314 (XXIX), art.I, ,U.N.Doc. A/Res/29/3314 (Dec.
14, 1974)…………………………………………………………………………………20
70. High Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comment No 20: Replaces General
Comment 7 Concerning Prohibition of Torture and Cruel Treatment or Punishment, U.N.
Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1…………………………………………………………….....….11
71. International Service for Human Rights, Council Monitor, Council Update – Item 8
Human Rights Council, 10th Session (24 March 2009)…………………………………..8
72. Rep. of the Int‟l Law Comm‟n on the Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, 56th session, Apr. 23- June 1, Jul. 2- Aug. 10, 200, U.N. Doc.
A/56/10;GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (2001)……………………………………….15
VIII
73. Rep. of the Int‟l Law Commission, GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/318/ADD. 49 (1980)
……...…………………………………………………………………………………….24
74. S.C. Res. 911, U.N. SCOR, 43d Seas., U.N. Doc. S/19798, at 15 (1988)……………….16
75. S.C. Statement of rep. of Tunisia U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/PV.2807at 6-7 (1988)
……...…………………………………………………………………………………….16
76. U.N.H.C.R., Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement
Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967
Protocol, 7………………………………………………………………………………..11
77. UNHCR Manual on Refugee Protection and the ECHR Part 2.1 – Fact Sheet on Article 3
…………………………………………………………………………………....………..9
78. UNHRC, Liberty and Security of person, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (Dec. 16, 2014)
………………………………………………………………………..……………………5
79. UNHRC, Report on State Responsibility by Special Rapporteur, The Internationally
Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility, U.N.Doc.
A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7 (1980)……………………………………………………………..25
OTHER AUTHORITIES
80. Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations

under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol
………………………………………………………………...………………………….11
81. Art. Of The International Law Commission‟s Articles on the Responsibility of States for
Internationally Wrongful Acts, 56th Session., 2002, GA Res. 56/83 (2002), Annex (Jan.
10, 2002)…………………………………………………………...…………………….24
82. Chris Anderson, Comment, 13 HAMLINE J.PUB. L. & POL‟Y 291,294 (1992)
…………………………………………………………………...………………………18
83. International Commission on Whaling, 35th meeting, 38, app. III, Office of the
Commission (1983)……………………………………………...………………………24
84. Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the application of international human rights law in
relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, Int. Comm. Of Jurists, p. 6. (March
2007)……………………………………………………………………………………...7
IX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The United States of Endaraboo and The Republic of Gondon have agreed to submit this issue
concerning alleged violations by Gondon of the Beself Accords to the International Court of
Justice pursuant to Article 40 paragraph 1 of the Statute of this Court and by virtue of The
Beself Accords signed and ratified by both the nations. According to Article 21 of the signed
Accord, the Court has jurisdiction to decide all matters referred to it for decision. Both parties
shall accept the Court‟s decision as final and binding and execute it in good faith.
Article 40(1) of ICJ – “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.”
Article 21 of Beself Accord – “Any dispute between the contracting parties concerning any
provision of the Beself Accords shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice for
resolution.”
X
STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
In the continent of Scarifharrow, the countries concerned here are the United States of
Endaraboo (hereinafter “Endaraboo”) and the Republic of Gondon (hereinafter “Gondon”). In
the other continent of Narsillobah, the countries concerned are The Kingdom of Rohor
(hereinafter “Rohor”), The Corsellia Republic (hereinafter “Corsellia”), The State of Vulcoria
(hereinafter “Vulcoria”), and The Democratic Nation of Rallzoth (hereinafter “Rallzoth”). All
these countries collectively comprise Tatoogard. Scarifharrow is an economically prosperous
continent whereas Narsillobah is quite ethnically diverse.
Endaraboo is the third largest country by land mass in the world but with very less population
densities due to its extremely cold climate. Endaraboo has been whaling since the 17th century
and has been hunting varieties of whales such as Narwhals, Belugas, Minke, etc for its meat, oil,
and blubber.
Gondon shares the land boundary with Endaraboo and is one of the wealthiest countries in the
world, which it owes to the oil and natural gas reserves. Gondon is ruled by the Anuron family
after the Gondonian Revolution of 1922.
Corsellia, Rohor, and Rallzoth (hereinafter the “CRR”) are adjacent countries. This CRR region
has witnessed years of political instability and aggression. The KarsmuilPais has been trying to
spread the religion and this has seen the struggle between the joint forces of CRR and Gondon.
THE BESELF ACCORD

The leaders of the Tatoogard region came together to acknowledge that peace and tranquillity
will be good for the people.So all the leaders met on 15th December, 2015, in Beself, the capital
of Vulcoria, for negotiating the possible long-term solutions to peace in the region.
The Beself Accord was considered successful despite not having resolved the maritime and the
land boundary issues. The “sovereignty” clause has been intentionally excluded so as to ward off
numerous frivolous claims to ICJ which may arise.
XI
IMMIGRATION ISSUES
The conflict in CRR region saw the displacement of “boat people” to cross the Andurion Sea and
reach Endaraboo in search of better jobs and life. Endaraboo welcomed them with open arms and
provided them with manual jobs with regards to Immigrant Employment Guarantee Act 2014, as
they were getting cheap labour. Some of these boat people crossed over to Gondon in search of
better opportunities.
But, Gondon sent them back to Corsellia where they were being persecuted. This activity was
deeply regretted in the international field in the case of Aragorn Skysleeper v. Republic of
Gondon as this was violative of the principle of non- refoulment. The President of Gondon, Mr
SaakinAnuron gave the statement that all those people will be given a new home after their cases
are examined and granted them the status of refugees.
The living condition of these refugees was pathetic inspite of being provided with the amenities
by Gondon. Their travel documents and passports were seized and since they did not possessed
work permits, it was no wonder that they got manual labour in the oil and gas industries which
happened to be abundant. Even after severe criticism from various sources the conditions were
not improved.
HOMOSEXUAL CASES BEING REJECTED

The cases of homosexuality were checked by the process of psychological tests which included
Draw-A-Person-In-The-Rain Test, Rorschach Ink Blot Test, and Szondi Nonverbal Projective
Personality Test to determine the sexual orientation of the person. No wonder 80% of the cases
were rejected for grant of asylum.
ASSASSINATION OF HAN KIRK

