1 POOJA VIKRAM, BA

LLB, 15040141030

IN THE HONOURABLE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PEACE PALACE, HAGUE

IN THE MATTER OF

THE STATE OF SUNIZA ….APPLICANT

Vs.

THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI ….RESPONDENT

SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………...........……………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………….........…………………. 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………..........………………….... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………........…………. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………......……………………….. 11

PRAYER / SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT…….................………………......... 18

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AI Artificial Intelligence

ACS Advanced Composite Systems Ltd

Azasi The Republic of Azasi

eZ1 eZulwini 1

ICJ International Court of Justice

ISpS Innovative Space Solutions

LS Agreement Launch Services Agreement

R&D Research and Development

SDD Suniza Defense Department

Suniza The State of Suniza

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. BOOKS REFERRED
 Fabio Transchetti , Fundamentals of space law and policies, Springers
publication,3rd edition
 Thomas Gangale, The development of outer space: sovereignty and property
rights in international space law , Praeger publication,2nd edition.
 Valdimis Kopal, An Introduction to space law, Walters Kluwer publication, 3rd
edition.
 I.A. Shearer, Starke’s International Law, Oxford Publishers, 2013, 11th edn
B. TREATIES AND CONVENTION
 Outer space treaty,1967
 Moon agreement, 1979
 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return
of Objects Launched into Outer Space,1969
 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects,1972
 Vienna convention on law of treaties,1969
C. WEBSITES REFERED
 http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/moon-agreement.html
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
 www.ifrc.org/docs/idrl/I515EN.pdf
 www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html
 https://www.britannica.com/event/Outer-Space-Treaty
 iislweb.org/lachs_moot/resources
 unoosa.org
 uakron.edu
 www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/ST_SPACE_061Rev01E.pdf
 www.mpil.de/files/pdf3/04_schmittii1.pdf
 www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au180044.htm
 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The State of Suniza and The Republic of Azasi are both members of the United Nations and
parties to the United Nation Charter and to the Statue of the International Court of Justice.
Each of them has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court by means of a declaration
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 36 of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The State Of Suniza embarked on an ambitious program to harness its mining

expertise to explore celestial bodies for space resources twenty years ago. Hence,
they entered into a launch service agreement with their northern neighbour, the
Republic of Azasi for the purchase of services required for its mining activities. By
acquiring these services, the State of Suniza was able to focus on its research and
development on the desired lunar mining operations. These services included
launch and transportation services from the Earth to the Moon and from the Moon
back to Earth for personnel, equipment and other resources of the State of Suniza.

2. The lunar research missions conducted by the State of Suniza resulted in a

permanent lunar facility called eZulwini 1 (eZ1). In accordance to the LS
agreement, the Republic of Azasi provided the spacecraft for transporting the crews
and engineers necessary for conducting the lunar research activities. The Republic
of Azasi also provided Artificial Intelligence Robots through Duma Artificial
Intelligence Corporation (DAIC) which to perform the actual lunar mining
activities. All the costs for maintaining the personnel from DAIC were borne by the
Republic of Azasi. eZ1 consisted of research and processing facilities located in
eight modules. A lunar habitation module provided accommodation quarters for
the crew, while a second habitation module accommodated space tourists from
various countries. The third module served as a processing facility for food and
water. The other five modules provided research and development and materials
processing facilities. Access to four of these modules was made available to the
tourists and other visitors to eZ1. However, Module 5 was operated by personnel
from Advanced Composite System Ltd (“ACS”), a private Suniza defense
contractor and consumer product conglomerate, utilizing confidential and
proprietary information. This fifth module also contained a habitation section for
ACS personnel. After Module 5 was completed, but prior to commencing
operations, representatives of Azasi were given a tour of the facility. Thereafter
access was strictly limited to crew and engineers from Suniza.

3. Azasi assembled a team of investigators to be transported to the Moon. At that point,

Suniza denied the Azasi request for the investigators to visit module 5 of eZ1 or to

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

7

utilize the habitation quarters of the other eZ1 modules for temporary housing. This
refusal prompted Azasi to recall its crew working on the eZ1 and Azasi terminated all
space missions with Suniza. Azasi announced that it would no longer provide any
further human or robotic missions and support to eZ1. Suniza’s refusal to allow the
inspection was met with international condemnation. Most space-faring countries
ceased co-operation with Suniza in space-related matters. Unable to provide support
for its crew, Suniza publicly announced that it would no longer continue activities on
eZ1 and sought to evacuate the facility and transport all personnel back home. Azasi,
however, refused to transport non-Azasi crew and personnel back to Earth.
Innovative Space Solutions (ISpS), a launch services company incorporated in the St.
Neo Islands, agreed to transport the crew and tourists stranded on eZ1. However,
ISpS demanded and received three times their customary price for this type of
transportation, banned transport of any sefarite in its spacecraft, and strictly limited
the amount of personal effects that could be carried by the passengers.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE

OCCUPATION AND USE OF EZ1 CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL
LAW?

II. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE COSTS

CHARGED BY ISPS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE CREW AND
TOURISTS FROM EZ1 TO THE EARTH?

III. WHETHER SUNIZA IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF

AZASI 7 AND LAUNCH PAD?

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE OCCUPATION AND

USE OF EZ1 AND CONTRARY TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

As per Article 8(2)(b), a state may place their personnel, space vehicle, equipment,
facilities, stations and installations anywhere on or below the surface of the moon.Hence, it
is derived that eZ1 is a lawful facility setup on the Moon by the State of Suniza and owned
by them. Article 8(3) states that activities of the states parties in accordance with paragraph
1 and 2 of the article shall not interfere with the activities of other state parties on the
Moon. Article 15 (1) states that each State Party may assure itself that the activities of
other States Parties in the exploration and use of the Moon are compatible with the
provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations
and installations on the Moon shall be open to other States Parties. They did not give any
intimation nor did an advanced notice in spite of being refuse permission, making them
violate Article 15 (1) of the Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and
other celestial bodies hence being liable for occupying the eZ1 lunar facility.

II. THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE COSTS CHARGED BY

ISPS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE CREW AND TOURISTS
FROM EZ1 TO THE EARTH.

Due to the denial of the request, the Republic of Azasi got affronted and terminated all
space missions and recalled its crew working on eZ1 back home. The Republic of Azasi
refused to transport non-Azasi crew and personnel back to Earth. Hence, the State of
Suniza was unable to provide support for its crew and bring them back to Earth. The State
of Suniza leaned for aid on Innovative Space Solutions (ISpS) who were a launching
service company incorporated in the state of St. Neo Islands. St. Neo Islands was one of
the few states who were technologically capable of launching crewed missions to the
moon, hence having a strategic advantage over the State of Suniza. Therefore, ISpS agreed
to transport crew and tourists stranded on eZ1 on the grounds that they would receive three
times their customary price for this mission. Along with it, they also banned the

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

10

transportation of any Sefarite into its aircraft along with strictly limiting the amount of
personnel effects that could be carried by the passengers.

III. SUNIZA IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF AZASI 7
AND LAUNCH PAD?

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable court that suniza is not liable for damages
for the loss of azasi 7 and launch pad because firstly, liability clause doesn't apply as
sefarite do not come under the purview of space object. Secondly, there is no conclusive
proof that the explosion was caused due to satellite because prior to launch azasi
conducted an visual inspection of he cargo but did not detect the enhanced sefarite.
Thirdly, the obligation under article 11 of the outer space treaty does not lie in the proviso
Presentation of a claim to a launching State for compensation for damage under this
Convention shall not require the prior exhaustion of any local remedies which may be
available to a claimant State or to natural or juridical persons it represents.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE

OCCUPATION AND USE OF EZ1 CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL
LAW?

1.1 Violation of Article 8 of Agreement governing the activities of states on the moon
and other celestial bodies

eZ1, a permanent lunar facility, was a result of the lunar research mission conducted by the
State of Suniza. As per article 8(2)(b), a state may place their personnel, space vehicle,
equipment, facilities, stations and installations anywhere on or below the surface of the
moon1. Hence, it is derived that eZ1 is a lawful facility setup on the Moon by the State of
Suniza and owned by them. Article 8(3) states that activities of the states parties in
accordance with paragraph 1 and 2 of the article shall not interfere with the activities of
other state parties on the Moon2. Hence, the Republic of Azasi occupying eZ1 violates
article 8(3) by interfering with the activities of the State of Suniza.

1.2 Violation of Article 15 of Agreement governing the activities of states on the moon
and other celestial bodies

Article 15 (1) states that each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States
Parties in the exploration and use of the Moon are compatible with the provisions of this
Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations
on the Moon shall be open to other States Parties. Such States Parties shall give reasonable
advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and
that maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with
normal operations in the facility to be visited. In pursuance of this article, any State Party
may act on its own behalf or with the full or partial assistance of any other State Party or
through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations
and in accordance with the Charter.3

The Republic of Azasi when denied permission by the State of Suniza to conduct
investigation on eZ1, terminated all space missions with them and conducted their own
lunar operations there post six months of the denial. They did not give any intimation nor

1
Article VIII(2)(b), Agreement Governing the activities of States on the moon and other celestial bodies.
2
Article VIII(3), Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
3
Article XV (1), Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

12

an advanced notice in spite of being refused permission, making them violate Article 15
(1) of the Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial
bodies hence being liable for occupying the eZ1 lunar facility. A State Party is mandatory
to seek permission and provide prior intimation before occupying the premises of another
State Parties facility. The Republic of Azasi turned a blind eye towards the provisions laid
down and hence have proved to be very ignorant with their acts of occupying the premise
of the Applicant, the State of Suniza. Hence this ignorance of the laws that are laid down
for the easy function and management on the moon needs to be taken to task making the
Respondents liable for their actions.

1.3 Violation of article 12(1) of the Agreement Governing the activities of States
on the Moon and other celestial bodies

The moon and other celestial bodies are open to all State Parties and are not the personal
possession of any Sovereign in particular. However, when a certain part of the moon is
being temporarily occupied by one Party State, if another Party State wishes to visit it they
may do so if they have sought permission from the prior state party. If no intimation or
permission is being requested and post which if a visit is conducted then, the latter is to be
made liable on the accounts of interference into the priors work without permission, hence
violating the law. Also the Republic of Azasi is liable since they assembled a team to
investigate Module 5 of the eZ1 lunar facility when that module was strictly limited only
to the crew and personnel of the State of Suniza therefore interfering in the operations of
the state party in the facility. The Republic of Azasi also violates article 12(1) of the
Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
Article 12(1) states that, States Parties shall retain jurisdiction and control over their
personnel, vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the Moon. The
ownership of space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations shall not be
affected by their presence on the Moon.4

4
Article XII(1), Agreement Governing the activities of States on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

13

II. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF AZASI IS LIABLE FOR THE COSTS

CHARGED BY ISPS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE CREW
AND TOURISTS FROM EZ1 TO THE EARTH?
2.1 Violation of Article 3 of Rescue Agreement

This is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that azasi was liable for the cost
charged by isps for the transportation of crew and tourist from ez1 to earth firstly, because
as mentioned under Article 3 of Rescue Agreement5:

“If information is received or it is discovered that the personnel of a spacecraft have

alighted on the high seas or in any other place not under the jurisdiction of any State,
those Contracting Parties which are in a position to do so shall, if necessary, extend
assistance in search and rescue operations for such personnel to assure their speedy
rescue. They shall inform the launching authority and the Secretary-General of the United
Nations of the steps they are taking and of their progress.”

It is the responsibility of the state to provide help and facilities to the astronauts of the any
state who are in need of help. Further, The rescue agreement elaborate on elements of
Articles 5 and 8 of the Outer Space Treaty, provides that States shall take all possible steps
to rescue and assist astronauts in distress and promptly return them to the launching State,
and that States shall, upon request, provide assistance to launching States in recovering
space objects that return to Earth outside the territory of the Launching State. Hereby in
this case Azasi not only refuse to provide further help to suniza regarding the contract but
also refuse to bring back non azasi people back to earth.

2.2 Violation of Article 10 of the Agreement governing the activities of the states
on the moon and other celestial bodies.

The fact that the Republic of Azasi denied the transportation of non-Azasi personnel
makes them liable according to article 10 of the agreement governing the activities of
states on the moon and other celestial bodies. Article 10 states that, States Parties shall
adopt all practicable measures to safeguard the life and health of persons on the Moon. For
this purpose they shall regard any person on the Moon as an astronaut within the meaning
of article V of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies and

5
Article 3, Rescue Agreement

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

14

as part of the personnel of a spacecraft within the meaning of the Agreement on the Rescue
of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer
Space6. And, States Parties shall offer shelter in their stations, installations, vehicles and
other facilities to persons in distress on the Moon.7 The Republic of Azasi violates article
10 due to which the State of Suniza had to the incur a lumpsum cost for transportation by
ISpS. They were also prohibited from transporting any sefarite from the Moon to the Earth
by ISpS causing them additional losses.

2.3 Violation of LS Agreement

The main purpose of the LS agreement with the Republic of Azasi was not only to
transport equipment, personnel, etc but also to extract and transport sefarite from the Moon
to the Earth. Now that the Republic of Azasi had denied the transportation of non Azasi
personnel, the State of Suniza was not able to transport sefarite and the fact that ISpS also
denied the transportation of sefarite, all the amount of money put in for the operation by
the state of Suniza has gone to waste hence proving to be a major cost burden along side
the exorbitant amount spent on transporting the Suniza crew and personnel. According to
Article 10(2) of the Agreement Governing the activities of states on the Moon and other
celestial bodies and the LS agreement, the Republic of Azasi is liable to provide vehicle
and other facilities to persons in distress on the moon and is a direct violation to the article.

2.4 Violation of Article 5 of Outer Space Treaty

“States Parties to the Treaty shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space
and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or
emergency landing on the territory of another State Party or on the high seas. When
astronauts make such a landing, they shall be safely and promptly returned to the State of
registry of their space vehicle. In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial
bodies, the astronauts of one State Party shall render all possible assistance to the
astronauts of other States Parties. States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the
other States Parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any
phenomena they discover in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies,
which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.”

6
Article X(1), Agreement Governing the activities of states on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
7
Article X(2), Agreement Governing the activities of states on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

15

Which provide same obligation to all the contracting state to assist astronauts in need of
help and emergency.

Therefore from the above provided argument it is clear that azasi is liable for the
occupation and use of ez1 contrary to international law and for the cost charged by IsPs for
the transportation of crew and tourist from eZ1 to earth.

III. WHETHER SUNIZA IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF

AZASI 7 AND LAUNCH PAD?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that suniza is not liable for damages for
the loss of azasi 7 and launch pad because:

3.1 Firstly, According to liability clause the treaty establishes absolute liability for a
launching State whose space objects cause any damages to aircraft or on the earth’s
surface. It also establishes liability for damage in space caused by a launching State’s
space objects. The Treaty also establishes procedures for the settlement of claims for
damages.

Which clearly states that the damage should be caused due to launching state’s space
object which as defined under Article 1 of both liability8 and registration conventions9
define a space object as including the space object itself and “ component parts of space
objects as well as launch vehicle and parts thereof”, which clearly does not include sefarite
as it was a mineral found in the moon.

3.2 Secondly, there is no conclusive proof that the explosion was caused due to satellite
because prior to launch Azasi conducted a visual inspection of the cargo, but did not detect
or identify the enhanced sefarite or any unusual or potentially harmful aspects of the cargo,
therefore it clearly states that Azasi themselves conducted a visual inspection prior to
launch but did not found any harmful aspect which caused the spacecraft to explode just a
few seconds after take-off on the lunar launch pad. Scientists after research and several
tests stated that enhanced sefarite was as same as other mineral.

8
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html, last accessed on 30th
November 2018
9
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introregistration-convention.html, last accessed on
30th November 2018.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

16

3.3 Thirdly, the liability convention does not apply on the present case as the issues does
not fall under the instances given under Article 3 of the liability convention “ In the event
of damage being caused elsewhere than on the surface of the earth to a space object of one
launching State or to persons or property on board such a object by a space object of
another launching state, the latter shall be liable only if the damages is due to its fault or
the fault of persons for whom it is responsible.

3.4 Also according to Article 7 of the liability convention, the provisions of this
Convention shall not apply to damage caused by a space object of a launching State to:

(a) Nationals of that launching State;

(b) Foreign nationals during such time as they are participating in the operation of that
space object from the time of its launching or at any stage thereafter until its descent, or
during such time as they are in the immediate vicinity of a planned launching or recovery
area as the result of an invitation by that launching State.

Therefore, subsequently it proves that Suniza was not responsible to bear damages for the
loss caused to azasi 7 and launch pad.

3.5 Lastly, the obligation under Article 11 of the outer space treaty does not lie in the
proviso “Presentation of a claim to a launching State for compensation for damage under
this Convention shall not require the prior exhaustion of any local remedies which may be
available to a claimant State or to natural or juridical persons it represents.”

“Nothing in this Convention shall prevent a State, or natural or juridical persons it might
represent, from pursuing a claim in the courts or administrative tribunals or agencies of a
launching State. A State shall not, however, be entitled to present a claim under this
Convention in respect of the same damage for which a claim is being pursued in the courts
or administrative tribunals or agencies of a launching State or under another international
agreement which is binding on the States concerned.”

Therefore, it proves by the statement given above that suniza is not liable for damages for
the loss of azasi 7 and launch pad.

3.6 Applicability of Moon Agreement:

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

17

Azasi was not liable for moon agreement whereas according to article 31 of Vienna
convention 10

“1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to
be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to
the text, including its preamble and annexes:

(a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in
connection with the conclusion of the treaty;

(b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the
conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the
treaty.

3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context:

(a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty
or the application of its provisions;

(b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement
of the parties regarding its interpretation;

(c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties

4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so

intended.”

10
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html, last accessed on 30th
November 2018.

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

18

PRAYER / SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT

In light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and in light of the provisions of the
United Nations and arguments advanced; and in light of the scientific studies relating to
the issue referred to, the Applicants most humbly prays that the Honourable International
Court of Justice:

 That the Republic of Azasi is liable for the occupation and use of eZ1
contrary to international law.

 That the Republic of Azasi is liable for the costs charged by ISpS for the
transportation of the crew and tourists from eZ1 to the Earth and direct them to
pay the stipulated amount within a span of one year.

 That suniza is not liable for damages for the loss of azasi 7 and launch pad

For the foregoing reasons, The State Of Suniza, The Applicants, respectfully requests the
court to adjudge and declare that:

 The Republic of Azasi is liable for the occupation and use of the eZ1 lunar
facility inconsistent and contrary to the International Law

 Direct the Republic of Azasi to pay and compensate the stipulated amount
within a span of one year for they being liable for the costs charged by the ISpS
for the transportation of the crew and tourists from eZ1 lunar facility to the
Earth.
AND/OR

Pass any other order, that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this, the Applicants as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Counsel for applicant

Sd/-

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT