S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT · 2019. 6. 16. · S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL...

S. K. PURI MEMORIAL

INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT

JUSTIFIED’19

(27-29 September, 2019)

Venue: Law Centre-II, Umang Bhawan,

North Campus, University of Delhi

Dr. Rajni Abbi

Convener, Moot Court Committee

Dr. V. K. Ahuja

In-charge, Law Centre-II

Law Centre-II made a humble beginning in the year 1971. It has a glorious past of 48 years. The

Centre had the privilege of being headed by the top law scholars of India, such as Prof. Upendra

Baxi, a well-known jurist and former Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi; Prof. Tahir

Mahmood, who subsequently became Chairperson, Minority Commission, Prof. A.K. Koul, who

was elevated as Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Jodhpur and National Law University,

Ranchi, Prof. Gurdip Singh, who became Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Lucknow,

Prof. Poonam Saxena, who is presently Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Jodhpur and

Prof. B.T. Kaul, who is presently Chairperson, Delhi Judicial Academy. Adding strength to the

center is its well-qualified and dedicated faculty for the overall development of the students which

help them to become innovative legal professionals and public leaders.

Law Centre-II, a dynamic leader in the field of legal education, has produced many Judges,

distinguished jurists, leading advocates, ministers and some of the best teachers in the country. The

alumni included Senior Bureaucrats, Police Officers, Revenue Officers, Doctors, Engineers,

Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, Politicians, etc. Some of its alumni include His

Excellency Hon'ble Governor of Arunachal Pradesh Brigadier Sh. B.D. Mishra, Hon'ble Minister of

State for Tourism Sh. K.J. Alphons, Justice B.D. Ahmed, Chief Justice, Jammu and Kashmir High

Court, Justice Kailash Gambhir, Justice S.N. Dhingra, Justice Rajiv Shakdhar, Justice V.K. Rao,

SEBI Chairman Mr. M. Damodaran, TDSAT Chairman Mr. G.D. Geha, among many more legal

luminaries.

Law Centre-II is a premier institution and is known for its qualitative teaching, research and other

co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. It is one of the best institutions in the country which

imparts three year LL.B. program. The S.K. Puri Memorial Moot Court Competition of Law Centre

-II “JUSTIFIED” is an annual activity in which teams from all parts of the country participate.

ABOUT LAW CENTER-II

Born in 1937 in Punjab, Mr. Surinder Kumar Puri's family had lost everything they had during the

Partition of the country. Mr. S.K. Puri did his law from the University of Delhi in 1962 amidst deep

struggle and started practicing with Shri Bawa Shiv Charan, an authority on criminal and civil law in the

Tis Hazari courts from 1963.

A first generation lawyer, Mr. S.K. Puri had humble

beginnings. He commenced with a modest practice from a

small wooden bench under a tree in the Tis Hazari Courts.

In the year 1968, he shifted his practice to Delhi High

Court and with his sheer grit and determination he rose to

become a successful lawyer and was designated as a senior

advocate in 2001 by the Delhi High Court.

Apart from being a consummate lawyer, Mr. S.K. Puri was

endowed with great leadership qualities. Besides being the

joint secretary of Delhi Bar Association (DBA), Mr. S.K.

Puri was also elected as the Honorary Secretary of the

Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) for as many

as six terms between 1974-1985. He, as the leader of the

bar, has had a mass appeal and has always been perceived

as an upright, ethical and honest lawyer. A firm believer in

action, as the Honorary Secretary of DHCBA, he fought for

the rights of the lawyers and was instrumental in getting

the first Chamber Block constructed in the High Court of

Delhi.

Mr. S.K. Puri was also an avid Reader and a quick learner. Having been bestowed with a photographic

memory, he had the unique ability to retain each and every word of a document and was able to recite the

exact word or sentence used in a particular para or context of a document. Often referred as "Ready

Reckoner", he was blessed with amazing sensitivity and an ability to share knowledge.

A brilliant lawyer in every possible way, Mr. S.K. Puri had built a reputation for his gentle but incite

cross examination skills which brought the toughest of witnesses to their knees. Mr. S.K. Puri has always

reiterated and stressed on 3Ps of practice - Preparation, Presence and Perseverance and his charisma as a

lawyer, from drafting or preparation to presentation of a case were unparalleled and unmatched.