Han Kirk happens to be the founder of the KarsmuilPais and was travelling in a boat to
Endaraboo. This boat was intercepted by Gondon and while claiming asylum via forged
documents, Han Kirk was captured and was held liable for terrorism activities. Han Kirk evaded
the prison and sought asylum in the embassy of Endaraboo where he was granted the post of
consultant. Gondon took the initiative of a covert operation and assassinated Han Kirk via nerve
agents; it was supposed to part of Gondon‟s war against KarsmuilPais
XII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The parties have placed before this Hon’ble Court the following questions for its
consideration:-
1. Whether Gondon has violated the Beself Accord by taking the intercepted boat people to
Gondon?
2. Whether Gondon‟s use of investigative examinations in assessing the homosexual asylum

claims violative of Beself Accord?
3. Whether Gondon has breached the Beself Accord by carrying out the assassination of
Han Kirk?
4. Whether Endaraboo‟s practice of whaling has violated the Beself Accord?
The Applicant has duly addressed all the aforementioned in the form of four substantive
arguments advanced, summarized hereafter.
XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

INTERCEPTED PEOPLE TO ITS OWN TERRITORY
The interception of the boat people was not done with an honest purpose and the
aftermath of the same was reflected with the activities which were carried out in Gondon. The
Right to Consume Clean Water was violated and the place where they were made to stay was in
pitiable condition. The entire process was just carried out by Gondon to get itself cheap labour in
the name of providing asylum which was clearly evident when the boat people were not issued
work permit and were made to work below minimum wages.
2. THAT BESELF ACCORD PROHIBITS GONDON’S USE OF INVESTIGATIVE
EXAMINATIONS IN ASSESSING THE HOMOSEXUAL ASYLUM CLAIMS
The sexual orientation of a person should not be a factor which bars a person from
gaining the status of a refugee. The status is a matter of human rights which were denied to the
boat people who were homo sexual just on the basis of their sexual orientation. No matter what
the situation is the basic human rights which are guaranteed cannot be taken away or denied to
any individual on this basis.
3. GONDON BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BESELF ACCORD
BY CARRYING OUT THE ASSASSINATION OF HAN KIRK
Assassination included the violation of territorial integrity of the nation. It has been
condemned worldwide. The very act of assassinating calls a very serious situation to be studied
as the basic human rights have been violated by Gondon in their war against the KarsmuilPais.
Their action has the potential of creating a war like situation and is totally violative of the Beself
Accord.
4. ENDARABOO’S WHALING PROGRAMME IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH
BESELF ACCORD
Whaling has been a practice which is prevalent in the state of Endaraboo. The image of
Endaraboo is dependent upon whaling as the tourism industry is the sole process of gaining
income and stabilises the country‟s income. Whaling provides employment to the population as
they engage in the long known practice which is prevalent in Endaraboo.
XIV
BODY OF ARGUMENTS

