IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAUGE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE 2024 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE CASE CONCERNING THE STERREN FORTY

__________________________________________________________________

Republic of Antrano
(Applicant)

v.

Kingdom of Remisia
(Respondent)
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

AS TO THE LEGAL STANDING OF ANTRANO (Applicant)
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Arances, Ralph Joshua A.

Co, Jess Kyle Y.
Madriaga, Reine Julia S.
Padilla, Aida Riva C.
Rodrigo, Arabella Maria Bianca E.

Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan - School of Law

JD 2- A
April 2024

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
__________________________________________________________________
A. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….iii
B. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………...iv
C. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………….v
D. STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………...vi
E. STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………….vii
F. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………….viii
G. PLEADINGS
I. REMISIA’S DECLARATION IN RETAINING ITS RIGHT TO DEPRIVE
NATIONALITY IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE 1961 CONVENTION
ON THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS…………………….…..…….1

i. The declaration is within the bounds of international

law………………….……………….……………….……...………….………….....1
ii. The Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955 (DCA) existed before the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness…….………….….……………..3

iii. The Sterren Forty’s nature of protest violated the DCA and the conviction is
consistent with the declaration of Remisia under International
Law………..………………………………………………………………...………..4
II. DEPRIVING THE STERREN FORTY OF THEIR NATIONALITY IS NOT
AN OBLIGATION ERGA OMNES PARTES; THEREFORE ANTRANO
LACKS STANDING.................................................................................... 6

1. Deprivation of citizenship is not an obligation erga omnes

partes………………………………………………………………………...……...6

i. Nature and Jurisprudence of Obligation Erga Omnes Partes ……..….....…6

ii. Treaties considered as Obligations Erga Omnes Partes and why

Statelessness cannot be considered as an obligation owing to the international
community ……………..…………………………..…………….…...……...……..7

iii. The act of deprivation is not an internationally wrongful act ………......…...9

2. Antrano is not a specially injured state……………………..………..…..10

i. Articles 42 and 48 of the Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally

Wrongful Acts (ARISWA) cannot be applied to
Remisia.……………………..…………….……………………..…..…………….10
 2. Antrano is not a specially injured state …………………………….……..10

i. Articles 42 and 48 of the Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally

Wrongful Acts (ARISWA) cannot be applied to
Remisia.…………………………………………………...………………………..10

3. The right to nationality, while recognized as a right, has its

qualifications……………………..……..……………...….…………...………...12

i. Nationality can be subject to regulation by States as recognized under

International Law ………..………..………..………..…...……..………..……….12

ii. Countries who have made the declarations under the 1961 Convention,
retaining their right to deprive an individual of their
nationality…………………..…………………………………...……...…………..14

4. The ICCPR, UDHR, and ICESCR: Nationality is not an absolute

right………………………………………………………………………………....20

5. Remisia’s vital interests were violated by the Acts of the Sterren

Forty……………………..………………………………………………………….22

i. Conduct prohibited by the Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955 …….........22

ii. Article 8 (3)(a)(ii) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness allows

for revocation of Nationality …………………………………………...…………22

iii. Acts qualified as ‘manifestly prejudicial’ to the Monarchy and the State....23

6. Remisia complied with its obligations under International

Law……………………………………………………………………...…………..24

i. Due process requirement provided by Article 8(4) of the 1961 Convention on

Reduction of Statelessness…………………………………………...………….24

ii. The Government of Remesia fully complied with Article 8(4) of the 1961
Convention before depriving citizenship………….……………………...……..25

Conclusion……………………………..…………………..…………………………………...….26

H. Prayer for Relief……………..…………………………………..………...……….....27

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________
Treaties and Conventions
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness………………..…1, 8, 14, 22, 24
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide
Convention)............................................................................................................7, 9
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment (United Conventions against Torture).................................................7
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and
Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (The Supplementary Convention on the
Abolition of
Slavery)........................................................................................................................7
Universal Declaration of Human Rights………….……………………………..14, 20, 21
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts…………..…………...…9, 10
1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties…....................................................14
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights….........................21
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..................................….20, 21, 25

United Nations Resolutions and Other Documents

Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties………………………………………..2, 3
UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5………………………………....………4, 22
Restatement (Third) Of The Foreign Relations Law Of The United States…….……..7
University of San Diego School of Law, International Law, Definition of International
Law…………………………………………………………………………………….……...7
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951……………………………….………9

International Cases and Arbitral Decisions

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belg. v. Spain), Second
Phase, Judgment, 1970………………………………………….…………………...6, 7, 8
Application of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide
(Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Montenegro), Judgment, 1996……………….……..……….6

iii
Application Of The Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of
Genocide (The Gambia V. Myanmar), Judgment,
2022…………………………………………………………………………………………..8
Questions Relating to Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium. v. Senegal.),
Judgment, 2012……………………………………………………………….……..…….10
Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Judgment, 6 April 1955..…...…12, 13
Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the
Constitution of Costa Rica, 1984……………………………………………...…….……13

iii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________

Disrespect of the Crown Act of 1955 DCA

International Court of Justice ICJ
Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ARISWA
United Nations UN
Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR
1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties VLCT
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR
International Covenant on Economic Social, and Cultural Rights ICESCR

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________

The Republic of Antrano (Applicant) and the Kingdom of Remisia (Respondent) have
submitted their special agreement before the International Court of Justice concerning
the differences between the Applicant and the Respondent concerning the Sterren
Forty, as both parties have failed to resolve their differences through negotiation.

Both parties have agreed to have all the claims and counterclaims be heard before the
Court, and that the rules and principles of International Law shall be applicable in
determining the merits of the issue. The submission before the ICJ is for the resolution
of the differences between the parties pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice. The Special Agreement submitted is without prejudice
to any question of the burden of proof, and the parties agree to abide by any decision
made by the court as final and binding as long as it is followed in good faith. This
includes any discussions that may take place following the delivery of a judgment.

v
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
___________________________________________________________________

Background

The Republic of Antrano is a country within the Mahali Archipelago established

in 1951. It is home to a mix of races composed of nomadic, ethnic, and religious
minorities. As a member of the United Nations and the President of the United Nations
General Assembly last January 2022, they take the leading role of promoting the
plights of stateless persons through regular proposals and resolutions regarding
statelessness. As of its 2020 census, they have a population of one million individuals.

Situated on the Isidre Plateau, the Kingdom of Remisia is a landlocked nation

that is roughly 11,000 kilometers away from the Mahali Archipelago. They are a
constitutional monarchy that was adopted in 1923. They are a member of the United
Nations. Under their form of governance, their monarch appoints their Prime Minister
and the commander-in-chief, and legislation comes into force only upon royal assent.
Due to their strategic location, they are a site of copper and emerald mining, with a
finding of substantial primary deposits in the north of Remisia.

The Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA)

One of the principles embedded in the Constitution of Remisia is the reverence

and respect of the monarch. Therefore, the Legislative Assembly of Remisia passed
the Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA) in 1955. that penalizes those who defame,
insult or threaten the reigning monarch. The penalty ranges from imprisonment of 5
years up to deprivation of citizenship if the individual is held to have acted in a way
that is disloyal to the crown.

vi
The Controversy Behind the Naturalization by Investment Deal

The Nationalization by Investment Act (NIA) was signed into law with the assent
of Queen Khasat, the reigning monarch of Remisia for the purpose of raising revenue
and foreign investment. Under the said law, anyone who purchases real property or
makes a contribution to the National Infrastructure Development Fund of €500,000 or
more will be granted citizenship.

Ms. Saki Shaw is a Molvanian-born founder of Shaw Corporation, which is a

multinational minerals and mining conglomerate. Lithos Limited is a wholly owned
subsidiary by the Shaw Corporation that expanded into leasing and operating cobalt
and other mines. With Ms. Shaw’s connection with Queen Khasat, Ms. Shaw and the
Prime Minister of Remisia entered into a joint venture agreement which created the
Lithos-Remisia Cooperative (LRC).

LRC expanded to three locations in the northern region of Remisia for the
purpose of cobalt mining upon the approval of The Ministry, showing that there were
no substantial negative environmental consequences. It has employed 4,000
remissions and produced public revenue in the form of exports. However, the
expansion has led to a great deal of dust and metallic minerals in the nearby rivers,
and locals have experienced a persistent hacking cough that was believed to be
caused by the mines.

The Isidre League of Student Activists (ILSA)

The expansion has led to a rise of impromptu lectures and rallies, mainly by the
students at Remisia National University. With the expansion, the Isidre League of
Student Activists (ILSA) was formed for the calling to end all cobalt mining operations
in Remisia. These rallies involved the claims of environmental hazards and issues due
to the operations of the LRC in their cobalt mining.

However, these rallies did not result in the revocation of the permits granted to
the LRC. Due to this, the students carried on with their demonstrations; some even
chained themselves to the mine sites' machinery and entrance. These demonstrations

vi
 have led to the crippling of the mining operations. More than 1,000 student
demonstrators were detained and charged under the DCA.

These students were charged under the DCA, but with the condition that the
charges will be dismissed against those who will give a written apology to Her Majesty.
This condition has led to 230 charges being charged, due to their refusal to apologize.
Most protesters were then convicted and sentenced to one to three years of
imprisonment.

The Sterren Forty

The “Sterren Forty” is a name that was dubbed by the media of the 40 students
who were arrested outside at the gates of the Sterren Palace, in which they have
formed human-blocking chain entrances and exits as part of the ongoing protests.
They were dragged away from the palace, with these images were in the front-page
news across the globe.

The Sterren Forty also refused to apologize when given the chance by the
Attorney-General of Remisia to apologize to Her Majesty.

They were imposed a five-year sentence and were ordered revocation of their
citizenship by the trial court. Their trials were conducted via Zoom because of the
COVID-19 protocols and were concluded by the end of March 2021. They
subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, in which the decision of the trial court
was upheld through a unanimous opinion. They concluded that the evidence of their
disloyalty was manifest and that the imposed sentence was fully consistent with
domestic and international law.

The Sterren Forty are now in the national penitentiary, where they were issued
non-citizen identity cards.

vi
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
__________________________________________________________________

A. Whether Antrano Lacks Standing To Bring The Matter Of The Deprivation Of

Nationality Of The “Sterren Forty” To This Court

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
___________________________________________________________________

I. REMISIA’S DECLARATION IN RETAINING ITS RIGHT TO DEPRIVE

NATIONALITY IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE 1961 CONVENTION ON
THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS

Remisia’s declaration in retaining its right to deprive nationality is within the

bounds of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. First, although the
Convention seeks to prevent the incidence of Statelessness, it allows for certain
exceptions in allowing contracting States to retain their right to deprive a person of
their nationality which is provided for in Article 8 (3) (ii). The said exception applies
when a person has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital
interests of the State, which encompasses its integrity, security, and Constitution. The
declaration, as evidenced by the Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA) of 1955 submitted
by Remisia when it ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is
a unilateral statement and not a reservation that was executed in accordance with the
clause embodied in Article 8 of the 1961 Convention.

Second, it is submitted that protests for environmental concerns are a valid

exercise of the right to freedom of expression, but the same is not an absolute right
and must be exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution of Remisia. The
Sterren Forty consisting of forty students charged with the violation of the Disrespect
to the Crown Act (DCA) of 1955 were validly arrested and convicted since their acts
were considered as an insult to the monarch which is seriously prejudicial to the vital
interest of the State. The acts of the Sterren Forty constitute manifest disloyalty to the
Crown as evinced by their forming of a human chain blocking the entrances and exits
of the Sterren Palace, including their statements that undermined the monarch’s
integrity and credibility towards the international community.

Third, It is explicitly provided in Remisia’s Constitution that protection and

reverence to the Crown is paramount and that an insult to the monarch is a crime. In
this case, since the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Remisia found that there was
clear proof of their disloyalty and the penalties were consistent with domestic and
international law, the deprivation of the nationality of the Sterren Forty was justified.

viii
 II. DEPRIVING THE STERREN FORTY OF THEIR NATIONALITY IS NOT A
VIOLATION OF AN OBLIGATION ERGA OMNES PARTES; THEREFORE
ANTRANO LACKS LEGAL STANDING

Depriving the Sterren Forty of their nationality is not a violation of an obligation

erga omnes partes that would give standing to other state parties to file an action
before the international court. First, under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, only 80 of the member states have ratified or acceded to such a treaty,
which does not constitute the majority of the 193 member states of the United Nations
(UN). This suggests that the prohibition of depriving someone of their nationality is not
a widespread practice that would render a state in violation of general customary
international law. Only when there is a breach of customary international law can a
member state claim universal standing in the protection of community interests.

Second, Antrano is not an injured state from the action of Remisia of depriving
the citizenship of the Sterren Forty. Articles 42 and 48 of ARISWA provide two forms
of legal standing in which states may invoke responsibility to other states. Article 42
provides the standing derived from injury, and Article 48 provides the standing derived
from common interests. Remisia cannot be held liable under Article 48. Also, there is
no showing that the deprivation of the citizenship of the Sterren Forty directly and
specifically affected Antrano which would entitle them to legal standing because
dissent alone does not constitute a direct or specific impact, hence, they fall short
under Article 42 of ARISWA.

