TEAM 267A

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE,

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS,

-2023-

THE CASE CONCERNING THE STERREN FORTY

ANTRANO / REMISIA

PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table Of Contents...........................................................................................................................II
Index Of Authorities......................................................................................................................IV
Statement Of Jurisdiction................................................................................................................X
Questions Presented.......................................................................................................................XI
Statement Of Facts.......................................................................................................................XII
Summary Of Pleadings...............................................................................................................XIV
Pleadings..........................................................................................................................................1
(A). ANTRANO HAS STANDING TO BRING THE DISPUTE CONCERNING REMISIA’S
DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF ITS CITIZENS BEFORE THE COURT................1
1) Remisia's erga omnes partes obligations grant Antrano standing to challenge its
nationality deprivation of the Sterren Forty.............................................................................1
2) Article 14 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grants Antrano standing
to seek the Court’s Adjudication of the Dispute......................................................................3
3) Nevertheless, Antrano suffers direct and substantial harm from the Sterren Forty dispute.
.................................................................................................................................................4
4) The non-intervention principle does not bar Antrano’s claim............................................4
5) Local Remedies Exhaustion Not Required for Antrano's Direct Access to the Court........7
(B). REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE “STERREN FORTY,”
RENDERING THEM STATELESS, IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.........8
1) The acts of the Sterren Forty were not seriously prejudicial to the interests of Remisia....8
2) Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty was arbitrary, violating
international human rights law................................................................................................9
3) Remisia violated its treaty obligations...........................................................................13
4) Remisia violated the Customary International Law duty to prohibit statelessness.......15
(C) ANTRANO DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN IT REFUSED TO
PROVIDE REMISIA CONSULAR ACCESS TO MS. SAKI SHAW DURING HER TIME
AS A PRISONER IN ANTRANO............................................................................................18
1) Saki Shaw was not a Remisian citizen and therefore not entitled to Remisian consular
access.....................................................................................................................................18
2) Antrano Complied with its Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Obligations....20
II
 (D) REMISIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING ANTRANAN
NATIONAL DR. TULOUS MALEX ENTRY TO REMISIA AS REQUIRED BY
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 99997........................................................................23
1) Security Council Resolution 99997 is binding on Remisia...........................................23
2) Remisia violated its to comply with Security Council Resolution 99997 by refusing to
allow Dr Malex entry into Remisia.......................................................................................27
I. Remisia breached the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations...................................................................................................................................27
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................28

III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Treaties

Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, ETS 166..............12

League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality

Law, 13 April 1930, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89, No. 4137.....................5

Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 892 UNTS 119................................15

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 13
February 1946............................................................................................................................26

UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30 August 1961, United

Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 989, p. 175...................................................................................5, 6

UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December

1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171...............................................................13

UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III)
...................................................................................................................................................14

UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III).
...................................................................................................................................................14

Universal Declaration of Human Rights..........................................................................................9

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S..............17

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol.
1155, p. 331...............................................................................................................................14

Treatises

“The Law of Nationality.” The American Journal of International Law 23, no. 2 (1929): 1–129.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2212861..................................................................................................5

Institut de Droit International. "Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law” Krakow
Session, 2005. https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/2005_kra_01_fr.pdf.....................1

International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries ,

2006.............................................................................................................................................7

IV
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1.............................2

International Court of Justice Cases

Advisory Opinion No. 4, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, 4, Permanent Court
of International Justice, 7 February 1923....................................................................................5

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia. v. Myanmar.), Order, 2020 I.C.J. 1...........................................................................1, 2

Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), International Court
of Justice (ICJ), 31 March 2004................................................................................................20

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co., Ltd. (Belgium. v. Spain), Judgment (Second Phase),..1

Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15. 9.....................................7

International Court of Justice, Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries, ICJ Reports 1951 p 116, 131.........16

International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of

Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 1969 I.C.J. Rep.
3, 44...........................................................................................................................................15

Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 418.........................................21, 22

LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 466.......21

Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16..............................................................................................24, 25, 26

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136.........................................................................2

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p.
226.............................................................................................................................................24

Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala); Second Phase, International Court of Justice

(ICJ), 6 April 1955...............................................................................................................18, 21

V
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1998, p. 115................................................3

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

Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 156...............................................2, 4

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

Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 156...................................................1

Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I.C. J. Reports 19-51, p. 1.5.....1

South West Africa, Second Phase, Ethiopia/Liberia v South Africa (Judgment) [1966] ICJ Rep 6,
34.................................................................................................................................................4

Permanent Court of International Justice Cases

Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 7, (Sept. 15)......5

International Tribunal Cases

Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic [2014] IACtHR Series C No.
282.............................................................................................................................................10

Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (IACrtHR), 8 September 2005..........................................................................10

K2 v. the United Kingdom, dec., No. 42387/13, ECHR (First Section Chamber), 7 February 2017
.....................................................................................................................................................9

Arbitral Awards

Alberto Carrizosa Gelzis, Enrique Carrizosa Gelzis, Felipe Carrizosa Gelzis v. Republic of
Colombia, PCA Case No. 2018-56, Award, 7 May 2021..........................................................19

Claim of Finnish shipowners against Great Britain in respect of the use of certain Finnish
vessels during the war (“Finnish Ships Arbitration”), Award of 9 May 1934, UNRIAA, vol.
III (Sales No. 1949.V.2), p. 1479................................................................................................7

United Nations General Assembly Resolutions

UN General Assembly, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees :
resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 9 February 1996, A/RES/50/152......................4
VI
UN General Assembly Resolution

Human Rights Council, ‘Resolution 7/10 on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of
Nationality’ (hrc 2008) UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/7/10...........................................................16, 17

UN General Assembly, ‘Resolution 61/137 on the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees’ (UN General Assembly 2007) UN Doc. A/RES/61/137.............16

UN Documents

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961
Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of
Nationality ("Tunis Conclusions"), March 2014, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/docid/533a754b4.html.....................................................................15

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961
Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of
Nationality ("Tunis Conclusions"), March 2014.......................................................................15

UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No. 1: The

definition of "Stateless Person" in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons, 20 February 2012, HCR/GS/12/01................................................................2

UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 31 [80], The nature of the general
legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May
2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13...............................................................................................13

UN Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the
Secretary-General’, A/HRC/25/28 (2013).................................................................................10

UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the
Secretary-General, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28...............................................................8

United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’,
Report of the Secretary-General , U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/34 (2009)..........................................14

Digests and Books

Council of Europe, “Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality” (6

September 1997)........................................................................................................................15

James Crawford, ed., Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2012)................................................................................................16
VII
ÖBERG, M.D., 2005. The legal effects of resolutions of the UN Security Council and General
Assembly in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. European Journal of International Law, 16(5),
pp.879-906.................................................................................................................................27

von Rütte, B. (22 Dec. 2022). The Human Right to Citizenship, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill |
Nijhoff. Available From: Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004517523..................................17

Articles

"Impact of Statelessness: Are We Ready to Face?" written by Bilkis Afroza Siddika, published
by Open Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.7 No.12, 201...............................................................4

A.A. CANCADO TRINDADE, “The Domestic Jurisdiction of States in the Practice of the United
Nations and Regional Organizations” (1976) 25 Int. Comp. L.Q. 713 at 723............................5

CHOW, POK YIN STEPHENSON, On Obligations Erga Omnes Partes (March 1, 2021).
Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2021, City University of Hong
Kong School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021(1)-003.......................................2

HIGGINS, R., 1972. ‘The Advisory Opinion on Namibia: Which UN Resolutions are Binding
under Article 25 of the Charter?’ International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 21(2), pp.270-
286.............................................................................................................................................24

IMMANUEL AMP. The Customary Obligation to Avoid, Reduce, or Prevent Statelessness in South
Asia. Asian Journal of International Law. 2023;13(2):244-272.
doi:10.1017/S204425132200056X............................................................................................16

Joyner, D. (2017, January 9). Legal Bindingness of Security Council Resolutions Generally, and
Resolution 2334 on the Israeli Settlements in Particular. Blog of the European Journal of
International Law. Retrieved from: https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bindingness-of-security-
council-resolutions-generally-and-resolution-2334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-particular/. .23

M JAMNEJAD AND M WOOD, ‘The Principle of Non-intervention’ (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of

International Law, 22 (2009), pp. 345–381.................................................................................6

Q. Wright, “Is Discussion Intervention” (1956) Am. J. Int’l L.......................................................5

Security Council Resolutions Generally, and Resolution 2334 on the Israeli Settlements in
Particular. Blog of the European Journal of International Law. Retrieved from:
https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bindingness-of-security-council-resolutions-generally-and-
resolution-2334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-particular/..........................................................23

VIII
Von Rütte, B. (2022). Chapter 3 Domaine Réservé?: Statehood, Sovereignty and Nationality. In
The Human Right to Citizenship, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff...............................6

IX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Republic of Antrano (‘Antrano/Applicant’) and the Kingdom of Remisia

(‘Remisia/Respondent’) appear before the International Court of Justice through submission of
a Special Agreement for resolution of their differences regarding the Sterren Forty, in accordance
with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The Court has been granted
jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of the Statute by Antrano and Remisia, who have consensually
presented the matter to it. As a result, on September 15, 2023, the Parties jointly notified this
Court of their Special Agreement and agreed to appear before the court.

X
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(A) Whether Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of

nationality of its citizens before the Court.

(B) Whether Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty,” rendering them

stateless, is a violation of international law.

(C) Whether Antrano did not violate international law when it refused to provide Remisia

consular access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano.

(D) Whether Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. TulousMalex

entry to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997.

XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE PARTIES

Emerging in 1951 as a Constitutional Republic in the Mahali Archipelago, Antrano, with a

population of one million, is a country occupied by nomadic peoples and a welcoming home for
diverse ethnic and religious minorities. A committed advocate for global stateless rights, Antrano
engages in international efforts to eradicate the plight of statelessness.

The Kingdom of Remisia is a constitutional monarchy positioned approximately 11,000

kilometres away from the Mahali Archipelago, situated on the Isidre Plateau within the Serat
Mountains. Led by Queen Khasat, with a lineage tracing back to the kingdom's first king in 561
CE, Remisia, with a population of two million, upholds a constitutional monarchy where the
monarch's royal assent holds significance in the legislative process.

RELEVANT CONVENTIONS

Antrano and the Kingdom of Remisia are parties to the United Nations Charter, the Statute of the
International Court of Justice. They have ratified and are parties to the Convention on Reduction
of Statelessness, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the Vienna Conventions on Consular
and Diplomatic Relations.

ILSA PROTESTS AND REMISIA'S RESPONSE

In February 2020, students, under the banner of the Isidre League of Student Activists (ILSA),
initiated peaceful protests against risky mining operations in Remisia. Remisia's response
XII
involved arrests, tear gas deployment, and the detention of over a thousand student
demonstrators, including the forty students who were arrested while protesting at the Sterren
Palace gates, later labeled as the Sterren Forty. Due to Covid-19 protocols, trials were conducted
via Zoom. The trials resulted in guilty verdicts for those who were participating in protests. The
Sterren Forty faced stricter sentences after unsuccessfully appealing to the Supreme Court. Their
conviction resulted in revocation of their citizenship, as per the Disrespect to the Crown Act.

SAKI SHAW'S CASE AND EXTRADITION REQUEST

Saki Shaw was a Molvanian born who later obtained citizenship under the Naturalization by
Investment Act of Remisia. While on her visit to Antrano, Molvania issued an arrest warrant for
following allegations of fraud against her company, Lithos Limited. Saki Shaw identified as a
citizen of dual nationality, both Remisian and Molvanian citizenship. However, Antrano did not
recognize purchased citizenship. Antrano objected to comply with Remisia's request for consular
access for Saki Shaw and instead granted access to Molvania.

INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS AND THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL

Antrano's President Iyali expressed concerns over the Sterren Forty's statelessness, proposing
dialogue with Remisia, a gesture rejected as interference in internal affairs. Antrano, holding the
UN Security Council presidency in January 2022, submitted a memorandum to the Security
Council, warning of potential international friction due to Remisia's actions. The Security
Council established the UN Inspection Mission to Remisia (UNIMR) through Resolution 99997
to inquire into the condition of the Sterren Forty, to which Remisia denied access and entry.
Failing to amicably resolve their disputes, the parties have submitted the matter to the court for
adjudication.

XIII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

PLEADING (A)

Antrano argues that it has standing to challenge Remisia's deprivation of citizenship from its
citizens (the Sterren Forty) before the International Court of Justice. Antrano bases its claim on
shared treaty obligations to prevent statelessness. Both parties are bound by treaties to prevent
statelessness, and Remisia's actions directly violate this shared interest. Building on the shared
treaty obligations, Antrano further argues that Treaties that both parties have ratified like the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness provide a mandatory referral clause, allowing any
party to bring disputes concerning interpretation or application before the ICJ. Furthermore,
Remisia's actions threaten Antrano's legal obligations, and regional stability. The potential
increase in stateless individuals could strain Antrano's resources and destabilize the region,
justifying its involvement. While states possess sovereignty to determine their domestic affairs,
the principle of non-interference in internal affairs has exceptions for situations causing serious
harm to the international community or another state's legitimate interests. Remisia's actions
raise such concerns, providing Antrano with a legal basis to act. The Sterren Forty have
exhausted all domestic legal avenues within Remisia, including appeals to the Supreme Court.
Remisia's offer of an apology does not constitute an effective remedy, further validating
Antrano's standing.

PLEADING (B)

Nationality is a right of utmost importance and its deprivation, rendering an individual stateless
is severe and extreme. Remisia's actions did not meet the high threshold for deprivation of
nationality. The Sterren Forty's convictions for peaceful dissent under the Disrespect to the
XIV
Crown Act do not justify such an extreme measure. The deprivation of nationality was
unnecessary, and disproportionate to the alleged threat posed by the Sterren Forty thus
amounting to arbitrariness. It further targeted them based on political beliefs, amounting to
discrimination considering the harsh sentences they received. Furthermore, rendering the Sterren
Forty stateless exposes them to severe hardship and violates their fundamental right to
nationality. This constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment. In depriving the Sterren Forty of their
citizenship, Remisia breached its obligations under the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness and other treaties by disregarding the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation and
failing to avoid statelessness. Moreover, Remisia violated the customary international law duty
to prevent statelessness by depriving the Sterren Forty without considering alternative measures.

PLEADING (C)

Antrano's refusal of consular access to Saki Shaw aligns with international law for multiple
reasons. Firstly, Shaw's Remisian citizenship lacks genuine connections as Antrano need not
recognize citizenship derived from Remisia's economic-centric Naturalization by Investment
Act. Even if she had dual nationality, her predominant Molvanian connection governs consular
access. Secondly, Antrano fulfilled its Vienna Convention obligations by informing Shaw of her
rights and promptly notifying Molvanian authorities. Nevertheless, Remisia suffered no
prejudice from the lack of notification, as they promptly became aware of Shaw's detention. In
essence, Antrano's actions were legally justified, ensuring compliance with international law and
minimizing potential prejudice to Remisia's rights.

PLEADING (D)

Antrano submits that Remisia breached international law by denying entry to Dr. Tulous Malex,
violating Security Council Resolution 99997. The binding nature of the resolution is evident
through prior discussions, language analysis, UN Charter provisions, and the resolution's
connection to existing binding sources of international law. Remisia's obligation to comply with
Resolution 99997 is established, as the resolution authorizes specific actions, creating
corresponding binding effects. Dr. Tulous Malex’s entry into Remisia flows from the Security
Council Resolution which requires Remisia to fully cooperate with its obligations. However,

XV
Remisia's refusal, in turn, amounts to a breach of the UN Charter, the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations violating international law.

XVI
PLEADINGS

(A). ANTRANO HAS STANDING TO BRING THE DISPUTE CONCERNING

REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF ITS CITIZENS BEFORE THE
COURT

Antrano submits that it has standing to bring the matter of deprivation of nationality of the
Sterren Forty because (1) Remisia's erga omnes partes obligations grant Antrano standing to
challenge its nationality deprivation. (2) Article 14 of the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness grants Antrano standing to seek the Court’s Adjudication of the Dispute, and (3)
the matter involves direct and substantial harm to Antrano. (4) Antrano’s claim is not barred by
the non-intervention principle (5) and the exhaustion of local remedies is not required prior the
filing of the claim.

1) Remisia's erga omnes partes obligations grant Antrano standing to challenge its
nationality deprivation of the Sterren Forty

Erga omnes partes obligations are obligations owed to all parties to a treaty who share a
common interest, such as upholding a fundamental human right.1 Treaties containing erga omnes
partes obligations create a common interest among all contracting parties in ensuring their
fulfillment.2 Any breach of such obligations injures not just the directly affected state, but all
1
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The
Gambia. v. Myanmar.), Order, 2020 I.C.J. 1, (Jan. 23). ¶107 [‘The Gambia v. Myanmar’];
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional
Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 156. ¶68, ¶69. [‘Belgium v. Senegal’];
See also Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co., Ltd. (Belgium. v. Spain), Judgment (Second
Phase), 1970 I.C.J. 3, ¶33. [‘Barcelona Traction Case’]; Institut de Droit International.
"Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law” Krakow Session, 2005.
https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/2005_kra_01_fr.pdf. Article 1.
2
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion: I.C. J. Reports 19-51, p. 1.5. At
Page 23; The Gambia v. Myanmar, ¶17, ¶113; CHOW, POK YIN STEPHENSON, On Obligations
Erga Omnes Partes (March 1, 2021). Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, No. 2,
2021, City University of Hong Kong School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2021(1)-
003. At page 500-501. [‘Chow, 2021’].
1
states holding that common interest.3 This grants all treaty parties the right to file a claim to cease
violations committed by another state concerning the shared interest, 4 without the need of
demonstrating a specific interest.5

In this case, both Remisia and Antrano are signatories to the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness6 and the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. 7 These treaties
create a common interest to prevent and avoid statelessness. 8 By depriving the Sterren Forty of
their nationality, Remisia's actions directly affect the shared interest in preventing statelessness. 9
Any resulting statelessness would not only inflict harm upon the individuals directly affected but
also constitute a broader violation of the shared interest in upholding the treaties' objectives.
Thus, Antrano has a legal interest in ensuring Remisia's compliance with these obligations.

3
Barcelona Traction Case, ¶33; The Gambia v. Myanmar, ¶107. International Law Commission,
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001,
Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1. Article 48(1)(a), Commentary (6). [‘(D)ARSIWA’].
4
Belgium v. Senegal, ¶68; See also Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the
Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 2004, p. 136. ¶158. [‘Wall’].
5
The Gambia v. Myanmar, ¶108; Belgium v. Senegal ¶68, ¶69.
6
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30 August 1961, United
Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 989, p. 175. [‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’].
7
UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 28 September
1954, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 360, p. 117. [‘Convention Relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons’]; Compromis, ¶62.
8
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 1(1), Introductory Note; (D)ARSIWA,
Article 48, Commentary (8); UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on
Statelessness No. 1: The definition of "Stateless Person" in Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention
relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 20 February 2012, HCR/GS/12/01. [‘Guidelines on
Statelessness No. 1’].
9
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article 1(1). A stateless person is a
person not considered a national of any state.
2
2) Article 14 of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grants Antrano standing
to seek the Court’s Adjudication of the Dispute.

Article 14 provides that any dispute between parties regarding the Convention's interpretation or
application "shall be referred to the International Court of Justice at the request of any one of
10
the parties to the dispute." In Lockerbie, despite involving a jurisdictional dispute, the ICJ
implicitly acknowledged the parties' standing under Article 14(1) of the Montreal Convention
1971, (which mirrors the language of Article 14 of the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness).11

The present dispute concerns the deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty, 12 an issue
impacting the interpretation and application of the Convention on the Reduction of Stateless
Persons.13 Antrano and Remisia have ratified the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
and the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. 14 This creates a binding legal
framework and confirms both parties' right to invoke the mandatory referral clause. Therefore,
Antrano has standing to bring the dispute before the ICJ for adjudication.

10
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 14;
11
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 1998, p. 115. [‘Lockerbie’].
12
Compromis, ¶34, ¶50, ¶62.
13
Compromis, ¶62. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Articles 7, 8. As well as
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article 34. Article 34 grants parties
standing to refer any matter relating to application and interpretation of the Convention to the
Court. The present dispute revolves around the alleged violation of the respondent of the
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Articles 26 and 32.
14
Compromis, ¶62.
3
3) Nevertheless, Antrano suffers direct and substantial harm from the Sterren Forty
dispute.

To possess standing, a party must establish that it has a legal interest or right in the subject
matter of the claim.15 Although for erga omnes partes claims, a party does not have to
demonstrate special interest, Antrano nevertheless possesses special interest in the Sterren Forty
dispute.16

Deprivation of nationality has a far-reaching social and economic impact on international

relations.17 Remisia's deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty poses a direct and substantial
threat to Antrano's legal obligations, national security, and regional stability, raising profound
concerns beyond the plight of the affected individuals.

The potential increase of stateless individuals arising from Remisia's actions may strain
Antrano's resources and infrastructure, creating a ripple effect that could compromise social
stability. Thus, Antrano possesses a legal right and interest in the matter granting it standing.

4) The non-intervention principle does not bar Antrano’s claim

The non-intervention principle prohibits states from interfering in the internal affairs of other
states. However, this principle is not absolute and has recognized exceptions, particularly when a
state's actions violate its international treaty obligations or another state's legitimate interests.

15
South West Africa, Second Phase, Ethiopia/Liberia v South Africa (Judgment) [1966] ICJ Rep
6, 34. ¶48.
16
The Gambia v. Myanmar, ¶108; Belgium v. Senegal ¶68, ¶69.
17
UN General Assembly, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees:
resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 9 February 1996, A/RES/50/152. ¶24
[‘A/RES/50/152’]; "Impact of Statelessness: Are We Ready to Face?" written by
BilkisAfrozaSiddika, published by Open Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.7 No.12, 201
4
 I. International law may bind states, even in domestic affairs.
While Remisia has a sovereign right to regulate nationality matters, 18 this right is not absolute
and must be exercised per international law obligations. 19Furthermore, matters that involve
interpretation and application of a state's obligations under international law are regarded as
international matters, not domestic.20

Remisia's actions of depriving its citizens of nationality are not exempt from scrutiny under
international law, regardless of its domestic power to govern nationality. Conseqently, while
Remisia possesses the right to manage its own nationality, this right cannot justify the violation
of its international obligations, especially those pertaining to human rights.

II. Remisia’s actions raise international concerns

A matter no longer falls within the domestic jurisdiction of a state, if it becomes a matter of
international concern.21 Statelessness poses a threat to international security and stability. 22 The
treatment of a State's nationals and population falls within the scope of international human
rights, which is an obligation of the international community as a whole.23

18
Compromis, ¶¶37-38; Advisory Opinion No. 4, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and
Morocco, 4, Permanent Court of International Justice, 7 February 1923, [‘Nationality Decrees
Issued in Tunis and Morocco’];
19
Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 7, (Sept. 15). at
Page 16. [‘Polish Nationality’]; “The Law of Nationality.” The American Journal of
International Law 23, no. 2 (1929): 1–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/2212861. Article 2. [‘The
Law of Nationality’]; League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the
Conflict of Nationality Law, 13 April 1930, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89,
No. 4137. Article 1 [‘Hague Convention’]
20
Q. WRIGHT, “Is Discussion Intervention” (1956) Am. J. Int’l L. at 105 [‘Wright, 1956’].
21
A.A. CANCADO TRINDADE, “The Domestic Jurisdiction of States in the Practice of the United
Nations and Regional Organizations” (1976) 25 Int. Comp. L.Q. 713 at 723; Wright, 1956.
22
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30 August 1961, United
Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 989, p. 175, Preamble. [‘Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness’].
5
Remisia's actions create a risk of statelessness for the Sterren Forty, potentially contributing to
instability and insecurity, burden on resources. The collective harm caused by statelessness to the
shared interest24 justifies Antrano's involvement in upholding international law and preventing
such negative consequences. Hence, Antrano's concern for the mutual interests in the
international community provides an additional basis for its standing, as it seeks to prevent
statelessness and its associated risks.

III. Even though Antrano’s claim may violate the non-intervention principle, its
wrongfulness is precluded by Remisia’s indirect to consent to interference in its
internal affairs
To constitute a violation, intervention must be coercive 25 and the intervening state must intend to
forcibly cause subordination of another state’s sovereignty. 26 Where a state consents to
intervention, it precludes the wrongfulness of the intervention. 27 In ratifying various treaties,
Antrano consented to abide by various human rights standards under those various
Conventions.28 For instance, the Convention on Reduction of Statelessness prohibiting arbitrary
deprival of nationality. Through Remisia’s consent, 29 other parties are empowered to file claims
against Remisia for adjudication to the ICJ in case of violations on Remisia’s part. 30 Thus,

23
Von Rütte, B. (2022). Chapter 3 Domaine Réservé?: Statehood, Sovereignty and Nationality. In
The Human Right to Citizenship, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff. ¶12. Available From:
Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004517523_004, [Accessed 20 November 2023].
24
Convention on reduction of Statelessness, Introductory Note.
25
R. Y. JENNINGS AND A. D. WATTS, Oppenheim’s International Law. At 428 [‘Oppenheim’];
A/RES/2625(XXV).
26
A/RES/2625(XXV); M JAMNEJAD AND M WOOD, ‘The Principle of Non-intervention’ (2009)
22 Leiden Journal of International Law, 22 (2009), pp. 345–381. At Page 371 [‘JAMNEJAD AND
WOOD’].
27
JAMNEJAD AND WOOD, At page 378.
28
Compromis, ¶62.
29
Compromis, 62. Established through ratification and accession.
30
Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, Article 14.
6
Antrano’s claim does not violate the non-intervention principle as Remisia consented to the
intervention.

5) Local Remedies Exhaustion Not Required for Antrano's Direct Access to the Court

Before instituting a claim, a state must ensure that all available local remedies have been
exhausted31 without success.32However, such local remedies do not include remedies of grace.33

In this case, the Sterren Forty have been tried before court. They further went ahead to appeal the
trial court's decision, which the supreme court resultantly upheld.

Remisia may argue that it offered an option to apologize. However, this falls outside the
accepted forms of remedies that a state can offer, thus being ineffective. In conclusion, Antrano's
standing is further validated by the exhaustion of local remedies by the Sterren Forty,
demonstrating that all domestic options have been exhausted before seeking international
redress.

(B). REMISIA’S DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE “STERREN FORTY,”

RENDERING THEM STATELESS, IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Antrano submits that Remisia violated international law when it deprived the “Sterren forty” 34 of
their Remisian citizenship because (1) their acts were not seriously prejudicial to the Kingdom’s
31
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries ,
2006, Article 14 (3). [‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection’].
32
ElettronicaSicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15. 9.¶59 [‘ELSI’].
33
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Article 14, Commentary (5); Claim of Finnish
shipowners against Great Britain in respect of the use of certain Finnish vessels during the war
(“Finnish Ships Arbitration”), Award of 9 May 1934, UNRIAA, vol. III (Sales No. 1949.V.2),
At Page 1479.
34
Compromis, ¶30.
7
vital interests. (2) Remisia's actions were arbitrary, as unnecessary, disproportionate, and
illegitimate, thus amounting to arbitrary nationality deprivation. (3) Remisia violated its treaty
obligations and (4) breached customary international law by rendering the Sterren Forty stateless

1) The acts of the Sterren Forty were not seriously prejudicial to the interests of Remisia

The Convention on Reduction of Statelessness only permits nationality deprivation for acts
significantly jeopardizing a state's vital interests and not ordinary crime. 35 Article 8(3)(a)(ii)
establishes a high threshold to be met by states before deprivation of nationality. 36 Ordinary
crimes, such as the Sterren Forty's convictions under the Disrespect to the Crown Act, do not
meet this high threshold. Past cases under the Convention have established that acts like
espionage, terrorism,37 or inciting armed insurrection qualifies as such, which doesn't apply in
this instance.

While critical of the government, the Sterren Forty's actions were primarily forms of peaceful
dissent or protest, not acts of violence or sabotage. 38 Furthermore, although their acts of
protesting outside the gates of the Sterren Forty potentially threatened the crown, this was
mitigated by the Queen’s absence at the time of protest. 39Therefore, the acts of the Sterren Forty
were not seriously prejudicial to the interests of Remisia.

35
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Sept. 30, 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175. Article 8(3)
[‘Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness’]; UN Human Rights Council, Human rights
and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, 19 December
2013, A/HRC/25/28. ¶20 [‘A/HRC/25/28’].
36
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
37
A/HRC/25/28, ¶13; K2 v. the United Kingdom, dec., No. 42387/13, ECHR (First Section
Chamber), 7 February 2017; Israel has passed the ‘Law for Revocation of Citizenship or
Residency of a Terrorist who Receives Compensation for Carrying out a Terrorist Act
(Amendment to Legislation) 2023-5783’. Refer to Section 1, Purpose.
<https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230215-israel-broadens-law-to-strip-terror-convicts-
of-citizenship>
38
Compromis, ¶30. Even though acts of the Sterren Forty may have been potentially threatening
to the Queen, she was not resident in her palace at the time of the protests.
39
Compromis, ¶
8
 2) Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty was arbitrary, violating
international human rights law

The right to nationality is a fundamental right 40 that every person is entitled to, and states are
prohibited from depriving nationality arbitrarily.41 Despite holding power over nationality, states
face growing restrictions under contemporary international law owing to the binding norms of
international law42 and the obligation treat citizens equally and to avoid statelessness.43

Remisia's deprivation of nationality for the "Sterren Forty" (I) was not in conformity with the
law (II) did not serve a legitimate purpose, (III) unnecessary and (IV) and disproportionate, thus
arbitrary44 constituting a breach of international human rights law.45

I. Not in conformity with the law

Everyone has a right to nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality. 46
Whereas international law permits deprivation of nationality in exceptional circumstances, such
deprivation must be effected in conformity with not only domestic but also international laws

40
A/RES/50/152, ¶16 Reaffirms the right to nationality as a fundamental principle of
international law and prohibits states from arbitrarily depriving individuals of their nationality.
41
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15
42
Such as Treaty obligations, customary international law. See Case of Expelled Dominicans and
Haitians v Dominican Republic [2014] IACtHR Series C No. 282. ¶256. [‘Case of Expelled
Dominicans’]
43
Case of the Yean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (IACrtHR), 8 September 2005. ¶140. [‘Yean and Bosico’].

44
See, Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality, ¶36.
45
UN Human Rights Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of
the Secretary-General’, A/HRC/25/28, ¶4.
46
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.
9
Although, Remisia's deprivation conformed with the Disrespect to the Crown Act, it did not
conform with international law specifically the treaties that Remisia is party to 47 which provide
for the duty to prohibit statelessness.48

II. Did not serve a Legitimate Purpose consistent with international law

The deprivation of nationality must be undertaken in pursuit of a legitimate purpose that is

consistent with the framework of international law. Particularly, with the objectives and
principles enshrined in international human rights law.49

Remisia's stated justifications - alleged involvement in a protest and political beliefs - lack
legitimacy. The alleged aims of the respondent suggest a desire to silence political dissent and
punish individuals, rather than address genuine national security or public order concerns. Such
motivations violate the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation, as they are not grounded in
legitimate state interests.

III.The deprivation was unnecessary

When facing exceptional circumstances that threaten national security or public order, a state
may invoke "necessity" as a justification for taking extreme measures, including deprivation of
nationality. However, this is subject to limitations. Depriving individuals of their nationality is an
excessive punishment which States should only opt for as a last resort.50 In essence, the least
intrusive alternative measures should be considered before resorting to denationalization that
renders persons stateless.51

47
Compromis, ¶62.
48
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Introductory Note, Article 8; Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.
49
UN Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: report of the
Secretary-General, 14 December 2009, A/HRC/13/34, ¶25. [‘A/HRC/13/34’].
50
UN General Assembly, ‘Resolution 67/149 on the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees’ (UN General Assembly 2012) UN Doc. A/RES/67/149. ¶19
[‘A/RES/67/149’].
.
51
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article 1(1); A/HRC/13/34
10
Before depriving the Sterren Forty of their nationality, the respondent could have considered
other available less intrusive alternatives such as issuing fines, travel restrictions, community
service. Remisia's deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty was not the least intrusive and
had adverse impact on the group's right to nationality resultantly rendering them stateless.

IV. Disproportionate to the Interest Protected

Before depriving nationality, the test of proportionality requires that the negative effects of
limiting a right must not outweigh the positive effects. 52 The right to nationality is a gateway
right that gives an individual access to other rights. 53 Limiting it has far reaching consequences
as it leads to the limit on the enjoyment of other rights such as freedom of movement,
association.54 The deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty had far more negative
consequences on the rights of the Sterren Forty such as a limit on their freedom of movement. 55
The deprivation resulted in loss of the freedom of movement thus outweighing Remisia's object
of protecting national interest. This disproportionality constitutes a clear violation of the
principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of international law.

Therefore, although Remisia's actions were intended to protect national security interests and
maintain public order, their actions were disproportionate as the negative effects outweighed the
positive outcomes and intended goals, thus amounting to arbitrariness.56

52
Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, C-135/08, European Union: Court of Justice of the European
Union, 2 March 2010. ¶56, ¶59.
53
Pham Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2064, [2019] 1 WLR
2070, ¶30, ¶49.
54
Case of Expelled Dominicans, ¶257; Yean and Bosico, ¶142.
55
Compromis, ¶34. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, Article 26.
56
See also Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, ETS 166.
Article 4(c). [‘European Convention on Nationality’].
11
V. Remisia’s deprivation of nationality is discriminatory in nature

International law prohibits the deprivation of nationality motivated by discriminatory intent or

have a discriminatory impact.57 Discrimination may be on grounds of religion, ethnicity or
political grounds.

Remisia's actions were driven by a desire to silence dissent and punish individuals based on
political beliefs, rather than legitimate state interests. This is evident in the selective targeting of
the "Sterren Forty," the excessive punishment pronounced against them despite not being the
only protesters.58

Furthermore, regardless of Remisia's intent, the consequences of their actions have been
discriminatory. The "Sterren Forty" have been denied equal protection under the law,
marginalized within society, and deprived of their fundamental rights, including freedom of
movement and association. Hence, the deprivation of nationality led to discriminatory
consequences for the Sterren Forty.

VI. Statelessness amounts to Cruel and Inhumane Treatment

Statelessness can constitute a form of cruel treatment, as it deprives individuals of fundamental

rights and protections.59 By rendering the Sterren Forty stateless, Remisia potentially exposes
them to a range of hardships and vulnerabilities. This includes lack of access to essential
services, social exclusion, and potential displacement, constituting cruel and inhumane treatment.
Hence, Remisia's actions inflict suffering on the Sterren Forty and violate their fundamental
rights, requiring international action to address this form of cruel and inhumane treatment.

57
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 9.
58
Compromis, ¶34.

59
Compromis, ¶34. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, Article 7. [‘ICCPR’];
A/HRC/25/28, ¶4.; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General comment no. 31 [80], The
nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May
2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, ¶10.
12
 3) Remisia violated its treaty obligations

Remisia has ratified relevant treaties such as the Convention n Reduction of Statelessness,
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons which prohibit against arbitrary
deprivation of nationality. By depriving the Sterren Forty of their nationality, Remisia violated
the treaties that it had ratified.

I. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

Article 8(1), states, "A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such
deprivation would render him stateless." 60 States must, at a minimum, postpone any action that
would render a person stateless.61 They must also actively facilitate the acquisition of alternative
nationality through expedited naturalization procedures or other accessible ways.62

Remisia proceeded to deprive the Sterren Forty of their nationality without considering
alternative options or postponing action to allow them to acquire another nationality. 63 This
resulted in the Sterren Forty becoming stateless, a direct contravention of the Convention's core
objective.64 Thus, Remisia's deprivation of nationality of the "Sterren Forty" violated the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

60
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
61
Tunis Conclusions, ¶24.
62
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article, 32; United Nations Human Rights
Council, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, Report of the Secretary-
General, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/13/34 (2009). ¶17. Accessible at
<https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/175/12/PDF/G0917512.pdf?
OpenElement> [‘A/HRC/13/34’]
63
Compromis, ¶34.
64
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Introductory Note.
13
 II. The Disrespect to the Crown Act is inconsistent with Remisia’s treaty obligations
under international Law

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 65 establishes that treaties should be interpreted in
accordance with international law.66 It also prohibits states from entering into treaties that
conflict with their existing international obligations.

The applicant argues that the provisions of the DCA regarding deprivation of nationality are
incompatible with Remisia's obligations under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 67 and the ICCPR.68 Remisia cannot claim
justification for its actions through a domestic law that contradicts its existing international
obligations. Hence, Remisia's reliance on the DCA does not absolve it of its responsibility to
uphold its international legal obligations.

4) Remisia violated the Customary International Law duty to prohibit statelessness

According to North Sea Continental Shelf, customary international law requires two key
elements: (a) widespread and consistent state practice and (b) opinio juris, which is the
69
acceptance of the practice as binding law. The Tunis Conclusions noted that (i) the duty to

65
United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 [‘VCLT’]
66
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
67
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A
(III), Article 15. [‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’]
68
ICCPR Article 7, Article 14.
69
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 892 UNTS 119. Article 38(1)(b)
[‘ICJ Statute’]; International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic
of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 1969 I.C.J. Rep.
3, 44.[ ‘North Continental Sea Shelf’].
14
prevent statelessness has crystallized into customary international law 70 and (ii) Remisia
breached this duty by failing to avoid statelessness.

(i) The duty to prohibit statelessness is customary international law

While international law does not prohibit creation of statelessness, 71 states have a customary law
duty to avoid, prevent or reduce statelessness.72

Remisia, through its ratification of pertinent treaties addressing the reduction of statelessness, 73
has established a consistent state practice reflecting its commitment to this cause. Furthermore,
Remisia has shown that a sense of legal obligation to comply with the duty to prevent
statelessness exists through its acts of not rendering its citizens stateless. 74 Despite the existence
of the Disrespect to the Crown Act in Remisia, its incomplete application suggests Remisia's
recognition of a legal obligation to adhere to the duty of preventing statelessness.75

70
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Expert Meeting - Interpreting the 1961
Statelessness Convention and Avoiding Statelessness resulting from Loss and Deprivation of
Nationality ("Tunis Conclusions"), March 2014. ¶2. [‘Tunis Conclusions’]; See also, Council of
Europe, “Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality” (6 September 1997) at
¶33. [‘Explanatory Report to the European Convention on
Nationality’].
71
IMMANUEL AMP. The Customary Obligation to Avoid, Reduce, or Prevent Statelessness in
South Asia. Asian Journal of International Law. 2023;13(2):244-272.
doi:10.1017/S204425132200056X. At 245. [‘IMMANUEL’].
72
Yean and Bosico, ¶140; Tunis Conclusions, ¶2. The UNHCR has confirmed that the widespread
ratification of human rights treaties and adoption of resolutions on nationality have crystallized
the customary international law duty to prevent statelessness; UN General Assembly,
‘Resolution 61/137 on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UN
General Assembly 2007) UN Doc. A/RES/61/137. ¶7 [‘A/RES/61/137’]; Human Rights
Council, ‘Resolution 7/10 on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’ (hrc 2008)
UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/7/10, ¶4. [‘A/HRC/RES/7/10’].
73
Compromis, ¶62.
74
Ibid., ¶8, ¶31.
75
Compromis., ¶8, ¶31, ¶62. Although Remisia has the Disrespect to the Crown Act in place, it
was not fully applied presumably from Remisia’s sense of legal obligation to comply with the
duty to avoid statelessness.
15
Moreover, Remisia may not argue that it is a persistent or subsequent objector. 76 This fails as the
"Sterren Forty" case appears to be an isolated incident, suggesting that Remisia generally refrains
from depriving nationality as a tool.77 This could be interpreted as acceptance towards respecting
the right to nationality, reflecting internal recognition of legal constraints (opinio juris).
Therefore, Remisia is bound by the customary law duty to prevent or prohibit statelessness.

(ii) Remisia actions directly violate the customary duty to avoid statelessness

States have a customary law duty to take all necessary measures to avoid statelessness.78 Given
its severity, states should not deprive people of nationality if it renders them stateless. 79 States
should only deprive people of their nationality as a last resort after due consideration of
alternative measures rendered them statelessness.

Remisia, stripped the Sterren Forty of their nationality without due regard for other alternative
measures. This left them stateless without any alternative citizenship exposing them to
vulnerabilities. Therefore, by depriving the Sterren Forty of their nationality, Remisia breached
its customary international law duty to avoid statelessness.

76
International Court of Justice, Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries, ICJ Reports 1951 p 116, 131.
Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/case/5 [‘Fisheries Case’]; James Crawford, ed.,
Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford,
2012), p. 28(C [‘Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law’] A state can
only be bound by a norm if it has not persistently objected to its formation. Remisia’s actions on
non-recognition of the duty to prevent statelessness are inconsistent and cannot qualify as
conduct of an objecting state.
77
Compromis, ¶ 8;
78
Yean and Bosico, ¶140; Tunis Conclusions, ¶2; A/HRC/RES/7/10, ¶4; von Rütte, B. (22 Dec.
2022). The Human Right to Citizenship, Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff. Available
From: Brill https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004517523. At page 243, 288. [‘Von’].
79
A/HRC/13/34, ¶17.
16
(C) ANTRANO DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WHEN IT REFUSED TO
PROVIDE REMISIA CONSULAR ACCESS TO MS. SAKI SHAW DURING HER TIME
AS A PRISONER IN ANTRANO.

Antrano's lawfully refused to grant Remisia consular access to Saki Shaw because (1) she was
not a Remisian national thus not entitled to Remisian consular access. (2) Antrano complied with
its obligations of notification and access under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.80

1) Saki Shaw was not a Remisian citizen and therefore not entitled to Remisian
consular access

Saki Shaw is not entitled to Remisian consular access because (I) Antrano is not obligated to
recognize Antranan citizenship laws as they do not establish genuine connections between the
individual and the state. (II) Even if Saki Shaw possessed dual nationality she was dominantly
and effectively Molvanian.

I. Antrano has no obligation to recognize Remisia’s naturalization laws if they do not

establish genuine connections between the individual and the state.

While states have primary control over nationality laws under the principle of state sovereignty,
this power is not absolute.81 Other states are not bound to recognize citizenship acquired through
laws that fail to establish a real and effective link between an individual and the granting state. 82
Although determining a 'genuine connection' remains inherently subjective in individual cases,
Nottebohm established guiding factors.83 Habitually residing in a country alongside other
80
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S.
[‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations’]
81
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala); Second Phase, International Court of Justice
(ICJ), 6 April 1955. [‘Nottebohm’]. At Page 23. The ICJ noted that such laws must be consistent
with international conventions, international customs, and the principles of law generally
recognized about nationality.
82
Nottebohm case, ¶55; See also European Convention on Nationality, Article 3(2).
83
Nottebohm, At Page 22.
17
interests (social or economic) offers a stronger indication of genuine connection. 84 Notably, more
than financial contributions are required, and they must be considered alongside other factors. 85

Remisia’s Naturalization by Investment Act grants citizenship solely based on financial

contributions, absent social factors such as habitual residence, language proficiency, or social
integration. It prioritizes economic gain over meaningful ties and does not establish Ms. Shaw's
genuine connection to Remisia.86 Since the Act demonstrably falls short of the genuine
connections test, Antrano is not obligated to recognize citizenship that flows from it.

II. Even if Saki Shaw possessed dual citizenship, her dominant and effective Molvanian
nationality governs consular access rights, precluding Remisia’s claims.

In Nottebohm, the ICJ established the real and effective test to determine the dominant
citizenship of individuals with dual nationality.87 This test emphasizes the importance of genuine
connections between a person and a particular country, based on social and economic factors
such as maintaining a habitual residence, family ties, and participation in public life or financial
investments, in ultimately determining an individual's true nationality.88

Saki Shaw’s obtainment of Remisian citizenship after fraud allegations against her in 2014 raises
suspicion.89 She later obtained Remisian citizenship in 2016 seeming to be shielding herself from
legal repercussions in her home country.90 These allegations were later substantiated and an
arrest warrant was issued.
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
86
Nottebohm, at Page 24.
87
Nottebohm, ¶51; Alberto Carrizosa Gelzis, Enrique Carrizosa Gelzis, Felipe Carrizosa Gelzis v.
Republic of Colombia, PCA Case No. 2018-56, Award, 7 May 2021. ¶183, ¶184 [‘Carrizosa v
Colombia’]
88
Nottebohm at Page 22; Carrizosa v Colombia, ¶183, ¶193
89
Compromis, ¶16. In 2014, Saki Shaw had money-laundering and tax evasion allegations in
Molvania.
90
Ibid., ¶19.
18
Furthermore, since obtaining citizenship,91 Saki Shaw did not reside in Remisia, and her last visit
was in 2006. She did not exhibit any signs of social integration into the community of Remisia.
Though detached from the country, Saki Shaw was a Molvanian born. 92 Consequently, applying
the real and effective test of nationality shows that Ms. Shaw's connection to Remisia was not
genuine thus remaining with her Molvanian citizenship.

Altogether, Antrano had a legitimate basis for denying consular access under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations on grounds of Saki Shaw not being a Remisian national.

2) Antrano Complied with its Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Obligations

Antrano complied with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations procedural requirements
by (I) informing Saki Shaw of her rights, and notifying the relevant Molvanian authorities. Even
if Saki Shaw was entitled to Remisian consular access, (II) Remisia suffered no prejudice to their
rights due to absence of notification about detainment of their national.

I. Antrano informed Saki Shaw of her consular rights and granted her Molvanian consular
access.

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires informing the detained individual of
their rights under the convention, including the right to consular access. 93 It also requires, without
delay,94 to notify the competent authorities of the sending state when a national is detained in the
receiving state.95

91
Ibid., ¶19.
92
Compromis, ¶14. She possesses the Jus soli nationality. Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of
Public International Law, p. 511.
93
Article 36(1)(b).
94
Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), International Court
of Justice (ICJ), 31 March 2004, available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/128, [‘Avena’] The
ICJ noted that ‘without delay’ is not necessarily to be interpreted as ‘immediately’ upon arrest”;
Compromis ¶43, Antrano informed Saki Shaw of her detainment on the day of her arrest, 16th
March, 2023.
95
Article 36 (1)(b).
19
Ms Shaw was promptly informed of her right to consular access. Furthermore, since Ms Shaw
was considered to be a Molvanian national, Antrano promptly notified the Molvanian consulate
of Ms Shaw's arrest.96

Hence, Antrano fulfilled its obligation under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations though Saki Shaw refused to meet with the Molvanian authorities.

II. Remisia suffered no prejudice due to the absence of notification about Saki Shaw's
detainment by Antrano.

While Article 36 establishes an obligation on a receiving state to notify a sending state of the
detainment of its national,97in Jadhav, the ICJ found that there is no prescribed format for such
notifications. 98 Additionally, a breach of the obligation to notify the sending state arises only
when the absence of notification leaves the sending state unaware of the detainment of its
national.99

Even if the Court determines Saki Shaw to have been a Remisian National, 100 Antrano's failure to
notify Remisia does not constitute a violation of Remisia's rights under Article 36. This is
because Remisia immediately became aware of their nationals' detention, thereby mitigating any
potential prejudice to their rights.101Consequently, this mitigated the prejudice that Remisia
would have suffered for non-notification.

96
Compromis, ¶43.
97
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
98
Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 418, ¶110 [‘Jadhav’].
99
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgement, I. C. J. Reports 2001, p. 466, ¶74
[‘LaGrand’].
100
This is without prejudice to our foregoing arguments, not recognizing Saki Shaw as a
Remisian national.
101
Jadhav,¶111; Compromis ¶45, Remisia became aware of Saki Shaw’s arrest on 18th March,
2023, a day after her arrest.
20
(D) REMISIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW BY DENYING ANTRANAN
NATIONAL DR. TULOUS MALEX ENTRY TO REMISIA AS REQUIRED BY
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 99997.

Antrano submits that (1) Security Council Resolution 99997 is binding and (2) Remisia was
under a duty to comply with its directive to allow Dr Malex entry into Remisia. ( 3) Remisia
violated customary international law regarding friendly relations and (4) its treaty obligations
under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations by failing to allow
Dr. Malex entry into Remisia.

1) Security Council Resolution 99997 is binding on Remisia

UN Security council decisions constitute obligations for all member states. 102 Determining
whether a UN Security resolution is binding requires analysis of the language used, the
discussions leading to its adoption, the UN Charter 103 provisions invoked, and all relevant
circumstances.104

102
UN Charter, Section 25.
103
United Nations Charter, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS 16. [‘UN Charter’].
104
Advisory Opinion on South Africa in Namibia, ¶114; The interpretation of Security Council
resolutions must be carried out in light of principles of general treaty interpretation in accordance
21
Furthermore, any decision of the Security Council can be legally binding upon all U.N. member
states, whether or not the text of the resolution is passed under or explicitly references Chapter
VII.105

Even if Resolution 99997 was passed under Chapter VI, it is not necessarily non-binding on
Remisia.

I. Prior discussions leading to the adoption of Resolution 99997

The intent of the Security Council can be determined, in part, by examining the frequency and
nature of previous discussions and resolutions leading to the new resolution. In Nuclear
Weapons,106 the ICJ noted that a 'series of resolutions may show the gradual evolution of opinio
juris required for the establishment of a new rule.'

The Preamble to Resolution 99997 references key General Assembly resolutions like
Resolutions 50/152 (1995) on stateless persons and 61/37 (2006) on protection against
statelessness, highlighting the international community's longstanding focus on preventing and

with the VCLT; Joyner, D. (2017, January 9). Legal Bindingness of Security Council Resolutions
Generally, and Resolution 2334 on the Israeli Settlements in Particular. Blog of the European
Journal of International Law. Retrieved from: https://www.ejiltalk.org/legal-bindingness-of-
security-council-resolutions-generally-and-resolution-2334-on-the-israeli-settlements-in-
particular/ [‘Joyner’].

105
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South
West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 1971, p. 16 ¶114 [‘Advisory Opinion on South Africa in Namibia’]; Wall, ¶26, ¶134;
HIGGINS, R., 1972. ‘The Advisory Opinion on Namibia: Which UN Resolutions are Binding
under Article 25 of the Charter?’ International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 21(2), pp.270-286
[‘(Higgins, 1972)’]. The author notes, “in certain limited, and perhaps rare cases, a binding
decision may be taken under Chapter VI (just as non-binding resolutions may be passed under
Chapter VII).
106
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1. C.J. Reports 1996, p.
226. ¶70 [‘Nuclear Weapons’].
22
resolving statelessness.107 This commitment is further evidenced by the global #IBelong
campaign.

While not legally binding, these references in the Preamble frame the context for interpreting
Resolution 99997 and underscore the growing international consensus on the importance of
safeguarding individuals from arbitrary deprivation of nationality, a concern demonstrably
relevant to the Sterren Forty case. Therefore, Resolution 99997 is not only a response to a
specific situation but also a culmination of the international community's ongoing fight against
statelessness, solidifying the prohibition of statelessness as a central principle.

II. Strong Language indicates binding power Resolution 99997

Terms of a security council resolution must be interpreted giving the natural and ordinary
meaning to the terms. While the phrase 'calls upon' might not explicitly be legally binding, 108 it
carries significant weight within the framework of Security Council resolutions. It indicates a
firm expectation and urges the addressed state to respond actively to existing legal obligations
under international law.109

In the context of Resolution 99997, calling upon Remisia to cooperate with the mission aligns
with the respect of the right to nationality and to avoid statelessness directly aligns with its
commitments under the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.110

107
Compromis, Annex.
108
Joyner.
109
Advisory Opinion on South Africa in Namibia, ¶108; (Higgins, 1972), The author has argued
that using words such as 'Calls upon’ invites the addressed state to respond to their existing
obligations.
110
Compromis, Annex A; Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 8.
23
 III. Invocation of the UN Charter Provisions indicates intent to bind addressees

All members of UN are bound to agree with decisions of the UN Security Council carried out in
accordance with the UN Charter.111 Reference to the UN Charter provisions indicates that the
resolution derives its force and legal validity from the UN Charter making it binding.

In the present matter, by explicitly invoking Article 34 of the UN Charter, Resolution 99997
recognizes the responsibility of the Security Council to investigate situations that could threaten
international peace and security such as the Sterren Forty dispute.112

IV. Other relevant circumstances indicating that Resolution 99997 is binding

The Advisory Opinion on South Africa in Namibia suggests that consideration should be given to
the surrounding circumstances when determining the binding nature of a UN Security Council
resolution. Existing sources of international law, such as treaties and customary law, guide as to
whether the Security Council intended a resolution to be binding.

Resolution 99997 builds upon, previous treaty law commitments to protect the rights of stateless
persons and prohibit statelessness such as the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The duties Resolution 99997 establishes
are derived from these binding sources of international law. Resolution 99997 also reflects
customary international law on the duty to prevent statelessness. Due to the binding nature of
these treaties on state parties, that have ratified them, 113 Resolution 99997 simply reinforces
already binding obligations. Furthermore, by incorporating customary international law into a
resolution, the Security Council reaffirms a commitment to accomplishing international peace
and security through existing norms.

Thus, the urgency of the Sterren Forty situation, where potential statelessness could escalate
regional tensions and cause international friction coupled Resolution 99997’s clear call for
Remisia to take specific actions, suggests a strong intent to impose binding obligations.

111
UN Charter, Article 25; Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, (p. 760)
(i).
112
Compromis, Annex A, Security Council Resolution 99997 (2022), ¶39.
113
Compromis, ¶62.
24
Therefore, taking into account both the surrounding circumstances and the resolution's
connection to existing binding sources of international law, a comprehensive interpretation
supports the conclusion that Resolution 99997 imposes compelling obligations on Remisia to
address the Sterren Forty issue while upholding internationally recognized human rights.

2) Remisia violated its to comply with Security Council Resolution 99997 by refusing
to allow Dr Malex entry into Remisia.

Where a resolution has an authorizing effect, it creates a corresponding binding effect on a party
that has to carry out its directives.114 Remisia continuously refused to allow Dr Malex entry into
the country despite having all the requisite documentation. Thus, Remisia’s refusal to allow Dr.
Malex entry violated its obligations under resolution 9997.

Remisia violated the terms of Security Council Resolution

I. Remisia breached the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the

United Nations

UN member states are obligated to accord all necessary privileges to experts on missions for the
proper exercise of their functions.115 Furthermore, Security Council Resolution 99997, 116
mandates cooperation with the UN Inspection Mission to Remisia, including facilitating Dr.
Malex's entry as the mission's head. Despite numerous attempts, Remisia denied Dr. Tulous
Malex entry into their Kingdom.117 Hence, by denying Dr. Malex entry, Remisia directly defied
a binding Security Council resolution, potentially violating its obligations under the UN Charter.

114
ÖBERG, M.D., 2005. The legal effects of resolutions of the UN Security Council and General
Assembly in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. European Journal of International Law, 16(5), pp.879-
906. At Page 887 [‘Öberg’]
115
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations,
13 February 1946. Article VI, Sections 22, 24 [‘Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities’].
116
Adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
117
Compromis, ¶52, ¶53, ¶56, ¶57; Clarifications, ¶11
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the preceding arguments, may it please the court to adjudge and declare that;

(a) Antrano has standing to bring the dispute concerning Remisia’s deprivation of nationality
of its citizens before the Court.
(b) Remisia’s deprivation of nationality of the “Sterren Forty,” rendering them stateless, is a
violation of international law.
(c) Antrano did not violate international law when it refused to provide Remisia consular
access to Ms. Saki Shaw during her time as a prisoner in Antrano.
(d) Remisia violated international law by denying Antranan national Dr. Tulous Malex entry
to Remisia as required by Security Council Resolution 99997.

Respectfully submitted,

AGENTS FOR THE APPLICANT

26
27