a.

Declare that it has jurisdiction over Adawa’s claims because

Adawa is a party to the 1929 Treaty of Botega; 


b. Adjudge that Rasasa’s development and deployment of the WALL

along the border between Adawa and Rasasa is in violation of
international law, and order that the WALL be dismantled and
removed forthwith; 


c. Declare that it may adjudicate Adawa’s claim that Rasasa’s

imposition of tariffs on Helian products from Adawa violates the
CHC Treaty, and that Adawa is entitled to compensatory damages
reflecting the financial harm it has suffered to date, such amount to
be determined in subsequent proceedings; and 


d. Declare that the arrest and detention of Darian Grey were

consistent with Adawa’s obligations under international law, and
that Adawa may proceed to render her to the International Criminal
Court. 


e. both Adawa and Rasasa have been parties to the four Geneva
Conventions of 1949, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social
and Cultural Rights, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 


Vienna:

Article 9. ADOPTIONOFTHETEXT
1. The adoption of the text of a treaty takes place by the consent of all the

States participating in its drawing up except as provided in paragraph 2.

2. The adoption of the text of a treaty at an international conference takes place by the vote of
two thirds of the States present and voting, unless by the same

Article 18. OBLIGATION NOT TO DEFEAT THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF A TREATY PRIOR TO ITS
ENTRY INTO FORCE
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and pur pose of a treaty when:

(a) (b)

It has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its in tention clear not to become a party to the treaty; or
It has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty and
provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

Article 26. "PACTASUNTSERVANDA"

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by

them in good faith.

Article 27. INTERNALLAWANDOBSERVANCEOFTREATIES

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its

failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46. SECTION 2. APPLICATION OF
TREATIES

Article 28. NON-RETROACTIVITYOFTREATIES

Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind
a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or

any situation which ceased to

Article 42. VALIDITYANDCONTINUANCEINFORCEOFTREATIES

1. The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty

may be impeached only through the application of the present Convention.

2. The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a
result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies
to suspension of the operation of a

treaty.

Article 43. OBLIGATIONSIMPOSEDBYINTERNATIONALLAW INDEPENDENTLY OF A TREATY

The invalidity, termination or denunciation of a treaty, the withdrawal of a party from it, or the
suspension of its operation, as a result of the application of the present Convention or of the provisions of
the treaty, shall not in any way impair the duty of any State to fulfil any obligation embodied in the treaty
to

Article 44. SEPARABILITYOFTREATYPROVISIONS

1. A right of a party, provided for in a treaty or arising under article 56, to de nounce, withdraw from or
suspend the operation of the treaty may be exercised only with respect to the whole treaty unless the
treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree.
2. A ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty
recognized in the present Convention may be invoked only with respect to the whole treaty except as
provided in the following paragraphs or in article 60.

3. If the ground relates solely to particular clauses, it may be invoked only with respect to those clauses
where:

(a) (b)

(c)

paragraph 3, to the particular clauses alone.

5. In cases falling under articles 51, 52 and 53, no separation of the provisions

of the treaty is permitted.

Article 45. LossOFARIGHTTOINVOKEAGROUNDFORINVALIDATING, TERMINATING, WITHDRAWING

FROM OR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF A TREATY

A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, with drawing from or suspending
the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or ar ticles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of the facts:

(a) (b)

It shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or con tinues in operation, as the
case may be; or

It must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its
maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be.

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES

Article 46. PROVISIONSOFINTERNALLAWREGARDING COMPETENCE TO CONCLUDE TREATIES

The said clauses are separable from the remainder of the treaty with regard to their application;
It appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that acceptance of those clauses was not an essential
basis of the consent of the other party or parties to be bound by the treaty as a whole; and

Continued performance of the remainder of the treaty would not be unjust. 4. In cases falling under
articles 49 and 50 the State entitled to invoke the fraud or corruption may do so with respect either to the
whole treaty or, subject to

1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation
of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent
unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.

2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State con ducting itself in the matter in
accordance with normal practice and in good faith.
Article 53. TREATIESCONFLICTINGWITHAPEREMPTORYNORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW
("JUS COGENS")

A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general
international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international
law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm
from which no deroga tion is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general
in ternational law having the same character.