The illustrious son of Late Shri S. K. Puri, Mr. Sacchin Puri, who has the honour of being one of

the youngest advocates, to be designated as a Senior Advocate at Delhi High Court, and an

alumnus of Law Centre - II, University of Delhi, instituted this Moot Competition in the Year

2018, in the fond memory of his father, to provide a platform to budding legal minds to enhance

their knowledge & skills.

ABOUT

LATE SHRI S.K. PURI

SENIOR ADVOCATE

JUSTIFIED 2019

GENERAL INFORMATION

https://skpurimemorialmoot.org

1. DATE & VENUE

The Oral Rounds of S. K. Puri Memorial International Moot Court Competition– Justified’19

{hereinafter called ‘the Competition’} will be held from 27th to 29th September, 2019 at Law

Centre-II, Umang Bhawan, Chhatra Marg, North Campus, University of Delhi, Delhi – 110007

India.

2. ELIGIBILITY

All students enrolled in a recognized 3 year LL.B. programme or a recognized 5 year integrated

LL.B. programme (or international equivalent), shall be eligible to participate in the Competition.

Only one team can register from a particular College or Law School for participation in the

competition.

3. TEAM COMPOSITION

Each team shall consist only of two speakers and one researcher.

A team may consist only of two members as well (both speakers).

The Organizing Committee (OC) will assign a unique team code to each team, for identification.

4. OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

The official language of the competition shall be English, for written as well as oral submissions.

5. MEMORIAL RULES

Please refer the competition website for memorial rules.

6. FORMAT OF THE COMPETITION

The Moot competition shall consist of Preliminary Rounds, Quarter Final Rounds, Semi-Final

Round and the Final Round. Registration, Orientation, Draw of Lots and Memorial Exchange will

be held on 27th September 2019, and the teams are requested to kindly report latest by 2.00 pm at

the Venue. The OC retains the right to draw on behalf of any team/s, if the team/s is/are not present

during registration. Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 must remain the same throughout the competition.

Please refer the competition website for further details.

Competition Website: https://skpurimemorialmoot.org





JUSTIFIED 2019

REGISTRATION

Registration:

The “soft copy” of the duly filled registration form should be sent, on or before 30th June, 2019 via email

to [email protected].

Payment of Registration Fee & Submission of Registration Form:

Teams that qualify for the oral rounds, after the declaration of memorial results, must submit a Demand

Draft of INR 3000/- (in case of a National team), and USD 100/- (in case of an International team),

drawn in the name of “Registrar, University of Delhi, Delhi”, payable at Delhi, India, on or before 31st

August 2019, at the address mentioned below, along with the hard copy of the Registration form:

Dr. V. K. Ahuja

In-Charge, Law Centre-II

Room No. 103, First Floor,

Umang Bhawan, Faculty of Law,

Chhatra Marg, North Campus,

University of Delhi,

Delhi – 100007,

India

ANNEXURE - I

The following documents shall be submitted by the teams at the time of registration:

i) Duly filled Registration Form

ii) Participant Details/Bona fide Students Certificate

iii) Demand Draft for registration fee (after qualifying for the oral rounds)

iv) Travel Itinerary (after qualifying for the oral rounds)

Please note that incomplete registration forms will not be accepted.

The teams successfully registering as aforesaid will be provided a Unique Team Code (UTC). Once the

teams have been provided the UTC, the said code will have to be mentioned by the teams in all future

communication(s) with the Organizing Committee (OC). Please note that apart from the UTC, the

names or logos of their Colleges, Universities or Law Schools shall not be mentioned anywhere in

any communication(s) addressed to the OC.

