The actions of the State of Rutasia are well within the acceptable limits of international law.

Rutasia extended much needed aid in its full capacity to provide such aid. The Issue to be tackled in this action is summarized in a two-fold discussion on (1) the very definition and classification of the Alfurnans based on international (2) and their treatment within Rutasian territory. To address the first issue we must first examine the circumstances of the events that transpired causing the statelessness. As a general principle in international law the traditional criteria of a State is governed by the presence of (1) territory (2) population, (3) government, (4) sovereignty and (5) capacity to interact and enter into relations with other states1. In the situation contemplated by this action Alfurna has effectively lost its territory and its capacity to effectively govern such, in the case of United States v. The Netherlands, territorial sovereignty involves the exclusive right to display activities of the state2. This supports the action that Alfurna does not have capacity to seek notice from the ICJ or the International Court of Justice pursuant to the Statute of the ICJ stating that only STATES may be parties in cases before the court3 Jurisdiction aside, however, the circumstances of Alfurna in its claims against Rutasia are trumped by basic faculties of international law. The very definition of the Alfurnans found within Rutasian territories have to be cleared up and correctly defined, these individuals are not refugees as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention4. Thus, according to this provision, refugees are defined by three basic characteristics: (1) they are outside their country of origin or outside the country of their former habitual residence; (2) they are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted; (3) and the persecution feared is based on at least one of five grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The term refugee gives a description of one persecuted, some researchers may refer to those displaced by natural causes as environmental refugees but The term 'environmental refugee' used in the literature does not adhere to the internationally accepted definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention or the 1967
1 2

Article 1 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, December 26, 1934 Island of Palmas Case (United States of America v The Netherlands) (1928) 2 RIAA 829, 838. 3 Statute of the International Court of Justice , Article 34, paragraph 1 4 1951 Refugee Convention. Under Article 1(A)2

Protocol and most significantly in regards to the concept of a well-founded fear of persecution. Unless it is assumed that nature or the environment can be a persecutor, the term refugee does not appear suitable for describing those displaced by environmental factors.5 The term forced migrants seems more appropriate to define these classes of individuals subjected to these types of situations. The term environmental refugee is simplistic, one-sided and misleading.6 The international community leans towards the concept of a forced migrant rather than a refugee, thus, lacking the requisites as refugees under international law and lacking further international law to re-classify the Alfurnans in the current scenario, they should be considered mere migrants and not refugees entitled to increased protection under UN law. Thus since the Alfurnans are not defined as refugees they are to be given a treatment not with the standards defined under 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its protocols but with the capacity of the State assuming the responsibility of providing temporary domicile for said migrants. The facts show that the Alfurnan forced migrants were not in any way prejudiced with regards to their practices and in no way were subjected to any form of discrimination during their time housed in Woeroma facility. In fact the Alfurnans were given substantial freedom and were even granted certain requests, such as the request of the Nullatree Cove villagers to be housed in on block, specifically block A. The basic issue is the fact that Rutasia is only required to operate and provide the basic facilities according to its own capacity to provide, the Alfurnan not being refugees have no legal foothold to accuse Rutasia of any violations since the housing of the Alfurnans is but a mere expression of good faith and humanitarian efforts towards the sensitive situation faced by Alfurna, which Rutasia considers a friend of the nation. The facts tell us that the causes for the deteriorated facilities are natural, the earthquake on November 2011 left considerable damage, to the otherwise sufficient facilities, at Woeroma. Rutasia conducted its own programs to repair the damage done during the natural disaster but due to its own financial struggles could no fulfil the task. It is within the scope of good faith and
5

FMO Research Guide on Climate change and displacement by Camillo Boano: http://www.forcedmigration.org/guides/fmo046/, pp 11-12. 6 Stephen Castles, Working Paper # 70 Environmental change and forced migration: making sense of the debate, page 8.

within the limits of international law to execute preparations for the transfer of the Alfurnan migrants due to the fact that the facilities of Rutasia are no longer adequate to house the migrants effectively due to the damage to the Woeroma facility during the November 2011 earthquake. Since the Alfurnans are not refugees by definition Rutasia has the capacity to provide for their effective transfer to Saydee by means of agreement between the sending state and the receiving state. No international law prohibits the transfer of migrants from the territory of one state to another for valid reasons of inadequacy of facilities due to natural causes. In July 25, 2011 the state of Australia came into agreement to transfer custody and care of certain individuals to Malaysia in a written agreement.7 This arrangement is essentially the embodiment of the responsibility of States with regards to foreign migrants and even refugees. There is valid cause for the actions of Rutasia, it falls within its own sovereign power to act as it did and it also effectively adhered to International standards. There is a need for the policy makers to solidify the issues in this case. There is a gap in international law that does not address the specific issue of forced migrants and their corresponding status and treatment. Forced migration has historically been addressed by the international humanitarian community as a question of aid delivery and legal protection. This remains the primary operating lens for a number of international organisations, from relief operations such as those of MSF through to the protection-based activities of UNHCR. However, states have tended to view forced migration as also being a political issue involving questions of entitlement to national membership and inter-regional security. Particularly in reviewing policy trends in the last decade, it is clear that the humanitarian approach to forced migration is under threat from an increasingly securitised public political discourse surrounding all forms of migration.8 Lacking such it is the position of the State of Rutasia that it is not bound to exercise the exemplary standards in congruence with the allegations and opposing prayers of this case.

Arrangement Between THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA ON Transfer and Ressettlement, July 25, 2011. http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/_pdf/20110725arrangement-malaysia-aust.pdf. 8 Refugee Studies Centre Oxford Department of International Development University of Oxford, Forced Migration Research and Policy Overview of current trends and future directions, April 2010, http://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/RSC-FM-policy-and-research-overview.pdf. page 29.