TC-111

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE

THE CASE CONCERNING THE CORDAVIAN TERRITORY

REPUBLIC OF AURENZEA
(APPELLANT)

V.

THE STATE OF BORENTHEA

(RESPONDENT)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO Particulars Page no

I.​ Index of Authorities 2-4

II. Statement of Jurisdiction 5

III. Statement of Facts 6

IV. Statement of Issues 7

V. Legal Pleadings 8-21

a) ISSUE 1 8-11

b) ISSUE 2 12-14

c) ISSUE 3 15-17

d) ISSUE 4 18-21

VIII Prayer 22

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Serial TITLE
No.

A. CASE LAWS & ADVISORY OPINIONS.

1. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995, I.C.J Reports 90, (June 30).

2. North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger./Den.; Ger./Neth.), Judgement, 1969 I.C.J. Rep. 3, (Feb.20).

3. Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965,
Advisory Opinion, 2019 I.C.J. Rep. 95, (Feb. 25. 2019).

4. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 554, (Dec.22).

5. Military and Parliamentary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Order,
Separate Opinion of Judges Mosler, Jennings, 1984 I.C.J. Rep. 169, (May 10).

6. Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), Judgement, 1970 I.C.J. Rep. 3,
Separate Opinion of Judge Ammoun, (Feb. 5).

7. Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), [1994] I.C.J. Rep. 6, ( 3 Feb. 1994).

8. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

(Advisory Opinion), [2004] I.C.J. Rep., (9 July 2004).

9. Legal Consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied
palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, Advisory opinion, No. 186, Int’l Ct. Just. (July
19, 2024).

10. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Croatia v. Serbia), [2015] I.C.J. Rep 78, (3 Feb. 2015).

11. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgement, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, (July
29,1988).

12. Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 55/97,
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, doc. 6 rev, (Oct. 18, 1997).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 3

13. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Judgement, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 72, (Feb. 2, 2001).

14. Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2009.

15. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2010.

16. C.N. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4239/08, (13 Nov. 2012).

17. Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgement, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4, (Apr. 9).

18. Application of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Bosn. &
Herz. v. Serb. Montenegro), Judgement, 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 43, (Feb. 26).

19. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03,
Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser.A) No. 18, (Sept. 17, 2003).

20. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgement,
I.C.J. Reports 2005, (Dec. 19, 2005).

21. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits,
Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 14, (June 27, 1986).

22. Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, (Nov. 6, 2003).

23. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Judgement, I.C.J.
Reports 2012, (Feb. 3, 2012).

24. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement, (Int;l Crim. for the Former
Yugoslavia Mar. 3, 2000).

C. LIST OF DECLARATIONS, TREATIES AND OTHER UN DOCUMENTS

1. United Nations Charter.

2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S.
3.

3. G.A. Resolution 1514 (XV), U.N. Doc. A/RES/1514 (Dec. 14, 1960).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 4

4. International Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.

5. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families, Dec. 18, 1990, 2220 U.N.T.S. 3, 30 I.L.M. 1517 (Entered into force July 1,
2003).

6. G.A. Resolution 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights,(Dec. 10, 1948)

7. Convention Relating to the Statute of Refugees, 28 July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (Entered
into force Apr. 22, 1954).

8. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Dec. 21,
1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (Entered into force Jan. 4, 1969).

9. U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the
Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2002/103 (Dec.20, 2001).

10. U.N. Office of the High Comm’r for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 36, Human Rights and
Human Trafficking, U.N. Doc. CORE/OHCHR/FS/36 (2014).

11. G.A. Res. 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Sept. 16, 2005).

12. S.C. Resolution 1373, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (Sept. 28, 2001).

13. International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Dec. 15, 1997, 2149
U.N.T.S 256.

14. Ashley Deeks, ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extra-Territorial
Self Defense, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. 483, 492 (2012).

15. 2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Resolution 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct.24, 2005),
[Link]

D. ARTICLES

1. Christian Marxsen,Territorial Integrity in International Law – Its Concept and Implications for
Crimea, 75 ZaöRV 7, (2015).