No change in the names of the participants shall be permitted, unless the same has been communicated to

the OC, a week prior to the event, in exceptional circumstances only, after due proof has been attached

by the participating college.

mailto:[email protected]

JUSTIFIED 2019

AWARDS

# Category Trophy Cash Prize

1. Winning Team Rs. 35,000/-

2. Runners Up Rs. 25,000/-

3. Best Memorial Rs. 15,000/-

4. Second Best Memorial Rs. 10,000/-

5. Best Researcher Rs. 15,000/-

6. Second Best Researcher Rs. 10,000/-

7. Best Speaker Rs. 15,000/-

8. Second Best Speaker Rs. 10,000/-

IMPORTANT DATES

SCHEDULE LAST DATE LINK/E-MAIL ID/

Registration (Soft Copy Only) 30th June, 2019 [email protected]

Clarifications on the Moot Problem 31st July, 2019 [email protected]

Soft Copies of the Memorials 15th August, 2019 [email protected]

Memorial Round Result 25th August, 2019

Payment of Registration Fee via DD

+

Registration Form (Hard Copy)

+

Travel Itinerary

+

Hard Copies of the Memorials

31st August, 2019

Dr. V. K. Ahuja

In-Charge, Law Centre-II

Room No. 103, First Floor,

Umang Bhawan, Faculty of Law,

Chhatra Marg, North Campus,

University of Delhi

Delhi – 100007

Official email id [email protected]

S. K. Puri Memorial International Moot Court Competition– Justified’19

(27th to 29th September, 2019)

For more information, visit: https://skpurimemorialmoot.org






MOOT PROBLEM

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SPECIAL AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE STATE OF KOSOVINA (APPLICANT)

AND THE REPUBLIC OF SAYOMA (RESPONDENT)

TO SUBMIT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

CONCERNING THE PAMALI REFUGEES OF BORODINA

jointly notified to the Court on 16 March 2019

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

JOINT NOTIFICATION

ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT:

The Hague, 16 March 2019

On behalf of the State of Kosovina and the Republic of Sayoma, and in accordance with Article 40(1) of

the Statute of the International Court of Justice, we have the honor to transmit to you an original of the

Special Agreement for submission to the International Court of Justice of the Differences between the

Applicant and the Respondent concerning the Pamali refugees of Borodina, signed in The Hague, The

Netherlands, on the sixteenth day of March in the year two thousand nineteen.

His Excellency Nayam Niya

Ambassador of the State of Kosovina

to the Kingdom of The Netherlands

His Excellency Homori Mono

Ambassador of the Republic of Sayoma


SPECIAL AGREEMENT

SUBMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

BY THE STATE OF KOSOVINA

AND THE REPUBLIC OF SAYOMA

ON THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM

CONCERNING THE PAMALI REFUGEES OF BORODINA

The State of Kosovina (“the Applicant”) and the Republic of Sayoma (“the Respondent”)

(hereinafter “the Parties”);

Considering that differences have arisen between them concerning the protection of Pamali refugees of

Borodina and other related matters;

Recognizing that the Parties have been unable to settle these differences by negotiations;

Desiring further to define the issues to be submitted to the International Court of Justice (“the Court”)

for resolution;

In furtherance thereof the Parties have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Parties submit the questions contained in the Special Agreement (together with Corrections and

Clarifications to follow) (“the Case”) to the Court pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Court’s Statute.

Article 2

It is agreed by the Parties that the State of Kosovina shall appear as Applicant and the Republic of

Sayoma as Respondent, but such agreement is without prejudice to any question of the burden of

proof.

Article 3

(a) The Court is requested to decide the Case on the basis of the rules and principles of international

law, including any applicable treaties.

(b) The Court is also requested to determine the legal consequences, including the rights and

obligations of the Parties, arising from its Judgment on the questions presented in the Case.

Article 4

(a) Procedures shall be regulated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Official Rules of

the S. K. Puri Memorial International Moot Court Competition JUSTFIED 2019.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

His Excellency Nayam Niya

Ambassador of the State of Kosovina


His Excellency Homori Mono

Ambassador of the Republic of Sayoma


(b) The Parties request the Court to order that the written proceedings should consist of Memorials

presented by each of the Parties not later than the date set forth in the Official Schedule of the S. K.

Puri Memorial International Moot Court Competition JUSTFIED 2019.

Article 5

(a) The Parties shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon them and shall execute

it in its entirety and in good faith.

(b) Immediately after the transmission of any Judgment, the Parties shall enter into negotiations on the

modalities for its execution.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized, have signed the present Special

Agreement and have affixed thereto their respective seals of office.

