956A

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands

2025 PHILLIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

CASE CONCERNING THE NAEGEA SEA

UNION OF AMBROSIA
(Applicant)

v.

REPUBLIC OF ROVINIA
(Respondent)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

0
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………...……………3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………..……5
QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………………………………………………………………6
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..7
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………..11
PLEADINGS………………………………………………………………………………...12
A. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AMBROSIA’S
SUBMISSIONS……………………………………………………………………….12
I. The court has jurisdiction Ratione Temporis over Ambrosia’s submission [b]
………………………………………………………………………………..12
II. The court has jurisdiction Ratione Materiae over Ambrosia’s submission [b]
………………………………………………………………………………...13

B. ROVINIA VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES ON

JURISDICTION AND IMMUNITY BY ARRESTING AND PROSECUTING
MS. GERTRUDE CROSS…………………………………………………………...15
I. Rovinia’s prosecution of Ms. Cross violates the doctrine of sovereign
immunity……………………………………………………………………..15
II. Rovinia’s assertion of universal jurisdiction contravening international
law……………………………………………………………………………16
III. Rovinia’s breached its extradition treaty obligation and acted in bad
faith…………………………………………………………………………...16

C. ROVINIA’S ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO FISH IN THOSE PARTS OF THE

TRITON SHOAL WITHIN 200 NAUTICAL MILES OF AMBROSIA’S FIXED
BASELINES VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUST CEASE WITH
EXISTING LICENSES REVOKED………………………………………………...17
I. Subsequent international practice establishes fixed baselines as lex lata under
UNCLOS……………………………………………………………………..17
II. Therefore, Ambrosia’s freezing law is not inconsistent with
UNCLOS……………………………………………………………………..18
III. Alternatively, Ambrosia’s freezing law is justifiable as a
Necessity……………………………………………………………………..19
IV. The disputed parts of the triton shoal come within the Exclusive Economic
Zone of Ambrosia…………………………………………………………….20
V. Therefore, Rovinia’s issuance of fishing licenses covering the parts of the
triton shoal within Ambrosia’s EEZ constitute of violation of international
law……………………………………………………………………………21

1
D. ROVINIA’S SEIZURE AND SALE OF AMBROSIA’S AIRCRAFT PURSUANT
TO THE PERMOLA COURT’S DECISION ON 14TH JULY 2023 ON THE
BASIS OF THE TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL’S PURPORTED WAIVER OF
IMMUNITY VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW…..…………………………22
I. Ambrosia possesses sovereign immunity under Article 5 of the
UNCJSIP……………………………………………………………………..23
II. The Falcon is a government owned non-commercial property and cannot be
seized………………………………………………………………...……….24
III. The transitional council lacks authority to waive immunity.
………………………………………………………………..…...25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………………………………27

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES/CONVENTIONS
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
Organization for the Cooperation and Development of the Paine.
United Nations Charter.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States.

DECISIONS OF ICJ
Arrest Warrant Case, Democratic Republic of The Congo V. Belgium, ICJ GL No.121,
[2002].
Azerbaijan v. Armenia, ICJ Reports 2021, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cleveland.
Barcelona Traction case (Belgium V. Spain), I.C.J. Rep. 3 [1970].
Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite case (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012,
ICJ Rep. 2012.
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case [Hungary v. Slovakia], Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997.
Interpretation of Peace Treaties [Bulgaria/Hungary/Romania], ICJ Reports [1950].
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v Italy, Judgment, ICGJ 434 (ICJ 2012), 3rd
February 2012.
Kasikili/Sedudu Island [Botswana/Namibia], I.C.J. Reports 1999.
Liechtenstein V. Guatemala, I.C.J. Rep 4, ICGJ 185 [1955].

The Hostages Case [United States v. Iran], Judgment of 12 May 1981, ICJ.

Phosphates in Morocco case, Judgment of June 14th (Preliminary Objections), I.C.J Rep.
1938.
UK v. Albania, Judgment of 9 April, 1949, I.C.J., Rep. 1949.
DECISIONS OF OTHER INT’L COURT/TRIBUNALS
Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], No. 34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECtHR [2008].
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blasckic, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
DECISIONS OF DOMESTIC COURTS
Abbott v. Republic of South Africa (Revista Española de derecho internacional), Vol. 44,
1992.

3
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 (1812).
Pinochet case [1999] UKHL 17.
OFFICIAL REPORTS
Report of the International Law Commission Seventieth session (30 April–1 June and 2 July–
10 August 2018), A/73/10.
Report of the International Law Commission (ILC), Seventy-fourth session (24 April–2 June
and 3 July–4 August 2023), A/78/10.
Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims
(Great Britain v. Costa Rica) 18 October 1923 VOLUME I.
UN DOCS
Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, with
Commentaries.
Statement of the European Union and its Member States on Sea Level Rise in Relation to
International Law (UNGA 6th Committee, 78th session, 2023), at paras. 10-12.
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980, Vol. II, Part 2.
International Law Report, Vol. 113.
International Law Association Sydney Conference (2018) Recognition/Non-Recognition in
International Law.
International Law Association Sydney Conference (2018) Recognition/Non-Recognition in
International Law.
Anna Bokyo, “Challenges of Immunities of State Officials from Foreign Criminal
Jurisdiction in the Work of the ILC”.
Vedross/Simma, Universelle Volkkerrecht, 1976.
Takeshi Minagawa, The Principle of Domestic Jurisdiction and the International Court of
Justice¸ Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, 1979.
Mara R. Wendebourg, Interpreting the Law of the Sea in the Context of Sea-Level Rise: The
Ambulatory Thesis and State Practice, Journal of Environmental Law, 2023, at pp. 505-506.
Pavlopoulos, Niko, The International Legal Criteria for Governmental Status: The Identity of
Governments in International Law, Chap. 4.
Sixth Committee Speakers, Concluding Cluster 1 of International Law Commission Report,
Stress Need for Legal Framework Protecting States from Sea-Level Rise | Meetings Coverage
and Press Releases (un.org) >> Accessed on 13th Jan. 2024.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Union of Ambrosia [“Ambrosia/Applicant”] has instituted proceedings against

the Republic of Rovinia [“Rovinia/Respondent”] before the International Court of Justice
[“the Court”] relating to a dispute concerning alleged violations of international law by
Rovinia pursuant to an application filed with the Court’s Registry in line with Article 40[1] of
the Statute of the International Court of Justice [“the Statute”]. Ambrosia has submitted
claims pursuant to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court established in the compromissory
clause in Article XXI of the OCDP Charter [“the Charter”], to which both Ambrosia and
Rovinia are parties and pursuant to Article 36[1] of the Statute.

Both parties have agreed to have the merits of all claims heard together in a single set
of proceedings based on a Statement of Agree Facts, subject to Rovinia’s objection to the
Court’s jurisdiction in respect of Ambrosia’s claim (b), regarding Rovinia’s arrest and
prosecution of Ms. Cross. Ambrosia maintains that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter
as it falls within the scope of the compromissory clause given that the facts and situations
giving rise to the dispute occurred subsequent to the entry into force of Article XXI of the
Charter and the dispute relates to a judicial proceeding on a matter not within Rovinia’s
domestic jurisdiction under international law. The parties agree to accept the decision of the
Court on all issues as final and binding.

5
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The Union of Ambrosia asks the Court to adjudge and declare:
1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain Ambrosia’s submission (b)?

2. Whether Rovinia did not violate the international legal rules on jurisdiction and
immunity by arresting and prosecuting Ms. Gertrude Cross?

3. Whether Rovinia’s issuance of licenses to fish in those parts of the triton shoal within
200 nautical miles of ambrosia’s fixed baseline did not violate international law and
must cease, with existing licenses revoked?

4. Whether Rovinia’s seizure and sale of ambrosia’s aircraft pursuant to the Permola
Court’s decision on 14 July 2023 on the basis of the Transitional Council’s purported
waiver of immunity did not violate international law?

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
This case arises from disputes between the Union of Ambrosia and the Republic of Rovinia
concerning maritime rights, political recognition, sovereign immunity, and jurisdiction. The
Union of Ambrosia contends that Rovinia has violated international law through the
recognition of a Transitional Council as Ambrosia's legitimate government, the issuance of
fishing licenses in contested maritime zones, the judicial seizure and sale of a government-
owned aircraft, and the prosecution of a former Ambrosian minister.

Historical and Geographical Background

Both nations are economically reliant on the Naegea Sea, with Ambrosia’s fishing industry
contributing 20% of its GDP and Rovinia’s tuna exports accounting for 40% of its GDP.

Both states ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in the
late 1990s, establishing Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) extending 200 nautical miles
from their baselines.

Climate Change and the Baseline Freezing Law

In 2015, Ambrosia enacted the Baseline Freezing Law, fixing its baselines at their November
2015 coordinates to preserve its EEZ despite ongoing coastal recession. The law aimed to
safeguard Ambrosia’s maritime boundaries and protect its fishing rights, which are vital to its
economy. Rovinia opposed the Baseline Freezing Law, arguing that it contravenes Article 5
of UNCLOS, which requires baselines to reflect the natural contours of a coastline. Rovinia
contended that Ambrosia’s unilateral action distorted maritime boundaries and infringed upon
the high seas.

Despite Rovinia’s objections, five other members of the Organization for Cooperation and
Development in the Paine (OCDP) adopted similar laws, reinforcing regional acceptance of
Ambrosia’s approach. Rovinia remained the sole dissenting state, consistently opposing these
measures at OCDP meetings and through diplomatic protests.

Disputes Over Triton Shoal

In 2018, Rovinia began issuing fishing licenses for Triton Shoal, asserting it as part of the
high seas under international law. Ambrosia objected, claiming portions of the Shoal fell
within its EEZ under the Baseline Freezing Law. Ambrosia protested through diplomatic
notes, to which Rovinia did not respond.

7
These fishing licenses led to frequent confrontations between vessels from both nations.
Ambrosia accused Rovinia of exploiting maritime resources in violation of its sovereign
rights, while Rovinia maintained that its actions were lawful and consistent with the principle
of freedom of the high seas.

Political Instability and Recognition of the Transitional Council

The Ambrosian Constitution dictates that in the event the President is temporarily unable to
perform his duties, the powers of the office devolve to the Vice-President. Accordingly, Vice-
President Zavala assumed the office of Acting President and pledged to remain in power until
President Derey’s recovery or the next election.

In August 2022, Human Rights International (HRI) published a report alleging that between
June 2017 and July 2020, under the ILSA program, the National Police had abducted over
150 Ambrosian citizens suspected of drug trafficking. These individuals were detained
without legal justification, some for as long as a year. Acting President Zavala denied prior
knowledge of the allegations and immediately ordered an investigation into the matter.

On 23 February 2023, while Acting President Zavala was attending a multilateral summit in
Geneva, Hurricane Luna struck the Ambrosian fishing village of Dovilina, causing significant
loss of life and property. Despite the devastation, Acting President Zavala’s office stated that
she would remain in Geneva to complete her international mission. Her response to the crisis
was met with severe criticism, including a front-page editorial in the Arnhill Daily Advance,
accusing her of a lack of leadership.

Acting President Zavala returned to Ambrosia on 3 March 2023, and expressed concerns over
the Reconstruction Bill sent to her by the National Assembly, citing the lack of accountability
and oversight.

Subsequently, Ms Piretis announced the formation of a Transitional Council, on 13 March

2023, which declared itself the legitimate government of Ambrosia. The Council garnered
support from several former ministers, military officials, and parliamentarians.

The Falcon Seizure

“The Falcon”, a government-owned aircraft, was commissioned in 2019 under President

Prosper Derey for exclusive use in non-commercial, diplomatic missions. The Falcon became

8
entangled in a commercial dispute between Ambrosia and Rovinia-based O’Mander Corp.,
which secured an $85 million judgment against Ambrosia in 2017 for breach of contract.

Acting President Zavala, using The Falcon for official travel at the time of its seizure,
objected to the action, asserting that the Transitional Council lacked constitutional authority
to waive the immunity of sovereign assets.

On 14 July 2023, a Rovinian court upheld the Council’s waiver, ruling that the sale of The
Falcon was lawful. On 25 August 2023, The Falcon was auctioned, and Badilla Airlines
successfully purchased the aircraft for USD 55 million, which was transferred to O’Mander
Corp. Ambrosia maintains that the seizure violated principles of sovereign immunity, while
Rovinia argues that the sale was consistent with international and domestic law.

Return of President Derey and Pardon of the Transitional Council

Subsequently, Ms. Piretis announced the dissolution of the Transitional Council, recognizing
the return of President Derey to power on 19 December 2023, following his recovery from a
coma.

Arrest and Prosecution of Gertrude Cross

Ms Gertrude Cross, a former Minister of the Interior in Ambrosia, oversaw the Implementing
the Law for a Safer Ambrosia (ILSA) program, aimed at combating drug trafficking. The
program allegedly involved the warrantless detention of over 150 Ambrosian citizens in
secret facilities.

In 2022, Human Rights International (HRI) published a report implicating Ms. Cross in these
detentions, describing her role as central to authorizing and overseeing the program. Despite
public outrage, Ambrosian authorities concluded there was insufficient evidence to prosecute
her.

Ms. Cross relocated to Rovinia in 2022. In 2023, HRI released additional evidence, including
signed orders and witness statements, further implicating her in grave human rights
violations. Following the publication of an updated report by Human Rights International
(HRI) on 12 June 2023, implicating Ms. Cross in human rights violations, Ms. Zavala, as the
Acting President, called for the reopening of the investigation.

On 1 May 2024, Rovinia's General Prosecutor filed a complaint against Ms. Cross, leading to
her arrest on 2 May 2024 by Rovinian authorities under domestic laws criminalizing enforced

9
disappearances, invoking universal jurisdiction. Rovinia justified the arrest based on the
gravity of the alleged crimes and the evidence presented by HRI.

Diplomatic Disputes and International Proceedings

On 6 May 2024, President Derey sent a letter to President Slimm of Rovinia, demanding the
immediate release of Ms. Cross, citing her entitlement to immunity under Ambrosian law.
President Slimm rejected this demand, emphasizing Rovinia’s jurisdiction over the accused.
On 11 July 2024, Ambrosia instituted proceedings against Rovinia at the International Court
of Justice, invoking Article XXI of the OCDP Charter. The dispute covers the recognition of
the Transitional Council, the seizure of The Falcon, the prosecution of Ms. Cross, and issues
surrounding Rovinia’s fishing licenses in Ambrosia’s exclusive economic zone.

Rovinia maintains that immunity does not protect individuals accused of jus cogens
violations such as enforced disappearances and asserts that Ms. Cross’s detention complies
with all due process guarantees under international law.

Rovinia also contested the ICJ’s jurisdiction over Ms. Cross’s prosecution, asserting it fell
outside the scope of the OCDP Charter. Rovinia argued its actions were consistent with
international law and necessary to address grave human rights violations.

10
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
MERIT A
Ambrosia submits that in respect of her submission (b), the Court has jurisdiction ratione
temporis, because the “facts or situations” giving rise to the dispute in question occurred
subsequent to the entry into force of Article XXI and [2] the Court has jurisdiction ratione
materiae, because the dispute relates to a judicial proceeding on a matter which is not
essentially within Rovinia’s domestic jurisdiction under international law.

MERIT B

Ambrosia submits that the arrest and prosecution of Ms. Cross by Rovinia violates the
doctrine of Sovereign immunity as enshrined in the UNCJISP. Ambrosia also submits that the
assertion by Rovinia of universal jurisdiction in the given circumstances contravenes
international law. In any case, Applicant argues that Rovinia breached its extradition treaty
obligation and acted in bad faith.

MERIT C

Ambrosia submits that Rovinia’s issuance of fishing licenses to cover the entire Triton Shoal
violates international law because certain parts of the Shoal come within Ambrosia’s EEZ by
virtue of Ambrosia’s Freezing Law fixing its baselines as of a particular date prior to the date
of the impugned fishing licenses. Thus, the licenses should be revoked.

MERIT D

Rovinia’s seizure and sale of Ambrosia’s aircraft, The Falcon, violates international law.
Under UNCJISP, Ambrosia has Sovereign immunity from jurisdiction and execution, which
Rovinia violated by initiating legal proceedings and seizing property without consent.
Secondly, the Falcon is a military aircraft used for government purposes and is immune from
seizure under the UNCJISP. Finally, the Transitional Council lacks effective control and
recognition, meaning it cannot validly waive Ambrosia’s immunity under international law.

PLEADINGS

11
 A. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN AMBROSIA’S
SUBMISSION [B]
1. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded on the compromissory clause established in
Article XXI of the Charter.1 Ambrosia notes that the terms of Article XXI[b] of the Charter
limits the scope of the compromissory clause ratione temporis2 by stating that the Court shall
lack jurisdiction over disputes “arising out of facts or situations occurring prior to the entry
into force of this Article”3 and further limits the scope of the clause ratione materiae by
excluding the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to disputes “relating to judicial
proceedings on matters which, in accordance with international law, are essentially within a
Member State’s domestic jurisdiction”.4 Ambrosia’s submission [b] relates to the unlawful
arrest and prosecution of Ms. Cross, Ambrosia’s former Interior Minister, 5 by Rovinian
authorities.6

2. Ambrosia shall demonstrate that [1] the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis,
because the “facts or situations” giving rise to the dispute in question occurred subsequent to
the entry into force of Article XXI and [2] the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae,
because the dispute relates to a judicial proceeding on a matter which is not essentially within
Rovinia’s domestic jurisdiction under international law.

I. The Court has Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis Over Ambrosia’s Submission

[b].
3. As noted earlier, the terms of Article XXI[b][i] limits the scope of the parties’
acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction ratione temporis to disputes arising from
“facts or situations” occurring subsequent to the entry into force of the Article, that is, after
17 March 20217 – hereinafter referred to as “the effective date”.

i. The “facts or situations” giving rise to the dispute occurred subsequent to the
effective date.
4. In Phosphates in Morocco case, the Court noted that situations or facts which form
the subject of the limitation ratione temporis have to be considered from the viewpoint of

1
Facts [12].
2
See: Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cleveland, Azerbaijan v. Armenia, ICJ p. 2, para 9.
3
Facts [12].
4
Ibid.
5
Facts [27].
6
Facts [61].
7
Facts [67].
12
“their date (…) in connection with the birth of the dispute”, 8 and the question of whether they
occurred subsequent to the effective date is to be decided on a case-by-case basis.9

5. In this case, Ambrosia’s complaint, made on 3 May 2024, 10 is solely that the
immunity ratione materiae of its former Minister from foreign criminal jurisdiction has been
violated by the arrest warrant issued for her prosecution in Rovinia, 11 a situation occurring on
2 May 2024,12 entirely after the effective date.

6. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction ratione temporis to determine Ambrosia’s

submission (b).

II. The Court has Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae Over Ambrosia’s Submission
[b].
7. As per the compromissory clause, “matters which, in accordance with international
law, are essentially within a Member State’s domestic jurisdiction” are excluded from the
Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae,13 a reservation which reflects the provisions of Article
2[7] of the UN Charter.

i. Ambrosia’s Submission [b] is a question of international law, within the

Competence of the Court.
8. Under its submission (b), Ambrosia claims that Ms Cross, a former Ambrosian State
Official, enjoys functional immunity from foreign criminal jurisdiction under customary
international law,14 including with respect to enforced disappearance, by reason of which
Rovinia had an international obligation to extradite her to Ambrosia. This obligation likewise
arose from the bilateral treaty on extradition concluded between both Parties, which requires
extradition in cases of enforced disappearance.15

9. Accordingly, Ambrosia claims that Rovinia breached Articles 9[2] and 11 of the
ICPPED which explicitly recognize situations in which a State would have to extradite a

8
Judgment of June 14th (Preliminary Objections), I.C.J Rep. 1938, at p. 24.
9
Ibid.
10
Facts [62].
11
Ibid.
12
Facts [61].
13
Article XXI[b][ii] of the Charter, Facts [12].
14
See International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Tihomir
Blasckic; Anna Bokyo, “Challenges of Immunities of State Officials from Foreign Criminal
Jurisdiction in the Work of the ILC”, p. 11.
15
Facts Clarifications [5].
13
person suspected of committing enforced disappearance “in accordance with its international
obligations”,16 which, of course, may arise from customary international law.

10. Ambrosia submits that these claims call for the interpretation and application of the
aforementioned provisions of the ICPPED as well as the relevant rules of customary
international law. and ipso facto constitute questions of international law naturally falling
within the competence of the Court.17

ii. It is not “essentially within [Rovinia’s] domestic jurisdiction” to solely

determine, with a binding effect on Ambrosia, whether its impugned actions are
“in accordance with international law”.
11. In Interpretation of Peace Treaties, the Court implied that matters involving questions
of international law pertaining to the observance of international obligations [albeit in the
context of treaty obligation] cannot, ex naturae, be matters “essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of any State.”18 Such matters are “essentially and inherently matters of
international jurisdiction.”19 The duty to interpret international law falls within the normal
exercise of the Court’s judicial power.20

12. Consequently, Rovinia cannot solely determine whether its decision to prosecute Ms.
Cross for the alleged offence of enforced disappearance is “in accordance with international
law”. Such a matter is not essentially within its domestic jurisdiction in the sense that it is not
authorized to impose its own view on Ambrosia. 21 It is a matter essentially and inherently
within international jurisdiction.

13. Therefore, Ambrosia submits that this Court has both temporal and subject-matter
jurisdiction to entertain Ambrosia’s submission [b].

16
See Articles 9[2] and 11 of ICPPED.
17
ICJ Reports 1950, pp. 70-71; Vedross/Simma, Universelle Volkkerrecht, 1976, p. 158;
Takeshi Minagawa, The Principle of Domestic Jurisdiction and the International Court of
Justice¸ Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, 1979, at p. 18.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
ICJ Reports 1948, p. 61; See: T. Minagawa (1979), at p. 19.
21
See: T. Minagawa (1979), p. 18.
14
 B. ROVINIA VIOLATED THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES ON
JURISDICTION AND IMMUNITY BY ARRESTING AND PROSECUTING
MS. GERTRUDE CROSS
14. Applicant submits that the arrest and prosecution of Ms. Cross violates the doctrine of
Sovereign immunity as enshrined in Article 2(1)(b) (iv) of the UNCJISP. 22 Applicant also
submits that the assertion by Rovinia of universal jurisdiction contravenes international law
as captured in Article 6(1) of the ICPPED. 23 In any case, Applicant argues that Rovinia
breached its extradition treaty obligation and acted in bad faith.

I. Rovinia’s Prosecution of Ms. Cross Violates the Doctrine of Sovereign

Immunity
15. Article 2(1)(b) (iv) of the UNCJISP provides for the extension of immunity to former
officials through the doctrine of immunity ratione materiae. Sovereign immunity is a cardinal
principle of international law, which aims to preserve the equality and dignity of States by
shielding officials from foreign prosecution for acts performed in their official capacity. The
ICJ in the Arrest Warrant Case24 held that Immunity ratione materiae protects State officials
even after they leave office.

16. The facts discloses that Ms. Cross, as a Minister of Interior, implemented the ILSA
program under Ambrosia’s State mandate to combat drug trafficking and enhance national
security.25 Her actions, executed pursuant to State policy, are quintessentially sovereign and
falls squarely within the purview of immunity ratione materiae.

17. Applicant, therefore, submits that by prosecuting Ms. Cross, Rovinia has not only
disregarded her immunity but also trampled upon Ambrosia’s sovereign rights.

18. Applicant further argues that while jus cogens norms, such as those prohibiting
enforced disappearance, are the highest order in international law, they do not automatically
override immunity for official acts. The ICJ in Germany V. Italy, 2012, unequivocally ruled
that immunity applies even in cases involving allegations of jus cogens violations. Similarly,
the Pinochet Case26 clarified that immunity exceptions for jus cogens violations are limited to
personal acts, not those conducted under State authority.

22
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States.
23
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
24
Democratic Republic of The Congo V. Belgium, ICJ Reports 2002.
25
Facts [8].
26
[1999] UKHL 17.
15
19. Therefore, Applicant submits that Rovinia’s invocation of jus cogens violations to
justify its prosecution of Ms. Cross is legally untenable.

II. Rovinia’s Assertion of Universal Jurisdiction Contravenes International Law

20. Universal jurisdiction is an extraordinary mechanism, justified only as a last resort

when the State of primary jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to prosecute grave international
crimes. Article 6(1) of the ICPPED reinforces this subsidiarity principle by requiring the
State where the alleged acts occurred to exercise jurisdiction first. Following the publication
of the HRI’s report in June 2023,27 Ambrosia reopened its investigation into the ILSA
program, exemplifying its commitment to justice.

21. The ICJ, in the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite 28 underscored that universal
jurisdiction cannot be invoked when the territorial state actively investigates or prosecutes
alleged crimes.

22. Applicant argues that by unilaterally initiating criminal proceedings against Ms.
Cross, Rovinia has violated this foundational principle.

23. Applicant further argues that its actions undermine the subsidiarity that protects the
integrity of State sovereignty. In the Corfu Channel Case29 it was held that respect for
sovereignty and non-interference are cornerstones of the international legal order.

24. Therefore, Applicant submits that Rovinia’s premature assertion of universal

jurisdiction is thus unwarranted and contrary to international law.

III. Rovinia’s Breached Its Extradition Treaty Obligations and Acted in Bad
Faith
25. Article 26 of the VCLT imposes an obligation on States to perform treaty obligations
in good faith. The principle of good faith is fundamental to ensuring mutual trust and
reciprocity in international relations, as affirmed in Nottebohm case.30

26. Applicant argues that the bilateral extradition treaty between Ambrosia and Rovinia,
which entered into force in 2002, mandates the extradition of individuals sought for trial or
investigation for specified offences, and Rovinia acted in breach and in bad faith with regards
to its extradition treaty obligations.
27
Facts [61].
28
Belgium V. Senegal, Judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Rep. 2012.
29
UK V. Albania, Judgment of April 9th, 1949, I.C.J., Rep.
30
Liechtenstein V. Guatemala, I.C.J. Rep 4, ICGJ 185 [1955].
16
27. As seen in the facts, on May 10, 2024, Ambrosia formally requested Ms. Cross’s
extradition under this treaty. However, Rovinia unilaterally ignored the request and
proceeded to prosecute Ms. Cross domestically.31

28. Applicant therefore submits that this refusal constitutes a breach of its extradition
treaty obligations, subverting the agreed framework for resolving such disputes. By
circumventing its treaty commitments, Rovinia acted in bad faith, eroding the cooperative
mechanisms integral to the international legal order.

29. The ICJ, in the Barcelona Traction Case32 emphasized the necessity of fairness and
reciprocity in interstate relations. Rovinia’s actions, however, exemplify a disregard for these
principles.

30. Applicant therefore submits that Rovinia breached its extradition treaty obligation and
acted in bad faith.

C. ROVINIA’S ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO FISH IN THOSE PARTS OF THE

TRITON SHOAL WITHIN 200 NAUTICAL MILES OF AMBROSIA’S FIXED
BASELINE VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUST CEASE, WITH
EXISTING LICENSES REVOKED

31
Facts [62].
32
(Belgium V. Spain), I.C.J. Rep. 3 [1970].
17
 I. Subsequent International Practice establish Fixed Baselines as Lex Lata
under UNCLOS.
31. Ambrosia and other States of the Paine Peninsula, except the Respondent, recognize
fixed baselines as “consistent with existing international law, including UNCLOS.” 33 Article
5 of UNCLOS states that a normal baseline is the low-water line along the coast “as marked
on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.”

32. As per Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT, any subsequent practice in the application of the
treaty concerned which establishes the agreement of the Parties is an authentic means of
interpretating the terms of the treaty.34 In the case of Demir and Baykara v. Turkey, the Court
held that “[a]s to the practice of European States, it can be observed that, in the vast majority
of them, the right for public servants to bargain collectively with the authorities has been
recognised”.35

33. Thus, where recourse is had to subsequent practice of States in interpreting the terms
of a treaty, it is not necessary that there is a uniform practice among Member States, but that
the “vast majority of them” adopt a common practice based on a common understanding.36

34. With respect to the terms of Article 5 of UNCLOS, Ambrosia notes that sequel to the
adoption of UNCLOS, a sufficiently vast number of Member States do not update their
baselines on the official charts once deposited with the UN Secretary-General. 37 Accordingly,
the subsequent practice of Member States at the international plane is the freezing of
baselines on “large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State” for the
preservation of maritime zones.

35. Clearly, the interpretative approach taken by a sufficiently vast majority of Member
States is that there is no express obligation under UNCLOS for States to regularly review and
update their baselines on the official charts once deposited with the UN Secretary-General. 38

33
Facts [16].
34
See: Kasikili/Sedudu Island [Botswana/Namibia], I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 1045, at para 48.
35
Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], No. 34503/97, 12 November 2008, ECHR-2008, para.
52.
36
Report of the International Law Commission Seventieth session (30 April–1 June and 2
July–10 August 2018), A/73/10, p. 24.
37
Report of the International Law Commission (ILC), Seventy-fourth session (24 April–2
June and 3 July–4 August 2023), A/78/10, at pp. 91-92, para 141; See also: Statement of the
European Union and its Member States on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law
(UNGA 6th Committee, 78th session, 2023), at paras. 10-12.
38
Report of the International Law Commission (ILC), Seventy-fourth session (24 April–2
June and 3 July–4 August 2023), A/78/10, at pp. 91-92, para 141; See also: Statement of the
18
36. Beyond that, Ambrosia notes that the practice has received a more intense support in
view of sea-level rise and its effects on coastal States, especially the low-lying States. 39 The
ILA noted in its seventy-fourth session that though the current practice is not sufficient to
establish a rule of customary international law, it could nonetheless be used to support a
particular interpretation of the UNCLOS.40

37. Therefore, Ambrosia submits that subsequent State practice at the international level
adopt fixed baselines as existing law under the UNCLOS.

II. Therefore, Ambrosia’s Freezing Law Is Not Inconsistent with UNCLOS.

38. Ambrosia contends that since the fixing of baselines is not prohibited under UNCLOS
as established above, her Freezing Law41 does not violate international law. By the same
reasoning, Ambrosia is at liberty to fix its baselines in order to tackle sea-level rise especially
considering the fact that it stands to be most affected by the effects of sea-level rise in the
Paine Peninsula.42

III. Alternatively, Ambrosia’s Freezing Law is Justifiable as a Necessity.

39. Ambrosia submits that even if the Court finds that fixed baselines are not lex lata
under UNCLOS, the Freezing Law is justifiable as a state of necessity.

40. In terms of Article 25 of DARSIWA,43 Ambrosia is entitled to invoke necessity if the

act, in this case the fixing of its baselines, 1] is the only way to safeguard an essential interest
against a grave and imminent peril,44 and 2] does not seriously impair an essential interest of
the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a

European Union and its Member States on Sea Level Rise in Relation to International Law
(UNGA 6th Committee, 78th session, 2023), at paras. 10-12; See also: Mara R. Wendebourg,
Interpreting the Law of the Sea in the Context of Sea-Level Rise: The Ambulatory Thesis and
State Practice, Journal of Environmental Law, 2023, at pp. 505-506.
39
Ibid; Sixth Committee Speakers, Concluding Cluster 1 of International Law Commission
Report, Stress Need for Legal Framework Protecting States from Sea-Level Rise | Meetings
Coverage and Press Releases (un.org) >> Accessed on 13th Jan. 2024.
40
Supra n. 38, at p. 93, para. 152.
41
Facts [13].
42
Facts [9].
43
See also: Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case [Hungary v. Slovakia], Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1997, pp. 39-40, para. 50; Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1980,
Vol. II, Part 2, p. 34.
44
Article 25[1], DARSIWA.
19
whole,45 or, 3] if the international obligation in question does not exclude the possibility of
invoking necessity;46 or 4] the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.47

i. Fixed baseline is the only way to safeguard Ambrosia against loss of its
“sovereign rights in the Naegea Sea” and its “economic lifeline” resulting from
the effect of sea-level rise on her existing maritime entitlements.

a. Ambrosia’s sovereign rights and economic reliance on its existing maritime

boundaries constitute “essential interests”.

41. The extent to which an interest is “essential” depends on the circumstances of the
particular case and cannot be prejudged.48 It extends to particular interests of a State and its
people, as well as the international community as a whole.49

42. Ambrosia maintains that its fishing industry constitutes its economic lifeline,50
contributing over 120 billion USD to its GDP;51 hence, the need to preserve her sovereign
rights over existing maritime boundaries are “essential” to maintaining her economic lifeline.
The essential nature of these interests is confirmed by State practice in the international
community as a whole, evidenced by the ever-increasing support for freezing of baselines for
the purpose of preserving maritime zones, especially those most threatened by the effect of
sea-level rise.52

ii. These interests were threatened by a grave and imminent peril.

43. Ambrosia submits that the effects of sea-level rise constitute a “grave” peril, which is
why it is an issue of global concern. Ambrosia argues as regards the requirement that the peril
is “imminent”, the effects of sea-level rise of which Ambrosia was predicted to be most
affected in the IPCC report53 were imminent even if the fact that Ambrosia was to most
affected was “predicted”.54

45
Ibid.
46
Article 25[2], DARSIWA.
47
Ibid.
48
Commentaries to DARSIWA, p. 202.
49
Ibid.
50
Facts [13].
51
Facts [4].
52
Supra n. 38.
53
Facts [9].
54
Ibid.
20
44. In that regard, the Court in Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case stated that “a ‘peril’
appearing in the long term might be held to be ‘imminent’ as soon as it is established, at the
relevant point in time, that the realization of that peril, however far off it might be, is not
thereby any less certain and inevitable.”55

45. Ambrosia notes that Rovinia does not contest that Ambrosia, due to its topography,
would inevitably be most affected by the effects of sea-level rise, being the accelerated
regression of Ambrosia’s coastline. Hence, Ambrosia submits that the peril, though
predicted, is inevitable. In any case, provided that the peril is established on the basis of the
evidence reasonably available at the time, in this case the IPCC report.56

46. Therefore, Ambrosia submits that the second element is met.

iii. Assuming there is an international obligation to adopt ambulatory baselines

under UNCLOS, it does not exclude the possibility of invoking necessity.

47. Ambrosia submits that given that Article 5 of UNCLOS recognizes official charts of
the coastal State as the legal document evidencing the position of maritime baselines of the
coastal State, it, ipso facto admits of the possibility of a State invoking necessity for freezing
baselines since the baselines may be left unreviewed. This is buttressed by the fact that
UNCLOS does not expressly prohibit States from using fixed baselines.57

48. Therefore, Ambrosia submits that the third requirement is met.

iv. Ambrosia has not contributed to the situation of necessity.

49. Ambrosia submits that it can in no wise be maintained that Ambrosia has contributed
to the rapid recession of her coastline due to sea-level rise. Sea-level rise cannot be
practically linked to Ambrosia on the basis of the evidence before the Court.

50. Based on the foregoing arguments, Ambrosia submits that its use of fixed baselines is
a state of necessity.

IV. The Disputed Parts of the Triton Shoal Come Within the Exclusive Economic
Zone of Ambrosia.
51. By 2018, Ambrosia’s coastlines had receded to such an extent that, if the baselines
were established at the actual low-water line, all of the Triton Shoal would be outside its

55
Supra n. 43, at p. 42 and para. 54.
56
Facts [9].
57
Supra n. 38.
21
EEZ.58 According, upon the finding by the Court that Ambrosia’s Freezing Law fixing its
baselines as of a particular date is valid under international law, including under UNCLOS, it
necessarily follows that the contested parts of the Triton Shoal fall within the EEZ 59 of
Ambrosia, over which she has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration and
exploitation.60

V. Therefore, Rovinia’s Issuance of Fishing Licenses Covering the Parts of the

Triton Shoal Within Ambrosia’s EEZ constitute a violation of international
law.
52. In light of the arguments advanced heretofore, Ambrosia submits that Rovinia’s
issuance of fishing licenses covering the parts of the triton shoal within ambrosia’s EEZ
constitute an infringement of Ambrosia’s sovereignty over the disputed region. Ambrosia’s
sovereign rights over the said region is established in Article 56[1] of UNCLOS, and likewise
guaranteed under Article 2[1] of the UN Charter. The implication being that there is a
corresponding obligation on Rovinia to respect the maritime boundaries of Ambrosia falling
within the territorial sovereignty of Ambrosia.

53. Therefore, Rovinia’s national activity in the disputed parts of the Triton Shoal amount
to a violation of international law.

D. ROVINIA’S SEIZURE AND SALE OF AMBROSIA’S AIRCRAFT

PURSUANT TO THE PERMOLA COURT’S DECISION ON 14 JULY 2023
ON THE BASIS OF THE TRANSITIONAL COUNCIL’S PURPORTED
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW
54. By seizure and sale of Ambrosia’s aircraft, “The Falcon”, [I] Rovinia’s infringement
on Ambrosia’s Sovereign immunity violates Article 6(1) of the UNCJISP; [II] the Falcon is a
government owned non-commercial property and cannot be seized; and [III] the Transitional
Council lacks authority to waive said immunity.

I. Ambrosia possesses Sovereign Immunity under Article 5 of the UNCJISP.

58
Facts [22].
59
See Article 57, UNCLOS.
60
See Article 56[1], UNCLOS.
22
55. As defined in The Schooner Exchange v McFaddon61, sovereign immunity entitles a
foreign state to immunity from jurisdiction and execution of in all disputes before a domestic
court. This principle has been given statutory prominence in Article 5 of the UNCJISP which
provides all States with the right to enjoyment of immunity, with respect to itself and its
property, from the jurisdiction of courts of another State. This immunity exists in two forms,
jurisdiction and execution, both of which have been violated by Rovinia.

i. Permola Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the case.

56. Courts are enjoined to respect State immunity by refraining from instituting
proceedings without express consent of the foreign state. 62 Article 8(2) goes further to
provide that a State will not be considered to have waived immunity if it intervenes in a
proceeding for the sole purpose of invoking immunity or asserting a right or interest in a
property at issue in the proceeding.

57. Therefore, Rovinia’s institution of judicial proceedings against Ambrosia in the

O’Mander Corp case ipso facto violates these provisions. Recourse must also be given to
Ambrosia’s primary motion to have the complaint dismissed on the grounds of Sovereign
immunity, appeal on the same merits and subsequent opposition to the repeated attempts to
seize government property.63 The renunciation/waiver of immunity is not to be presumed.
These actions do not constitute a waiver but, in reality, demonstrate a clear absence of
consent and violation of these articles.

ii. The Falcon is a government owned non-commercial property and cannot be

seized
58. The aircraft has been established to be a military aircraft repurposed to facilitate the
execution of the duties of Vice President Zavala 64. The implication of this being that it retains
its status as a government owned non-commercial property and is entitled to immunity as
contemplated under Article 21 from any form of seizure.

i. Rovinia’s seizure and sale of The Falcon violates Articles 18, 19 & 21
UNCJISP and infringes on Ambrosia’s Execution immunity;

59. Due to its status as State owned property, its seizure and subsequent sale contradicts
the extant provisions of Articles 18 and 19 of the UNCJISP, which prohibit pre-judgement
61
Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 116 (1812).
62
See Article 6, UNCJISP.
63
Facts [43]
64
Facts [23]
23
and post-judgement measures including but not limited to attachment/seizure as in this case.
Article 19 particularly refers to the executional immunity of foreign states, by guaranteeing
the inviolability of state property used for governmental functions and prohibiting foreign
states from seizing or auctioning such property. This position was reinforced by the ICJ in
United States v. Iran,65 holding that even in times of political tension, state assets used for
official functions must be protected from foreign seizure.

60. In Germany v Italy66 the court found that the Italian Republic violated its obligation to
respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law
by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni.

61. Again, in Abott v South Africa, the court’s finding in this case is that there must be at
least one condition that has to be satisfied before any measure of constraint may be taken
against property belonging to a foreign State: that the property in question must be in use for
an activity not pursuing government non-commercial purposes, or that the State which owns
the property has expressly consented to the taking of a measure of constraint, or that the State
has allocated the property in question for the satisfaction of a judicial claim 67 none of which
have been fulfilled, consequently rendering the seizure and sale void.

ii) Assuming Acting President Zavala is no longer a government official, the Falcon still
retains its immunity.
62. The Falcon’s immunity flows primarily from the fact that it belongs to the
government of Ambrosia, repurposed by the military for the office of the vice President.
Secondarily from the fact that Acting President Zavala is a head of state and is in herself
immune by reason of her person (ratione personae).

63. Personal immunity, which extends to property (personal or official) is inviolable and
granted to foreign Heads of State, Heads of Government and Foreign ministers for the
duration of their tenure. Therefore, Rovinia’s contention 68 that she is no longer a government
official is void as the Falcon retains its immunity regardless of the status of Acting President
Zavala. Additionally, consent to proceedings does not imply consent to execution.

65
The Hostages case, (ICJ), Judgment of 12 May 1981, ICJ.
66
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v Italy, Judgment, ICGJ 434 (ICJ 2012),
3rd February 2012.
67
Abbott v. Republic of South Africa (Revista española de derecho internacional, Vol. 44,
1992, p. 565; ILR, Vol. 113, p. 414.
68
Facts [43].
24
 iii. The Transitional Council lacks authority to waive immunity.

64. The characteristics of a State include, in addition to its sovereignty and defined
territory, a government. Some of these requirements for deciding which government to
support in the event of conflicting claims include: effective control, recognition and respect
for democratic and constitutional procedures. 69 A cursory analysis of these requirements will
find the Transitional Council grossly lacking in its claim.

65. Recognition by other nations is the chief and best evidence of the birth, existence and
continuity of succession of a government. It was established in the Arrest Warrant Case,70
that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be made by a government that is internationally
recognized. Undoubtedly recognition by other Powers is an important evidential factor in
establishing proof of the existence of a government in the society of nation. The non-
recognition by other nations of a government claiming to be a national personality, is usually
appropriate evidence that it has not attained the independence and control entitling it by
international law to be classed as such.71

66. To the question of effective control, which must be established by an unconstitutional

government making claim72, the Transitional government does not effectively control
Ambrosia. Its tenure witnessed widespread breakdown in law and order. Neither is its
inception respectful of democratic and constitutional procedures. If the Transitional Council
indeed fulfils the requirement of effective control, making recourse to obtainable state
practices, an autonomous constitutional claimant will generally enjoy governmental status as
a matter of customary international law even when there exists a rival autonomous claimant
in effective control of the States’ territory and population.73

67. Therefore, Ambrosia submits that Acting President Zavala lays a stronger claim of
governmental status, the effect of which nullifies the purported waiver of immunity by the
Transitional Council.

69
International Law Association Sydney Conference (2018) Recognition/Non-Recognition in
International Law p. 20.
70
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) ICJ GL No.121, [2002].
71
Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada
claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) 18 October 1923 VOLUME I pp. 380-381
72
International Law Association Sydney Conference (2018) Recognition/Non-Recognition in
International Law.
73
Pavlopoulos, Niko, The International Legal Criteria for Governmental Status: The Identity
of Governments in International Law, Chap. 4, p. 95.
25
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and
declare that:

1. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain Ambrosia’s submission regarding the arrest and
prosecution of Ms. Gertrude Cross.

2. Rovinia violated international legal rules on jurisdiction and immunity by arresting and
prosecuting Ms. Gertrude Cross.

3. Rovinia’s issuance of licenses to fish in those parts of the Triton Shoal within 200 nautical
miles of Ambrosia’s fixed baseline violates international law and must cease, with existing
licenses revoked.

4. Rovinia’s seizure and sale of Ambrosia’s aircraft pursuant to the Permola court’s decision
on 14 July 2023 on the basis of the Transitional Council’s purported waiver of immunity
violated international law.

26
 Submitted Respectfully,
Agents for the Applicant.

27