TEAM (A)

THE 2025 RASTRIYE RAKSHYA UNIVERSITY

MOOT COURT COMPITITON

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

At the Peace Palace

The Hague, The Netherlands

The Case concerning Letvaz Blockade

The Island of Antovia

(Applicant)

V.

The Island of Roland

(Respondent)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

 Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............................................................................................vi
QUESTION PRESENTED...........................................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................................viii
SUMMSRY PLEADING.................................................................................................................x
ADVANCE PLEADING.................................................................................................................1
1.Weathe the ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over the claim brought by Antova on behalf of
third-country corporations operating within its territory and subject to Roland's Sanctions
Regulations. ?..............................................................................................................................1
Argument 1: Treaty of Amity as a Basis for Jurisdiction and the Protection of Foreign
Investment............................................................................................................................. 1
Argument 2: Antova's Right to Protect its Economic Interests and Sovereign Territory
PAVES INTEREST................................................................................................................3
Argument 3: antovia has The "Injury to the State Itself" Principle and Indirect Injury to
Corporations paves jurisdiction.............................................................................................5
Argument 4: Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity and Broad Dispute Resolution Mandate.......6
2. Whether Roland’s primary and secondary sanctions regime against Antova is not in
conformity with international law; consequently, Roland is obligated to compensate Antova?. 8
Argument 1: Violation of Treaty of Amity in Letvaz Among the State of Roland, the
Kingdom of Randarino, and the United Islands of Antova (1996).........................................9
Argument 2: Violation of Charter of the United Nations.....................................................10
Argument 3: Violation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)......................11
Argument 4: Violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).......11
Argument 5: Obligation to Compensate for Wrongful Acts.................................................12
3. Wheather the trade of dual-use objects pursuant to the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) between
Randarino and Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore should not be
ceased.?......................................................................................................................................13
Argument 1: The Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) and its implementation fully comply with
non-proliferation obligations under the Treaty of Amity and international law....................13

ii
 Argument 2: Roland's unilateral sanctions and subsequent blockade constitute
internationally wrongful acts, and Antova's trade with Randarino cannot be deemed a
violation in response to such unlawful measures.................................................................15
Argument 3: The trade is essential for Antova's right to development and its efforts to
address climate change impacts, which are recognized under international environmental
law........................................................................................................................................16
Argument 4: Roland lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims of nuclear weapons
development, and therefore, its request for cessation of trade is based on unsubstantiated
allegations rather than confirmed violations of international law.........................................17
4.Wheather Antova’s decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in conformity
with international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance
with its 1995 judgment?.............................................................................................................18
Argument 1: The 2025 Blockade is a Legitimate Countermeasure in Response to Roland’s
Internationally Wrongful Acts..............................................................................................18
Argument 2: The ICJ Lacks Jurisdiction Over the 1995 Judgment Under the Principle
of Res Judicata and Changed Circumstances.......................................................................19
Argument 3: Roland’s Attempt to Invoke ICJ Jurisdiction Over Non-Compliance is an
Abuse of Process and Contravenes Sovereign Equality.......................................................20
PRAYER OF RELIEF...................................................................................................................21

iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
SN TREARIES AND CONVENTION
1, Treaty of Amity in Letvaz (1996)
2. Charter of the United Nations (1945
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966)
4. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (1966)
5. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (1968)
6. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (1969
7. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1947
8. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992)
9. Paris Agreement (2015
10 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961
11. Wessenaar agreement

IMPORTANT RELATED RESOLUTION

1. Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States -

G.A. Res. 2131 (XX) (1965)
2, Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations - G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV)
(1970)

LEGAL PRINCIPLE AND DOCTRINE

1 Pacta Sunt Servanda

2 Res Judicata -
4. Rebus Sic Stantibus
5. Competence de la Compétence

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND AGENCIES

1. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

2. International Monetary Fund (IMF
3. World Trade Organization (WTO
4. United Nations Security Council

G. AUTHORITATIVE TEXTBOOKS

iv
1. Shaw, Malcolm N. - International Law (8th ed.)
2. Brownlie, Ian - Principles of Public International Law (8th ed.)
3. Crawford, James - Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (9th ed.)
4. Dr.S.K kapoor - international law and human rights (2nd edition)
5. Crawford, James - State Responsibility: The General Part
6. Ago, Roberto - International Responsibility (Hague Academy)
7. Dolzer, Rudolf & Schreuer, Christoph - Principles of International Investment Law
(3rd ed.)
8. McLachlan, Campbell et al. - International Investment Arbitration

ICJ CASE

1. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican States

ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (May 29, 2003

2. Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award (July 14,
2006),
3. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania)
4. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia , , I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 240,
para. 54
5. Air Services Agreement (United States v. France Award of 9 December 1978, XVIII
R.I.A.A. 417
6. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States) Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14
7. Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)  Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1974,

8. Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) Order, I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 12
9. Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20
December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007
10. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4
11. Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)
12. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States v. Italy (I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15)

v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The United Islands of Antova respectfully submits that the International Court of Justice has
jurisdiction over the present dispute pursuant to Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute, which
provides that "the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all
matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions
in force." Antova invokes the Court's jurisdiction through Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity in
Letvaz (1996), which explicitly grants the ICJ jurisdiction over "any alleged violation of any of
the obligations laid out in this Treaty, or of a dispute as to the interpretation of any of its
Articles." Both parties have consented to this jurisdictional arrangement, with Roland itself
having invoked the same treaty provision when filing its original claims, thereby satisfying the
consensual basis required under Article 36(1) of the Statute.

vi
QUESTION PRESENTED

A.The ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over the claim brought by Antova on behalf of all
sanctioned corporations operating within its territory and subject to Roland’s Sanctions
Regulations?

B. Roland’s primary and secondary sanctions regime against Antova is not in conformity
with international law; consequently, Roland is obligated to compensate Antova?

C. The trade of dual-use objects pursuant to the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) between
Randarino and Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore should not be
ceased?