(a)

SECTION 3. TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF TREATIES

Article 54. TERMINATIONOFORWITHDRAWALFROMATREATY UNDER ITS PROVISIONS OR BY

CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
The termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place:

In conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or

(6)

At any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other con tracting States.

Article 56. DENUNCIATIONOFORWITHDRAWALFROMATREATYCONTAINING NO PROVISION

REGARDING TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION OR WITHDRAWAL

1. A treaty which contains no provision regarding its termination and which does not provide for
denunciation or withdrawal is not subject to denunciation or withdrawal unless:

(à) It is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denuncia tion or withdrawal; or

(6) A right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by the nature of the treaty. 2. A party shall give
not less than twelve months' notice of its intention to de

Article 60. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A TREATY AS A CONSEQUENCE

OF ITS BREACH

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a
ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its opera tion in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

1. (a) The other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or
in part or to terminate it either:
1. (i) In the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or
2. (ii) As between all the parties;
2. (b) A party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
3. (c) Any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character
 that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party
with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:

1. (a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or

2. (b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or

purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the

treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in
treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to pro visions prohibiting any form of reprisals against
persons protected by such treaties.

Article 61. SUPERVENING IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE

1. A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing
from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object
indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a
ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

2. Impossibility of performance may not be invoked by a party as a ground for terminating, withdrawing
from or suspending the operation of a treaty if the im possibility is the result of a breach by that party
either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to
the treaty.

Article 62. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of
the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for
terminating or withdrawing from the

treaty unless:
(a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the con

sent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and

(b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still

to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground

for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

(a) If the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b) If the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation
under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a
ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for
suspending the operation of the treaty.

Article 63. SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC OR CONSULAR RELATIONS

The severance of diplomatic or consular relations between parties to a treaty does not affect the legal
relations established between them by the treaty except in so

far as the existence of diplomatic or consular relations is indispensable for the appli cation of the treaty.

Article 64. EMERGENCE OF A NEW PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW ("JUS
COGENS")

If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict
with that norm becomes void and terminates.

Article 69. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY OF A TREATY

1. A treaty the invalidity of which is established under the present Convention

is void. The provisions of a void treaty have no legal force.

2. If acts have nevertheless been performed in reliance on such a treaty:

(a) Each party may require any other party to establish as far as possible in their mutual relations the
position that would have existed if the acts had not been performed;
Acts performed in good faith before the invalidity was invoked are not rendered unlawful by reason only
of the invalidity of the treaty.

3. In cases falling under articles 49, 50, 51 or 52, paragraph 2 does not apply with respect to the party to
which the fraud, the act of corruption or the coercion is imputable.

4. In the case of the invalidity of a particular State's consent to be bound by a multilateral treaty, the
foregoing rules apply in the relations between that State and the parties to the treaty,

Article 70. CONSEQUENCES OF THE TERMINATION OF A TREATY

1. Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the ter mination of a treaty under its
provisions or in accordance with the present Conven

tion:
(a) Releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
(b) Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created

through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.

2. If a State denounces or withdraws from a multilateral treaty, paragraph 1 applies in the relations
between that State and each of the other parties to the treaty

from the date when such denunciation or withdrawal takes effect.

(a)

(b)

Article 71. CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY OF A TREATY WHICH CONFLICTS WITH A

PEREMPTORY NORM OF GENERAL INTERNATIONAL LAW 1. In the case of a treaty which is void under article 53
the parties shall:

Eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on any provision which
conflicts with the peremptory norm of general interna tional law; and

Bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm of

general international law.

2. In the case of a treaty which becomes void and terminates under article 64,

the termination of the treaty:

1. (a) Releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
2. (b) Does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created

through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination, provided that those rights, obligations
or situations may thereafter be maintained only to the extent that their maintenance is not in itself
in conflict with the new peremptory norm of general international law.

FACTS: applicant

favorable unfavorable

All six States are dominated by the same ethnic group,

speak the same language and share many cultural
traditions. Exports of Helian spice contribute significantly
to the GDPs of all six Crosinian States. 