2. Alain Pellet, The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the
Self-Determination of Peoples, 3 Eur. J. Int’l L., (1992).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Parties recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the International
Court of Justice under Article 36(1) of the Statute and agree to accept the Court’s decision as
final and binding upon them.

Article 36 (1) of the International Court of Justice statute:

“The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in
force.”

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 1925, Borenthea leased Cordavia - a Mineral Rich territory - to Aurenzea for a period of 99
Years, ending December 2024, followed by a 12-month Transition: Aurenzea manages first 6
months (January- June 2025), then oversees handover to Borenthea (July- December 2025).

Key Events;
March 2025: Economic and governance challenges emerge, sparking discontent.

April 2025: Protests for self-determination begin;

23 April: Article reports 46 disappearances near Saran Corridor, linked to trafficking.

May 2025: On 10th May Borenthea’s Human Rights Centre notes rescues, invokes CPED
against Aurenzea; mass migration to Borenthea starts amid labor shortages.

June 2025: On 12th June Protests turned violent.

15th June: Borenthea’s leader denies trafficking in an interview.

20th June: Kavzar Front (Borenthean non-state actor) attacks Cordavia.

On 30th June: Drone strike destroys Aurenzea’s nuclear facility.

5th July 2025: Aurenzea counterattacks Borenthea, causing civilian casualties.

20th July 2025: Special Agreement submitted to ICJ on territorial status, migration/trafficking,
terrorism/war, and intervention/R2P.

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether in pursuance of lease agreement the lawful treaty obligation to be upheld or the
right to self determination of the people takes precedence?

2. Whether the movement of citizens from Cordavia into Borenthea constitutes voluntary
migration or amounts to human trafficking, in violation of anti- trafficking obligations?

3. Whether the violent act committed will be considered as an act of terrorism under
domestic law or Laws of War under the International Law?

4. Whether the actions of Aurenzea are to be justified under the international doctrine of
Responsibility to Protect or does it amount to state intervention?

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 8

LEGAL PLEADINGS

1. Whether in pursuance of lease agreement the lawful treaty obligation to be upheld or the
right to self determination of the people takes precedence?

1.1 The Right to Self Determination would damage the National Integrity of the
Borenthean State.
Customary Status of Right to Self Determination.
Even though the Right to Self Determination has been recognized as a principle of Customary
International Law under both the UN Charter,1 and the Jurisprudence of this court,2 The
inclusion of a practice in Customary International Law depends on various factors, notably that
states must feel they are conforming to a Legal Obligation.3 In this context, Self Determination
has largely been considered Customary International Law only in Decolonization. Even in its
Advisory Opinion on the Chagos Archipelago separation,4 This Court clearly stated that its
findings on the Right to Self Determination were strictly limited to Decolonization.

Cordavia is an integral part of Borenthea.

Cordavia has been an Integral part of Aurenzea from more than a century now,5 In the year of
1925, a Special Lease Agreement was agreed upon based on the mutual interests of both
Aurenzea and Borenthea (which subsequently also includes Cordavia) for the purpose of easing
mining operations and trade.6 It is very humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that The
Special Agreement between the two nations very explicitly mentions that the Territorial
Sovereignty of Cordavia must remain with Borenthea despite the shift in Administrative control,7
therefore undermining the Territorial & National Integrity of the Borenthean State upon the
realization of any Right to Self determination.

1
United Nations Charter, art. 2 para. 1; art. 55.
2
Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), 1995, I.C.J Reports 90, para. 29 (June 30).
3
North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger./Den.; Ger./Neth.), Judgement, 1969 I.C.J. Rep. 3, para. 77 (Feb.20).
4
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, 2019
I.C.J. Rep. 95, para 144 (Feb. 25. 2019).
5
Moot Proposition, para. 2, pp. 6.
6
Moot Proposition, para. 2, pp. 6.
7
Moot Proposition, Annexure B, art. 2 para. 3.

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 9

Self Determination of the Cordavians is inconsistent with the foundational Principles of the
United Nations.
The UN Charter very explicitly lays down under its provisions and guidelines that matters
disrupting the Territorial Integrity of a State are inconsistent with the principles of the United
Nations.8 Furthermore, exercising the Right to Self Determination must be consistent with the
Principles of the United Nations.9 The general principle of uti possidetis upholds in these cases
in International Jurisprudence, showcasing the significance of the historically defined
boundaries.10 Burkina Faso v. Mali,11 further cemented that the existence of a title supersedes
actual control or administration over a territory, and the same being a foundational norm in
International Law. Therefore any Aurenzean claim over the Cordavian territory is ipso facto,
void-ab-inito, the same being the internal matter of Borenthea.12

Right to Self Determination must be in accordance with the respect for territorial Integrity.
While Right to Self Determination is a part of jus cogens norm of International Law,13 respect
for the Territorial Integrity of a state is also an important factor that needs to be accessed for the
purpose of realization of Right to Self Determination.14

The Fundamental contradiction between Uti possidetis and Right to Self Determination.
The Principle of Uti possidetis is applicable in wherever there is a matter or conflict of
Independence of a territory.15 However there is an inherent contradiction of this principle with
the exercising of Right to Self Determination, and wherein the contradiction arises, due
consideration must be placed on the interpretation of The Right to Self determination as observed
in the Frontier Dispute16 case. Therefore thorough examination of the unique situation of the

8
United Nations Charter, art. 2 para. 4.
9
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 1(3), Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
10
Christian Marxsen,Territorial Integrity in International Law – Its Concept and Implications for Crimea, 75
ZaöRV 7, pp. 11 (2015).
11
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 554, para. 23 (Dec.22).
12
Military and Parliamentary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Order, Separate Opinion of
Judges Mosler, Jennings, 1984 I.C.J. Rep. 169, at page. 187 (May 10).
13
Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co., Ltd. (Belg. v. Spain), Judgement, 1970 I.C.J. Rep. 3, Separate Opinion of
Judge Ammoun, at 304 (Feb. 5).
14
G.A. Res. 1514 (XV), para. 6, U.N. Doc. A/RES/1514 (Dec. 14, 1960).
15
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 554, para. 20 (Dec.22).
16
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Judgement, 1986 I.C.J. Rep. 554, para. 25 (Dec.22).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 10

Cordavians,their Economy, their Social & Political status must be done before coming to a
conclusion about the determination of the scope of their concerned Right.

Right to Self Determination cannot be interpreted for the use of disrupting Territorial
Integrity.
While Right to Self Determination is extended to “all peoples” by multiple UN documents,17
The definition of “all peoples” has not been defined by The United Nations, and it is a Right that
has exclusively been enjoyed by only “colonial peoples” thus far.18 In this context, The Badinter
Arbitration Committee explicitly mentioned that, “ Whatever the circumstances, 'the right to
self-determination must not involve changes to existing frontiers”.19

1.2 Aurenzea’s actions constitute annexation.

Building Infrastructure for the purpose of longevity.
Understanding the purpose and objects of a treaty is very important for its interpretation.20 The
Special Agreement very clearly states that Aurenzea leased Cordavia for administrative and
strategic purposes,21 The temporary nature of this lease (99 years) consecutively shows that thus,
all infrastructure built during this period is of temporary nature, subjected to the Administration
of Aurenzea. However, The Republic of Aurenzea continues to claim a nuclear power facility in
Cordavia as its vital Territory, which is against the Provisions of the Lease Agreement.

How the Nuclear Power Facility showcases Aurenzea’s Intents.

These actions show a continuous pattern of asserting control over Cordavia despite the expiration
of Lease Agreement. Aurenzea hides in the shadow of temporariness and this fait accompli will
become permanent if left unchallenged.22 Even in its Advisory opinion of the Palestinian-Israel

17
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art. 1 1, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; International
Covenant on Social and Cultural Rights art. 1(1), Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3; G.A. Res. 1514 (XV), para. 2,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/1514 (Dec. 14, 1960).
18
Alain Pellet, The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of
Peoples, 3 Eur. J. Int’l L. at page 179 (1992).
19
Alain Pellet, The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of
Peoples, 3 Eur. J. Int’l L. 180 (1992).
20
Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), [1994] I.C.J. Rep. 6, para. 41 ( 3 Feb. 1994).
21
Moot Proposition, Annexure B, art. 3 para. 6 .
22
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion),
[2004] I.C.J. Rep. para. 121 (9 July 2004).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 11

conflict, This Hon’ble Court stated that,Policies, practices or other measures can constitute acts
of Annexation if they intend to exert permanent control over a territory.23

Attempt of Permanent annexation of Cordavia by Aurenzea.

Annexation by its definition means, “forcible acquisition by the occupying Power of the
territory that it occupies”, and consequently the acts of the occupying power that display an
intent to exert permanent control over such territory is an essential element of annexation.24
Aurenzea is advocating for the issue of Self Determination during the most sensitive phase of the
lease agreement, ie; the Transitional Period despite explicitly agreeing to the fact that the
Sovereign title of Cordavia must remain with Borenthea at all times.

How the Press release from the Aurenzean Government reflects their intent for possible
prolonged occupation of the Cordavian Territory.
Statements made by any individual must be analyzed to determine their evidentiary value, where
the court takes into account the circumstances under which it was made and the sources of such
statements.25 In its official Press Release (Dated 30.06.2025), the Republic of Aurenzea asserted
its continued control over Cordavia despite the fact that all administrative control of Aurenzea
had ceased by that timeline,26 including its authority during the Transitional Period.

23
Legal Consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem, Advisory opinion, No. 186, para. 172, Int’l Ct. Just. (July 19, 2024).
24
Legal Consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied palestinian territory,
including East Jerusalem, Advisory opinion, No. 186, para. 158-159, Int’l Ct. Just. (July 19, 2024).
25
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia),
[2015] I.C.J. Rep 78, para. 196 (3 Feb. 2015).
26
Moot Proposition, Annexure C, para. 6.

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 12

2. Whether the movement of citizens from Cordavia into Borenthea constitutes voluntary
migration or amounts to human trafficking, in violation of anti- trafficking obligations?

Definition of Migration under International Law.

International Law defines “Migration” as movement of workers for the purpose of Remunerated
work to a state of which he or she is not a national,27 The Special Agreement between Aurenzea
and Borenthea very explicitly states that Sovereignty of Cordavian territory must remain with
Borenthea at all times,28 and since movement of Nationals is a basic Fundamental Human
Right,29 The scope of the Migration of Cordavians from Cordavian Territory to Borenthean
should be examined under the purview of a Domestic dispute.

2.1 Responsibility and Obligation of the states

Aurenzea’s critical control over Cordavia during the time of Enforced Disappearances.
As per the Lease Agreement, Aurenzea enjoyed full Administrative control over Cordavia during
the first six months after expiration of the Special Agreement,30 while the Borenthean
Administration furnished legitimate documentation of the concerned migrants and obliged to its
duty to respond. Concerning the disappearances of 46 Cordavians, Aurenzean Administration
failed to oblige to its duty and act in accord with its effective control during the sensitive
Transitional Period. Since the perpetrators of this supposed “Human Trafficking” were not
identified , it placed an obligation upon Aurenzean Authorities to Investigate with due
diligence,31 before making claims or preventing such supposed illegal movement to begin with.

27
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families,
art. 2, Dec. 18, 1990, 2220 U.N.T.S. 3, 30 I.L.M. 1517 (Entered into force July 1, 2003).
28
Moot Proposition, Annexure B, art. 2(3).
29
G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 13 (Dec. 10, 1948); International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, art. 12, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (Entered into force Mar. 23, 1976); International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 12 (1), Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (Entered into force
Jan. 3, 1976); Convention Relating to the Statute of Refugees, arts. 26, 28, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137 (Entered
into force Apr. 22, 1954); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, art.
5(d)(i), Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195 (Entered into force Jan. 4, 1969).
30
Moot Proposition, Annexure B, art. 4(8).
31
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgement, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, para.172 (July 29,1988).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 13

How Borenthea immediately responded to any concerns of Mass Disappearances.

In instances of credible evidence of violations of Human Rights, A state bears the responsibility
to refute those allegations,32 or conduct investigation to further course correct those violations
and deliver justice, When multiple Cordavian people were seen across the Saran Corridor,
Borenthea immediately investigated into the matter and Borenthean facilities found the victims
of the tragic incident in the nearby areas, Borenthea has therefore always responded and refuted
the concerns of any violations of Human Rights in its territory.

Legal Documentation of the Cordavian Migrants.

The Responsibility to Uphold Humanitarian Standards lies with all the actors involved, both state
and non-state actors.33 The State of Borenthea acknowledged its responsibility and revealed the
Legal documents of the Multiple Cordavian Migrants, dismissing the possibility of any case of
Enforced disappearance, however Aurenzea failed to act promptly in accord with its
responsibility by not taking any Administrative action to address the local issues of the
Cordavians regarding Enforced disappearances during the sensitive transitional period, the same
Administrative gap caused havoc among the Cordavian population, worsening the situation.34

The Voluntary Employment of Cordavian people.

The onus of providing the proof to substantiate the existence of a claim lies upon the state
asserting such allegation,35 Furthermore, for an Investigation to be started, there must be,
“credible suspicion” arising from the complaints of the applicant that a person was subjected to
Human Trafficking,36 However, no evidence suggesting violation of International Human
Trafficking laws have surfaced thus far, therefore it's a failure of the Aurenzean government to
substantiate its claims with credible evidence. The movements of the Cordavians was merely a
result of robust economic opportunities arising from the Borenthean region.

32
Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Case 11.137, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 55/97, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98,
doc. 6 rev,. Para. 217 (Oct. 18, 1997).
33
U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General, 3, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/2002/103 (Dec.20, 2001).
34
Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Judgement, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 72, para. 127 (Feb. 2, 2001).
35
Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p.86, para.68; Pulp
Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p.14, para. 162.
36
C.N. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 4239/08, para. 71, (13 Nov. 2012).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 14

How the concerns arising do not automatically translate to violations of International

Trafficking law.
The concerns of implementation of labour laws do not automatically translate to the violations of
Human Trafficking as the necessary elements of Human Trafficking cannot be substantiated in
this case,37 These allegations do not sustain unless proven conclusively, considering the gravity
of the offence.38 It is important to note that no victims of such oppression have come out thus far
which would raise credible impressions of Human Trafficking, and thus leaving room for
reasonable doubt to bring any aspect of impunity in this case.39

Lack of administrative action from Aurenzea.

Whenever there is a concern about the violations of the Individual Rights, it gives rise to both
National and International obligations of all the actors (State or Non-State) involved.40 The State
of Borenthea addressed the concerns of Human Trafficking by duly furnishing the records of
valid migration of the Cordavian people. This obligation was also imposed upon Aurenzea, to
uphold efficiency of its institutions still working in the Cordavian region during the sensitive
transitional period and oblige to the terms of treaty, by working towards a peaceful and orderly
transition of power.

Political Motivations and Goals of Aurenzea.

Therefore, considering the arguments established herein, there is a clear indication of Political
Motivation that drives this entire conflict to achieve the following goals;
a)​ To disrupt the Territorial Integrity & Sovereignty of Borenthea, consolidate the
Cordavian Region into Aurenzea and attain benefits of its Rare Earth Materials.
b)​ To attain benefit of other geographical aspects of Cordavian region, through the
facilitation of Annexation, and extend the Administrative control of Aurenzea over the
region. All of these aspects are in direct violation of Customary International Practices &
The Lease Agreement.
37
U.N. Office of the High Comm’r for Human Rights, Fact Sheet No. 36, Human Rights and Human Trafficking, at
page. 2-3, U.N. Doc. CORE/OHCHR/FS/36 (2014).
38
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgement, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4, at page 17 (Apr. 9).
39
Application of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb.
Montenegro), Judgement, 2007 I.C.J. Rep. 43, para. 208 (Feb. 26).
40
Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.
(ser.A) No. 18, para 139, (Sept. 17, 2003).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 15

3. Whether the violent act committed will be considered as an act of terrorism under
domestic law or Laws of War under the International Law;

3.1 Attacks on the territory of Cordavia

Attack by the Non-State Actor, the ‘Kavzar Front’.
It is submitted before this Honourable Court that the violent act in question is the attack that was
orchestrated by the ‘Kavzar Front’ which is a ‘non-state’ actor. The Borenthean administration
had no participation in the actions of the group. There is no satisfactory proof of the involvement
of the state of Borenthea, direct or indirect, in the attacks executed by the ‘Kavzar Front’,
therefore the state of Borenthea shall remain non-attributable to the same, which is cemented by
the ‘Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo’.41

Ambit of the term ‘armed attack’, and its deassociation with the initial attack.
The initial attack by the front was aimed at deepening Cordavia’s instability, through use of
force. It has long been accepted that not every use of force constitutes an armed attack.42 The
onus is on the victim to prove that the nature of the attack can be classified as an ‘armed attack’,
in regards to customary law on the use of force.43 Only the ‘most grave’ form of use of force
shall amount to an armed attack.44 The initial attack does not fall under the ambit of the same as
the attack constituted violent unrest, damage to infrastructure which cannot be considered as a
‘most grave’ form of use of force.

The Drone Strike, allegedly conducted by the ‘Kavzar Front’

The second attack, a drone strike, caused multiple casualties. The drone bore faint and
inconclusive markings, yet Aurenzea alleged and concluded it was an act of the “Kavzar
Front”.45 Allegations of such exceptional gravity require a degree of certainty,46 not satisfied by
Aurenzea. This Court has emphasized that violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law

41
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2005,
p.168, para. 146 (Dec. 19, 2005).
42
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep. 14, para. 195 (June 27, 1986).
43
Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161, para. 51 (Nov. 6, 2003).
44
Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161, para. 64 (Nov. 6, 2003).
45
Moot Proposition, para. 23, pp. 13.
46
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4, at 17 (Apr. 9, 1949).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 16

must be supported by extensive proof,47 and charges of exceptional gravity must be proven by
fully conclusive evidence,48 leaving no room for reasonable doubt.49 Aurenzea failed to provide
such proof and instead launched a counter-attack under the pretext of Self-Defence, relying only
on inconclusive drone markings.

3.2 Prosecution under Domestic Laws

Aurenzea’s Responsibility to protect its Populations.
The first attack was orchestrated on 20th June, 2025, which was during the tenure of the
Aurenzean administration over Cordavia, which means that Aurenzea has the responsibility to
protect its populations. According to the ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, every state has the
responsibility to protect the citizens of their state against crimes against humanity, war crimes,
etc,50 ultimately reinforcing sovereignty as it helps states meet their existing responsibilities.51
Evidently, the Aurenzean administration failed to adhere to its duty in protecting the Cordavian
people as attacks aimed to cause violent unrest can be prevented, or provided protection against.

Transfer of Responsibility to Borenthea.

After the transition period the administrative control shifted towards Borenthea, which means
that the Borenthean administration has to provide protection to the people of Cordavia. The
events that took place against the Cordavians formed a duty for the Borenthean administration to
bring the perpetrators of such acts to justice under its domestic laws and regulations.52 The
Borenthean administration has the duty to take action against such preparators, however the same
cannot be done without due diligence, as there is no concrete proof of the involvement of any
specific actor, and the only accused entity for the attack is the ‘Kavzar Front’, against which no
concrete evidence is present.

47
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports
1986, p. 14, para. 115 (June 27, 1986).
48
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb.
& Montenegro), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para 209 (Feb. 26, 2007).
49
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb.
& Montenegro), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para 208(Feb. 26, 2007).
50
G.A. Res. 60/1, para. 138, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Sept. 16, 2005).
51
G.A. Res. 60/1, para. 138-139, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Sept. 16, 2005).
52
S.C. Resolution 1373, Art. 2(e), U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (Sept. 28, 2001).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 17

Jurisdiction of International Law

According to Article 5 of the ‘Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings’ (1997),
each state has the duty to adopt measures including domestic legislation to ensure criminal acts
are punished with the suitable penal actions.53 As previously affirmed, in matters of grave use of
force, conclusive evidence is required, and such conclusive evidence cannot be collected or
presented without proper investigative measures. To adopt domestic legislation in such matters,
the need for proper confirmation of the factual aspects is crucial, and without the same no action
can be taken, which will provide justice, neither under domestic laws nor under international
laws.

International Court of Justice, and its scope before exhaustion of domestic measures.
As per the lease agreement, any dispute arising between the treaties shall be dealt by the PCIJ or
its successor. However, jus cogens rules prevail over inconsistent laws, whether contained in a
treaty,54 and in the ‘Interhandel Case’ states that it is a well established rule in customary
international law that local remedies must be exhausted before international proceedings.55 Even
though the ICJ has jurisdiction over any dispute arising amongst the states, Borenthea has a
Right to extinguish its local remedies, as Cordavia is a part of the sovereign state of Borenthea, it
has the duty to provide justice for actions against the Cordavian state. Therefore, the attack shall
be tried under the domestic laws of Cordavia, after due investigative measures and due diligence.

53
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, Art. 5, Dec. 15, 1997, 2149 U.N.T.S 256.
54
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece intervening), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 99, para/
92 (Feb. 3, 2012).
55
Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Isr. v. Bulg.), Preliminary Objections, Judgement, I.C.J.
Reports 1959, p. 127, at 27 (Mar. 21, 1959).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 18

4. Whether the actions of Aurenzea are to be justified under the international doctrine of
Responsibility to Protect or does it amount to state intervention?

4.1 RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Ambit of the Principle of Responsibility to Protect
As per the ‘2005 World Summit Outcome’, the Doctrine of Responsibility to Protect means,
“Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity”.56 The responsibility to protect, or the R2P falls upon the administrative
entity to protect their citizens.

Jurisdiction of the Responsibility to Protect

The responsibility to protect is enshrined upon the administrative authority of the state only, to
protect the populations under its associated territory, and is the duty of the state to ensure, as far
as possible, public order and safety of the populations.57 Such responsibility is not enshrined
upon other states and their authorities. The responsibility to protect does not constitute or provide
states the right to use of force and intervention in internal affairs of another state, deeming the
actions of Aurenzea as state intervention, and not the right to protect.

4.2 STATE INTERVENTION

Elements of State Intervention and its applicability to actions of Aurenzea
The basic elements of the term ‘state intervention’ delves into various choices which each state is
permitted to choose freely from. Such may include aspects like:-
●​ Political,
●​ Cultural,
●​ Social, and
●​ Economic aspects

56
2005 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Resolution 60/1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/1 (Oct.24, 2005),
[Link]
57
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgement, 2005, I.C.J. Rep. 168,
para. 178 (Dec. 19).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 19

●​ Intervention is wrongful when it includes coercion in regards to such choices, as coercion

forms the very essence of prohibited intervention.58

Advocacy for Self Determination

The advocacy for self determination was not raised by Aurenzea in its 99 years tenure of
administrating Cordavia. Aurenzea raised this matter only because of the fact that the lease
agreement came to an end and Cordavia was going to be under Borenthean administration, as per
the lease agreement. Cordavia’s territory, enriched with 93% of rare Earth materials makes it, or
its administrative authority a major and integral part of the world economy. Therefore, when the
Cordavian territory along with its resources will be governed by Borenthea, it will make
Borenthea a vital player in the world economy.

Intervention by Aurenzea in the Economical and Political aspects

Opinio juris of the existence of principle of non intervention in international customary law is
very prominent, even though the same is not explicitly mentioned in the U.N. Charter, as the
charter was never intended to embody every essential principle of international law.59 The
principle of non-intervention clearly prohibits a state from intervening directly or indirectly with
internal affairs of another state.60 The choice of governance of a state in an internal affair of the
state, and by advocating for the self-determination of Cordavians, Aurenzea intervened in such
affairs. Hence, the actions of Aurenzea amounts to state intervention as it interferes with the
political as well as economic aspects of Borenthea.

Attack by Aurenzea under the pretences of Self Defence.

On 5th July 2025, Aurenzea attacked the sovereign state of Borenthea leading to loss of life and
property. As per the state of Aurenzea, the attack was an act of self defence, which in fact was
retaliation for the prior attacks that took place in Cordavia. The drone used in the attack bore
faint and inconclusive markings, even though Aurenzea alleged it to have markings of the

58
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep.14, para 205 (June 27).
59
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports
1986, p. 14, para. 202 (June 27, 1986).
60
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p.
168, para. 164 (Dec. 19, 2005).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 20

‘Kavzar Front’. No customary international law permits a state to exercise self defence on the
basis of its own assessment of the situation.61 To claim the right of individual self defence, the
state has to show the attacks made upon it were the actions of the accused state and is responsible
for the attack62, and the burden of proof rests upon the victim state to prove the existence and
responsible party for the attack.63 The supposed act of self defence caused several incidents of
civilian casualties, leading to violation of human right laws, therefore, it does not justify the
actions of Aurenzea while invoking and exercising the right of self defence.64

Lack of restraint of force by Aurenzea.

States have the duty to refrain from using force as means of solving international disputes,65
which evidently, was not adhered to by Aurenzea. It was stated by this very court that, “States
should have refrained, with complete consistency, from the use of force or from intervention
in each other's interna1 affairs.”66 The respect for territorial sovereignty is crucial to maintain
international relations,67 but by attacking the state of Borenthea, under the pretences of self
defence, and causing loss of life and property to such a gravity, Aurenzea violated the territorial
sovereignty of the state of Borenthea.68

Actions of Aurenzea not justified under the right to self defence

The U.N. Charter in Article 51 grants states the Right to Self-defence in cases of an armed
attack.69 As per the Virginia Journal of International Law, “armed attacks” were intended by the
drafters to mean only attacks by states.70 The Journal further notes that “Non State actors may
61
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports
1986, p. 14, para. 195 (June 27, 1986).
62
Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161, para. 51 (Nov. 6, 2003).
63
Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161, para. 57 (Nov. 6, 2003).
64
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 2004, p. 136, para. 139 (July 9, 2004).
65
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, I.C.J. Reports
1986, p. 14, para.191.
66
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep. 14, para. 186 (June 27, 1986).
67
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep. 14, para. 202 (June 27, 1986).
68
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, Judgement, 1949 I.C.J. Rep. 4, at 35 (Apr. 9, 1949).
69
U.N. Charter, art. 51, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993.
70
Ashley Deeks, ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extra-Territorial Self Defense, 52 Va. J.
Int’l L. 483, 492 (2012).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 21

commit armed attacks, but only when those attacks are attributable to a State.” 71 No satisfactory
proof links Borenthea, directly or indirectly, to the attacks allegedly carried out by the “Kavzar
Front”, and thus Borenthea remains non-attributable.72 In State conflicts, all parties are obliged to
distinguish between Military targets and Civilians, and targeting Civilians without Military
necessity constitutes an offence- one committed by Aurenzea.73

Violations of basic Human Rights

Killing innocent civilians under the pretences of self defence is a clear violation of human right
laws, and shows the lack of necessity of use of force, which directly violates Article 2(4) of the
U.N. Charter.74 The use of force was a direct violation of both the principle of non use of force,
and another, that of non intervention.75 Advocacy for self-determination and attacking Borenthea
cements Aurenzea’s interference in the internal affairs of Borenthea, as well as cements the
breach of territorial sovereignty of Borenthea. These actions of the state of Aurenzea amount to
state intervention, and cannot be considered a part or element of the principle of R2P.

71
Ashley Deeks, ‘Unwilling or Unable’: Toward a Normative Framework for Extra-Territorial Self Defense, 52 Va. J.
Int’l L. 483, 492 (2012).
72
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgement, 2005 I.C.J. Rep. 168,
para. 146 (Dec. 19, 2005).
73
Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgement, para. 180 (Int;l Crim. for the Former Yugoslavia
Mar. 3, 2000).
74
U.N. Charter, art.2, para. 4, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993.
75
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. V. U.S.), Merits, Judgement, 1986 I.C.J.
Rep. 14, para 205 (June 27, 1986).

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-

 22

PRAYER

The Respondent requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a)​ Borenthea holds the Territorial Sovereignty of Cordavia.

b)​ The Movement of Cordavians to Borenthea was voluntary and does not amount to
Human Trafficking.

c)​ Local Remedies are to be exhausted before adjudging upon the guilt of any actor.

d)​ Actions of Aurenzea do not fall under the ambit of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and
amount to State Intervention.

Respectfully Submitted,
AGENTS OF THE RESPONDENT.

-Written Submission on Behalf of Respondent-