D. Antova’s decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in conformity with
international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance with
its 1995 judgment?

vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The United Islands of Antova is a small archipelagic state in the Rondeau Sea. Due to the
inaccessibility of the Lomerset route, the Strait of Letvaz, lying between Antova and Randarino,
has historically served as the key maritime passageway for international trade in the region. Its
control has been of significant geopolitical and economic importance.
In December 2022, Antova faced a devastating climate crisis when its island of Altas was
submerged under rising sea levels. This displacement of thousands, particularly the indigenous
Aurlis community, highlighted Antova’s extreme vulnerability to climate change and brought
international attention to its existential challenges.
In response, Antova launched the Antovan Resettlement Plan in March 2023 to construct
artificial islands capable of rehousing its displaced population. To achieve this, Antova imported
rare earth minerals and heavy machinery from Randarino, its closest partner, under a bilateral
trade framework.
By February 2024, Antova had successfully built two artificial islands with full infrastructure for
resettlement. The government celebrated this as a climate-adaptation success and credited
Randarino for supplying the essential dual-use items that enabled the project.
Soon after, concerns emerged internationally regarding Antova’s handling of uranium and
thorium. A report by Peace International, an NGO based in Geneva, alleged that Antova was
enriching nuclear material for purposes beyond civilian use. These suspicions were echoed by
Roland, which accused Antova of breaching its non-proliferation obligations.
Antova dismissed the allegations as baseless and invited the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) to inspect its facilities. The government maintained that its nuclear activities were
peaceful, linked to energy production and research, and essential for sustainable development.
The situation escalated when Irene Levine, an Antovan nuclear scientist, claimed in an interview
in Roland that Antova and Randarino were collaborating secretly to develop nuclear weapons.
She provided photographs allegedly showing underground laboratories in Rayax. The
allegations, widely publicized in Roland, intensified regional tensions.
On 5 May 2024, Roland issued a formal warning to Antova, declaring that unless its nuclear
activities ceased within one month, economic sanctions would be imposed. Antova and
Randarino both rejected Roland’s claims, insisting their trade was lawful and monitored under
international standards.
In November 2024, Roland unilaterally imposed the Roland Sanctions Regulations (RSR). These
measures included freezing assets of Antovan officials, banning travel by senior leaders,
targeting Antovan corporations, and extending secondary sanctions to foreign firms doing
business in Antova.

viii
The sanctions caused a severe economic collapse in Antova. Major corporations shut down
operations, investment flows halted, and unemployment soared. The International Monetary
Fund reported a 10% contraction in Antova’s economy with inflation rising by 20%.
Viewing Roland’s actions as coercive and unlawful, Antova retaliated on 5 January 2025 by
announcing a blockade of the Strait of Letvaz against all ships destined to or from Roland.
Antova justified this as a lawful countermeasure in response to Roland’s sanctions.
Roland immediately condemned the blockade as illegal, characterizing it as collective
punishment and a violation of the 1995 ICJ judgment, which had earlier ruled against Antova’s
wartime blockade during the 1991 Rondeau War. Antova rejected the applicability of that ruling,
arguing that the present dispute arose in an entirely different context.
Negotiations between Antova and Roland in February 2025 failed to resolve the standoff. Roland
maintained that Antova’s dual-use trade violated international law and that the blockade
threatened regional security, while Antova insisted that Roland’s sanctions were unlawful and
that its nuclear activities remained peaceful.
On 8 February 2025, Roland filed proceedings before the International Court of Justice under the
Treaty of Amity in Letvaz (1996), challenging Antova’s blockade and its use of dual-use
materials. Antova filed countercla ims, contesting the legality of Roland’s sanctions and asserting
the lawfulness of its actions. The dispute now stands before the Court, centering on three core
issues: the legality of Roland’s sanctions, the legitimacy of Antova’s trade in dual-use goods, and
the lawfulness of Antova’s blockade of the Letvaz Strait.

ix
SUMMSRY PLEADING
1.Weathe the ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over the claim brought by Antova on behalf of
third-country corporations operating within its territory and subject to Roland's Sanctions
Regulations. ?
Antova submits that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over its claims, as
Roland’s sanctions regime breaches both international law and the 1996 Treaty of Amity in
Letvaz. These sanctions have caused a severe economic crisis in Antova and displaced the
indigenous Aurlis community, amounting to internationally wrongful acts. In particular, Roland
has violated Articles 3, 11, 12, and 13 of the Treaty by imposing retaliatory, arbitrary, and
discriminatory measures that block Antova’s economic growth and undermine the legitimate
expectations of foreign investors, as recognized in investment cases such as Tecmed v. Mexico
and Azurix v. Argentina.
Further, Roland’s unilateral sanctions contravene the UN Charter principles of sovereign equality
and non-interference, bypassing the collective security framework. This is especially concerning
given that a past ICJ judgment in this matter could not be enforced through the Security Council.
Precedents such as Barcelona Traction and the Chorzów Factory case affirm Antova’s right to
protect its economic interests and seek reparation for direct injuries.
Finally, Antova argues that the sanctions violate fundamental rights, including the right to self-
determination and the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy under the ICCPR, ICESCR, and the
NPT. Antova has consistently maintained that its dual-use trade was for peaceful purposes,
specifically to build artificial islands as part of its climate adaptation strategy.

Wheather the trade of dual-use objects pursuant to the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT)
between Randarino and Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore
should not be ceased.?
Antova maintains that its trade in dual-use objects with Randarino, under the Act of Foreign
Trade (AFT), fully complies with non-proliferation obligations and international law. This trade
is asserted to be essential for Antova's right to development and its efforts to address climate
change impacts, as recognized under international environmental law, including the UNFCCC
and Paris Agreement. Antova highlights Randarino's confirmation of controlled and regulated
trade, with supervision and control meeting due diligence standards for dual-use items, and
Antova's transparency in granting IAEA access for inspection. Roland's claims of nuclear
weapons development are dismissed as unsubstantiated, lacking the clear and convincing
evidence required in international law, as affirmed in the Corfu Channel Case.
Finally, Antova asserts that its blockade of the Strait of Letvaz on 5 January 2025 is a legitimate
countermeasure in response to Roland's internationally wrongful acts. Antova contends that the
x
ICJ lacks jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance with its 1995 judgment regarding a
previous blockade due to the principle of res judicata and fundamentally changed circumstances,
as established in cases like Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) and Certain
Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia). Roland's attempt to invoke ICJ jurisdiction to
enforce a 30-year-old judgment, particularly when Antova's current actions are a response to
Roland's own wrongful conduct, is characterized as an abuse of process and a contravention of
sovereign equality, as emphasized in the Chorzów Factory Case.
Antova therefore request the Court to declare that the ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over its
claims, that Roland's sanctions regime is not in conformity with international law and obligates
Roland to compensate Antova, that Antova's trade in dual-use objects is lawful, and that Antova's
blockade is in conformity with international law with the ICJ lacking jurisdiction over the 1995
judgment. Use Arrow Up and Arrow Down to select a turn, Enter to jump to it, and Escape to
return to the chat.

C Weather . Roland’s primary and secondary sanctions regime against Antova is not in
conformity with international law; consequently, Roland is obligated to compensate Antova
he United Islands of Antova submits that Roland’s unilateral sanctions regime breaches several
key international obligations, including the 1996 Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, the UN Charter,
human rights treaties, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These sanctions have
caused severe economic and social harm in Antova—triggering a 10% economic downturn, 20%
inflation, widespread job losses, and the forced relocation of foreign companies, all of which
undermined investor confidence and legitimate expectations.
Roland’s measures clearly violated Articles 3, 11, and 12 of the Treaty of Amity. Its reliance on
Article 13’s security exception is unjustified, since Antova has fully cooperated with the IAEA
and consistently demonstrated peaceful nuclear intentions. By acting outside the UN’s collective
security framework under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, Roland disregarded the principles of
sovereign equality and non-interference.
The sanctions also breach human rights obligations under Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR,
by depriving the Antovan people of their right to self-determination and basic means of
subsistence. In addition, they obstruct Antova’s inalienable right under Article IV of the NPT to
peaceful nuclear energy and cooperation, despite its compliance with safeguards under Article
III.
International precedent, including the ICJ’s Certain Iranian Assets case, confirms that Roland’s
actions are internationally wrongful and require full reparation. Antova is therefore entitled to
compensation for the significant economic and social damage caused, including contraction of
the economy, inflation, job losses, corporate relocations, and cancelled contracts.

xi
.

