1

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2025

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE
NETHERLANDS

CASE CONCERNING THE TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

REPUBLIC OF UDUISTAN
APPLICANT

v.

REPUBLIC OF INDUS
RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 2

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE LIST OF ABBREVIATION

THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT
ADVANCED
1) WHETHER THE ICC HAS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY THE
CASE AGAINST MR. LUCANKA.

1.1) WHETHER THE CRIME COMMITTED BY MR. LUCANKA ARE

WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE ROME STATUTE .

1.2) WHETHER IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROTEST MADE BY THE STATE

OF NAZOLIA THE CASE IS ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE ICC.

2) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMES

2.1) CRIME OF GENOCIDE UNDER ARTICLE 6(A),(B),(C) AND 25(3)(A),(B)

OF THE ROME STATUTE.

2.2) CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER ARTICLE 7(1)(A),(G) AND 25(3)(B)

OF THE ROME STATUTE.

2.3) WAR CRIME UNDER ARTICLE 8(2)(B)(XVIII) OF THE STATUTE.

3) WHETHER THE ARREST AND SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF MR.

LUCANKA TO ICC IS LEGAL

THE PRAYE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ICC………………………………………………………International criminal court

ICTR……………………………………………………. International criminal tribunal for
Rwanda
ICTY……………………………………………………...International criminal tribunal for
former Yugoslavia
PTC………………………………………………………. Pre-trial Chamber
ILC………………………………………………………. International Law Commission
Art………………………………………………………. Article (unless otherwise noted, Art.
designates articles of the Rome Statute)
Statute……………………………………………………Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court
No…………………………………………………………Number
Chamber ……….................................................................Pre-Trial C
CTBT……………………………………………………. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty
CLRTAP………………………………………………. Convention on Long-Range
Transboundary Air Pollution
ARSIWA………………………………………………. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States
for Internationally Wrongful Acts
UNFCC……………………………………………….... United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change
VLCT…………………………………………….……. Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties
SFDI……………………………………………….……. Security Forces Department of Indus
AQI……………………………………………….……. Air Quality index
CBD……………………………………………….……. Convention on Biological Diversity
MOEF&CC………………………………………………Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change
UBSF………………………….……………………………. Uduistan Border Security Force

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

I.INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS AND STATUTES

1. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)………………………………12, 18, 19, 21, 23, 31

2. Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), ……………………..23, 30

3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)………………………16,17,28,30

4. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,………… ……………………………….23, 24, 27

5. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)……………………………………………14,19

6. United Nations Charter…………………………………………………………………………..3, 12, 13,14,

15 ,24

7. Convention on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities …………….5, 25

8. World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines……………………………………...5

9. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ……………………………. .……………… 21

10. Stockholm Declaration………………………………………………………………………..…..16, 24

11. Montreal Protocol…………………………………………………………………………………28

12. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)……………….5, 25

13. UNGA Resolution ………………………………………………………………………………….12

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 6

II. JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949).

……………………………………………………………………………………………... 17, 22, 27

2. Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada, 1941)

…………………………………………………………………………………………. 21, 27
.
3. Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France, 1974) ……………………21

4. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Case (Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010)

…………………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 15, 22, 26, 27

5. Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary/Slovakia, 1997) ·

………………………………………………………………………………….……………….25

6. Factory at Chorzów Case (Germany v. Poland, 1928).

….………………………………………………………………………………….………….…….. 24

7. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda,
2005………………………………………………………………………………………….…...24

8. South West Africa Cases ……………………………………………………………………... 6, 26

9. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States, 1986)
………………………………………………………………………………………….13

10. Guyana v. Suriname (2007)………………………………………………………………….6

11. Georgia v. Russia (2011)…………………………………………………………………….15

12. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria………………………….15

13. Ukraine v. Russia (2023)………………………………..…………………………………..16

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

DOMESTIC CASELAW 7

1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997)………………………………………..….17

2. Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v. Union of
India…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

III. INTERNET SOURCES

1. www.ctbto.org
2. www.icj-cij.org
3. www.legal.un.org/ilc
4. www.sei.org
5. www.unece.org
6. www.un.org
7. www.unep.org
8. www.treaties.un.org
9. www.unfccc.int
10. www.who.int

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Republic of Indus (“Indus”) submits that the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) has jurisdiction under
Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the ICJ, as the dispute concerns the interpretation of international
environmental law, specifically regarding transboundary harm from pollution.
Indus acknowledges Uduistan application, but asserts that the claims brought by Uduistan are unsubstantiated,
politically motivated, and rely on allegations of transboundary harm without sufficient evidence. Indus also
contests Uduistan reliance on international treaties such as the UNFCCC, LRTAP, and the Vienna Convention,
claiming these do not apply to the specific situation at hand.
Indus requests that the Court exercise its jurisdiction to resolve this matter but dismisses the application on the
grounds of insufficient legal and factual basis.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. The Republic of Indus and the Republic of Uduistan, both rich in biodiversity, have shared a hostile
relationship since their independence in 1950 due to territorial and religious disputes. Indus, a rapidly
growing economy, has seen significant industrial expansion, while Uduistan continues to face economic
instability and political challenges. Despite tensions, both countries remain committed to environmental
concerns.