Third, the right to nationality has its qualifications under international law. The
1961 Convention enshrines the right of nationality to avoid statelessness, while Article
15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that “everyone has
a right of nationality.” While these rights are universally recognized, citizenship itself
is not typically considered a non-derogable right. It is but a juridical expression
established by sovereign states for purposes of regulating State membership and
participation, within the bounds of municipal and international law in exchange for the
two-pronged essential duties: Loyalty and fidelity. Non-compliance with obligations
imposed upon individual-grantee, the State-grantor has the right to deprive such
individual of his right to nationality.

viii
 Fourth, Remisia’s vital interests were violated by the Acts of the Sterren Forty.
Article 8.3 (a)(ii) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness allows a
state to revoke an individual's citizenship upon showing that their actions are directly
linked to causing serious harm. This criterion specifies that the term "vital interests"
encompasses the protection of a state's fundamental security and constitutional
values. The acts of the Sterren Forty which were initially an environmental concern,
transformed into an attack on the monarch and a disrespect to the institution itself.

Fifth, Remesia fully complied with their obligations under international law as
required under Article 8 (4) of the 1961 Convention on Reduction of Statelessness.
We submit that the Due Process requirement has been met, evidenced by the fact that
the said case was duly submitted to trial, thereby affording the Sterren Forty the right
to be heard in a public hearing before a qualified, impartial, and independent tribunal
established by law. Inarguably, the Supreme Court of Remisia acted within its valid
judicial functions when it ruled that the evidence of disloyalty was manifest and the
imposed sentences were fully consistent with domestic and international law.

With all of these reasons, Antrano lacks to legal standing to institute a case in
the international court.

viii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
___________________________________________________________________

I. REMISIA’S DECLARATION IN RETAINING ITS RIGHT TO DEPRIVE

NATIONALITY IS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE 1961 CONVENTION ON
THE REDUCTION OF STATELESSNESS

i. The declaration is within the bounds of International Law

Before we establish that the right to deprive citizenship is not an obligation

erga omnes partes, we will first highlight the declaration submitted by Remisia in
their ratification of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,
consistent with the provisions under Article 8.3 of the said convention.

The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness aims to avoid the

incidence of statelessness. It speaks of preventing statelessness and providing for
two general ways of solving it. First, States may grant nationality to children at birth
or upon application. Second, in later life, statelessness can be prevented by
prohibiting the withdrawal of citizenship from the State’s nationals which can either
be through loss, renunciation, or deprivation of nationality.1 It mandates contracting
States not to deprive a person of his nationality which would make him stateless.
However, the Convention allows for certain exceptions. The deprivation in the
Convention includes deprivation of nationality based on racial, ethnic, religious, or
political grounds.2 For that, it is elemental in the Convention that upon signing the
State parties have agreed to adopt all the provisions of the Convention and the
obligation to reduce statelessness.

Article 8 (3) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

permits the contracting State to retain its right to deprive a person of their nationality.
Specifically, Article 8 (3) (ii) of the convention provides that “a contracting State may
retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature,

1
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Introductory note by UNCHR (n.d.), available at:
https://www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Convention-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf
2
Convention on the Reduction of Statlessness art. 9, signed Aug. 30, 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175.

1
ratification, or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the
following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time has
conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the
State.”3 In the guidelines provided by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees for interpreting the Convention, the term “seriously prejudicial” requires
that the acts of the individual have negatively affected the State.4 In the same
provision, an individual who performs acts that are seriously prejudicial to the
integrity, security, and constitution of the State may warrant the deprivation of their
nationality.

The declaration submitted by Remisia when it ratified the Convention states

“Remisia declares that it retains the right to deprive a person of his nationality under
Article 8(3) of the Convention if such person has been convicted of an offense under
the Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955 and satisfies such other criteria as are laid
out in that statute.”5 At this point, it should be noted that the Convention itself allows
the State to retain its right to deprive a person of his nationality provided that the
ground for depriving the nationality is present and existing in its national law.
Moreover, the declaration made by Remisia contemplates that it is a unilateral
statement and not a reservation. 1.5.3 of the Guide to Practice on Reservations to
Treaties provides that:

1. A unilateral statement made by a State or an international organization, in

accordance with a clause in a treaty permitting the parties to accept an
obligation that is not otherwise imposed by the treaty, or permitting them to
choose between two or more provisions of the treaty, is outside the scope of
the present Guide to Practice.
2. A restriction or condition contained in a statement by which a State or an
international organization accepts, by virtue of a clause in a treaty, an

3
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness art. 8, signed Aug. 30, 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175.
4
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality
under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, HCR/GS/20/05, May 2020, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2020/en/123216
5
Problem Question ❡ 62

2
 obligation that is not otherwise imposed by the treaty does not constitute a
reservation.6

As a consequence, when Remisia ratified the 1961 Convention on the

Reduction of Statelessness and submitted a declaration with its instrument it was
done in accordance with the clause in a treaty which in this case is under Article 8 of
the Convention.

ii. The Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955 (DCA) existed before the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

Before Remisia ratified the Convention, there existed a national law following
Remisia’s Constitution which provides that the monarch is entitled to reverence and
respect, in which that insulting the monarch is a crime.7 In fact, to execute such a
rule, its legislature has adopted the Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA) of 1955 to
punish with imprisonment or, upon a finding that the act or speech is disloyal to the
Crown, deprivation of his Remisian citizenship. The specific clause, which reads,
"Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the reigning monarch shall be punished with
imprisonment of up to five years," is found in the DCA. Additionally, the guilty party
may lose his Remisian citizenship if the court determines that the subject
demonstrated his disloyalty to the Crown through such deeds or words.8 This
practice of States depriving their citizens of their nationality has long existed and is
recognized.

Similar to the DCA enacted by Remisia are the laws present in the country
United Kingdom, in which upon their ratification of the 1961 Convention, they have
declared their right to deprive the naturalized person of his nationality on the
following grounds:

6
International Law Commission, Guide to Practie on Reservations to Treaties (2001), International Law Commission, 2011,
vol. II, Part Two, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_8_2011.pdf
Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties
7
Problem Question ❡ 7
8
Ibid.

3
 1. Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty, rendered
or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive
emoluments from, another State, or
2. Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests
of Her Britannic Majesty.9

Accordingly, it is not only Remisia that penalizes insults towards the monarch. The
Government of the United Kingdom and other countries who have ratified and
acceded to the said treaty declare that it retains its right to deprive its citizens of their
nationality in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. These countries will be
elaborated on in the later parts of this paper.

iii. The Sterren Forty’s nature of protest violated the DCA and the conviction is
consistent with the declaration of Remisia under International Law

The Sterren Forty consists of forty students who were charged for the
violation of the Disrespect to the Crown Act. They were initially concerned with the
environmental consequences of Cobalt mining despite the series of government
orders of the Ministry declaring that there were no environmental hazards caused by
the mining. Despite these notices, thousands of students under the Isidre League of
Student Activists (ILSA) name organized protests actively criticizing the government,
including holding up placards that read “The Queen’s friend is threatening our
future.” and “Her Majesty is sacrificing our health on the altar of friendship!” These
demonstrations continued due to the non-revocation of permits of the Lithos-Remisia
Cooperative (LRC), which was operating cobalt mining activities in the northern
region of Remisia. As such, students committed acts such as blocking the access
roads to the mining facilities and chaining themselves to the entrance gates and the
equipment at the mine sites. The Sterren Forty was included in the protests but was
arrested and convicted for their act of forming a human chain blocking the entrances
and exits of the Sterren Palace, which was the home of Queen Khasat, their reigning
monarch.