4. Wheather Antova’s decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in

conformity with international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of non-
compliance with its 1995 judgment ?
Antova submits that its 5 January 2025 blockade of the Strait of Letvaz is lawful under
international law and that the ICJ has no jurisdiction to reopen issues decided in its 1995
judgment.
First, the blockade is a lawful countermeasure under Article 22 of the ILC Articles on State
Responsibility. It was taken in response to Roland’s wrongful sanctions, which breached Articles
11 and 12 of the Treaty of Amity and forced major companies like Maxim Technologies and Dalf
Motors to withdraw, damaging Antova’s economy. The blockade is temporary, reversible, and
proportionate, as noted in Antova’s official communication, and is consistent with the principle
affirmed in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros.
Second, the ICJ cannot revisit the 1995 blockade dispute because of res judicata: that judgment
was final and binding, and the conditions for revision under Articles 60 and 61 of the ICJ Statute
are not met. In any case, the present blockade is fundamentally different—it responds to
sanctions and nuclear concerns, not the wartime sovereignty issues of 1995. This reflects the
principle of changed circumstances under Article 62 of the VCLT.
Third, Roland’s attempt to invoke ICJ jurisdiction is an abuse of process. Enforcement of ICJ
judgments lies primarily with states, not the Court. By demanding compliance from Antova
while itself violating the Treaty of Amity, Roland undermines good faith and sovereign equality.
For these reasons, Antova submits that its blockade is a lawful countermeasure, the ICJ cannot
reopen the 1995 judgment, and Roland’s own conduct violates the principles of international law.

xii
ADVANCE PLEADING

1.Weathe the ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over the claim brought by Antova on behalf of
third-country corporations operating within its territory and subject to Roland's
Sanctions Regulations. ?
Antova the ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over claims brought on behalf of third-country
corporations.
On January 5, 2025, Antova blocked the Strait of Letvaz in response to Roland’s sanctions,
which it considers internationally wrongful acts under the Treaty of Amity. Roland, however,
declared the blockade illegal and a violation of the ICJ’s 1995 judgment on free passage through
the Strait. Since then, the two states have failed to resolve their dispute through negotiation and
have turned to the ICJ under Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity.
The case now centers on four main issues: the legality of Roland’s sanctions, Antova’s trade in
dual-use items and its alleged nuclear program, the legality of Antova’s blockade, and the Court’s
jurisdiction—particularly regarding enforcement of its 1995 judgment.
The immediate trigger for these proceedings was Roland’s decision in November 2024 to impose
sweeping sanctions against Antova, citing alleged nuclear enrichment and non-compliance with
non-proliferation obligations.
Antova argues that the ICJ has jurisdiction over its claims, including those affecting third-
country corporations operating in its territory but targeted by Roland’s sanctions. This position
relies on the Treaty of Amity, general principles of international investment law, and the need to
protect Antova’s sovereign rights and its duty to safeguard foreign investments.

Argument 1: Treaty of Amity as a Basis for Jurisdiction and the Protection of Foreign Investment
Argument 2: Antova's Right to Protect its Economic Interests and Sovereign Territory PAVES
INTEREST
Argument 3: antovia has The "Injury to the State Itself" Principle and Indirect Injury to
Corporations paves jurisdiction
Argument 4: Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity and Broad Dispute Resolution Mandate
Argument 1: Treaty of Amity as a Basis for Jurisdiction and the Protection of Foreign
Investment
The Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, signed by Roland, Randarino, and Antova on September 21,
1996, serves as the primary jurisdictional basis for this dispute, as explicitly invoked by both
parties1. Importantly, Part II of the Treaty is dedicated to "International Economic and Trade

1
Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, Roland-Randarino-Antova, Sept. 21, 1996, art. 37.
xiii
Law," and specifically Article 11 states: "Parties in whose territory international corporations
have made substantial investments shall treat them fairly, justly, and transparently. Additionally,
the host State shall protect investors against arbitrary, discriminatory, or abusive
actions2." Article 12 further adds: "Parties retain the right to regulate foreign investors, but must
do so in a manner that does not unfairly violate those legitimate expectations. 3" These articles
establish a clear obligation among the State Parties to protect foreign investments and ensure fair
treatment of international corporations within their territories
As a party to the Treaty of Amity, Roland is bound by Articles 11 and 12, which require fair and
non-discriminatory treatment of international corporations that have made substantial
investments in Antova. Roland’s Sanctions Regulations, however, triggered a severe economic
collapse in Antova and forced companies like Maxim Technologies and Dalf Motors to shut
down or drastically scale back operations. These actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, and
abusive, and they undermine the legitimate expectations of foreign investors.
Although these are third-country corporations, their investments are based in Antova and are
directly protected under the Treaty. Antova brings this claim not only in the spirit of diplomatic
protection but also to uphold its own treaty rights, since the obligations concern investments
within its sovereign territory. The fact that some of these corporations have already filed claims
against Antova under BITs highlights Antova’s exposure to liability, further strengthening its
standing to demand that Roland respect its treaty obligations.
: Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)
While the ICJ's jurisprudence on direct corporate claims is limited, the Diallo Case offers a
precedent for a state bringing a claim concerning the treatment of a company, aligning with
Antova's assertion of rights concerning economic interests within its territory. 4
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain)
Furthermore, the principles enshrined in Articles 11 and 12 of the Treaty of Amity reflect widely
accepted standards of treatment for foreign investors found in numerous Bilateral Investment
Treaties (BITs) and customary international law, often requiring fair and equitable treatment and
protection from arbitrary measures. The Barcelona Traction case, while distinguishing
diplomatic protection based on nationality, highlighted the broader importance of protections
ecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. The United Mexican States The concept of fair and
equitable treatment, encompassing elements like transparency, non-arbitrariness, and protection
of legitimate expectations, has been extensively developed in investor-state arbitrations. For

2
Id. art. 12
3
Supra note 2
4
Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. 639.

xiv
instance, in Tecmed v. Mexico, the tribunal emphasized that the FET standard requires the host
state to create a stable framework for investments, avoiding actions that defeat investors'
reasonable and legitimate expectations5.
Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic,, Azurix
Corp. v. Argentina further clarified that legitimate expectations, when based on a stable legal and
business framework, are protected under the FET standard. 6 Roland's actions, leading to a
"severe economic meltdown" and directly impacting foreign-owned corporations in
Antova, constitute arbitrary and abusive measures that directly contravene these established
principles and the explicit obligations under the Treaty of Amity.