II. For decades, Delton, the capital and industrial hub of Indus, has suffered from severe air pollution due to
rapid urbanization and industrial activity. In 2020, the NGO Green Space of Indus (GPI) filed a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of Indus, leading to a two-year judicial review. On
January 21, 2022, the court issued strict environmental regulations (Annexure 1) and directed the Ministry
of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MOEF&CC) to submit a Comprehensive Environmental
Report (CER) by January 20, 2023.

III. As media in Indus reported on Delton’s pollution crisis, public protests erupted in Uduistan, especially in
Isbaadh, its capital 150 km from Delton. On July 15, 2022, the Uduistan Environmental Protection Agency
(UEPA) a partially state-funded NGO released a report alleging that pollution from Delton was harming
Uduistan. On the same day, Uduistan’s Prime Minister, Aabaaz Sharif, threatened military action against
foreign industries in Delton if Indus failed to control pollution within two months.

IV. On August 15, 2022, Indus’s Prime Minister, Mr. Sandron, denied Uduistan’s allegations, stating that
Delton’s industries were in 100% compliance with Supreme Court regulations. He pointed out that cities
within 50 km from delton, were not experiencing similar pollution levels. SFDI further reported that
Uduistan’s illegal nuclear testing was the actual cause of rising pollution in Isbaadh.

V. On February 1, 2023, MOEF&CC confirmed improved air quality in Delton, leading the Supreme Court of
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 10 attacked
Indus to close the case. However, on May 19, 2023, Uduistan’s Border Security Force (UBSF)
SFDI headquarters, killing 60 Indus soldiers. In response, Indus filed a complaint with the UNSC on June
2, 2023. Tensions escalated when Indus’s media revealed evidence of Uduistan’s nuclear tests on
December 24, 2023, sparking public outrage. Shortly after, on November 25, 2023, Indus’s forces counter-
attacked UBSF camps near Delton, killing several Uduistan soldiers.

VI. Amid ongoing conflict, Uduistan filed a case at the ICJ on June 6, 2024, alleging Indus’s industries caused
transboundary harm and violated international environmental laws. Indus argued Uduistan lacked standing
and that Uduistan’s nuclear tests caused the pollution. Both nations are signatories to key international
treaties.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER UDUISTAN HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ICJ.

2. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF INDUS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

BY FAILING TO PREVENT TRANSBOUNDARY HARM.

3. WHETHER UDUISTAN IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO INDUS FOR TRANSBOUNDARY

HARM IN DELTON.

4. WHETHER INDUS BREACHED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES BY

PRIORITIZING ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER UDUISTAN HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ICJ

Uduistan’s claim is inadmissible because of its own violation of international law through threats
and military aggression against Indus. Uduistan’s Prime Minister publicly threatened military
action if Indus did not reduce pollution levels, and despite Indus taking the necessary
environmental measures, Uduistan proceeded with an armed attack on the Security Forces
Department of Indus (SFDI), resulting in the death of over 60 soldiers. Such conduct undermines
Uduistan’s claim of acting in good faith, a necessary prerequisite for bringing a case before the
ICJ. Furthermore, the issue is currently under consideration by the United Nations Security
Council, and the ICJ should refrain from adjudicating a matter that is part of an ongoing
investigation at the international level. Uduistan also failed to engage in peaceful diplomatic
negotiations with Indus, resorting to military force before seeking judicial resolution, which
further weakens its standing before this Court.

II. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF INDUS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW BY

FAILING TO PREVENT TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

Indus has strictly adhered to international environmental standards and domestic regulations.
Following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Green Space of Indus (GPI), the
Supreme Court of Indus mandated environmental reforms in Delton. These measures led to a
substantial decrease in pollution levels, as confirmed by the Comprehensive Environmental Report
(CER) submitted to the court. Air Quality Index (AQI) levels in Delton dropped from 400 in 2019
to 280 in 2023, showing clear environmental improvement. Uduistan’s claim is based on a report
by the Uduistan Environmental Protection Agency (UEPA), an organization partially funded by
Uduistan’s government, raising serious concerns about the credibility and impartiality of the
findings. Furthermore, no independent scientific verification supports Uduistan's assertion of
transboundary harm. In contrast, Indus has presented evidence that Uduistan’s illegal nuclear
testing near the Indus border is a likely cause of the smog crisis in Isbaadh.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 12

III. WHETHER UDUISTAN IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO INDUS FOR

TRANSBOUNDARY HARM IN DELTON.

Uduistan is directly responsible for causing harm to Indus through both military aggression and
environmental violations. The armed attack on the SFDI in Delton constitutes a breach of
international peace and resulted in loss of life and destruction of property. Uduistan’s nuclear
testing, conducted in violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), has also
contributed to environmental degradation in Delton. These actions have caused significant harm to
Indus’s environment and security, for which Uduistan must be held liable to provide full
reparations. Indus’s claims are supported by concrete evidence, including imagery released by
GPN (General Public Network), showing nuclear testing activities in Uduistan that correspond
with the timeline of the smog crisis. Uduistan’s actions not only violated international
environmental norms but also endangered regional stability, necessitating both reparations and
accountability.