9
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Declaration by United Kingdom, Declarations and Reservations (1961),
available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20V/V-4.en.pdf

4
 The protests for environmental concerns were a valid exercise of their right to
freedom of expression. However, such a right is not an absolute right and should
only be exercised by the Constitution of Remisia, in which it is ingrained that the
monarch is entitled to reverence and respect. The students cannot defy such a
provision by merely insisting that they will hold protests to raise awareness of the
environmental hazards that the mining brought. The acts of the Sterren Forty in
forming a human chain that blocked the entrance of the Queen to the Palace is
considered an insult to the monarch which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interest
of the State. The acts of the students which constitute the manifest disloyalty to the
Crown started from the demonstrations and the protests they conducted. Although
they only intend to conduct public dialogue which aims to determine whether the
national future is being betrayed, such matters are unsubstantiated. They have
crossed the line by making declarations that insulted the Monarch.

Further, the arrest of the Sterren Forty at the gates of the Sterren Forty
resulted in images of their protest being spread through front page news all across
the globe, which constituted disloyalty to the Crown, and was prejudicial to their
interest as a monarch because it undermines the Monarch’s credibility towards the
international community.

As mentioned, Remisia’s Constitution provides that the monarch is entitled to

reverence and that insulting the monarch is a crime.10 The Disrespect to the Crown
Act of 1955 penalizes acts and conducts that defame, insult, or threaten the reigning
Monarch. If the court is satisfied that the subject has shown himself by that act or
speech to be disloyal to the Crown, it may deprive the guilty party of his Remisian
citizenship. In this case, when the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Remisia found
that there was clear proof of their disloyalty and that the penalties were consistent
with domestic and international law, the deprivation of the nationality of the Sterren
Forty was justified.11

10
Problem Question ❡ 7
11
Ibid.

5
II. DEPRIVING THE STERREN FORTY OF THEIR NATIONALITY IS NOT A
VIOLATION OF AN OBLIGATION ERGA OMNES PARTES; THEREFORE
ANTRANO LACKS LEGAL STANDING

Remisia is a constitutional monarchy that places a great degree of respect

and importance on its order, as embedded in its own Constitution that the monarch is
entitled to reverence and respect. Consistent with their Constitution, they enacted
the Disrespect to the Crown Act in 1955 which penalizes acts that defame, insult, or
threaten the reigning monarch.12

In the preceding argument, we have argued that the deprivation of their

citizenship was within the bounds of the treaties that Remisia signed and is
consistent with International Law. With this, the act of depriving the Sterren Forty of
its citizenship was not in violation of the obligation erga omnes partes that would give
standing to other state parties to file an action before the international court.

1. Deprivation of citizenship is not an obligation erga omnes partes

i. Nature and Jurisprudence of Obligation Erga Omnes Partes

In the case of Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain), it was held that a state
can have the standing to institute the case before the International Court if the
violation falls under obligation erga omnes partes. If such obligation is in the nature
of erga omnes, states can be held accountable to all members of the international
community based on judicial endorsement of the significance and importance of the
obligations involved for all other states.13 It provides that in any given case, each
State party has an interest in the other parties complying.14 Simply put, in case of
breach of an obligation erga omnes, it injures all of the Contracting parties to the
convention.

12
Problem Question ¶ 7
13
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belg. v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. 3, ¶ 33, 35
(Feb. 5) [hereinafter Barcelona Traction].
14
Application of Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Montenegro),
Judgment, 1996 I.C.J. 595, 626, ¶ 4 (July 11) [hereinafter Bosnian Genocide] (declaration of Oda, J.)

6
 In the same case, it was ruled that obligation erga omnes stems from two
sources: It may come from 1) general or customary international law, or 2) those
conferred with universal or quasi-universal in character.15 As to the first source, in the
determination of the existence of a customary law, one must assess its general
practice and whether it is recognized by the international community. According to
the Restatement of the Law (Third), the Foreign Relations of the United States,
customary law is defined as the “general and consistent practice of states followed
by them from a sense of legal obligation.”16 As to its elements, customary
international law is present when there is: 1) state practice, 2) opinio juris, and 3)
these are acts accepted by States in a significant number and are also not rejected
by them.17

ii. Treaties considered as Obligations Erga Omnes Partes and why

Statelessness cannot be considered as an obligation owing to the
international community

Treaties such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the

Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) that was adopted on December 9, 1948,
has been ratified and acceded by 153 states,18 The Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (United Conventions
against Torture) that has been adopted on December 10, 1984,19 has 173 countries
who are state parties,20 and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (The
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery) that was adopted on
September 7, 1956, has been ratified by 124 countries.21 These treaties, being
recognized by more than the majority of the state members in the United Nations,
are considered customary international laws that once violated, constitute a breach

15
Barcelona Traction, supra note 5, ¶ 33–34.
16
Restatement (Third) Of The Foreign Relations Law Of The United States § 102(2)
17
University of San Diego School of Law, International Law, Definition of International Law, available at
https://lawlibguides.sandiego.edu/international-law/customary_law (last accessed April 9, 2024)
18
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, Ratification of the Genocide
Convention, available at https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide-convention.shtml (last accessed April 9, 2024)
19
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed December 20, 1984,
1465 U.N.T.S 85.
20
Convention against Torture Initiative, available at: https://cti2024.org/faq/ (last accessed April 9, 2024)
21
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery,
signed September 7, 1956, U.N.T.S 266 (p.3)

7
owing to the international community. The number of States who ratified or acceded
to such treaties signifies acceptance of such principles and rules of action to practice
within their own jurisdiction. When a breach is committed, a member state can
institute justification for universal standing in the protection of community interests. In
Barcelona, the ICJ ruled that if states possess an interest in these duties being
protected legally, it is an obligation erga omnes.22

However, the issue of statelessness cannot be placed on equal footing as

those treaties mentioned above. Under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, only 80 of the member states have ratified or acceded to such a
treaty.23 On the other hand, the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons, only 80 countries are considered state parties.24 The list of countries who
ratified or acceded to such treaties does not even constitute the majority of the 193
member states of the United Nations. This suggests that there is no widespread
practice of the prohibition of depriving someone of their citizenship that would
constitute a violation of general customary international law. In comparison to the
conventions that relate to the prohibition against genocide, torture, or slavery, there
is a clear manifestation of widespread practice and a general acceptance of the
international community of such obligation, evidenced by the number of state parties
who ratified such treaties. This is not present at all in the treaties relating to
Statelessness. As such, it falls short in categorizing it as a general customary
international law, nor is considered as one that is universal or quasi-universal in
nature. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an obligation erga omnes.

The application of an obligation erga omnes is applied in the case of The

Gambia v. Myanmar,25 the ICJ ruled that the Gambia had prima facie standing
against Myanmar in the issue that Myanmar had committed genocide against the
Rohingya population, which is contrary to the Genocide Convention to which they
are both parties of. While the Gambia was 7,000 miles away from the dispute, the

22
Barcelona Traction, supra note 5, ¶ 33–34.
23
United Nations, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, List of the State Parties, available at
https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/3bbb24d54.pdf (last accessed April 9, 2024)
24
United Nations, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, List of the State Parties, available at
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5 (last accessed April 9, 2024)
25
Application Of The Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of The Crime Of Genocide (The Gambia V.
Myanmar), Judgment, 2022 I.C.J ¶114

8
International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that they had standing in view of a common
and shared value to ensure that acts of genocide are prevented, pursuant to the
Genocide Convention.

The Decision of Gambia cannot be applied in determining whether Antrano

has standing. In the Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the court ruled in its advisory opinion that the
Genocide Convention was plainly adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing
purpose, as well as to affirm the fundamental concepts and principles of morality and
safeguard the very existence of certain human groups.26 In this case, there is no
showing that statelessness is given the same recognition as genocide as part of an
obligation erga omnes.

It cannot also be said that there is a community of interests that ought to be

protected in this case. Given that the 1961 Convention has not yet been recognized
as part of the customary international law and allows for State parties to deprive
nationality of individuals on specific grounds, this proves that the act of deprivation of
citizenship is not itself a breach of international law, so long as it is consistent with
their international obligations such as affording due process,27 and on grounds
manifestly prejudicial to the State.28

iii. The act of deprivation is not an internationally wrongful act

The Articles of Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

(ARISWA), was adopted by the United Nations in 2001 and highlights the instances
where a State may be held responsible for its wrongful acts. Specifically under Art.
48 of the ARISWA, it provides that a state may invoke responsibility, even if they are
not directly injured, to another state provided that “(a) the obligation breached is
owed to a group of States including that State, and is established for the protection

26
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J.
Reports 1951, p. 23
27
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 15, signed December 10, 1948
28
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Art. 9, opened for signature August 30, 1961

9
of a collective interest of the group; or (b) the obligation breached is owed to the
international community as a whole.”29

The discussion of standing was also discussed under the case of Belgium v.
Senegal (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite), where it
was recognized that states that are not directly injured can have legal standing
provided that they are also parties to the same treaty.30 The ICJ held that Belgium
had a legal standing on the basis of the obligation being of an erga omnes character.
In ascertaining whether or not it is an obligation erga omnes, one must look at “a) the
object and purpose of the Convention and therefore the community interest that the
treaty seeks to secure, b) the design of the Convention and its rights and obligations
to in the fulfillment of the purpose of the convention, and c) to determine whether the
obligation was intended to fulfill this purpose.”31

From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that Antrano has no standing as

there is no showing that the act of deprivation of citizenship of the Sterren Forty by
Remisia constitutes a violation of an obligation of an erga omnes character.
Therefore, Remisia has no obligation to the international community that would hold
it accountable for an internationally wronged act and ultimately grant Antrano
standing.

2. Antrano is not a specially injured state

i. Articles 42 and 48 of the Articles of Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARISWA) cannot be applied to Remisia

There are two forms of standing provided in the ARISWA. Article 42 provides
the standing derived from injury, and Article 48 provides the standing derived from
common interests. From the preceding paragraphs, it is already argued that Article
48 cannot be applied to make Remisia liable.

29
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work
of Its Fifty-third Session, [2001) 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/ SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), art. 48
[hereinafter ARSIWA]
30
Questions Relating to Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Judgment, 2012 I.C.J. 422, ¶ 68 (July 20)
[hereinafter Belgium v. Senegal].
31
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), supra note 13, ¶ 69.

10
 As the deprivation of such citizenship did not breach such obligation owing to
all of the international community, Antrano must then prove that they were specially
affected by the act of Remisia in order for them to have a legal standing before the
Court. Article 42 of ARISWA, provides for the grounds in which an injured state may
invoke responsibility. The provision provides, to wit:

“A State is entitled as an injured State to invoke the responsibility of another

State if the obligation breached is owed to:

(a) that State individually; or

(b) a group of States including that State, or the international community as a

whole, and the breach of the obligation:

(i) specially affects that State; or

(ii) is of such a character as radically to change the position of all the

other States to which the obligation is owed with respect to the further
performance of the obligation.”32

Antrano is not an injured state from the action of Remisia of depriving the
citizenship of the Sterren Forty. Aside from the fact that they are located
approximately 11,000 kilometers from Remisia33, there is no showing that the
deprivation of the citizenship of the Sterren Forty directly and specifically affected
Antrano. In fact, when the Sterren Forty were stripped of their citizenship even after
the appeal before the Supreme Court, they were taken to the national penitentiary
and were issued non-citizen identity cards. Until now, they are still held in the said
penitentiary in Remisia. There was not even a breach of territorial or sovereign rights
from the state parties. There were no acts from Remisia that would suggest that
Antrano’s political, sovereign, or territorial integrity was threatened to merit an injury.

32
ARISWA, supra 17, art. 42
33
Problem Question ¶ 5

11
 In the application of the said provision in this case, there must be showing that
the deprivation has had a direct or specific impact on Antrano to entitle them to legal
standing. The extent of impact was only shown in Antrano’s strong dissent of
Remisia’s act, as Antrano had a long-standing advocacy of the plight of stateless
persons. This dissent was also present during a ceremony in which President Iyali of
Antrano spoke, in which he talked about the unacceptability of rendering young
students stateless and offered to meet with the Prime Minister of Remisia, in the
hopes of finding other alternatives for the problem.34

Dissent alone is not a sufficient standard to gauge the direct or specific impact
on Antrano. Therefore, they fall short under Article 42 of ARISWA.

3. The right to nationality, while recognized as a right, has its qualifications

i. Nationality can be subject to regulation by States as recognized under

International Law

It has been established that the deprivation of citizenship does not constitute
a violation of an obligation erga omnes, granted that it is not an obligation owed to
the rest of the international community, we submit that the right to nationality,
however recognized as a right, also has its qualifications under international law.

In the case of Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, otherwise known as the Nottebohm

Case, The International Court of Justice has defined nationality as a legal connection
with a base in which there is a “genuine connection of existence, interests, and
sentiments, along with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties as a social fact of
attachment.”35

It is fair to argue that the right to nationality is not an absolute human right.
The existence of a right always corresponds to a duty or obligation on the part of the
persons enjoying it. According to the United Nations (UN), human rights are
inalienable rights that belong to every person, irrespective of their gender, race,

34
Problem Question ¶ 36
35
International Court of Justice, Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), 6 April 1955.

12
nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other characteristic. Human rights
embrace the right to life, liberty, and property, the freedom of expression and religion,
and the right to dignity. While such aforementioned rights are recognized in a
universal capacity, citizenship itself is not considered a non-derogable right. Instead,
it is a legal construct or a juridical expression established by sovereign states for the
sole purpose of regulating State membership and participation in their social,
economic, and political affairs.36

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for example, defined nationality

as the legal expression of a social fact linking a person to a state. A person's
nationality is a political and legal connection that attaches them to a particular state
and grants them rights to diplomatic protection from that state.37 Thus, the concept of
nationality is a juridical expression created by the State given to an individual in
order to regulate its affairs within the bounds of municipal and international law in
exchange for the two-pronged essential duties: Loyalty and fidelity. In the absence of
such dual obligations faithfully executed by the individual grantee, the State-grantor
has the right to deprive such individual of his right to nationality because citizenship
carries reciprocal rights and duties.38

States have a sovereign authority to determine their own citizenship and

criteria for granting citizenship. This allows them to regulate who can be a member of
their society. As a matter of fact, State parties to a treaty, when signing, ratifying, or
approving a Treaty, may opt to make unilateral statements such as a declaration.
Declarations are made in multiple international agreements. However, declarations
do not necessarily have legal force behind them; sometimes they are just meant to
clarify the state's position or express particular ambitions rather than to impose
legally binding responsibilities.39 The wording is purposefully intended to convey that
the parties just wish to express certain goals rather than establish legally enforceable
duties. A State may also include reservations in its application that seek to exclude

36
Yean and Bosico (n 28) paras 136
37
Advisory Opinion on Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica [1984]
IACtHR OC-4/84, Series A No. 4 (1984) para 35.
38
International Court of Justice, Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), 6 April 1955.
39
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/overview.aspx?path=overview/definition/page1_en.xml#declarations

13
or alter the legal significance of specific treaty provisions,40 provided that such
aforementioned actions are allowed by the Treaty itself.

ii. Countries who have made the declarations under the 1961 Convention,
retaining their right to deprive an individual of their nationality

The 1961 Convention was entered upon the state parties to enshrine the right
of nationality and avoid statelessness. It is made upon the belief that the right of
nationality affords governmental protection and the benefits that come with it. This is
consistent with the right recognized under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) that “everyone has a right of nationality”.41 Again, this is not
absolute. Here are a few examples of States regulating the citizenship status of their
citizens to maintain the authority to strip someone of their nationality are those State
parties of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness:

(a) Austria
Declarations concerning Article 8, paragraph 3 (a), (i), and (ii) of the 1961
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness:

"Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if

such person enters, on his own free will, the military service of a foreign
State.

"Austria declares to retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if

such person being in the service of a foreign State, conducts himself in
a manner seriously prejudicial to the interests or to the prestige of the
Republic of Austria."42

(b) Brazil

Declaration:

40
Arts.2 (1) (d) and 19-23, Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties 1969
41
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 15, signed December 10, 1948
42
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Declarations and Reservations (1961), available at:
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20V/V-4.en.pdf

14
 “In reference to the instrument of accession relating to the Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness, concluded in New York on 30 August
1961, the Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares
that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph “a”, item
“ii” of the Convention, the Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right
to deprive a person of his nationality when he conducts himself in a
manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Brazilian State.”

The Secretary-General also wishes to communicate the following

information received by the Government of Brazil on 18 December
2008:

“The National Congress of Brazil approved the text of the Convention on

the Reduction of Statelessness by means of Legislative Decree n. 274,
of 4 October 2007. In accordance with Legislative Decree n. 274/2007,
the text of the Convention is approved expressly with the restriction
allowed for in article 8 (3) (a) (ii) of the Convention, so that the
Federative Republic of Brazil retains the right to deprive a person of his
nationality when he conducts himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to
the vital interests of the Brazilian State.” In this regard, it is noted that
the instrument of accession to the Convention deposited by Brazil with
the Secretary-General on 25 October 2007 did not specify the above
restriction, in accordance with article 8 (3) of the Convention.43

(c) Georgia

Declaration:

Georgia formally confirms its accession to the Convention and in

accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention declares:

Georgia retains the right to deprive the person of his nationality, that results
in a loss of nationality (citizenship), as provided by the Organic Law of
Georgia on the Citizenship of Georgia;

43
Ibid.

15
 The entry into force of the UN Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness of 30 August 1961 for Georgia cannot be construed as
recognition of citizenship granted by the Russian Federation in violation
of international law and Georgian legislation to the population residing in
the Georgian regions - Abkhazia and Tshkhinvali Region.”44

(d) Ireland

"In accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention Ireland

retains the right to deprive a naturalized Irish citizen of his citizenship
pursuant to section 19 (1) (b) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act,
1956, on grounds specified in the aforesaid paragraph."

(e) Italy

Declaration:

“At the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession, the [Italian]
Government avails itself of the right provided for under article 8,
paragraph 3, of the Convention.”45

(f) Jamaica

Declaration:

“Upon acceding to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the

Government of Jamaica declares, pursuant to Article 8 of the
Convention, that it retains the right under its laws to deprive a person of
his or her nationality in the circumstances outlined in Paragraph 3 of
that Article in the Convention.”46

(g) Lithuania

Declaration:

44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
46
Ibid.

16
 “In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Convention, … the
Republic of Lithuania declares that the Republic of Lithuania retains the
right to deprive a person of his nationality on the grounds of the
deprivation of nationality of the Republic of Lithuania, as provided for in
paragraphs 4 and 6 of Article 24 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Citizenship.”47

(h) New Zealand

Declaration:

"[New Zealand] declares that in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 8 of

the Convention New Zealand retains the right to deprive a person of his
New Zealand citizenship on the following grounds, being grounds
existing in New Zealand law at the present time:

a. the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while of or over the
age of 18 years and of full capacity,

(i) Acquired the nationality or citizenship of another country by any

voluntary and formal act, and acted in a manner that is contrary to the
interests of New Zealand; or

(ii) Voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or performed any of the duties
of another nationality or citizenship possessed by him in a manner that
is contrary to the interests of New Zealand."48

(i) Togo

Declaration:

“In accordance with the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 3, of the

Convention, the Togolese Republic retains the right to deprive a person
of the Togolese nationality, in the application of Togolese legislation
relating to Togolese nationality, in particular for the following reasons:

47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.

17
 - if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality engages in activities
prejudicial to the interests of Togo;

- if the person who has acquired Togolese nationality has been sentenced,
for an act qualified as a crime under Togolese law, to more than five
years of imprisonment without parole.”49

(j) Tunisia

Declaration:

“The Republic of Tunisia declares that, in accordance with article 8,

paragraph 3, of the [Convention], it retains the right to deprive a person
of Tunisian nationality in the following circumstances as provided for in
its existing national law:

1. If he occupies a post in the public service of a foreign State or in foreign

armed forces and retains it for more than one month after being
enjoined by the Government of Tunisia to leave the post unless it is
found that it was impossible for him to do so.

2. If he is convicted of an act held to be a crime or an offense against the

external or internal security of the State.

3. If he engages, for the benefit of a foreign State, in acts that are

incompatible with his status as a Tunisian national and which are
prejudicial to Tunisia's interests.

4. If he is convicted in Tunisia or abroad for an act held to be a crime under

Tunisian law and carrying a sentence of at least five years
imprisonment.

5. If he is convicted of evading his obligations under the law regarding

recruitment into the armed forces. 6. If it is discovered, subsequent to
issuance of the naturalization certificate, that the person concerned did
not fulfill the conditions required by law allowing him to be naturalized.

49
Ibid.

18
 6. If the alien has made a false declaration, employed fraudulent means, or
knowingly submitted a document containing a false or incorrect
statement for the purpose of obtaining naturalization.”50

(k) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

"[The Government of the United Kingdom declares that], in accordance with

paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 8, the United Kingdom retains the
right to deprive a naturalized person of his nationality on the following
grounds, being grounds existing in United Kingdom law at the present
time: that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty,
the person

"(i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty,

rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to
receive emoluments from, another State, or

"(ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital

interests of Her Britannic Majesty."51

These are some of the States that have ratified and acceded to the 1961
Convention and expressly made a declaration as to their right to deprive citizenship
upon individuals who have acted in a manner contrary to the vital interests of the
State. These are declarations that were within the bounds as provided in the treaty
itself. Further, citizenship typically entails certain duties and responsibilities. These
obligations are reciprocal, with the state providing protection and benefits in return.

Given that the Sterren Forty has shown disloyalty to Remisia, the only penalty
that can be imposed on individuals who refuse to reciprocate their duty of loyalty, but
continue to benefit from citizenship, allows Remisia to deprive them of their
citizenship. The presence of these declarations made by the member states under
the 1961 Convention proves that there is no obligation erga omnes that makes them
liable to the whole international community.

50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.

19
4. The ICCPR, UDHR, and ICESCR: Nationality is not an absolute right

Even though citizenship is not regarded as an absolute right recognized by

the international community, it is critical to realize that international human rights law
recognizes that obtaining citizenship and the protection of certain citizenship-related
rights, such as the right to nationality and protection from statelessness, are
significant aspects to be considered as well.52 States must undertake policies to
combat prejudice and preserve the equality and dignity of every person, extending to
their citizenship policies and legislation that is consistent with human rights norms.

The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was

enacted mainly for the protection of civil and political rights of every individual. Some
of the rights recognized and upheld under the ICCPR is the right of an individual to
have a fair trial, to be treated equally regardless of their gender, age, and race, to be
afforded due process, and to practice any religion as they may see fit. Consistent
with the goals underlined before the ICCPR, states must enact laws, hold courts, and
conduct administrative procedures to protect the rights outlined in the agreement and
provide an effective remedy.53

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

focuses on principles such as fair and decent labor, social safety, an adequate living
wage, physical and mental well-being, education, the ability to enjoy cultural freedom
and scientific growth to be undertaken by the member states in forming policies and
legislation under their jurisdiction.54

Finally, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR) primarily relates to the protection of rights of socio-economic and cultural
rights of citizens, especially those members of indigenous communities respecting
their unique culture and tradition. The rights aforementioned embody the right to

52
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 15, effective on December 10, 1948
53
American Civil Rights Union, FAQ: The Covenant on Civil & Political Rights (ICCPR), available at
https://www.aclu.org/documents/faq-covenant-civil-political-rights-iccpr (last accessed April 15, 2024).
54
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble, effective on December 10, 1948

20
work, the right to the benefit and enjoyment of social services for a sufficient
standard of living, the right to a healthful ecology, and the right to quality education.55

None of these three international bills of human rights expressly provide that
citizenship is an absolute and non-derogable right. First, the ICCPR does not even
mention the right to nationality. Although Article 24 par. 3 of the ICCPR mentions that
every child has a right to acquire a nationality,56 but it does not expressly mention
that States are prohibited from depriving individuals of citizenship. Second, the
ICESR does not mention any right regarding citizenship. The ICESR focuses mainly
on the recognition of the right of all persons to self-determination, including the
self-determination of political status; economic, social, and cultural goals; and the
management and disposal of their resources.57 However, there is no express
mention regarding the right to citizenship. Third, although Article 15, Paragraph 1 of
UDHR provides that “everyone has the right to nationality”,58 it must not be read in
isolation and must be interpreted with the inclusion of Paragraph 2 of the same
article which states that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
denied the right to change his nationality”.59 By necessary implication, the UDHR
itself allows the deprivation of nationality on the condition that it must not be arbitrary
or whimsical whatsoever, which supports the argument that the right to nationality or
citizenship is not an absolute right that may be taken away based upon legal and
justifiable grounds.

5. Remisia’s vital interests were violated by the Acts of the Sterren Forty

i. Conduct prohibited by the Disrespect to the Crown Act of 1955

According to Remisia's Constitution, disrespecting the monarch is illegal and

the monarch is entitled to reverence and respect. The Disrespect to the Crown Act
(DCA) makes the following provision clear:

55
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, effective on January 3, 1976
56
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 24, par. 3, effective on January 3, 1976
57
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
available at https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr (last accessed April 15, 2024)
58
Universal Declaration of Human Rights art. 15, effective on December 10, 1948
59
Ibid.

21
 “Whoever defames, insults, or threatens the reigning monarch shall be
punished with imprisonment of up to five (5) years. In addition, if the court is
satisfied that the subject has shown himself by the act or speech to be
disloyal to the Crown, it may deprive the guilty party of his Remisian
citizenship.”60

In the same vein, it should be noted that prior to this violation by the Sterren
Forty, the DCA had been invoked fewer than a dozen times, and each conviction
only resulted in a prison sentence but no defendant’s citizenship had been
annulled.61

ii. Article 8 (3)(a)(ii) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

(CRS) allows for revocation of nationality

Article 8 (3)(a)(ii) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness states

that a person's citizenship may only be revoked by the state if the acts that they
committed are seriously prejudicial ones that would cause substantial harm..62 This
criterion specifies that the term "vital interests" encompasses the protection of a
state's fundamental security and constitutional values, distinguishing it from broader
"national interests." Consequently, activities that fail to make a significant contribution
to harm do not qualify as "seriously prejudicial."63

iii. Acts qualified as ‘manifestly prejudicial’ to the Monarchy and the State

The acts of the Sterren Forty emerged as manifestly prejudicial to both the
monarchy and the State, which was evident when the students formed a human
chain blocking both entrance and exit gates whilst chanting “Her Majesty has
betrayed us.” Even though Queen Khasat was not in residence at that time, the
presence of the human blockchain by the Sterren Forty became a symbol of a strong
dissent and dissatisfaction from its people, as well as defiance and respect that
violated the Constitution of Remisia. Further, the act of the protesters chaining
themselves to the machinery at the mine sites, effectively disrupting and crippling the

60
Problem Question ❡ 7
61
Problem Question ❡ 8
62
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5: Loss and Deprivation of Nationality
under Articles 5-9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, HCR/GS/20/05, May 2020, available at:
https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2020/en/123216
63
Ibid.

22
mining operations, that was intended for the benefit of Remisia’s economy, was
hindered.

The condition set forth by Remisia’s DCA requiring its citizens to pay utmost
respect and reverence to the reigning monarch is a form of protection to the vital
interest of the Kingdom of Remisia, which is the standard required to maintain the
status of a “worthy citizen.” Breach of this constitutional requirement of loyalty to the
crown is pronounced as ‘manifestly prejudicial’ to the vital interest of the State, which
warrants deprivation of citizenship, and which Article 8 of the 1961 Convention
expressly allows.

In the case of Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, the court held that the people are free
to criticize the government’s policies. In a democratic government what is to be
expected by the people is compliance with the law and loyalty toward the
government. Under a democratic state, loyalty and upholding state values is
demanded and expected. While citizens have the freedom to critique government
policies within legal limits, it necessitates loyalty to the State and its Constitution.
This requirement is not punitive but essential for obtaining and maintaining
citizenship.64

It can be adduced based on the foregoing facts that what was initially an
environmental concern, transformed into an attack on the monarch and a disrespect
to the institution itself. Protection and reverence for the monarch are paramount
because she is considered the cornerstone of regional and international stability. The
acts of the Sterren Forty were defamatory and insulting at best which does not fall
short of a threat to the reigning monarch, which warrants and justifies the deprivation
of Remisian citizenship. The pictures of the 40 students being dragged from the
Palace's front gates, known as the "Sterren Forty," went viral around the world,
garnering attention to the monarchy of Remisia and its credibility as an institution.

64
Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, Judgment, Application No. 44230/06, CE:ECHR:2015:0113, ❡ 63 (CJEU Jan. 13, 2015).

23
6. Remisia complied with its obligations under International Law

States should make sure that procedural due process are upheld to guarantee
that laws relating to nationality and citizenship are not applied arbitrarily. Decisions
concerning nationality in particular must be "issued in writing and open to effective
administrative or judicial review."65

i. Due process requirement provided by Article 8 (4) of the 1961 Convention

on Reduction of Statelessness

Article 8 (4) of the 1961 Convention on Reduction of Statelessness provides that:

“A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by

paragraphs 2 or 3 of this Article except in accordance with law, which shall
provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other
independent body.” (emphasis ours)

In a post made by the Dutch Newspaper De Telegraf in March 2021, which

suggested that although most of the Sterren Forty members “sat silent and defiant,
quietly confirming their rebellion…,” one of the defendants spoke up, advancing that
they were deprived of their right to be heard.66 The same sentiment was expressed
by President Iyali of Antrano, saying that countries strip people of their citizenship to
quash dissent.

We submit that the Due Process requirement has been met, evidenced by the
fact that the said case was duly submitted to trial and where the Sterren Forty even
argued that they had been convicted of political offenses and that stripping them of
citizenship would render them stateless, thereby violating international law in their
appeal to the Supreme Court of Remisia. Despite the rejection of the appeal
concluding that evidence of disloyalty was manifest, the sentences applied were fully
consistent with domestic and international law.67 It is also worth highlighting that the

65
Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality - Report of the Secretary General HRC/13/14 par. 43,
A/HRC/13/14, par. 43 (December 2009)
66
Problem Question ❡ 35
67
Problem Question ❡ 34

24
students were initially warned by the police before the former was arrested in which
the police officer asserted that they did not want to arrest the students unless the
latter would take down their placards undermined the credibility of the Monarch.”68
The students were warned about the possible repercussions of their acts, particularly
with regard to violating the Disrespect to the Crown Act (DCA), before they took any
action. It must be understood that the Freedom of Expression is not expressly
prohibited. However, the same is limited to the extent where such dissent appears to
undermine the integrity of the monarchy. Moreover, the DCA charges were
announced for all participants in the Isidre League of Student Activists (ILSA)
demonstration by the Attorney General of Remedies, even up to the extent that
charges would be dropped against anyone who wrote to Her Majesty and
apologized. However, 230 students—including the Sterren Forty were officially
charged for refusing to apologize.69

ii. The Government of Remesia fully complied with Article 8 (4) of the 1961
Convention before depriving citizenship

The contention that there was a failure on the part of Remisia to comply with
the due process requirement and that the Sterren Forty was arbitrarily deprived of
their citizenship is also devoid of merit. As can be gleaned from the facts of the
case, as well as from the decision of the trial court in revocation of their citizenship, it
is inarguable that Remisia fully complied with the due process requirement,
consistent with their obligation under Article 14 of the International Covenant of Civil
and Political Rights under the United Nations, in which it provides that everyone
must have the right to a fair and public hearing before a qualified, impartial, and
independent tribunal established by law, to determine the outcome of any criminal
charge against him or his rights and obligations in a lawsuit at law. The Supreme
Court of Remisia acted within its valid judicial functions when it ruled that the
evidence of disloyalty was manifest and the imposed sentences were fully consistent
with domestic and international law.

68
Problem Question ❡ 26
69
Problem Question ❡ 31

25
Conclusion

In the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in 1959 and the

Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons in 1954, the deprivation of
citizenship is not prohibited. The 1961 Convention recognizes the right of its member
states to strip away a person's nationality if they have performed in a way that
gravely undermines the State's vital interests and breaches their duty of loyalty. This
is supported also by multiple treaties recognized under International Law, such as
the UNDHR and ICCPR. So as long as the State has not arbitrarily deprived an
individual of their nationality and falls under the grounds recognized by law, it is a
right recognized by the international community.

Remisia has rightfully exercised its right to the determination of what

constitutes as manifestly prejudicial to its vital interest and has applied the
appropriate measures to address such violation of the DCA, affording the Sterren
Forty of due process. It is therefore submitted that since Remisia has fully complied
with the standards and procedural requirements set out by both domestic and
international law, there is no breach of the same, hence, Antrano has no standing to
question Remisia’s deprivation of nationality to the Sterren Forty.

Remisia’s monarchy is entitled to respect and reverence, as embodied in their

Constitution. While the citizens of Remisia have varied interests and changes they
want to seek within their nation, they must be balanced and practiced within the
bounds of their laws. Change can be possible– provided that it does not cross the
lines of what the Monarchy has demanded.

26
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
___________________________________________________________________

For the aforementioned reasons, the Kingdom of Remisia, the Respondent,

respectfully prays that this Honourable Court:

1. DECLARE that Antrano lacks legal standing to bring the matter of deprivation
of nationality of the “Sterren Forty” to this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

September 14, 2023

Agents for the Kingdom of Remisia

27