Argument 2: Antova's Right to Protect its Economic Interests and Sovereign Territory
PAVES INTEREST
Antova’s claim is not just about protecting foreign corporations—it is about defending its own
fundamental right, as a sovereign state, to safeguard its economy and the integrity of its
economic system from Roland’s unlawful interference. Roland’s Sanctions Regulations directly
targeted Antova’s economic activity, causing serious harm and undermining Antova’s control
over its domestic economy.
International law firmly recognizes that every state has the right to protect its economic interests
and regulate activity within its own territory. The UN Charter, which both Antova and Roland
have ratified, enshrines the principle of sovereign equality, meaning each state has exclusive
authority over its territory and economy. Customary international law also supports this
principle, affirming the right of states to manage their resources and regulate their own markets.
Roland’s Sanctions Regulations, however, go far beyond its borders. By targeting individuals and
corporations operating inside Antova, and even foreign businesses with close ties to Antova,
Roland is applying its laws extraterritorially. This kind of unilateral overreach, especially when it
causes severe economic harm, violates Antova’s sovereignty and amounts to an internationally
wrongful act.
World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. For example, GATT Article XX provides general
exceptions allowing states to implement measures necessary to protect public morals, human,
animal or plant life or health, or national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value,

5
écnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No.
ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (May 29, 2003), ¶¶ 153–56.
6
Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award (July 14, 2006), ¶¶
360–70.
xv
among others, provided these measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a
means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade7
The Statement of Agreed Facts clearly demonstrates the devastating impact of Roland's RSR on
Antova's economy. The sanctions led to a "severe economic meltdown causing a 10% contraction
of its economy and 20% inflation 8. This economic devastation was a direct result of foreign
corporations being forced to cease operations, shift business, and void contracts within Antova
due to the sanctions. Specifically, the RSR explicitly targeted "any foreign financial institution
operating in Antova" and "corporations operating within Antova's territory" (RSR, Section 4 and
5). Antova's Prime Minister, Guillaume, publicly stated that the sanctions "lack the force of law"
and that Antova "will not endure the brunt of these sanctions in silence" 9 underscoring Antova's
view that its sovereignty has been violated and its economic well-being directly attacked.

Case Law Reference

While the ICJ has generally maintained a high bar for state responsibility for economic coercion,
particularly in cases involving broad, non-specific economic measures, direct extraterritorial
application of sanctions that cause severe economic damage to another state's territory can
engage principles of state responsibility. The Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran
v. United States of America)10 case, before the ICJ, involved the Court's consideration of
economic measures taken by one state affecting the assets and financial transactions of another,
touching upon principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention in the context of a Treaty of
Amity. ^6 Although that case did not establish a definitive precedent for state claims against
economic coercion alone, it demonstrates the Court's engagement with the legality of economic
measures affecting foreign assets and sovereign interests. Where, as here, sanctions directly
violate a treaty (like the Treaty of Amity's economic provisions in Articles 11 and 12, as
discussed in Argument 1) and customary international law concerning sovereignty and non-
intervention, a state may bring a claim. The severe and direct economic harm inflicted on
Antova's territory by Roland's extraterritorial RSR distinguishes this situation, providing
a basis for Antova to assert its sovereign right to protect its economy.

Argument 3: antovia has The "Injury to the State Itself" Principle and Indirect Injury to
Corporations paves jurisdiction

7
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade art. XX, Oct. 30, 1947, 61 Stat. A-11, 55 U.N.T.S. 194
[hereinafter GATT].
8
Compromis ¶ 22
9
Compromis ¶ 24
10
Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. U.S.), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2019 I.C.J. 7.
xvi
Even if the immediate harm falls on third-country corporations, international law allows a state
to bring a claim when the wrongful act also causes direct injury to the state itself. This goes
beyond mere diplomatic protection of foreign investors and applies where the state has its own
legal interest at stake. The Barcelona Traction case made this clear: while Belgium could not act
on behalf of a company incorporated elsewhere, the Court emphasized that a state may bring a
claim if its own rights are directly harmed. In the present case, Roland’s actions violated treaty
provisions on economic stability and the fair treatment of investors within Antova’s territory,
which directly injured Antova’s sovereign rights.

Thirdly (Link between Source and Fact): The RSR not only harmed the individual
corporations but also undermined Antova's policy of boosting its economy through foreign
investment (Golden Visa Scheme, corporate tax benefits, para. 4). The "severe economic
meltdown"11 and and its sovereign right to foster economic growth and development within its
borders. The claims under BITs against Antova 12) highlight that Roland's actions have placed
Antova in a precarious legal and economic position vis-à-vis these third-country corporations.
Therefore, Antova is not merely acting on behalf of these corporations in a diplomatic protection
capacity, but is asserting its own rights under the Treaty of Amity (Articles 11 and 12) and
general international law, which have been directly violated by Roland's extraterritorial and
economically coercive sanctions. This aligns with the international principle of non-intervention
in the internal affairs of a state, particularly concerning its economic policies and development.
Case laws : The Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v.
Spain)13, This foundational case, while primarily addressing diplomatic protection, explicitly
acknowledges that a state can bring a claim if it can demonstrate a "direct injury to its own
rights." Antova's argument hinges on this latter point, asserting that Roland's actions directly
violated Antova's rights under the Treaty of Amity concerning the treatment of foreign
investments within its territory, and caused direct damage to its national economy.
Chorzów Factory Case (Germany v. Poland)14, Permanent Court of International Justice,
Series A, This case established the fundamental principle that "it is a principle of international
law that the breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate
form." This underscores Antova's right to seek reparation for the direct injury to its economy
caused by Roland's actions.
Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia),15 Judgment,
I.C.J. While different in factual context, this case highlights the importance of treaty obligations
11
¶ 22.
12
¶ 23
13
Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. (Belg. v. Spain), Judgment, 1970 I.C.J. 3, ¶¶ 88–90
14
Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Judgment, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 29
15
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7, ¶ 83
xvii
and the potential for direct injury to a state's economic and environmental interests due to the
breach of such obligations. Roland's actions have arguably breached the Treaty of Amity, causing
direct economic injury to Antova.
Customary International Law of State Responsibility: The principle that a state is responsible
for internationally wrongful acts is enshrined in customary international law, as codified in
the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA),
adopted by the International Law Commission (ILC) in 2001. Specifically, Article 1 states,
"Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that
State." RSR, by directly harming Antova's economy and its ability to manage foreign investment
within its territory, constitutes an internationally wrongful act for which Roland bears
responsibility16

Principle of Non-Intervention: Customary international law prohibits states from intervening in

the internal or external affairs of another state. This principle is affirmed in the Declaration on
Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nationswith its broad extraterritorial
reach and direct impact on Antova's economic policies and stability, constitutes an illicit
intervention in Antova's internal affairs17.