Done in The Hague, The Netherlands, this sixteenth day of March in the year two thousand nineteen, in

triplicate in the English language.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

SPECIAL AGREEMENT

THE CASE CONCERNING THE PAMALI REFUGEES OF BORODINA

STATE OF KOSOVINA V. REPUBLIC OF SAYOMA

1. The state of Borodina is on the continent of Manobi. It borders with the state of Kosovina on its

north and with the State of Jakosli on its south. These States are on the west of the Pleasant Sea. On

the east of the Pleasant Sea is the continent of Maropia. Most of Manobi continent was under the

colonial rule of Maropian States till the 1950s. The process of decolonization led to the liberation of

the Manobi continent from colonialism, and by 1980s all States became independent. Because of

the long colonial rule and because of other historical reasons, all the States of Manobi lag in the

economic development and are broadly referred to as developing economies. Historically, people

belonging to different ethnicities lived in the territories which now constitute the States of

Borodina, Kosovina, and Jakosli.

2. The postcolonial state creation in Manobi did not take place in accordance with the administrative

units of the pre-colonial era. It primarily followed colonial administrative units. This was the course

through which Borodina came into existence. As a result, the ethnic composition of the population

and governance of the pre-colonial time was not followed. In all of Manobi, pre-colonial

administration was predominantly based on ethnic, linguistic and socially cohesive units. Colonial

administration did not strictly follow this system and adopted their own scheme of geographical

units, which was more in tune with their economic exploitation and political subjugation of the

colonies. The post-colonial state formation mostly followed the colonial geographical units.

Consequently, Borodina’s population consists of multiple ethnic identities. While multiple ethnic

identities themselves symbolize social diversity of society, representation in the political sphere

always remains a challenge in general in such societies, and Borodina is not an exception. People

belonging to Tomu ethnicity constitute 60 percent of the Borodina population. Pamali ethnic people

constitute 25 percent, Kohila ethnic people constitute another 10 percent, and other ethnic groups

constitute remaining five percent. For administrative purposes, Borodina is divided into three

provinces. These are Eastern Province, Western Province, and Northern Province.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

3. After attaining independence from colonialism in 1968, Borodina adopted representative

constitutional democracy as the form of governance. Despite criticism on the fairness and

transparency in the electoral system, elections are held periodically to elect successive

governments. However, Pamalis and Kohilas feel that they are not adequately represented in the

political processes at every Level. They observe that during the first few decades after the

independence, successive governments attempted to bring policies with a view to including the

minority ethnic groups into all walks of life. They claim that this changed significantly from 2000,

the year in which Tomu Nationalist Party (TNP) won the elections and took over the power. Since

then TNP has been winning the elections consecutively. Pamali and Kohila ethnic leaders argue that

TNP led governments have been consistently resorting to anti-minority policies in Borodina.

4. In May 2016, TNP led government brought the legislation to do away with the preferential

treatment provided to ethnic minorities in educational institutions. The preferential treatment

involved earmarking of 10 percent seats in government-run higher educational institutions. This

added to the already existing resentment among the minority groups. Particularly, Pamalis felt that

this action by the government would affect them adversely and would have long term implications

to all the minority communities in Borodina. However, the government of Borodina clarified that

the legislation incorporating preferential treatment to minorities was made in 1973 to provide

adequate representation to them in the field of education as it was found that they were

underrepresented then. Nevertheless, the government informed, a recent government survey

shows that all the minority groups were adequately represented in education and employment at

every level. However, the government has not revealed any data to substantiate its assertion.