INTERCEPTED PEOPLE TO ITS OWN TERRITORY.
¶1 The Beself Accord was the product of the negotiations which took place on December 15,
2015 in Beself, which happens to be the capital of Vulcoria, a country in the Narsillobah
Continent.1All of the countries present in the Tatoogard Region 2 were in consonance with
the Beself Accord and had signed and ratified the same by 15th January, 2016.3
1.1 Gondon is in violation of the Beself Accord in taking the intercepted people to
Gondon.
A) Violation of Article 3 of The Beself Accord.
¶2 All the states have agreed to abide by the rules of International Law which governs the
conduct in seas. They are in complete consonance with this aspect of Article 3 of the
Beself Accord but desist in accepting the supremacy of the Accord if the issue which
arises is concerned with the “delimitation of maritime boundaries.”4 In the instant case,
Gondon has violated the International Laws governing conduct in the seas by carrying out
the interception of boat people.
B) Violation of Article 13 of The Beself Accord.
¶3 According to Article 13, all the contracting parties are bound by the Accord and shall
strive to uphold mechanisms to ensure free and fair regional trade and to implement
human rights.
¶4 The cases which include disappearances5, torture, ill-treatment6, inhuman or degrading
treatment,7 and conditions of detention8 are said to grossly violate the Human Rights of
1
Compromis,¶ 11.
2
Compromis,¶ 1.
3
Compromis,¶ 14.
4
Compromis,¶ 13.
5
Kurt v. Turkey, Appl. No. 15/1997/799/1002, Eur. Ct.H.R., ¶ 212 (1998).
6
Kuzmenko v. Russia, Appl. No. 18541/04, Eur. Ct.H.R., ¶58 (2010).
1
the Refugees. In the instant case, the intercepted people were taken to Gondon and their
travel documents and passports were seized,9 which amounts to detention. Moreover, the
boat people were being accommodated in deplorable makeshift camps and there were
frequent outbreaks of diseases.10 The people were working in Gondon‟s Oil and Gas
Factories, and since they were not having any work permits and they were paid below
minimum wages.11 This is a clear violation of Article 13 of the Beself Accord.
1.2 The Interception of the Boat People was Mala Fide on the part of Gondon.
¶5 The Executive Committee of the UNHCR issued a Conclusion, redefining the term
Interception as one of the measures employed by states to:
(i) prevent embarkation of persons on an international journey;
(ii) prevent further onward international travel by persons who have
commenced their journey; or
(iii) assert control of vessels where there are reasonable grounds to believe
the vessel is transporting persons contrary to international or national
maritime law; where, in relation to the above, the person or persons do
not have the required documentation or valid permission to enter; and
that such measures also serve to protect the lives and security of the
travelling public as well as persons being smuggled or transported in
an irregular manner.12
¶6 State Authorities and Agents acting on behalf of the intercepting State should take,
consistent with their obligations under International Law, all appropriate steps in the
implementation of interception measures to preserve and protect the right to life and the
right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
7
Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, App. no. 43174/10, Eur. Ct.H.R, ¶ 6 (2011).
8
Zentsov and Ors. v. Russia, App. No. 35297/05, Eur. Ct. H.R (2012).
9
Compromis, ¶ 18.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, Rep. On its 54 thsession., June 9, 2000, UNGA
Doc. A/ac.96/987 (Oct. 10, 2003).
2
punishment ofpersons intercepted.13 They are entitled to the protection of their nation
regardless of the fact that they are travelling on a Stateless vessel.14
¶7 Gondon was an extremely dangerous place for refugees. They could not even avail
themselves the protection of the law due to the dismissal of numerous petitions which
were filed concerning the boat people and their treatment by Gondonian Authorities.
Moreover, their Passports and Documents were seized and they were detained. They
had to work in Oil and Natural Gas Factories of Gondon, and were paid much less than
the minimum wage.15 Thus,contributing towards the growth of Gondon‟s economy.
¶8 Many more are held captive by various authorities,16 including unscrupulous employers
exploiting them for labour. Also according to Mr. Ganollum Golldalf, who happens to
be one of the most prominent foreign policy commentator, Gondon is intercepting boats
and in the name of rescue getting cheap labour for its Oil and Gas Companies which
amounts to trafficking.17
1.3. Gondon has violated theInternational Laws in treatment of the rescued boat
people.
A) Violation of United Nations Convention on Law of Seas
i) Right of innocent passage has been violated.
¶9 Anchored in Part 2 of the UNCLOS, Innocent Passage18 says, that, navigation through
coastal waters of a state by a foreign ship is peaceful and not offensive. In the territorial
sea, “Ships of all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent
passage.19”
13
16, A. Dastyari, United States Migrant Interdiction and The Detention Of Refugees In Guatanamo Bay (3 rd ed.
2016).
14
Supra Note 12.
15
Compromis, ¶ 19.
16
Compromis, ¶ 24.
17
Compromis, ¶ 19.
18
United Nations Convention on Laws of Seas, art.17, Dec. 10, 1982, 1983 U.N.T.S. 397. [hereinafterUNCLOS]
19
AgyebenKissi, Theory in Search of Practice: The Right of Innocent Passage in the Territorial Sea9 (Oct. 31, 2005)
(Unpublished Manuscript; Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers).
3
¶10 The very term “innocent passage” implies two prerequisites for its exercise:
(a) That passage be “innocent,” i.e., not of such a nature as to affect the security
or welfare of the coastal state; and
(b) That “passage” only may be exercised, to the exclusion of such acts as
“hovering” or anchoring in the territorial seas.20
ii) There was no hovering of the boat.
¶11 Passage is required to be continuous and expeditious.21 Ships are not allowed to „hover‟
or cruise around in the territorial sea, because, regardless of whether or not they are
„innocent‟, they would not be engaged in passage.22 In Corfu Channel23 judgment, the
Court held that it was not the character of the ship which was the determining factor, but
rather the character of the passage itself.
¶12 With the emergence of the jus gentium - law of nations, it was reasserted that the sea
existed for free access to all men.24 It is the common highway of all, appropriated to the
use of all, and no one can vindicate to himself a superior or exclusive prerogative there.25
1.4. Gondon has violated the Right to Liberty of the Boat People.
A) The International CovenantOf Civil And Political Rights.
¶13 The liberty of movement and freedom to choose one‟s residence is enshrined in article 12
of the ICCPR26. Therefore, the seizure of the travel documents and passports of the
intercepted boat people27 involves derogation from the Article 12 of ICCPR and is
contrary to International Law.
20
Solomon Slonim, The Right of Innocent Passage and the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, 5
COLUM. J. TRANSNAT‟L L. 96, 97 (1966).
21
UNCLOS, Supra Note 18, Art. 18(2).
22
3, R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, The Law of The Sea, 82 (Manchester University Press 1998).
23
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Assessment of Compensation, 1949 I.C.J. 244 (Dec. 15).
24
Percy Thomas Fenn, Jr., Origins of the Theory of Territorial Waters, 20 AJIL 465, 465 (1926).
25
Charles E. Pirtle, Military Uses of Ocean Space and the Law of the Sea in the New Millennium, 31 Ocean Devel.&
INT‟L L. 7, 10 (2000).
26
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art.12(4), Mar. 23, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. [(hereinafter
ICCPR]
27
Compromis, ¶ 18.
4
¶13 Secondly, Article 9 of the ICCPR which states that, “Everyone has the right to liberty and
security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary detention. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as
are established by law,” applies to everyone, including refugees and asylum seekers.28
¶14 The ICCPR does not provide an enumeration of permissible reasons for depriving a
person of liberty, but the HRC addressed detention during proceeding for the control of
immigration in its General Comment on Article 9.29 Deprivation of liberty includes police
custody, remand detention, administrative detention, confinement to a restricted area
etc.30 Gondon has subjected the refugees to arbitrary detention by seizing their travel
documents and thus, has violated the provisions of ICCPR.
1.5. Violations of ECHR and Fundamental Freedoms Charter of Fundamental Rights of
The European Union
¶15 The word “torture” is often used to describe inhuman treatment, which has a purpose,
such as the obtaining of information or confession, or the infliction of punishment, and is
generally an aggravated form of inhuman treatment. Treatment or Punishment of an
individual may be said to be degrading if it grossly humiliates him before others or drives
him to act against his will or conscience.31
¶16 Article 3 of the ECHR stipulates that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment”32. The European Commission of Human Rights
described the concepts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as the
notion of inhuman treatment covers at least such treatment as deliberately causing severe
suffering, mental or physical, which, in a particular situation, is unjustifiable.33
28
UNHRC, Liberty and Security of person, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (Dec. 16, 2014).
29
MarjolieneZieck, Refugees and the Right to freedom of Movement: from Flight to Return, 39 MICH. J. INT‟L L.
19(2018).
30
Supra Note 24 ¶5.
31
Id.
32
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3, 1 November 1998, ETS No. 155. [hereinafter ECHR]
33
Greek Case, 1969 Y.B. EUR. CON. H.R., ¶12 (Eur. Comm‟n of H.R.).
5
¶17 The European Court of Human Rights in Ireland v. United Kingdom,34confirmed and
declared that the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim‟s conduct unlike most of
the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes
no provision for exceptions and, under Article 15(2), there can be no derogation even in
the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.35
¶18 The right in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights is the right
guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR, which says that “no one shall be subjected to
torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.36”
¶19 In a judgment on the issue37, the Court has found that Greece did not meet its obligations
under Article 3 because it did not secure to the applicant adequate reception conditions
when his asylum procedure was pending.38 In the instant case, while the individual claims
and background checks were in progress, for long periods thereafter, the people were in
miserable conditions.39
¶20 The convention makes it prohibitory in absolute terms the torture, inhuman and degrading
treatment which is clearly violated by Gondon. Therefore, Gondon is liable for the
violations of ECPHR and EU Convention.
34
Ireland v. United Kingdom, 23 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. B) at 23 (1976).
35
Supra note 20.
36
David Weissbrodt and Isabel Hortreiter, The Principle of Non-Refoulement: Article 3 of the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Comparison with the Non-
Refoulement Provisions of Other International Human Rights Treaties, 5 BUFF. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 1 (1999).
37
Tarakhel v. Switzerland,App. No. 29217/12, Eur. Ct. H.R(GC) (2014).
38
Id.
39
Compromis,¶ 18.
6
2. THAT BESELF ACCORD PROHIBITS GONDON’S USE OF INVESTIGATIVE