Zeitounia and Adawa, sought to have Narang’s eldest

daughter, Goleta, named Queen. 


he provinces of Adawa and Zeitounia united to form the

Adawa-Zeitounia Union (AZU), an independent
monarchy, 


The newly installed President of Rasasa and Queen

Goleta of the AZU signed the Treaty of Botega

 Conscious that all Crosinian peoples are united by
common bonds, their cultures having developed together
in a shared heritage, and concerned that peace in the
region may be shattered at any time,
 The High Contracting Parties agree to establish on the
border between the Zeitounian region of the Adawa-
Zeitounia Union and Rasasa an International Zone of
Peace, which shall be accessible to all citizens of both
High Contracting Parties without the need for border
formalities. It is their intention that this Zone shall stand
as a reminder to the peoples of both nations of the
scourge of war, and the need to resolve disputes
peacefully. 


they recognize the jurisdiction of the Court as

compulsory ipso facto, without the necessity of any
special agreement so long as the present Treaty is in
force, in all disputes of a juridical nature that arise among
them concerning:Any question of international law; The
existence of any fact which, if established, would
constitute the breach of an international obligation; and
The nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the
breach of an international obligation.

f. all became parties to the Statute of the Permanent

Court of International Justice. 


Adawa became more urbanized and industrialized while

Zeitounia did not, and the central government, under
heavy Zeitounian influence, opposed what it considered
to be demands that it invest disproportionately in
infrastructure in Adawa. Effective 1 January 1939, the
two provinces amicably agreed to dissolve their Union,
and each declared its independence as of that date.
Adawa adopted a republican form of government, while
Zeitounia retained Queen Goleta as monarch. 


g. Both Adawa and Rasasa joined the United Nations in

1947 and acceded to the Statute of the
International Court of Justice. Neither State has
filed a declaration accepting the Court’s
compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of
the Statute. 


h. Adawa’s economy was and remains primarily focused

on the exploitation of natural resources. All of
the Crosinian States engaged in the highly
profitable activities of growing, harvesting, and
processing Helian hyacinth pollen and
exporting Helian spice. 


arrangement was formalized in a treaty, signed on 20

June 1969 and promptly ratified by all six Member
States, declaring the formation of the Crosinian Helian
Community (CHC). The parties to the CHC agreed to
impose no customs duties within the CHC on Helian
spice or the equipment and materials used to harvest or
process the Helian hyacinth.

i. To share their agronomic, scientific, and economic

data regarding the growing, harvesting,
processing, and commercializing of the Helian
hyacinth and especially the spice derived from
it, which is prized around the world; and 


j. To meet periodically at technical levels, and no less

than twice annually at the Ministerial level, to
discuss matters of common interest regarding
the production, processing, and exportation of
Helian products, and to take decisions as
provided in this Treaty. 


the Member States agree to impose no customs duties

on Helian products, as well as goods that are primarily or
exclusively used in the harvesting or processing of the
Helian hyacinth, which originate from the territory of a
Member State.

Nothing in this Treaty shall be construed as:

k. Requiring any Member State to furnish information,

the disclosure of which it considers contrary to
its essential security interests, or 


l. Precluding the application of measures necessary to

protect a Member State’s essential security
interests. 


The Community shall enjoy in the territory of each of its

Member States such legal capacity as may be necessary
for the exercise of its functions and the fulfillment of its
purposes.

Representatives of Member States at meetings

convened by the Community shall, while exercising their
functions and during their journeys to and from the place
of meeting, enjoy immunity from personal arrest or
detention and from seizure of their personal baggage,
and in respect of words spoken or written and all acts
done by them in their official capacity, immunity from
legal process of every kind.

