Scribd
Upload
61 views1 page

Jurisdiction and IWA Analysis in ICJ Case

There are two main rebuttals presented in the document: 1. There is no requirement under international law for parties to exhaust peaceful remedies before submitting a dispute to the International Court of Justice. 2. For the allegation of intervention without consent, Anlusan argues that the elements for unlawful intervention were not met in this case as there was no use of force. However, Racel argues that intervention does not require force and the social media posts and navy patrol in Racel during the referendum still constituted intervention.

Uploaded by

Ed Nerosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views1 page

Jurisdiction and IWA Analysis in ICJ Case

There are two main rebuttals presented in the document: 1. There is no requirement under international law for parties to exhaust peaceful remedies before submitting a dispute to the International Court of Justice. 2. For the allegation of intervention without consent, Anlusan argues that the elements for unlawful intervention were not met in this case as there was no use of force. However, Racel argues that intervention does not require force and the social media posts and navy patrol in Racel during the referendum still constituted intervention.

Uploaded by

Ed Nerosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

For rebuttals:

Both Anlusan and Racel

1. As to question on jurisdiction:

There is no law under the international law that compels the parties to exhaust peaceful remedies
before submitting the dispute in the ICJ.

2. As to IWA

For Anlusan:

a. It did not commit IWA because Article 2 of RSIWA, requisites of IWA were not present in the
cae. Also, the elements for violation of the Norm of Non-Interventio (in Nicaragua case), a
breach of international obligation, were not present in the case, hence IWA is not committed.
b. Absence of Force. The intention of Navy Patrol was to drive away the rogue elements which
were threatening the Racelians on the day of Referendum. Posts on Feznote and Chirpers are
non-state actions- not so sure if this is the right term.

For Racel:

a. As to absence of force, Jesop’s (international scholar) stated that Intervention may or may not
involve the use of force, thus there is still intervention in the case even without use of force.
Threat defined as
b. As to navy patrol driving away the rogue elements, it was the due of Bellona since at that time
racel was still part of Bellona. And the SocMed posts.

You might also like