Argument 4: Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity and Broad Dispute Resolution Mandate
Firstly (Source of Argument): Article 37 of the Treaty of Amity provides a broad dispute
resolution mechanism: "In the event of an alleged violation of any of the obligations laid out in
this Treaty, or of a dispute as to the interpretation of any of its Articles, if such a matter cannot be
settled by negotiation or other means, any Party may submit the dispute to the International
Court of Justice, and all Parties agree to accept the jurisdiction of the Court." This article grants
the ICJ jurisdiction over "any" alleged violation of the Treaty's obligations. This broad wording
is consistent with the general international law principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning
agreements must be kept, which is a cornerstone of treaty law18.

16
Int’l Law Comm’n, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Int’lly Wrongful Acts, G.A.
Res. 56/83, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001), art. 1.
17
Declaration on Principles of Int’l Law Concerning Friendly Relations & Co-operation Among
States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), U.N. Doc.
A/RES/2625(XXV) (Oct. 24, 1970), princ. 3.
18
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (entered into
force Jan. 27, 1980), art. 26.
xviii
 Furthermore, the interpretation of such clauses is guided by the customary international law
principles of treaty interpretation, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(VCLT)19.
Competence de la Compétence:
This is a fundamental principle of international adjudication, meaning that an international
tribunal has the competence to determine its own jurisdiction. As recognized in cases like
the Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)20the ICJ will examine the jurisdictional
clause to ensure it has the authority to hear the case. The clear and unambiguous language of
Article 37 provides this authority.
Therefore, the broad wording of Article 37, buttressed by established principles of treaty
interpretation under customary international law and the VCLT, along with the explicit
agreement of both parties to utilize this mechanism, firmly establishes the ICJ's jurisdiction over
Antova's claims regarding Roland's extraterritorial sanctions.
Coclusion
Antova and Roland have explicitly agreed to the ICJ’s jurisdiction under Article 37 of the Treaty
of Amity. This falls clearly within Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute, which allows the Court to hear
cases that the parties refer to it or those provided for in treaties or the UN Charter. The Treaty of
Amity is in force, and Article 37 specifically allows disputes over alleged treaty violations to be
brought before the Court.
Antova has shown that Roland’s Sanctions Regulations violate Articles 11 and 12 of the Treaty,
directly harming Antova’s economic interests and causing injury to the state itself—not just to
foreign investors. For these reasons, the ICJ has a clear and solid basis to hear Antova’s claims.

19
Arts. 31–32
20
Nottebohm (Liech. v. Guat.), Preliminary Objection, 1953 I.C.J. 111.
xix
 2. Whether Roland’s primary and secondary sanctions regime against Antova is not in
conformity with international law; consequently, Roland is obligated to compensate
Antova?
On behalf of the United Islands of Antova, the claim is that Roland's primary and secondary
sanctions regime against Antova is not in conformity with international law, and consequently,
Roland is obligated to compensate Antova. Roland's actions appear to violate several
international laws, including the Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, the Charter of the United Nations,
and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
to which both States are parties21.
Roland's sanctions violate international law6
Roland's Sanctions Regime
In November 2024, Roland implemented the Roland Sanctions Regulations (RSR). The stated
purpose of these sanctions was to induce Antova's compliance with its non-proliferation
obligations under international law.
• Primary Sanctions: These include freezing the assets and bank accounts of Antovan State
officials and scientists linked to the nuclear enrichment programme, and potentially seizing
assets of individuals with Antovan or Randarinan nationality attempting to bypass these
sanctions. A travel ban was also imposed on Antova's Prime Minister and Finance Minister,
prohibiting their entry into Roland or attendance at international conferences held there.
• Secondary Sanctions: Roland's regime also imposed economic sanctions on any foreign
financial institution operating in Antova if it facilitated significant transactions or provided
services related to Antova’s alleged nuclear enrichment facilities, including trade in items listed
in Annexure A of the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) between Randarino and Antova. These
secondary sanctions also apply to corporations in Antova with permanent business ties, even if
incorporated in a third country.
Only corporations and institutions in the healthcare or humanitarian sectors were exempt.
The sanctions led to a severe economic meltdown in Antova, resulting in thousands of job losses,
companies relocating, and existing contracts being voided. The economy contracted by 10%, and
inflation rose by 20%

21
Compromis ¶ 29.
20
Argument 1: Violation of Treaty of Amity in Letvaz Among the State of Roland, the
Kingdom of Randarino, and the United Islands of Antova (1996)
Violation of Article 3 (Promotion of Economic Growth and Refraining from Retaliatory
Measures): Article 3 of the Treaty explicitly states that the Parties "shall take actions to promote
economic growth in the region and refrain from taking retaliatory measures that would impede
the economic growth of any Party"22. Roland's sanctions directly contradict this obligation. The
sanctions caused a "severe economic meltdown," "thousands of people lost their jobs," and
Antova's economy contracted by 10%23. Antova described these sanctions as "coercive and
disproportionate"24, indicating a retaliatory nature that clearly impeded Antova's economic
growth.

Violation of Article 11 (Fair, Just, and Transparent Treatment of International Corporations):

Article 11 requires Parties to "treat [international corporations with substantial investments]
fairly, justly, and transparently" and "protect investors against arbitrary, discriminatory, or
abusive actions"25. Roland's secondary sanctions directly targeted foreign financial institutions
and corporations operating in Antova, even if incorporated in third countries, leading to
significant losses for companies like Maxim Technologies and Dalf Motors 26. These
extraterritorial measures effectively compelled companies to cease operations or void contracts
in Antova, thereby undermining the fair and just treatment of these corporations and subjecting
them to "abusive actions" by Roland, even though Antova is their host state.

Violation of Article 12 (Legitimate Expectations of Foreign Investors): Article 12 states that

Parties retain the right to regulate foreign investors but "must do so in a manner that does not
unfairly violate those legitimate expectations27". Roland's sanctions, by causing third-country
corporations to bring claims against Antova under Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) due to
violations of "legitimate expectations"28, demonstrate that Roland's actions have indeed unfairly
violated these expectations. Even if not directly breaching its own BITs with these third states,
Roland's actions have placed Antova in a position where it faces such claims, indirectly affecting
Antova's treaty obligations and economic stability.
Violation of Article 13

22
Treaty of Amity, Roland-Randarino-Antova, Sept. 21, 1996, art. 3.
23
Compromis ¶ 22
24
Compromis ¶ 24.
25
Treaty of Amity, art. 11.
26
Id. art. 5.
27
Treaty of Amity, Roland-Randarino-Antova, Sept. 21, 1996, art. 11.
28
Compromis ¶ 23.
21
 (Caution and Objectivity in Invoking Exceptions :Article 13 dictates that "the general and
security exceptions under the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
should be invoked with great caution and not applied in a subjective manner 29". Roland's
sanctions are based on allegations of Antova's nuclear weapons capability 30. However, Antova
vehemently denied these allegations, granted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
access, and asserted its use of rare earth minerals is for peaceful civilian nuclear energy and
scientific research, including artificial island construction for climate change adaptation 31. Given
Antova's efforts to prove its compliance, Roland's unilateral and broad sanctions, without an
authoritative international finding of non-compliance, could be seen as a subjective and
insufficiently cautious invocation of security exceptions, analogous to the ICJ's rejection of the
US's security interest defense in Certain Iranian Assets

Argument 2: Violation of Charter of the United Nations

1. Violation of Principles of Sovereign Equality and Non-Interference: The UN Charter is
founded on the principle of the "sovereign equality of all its Members 32". Roland's unilateral and
broad primary and secondary sanctions, particularly their extraterritorial reach, amount to
interference in Antova's domestic economic affairs and its relations with third-country
corporations. This undermines Antova's sovereign rights and its ability to govern its own territory
and economy free from external coercion33.
2. Violation of the Collective Security Mechanism (Articles 39, 41): The UN Charter
establishes a framework for collective security, where the Security Council determines threats to
peace and decides on measures, including economic sanctions 34. Roland imposed its sanctions
unilaterally, without the authorization of the UN Security Council 35. Antova's Foreign Minister
had previously warned that "any sanctions imposed by Roland—particularly those outside the
scope of Chapter VII of the UN Charter—would constitute a violation of international law".
Notably, a previous attempt by Roland to enforce an ICJ judgment against Antova through the
UNSC failed due to a veto, highlighting the lack of collective agreement for coercive measures.
Roland's unilateral actions bypass the UN's collective security mechanism, which is intended to
prevent States from taking such actions independentl36

29
Treaty of Amity, Part IV, Nuclear Proliferation Obligation, art. 18.
30
Treaty of Amity, § 2.
31
Compromis ¶ 13
32
U.N. Charter art. 2(1).
33
Id.
34
U.N. Charter art. 38.
35
U.N. Charter art. 21.
36
U.N. Charter art. 4
22
Argument 3: Violation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Both Antova and Roland are parties to these covenants.
Violation of the Right to Self-Determination (Article 1 of Covenants): Article 1 of both the
ICCPR and ICESCR affirms that "All peoples have the right of self-determination" and, by
virtue of this right, "they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development." It further states that "In no case may a people be deprived of
its own means of subsistence"37. Roland's sanctions caused a "severe economic meltdown,"
"thousands of people lost their jobs," and a 10% contraction of Antova's economy 38. This drastic
economic impact can be argued as a direct deprivation of Antova's means of subsistence and a
significant impediment to its economic and social development, thereby violating the
fundamental right to self-determination of the Antovan people, including the Aurlis who are also
facing climate change impacts39.
Argument 4: Violation of Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)
1. Violation of the Right to Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (Article IV): Article IV of the
NPT affirms the "inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production
and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination" 40. Antova explicitly
states that its use of thorium and uranium, imported from Randarino under regulated conditions,
is "solely for peaceful purposes, including civilian nuclear energy programs and scientific
research" and for building artificial islands to resettle people displaced by climate change 41.
Roland's sanctions, based on unverified allegations of nuclear weapons development, directly
impede Antova's exercise of this right, despite Antova granting IAEA access to inspect its use of
these minerals42. If Antova's peaceful intent is upheld, Roland's sanctions would represent an
unjustified infringement on its NPT rights
Potential Undermining of Legitimate Nuclear Cooperation (Article III): While Article III(2)
requires safeguards for nuclear material/equipment supplied to non-nuclear-weapon states for
peaceful purposes, Roland's sanctions broadly target the "trade of dual-use items" listed in
Annexure A of the AFT between Randarino and Antova43. Randarino confirmed that the trade is
"controlled and regulated" with "supervision and control" to meet due diligence standards 44. If

37
Int’l Covenant on Econ., Soc. & Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 2.
38
Compromis ¶ 24.
39
Compromis ¶ 5.
40
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, opened July 1, 1968, 729 U.N.T.S. 161,
art. II.
41
Compromis ¶ 13.
42
Id.
43
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, opened July 1, 1968, 729 U.N.T.S. 161, §
3.
44

23
this trade is indeed for peaceful purposes and subject to appropriate safeguards (as implied by
Randarino's statement and Antova's openness to IAEA inspection), Roland's sanctions would
unlawfully obstruct legitimate international cooperation under the NPT.

Argument 5: Obligation to Compensate for Wrongful Acts

When a state commits an internationally wrongful act, it must fully repair the harm caused,
which can include restitution, compensation, or other forms of satisfaction. The ICJ has affirmed
this principle in cases such as Certain Iranian Assets, where it held that Iran was entitled to
compensation for the harm caused by the United States and that the Court would determine
the amount if the parties could not agree.

Similarly, if Roland’s sanctions are found to violate international law, it would be required to
compensate Antova for the harm caused. This includes the severe economic damage from the
sanctions—such as a 10% economic contraction, 20% inflation, job losses, and disruption to
trade in dual-use items under the Act of Foreign Trade between Randarino and Antova and
Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore should not be ceased.

24
 3. Wheather the trade of dual-use objects pursuant to the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT)
between Randarino and Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore
should not be ceased.?

Roland alleges this trade contributes to nuclear weapons development, while Antova maintains it
is for peaceful purposes—particularly the Antovan Resettlement Plan to relocate climate
refugees. The case centers on whether such trade is consistent with international law, including
the Treaty of Amity, international non-proliferation norms, and environmental law.
Argument 1: The Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) and its implementation fully comply with non-
proliferation obligations under the Treaty of Amity and international law.
Argument 2: Roland's unilateral sanctions and subsequent blockade constitute internationally
wrongful acts, and Antova's trade with Randarino cannot be deemed a violation in response to
such unlawful measures
Argument 3: The trade is essential for Antova's right to development and its efforts to address
climate change impacts, which are recognized under international environmental law.
Argument 4: Roland lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims of nuclear weapons
development, and therefore, its request for cessation of trade is based on unsubstantiated
allegations rather than confirmed violations of international law.

Argument 1: The Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) and its implementation fully comply with
non-proliferation obligations under the Treaty of Amity and international law.
Law/Principle: The Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, specifically Article 18 and 19, explicitly
addresses non-proliferation obligations. Article 18 states that Antova and Roland, as non-nuclear-
weapon states, agree not to receive, manufacture, or acquire nuclear weapons 45. Article 19
affirms the right of all parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Additionally, the
Wassenaar Arrangement, mentioned in Section 3 of Antova's Act of Foreign Trade (AFT),
provides guidelines for export controls on dual-use goods46.

The AFT explicitly states its purpose is to ensure that exported items support the Antovan
Resettlement Plan while securing the foreign political and economic interests of both State
Parties47. that the export and import of sensitive items (including dual-use goods like rare earth

45
Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, Sept. 21, 1996, arts. 18–19.
46
Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, Sept. 21, 1996, arts. 1, 19.
47
Act of Foreign Trade § 2.
25
minerals and machinery) be conducted in accordance with the Wassenaar Arrangement and
broader non-proliferation frameworks48
Argument 1.1: Randarino, in its reply to Roland being conducted in a controlled and regulated
manner,"
confirmed that the trade is "being conducted in a controlled and regulated manner," with
supervision and control throughout the process, meeting "due diligence standards required for the
export of dual-use items49." Antova has consistently maintained that its use of these materials is
for peaceful purposes, specifically for the construction of artificial islands for climate refugees
and even granted IAEA access for inspection50
Randarino, in its reply to Roland confirmed that the trade is "being conducted in a controlled
and regulated manner," with supervision and control throughout the process, meeting "due
diligence standards required for the export of dual-use items."
Antova has consistently maintained that its use of these materials is for peaceful purposes,
specifically for the construction of artificial islands for climate refugees.

The AFT is a carefully crafted legal instrument designed to facilitate trade while adhering to the
highest standards of non-proliferation. The cooperation between Antova and Randarino,
including Randarino's active role in supervision and control, demonstrates a good faith effort to
comply with all relevant international obligations, including the Treaty of Amity and the
Wassenaar Arrangement. Roland's blanket sanctions ignore these facts and the explicit peaceful
intent and controlled execution of the trade.

Argument 2: Roland's unilateral sanctions and subsequent blockade constitute

internationally wrongful acts, and Antova's trade with Randarino cannot be deemed a
violation in response to such unlawful measures
Roland imposed "comprehensive sanctions" on Antova in November 2024 51 () without UN
Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. Antova's Foreign Minister explicitly warned
that such sanctions, if outside Chapter VII, "would constitute a violation of international law"
These sanctions had a "severe economic meltdown" effect on Antova, causing job losses,
corporate exits, a 10% economic contraction, and 20% inflation (Statement of Agreed Facts,
para. 22-23).

48
Id. § 3
49
Statement of Agreed Facts ¶ 16
50
Statement of Agreed Facts ¶ 13.
51
Statement of Agreed Facts ¶ 21
26
Roland's actions directly violate Article 3 of the Treaty of Amity, which obliges parties to
"refrain from taking retaliatory measures that would impede the economic growth of any
Party52."
Antova's trade with Randarino is a legitimate economic activity aimed at its development and the
resettlement of its climate-displaced population, a matter unrelated to any alleged nuclear
weapons program.
he principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) dictates that treaties are binding
and must be performed in good faith 53. However, international law also recognizes that states
may take countermeasures in response to an internationally wrongful act committed by
another state, provided these countermeasures are necessary, proportionate, and aim to
induce compliance54. Retaliatory measures that impede economic growth are expressly
prohibited under Article 3 of the Treaty of Amity55.

Roland's unilateral imposition of sanctions, which severely crippled Antova's economy, is an

internationally wrongful act and a direct breach of the Treaty of Amity. The trade between
Antova and Randarino, designed for the "Antovan Resettlement Plan," cannot be seen as
unlawful, especially when Roland's actions violate fundamental principles of international
economic relations and treaty obligations. The ICJ cannot legitimately demand the cessation of a
lawful trade simply because it is caught in the crossfire of Roland's unlawful coercive measures.

Argument 3: The trade is essential for Antova's right to development and its efforts to
address climate change impacts, which are recognized under international environmental
law.
The right to development is a recognized principle in international law, often linked to the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 56. States have a right
to pursue economic and social development, especially when addressing existential threats 57.
Furthermore, international environmental law, particularly frameworks like the United Nations

52
reaty of Amity in Letvaz, Sept. 21, 1996, art. 3
53
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, art. 26.
54
Int’l Law Comm’n, Articles on Responsibility of States for Int’lly Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res.
56/83, arts. 22, 49–54, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (Nov. 28,
2001)
55
Treaty of Amity in Letvaz, Sept. 21, 1996, art. 3.
56
Declaration on the Right to Development, G.A. Res. 41/128, U.N. Doc. A/RES/41/128 (Dec. 4,
1986).
57
Int’l Covenant on Econ., Soc. & Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 1.

27
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, obliges states
to address climate change and its impacts. States are encouraged to cooperate in these efforts 58.

Antova, as a "small island developing State," is "specially affected by climate change" 59). The
tragic submergence of Altas island and the creation of "Aurlis climate refugees 60".) underscore
the severity of this crisis. The UNFCCC's Conference of Parties (CoP) even passed a resolution
in January 2023 "recommending that Antova take immediate action to address the escalating
climate crisis." The 'Antovan Resettlement Plan,' which relies on the dual-use items from
Randarino to construct artificial islands is a direct response to this existential threat.
The Antovan Foreign Ministry explicitly stated that the use of these minerals is for "peaceful
purposes, including the construction of artificial islands" to ensure Antovans, especially the
Aurlis, "can return to their homeland"

The trade of dual-use objects between Antova and Randarino is not a nefarious scheme but a
vital component of Antova's legitimate exercise of its right to development and its urgent
efforts to combat the devastating effects of climate change. Interfering with this trade would
undermine Antova's ability to protect its population and comply with international
recommendations regarding climate action.
Argument 4: Roland lacks sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims of nuclear weapons
development, and therefore, its request for cessation of trade is based on unsubstantiated
allegations rather than confirmed violations of international law.
In international law, the burden of proof generally lies with the party making an assertion. States
are expected to provide clear and convincing evidence to support allegations, especially those
concerning breaches of international obligations as serious as nuclear proliferation 61. Accusations
of non-compliance should be based on credible and verified information, not speculation or
unverified claims62

Roland's concerns about Antova's nuclear program largely stem from a report by "Peace
International" and the claims of a single nuclear scientist, Irene Levine, who provided
"photographs that appeared to show masked scientists working in an underground facility"
(Statement of Agreed Facts, para. 14). While Roland submitted a formal letter to the IAEA,
58
Paris Agreement, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104.
59
Statement of Fact ¶ 6.
60
Statement of Fact ¶ 7.
61
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 18 (Apr. 9)
62
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, July 1, 1968, 21 U.S.T. 483, 729
U.N.T.S. 161.
28
Antova "officially denounced the allegations as baseless and granted the IAEA access to inspect
its use of thorium and uranium" . Antova's Foreign Minister explicitly stated: "Our use of
rare earth minerals is solely for peaceful purposes, including civilian nuclear energy
programs and scientific research. It is not even remotely connected to the development of
nuclear weapons" 63The IAEA, the international body responsible for verifying nuclear non-
proliferation, is still
: Roland's request for the cessation of dual-use trade is premature and based on unverified
allegations. Antova has demonstrated transparency by inviting IAEA inspections and has
consistently asserted the peaceful nature of its nuclear energy program. Without concrete,
authoritative findings from the IAEA, Roland's accusations remain unsubstantiated. The ICJ
should not intervene to halt a legitimate trade based on speculative claims that have not
been proven to violate international non-proliferation norms.

63
Compromis ¶ 13.
29
 4.Wheather Antova’s decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in
conformity with international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of
non-compliance with its 1995 judgment?

Antova’s decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in conformity with
international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance with its
1995 judgment.
Argument 1: The 2025 Blockade is a Legitimate Countermeasure in Response to Roland’s
Internationally Wrongful Acts.
Argument 2: The ICJ Lacks Jurisdiction Over the 1995 Judgment Under the Principle of Res
Judicata and Changed Circumstances
Argument 3: Roland’s Attempt to Invoke ICJ Jurisdiction Over Non-Compliance is an Abuse of
Process and Contravenes Sovereign Equality

Argument 1: The 2025 Blockade is a Legitimate Countermeasure in Response to Roland’s

Internationally Wrongful Acts
Antova maintains that its decision to block the Strait of Letvaz on 5 January 2025 is a legitimate
exercise of its sovereign rights under international law, and that the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) lacks jurisdiction to revisit the question of non-compliance with its 1995 judgment
concerning the previous blockade.

Antova's blockade of the Strait of Letvaz is a lawful countermeasure under the customary
international law of state responsibility, specifically Article 22 of the Articles on Responsibility
of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA) adopted by the International Law
Commission (ILC) 64. Roland's imposition of comprehensive sanctions, outlined in the Roland
Sanctions Regulations (RSR) of November 2024 (Statement of Agreed Facts, para. 21),
constitutes internationally wrongful acts. These sanctions are:
Breaches of International Investment Law: Roland's sanctions violate Article 11 and 12 of the
Treaty of Amity, which mandate fair, just, and transparent treatment of international corporations
and protection against arbitrary, discriminatory, or abusive actions, without unfairly violating
legitimate expectations (Annexure I, Articles 11 & 12). The exit of companies like Maxim
Technologies and Dalf Motors due to fear of blacklisting and the inability to import essential
materials (Statement of Agreed Facts, para. 22) illustrate these breaches.

nternational Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally

64

Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001), Article 22.

30
 these prior internationally wrongful acts by Roland, Antova's blockade is a proportionate
countermeasure aimed at inducing Roland's compliance with its international obligations. The
countermeasure is temporary and reversible, as stated in Antova's note verbale of 5 January 2025,
clarifying that the blockade is a "direct response to Roland's ongoing internationally wrongful
acts and is consistent with the Treaty of Amity" (Statement of Agreed Facts, para. 24). This
aligns with the principle established in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case
(Hungary/Slovakia), where the ICJ affirmed the legality of countermeasures that are
proportionate to the injury suffered 65

Argument 2: The ICJ Lacks Jurisdiction Over the 1995 Judgment Under the Principle
of Res Judicata and Changed Circumstances.
Antova asserts that the ICJ cannot exercise jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance with
its 1995 judgment regarding the previous blockade because the principle of res judicata applies.
The 1995 judgment, rendered ex parte and without Antova's submissions, ruled in favor of
Roland concerning a blockade during the 1991 Rondeau War
The principle of res judicata dictates that a matter that has been definitively decided by a
competent court cannot be relitigated 66While Roland attempts to reopen the case
the ICJ's inherent power to revisit a judgment is typically limited to requests for revision or
interpretation under specific Articles of its Statute (Articles 60 and 61), none of which are met
here. The 1995 judgment concluded the legal dispute concerning that specific historical
blockade.
Changed Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus): Furthermore, even if res judicata were not
strictly applied, the present circumstances are fundamentally different from those that led to the
1995 judgment. The 1991 blockade occurred during a war and was linked to a sovereignty
dispute The current blockade, however, is a response to Roland's economic sanctions stemming
from concerns over Antova's nuclear program and climate change initiatives (Statement of
Agreed Facts, para. 21, 24). Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)
allows for termination or withdrawal from a treaty due to a fundamental change of
circumstances .67 While this applies to treaties, the underlying principle of significant factual
divergence is relevant. The 1995 judgment is thirty years old, and the context, motivations, and
international legal framework have evolved, as noted by Antova's Ministry.

65
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7, ¶¶ 83–85.
66
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Aust.), Preliminary Objections, 1992 I.C.J. 240, ¶
54.
67
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 62.
31
Argument 3: Roland’s Attempt to Invoke ICJ Jurisdiction Over Non-Compliance is an
Abuse of Process and Contravenes Sovereign Equality.
Roland's invocation of ICJ jurisdiction to enforce a 30-year-old judgment, particularly when
Antova's current actions are in response to Roland's own wrongful conduct, constitutes an abuse
of process and undermines the principle of sovereign equality.
While Article 94(2) of the UN Charter allows for the Security Council to enforce ICJ judgments,
Roland's previous attempt to do so in 1995 failed due to a lack of consensus (Statement of
Agreed Facts, para. 19). This demonstrates the political nature of enforcement and the absence of
an automatic enforcement mechanism, especially for a judgment from three decades prior. The
ICJ's role is to decide disputes, not to act as a permanent enforcement body for its past rulings,
particularly when the factual and legal context has fundamentally shifted. The Chorzów Factory
Case (Germany v. Poland) highlighted that international tribunals adjudicate rights, and
enforcement primarily rests with states 68
Forcing Antova to comply with a 1995 judgment under vastly different circumstances, while
simultaneously suffering from Roland's current internationally wrongful sanctions, violates the
principle of sovereign equality. States are equal under international law 69Roland's actions
suggest a selective application of international law, demanding compliance from Antova while
disregarding its own obligations under the Treaty of Amity. This approach is contrary to the
principle of good faith in international relations.
Antova's blockade is a justifiable countermeasure against Roland's unlawful sanctions, and the
ICJ lacks jurisdiction to re-litigate the 1995 judgment due to res judicata, changed
circumstances, and the superseding effect of the Treaty of Amity. Roland's current approach is an
attempt to selectively enforce international law, disregarding its own violations and the principle
of sovereign equality.

68
Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at
29
69
U.N. Charter art. 2(1).
32
PRAYER OF RELIEF
For the aforementioned reasons United Islands of Antova requests respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to adjudge and declare that:
b. The ICJ can exercise jurisdiction over the claim brought by Antova on behalf of all sanctioned
corporations operating within its territory and subject to Roland's Sanctions Regulations.
c. Roland's primary and secondary sanctions regime against Antova is not in conformity with
international law; consequently, Roland is obligated to compensate Antova.
d. The trade of dual-use objects pursuant to the Act of Foreign Trade (AFT) between Randarino
and Antova is in conformity with international law and therefore should not be ceased.
e. Antova's decision of 5 January 2025 to block the Strait of Letvaz is in conformity with
international law, and the ICJ has no jurisdiction over the question of non-compliance with its
1995 judgment
Agent FOR ANTOVIA

33