IV. WHETHER INDUS BREACHED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES BY

PRIORITIZING ECONOMIC GROWTH OVER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

The Republic of Indus has acted within its sovereign rights to pursue economic development
under Article 2(1) of the UN Charter and the principle of par in parem non habet imperium. As a
developing nation, Indus faces socio-economic challenges like poverty and unemployment,
making industrial growth in Delton essential. This aligns with the Principle of Permanent
Sovereignty over Natural Resources (UNGA Resolution 1803).
Despite these challenges, Indus has reduced air pollution from an AQI of 400 in 2019 to 280 in
2023, complying with the UNFCCC and CLRTAP. The CBDR principle allows Indus to balance
development with environmental responsibility. Uduistan’s claims lack credible evidence, relying
on flawed reports without proper scientific verification.
Indus has met its international obligations while fostering economic growth, and Uduistan’s
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 13

claims should be dismissed.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

I. WHETHER UDUISTAN HAS STANDING TO BRING THIS CLAIM BEFORE

THE ICJ

A. Uduistan lacks standing due to its violation of international law through threats
and military aggression.

The fundamental principle of “clean hands”, enshrined in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur
action which refers to no right can arise from an unlawful act bars a state that has violated
international law from seeking relief before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the present
case, Uduistan’s open threat of military action against Indus if it failed to limit pollution, followed
by the subsequent attack on the Security Forces Department of Indus (SFDI), constitutes a
violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter1945, which prohibits the “threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” 1.

The ICJ in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States, 1986) held that military threats and attacks against another sovereign state constitute a
breach of international law, rendering claims by the aggressor inadmissible 2. Similarly, in the
present case, Uduistan’s military aggression against Indus disqualifies it from invoking judicial
remedies under international law. The principle of “peaceful dispute resolution”, as established
under Article 33 of the UN Charter 3, was ignored by Uduistan, which resorted to force rather than
diplomatic means.

Furthermore, Uduistan’s military actions indicate a “mala fide intent”, as it initially threatened
only foreign industries in Delton but later escalated to attacking SFDI after Indus revealed
intelligence about Uduistan’s alleged nuclear activities. The ICJ in Guyana v. Suriname (2007)
reaffirmed that a party approaching the Court must do so with good faith and clean hands 4. Given
Uduistan’s aggressive conduct, its claim must be deemed inadmissible.

1
U.N. Charter art. 2, para. 4.
2
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
3
Id, art. 33.
4
Guyana v. Suriname, Award, PCA Case No. 2004-04, (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2007).
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 14

Thus, Uduistan’s violation of international law through military threats and aggression disqualifies
it from bringing this claim before the ICJ.

B. The pending Security Council proceedings preclude the ICJ from exercising
jurisdiction.

The UN Charter, under Article 12(1), establishes a procedural bar preventing the ICJ from
adjudicating matters currently under consideration by the UN Security Council 5. The Security
Council has been actively seized of the issue following Indus’s formal complaint regarding
Uduistan’s military actions. The ICJ in Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971
Montreal Convention (Libya v. United States, 1992) declined to exercise jurisdiction over a
matter already under consideration by the Security Council, reinforcing the doctrine of
institutional harmony and preventing conflicting rulings6.

In the present case, the Security Council is examining the broader implications of the dispute,
including Uduistan's aggression, which goes beyond environmental concerns. As such, the ICJ
should decline jurisdiction to avoid parallel proceedings and potential conflicts of decision. The
doctrine of lis pendens7, which prevents simultaneous adjudication of the same dispute in multiple
forums, further strengthens Indus’s position.

Indus submits that the matter’s pendency before the Security Council legally bars Uduistan from
pursuing parallel proceedings before the ICJ, and thus, this claim should be dismissed.

C. Uduistan’s inconsistent actions raise doubts about the legitimacy of its claims.

The principle of “good faith”, as codified in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (VCLT, 1969)8, requires states to act consistently and honor their international obligations

5
Id, art. 12, para. 1.
6
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at
Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, Order, 1992 I.C.J. 114 (Apr. 14).
7
Id, Judgment, 2012 I.C.J. 422 (July 20).
8
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 26, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 15

without deceit or coercion. The ICJ in Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France, 1974) emphasized that
states must not act in contradiction to their commitments or pursue judicial remedies with ulterior
motives9.

In the present case, Uduistan’s shifting military objectives cast doubt on the legitimacy of its
environmental concerns. Initially, Uduistan’s Prime Minister threatened only foreign industries in
Delton but later escalated military action against Indus’s SFDI after allegations of nuclear testing
surfaced. This abrupt change suggests that environmental concerns were merely a pretext for
political and military aggression.

Additionally, Uduistan’s reliance on the UEPA Report (Annexure 2) as evidence of transboundary

harm is questionable. The NGO was partially funded by the Uduistan government, which calls
into question its impartiality and credibility. The ICJ in Pulp Mills (Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010)
ruled that environmental claims must be based on independent and scientifically verified
assessments10. The lack of independent validation in the UEPA report and its unilateral nature
severely undermine Uduistan’s claim.

Moreover, the report does not adhere to internationally accepted scientific standards and lacks
peer review, making it unreliable as evidence.
Given these inconsistencies, Uduistan’s claim lacks bona fide intent and should be dismissed for
failure to satisfy the good faith requirement.

D. Uduistan failed to pursue peaceful resolution mechanisms before approaching the

ICJ.

Under Article 33 of the UN Charter, states are required to seek peaceful resolution of disputes
through negotiation, mediation, or arbitration before resorting to judicial mechanisms. The ICJ in
Georgia v. Russia (2011) ruled that failure to engage in meaningful diplomatic efforts renders a
claim inadmissible11. Similarly, in Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria (1998), the Court emphasized the importance of exhausting diplomatic channels before
initiating legal proceedings12.

9
Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20).
10
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. 14 (Apr. 20).
11
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geo. v.
Russ.), Preliminary Objections, 2011 I.C.J. 70 (Apr. 1).
12
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Eq. Guinea intervening),
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 16

Uduistan has made no documented attempts to engage with Indus through bilateral or multilateral
mechanisms before filing this claim. Instead, it escalated tensions through military aggression and
resorted to unilateral legal action. Furthermore, the Stockholm Declaration (1972), Principle 2413
underscores that environmental disputes should be resolved amicably before judicial action is
considered.
By bypassing these established processes, Uduistan’s claim before the ICJ is premature and should
be deemed inadmissible.

E. The treaties invoked by Uduistan require the exhaustion of alternative remedies

before approaching the ICJ.

Both the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP, 1979) and the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992)14 contain provisions
mandating dispute resolution through diplomatic means before litigation. Article 13 of LRTAP
requires parties to attempt negotiations and, if necessary, arbitration before pursuing judicial
remedies15. Similarly, Article 14(2) of the UNFCCC provides that disputes should be settled
through consultation and only be referred to the ICJ if such measures fail16.

Uduistan’s failure to exhaust these treaty-based mechanisms constitutes a breach of the pacta sunt
servanda principle, which obligates states to comply with treaty procedures in good faith. In
Ukraine v. Russia (2023), the ICJ dismissed a case due to the applicant’s failure to adhere to the
procedural requirements set out in the treaty governing the dispute17.
By disregarding these provisions, Uduistan’s claim is procedurally flawed and should be
dismissed for lack of admissibility.

II. THE REPUBLIC OF INDUS HAS NOT VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
Preliminary Objections, 1998 I.C.J. 275 (June 11).

13
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Principle 24, June 16, 1972, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1.
14
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S. 217; United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107.
15
Id,art. 13, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S. 217.
16
Id, art. 14(2), May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107.
17
Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukr. v.
Russ.), Preliminary Objections, I.C.J. (pending decision).
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 17

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

A. Uduistan has failed to establish credible evidence of transboundary air pollution

The Republic of Indus denies allegations of transboundary air pollution originating from Delton
and affecting Isbaadh. Indus contends that any harm in Isbaadh is likely to raise from Uduistan's
own actions, including illegal nuclear testing. It is a fundamental principle of international law that
the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim, as held in the Corfu Channel Case
(United Kingdom v. Albania)18, Uduistan has failed to establish any direct, credible evidence
linking air pollution in Isbaadh to activities in Delton.

Uduiastan has failed to provide credible scientific evidence to substantiate its claims. The reliance
on the report published by the Uduistan Environmental Protection Agency (UEPA), which is both
owned and funded by the Uduistan government, is procedurally flawed. The lack of transparency
in the agency's methodology further undermines the reliability of the report.
Indus contends that environmental issues are primarily domestic matters and should be resolved
through national regulatory frameworks rather than international litigation, relying on T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997), where the Indian Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of domestic environmental governance and regulatory solutions to
address ecological concerns19.

Furthermore, in Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy v.
Union of India (2005) case, which highlighted the necessity for credible and detailed scientific
evidence to establish environmental harm20, Indus argues that Uduistan has failed to provide
sufficient empirical proof to substantiate its claims of cross-border environmental damage,
weakening the justification for judicial intervention by the ICJ.

In accordance with the facts it has been notably seen that Indus's data indicates that cities within a
50-kilometer radius of Delton remain unaffected by pollution, making Uduistan’s claim that
Isbaadh located 150 kilometres away is distinctively impacting its economy transboundary harm
must be demonstrably linked to the accused state’s activities. Uduistan has failed to meet this
18
Id
19
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267 (India).
20
Research Found. for Sci., Tech. & Nat. Res. Pol'y v. Union of India, (2005) 10 SCC 510 (India).
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 18

threshold.

B. The UEPA report violates the sovereignty of the Republic of Indus

The UEPA report, which Uduistan relies upon as the basis for its claims, was prepared without the
authorization or participation of the Republic of Indus, constituting a blatant violation of its
sovereignty. The report’s lack of transparency and procedural integrity renders it inadmissible as
evidence under international law.

According to the International cooperation, particularly in matters involving environmental

investigations, must adhere to the fundamental principle of state sovereignty, as codified in Article
2(7) of the United Nations Charter21. This principle is reinforced by the doctrine of Par in parem
non habet imperium (equals have no dominion over one another), which ensures that no state or
international body may interfere in the domestic jurisdiction of another state without explicit
authorization.

Uduistan’s reliance on the UEPA report amounts to an act of bad faith, directly contravening the
principle of Pacta sunt servanda which refers to agreements must be honored. By disregarding
the sovereignty of Indus, Uduistan has not only undermined its credibility but has also jeopardized
the principles of mutual respect and cooperation that form the foundation of international law.

Moreover, the use of such unauthorized and procedurally flawed reports sets a dangerous
precedent that could encourage unwarranted intrusions into the domestic affairs of sovereign states
under the guise of international investigation. This Honorable Court must safeguard the integrity
of international law by rejecting Uduistan’s reliance on the UEPA report.

C. The real cause of harm is Uduistan’s illegal nuclear testing

Uduistan’s nuclear testing constitutes a breach of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT), The Republic of Indus asserts that the environmental harm alleged by Uduistan in
Isbaadh is caused by Uduistan’s own illegal nuclear testing. These nuclear tests constitute a
violation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), to which both Uduistan and
Indus are parties. The CTBT prohibits all nuclear explosions, given their well-documented
21
Id, art. 2, para. 7.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 19

radiological and environmental risks, including transboundary harm. By engaging in such testing,
Uduistan has acted in contravention of its binding treaty obligations.

Scientific evidence establishes that Uduistan’s actions are the root cause of harm in Isbaadh,
provided by the Security Force Department of Indus (SFDI) conclusively demonstrates that air
pollution in Isbaadh originates from radiological and chemical pollutants released during
Uduistan’s nuclear activities. These inherently hazardous activities have significant environmental
consequences that extend beyond Uduistan’s borders, impacting its own capital city of Isbaadh.

The principle of “Volenti non fit injuria” absolves Indus of liability, Under the principle of
Volenti non fit injuria which refers to harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute injury,
Uduistan cannot hold the Republic of Indus liable for harm resulting from its own reckless and
voluntary conduct. Uduistan knowingly engaged in nuclear testing despite being fully aware of its
harmful environmental consequences. As such, Uduistan bears sole responsibility for the resulting
environmental damage, and the Republic of Indus cannot be held accountable for the harm caused
by these voluntary actions.

Uduistan has failed to mitigate the harm caused by its nuclear activities, Uduistan’s failure to take
reasonable measures to address the environmental harm resulting from its nuclear tests constitutes
contributory negligence under international law. Instead of addressing and mitigating the
environmental damage caused by its own actions, Uduistan has chosen to deflect responsibility
onto the Republic of Indus. Furthermore, Uduistan has failed to provide any credible evidence to
substantiate its claims of transboundary air pollution originating from Delton.

Uduistan’s conduct violates the principle of Pacta sunt servanda and its obligations under the
CTBT, Uduistan’s nuclear testing violates its treaty obligations under the CTBT and breaches the
principle of Pacta sunt servanda which refers to agreements must be honored, enshrined in
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)22. This principle obliges
states to comply with their treaty obligations in good faith. By engaging in reckless nuclear testing
and breaching its international commitments, Uduistan has acted in bad faith and undermined its
credibility before this Honorable Court.

D. The allegations are politically motivated and lack legal merit

22
Id, art. 26, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 20

The Republic of Indus submits that Uduistan’s claims are not driven by genuine environmental
concerns but are politically motivated to justify hostile actions against Indus. Such conduct
violates the principle of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which refers to no action arises from a
dishonorable cause. By relying on a procedurally improper report and deflecting blame for its
own environmental harm, Uduistan is attempting to undermine Indus’s reputation in the
international community.

Uduistan’s actions contravene the principle of Pacta sunt servanda under, which Article 26 of the
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesequires states to act in “good faith”23.The Republic of
Indus has consistently acted in good faith and remains committed to upholding international
environmental law. Uduistan’s baseless allegations are an affront to these principle

E. The Republic of Indus has complied with all environmental obligations

The Republic of Indus has enacted stringent environmental regulations in Delton
The Republic of Indus has demonstrated its commitment to environmental protection by
implementing robust safeguards to ensure compliance with domestic and international standards.
Industries in Delton operate under strict environmental regulations mandated by the Republic of
Indus’s Supreme Court (Annexure 1). These regulations are designed to align with international
environmental norms and demonstrate Indus’s dedication to sustainable development.
Indus’s conduct is in accordance with the principle of Pacta sunt servanda.

The Republic of Indus has adhered to its treaty obligations in good faith, as mandated by the
principle of Pacta sunt servanda by complying with international standards and enforcing
stringent environmental policies, Indus has acted as a responsible member of the international
community. These efforts reinforce its commitment to upholding the principles of international
environmental law.
Uduistan’s allegations fail to acknowledge Indus’s proactive environmental measures
Despite Indus’s extensive efforts to safeguard the environment, Uduistan’s claims of
transboundary air pollution disregard these measures. The allegations fail to account for the
rigorous environmental safeguards implemented in Delton, which ensure minimal environmental
impact. Furthermore, Uduistan’s claims remain unsubstantiated, procedurally flawed, and
politically motivated, undermining their credibility before this Honorable Court.

23
Id,
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 21

Indus has acted in good faith and upheld principles of sovereignty and mutual respect
The Republic of Indus has consistently acted in good faith and complied with its obligations under
International Environmental Law. Its environmental policies reflect its dedication to balancing
economic growth with sustainable development. Moreover, Indus has respected the principles of
sovereignty and mutual respect in its engagement with international law, further demonstrating its
commitment to fostering international cooperation.

III. WHETHER UDUISTAN IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO INDUS FOR

TRANSBOUNDARY HARM IN DELTON.

A. Uduistan’s Nuclear Testing Constitutes an Internationally Wrongful Act, Engaging

Its State Responsibility
The Republic of Indus asserts that Uduistan’s unauthorized nuclear testing constitutes an
internationally wrongful act, engaging its state responsibility under international law. The
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996) explicitly prohibits all nuclear
explosions, irrespective of purpose, due to their catastrophic environmental consequences24.
Article I(1) obliges signatories to refrain from conducting or permitting nuclear tests under their
jurisdiction, while Article II(6) prohibits acts that defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty 25.

The ICJ, in the Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France, 1974),
emphasized the environmental hazards posed by nuclear activities and affirmed that states bear
responsibility to avoid harm to neighbouring regions26. According to SFDI, Udaistan has been
testing nuclear illegally for years, which in fact is the reason for the smog crisis in the Delton.
scientific research establishes that nuclear testing releases air pollutants that contribute to smog.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2018 Report on Air Pollution,
the key pollutants released during nuclear explosions include:

1. Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10): Fine particles that remain suspended in the atmosphere,
significantly reducing air quality.
2. Sulfur Oxides (SOx) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): These gases react with atmospheric moisture
to form acid rain and contribute to smog.
3. Ozone (O₃): Ground-level ozone, a key component of smog, is formed by photochemical
reactions involving NOx.
24
Id
25
Id, art. I(1), art. II(6), Sept. 24, 1996, 35 I.L.M. 1439 (not yet in force).
26
Id
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 22

The World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines (2021) confirm that exposure to
these pollutants increases respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular diseases, and environmental
degradation27.

This conduct of udaistan is in direct contravention of the legal maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum
non laedas which refers to use your property so as not to harm others, as upheld in the Trail
Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada, 1941)28. The tribunal underscored that no state has
the right to permit its territory to be used in a way that causes environmental harm to neighbouring
states. By failing to prevent harmful emissions from its nuclear testing, Uduistan breached its
obligations under customary international law, invoking its responsibility for the transboundary
harm inflicted on Delton.

Furthermore, the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

(ARSIWA, 2001), under Article 1, establish that every internationally wrongful act of a state
entails responsibility29 and Article 12 defines a breach as an act that is inconsistent with the state’s
international obligations30. Uduistan’s conduct meets this threshold, warranting legal
accountability and reparations.

B. Uduistan Breached Its Duty of Due Diligence Under International Environmental

Law
International law imposes a duty of “due diligence” on states to prevent environmental harm to
other states. This principle is enshrined in the Convention on the Prevention of Transboundary
Harm from Hazardous Activities (2001), which mandates in Article 3 that states adopt regulatory
measures to control hazardous activities and Article 9 that they take precautionary actions even in
the face of scientific uncertainty31.

In the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay Case (Argentina v. Uruguay, 2010), the ICJ reaffirmed
that states must take reasonable steps to prevent transboundary environmental harm, even when

27
World Health Organization, WHO Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2021 (2021)
28
Id

29
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, art. 1, Rep. of the Int'l Law
Comm'n, 53d Sess., Apr. 23–June 1, July 2–Aug. 10, 2001, U.N. Doc. A/56/10, at 26 (2001).
30
Id, art 12
31
Id, arts. 3, 9, 2001, U.N. Doc. A/56/10.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 23

the extent of the damage is not immediately known32. Uduistan’s failure to implement adequate
safeguards against the fallout from its nuclear testing constitutes a clear breach of this duty.

Moreover, the Rio Declaration (Principle 15) codifies the precautionary principle, which requires
states to act to prevent environmental degradation where there is a risk of harm, even without
complete scientific certainty33. By recklessly conducting nuclear tests without proper
environmental precautions, Uduistan blatantly disregarded this principle and failed to fulfill its
obligations to prevent harm to Delton.

The ICJ has consistently emphasized that the duty of due diligence applies regardless of a state's
developmental status. The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949) established
that states have an obligation to ensure that activities within their territory do not harm the
interests of other states34. Uduistan's failure to exercise due diligence in preventing transboundary
harm directly contravenes this long-standing judicial precedent.

C. Uduistan Violated Multiple International Conventions and Environmental Principles

Uduistan’s actions contravene several binding international treaties and customary principles of
environmental law:
 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (1996): Article I(1) prohibits nuclear
explosi ons due to their environmental risks, while Article II(6) obligates parties to avoid
acts that undermine the treaty’s object and purpose. Uduistan’s nuclear tests blatantly
violate both provisions35.
 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) (1979): Article
2 requires parties to limit and prevent transboundary air pollution. Uduistan’s failure to
control the pollutants released from its nuclear testing constitutes a breach of this treaty 36.
 Stockholm Declaration (1972): Principle 21 affirms the duty of states to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction do not harm the environment of other states. Uduistan’s
conduct directly contravenes this principle37.
 Rio Declaration (1992): Principle 2 underscores the sovereign right to exploit natural
resources but mandates that this right be exercised without causing environmental harm.
32
Id
33
Id, Principle 15, June 14, 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I).
34
Id
35
Id, arts. I(1), II(6), Sept. 24, 1996, 35
36
Id, art. 2, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S. 217.
37
Id, Principle 21, June 16, 1972, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 24

Polluter Pays Principle (Principle 16) holds states accountable for the environmental costs
of their activities. Uduistan must bear the financial burden for the harm caused in Delton 38.

These violations underscore Uduistan’s disregard for international environmental obligations and
establish its legal responsibility to compensate Indus for the harm caused.

D. Uduistan’s Attack on the Security Force Department of Indus (SFDI) Was an

Unlawful Attempt to Suppress Evidence

In response to allegations by the SFDI regarding Uduistan’s nuclear violations, Uduistan launched
a retaliatory military strike against the facility. This act of Udaistan is clearly calculated attempt to
destroy incriminating evidence. The fact that Udaistan’s Prime minister, on his public appearance
threatened to attack on entire foreign industrial sector in Delton, but instead attacked SFDI ,
further proves the malafide intention of Udaistan

The ICJ, in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Uganda, 2005), held that acts of aggression under the pretext of security concerns are
inadmissible when they conceal internationally wrongful acts39. Uduistan’s conduct undermines
the principles of peaceful dispute resolution enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which
prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of other states40.

By attacking the SFDI to conceal its violations, Uduistan compounded its liability and further
breached international law. The principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio which refers to no
cause of action arises from a dishonorable cause precludes Uduistan from evading liability by
engaging in unlawful conduct.

E. Uduistan Is Obligated to Provide Full Reparation Under International Law

The principle of restitutio in integrum which refers to restoration to the original position,
established in the Factory at Chorzów Case (Germany v. Poland, 1928), requires states to make

38
Id, Principles 2, 16, June 14, 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I).
39
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 2005 I.C.J. 168
(Dec. 19).
40
Id, art. 2, para. 4.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 25

full reparation for internationally wrongful acts41. Article 31 of the Draft Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA, 2001) mandates
compensation for material and moral damages resulting from such breaches42.
The environmental harm caused by Uduistan’s nuclear activities has inflicted significant losses on
Delton, including:
 Health Impacts: Increased respiratory and cardiovascular diseases among Delton’s
population.
 Environmental Degradation: Contamination of air, water, and agricultural lands.
 Economic Losses: Elevated healthcare costs, reduced agricultural productivity, and trade
disruptions.
Reparations must include:
1. Restitution: Restoration of the environment in Delton to its original condition.
2. Compensation: Financial damages for health, environmental, and economic losses.
3. Satisfaction: A formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing and guarantees of non-repetition
under Article 30 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility43.
The ICJ, in the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project Case (Hungary/Slovakia, 1997), emphasized
that reparations must be proportionate to the harm caused and must fully address the consequences
of the wrongful act44.

F. Uduistan’s Failure to Cooperate Violates International Environmental Law

International law emphasizes the duty of states to cooperate in addressing transboundary
environmental issues. Article 4(1) of the UNFCCC (1992) requires parties to collaborate in
mitigating environmental harm45. Similarly, Article 7 of the Convention on the Prevention of
Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities (2001) emphasizes consultation and cooperation
when there is a risk of transboundary harm46.
The principle of comitas gentium which refers to courtesy among nations underscores the
importance of cooperation in resolving environmental challenges. By failing to engage with Indus
and concealing its nuclear activities, Uduistan breached its duty to cooperate and further
exacerbated the harm caused.

41
Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Judgment, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17 (Sept. 13).
42
Id, art 31
43
Id, art 30
44
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25)
45
Id, art.4(1)
46
Id, art.7
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 26

IV . THE REPUBLIC OF INDUS HAS NOT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES BY PRIORITIZING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT.
A. The Republic of Indus's Right to Economic Development and Sovereign Autonomy
The Republic of Indus submits that it has acted within the framework of its sovereignty and is
entitled to manage its domestic affairs, including economic development under the principle of
par in parem non habet imperium which refers to equals do not have authority over one another.
It is a principle of International Law that states that one sovereign state cannot exercise
jurisdiction over another. This foundational principle of state sovereignty is enshrined in Article
2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations, which underscores the right of states to pursue their
economic and developmental objectives without external dictation or intrusion47.

Indus, as a developing nation, faces pressing socio-economic challenges such as poverty,

unemployment, inequality, and low infrastructure. To address these challenges, Indus must pursue
aggressive industrial and economic development, which is essential to ensure the welfare of its
citizens and achieve socio-economic stability.

The principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, recognized in United Nation
General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 1803 (1962), provides that states have the right to freely
exploit their natural resources to promote development, provided they do so in good faith.
Industrialization in Delton has contributed in developing significantly to Indus’s GDP and
economic growth from the Industrial sector. The ICJ, in the South West Africa Cases (1966),
underscored that international obligations must be interpreted in light of a state’s specific socio-
economic conditions48.

B. Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (Cbdr) Grant Indus Flexibility In

Balancing Economic Development And Environmental Protection

The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), enshrined in Article 3(1) of
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), recognizes that
developing nations have distinct responsibilities in addressing environmental challenges due to
their limited resources and socio-economic constraints49. Indus’s status as a developing nation
47
Id, art.2(1)
48
South West Africa (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liber. v. S. Afr.), Second Phase, Judgment, 1966 I.C.J. 6 (July 18).
49
Id, art.3(1)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 27

entitles it to prioritize economic development while adopting gradual and realistic measures to
mitigate environmental harm.
Despite its socio-economic challenges, Indus has made significant efforts to reduce emissions and
adopt environmentally sustainable practices. From 2019 to 2023, Indus successfully reduced the
Air Quality Index (AQI) from 400 to 280, demonstrating tangible progress in pollution control.
This achievement underscores Indus’s good-faith compliance with its environmental obligations.
Moreover, the government has implemented a series of environmental policies, including the odd-
even vehicle scheme to reduce traffic emissions, relocation of industries to environmentally secure
zones, and financial Incentives, Green spaces etc as per delt in (Annexure 1).

The ICJ, in the Pulp Mills Case (2010), emphasized that compliance with environmental
obligations does not require perfection but reasonable efforts50. Furthermore, Principle 4 of the Rio
Declaration (1992) underscores the need for states to integrate environmental protection with
development processes. Indus’s adoption of practical environmental measures aligns with this
requirement, demonstrating that it has acted responsibly and in good faith.

C. UDUISTAN HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF

TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

The Republic of Uduistan bears the burden of proving that Delton’s emissions directly caused
harm to Isbaadh. The Trail Smelter Arbitration (1941) established that clear and convincing
evidence is required before imposing liability for transboundary harm51. Similarly, the ICJ in the
Pulp Mills Case (2010) emphasized that credible scientific evidence is essential to establish
causation in environmental disputes52.
Uduistan has failed to meet this burden. The Uduistan Environmental Protection Agency (UEPA)
report, relied upon by Uduistan, is procedurally and substantively flawed. The report was prepared
without direct access to Delton and relies on speculative data rather than verifiable scientific
evidence. Indus permitted only restricted access to Uduistan officials to protect its national
security and sovereignty. This lack of transparency renders the report inadmissible as credible
evidence.
Furthermore, Indus’s environmental assessments demonstrate that cities within a 50 km radius of

50
Id
51
Id
52
Id
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 28

Delton remain unaffected, making Uduistan’s claim that Isbaadh, located 150 km away, is
uniquely impacted speculative and baseless. The Corfu Channel Case (1949) established that
evidence collection must respect state sovereignty53. Uduistan’s reliance on an unauthorized and
procedurally flawed report undermines the credibility of its allegations and violates this principle.

D. INDUS HAS COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES
The Republic of Indus has acted in accordance with its obligations under key international
environmental treaties. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), Article 3(1) grants developing nations flexibility to prioritize development while
balancing environmental concerns54 and Article 4(1)(b) further obligates parties to implement
measures to mitigate climate change55. Indus’s environmental measures, including emissions
control and promotion of green technologies, demonstrate substantial compliance with these
provisions.

Under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Article 2 requires
states to reduce transboundary pollution “as far as possible.” Indus’s adoption of stricter emission
standards and relocation of polluting industries fulfills this obligation.

Indus has also adhered to its obligations under the Vienna Convention and Montreal Protocol by
adopting domestic emissions control measures and promoting clean energy technologies.
International law does not mandate uniform environmental standards but allows states to adopt
measures suited to their circumstances. The South West Africa Cases (1966) reaffirmed that
obligations must be interpreted in light of a state’s specific conditions56. Indus’s context specific
measures demonstrate good-faith compliance with international environmental law.

E. UDUISTAN’S CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL

MISMANAGEMENT UNDERMINE ITS CLAIMS
Uduistan’s own environmental practices, including illegal nuclear testing in Isbaadh, have likely
contributed to its pollution crisis. Under the principle of Volenti non fit injuria which refers to
harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute injury, Uduistan cannot hold Indus liable for harm
caused by its own actions.
53
Id
54
Id
55
Id, 4 (1) (b)
56
Id
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 29

Indus has acted in good faith by implementing domestic environmental measures. Uduistan’s
allegations are speculative, lack legal merit, and disregard Indus’s right to development as a
sovereign state.
The Republic of Indus respectfully submits that it has not breached its obligations under
international environmental treaties by prioritizing economic development. As a sovereign state,
Indus has the inherent right to pursue economic growth while balancing environmental concerns in
line with the CBDR principle.
Indus’s substantial efforts to integrate environmental protection with development demonstrate
good-faith compliance with international obligations. Uduistan’s claims are speculative, lack
credible evidence, and disregard Indus’s right to development. This Honorable Court should
dismiss all claims brought forth by Uduistan.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 30

PRAYER

WHEREFORE in the light of authorities cited, the Republic of Uduistan respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to adjudge and declare that:

Uduistan has standing to bring the dispute concerning the air pollution in Delton before the Court,
pursuant to the relevant provisions of international environmental treaties and customary
international law.

The Republic of Indus has violated international environmental law, including its obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention
on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP), and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT), by failing to prevent transboundary environmental harm caused by industrial
activities in Delton.

The Republic of Indus must cease its internationally wrongful acts and take immediate, effective
measures to prevent further transboundary harm, ensuring full compliance with its international
obligations.

The Republic of Indus must provide full reparations to Uduistan for the environmental, economic,
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 31

and health damages caused by its failure to prevent transboundary pollution, including the costs of
environmental remediation, healthcare, and economic losses incurred.

Uduistan is not liable for any reparations to the Republic of Indus, as it has complied with all
international legal obligations and has not caused harm to the territory or population of Indus.

The Republic of Indus must bear the costs of these proceedings.

All of which is respectfully submitted

For Republic of Uduistan

Counsels for the applicant

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 32

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 33

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT