● ISSUE 1:

-preparotory docs
Caselaw:
The gamibia v Myanmar
115. Rejects the second preliminary objection raised by the Republic of the Union of Myanmar;
That the gambia does not have standing to bring the case before icj bec: it is not directly
affected. Court held, that violations of erga omnes partes invoke the interest of all states party to
a convention.

4. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

Article 14

Any dispute between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot
be settled by other means shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of the
parties to the dispute.

This art in conjunction w art 36 of the icj statute:

ART 34 1954 CONV

34. settlement of disputes

Any dispute between Parties to this Convention relating to its interpretation or application, which cannot
be settled by other means, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one
of the parties to the dispute.

Article 36

1. 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.

No reservation by remisia to art 14 under art 17 of the convention

Article 17 1961

1.At the time of signature, ratification or accession any State may make a reservation in respect of articles 11, 14 or
15.

Existence of a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or

fulfilment
These arts make the court’s jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute relating to the
interpretation, application or fulfilment of the said instrument, and that it must therefore determine prima
facie the existence of such a dispute

in principle, the date for determining the existence of a dispute is the date on which the application is
submitted.

ANTRANOS INTEREST IN FULFILLMENT OF ERGA OMNE partes OBLIGATION

that the right to invoke responsibility for a breach of obligations erga omnes par- tes entails the right to
submit a dispute resulting from such breach to the Court.

● Antrano has a common interest with other states in ensuring that obligations erga
omnes, such as those relating to the prevention and reduction of statelessness, are
respected by all states, and that any breach of such obligations is remedied by the
responsible state.

PREV OF STATELESSNESS ERGA OMNES OBLG

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states in Article 15

that “[e]veryone has the right to a nationality” and “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”
2. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states in
Article 24 that “[e]very child shall have, without any discrimination as to race,
colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right
to acquire a nationality.”
3. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which states in Article 7 that
“[t]he child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right
from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the
right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”
4. Achpr art 5, ecn art 4

Caselaw:

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)

the Court affirmed Belgium’s standing solely on the basis of the erga omnes partes character of the
obligations allegedly breached.

All the States parties to the Genocide Convention thus have a common interest to ensure the prevention,
suppression and punishment of genocide, by committing themselves to fulfilling the obligations con-
tained in the Convention. As the Court has affirmed, such a common interest implies that the obligations
in question are owed by any State

party to all the other States parties to the relevant convention; they are obligations erga omnes partes, in
the sense that each State party has an interest in compliance with them in any given case (Questions
relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012
(II), p. 449, para. 68; see also Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application:
1962) (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 33).

-no requirement of special interest on part of antrano:

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),

Having concluded, in its Judgment in the case concerning Questions relating to the Obligation to
Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), that all States parties to the Convention against Torture had
a common interest in compliance with the relevant obligations under that treaty, the Court held that there
was no need to pronounce on whether Belgium, as the applicant, had a “special interest” in respect of
Senegal’s compliance with those obligations (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), pp. 449-450, paras.
68-70).

The common interest in compliance with the relevant obligations under the 1954 Convention entails that
any State party, without distinction, is entitled to invoke the responsibility of another State party for an
alleged breach of its obligations erga omnes partes. Responsibility for an alleged breach of obligations
erga omnes par- tes under the Convention may be invoked through the institu- tion of proceedings before
the Court, regardless of whether a special interest can be demonstrated. If a special interest were
required for that purpose, in many situations no State would be in a position to make a claim.
Rebuttal to art 44 arsiwa

the national- ity of claims, as reflected in Article 44 (a) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, is
inapplicable in cases such as the present one, where its application would be contrary to the object and
purpose of a treaty. Statelessness and expulsion is likely to be directed against nation- als of the State
committing it. the rule concerning the nationality of claims would preclude the invocation of responsibility
in relation to these individuals and would therefore be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the
Convention, rendering that treaty a “dead letter”. the rule concerning the nationality of claims is inconsis-
tent with the aims of the Convention and that it is therefore inapplicable.

5. Antrano and Remisia are parties to the Special Agreement:

The Special Agreement is a document that submits the questions

contained in the Case to the Court pursuant to Article 40(1) of the
Statute of the Court. Antrano and Remisia have signed and notified
the Special Agreement to the Court, indicating their consent to the
Court’s jurisdiction.
Antrano can support its contention that it has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s
deprivation of nationality of its citizens before the Court by answering in light of these
conventions and international treaties:

6. United Nations Charter: Article 55 of the Charter

the United Nations shall promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights
and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion. Antrano can argue that Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its citizens
violated their human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as the right to a nationality,
the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to freedom of movement,
and the right to protection from arbitrary arrest or detention.

● The Statute of the International Court of Justice: Article 36(1) of the Statute: the
jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force. the dispute concerning
Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its citizens is a case that the parties have referred
to the Court by signing and notifying the Special Agreement, and that it is a matter
specially provided for in the relevant treaties and conventions in force, such as the
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
among others.
● The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): Article 26:

every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in
good faith. Remisia violated its obligations under the treaties and conventions that it is a
party to, such as the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, among others, by depriving its citizens of nationality in an arbitrary
and discriminatory manner, without due process of law, and without providing them with
an effective remedy.

Interpretation of relevant treaties:

Article 31 of the VCLT, which states that a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in
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. The object and purpose of the treaties
and conventions that Remisia is a party to, such as the Convention Relating to the
Status of Stateless Persons, the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, inter alia, is to protect the right to a
nationality and to prevent and reduce statelessness, and that Remisia’s interpretation of
these treaties and conventions is contrary to their object and purpose.

EXHAUSTION OF ALL REMEDIES

● Antrano has exhausted all available means of peaceful settlement of the dispute with
Remisia, as it has attempted to engage in negotiations and consultations with Remisia,
but Remisia has refused to cooperate or acknowledge any international dispute.

ARSIWA

1. Antaro has standing under art 42 of ilc draft articles

One possible way to support Antrano’s contention that it has standing to bring the dispute
concerning Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its citizens before the Court is to use the ILC
Draft Articles on State Responsibility. Here is a possible argument:

● According to Article 1 of the ILC Draft Articles, every internationally wrongful act of a
State entails the international responsibility of that State1. An internationally wrongful act
is defined in Article 2 as an act that is attributable to the State under international law
and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
● Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its citizens was an act attributable to Remisia
under international law, as it was carried out by its authorities in the exercise of their
powers [Article 4]. Remisia’s act constituted a breach of an international obligation of
Remisia, namely the obligation to respect the right to a nationality and to prevent
statelessness, which is recognized as a human right under various international
instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [Article 15], the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness [Article 8], and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child [Article 7].
● Article 42 of the ILC Draft Articles: a State is entitled to invoke the responsibility of
another State if the obligation breached is owed to a group of States including that State,
and is established for the protection of a collective interest of the group; or if the State is
specially affected by the breach. Antrano could claim that it belongs to both categories,
as it is part of the group of States that are parties to the aforementioned human rights
instruments, and as it is specially affected by Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its
citizens, since many of them are also Antrano nationals or have close ties with Antrano.
● Therefore, Antrano contendS that it has standing to bring the dispute concerning
Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of its citizens before the Court, based on the ILC
Draft Articles on State Responsibility.

ISSUE 2:

Remisia’s reservation under art 8.3 of 1961 convention not valid:

Reservation not based on any of the grounds mentioned in the article.

Vclt interpretation.

Convention Article 17.2

1.At the time of signature, ratification or accession any State may make a reservation in respect of articles 11, 14 or
15.

2.No other reservations to this Convention shall be admissible.

How is the act of the sterren forty more grievous and testamentary of disloaylty to the crown while that of other
protestors is not?

30. The Queen was not in residence at the time of these arrests.

CONTRAVENTION OF ART 31 OF 1954 CONV

8. Under the DCA, loss of citizenship, when ordered, is effective immediately. The
convicted person, considered a non-citizen while serving any custodial term, is subject
to expulsion 60 days following completion of the sentence

Article 31

expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a stateless person lawfully in their territory save on grounds of
national security or public order.

2. Theexpulsionofsuchastatelesspersonshallbeonlyinpursuanceofa decision reached in accordance with

due process of law. Except where compel- ling reasons of national security otherwise require, the
stateless person shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be rep-
resented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the
competent authority.

3. The Contracting States shall allow such a stateless person a reasonable period within which to seek
legal admission into another country. The Con- tracting States reserve the right to apply during that period
such internal measures as they may deem necessar

CONTRAVENTION OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT of stateless ppl:

arrest and confinement

Arrest ofprotestors contravenes Iccpr: Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be

placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity
with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests
of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection
of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.