Nothing in this Treaty shall be read as undermining or

compromising the sovereignty, independence, or
international legal personality of any Member State of the
Community.

the net value of Helian spice exports across the six CHC
Member States increased by an average of 12.3% per
year, and employment in Helian-related activities
increased by 8% per year 

m. Rasasa and Adawa acceded to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Both
States became original members of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and remain
members. When they joined the GATT, both
States submitted their then-applicable tariff
schedules, and agreed that these would be
“bound rates” applicable on a most favored
nation (MFN) basis. With respect to Helian
plants, bulbs, pollen, spice, and other material,
the bound rates were zero. 


n. Adawa became an original party to the Rome Statute

establishing the International Criminal Court,
and remains a party to that treaty. 


o. Hurricane Makan, struck the entire Region. The death

toll from the cyclone exceeded 8,000 and, in
each of the six States, entire towns were
inundated, roads and power lines were
destroyed, and major urban centers suffered
historic flooding. More than 60% of the Helian
hyacinths in Rasasa, 20% of those in Adawa,
and between 15% and 20% of those in the other
four States were destroyed. Unemployment
began to increase across the Region as farms,
their suppliers, and the businesses that
depended on them became no longer viable. 


p. In the weeks and months following the storm, crime

rates skyrocketed throughout the Region.
Armed gangs roamed the countryside, stealing
salvageable Helian plants and harvesting and
processing equipment from the devastated
farms. According to the overwhelmed police
forces of the six States, many of the gang
members were former Helian farmers whose
way of life had been disrupted by the cyclone.



q. the President notified the other five CHC Member

States that Rasasa had contracted with RRC to
undertake research and development of the
WALL. President Tihmar invited them to
collaborate in “this state-of- the-art system that
will reduce the pressure on our respective
police forces, facilitate the efficient
apprehension of dangerous criminals, eliminate
the potential for tragic interactions between
police and civilians, and help our societies
recover from Hurricane Makan.” President
Tihmar added that the WALL would be
especially valuable in promoting “the revival of
our Region’s Helian industry and those who
 depend on it.” 


r. All six CHC Member States devoted funds and

provided leading government and private
sector scientists and engineers, as well as
materials, to the research and development
phase of the project, which was conducted at
RRC’s laboratories in Botega and its testing
ranges in rural Rasasa. 


s. police in the other four Crosinian States had gained

the upper hand, and crime levels were restored
to pre-Hurricane Makan levels. Each of these
States gradually withdrew from the WALL
project and, by August 2013, only Rasasa and
Adawa continued to participate in the
development of the venture. The withdrawing
States assigned any rights they might have
acquired during the development of the project
back to RRC. 


t. neither government elected to purchase it. Both

Adawa and Rasasa announced their
satisfaction with having been involved in the
development of the WALL, but stated that it was
neither economically feasible nor politically
desirable to go further with the 


u. Throughout this period, violent and property crime

rates continued to dwindle in both Adawa and
Rasasa. However, in August 2016, relying upon
arrest records and eyewitness accounts, the
Rasasan Border Police reported what they
termed “an alarming new trend” along the
border: “The small Adawan gangs that arose in
the wake of Hurricane Makan have apparently
organized themselves into larger armed
groups, and have turned the resources,
personnel, and weapons they previously used
for localized crimes towards cross- border
crime into Rasasa.” 


v. At the request of President Tihmar, in September

2016 the Rasasan and Adawan governments
established a high-level task force to “consider
joint responses to the increase in cross-border
crimes.” The joint task force met several times
over the next year, but was unable to formulate
a comprehensive plan to suppress the gangs.



w. The RHGA expressed alarm that Rasasan Helian

processors had increasingly begun to purchase
their raw material from Adawan Helian farmers
in lieu of Rasasan suppliers, who had been
 unable to meet their Helian pollen
requirements. The RHGA’s report concluded,
“if current trends continue, many Rasasan
Helian farms will collapse in five to ten years,
with catastrophic effects for the Rasasan
economy and Rasasan society in general.” 


x. Rasasa held its regular presidential election in

December 2016. Mr. Venevar Pindro, a former
military officer, ran on a platform calling for,
among many other things: tightening 


border controls to eliminate armed incursions; and

enhancing and protecting Rasasa’s Helian industry, the
failure of which he repeatedly claimed “would pose a
fundamental threat to our economy and national
security.”

y. During the campaign and following his election,

President Pindro criticized the joint task force
as ineffective. He called upon Adawa, “in the
spirit of our long friendship,” to take prompt and
effective measures to quash the criminal gangs
based within its territory. Shortly after taking
office, President Pindro submitted two bills for
legislative approval. The first invoked “essential
security interests” and provided for the
introduction of tariffs of 25% ad valorem on
Helian bulbs, live plants, and pollen imported
into Rasasa, in an effort to encourage Rasasa’s
domestic processors to return to local farms for
their feedstock. The second called for
expedited review of options for the hardening of
the Adawa-Rasasa border. 


z. The report indicated that Adawan nationals had

established permanent and well-defended
encampments within Rasasan territory, 


which they were using as bases for international

trafficking in illegal drugs. The report concluded, “These
new militants are well armed and well-organized, and the
police are simply unable to remove them.”

aa. the militia simultaneously attacked nine

Rasasan Border Police stations, killing 21
officers. Eyewitnesses stated that the raiders
were “heavily armed with military- grade
weapons and equipment,” and that the attacks
indicated “a high level of prior planning and
training.” 

 bb. President Pindro authorized the deployment of
the Rasasan Army against the militia camps
within Rasasa, as well as the purchase of the
WALL from RRC and its installation along the
Rasasa-Adawa border. He simultaneously sent
a message to Adawan President Omar Moraga



cc. he task force reviewed reports from both States’

national police forces, which indicated that, in
the four months following the deployment of the
WALL, reports of trans-border incidents
decreased more than 80 percent. 


dd. there have been no reports of any incidents of

lethal force deployed by the WALL 


Laws:

Succession of treaty: A treaty between the colonial

powers France and Libya was entered into delimiting its
frontiers. Later, Chad and Italy became independent of
France and Libya, respectively. The dispute relates to the
expiration of the treaty with Chad citing the uti possidetis
juris principle and Italy arguing that there is no longer a
boundary since the treaty has expired.

y Uti Possidetis Juris principle. Successor states must

respect the colonial boundaries of colonial rulers.

y Theory of auto-imitation. Notwithstanding the fact that the

treaty provides for a mere 20-year effectivity, the theory of
auto- imitation provide that boundaries have a life of their
own separate from the treaty itself because a boundary
established by treaty achieves permanence. This is in line
with the need to prevent conflict and instability. (Libya
vs Chad)

Article 35

Position if a State continues after separation of part of its territory

When, after separation of any part of the territory of a State, the predecessor
State continues to exist, any treaty which at the date of the succession of States
was in force in respect of the predecessor State continues in force in respect of
its remaining territory unless:
 1. (a) the States concerned otherwise agree;
2. (b) it is established that the treaty related only to the territory which
has separated from the

predecessor State; or

18

(c) it appears from the treaty or is otherwise established that the application of
the treaty in respect of the predecessor State would be incompatible with the
object and purpose of the treaty or would radically change the conditions for its
operation.

Article 45.
LossOFARIGHTTOINVOKEAGROUNDFORINVALIDATING,
TERMINATING, WITHDRAWING FROM OR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF
A TREATY

A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating,

terminating, with drawing from or suspending the operation of a
treaty under articles 46 to 50 or ar icles 60 and 62 if, after
becoming aware of the facts:

It shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in

force or con tinues in operation, as the case may be; or

It must by reason of its conduct be considered as having

acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in
force or in operation, as the case may be.

Article 62. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF

CIRCUMSTANCES
1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred
with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a
treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be
invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the

treaty unless:
(a) The existence of those circumstances constituted an essential
basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and
(b) The effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of
obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be
invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a
treaty:

(a) If the treaty establishes a boundary; or

(b) If the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the

party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of
any other international obligation owed to any other party to
the treaty.

3. If, under the foregoing paragraphs, a party may invoke a

fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating
or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a
ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

“In conformity with Article 36 of the Statute

of the Permanent Court of International
Justice, the High Contracting Parties declare
that they recognize the jurisdiction of the
Court as compulsory ipso facto, without the
necessity of any special agreement so long as
the present Treaty is in force, in all disputes
of a juridical nature that arise among them
concerning:
a) The interpretation of a treaty;
b) Any question of international law;
c) The existence of any fact which, if
established, would constitute the breach of an
international obligation; and
d) The nature or extent of the reparation to be
made for the breach of an international
obligation. “
 International Covenant on Civil This prohibition of the use of
force is to be considered in the
and Political Rights light of other relevant
provisions of the Charter. In
Article 6 Article 51, the Charter
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. recognizes the inherent right of
This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be individual or collective self-
arbitrarily deprived of his life. defence if an armed attack
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, occurs. A further lawful use of
sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious force is envisaged in Article 42,
crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the whereby the Security Council
commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions may take military enforcement
of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the
measures in conformity with
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This
penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final Chapter VII of the Charter.
judgement rendered by a competent court. These provisions do not refer to
specific weapons. They apply
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of
genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall to any use of force, regardless
authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to of the weapons employed. The
derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the Charter neither expressly
provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and prohibits, nor permits, the use
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
of any specific weapon,
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to including nuclear weapons.
seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.
Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of Necessity & proportionality.
death may be granted in all cases.
The entitlement to resort to
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes self-defence under Article 51 is
committed by persons below eighteen years of age subject to the conditions of
and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
necessity and proportionality.

doctrine of deterrence (in

The Court then addresses the question of the legality or which the right to use those
illegality of recourse to nuclear weapons in the light of the weapons in the exercise of the
provisions of the Charter relating to the threat or use of right to self-defence against an
force. In Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter the use of armed attack threatening the
force against the territorial integrity or political vital security interests of the
independence of another State or in any other manner State is reserved) on the other.
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations is
prohibited. Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall
impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence if an armed
attack occurs against a Member of
the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures
necessary to maintain international
 peace and security. Measures taken
by Members in the exercise of this
right of self-defence 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.

International Court of Justice

Advisory Opinion: Legality
of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons

Article 26. "PACTASUNTSERVANDA" Nothing in this Treaty

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be
performed by them in good faith. shall be construed as:

Article 3 
 Requiring any Member

State to furnish
To facilitate the development and health of information, the
the Helian industry, the Member States agree disclosure of which it
to impose no customs duties on Helian considers contrary to its
products, as well as goods that are primarily essential security
or exclusively used in the harvesting or interests, or 

processing of the Helian hyacinth, which
originate from the territory of a Member Precluding the
State. application of measures
necessary to protect a
Member State’s
A treaty may be terminated or suspended in essential security
accordance with one of its provisions (if any
exist) or by the consent of the parties. If neither interests. 

is the case, other provisions may become
relevant. If a material breach of a bilateral treaty
occurs, the innocent party may invokethat
breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or
suspending its operation. The termination of
multilateral treaties is more complex. By
unanimous agreement, all the parties may
terminate or suspend the treaty in whole or in
part, and a party specially affected by a breach
may suspend the agreement between itself and
the defaulting state. Any other party may
suspend either the entire agreement or part of it
in cases where the treaty is such that a material
breach will radically change the position of every
party with regard to its obligations under the
treaty. The ICJ, for example, issued an advisory
opinionin 1971 that regarded as legitimate the
General Assembly’s termination of
the mandate for South West Africa. A breach of
a treaty is generally regarded as material if there
is an impermissible repudiation of the treaty or if
there is a violation of a provision essential to the
treaty’s object or purpose.

The concept of rebus sic stantibus (Latin: “things

standing thus”) stipulates that, where there has
been a fundamental change of circumstances, a
party may withdraw from or terminate the treaty
in question. An obvious example would be one
in which a relevant island has become
submerged. A fundamental change of
circumstances, however, is not sufficient for
termination or withdrawal unless the existence of
the original circumstances was an essential
basis of the consent of the parties to be bound
by the treaty and the change radically transforms
the extent of obligations still to be performed.
. Article 32
Representatives of
Member States at
meetings convened by
the Community shall,
while exercising their
functions and during
their journeys to and
from the place of
meeting, enjoy
immunity from
personal arrest or
detention and from
seizure of their
personal baggage, and
in respect of words
spoken or written and
all acts done by them in
their official capacity,
immunity from legal
process of every kind.