EXAMINATIONS IN ASSESSING THE HOMOSEXUAL ASYLUM CLAIMS.
2.1 Gondon is in Violation of Beself Accord.
¶21 Beself Accord clearly states that all contracting parties shall secure to everyone within
their jurisdiction Civil and Political Rights40 and also to implement Human Rights.41
According to this Accord, Gondon is prohibited from using any of the investigative
examinations42 in assessing the homosexual claims by the asylum seekers, which violates
their civil and political rights.
i) Sexual Orientation
¶22 “Sexual orientation” refers to a person‟s capacity for profound emotional, affection and
sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different
gender or the same gender, or more than one gender.43
¶23 Sexual orientation is a relatively recent notion in human rights law and practice and one
of the controversial ones in politics. Prejudices, negative stereotypes and discrimination
are deeply imbedded in our value system and patterns of behavior. For many public
officials and opinion-makers the expression of homophobic prejudice remains both
legitimate and respectable in a manner that would be unacceptable for any other minority.
Denial of the recognition of human rights for any group of individuals is a denial of their
humanity.44
ii) Yogyakarta Principles
¶24 In the year 2009, Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human
Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity was launched.45 The
40
Compromis, ¶13.
41
Article 13, Beself Accord.
42
Compromis, ¶ 21.
43
Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual
orientation and gender identity, Int. Comm. Of Jurists, p. 6. (March 2007).
44
9, Global recognition of human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, HEALTH AND HUMAN
RIGHTS VOL. 1-33,42(2006).
45
Michael O‟Flaherty & John Fisher, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law:
Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles, 8 (2), 207-248, HRLR (2008).
7
principles are an attempt to apply existing International Human Rights Law in the area of
sexual orientation and gender identity. Though holding no legal position as such, the
principles have been supported by several countries, including all three Scandinavian.46
¶25 The 23rd Principle details the right to seek asylum and states that,
“Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution, including persecution related to sexual orientation or
gender identity. A State may not remove, expel or extradite a person to
any State where that person may face a well-founded fear of torture,
persecution, or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity”.
2.2 Gondon is in Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Refugees.
A) The Mechanism of testing which was adopted by the authorities violated their
Fundamental Rights.
¶26 In the case of M.B. against the Netherlands,47 the European Court of Human Rights has
ruled that, all the tests relating to homosexuality violates the fundamental rights. The
Luxembourg-based European Court Justice ruled in favour of three Dutch-based asylum
applicants. The Netherlands had rejected their asylum applications on the grounds that
their sexual orientation had not been proven.48
“The Luxembourg judges found the practice infringes human dignity and
ruled that methods used to assess the statements and the evidence
submitted in support of applications for asylum must be consistent with
EU law and the EU‟s charter of fundamental rights. The ruling applies to
all EU member states.”
¶27 The European Court of that the member states of the EU could not use the psychological
evaluations because they amount to “an interference with that person‟s right to respect
for his private life”49. In the instant case, Gondon conducted „mandatory‟ investigative
46
International Service for Human Rights, Council Monitor, Council Update – Item 8 Human Rights Council, 10th
Session (24 March 2009).
47
M.B. v. The Netherlands, Appl. No. 63890/16, Eur. Ct.H.R (2017).
48
Id.
49
Supra Note 32, Art. 8.
8
examinations on the boat people to look into the claims of Homosexuality.50 This
amounts to violation of their rights enshrined under Article 3, Article 4 and Article 13 of
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.51
i) Gondon’s deporting back of the rejected applicants cannot be justified
according to the Refugee Convention.
¶28 A person eligible for a grant of asylum if he or she has suffered past persecution or has a
well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.52 A grant of asylum requires a showing that
persecution is a “reasonable possibility,” which, in certain circumstances, can mean that
someone with a mere “one in ten” chance of persecution may be eligible for asylum.53
¶29 In Cardoza-Fonseca54, the case of a Nicaraguan national applying for asylum in the
USA, the Court ruled that, “the alien need not prove that it is more likely than not that he
or she will be persecuted upon return to his or her home country, it is enough to show
that persecution is a reasonable possibility.”55
ii) Violation of Article 3 of Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
¶30 Article 3 has been interpreted by the Courts as providing an effective means of protection
against all forms of return to places where there is a risk that an individual would be
subjected to torture, or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.56 This was
reaffirmed in Chahal v. United Kingdom57 which found that the deportation of a rejected
asylum-seeker, would give rise to a violation of Article 3. The Court ruled that,
50
Compromis, ¶21.
51
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, May 2, 1968, E.T.S. No.46.
52
Sarah Ignatius, Restricting the Rights of Asylum Seekers: The New Legislative and Administrative Proposals, 7
HARV. HUM. RTS. J. 225 (1994).
53
Supra Note 7.
54
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987).
55
Id.
56
UNHCR Manual on Refugee Protection and the ECHR Part 2.1 – Fact Sheet on Article 3.
57
Chahal v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 22414/93 Eur. Ct.H.R(1996).
9
“It is well-established in the case-law of the Court that expulsion by a

Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence
engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where
substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in
question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. In these circumstances,
Article 3 implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that
country.”
2.3 Gondon has violated International Laws in treatment of the Intercepted Boat
People.
i) Transfer of Boat People violates the principle of Non-Refoulement.
¶31 The principle of non-refoulement constitutes the cornerstone of international refugee
protection. It is enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention. Article 33(1) states that,
“No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom
would be threatened on account of his [or her] race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion.58
¶32 The principle of non-refoulement is an established principle of international refugee law,
which makes it obligatory for the State that as such the persons may be refugees, should
not be returned or expelled pending a final determination of their status.
¶33 The principle has acquired the legal force of International Customary Law,59 these
obligations go even so far as to prohibit States from expelling or returning a refugee to a
country where his or her life or safety would be threatened on account of race, religion,
nationality, or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.60
¶34 UNHCR is of the view that the prohibition of refoulement of refugees, as enshrined in
Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugeesand complemented by
non-refoulement obligations under International Human Rights Law, satisfies these
58
United Nations Refugee Convention, Art. 33, April 22, 1954. 189 U.N.T.S. 150. (hereinafter Refugee Convention)
59
U.S. Supreme Court in Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, 88 AJIL 114 (1994).
60
Supra Note 9.
10
criteria and constitutes a rule of customary International Law.61State practice62 and