5. On 1 June 2016, Pamali community leaders gave a call for a nationwide protest to be observed on

10 June 2016. Borodina witnessed nationwide protests on 10 June 2016. Protests were

overwhelmingly successful in the Eastern Province where the majority of the Pamalis live. Media

reported that there was a large scale mobilization of people of all ethnic minorities. Following

months have witnessed active mobilization of the ethnic minorities by the respective community

leaders. Borodina Minority Front (BMF) was formed in October 2016. All the ethnic minorities are

represented in it. BMF declared that they would democratically fight for the equal treatment of all

people in Borodina. They demanded the government that it should do away with all discriminatory

policies and prevent all forms of discrimination. However, the media reported that there were

differences of opinion in the BMF on the modes of struggle to be adopted.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

6. Violent protests erupted in November 2016. On the night of 30 November 2016, government offices

and property were attacked at several places. The transport system was specifically targeted. On 2

December 2016, a press note was released to the media with the name Pamali Liberation Front

(PLF). PLF claimed responsibility for the attacks of 30 November 2016. The press note stated that

the PLF would fight for equality of Pamalis and other ethnic minorities with Tomus. If that is not

facilitated by the government, they will fight for the ultimate goal of forming a State of Pamali Land.

The press note asserted that all the Pamali people were supporting the PLF agenda. It also sought

solidarity from all the minority ethnic groups in Borodina. The press release also underlined that

they resort to all means to achieve their objective. It emphasized that they had the support of the

neighboring States.

7. The interior minister of Borodina responded to this in a media meet on 15 December 2016. He

stated that the government would take all necessary measures to maintain law and order in

Borodina. They would deal sternly with all those who disrupt the peace and tranquility. He said the

PLF is formed to disrupt the peace and to create hatred among different ethnic groups. He appealed

to people not to allow any divisive forces to disturb the cordial relations among the people in

Borodina. Soon after that, police forces started arresting supporters of the PLF. It was reported by

the media that by the end of January 2017 more than 3000 Pamali people were arrested. Many

were booked under the Anti-Terrorism Law of 2015. The interior minister explained that all the

arrests were being made in accordance with the law and all those arrested would be dealt with in

compliance with all the procedural guarantees.

8. This created a sense of insecurity among ordinary Pamalis. While the police continued to arrest

those suspected of supporting the PLF, those who claimed to belong to the PLF continued targeting

government offices and property. Meanwhile, several cultural and social organizations of Tomu

ethnicity started organizing gatherings with a view to supporting the government. This added to the

already existing sense of insecurity among Pamalis. The media reported that the PLF is trying to

gather support from outside Borodina. PLF started targeting police and paramilitary forces of

Borodina. In March 2017, it was reported in the media that 33 police and paramilitary forces lost

lives. The government also claimed that 54 PLF cadres were killed in the anti-PLF operations. This

aggravated the sense of fear among the Pamalis.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

9. Pamalis are mainly concentrated in the Eastern Province which is on the coast of the Pleasant Sea.

Pamalis constitute 42 percent population of the Eastern Province. PLF claimed that 25 percent of

the Eastern Province came under their control. The area that is claimed to be under the control of

the PLF is mainly covered with forest. Media reported in April 2017 that a large number of people

was moving in different directions from the conflict areas, particularly from the Eastern Province of

Borodina. Some moved to safer places in other provinces of Borodina. As the conflict between the

government forces and the PLF intensified in the Eastern Province and adjoining areas, normal life

of the people got affected. Security forces increased their activities, and a large number of people

were arrested and sent to prisons located in other parts of Borodina. Media reported that people

were experiencing a sense of fear and were concerned about their safety.

10. In the first week of May 2017, thousands of Pamalis cross into Jakosli. Jakosli also has a mixed

ethnic composition, and Pamalis constitute 35 percent of its population. Jakosli government reacted

quickly to the inflow of Pamalis from Borodina by creating temporary camps with necessary food

supplies. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) started its operations with

humanitarian relief. By the end of May 2017, it was estimated that more than 200000 Pamalis of

Borodina were residing in the camps in Jakosli. All the camps in Jakosli were established just next to

the border with Borodina. Despite Jakosli government's positive response to the inflow of Borodina

people and the work of the humanitarian organizations, the condition of camps was reported to be

deplorable. Media reported the paucity of food supply and sanitary amenities. These conditions

discouraged the fleeing Pamalis of Borodina from entering into Jakosli. Thus, the fleeing Pamali

people, instead of approaching the Jakosli border, started moving towards the Pleasant Sea coast

and from there to Kosovina through the sea route. Though a few thousand people could reach

Kosovina, they soon avoided that route to escape from the coast guard personnel of Borodina. It

was reported that several boats carrying Pamali people were sent back to Borodina coast by the

Borodina coast guard.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

11. This situation forced the people to move towards Maropian continent. Reaching Maropian

continent would require them to cross the Pleasant Sea. The manageable destination in Maropia

continent is the Republic of Sayoma. It was reported that the people of Pamali ethnicity from

Borodina were reaching the coast at night to take boats and cross the sea to reach Sayoma. Sayoma

government stated that it had received more than 5000 people of Borodina in the month of June

2017. Borodina said it would comply with its obligations under international law and would take

every measure to prevent illegal migration. Sayoma's other neighbouring states Vania, Jowami, and

Saro also received people from Borodina. It is estimated that the other three States together

received around 4000 Borodina people. On 5 July 2017, these four States enter into a written

Understanding on maritime security. The understanding clearly states that there would be

coordinated activities involving security measures in the Pleasant Sea, mainly targeting illegal

migration. Understanding further states that, being parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its

Protocol, they would comply with all the obligations under international law. However, they would

take every measure to prevent illegal entry into their territories. Understanding further states that

the four States would coordinate their activities over the sea in preventing illegal entry of people.

12. Conflict in Borodina intensifies during the month of August 2017. Security forces of Borodina further

step up their military activities in the territory which was being controlled by the PLF in the Eastern

Province. This led many civilians to move from their locations for safer places. Jakosli, though did

not stop people from entering into its territory, however, expressed its inability to bear the burden

and requested the international community to extend the humanitarian help to the fleeing people

of Borodina. Estimates show that more than 400000 Borodina people are hosted by Jakosli. As the

possibility of getting safe havens in Jakosli was becoming difficult, movement of the Pamali people

of Borodina increased in large numbers across the Pleasant Sea to reach Sayoma.

13. Sayoma, in coordination with other three coastal States, increased its coast guard surveillance as

they concluded in their Understanding. It is reported that more than 20000 Borodina people were

interdicted in a period of four months from September to December 2017. It is suspected that many

people approached the smugglers to facilitate their movement towards safety. On 5 January 2018,

the foreign minister of Sayoma, along with the foreign ministers of Vania, Jowami, and Saro issued a

press statement in Molua, capital of Sayoma. The press statement stated that all the measures

undertaken by Sayoma in cooperation with other coastal States were in accordance with their

international legal obligations. Their security measures in the high seas of the Pleasant Sea were

very much within the applicable legal framework.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

14. As a result of the security measures by Sayoma and its neighboring States, the movement of fleeing

people on the Pleasant Sea took a different turn. Most of the people who were interdicted on the

high seas started moving towards northwest on the Pleasant Sea and Reached Kosovina. The inflow

of Borodina people increased into Kosovina. By the end of February 2018, Kosovina announced that

90000 Borodina people entered Kosovina. Similar to Jakosli, Kosovina established makeshift

arrangements to accommodate all the refugees. Kosovina sought the intervention of the

international community. The prime minister of Kosovina addressed the media on 1 March 2018.

While appealing for the humanitarian relief, he alleged that Sayoma was violating its obligations

under international law by preventing the asylum seekers from entering into its territory by

resorting to interdiction in the high seas. He appealed to the international community to use their

good offices to convince Sayoma to respect its obligations in accordance with international law.

15. As the intensity of the conflict increased in Borodina, more and more Pamali people started moving

for safer places. With the increased movement of people, security surveillance over the sea also

increased mainly by the Maropian States. While Pamali people of Borodina continue to move

towards the shores of Maropia, their movement towards Maropian continent has been drastically

restricted. On 25 March 2018, media prominently reported in Borodina, Sayona, and other

neighboring countries that more than 200 people drowned in the Pleasant Sea on the night of 23

March 2018. It was reported that all of them were Pamalis from the Eastern Province of Borodina. It

was also reported that they were proceeding to reach Sayona. As they found that the movement of

people was being restricted, they approached the smugglers and were promised to be taken to the

shores of Maropia safely. The boat they were traveling was filled beyond its capacity. It was

suspected that there were no survivors of the tragedy. This incident drew the attention of the

international community. World leaders appealed to the concerned States to address the situation

and prevent further loss of lives. A strong opinion emerged that there was a need for humanitarian

approach to prevent future such incidents.

16. Kosovina and Jakosli ministers of foreign affairs blamed the Maropian States for their security-

centric approach to what is essentially a humanitarian crisis. They demanded that Maropian States

should change their policy towards refugees and stop their border control measures. Despite safety

issues involved in crossing the sea over unsafe boats, Pamali people continued to venture to reach

the Maropian coast. Sayona and other Maropian coastal States insisted that their security measures

were very much in accordance with international law and they were taking these measures to

prevent the acts of terrorism and illegal economic migration.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

17. Meanwhile, Maropian Human Rights Alert (MHRA), a non-profit human rights organization released

a report blaming the Maropian coastal States, particularly Sayoma, for resorting to stringent

security measures over the sea, which is resulting in the prevention of refugees from reaching their

territory. The MHRA stated that their measures were in clear violation of the principle of non-

refoulement. The MHRA report also said that Borodina security forces were indiscriminately

targeting Pamalis in their actions to curb the activities of the PLF. As a result, many innocent

Pamalis are either being arbitrarily arrested or losing their lives. The report said that these actions

by the Borodina security forces are in clear violation of international humanitarian law and human

rights law obligations of Borodina.

18. On 15 May 2018, at the initiative of the Manobi Cooperation Union (MCU) and the Maropian

Economic Union (MEU), a meeting was convened in Molua to discuss the issue. The meeting was

attended by the foreign ministers of Borodina, Jakosli, Jowami, Kosovina, Saro, Sayoma, Vania, and

the Secretaries-General of the MCU and MEU. The Maropian States felt that Borodina has to take

measures to end the conflict on its territory as soon as possible which is the root cause for the

movement of refugees. The Maropian States defended the security measures they were

undertaking in their territorial waters as well as on the high sea as in accordance with international

law.

19. Kosovina stated that the security measures that were being implemented by the Maropain States

on the high sea of the Pleasant Sea are contrary to international law and clearly violate the principle

of non-refoulement. Kosovina minister was of the view that though they were willing to receive

refugees, they see that the refugees were reaching their territory because of the actions of Sayoma

and the other Maropian States which were contrary to their international law obligations. The

opinion of the participating States at the meeting was clearly divided. They could not agree on the

measures to be taken by each participating State. At the end of the ministerial level meeting, with

the intervention of the Secretaries-General of the MCU and MEU, it was decided that the dispute

over the nature of legal obligations should be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Accordingly, an agreement would be reached between Kosovina and Sayoma referring the matter

to the ICJ.

20. Accordingly, Kosovina and Sayoma enter into this special agreement on 16 March 2019 and submit

the same to the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the

Court. It is agreed in the special agreement that Kosovina would act as the Applicant and Sayoma as

the Respondent.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

Accordingly,

21. Kosovina requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) Sayoma has an obligation under international law to provide protection to all those Pamali refugees

from Borodina, who seek its protection;

b) Sayoma’s measures interdicting the Pamali refugees from Borodina on the Pleasant Sea are in

violation of its obligations under international law, specifically Convention Relating to the Status of

Refugees of 1951 and its Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967, the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

of 1982 and under other relevant international laws.

22. Sayoma requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

a) Sayoma has an obligation under international law to provide protection to all those Pamali refugees

from Borodina, who fall under its jurisdiction;

b) Sayoma’s measures interdicting the Pamali refugees from Borodina on the Pleasant Sea are not in

violation of its obligations under international law, and are very much in accordance with the

Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 and its Protocol Relating to the Status of

Refugees of 1967, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and under other relevant international laws.

23. Some of the relevant treaties to which Kosovina and Sayoma are parties are: Convention Relating to

the Status of Refugees of 1951 and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees of 1967,

International Covenant on Civil Political Rights of 1966, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984, United Nations Convention on the Law of

the Sea of 1982,Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime

Navigation (SUA) of 1988,and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

MOOT PROBLEM

(CONTINUED)

S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT · 2019. 6. 16. · S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL...

Documents

Transcript of S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT · 2019. 6. 16. · S. K. PURI MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL...