Kingdom of Atlantira v. Republic of Novaris – Hypothetical Judgment by Mehak Chowdhary (IJWC 2025)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present case concerns a dispute between the Kingdom of Atlantira (Applicant) and the Republic of Novaris (Respondent) relating to legality of digital surveillance operations, extraterritorial jurisdiction and protection of human rights in cyberspace under international law.

2. The dispute arises from a covert surveillance program known as Project Sentinel Eye, allegedly conducted by Novaris’s National Digital Security Agency (NDSA). This infiltrated Atlantiran communications which monitored privacy of representatives.

3. Atlantira contends, these acts establish defilements of sovereignty, territorial integrity and multiple provisions of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Articles 17 and 19 and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

4. Further jurisdiction is reinforced under Article 15 of The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, 1955.

5. This Judgement’s purpose determines whether international law stands violated by Novaris’s actions or not, principles of sovereignty, protection of human rights in cyberspace and non-intervention. Therefore, deciding on appropriate remedies and reparations if done said violations.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

6. A complaint was filed within the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on January 15th 2025, by the Kingdom of Atlantira, alleging the Republic of Novaris violated international law by running digital surveillance program by Novaris’s National Digital Security Agency (NDSA) named “Project Sentinel Eye.”

7. Within this Application, Atlantira sought the Court’s obligatory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, both parties’ declarations admitting such jurisdiction in 2010 was invoked under Article 15 of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 1955.

8. The court received supporting documents from both parties regarding permissibility and jurisdictional matters.

9. Thereafter, The Hague held oral hearings in September 2025, through which both states offered arguments, the Court now delivers its judgment on the merits of the case.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. The present case is between, the Kingdom of Atlantira and the Republic of Novaris. Both states were interlinked treaties including the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation 1955, United Nations Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture, and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic.

11. Subsequently, Novaris’ s 2020 election presented government in power with technology advancement and national security, establishing the National Digital Security Agency (NDSA) in 2021 protecting national security through monitoring digital communication.

12. The relations between states deteriorated in March 2024 after evidence was found by Atlantira services of a clandestine surveillance operated targeting Atlantiran citizens conducted by Novaris’s Digital Security Agency.

13. Atlantiran authorities investigation revealed, Novaris infiltrated their telecommunication networks.

14. In May 2024, Atlantira exposed Project Sentinel Eye, accusing Novaris of illegal surveillance. Novaris denied the claims, then defended them as legitimate intelligence for national security. 

15. Hereby, on 15th of January 2025 Atlantira filed a case before the ICJ claiming violations of sovereignty, ICCPR Articles 17 and 19, and the Vienna Convention. 

16. Atlantira brought its case to the Court, claiming breaches of its sovereignty and the ICCPR, while Novaris argues its surveillance, was a lawful act to protect national security.

ISSUES OF DETERMINATION

17. After examining facts placed before the Court and the materials on record, the Court identifies the following issues demanding determination for the dispute.

1. Whether, Novaris violated Atlantira’s in internal affairs by conducting covert surveillance operations targeting Atlantiran nationals in its territory within and outside.
2. Whether, Novaris violated the right to privacy secured under Article 17 of the ICCPR by monitoring private communications of Atlantiran nationals, whether such violations be justified under valid restrictions for national security.
3. Whether, the surveillance operation violated rights of freedom expression provided under Article 19 ICCPR and undermine Press Freedom.
4. Whether, the surveillance of privileged communication between attorneys and clients interfere with the Right to a Fair Trial, and Access to Justice enshrined in international human rights law.
5. Whether, Novaris is internationally responsible for the conduct of its NDSA. What is the applicable legal framework for attributing cyber surveillance activities to the state.
6. Whether, the violations are established, Atlantira is entitled to remedies under international law of the wrongful acts, and should the Court order destruction of surveillance data and disclosure.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

18. Arguments by the Petitioner

A. The Petitioner argues:

i. Atlantira claims that Novaris violated obligations of state sovereignty and non-intervention principles of their state under articles 2(1) and 2(7) of the UN Charter and infiltrated telecommunications without consent leading to intrusions. Atlantira appealed Novaris’s surveillance breached obligations of interference in internal affairs as under Article 3 The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, 1955.

ii. Atlantira alleges Novairs’s surveillance program violated Article 17 of ICCPR prohibiting unlawful interference of privacy referring to the Human Rights Committee General Comment no. 16, it argues that operation was unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate targeting representatives of the state.

iii. Atlantira alleges Novaris’s actions infringed Article 19 of the ICCPR which grants right to seek information. The applicant upholds targeting citizens for their political views interferes with freedom of press.

iv. Atlantira argues that Novaris has breached Article 14 of ICCPR on the right to fair trial. This breach damaged defenses.

 v. Atlantira attributed Novaris’s NDSA actions invoked Articles 4 and 8 of the ILC                       Articles on State Responsibility, the evidence of high-level authorization for Project Sentinel Eye is supported by state accountability.

vi. The applicant referring Chorzów Factory (1928) principle, pleads for Cessation of Novaris’s surveillance, Restitution of data, Compensation of US $750 million, a public apology as well as guarantees of non-repetition of prior committed acts.

19. Arguments by the Respondent:

A. The Respondent argues:

i. Novaris claims gathering intelligence is lawful and does not breach international law and distinguished surveillance from prohibited intervention, highlighting practice of state showing no treaty ban on intelligence operations. It argued the 1955 treaty aims to prevent coercion not to outlaw surveillance activities. 

• Respondent cites Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14., maintaining that intervention is wrongful only when coercive, its actions involved information-gathering, not force.

ii. Novaris admits that the Article 17(2) of the ICCPR guards’ privacy allowing lawful meddling for national security. The surveillance, official under the National Security Act 2021, targeted suspected activists with legal oversight. It argues that obligation must be viewed through counter-terrorism needs.

•  Novaris differentiates its program from Big Brother Watch and Others v United Kingdom (ECtHR, 25 May 2021), claiming it was beset, not mass surveillance.

iii. Respondent argued that Article 19 ICCPR allows limits for national security. It states the representatives were prosecuted for spying, not expression and they are not protected speech. 

iv. State resists ICCPR’s article 17 does not protect communications. It must be discussed domestically not internationally.

v. Respondent acknowledges the NDSA are accountable to the state under ILC Articles and argues no breach of obligations was conducted.

vi. Respondent contests Atlantira’s claim as intrusive and argues destructing intel data would infringe sovereignty and security functions. They requested US $750 million is speculative and unsupported by evidence.

• It stated if the court may find any procedural misdeeds, should limit remedies to improve transparencies rather than disassembly intelligence systems.

JUDICIAL REASONING

20. The Court proceedings now examine practical issues raise in this Application. The Petitioner and Respondent have accepted Court’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the Statute. 

1. I- Sovereignty and Non-Intervention 

• The United Nations Charters of Article 2(1) and Article 2(7) assure the sovereign fairness of all states and forbids interference in matters within the national jurisdiction of any State. As seen in the Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania) [1949] ICJ Rep 4, the Court stated respect for territorial sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law. Whereas, in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14., Court defined intervention as wrongful when it bears on matters in which state is free to decide and involves interference with its radical or societal system.

• The evidence before the Court establishes that Novaris’s NDSA conducted a large-scale digital disturbance within Atlantira’s territory, infiltrating domestic telecommunications. These acts were not consented and therefore establish as unlawful exercise of power within another State’s territory. The respondent argues that spying and intelligence gathering are tolerated practices under customary international law and do not constitute coercion. The Court does not accept this opinion. While intelligence gathering, tolerance does not permit creating an intrusion into the territorial infrastructure of another state, even minimal interference with another States’s sovereignty, without consent constitutes a breach of international law. The Court notes that the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation 1955 between the parties expressly prohibits any interference in internal affairs, by systematic surveillance of Atlantiran representatives. Novaris acted exactly in the field that the Treaty required to defend.

• The Court finds that Novaris violated the sovereignty and political independence of Atlantira, conflicting to Article 2(1) and 2(7) of the UN Charter, customary international law and Article 3 of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, 1955

2. II- Right to Privacy below Article 17 ICCPR,

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17 bans unlawful interfering with privacy. General Comment no.16 of the Human Rights Committee clarifies that surveillance must be lawful, necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and equal to effect omission. The case of Big Brother Watch and Others v United Kingdom (ECtHR, 25 May 2021), held that bulk interception without adequate safeguards constitutes a violation of privacy rights.

• The Court admits protection of national security is a valid aim, however necessity and proportionality are essentials. No oversight existed for those who were observed under Project Sentinel Eye without judicial authorization. This goes far beyond what is considered as necessary and proportionate. Novaris’s National Security Act cannot justify violations of international obligations. As affirmed, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) (Judgment) [1980] ICJ Rep 3.States cannot invoke internal law to escape international responsibility.

• The Court concludes that respondent’s actions establish unlawful interference with privacy under Article 17 of the ICCPR. Novaris programs fails the tests of necessity and proportionality and breaches obligations.

3. III- Freedom of Expression and Press Freedom

• Article 19 of the ICCPR “guarantees the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”. General Comment no.34 of Human Rights Commission accepts that surveillance measures which exposes sources of journalists and violates the protection.

• The Court recalls surveillance targeting journalists and political protestors based on their opinion is inconsistent with Article 19, even when assumed under the appearance of national security.

• The Court finds Novaris violated Article 19 ICCPR by conducting surveillance that restricted freedom of expression.

4. IV- Fair Trial Rights

• The right of fair trial under Article 14 ICCPR includes the ability to communicate with legal counsel in confidence.

• Novaris struck at the heart of legal professional privilege by monitoring confidential communications. The respondent’s claim that communications were used to plan criminal activity is unsupported and does not justify the broad interception of privileged correspondence.

• The Court regulates, Novaris breached Article 14 ICCPR by violating the right to a fair trial and weakened attorney-client confidentiality. 

5. V- State Responsibility

• Conduct of any state organ is attributable under Article 4 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Court held that acts of State organs are referable even where they exceed authority, provided they act in official capacity.

• The NDSA operated under Novarian law and operated under its government. Project Sentinel Eye was executed by its officials and consequently actions complained by attributable to Novaris.

• The Court upholds that Novaris is responsible to conduct NDSA establishing state responsibility for the wrongful acts identified.

6. VI- Remedies and Compensations  

1.  

• As per the Factory at Charzow 1928, repartition must “wipe out all consequences of the illegal act”.

• The Court held that Novaris must stop surveillances aimed towards Atlantiran nationals and ensure non-repetition through judicial oversight and abolish all unlawful obtained data under its supervision and provide a confidential report on Project Sentinel Eye to Atlantira. The Court awards USD 380 million in compensation for material as proven and moral harm. Court orders Novaris must issue a formal public apology as well and report to the UN Human Rights Committee within a year.

The Court finds that Novaris’s actions are wrongful and breach principles of sovereignty and non-intervention, while violating Articles 17, 19, and 14 of the ICCPR. These acts are given to the State of Novaris under ILC Articles, giving Atlantira the right to full reimbursements as ordered.

COURT’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

21. The Court records its findings on each issue after considering both parties submissions and evidences.

1. I- The Court finds that Novaris violated sovereignty and political independence of Atlantira by conducting Project Sentinel Eye and targeting Atlantiran nationals within territory and abroad.
2. II- The Court concludes that Novaris’s monitoring led to unlawful interference with privacy under Article 17 ICCPR.
3. III- The Court upheld that surveillance over representatives violated free expression and weakened press freedom contrary to Article 19 ICCPR and General Comment No.34
4. Issue IV- Monitoring confidential communications violated Article 14 ICCPR and general principle access to justice.
5. V- Novaris is responsible of actions done under NDSA under Article 4 and 7 of ILC Articles on State Responsibility, engaging respondent’s international responsibility.
6. VI- Applying principle of Factory at Charzow 1928, Court determines full compensation including termination of wrongful acts, destructing unlawful obtained data, appropriate compensation and guarantee of non-repetition.

The cumulative effect if above findings establishes that Novaris has committed multiple internationally wrong acts in violation of Atlantira’s sovereignty and obligations as under ICCPR.

Therefore, Atlantira’s petition is upheld.

Verdict

22. THE COURT, 

1. Declares The Republic of Novaris violated the sovereignty and political independence of The Kingdom of Atlantira through its National Digital Security Agency contradicting the UN Charter and The Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation 1955.
2. Finds that The Republic of Novaris’s Project Sentinel Eye constituted to unlawful interference with privacy of Atlantiran nationals and breached under Article 17 ICCPR.
3. Declares The Republic of Novaris violated Article 19 ICCPR on freedom of expression and undermining press freedom.
4. Determines The Republic of Novaris violated Article 14 ICCPR by intercepting confidential communications and weakening right of a fair trial.
5. Finds The Republic of Novaris is responsible of actions conducted by conduct of NDSA and involves it under international accountability.
6. Order The Republic of Novaris to
   • Immediately cease all surveillance operations targeting Atlantiran nationals.
   • Destroy all personal data acquired under Project Sentinel Eye under supervision.
   • Ordered to pay The Kingdom of Atlantira compensation of USD 380 million for material and moral damage suffered by the State and its nationals.
   • Issue an official public apology recognizing defilements.
   • Adopt official improvements to confirm judicial oversight of future operations and report to the UN Human Rights Committee within one year of implementation.
   • Orders to guarantee non repetition on violations.
7. Rejects other claims not specified within this judgement
8. Reserves the right of The Kingdom of Atlantira to seek further individual return through mutual agreements or UN overseen machinery.

(Signed)

Judge (Hypothetical) Mehak Chowdhary

(Hypothetical) International Court