opinion-juris63 affirm that de jure compliance to the Refugee Convention is not a pre-
requisite, as the principle of non-refoulement has attained the status of customary
International Law.64 Therefore, Gondon cannot be oblivious to the obligation of non-
Refoulement,65 as well as the provision against inhumane treatment and torture66.
¶35 Further, state practice67 consistently shows that for a violation of non-refoulement, the
individuals in question must be specifically threatened68, due to past persecution,69 as
opposed to a general perception of fear of persecution, due to a bad Human Rights
situation.70
¶36 With regard to de facto refugees who attempt to escape from the horrors of civil war in
particular, States are at least under a moral obligation to demonstrate human solidarity
vis-a-vis the victims. Within a civilized community, it is only natural that even those who
cannot invoke an international legal instrument should find refuge in some other country.
If human dignity - proclaimed as it is time and again as the supreme element in a
hierarchy of values to be protected is to mean anything, a policy of shutting our doors to
61
Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.
62
NAFG v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 152 (FCA); Kola v.
MIMA [2002] 120 F.C.R. 170(FCA); Patto v. MIMA [2000] 106 F.C.R. 119 (FCA).
63
Stephen H. Legomsky, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The
Meaning of Effective Protection, 15 INT‟L J. REFUGEE L. 567, 573 (2003).
64
U.N.H.C.R., Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 7.
65
High Commissioner for Human Rights, General Comment No 20: Replaces General Comment 7 Concerning
Prohibition of Torture and Cruel Treatment or Punishment, U.N. Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev 1.
66
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 429(SCOTUS).
67
Supra Note 66.
68
R v. Secy of State for the Home Dept [1988] 1 All ER 193 (HL).
69
Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14038/88, Eur. Ct.H.R, ¶88 (1989).
70
K v. Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2005]2, NZAR 441 ¶26(HC).
11
those in mortal danger would symbolize a deadly blow to the very idea of the
international protection of human rights.71
¶37 The rejection of the homosexuality-based asylum claims had violated the principle of
non-refoulement since, the transfer does not fall within the ambit of Protection Elsewhere
Doctrine72 and that there is no such sufficient guarantee for the protection and welfare of
these people in their own country where they were facing persecution because of their
sexual preferences.73 Therefore, Gondon is obliged not to deport back the rejected
applicants in the instant case.
ii) The forceful push back of the asylum seekers amounts to violation of their
Human Rights.
¶38 The concept of international protection relies on an international framework and on the
continued practice of states in providing asylum to millions of refugees. The provision of
asylum remains the single most important function for the protection of persons in need.
Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that, “Everyone
has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”74
¶39 This principle covers not only expulsion and return but also measures such as rejection at
the frontier. It applies to persons who have a well-founded fear of persecution in the sense
of the 1951 Refugee Convention as well as to persons fleeing situations of violence and
armed conflict.
¶40 European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently been interpreted to
include the prohibition of refoulement75 to places where individuals may fear torture,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.76
71
Garvey J., Towards a reformulation of International Refugee Law, 26 HARVARD. ILJ 483 (1985).
72
Michelle Foster, Protection Elsewhere: The Legal Implications of Requiring Refugees to Seek Protection in
Another State, 28 MICH. J. INTL L. 223 (2007).
73
Compromis,¶21.
74
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 14(1), G.A. Res. 217A(III), U.N. Doc A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).
[hereinafter UDHR]
75
Supra Note 32, Art. 3.
76
ArtanMurati, Legal Rights and Obligations of States with Regard to Interception at Sea: Extraterritorial
Application of the Principle of Non-refoulement (2012) (unpublished A.M. thesis Lund University) (On file with the
Lund University Libraries).
12
¶41 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa also
includes a non-refoulement clause and provides that, “no person shall be subjected to
measures such as rejection at the frontier, return or expulsion, which would compel him
to return to or remain in a territory where his life, physical integrity or liberty would be
threatened.”77
¶42 Another regional instrument that includes provision in respect to the nonrefoulement is
the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which states that:
“In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless
of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life
or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race,
nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions”.78
¶43 In light of the instruments above that include the principle of non-refoulement in their
provisions, it should be noted that the principle of non-refoulement is also a human rights
principle. However, unlike the non-refoulement under Article 33 of the Refugee
Convention from which derogations are allowed, the non-refoulement under human rights
law is absolute.79 This proves that the principle of non-refoulement has attained a status
of customary International Law.
¶44 The prohibition of refoulement has evolved at the universal level beyond the scope of
Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.80 Thus, it is shown to be a principle of Customary
International Law binding on all States, even those not parties to the UN Refugee
Convention or any other treaty for the protection of refugees.81
¶45 Hence, Gondon is in violation of Beself Accord and as well as International Laws in
conducting investigative Examinations for Homosexuality on the Boat People.
77
OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, art.2 (3) Sep. 10, 1969, 1001
U.N.T.S. 45.
78
American Convention on Human Rights, art.22(8), Nov. 21, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 143. [hereinafter American
convention]
79
Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law, 21 (Oxford University Press, 2007).
80
James C. Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under International Law, 335 (Cambridge University Press 2005).
81
Hirsi Jamaa and Otrs. v. Italy, App. No. 27765/09, Eur. Ct.H.R, p.60 (2012).
13
3. GONDON BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BESELF ACCORD

BY CARRYING OUT THE ASSASSINATION OF HAN KIRK.
¶46 International Law prohibits any intentional killing of an internationally protected person82
for political purposes.83 The assassination of Han Kirk, who at that time was in the
embassy of Endaraboo84, in the territory of Gondon, amounted to the violation of Article
2 of the Beself Accord.85 Gondon in not respecting the territorial integrity86 and acting
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,violated the UN Charter which leads
to the violation of the Beself Accord as a domino effect.87
3.1 Gondon has Violated the Article 2 of the Beself Accord.
¶47 Article 2 of the Beself Accord states that,
“All contracting parties shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any of the contracting parties.”88
¶48 The same thing is enshrined as the upholding principle in the UN Charter89. This depicts
the importance that has been attached to the political independence and how that is
present for each and every nation.Axiomatically, Gondon has violated the guiding
principles and the reason‟d‟etaire of the Charter by assassinating Han Kirk.
¶49 National sovereignty as the highest authority, independent of state laws, with respect to
the citizens and subjects of the state.90 A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
82
Bert Brandenburg, The Legality of Assassination as an Aspect of Foreign Policy, 27 VA.J. INT‟L L., 655 (1987).
83
Abraham D. Sofaer, The Sixth Annual Waldemar A. Solf Lecture in International Law: Terrorism, the Law, and
the National Defense, 26 MIL. L. REV. 89, 117 (1989).
84
Compromis, ¶ 24.
85
Compromis, ¶ 13.
86
UN, Charter of United Nations, art. 2(4), oct. 24, 1945, 1945 ATS 1. [hereinafterUN Charter]
87
Id.
88
Supra Note 2.
89
Supra Note 3.
90
Hans Wehberg, PactaSuntServanda, 53 AM. J. INT‟L L. 775 (1959).
14
accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their
context and in the light of its object and purpose.91
¶50 Force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. A
party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty.92 This rule is without prejudice to Article 46.
3.2 Gondon has violated the Article 2 of The Charter of The United Nations.
¶51 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.93 As ICJ put forth in
Nicaragua94, “under International Law in force today whether customary International
Law or that of the United Nations System-States does not have a right of „collective‟
armed response to acts which do not constitute an „armed attack‟95. This also holds true
for „individual responses. In such cases, such reprisals are-supposedly strictly prohibited
and only collective security measures must come into play.96
¶52 In the instant case, there was no immediate threat to Gondon, however, Gondon as a
result or as a cause of this situation, duly exhibited its strong tendency to use force in
order to make good, their alleged rights-even without them being victims of an illegal use
of force. It is indeed a flagrant violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter, as well as of the
laws of state responsibility.97
¶53 The United Nations has condemned the use of force on many occasions, most notably in
the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and
91
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art.31(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 340. [hereinafter VCLT]
92
VCLT, supra note 91, art. 27.
93
UN Charter, supra note 86, art.2(4).
94
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America); Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 110- 211 (June 27).
95
Supra Note 94.
96
Alain Pellet, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary of Bruno Simma's Commentary, 25 MICH. J. INT'L
L. 135 (2003).
97
Rep. of the Int‟l Law Comm‟n on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 56 th session,
Apr. 23- June 1, Jul. 2- Aug. 10, 200, U.N. Doc. A/56/10;GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (2001).
15
Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Any
ban on assassination,comports with this principle.98 Indeed, any state-sponsored
assassination, however defined, would probably violate the prohibition on the use of
force contained in Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.99 Court of Appeals of Mantibo,
Canadain the case of Crown v. Gill,100 upheld a harsh sentence applied to conspirators in
an assassination plot against Rajiv Gandhi.Similarly, in Crown v. Al-Banna101, the court
upheld the sentences of three Palestine National Liberation Movement members
convicted of the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador to Great Britain.102
¶54 The assassination of Abu Jihad who was a top PLO military strategist was previously
been implicated in several terrorist attacks against Israel.103 Tunisia brought the matter to
the attention of the Security Council, claiming a violation of its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. By a vote of fourteen to none, the United States abstaining, the Security Council
denounced the Israeli action.104 Extraterritorial targeting qualifies as a use of force for
purposes of Article 2(4); that is the position of both the U.N, 105 and most scholars.106
According to UNHRC report, intentional and premeditated use of lethal force deliberately
to kill, by a state in an armed conflict against the individual who is not in the custody of
the perpetrator amounts to targeted killing.
98
Michael N. Schmitt, State-Sponsored Assassination in International and Domestic Law, 17 YALE J. INT'L L., 609
(1992).
99
Id.
100
R. v. Gill [1989] Crim. L.R. 358 (HL).
101
Crown v. Al-Banna, [1984] 6 Crim. App. R. 426 (HL).
102
Id.
103
S.C. Statement of rep. of Tunisia U.N. SCOR, U.N. Doc. S/PV.2807at 6-7 (1988).
104
S.C. Res. 911, U.N. SCOR, 43d Seas., U.N. Doc. S/19798, at 15 (1988).
105
Philip Alston Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions ,34 U.N. Doc.
A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, (May 28, 2010).
106
Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law 51 (Oxford Union Press, 2008).
16
3.3 Gondon has violated Customary Laws by Assassinating Han Kirk.

A) Customary International Law
¶55 Due to its pervasiveness, the prohibition of wartime assassination has become part of
customary International Law.107 Such an extension is supported byother sources of
International Law that prohibit assassination during peacetime.108 Together, they
constitute persuasive evidence of a peace time ban of assassination under customary
International Law.109
B) Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)
¶56 The charter110 explicitly addresses assassination, pursuant to Article 111(5), OAU
members adhere to the principle of “unreserved condemnation, in all its forms, of
political assassination”.111
¶57 Article 4 recognizes a number of principles, including Article 4(o) which says that,
“respect for the sanctity of human life, condemnation and rejection of impunity and
political assassination, acts of terrorism and subversive activities.”112
¶58 The current international treaties, as exemplified by the UN Charter, the New York
Convention, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and extradition treaties, agree that
assassination is an illegal act, prohibited by International Law113 would follow then, that
International Law would forbid any government action to assassinate an individual during
peacetime conditions, because such an act would be an unlawful use of force.
107
Judgment of Sept. 30, 1946, 22; The Trial of German Major War Criminals 411, 467 (Int‟l Mil. Trib. at
Nuremberg).
108
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including
Diplomatic Agents, Art 1 ¶28, Dec. 14, 1973, U.S.T. 1975, 1035 U.N.T.S. 167. [hereinafter New York Convention]
109
Brandenburg, Supra Note 82.
110
Charter of the Organization of African Unity, May 25, 1963, 2 I.L.M. 766 (1963).
111
New York Convention Art 5.
112
Constitutive Act of the African Union, Art.4(o), July 11, 2000, 2158 U.N.T.S.
113
Cunningham, A. Critical perspectives on government-sponsored assassinations (New York Enslow Publishing,
LLC, 2018).
17
¶59 The International Law of assassination differs, however, when states are involved in
armed conflict; during armed conflict, a separate doctrine of law applies, the International
Law of war, referred to by some as international humanitarian law (IHL).114
3.4 Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against Internationally
Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents
¶60 Article 1of the Convention defines a protected person as:
(a) a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the
functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned, a Head
of Government or a Minister of Foreign Affairs, whenever any such person is in a
foreign State, as well as members of his family who accompany him;
(b) any representative or official of a State or any official or other agent of an
international organization of an intergovernmental character who, at the time
when and in the place where a crime against him, his official premises, his private
accommodation or his means of transport is committed, is entitled pursuant to
International Law to special protection from any attack on his person, freedom or
dignity, as wellas members of his family forming part of his household.115
¶61 In the instant case, the term “assassination” is signifying the targeted116 killing of an
individual, byan official agent of a nation, regardless of whether a state of war exists.117
Philosopher of International Law, all assassinations are contrary to the laws of war, and
equally condemned bythe law of nature118 and the consent of all civilized nations.”119
¶61 The Convention is an attempt to encourage criminalization of violent acts committed
against certain internationally protected persons.120 Article 2(a) of the Convention
criminalizes, inter alia, the “international commission of murder, kidnapping or other
114
Derek Jinks, The Laws of War, 28 YALEJ. INT‟L L. 1 (2003).
115
Brandenburg, supra note 82.
116
Schmitt, supra note 98.
117
Chris Anderson, Comment, 13 HAMLINE J.PUB. L. & POL‟Y 291,294 (1992).
118
William H. Boothby, Micheal N. Schmitt, THE LAW OF TARGETING (OXFORD PRESS, 2012).
119
Id.
120
Schmitt, Supra Note 98.
18
attack upon the person or liberty of an Internationally Protected Person.121 The treaty
provides full protection against assassination only when the individual is in a foreign
state.122
A) Non-Applicability of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
¶62 Article 51 of the United Nations Charter states that,
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary
to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members
in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at
any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security.”
¶63 The U.N. Charter contains four explicit exceptions to the Article 2(4) prohibition on the
use of force, namely force that is:
(i) used in self-defense;
(ii) authorized by the Security Council;
(iii) undertaken bythe five major powers before the Security Council is
functional; and
(iv) undertaken against the „enemy‟ states of the Second World War.123
¶64 None of these requirements have been satisfied, and hence, the step taken by Gondon is
not according to the sanctity of this charter.In view of the jus cogensnorm of non-
intervention124, codified in the United Nations Charter,125 which would ordinarily be
121
New York Convention, Supra Note 103.
122
Mark V. Vlasic, Assassination & Targeted Killing - A Historical and Post-Bin Laden Legal Analysis, 43 GEO. J.
INT‟L L.,259, 334 (2012).
123
Anthony Clark Arend&Robert J. Beck, International Law &The Use Of Force: Beyond The UN Charter
Paradigm, 31 (1993).
124
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625, U.N.GAOR, 25thSess., Supp. No. 28 at 121,
U.N. Doc. A/8028 (1971).
19
violated by transnational assassination, such killing would generally qualify as

aggression.126
B) Assassination during the Condition of Peace is Aggression against Endaraboo.
¶65 Under normal circumstances, the assassination of officials in other states (not terrorists
who are being sheltered in these states), always represents a violation of International
Law, inter alia, as a clear form of impermissible intervention. Where no condition of war
exists, such assassination would likely exhibit the crime of aggression and/or the crime of
terrorism.127
¶66 Regarding aggression, Article 1 of the Resolution on the Definition of Aggression defines
this crime, among other things, as: “The use of armed force bya State against the
sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this
Definition.”128
i) Deviation from the principle of jus cogens.
¶67 In view of the jus cogensnorm of non-intervention129 codified in the U.N.Charter130 that
would ordinarily be violated bytransnational assassination, such killing would generally
qualify as aggression.131 In the absence of belligerency, assassination of officials in one
state upon the orders of another state might also be considered as terrorism.132 Although
125
UN Charter, Supra Note 86.
126
Louis Rene Beres, On Assassination as Anticipatory Self-Defense: The Case of Israel, 20 HOFSTRA L. REV. 321
(1991).
127
Jordan J.Paust, Aggression Against Authority: The Crime of Oppression, Politicide and Other Crimes Against
Human Rights, 18 CASEW. RES. J. INT'L L. 283, 299 (1986).
128
Definition of Aggression, G.A.Res. 3314 (XXIX), art.I, ,U.N.Doc. A/Res/29/3314 (Dec. 14, 1974).
129
Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States,
G.A.Res.36/103, U.N.Doc.A/RES/36/103 (Dec. 9, 1981).
130
UN Charter, supra note 86.
131
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in
Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A.Res. 2625(XXV), U.N.Doc A/RES/25/2625(Oct. 24, 1970).
132
New York Convention, Supra note 103.
20
it never entered intoforce, the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of
Terrorism133 warrants consideration134 and consultation.135
4. ENDARABOO’S WHALING PROGRAMME IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH

BESELF ACCORD.
4.1 Endaraboo has not violated the Beself Accord.
¶68 Endaraboo has molded its image as that of a country famous for its whale meat delicacies.
It has been a country which has relied upon the traditional form of occupation which is
followed by most of the population.136 Tourism which provides the most of revenue to the
country is depended upon the whaling industry and hence providing a complete ban as
according to the IWC will not provide in the best interests of the country.
¶69 Endaraboo‟s Act is not inconsistent with Article 3 of the Beself Accord.137 The state has
long depended for its livelihood on whaling. The people were dependentondifferent
species of whales like Narwhals, Belugas, Minke for its meat, oil, and blubber since the
17th century in parts of the Boromir Ocean and the Andurion Sea.138 Endaraboo has never
participated in any whale conservation discussions at the International Level.139
4.2 Endaraboo has ceased to be a party to any international agreement or treaty for the
conservation of whales
¶70 During the entire history of whaling, operations conducted in the high seas were justified
under the doctrine of mare liberum, or freedom of access to the high seas.140 However,
the same is now regulated and controlled by the International Whaling Conventions.
133
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December9, 1948,277 U.N.T.S. 78.
134
Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, 19 L.N.O.J. 23, League of Nations Doc C.456(I).
M.383(I). 1937.V(1938).
135
Id.
136
Compromis, ¶ 7.
137
Compromis, ¶ 13.
138
Compromis, ¶ 7.
139
Id.
140
1, Patricia Bimie, international regulation of whaling: from conservation of whaling to conservation of whales
and regulation of whale-watching, 102 (1985).
21
Thisdoctrine allowed all the states to access the living resources of the high seas.141 The
concept that the seas are free and open for any nation to fish dominates the law of the
high seas and is still a basic concept of the law of the sea today. 142 This freedom can be
limited only with the consent of participating states through multinational or international
agreements.
¶71 Endaraboo‟s refusal to conform to any of the discussions at the international level
demonstrates that it has not consented to be a part of any whale conservation resolutions.
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange
of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by
any other means if so agreed,143 however Endaraboo has ceased to participate in any
International Whale Conservation discussions
A) Non-applicability of ICRW.
The International Convention for Regulation of Whaling holds no good in the Instant
case.
¶72 The claims put forth by Gondon does not violate the International Convention for
Regulation of Whaling. The preamble to the International Convention on Whaling notes
that the aims of the signatory States were to “conclude a convention to provide for the
proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of
the whaling industry”.144 The Convention was adopted to conserve whale stocks from
over-exploitation, not because of any moral feelings towards the plight of the whale itself
but, rather, to ensure the recovery and maintenance of stocks to levels which would
ensure the long-term viability of the whaling industry.145 However, the Preamble also
141
American Convention, Supra Note 78.
142
Id. at 104.
143
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 11, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 340.
144
International Convention for The Regulation Of Whaling, Preamble,Dec. 2, 1946, 161 U.N.T.S. 72. (hereinafter
ICRW)
145
Peter G. G. Davies, Legality of Norwegian Commercial Whaling Under the Whaling Convention and its
Compatibility with European Community Law, 43 INT‟L COM. L.QUA‟LY , 270-295 (1994).
22
points out that whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly
regulated.146
¶73 By placing a blanket ban on the hunting of all species of whale, the moratorium failed to
distinguish between stocks that were endangered, depleted, declining, stable, or
increasing at the time. For this reason, it did not have the full endorsement of the
Scientific Committee of the IWC.147
¶74 Consequently, the “blatant disregard” of the Whaling Convention objectives not only
violates the Whaling Convention, but also the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties,148 because a treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State
without its consent.149
4.3 Whaling moratorium if imposed will violate Article 1 of ICCPR.
¶75 All people may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources
without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation,
based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and International Law. In no case may a
people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.150 Endaraboo‟s whaling program has
been immensely controversial with several countries voicing their reservations over its
legality and long-term sustainability.
¶76 Whaling is central to Endaraboo‟s culture and its way of life. This highlights the
importance of the whale to Endaraboo, whaling is of equal importance to social and
customary structures and hierarchies. Whaling was not only a vital subsistence and
commercial activity for the Endaraboo but also, perhaps more significantly, it provided
livelihood, one of the most important aspect for any state.
¶77 In the resolution, the IWC stated that it “recognizes” the importance and desirability of
accommodating, consistent with effective conservation of whale stocks, the needs of
146
ICRW, Supra Note 142.
147
Amy L. Catalinac and Gerald Chan, Japan, The West, And The Whaling issue: Understanding The Japanese side,
Japan forum 17(1) 2005: 133-163.
148
VCLT, Supra Note 91, Art. 31.
149
VCLT, Supra Note 91, Art.34.
150
ICCPR, Supra Note26, Art. 1.
23
aboriginal people who are dependent upon whales for nutritional, subsistence and cultural
purposes.”151
4.4. Restriction, if Imposed will bring Grave and Imminent Peril to the Economy of
Endaraboo.
¶78 The doctrine of necessity excuses the wrongfulness of an act so long as
a) the act is the only way for a state “to safeguard an essential interest
against a grave and imminent peril”; and
b) Does not “seriously impair an essential interest” of another state or of
the international community.152
¶79 The circumstances surrounding Endaraboo meets both the conditions. Thus, if whaling is
prohibited, it will seriously impair an essential interest, i.e., of the economy of the state,
the doctrine of necessity precludes the act of whaling.
¶80 Invocation of a state of necessity is construed as meaning a claim that a State finds itself
in a situation where the sole means of safeguarding an essential interest of the State, when
threatened by a grave and imminent peril, is to adopt conduct not in conformity with what
is required of the State by an international obligation, owed to another State.153
¶81 The imminence requirement dictates that there must be “a threat to the interest at the
actual time.”154 In LG&E, Argentina faced economic disaster similar to those facing
Rentiers. Faced with 25% unemployment and a large drop in the value of its currency, the
nation was unable to service its international debt. Finding that this constituted a grave
and imminent peril to Argentina‟s economy even if total economic collapse was not
imminent, the tribunal exonerated Argentina under the doctrine of necessity. 155 Similarly
the prohibitions on whaling may lead to collapsing of the economy which in fact is grave
and imminent peril.
151
International Commission on Whaling, 35th meeting, 38, app. III, Office of the Commission (1983).
152
Art. Of TheInternational Law Commission‟s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts, 56th Session., 2002, GA Res. 56/83 (2002), Annex (Jan. 10, 2002).
153
J. Crawford, The International Law Commission‟s Articles on State Responsibility – Introduction, Text and
Commentaries, 178 (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
154
Rep. of the Int‟l Law Commission, GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/318/ADD. 49 (1980).
155
LG&E Capital Corp. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No.ARB/02/1, Award, ¶ 257 (Oct. 3, 2006).
24
¶82 In the Gabčíkovo Nagymaros Project case,156 the I.C.J. found that necessity does exist as
a defense under International Law. The Court clearly expressed that the defense of
necessity was in fact recognized by customary International Law and that it was a ground
available to States in order to evade international responsibility for wrongful acts.157
¶83 The economy and livelihood ofEndaraboois an essential interest. A State‟s “essential
interests” by definition include the existence of the state itself, its economic survival, and
the continued functioning of essential services.158 Abrogating Endaraboo‟s right to hunt
whales will bring in imminent peril to the economy of the state since the same contributes
towards the economy of Endaraboo.
¶84 The Israeli-Palestinian situation, and the Construction of A Wall case, well illustrates the
weighting of valid concerns and interests on both sides of a conflict that are often present
in situations where necessity may be invoked: the Palestinian claim to self-determination,
a state of their own and peaceful existence on the one hand, and on the other the Israeli
need to safeguard its population from terrorist attacks.159
¶85 A fundamental discrepancy which is seen in is that those nations that gave up whaling
principally whaled for oil, whereas whaling is embedded in the culture and traditional diet
of the nations that continue to whale.160
156
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project case (Hungary v. Slovakia), ICJ Rep. 1997, 7, 40,401¶ 51 (1999).
157
Supra 157.
158
UNHRC, Report on State Responsibility by Special Rapporteur, The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State,
Source of International Responsibility, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7 (1980).
159
Brownlie, Principles of International Law, 421 (Oxford University Press, 2003).
160
William Aron&et al, The Whaling Issue, 24 MARINE POL'Y179, 187 (2000).
25
PRAYER
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the agent for the
Applicant State most humbly and respectfully pray before this Hon’ble Court,that it may be pleased
to adjudge and declare that
1. The interception carried out by the Gondon authorities was against the Beself Accords
that was signed and ratified;
2. The basis of rejection of asylum claims based on homosexuality is violative of Beself
Accord;
3. Gondon by carrying out the assassination of Han Kirk has violated the territorial
integrity of Endaraboo;
4. Endaraboo‟s whaling program does not violate the Beself Accords.
The Applicant State additionally prays that the Court may make any such order as it may
deem fit in terms of equity, justice and due conscience. And for this act of kindness the
Applicant State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
(Respectfully Submitted)
-Agents on behalf of the Applicant State.
XV

DMH

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DMH

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

20th DM HARISH MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION , 2019

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

20TH D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL

THE UNITED STATES THE REPUBLIC

SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ II

1.5. Violations of ECHR and Fundamental Freedoms Charter of Fundamental Rights of

2. THAT BESELF ACCORD PROHIBITS GONDON‟S USE OF INVESTIGATIVE

2.1 Gondon is in Violation of Beself Accord. .................................................................... 7

2.2 Gondon is in Violation of Fundamental Rights of the Refugees. ................................. 8

3. GONDON BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BESELF ACCORD BY

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

3.4 Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against Internationally

4. ENDARABOO‟S WHALING PROGRAMME IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH BESELF

4.1 Endaraboo has not violated the Beself Accord. .......................................................... 21

4.3 Whaling moratorium if imposed will violate Article 1 of ICCPR. ............................ 23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

BOOKS & SCHOLARLY ARTICLES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

12. JAMES C. HATHAWAY, THE RIGHTS OF REFUGEES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW335

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS

65. Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures, Rep. On its 54thsession.,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

80. Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

THE BESELF ACCORD

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

HOMOSEXUAL CASES BEING REJECTED

ASSASSINATION OF HAN KIRK

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

2. Whether Gondon‟s use of investigative examinations in assessing the homosexual asylum

4. Whether Endaraboo‟s practice of whaling has violated the Beself Accord?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

1. GONDON IS VIOLATING THE BESELF ACCORD BY TAKING THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

1. GONDON IS VIOLATING THE BESELF ACCORD BY TAKING THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

2. THAT BESELF ACCORD PROHIBITS GONDON’S USE OF INVESTIGATIVE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

“It is well-established in the case-law of the Court that expulsion by a

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

criteria and constitutes a rule of customary International Law.61State practice62 and

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

3. GONDON BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BESELF ACCORD

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

3.3 Gondon has violated Customary Laws by Assassinating Han Kirk.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT