Kingdom of Veridonia v. The Republic of Orduna – Hypothetical Judgment by Momota Rakshit (IJWC 2025)

Case Law: Kingdom of Veridonoa v. The Republic of Orduna 

Case Number: ICJ/2025/HYP/09.

Judgment Date: 15 November 2025 

The Presiding Judge (Hypothetical): Momota Rakshit 

The International Judgement Writing Competition 2025.

Introduction:

Regarding the use of environmental modification technology for military purposes and the capture of Veridonian citizens by Orduna, the Republic of Orduna and the Kingdom of Veridonia hold divergent opinions. This disagreement is the subject of the current litigation. The Kingdom of Veridonia asserts that Orduna violates international law by carrying out military operations that make use of technology that modifies the environment, which results in significant damage to the ecosystem. Since 1977, these methods have been prohibited by the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), which established their prohibition. In addition, they violate significant regulations that are governed by international law and world law. Veridonia goes on to assert that the unlawful incarceration of Orduna’s citizens constitutes a violation of international human rights legislation as well. In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), this pertains directly to the right to freedom from arbitrary detention.

According to the Republic of Ordin, the actions that result in the modification of the environment are based on military strategy, and the means that were utilized were carried out in accordance with international law, specifically the standards of necessity and proportionality. Additionally, Orduna stated that it was within the law to imprison Veridonian nationals, that the reason for this detention was due to worries regarding national security, and that this was a part of the government’s efforts to combat terrorism.

As per Article 36(2), the jurisdiction of the Court shall be established, provided that both parties consent. The issues raised concern the ICCPR and ENMOD and customary international law principles on the protection of human rights and the environment.

Procedural History:

On 12 August 2025, the Kingdom of Veridonia filed an application to the International Court of Justice against Orduna for the use of environmental modification techniques and detention of nationals of Veridonia. Both sides submitted memorials on the application, which were followed by oral hearings held on 10 October 2025. Veridonia seeks reparation for environmental damage caused by the military acts of Orduna and for the illegal detention of its nationals. Orduna disputes the claims, arguing that the environmental modifications were lawful and that the detentions were due to national security. The Court now delivers its judgment.

Statement of Facts:

1. Environmental Modification Techniques:

The Kingdom of Veridonia claims that Orduna has employed weather modification operations and other military operations to create drought and dry up water. The above has led to an exceedingly dry spell in the southern belt of Veridonia and loss of crops, movement of population, and severe damage to the environment. Veridonia alleges that these acts breach the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), which disallows the use of techniques in altering the environment that would be generally harmful with environmental repercussions in armed conflict.

2. Detention of Veridonia Nationals:

Besides the environmental issues, Veridonia has also stated that Orduna has unlawfully detained multiple nationals of Veridonia. It further states that these Veridonia nationals were accused of espionage and terrorist-related acts. People may have been detained cheap legal studies for long periods without a trial or a lawyer. The detention of the Filomeno family and Rep. Danilo A. Cua, and the interference with the event, the Cultural Show, violate the right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by Article 9 of the ICCPR. Veridonia calls for the immediate release of the detainees.

3. Orduna’s Defense:

Orduna says it used environmental modification techniques in line with international law and as a legitimate military effort to destroy opposition forces under its jurisdiction. The operations undertaken by Orduna were within a legal framework characterized by military necessity and proportionality, as required by international humanitarian law (IHL), specifically the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. With regard to the detention of Veridonia nationals, Orduna states that the detentions were made for national security reasons and that the detentions were carried out strictly in accordance with its domestic legal system and national security laws. The arbitrariness of detention of the detainees did not violate their international human rights law, adds the point.

Issues for Determination:

1. Whether Orduna’s use of environmental modification techniques constitutes a violation of international law, including the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), 1977.
2. Whether the prolonged detention of Veridonia nationals by Orduna violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
3. Whether Veridonia is entitled to reparations for the environmental damage caused by Orduna’s actions and compensation for the wrongful detention of its nationals.

Summary of Arguments:

For the Applicant (Kingdom of Veridonia).

The activities of Orduna that are engaged using techniques of environmental modification are in contravention of the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), 1977, and also violate customary international law.  What have been the most damaging activities on the environment, which caused droughts affecting agricultural land, besides also displacing civilians?

It breaks Article 9 of the ICCPR to hold a national of Veridonia. The detainees were locked up for extended periods of time without being charged with a crime or getting a lawyer, both of which go against the law.

Veridonia wants the damage Orduna caused to the environment fixed and asks for compensation for the detention of its nationals.

For the Respondent (Republic of Orduna).

1. Orduna argues that it employed environmental modification techniques as a lawful military operation to defeat insurgent forces active in the area. The operations, according to Orduna, were carried out with military necessity and in line with the principles of proportionality and distinction under international humanitarian law.
2. Orduna, a legal case, states that the detention of Veridonia nationals was a legitimate act that was carried out in pursuit of national security laws. Further, the persons detained were involved in terrorism. The detentions were not arbitrary, and they comply with due process requirements.
3. Orduna denies the damages claim because the environmental effects were incidental and not the result of any unlawful act, and the detentions were lawful under national law.

Legal Analysis & Judicial Reasoning:

Environmental modification and the ENMOD

The ENMOD Convention was established in 1977 and forbids the use of techniques of environmental modification for hostile purposes in situations where such modification techniques can result in widespread destruction of the natural environment. According to the preamble and Article I of ENMOD, environmental modification techniques should not be used in a way that harms the natural environment to the extent that there will be lasting damage to life, property, and the environment, states the Court. The Court makes use of these provisions. A recent study published in a scientific journal shows that environmental modification techniques can lead to irreversible damage, which can occur in natural or war-like situations. The effects of environmental manipulation for military purposes are highly controversial, not only because obvious lethalness to military personnel but also because of the hazards it may pose to the civilian population and the environment.

The court mentioned the verdict in the Corfu Channel case (1949). According to it, attacks that damage the environment are severable from international armed conflict. Hence, these will be subjected to judicial scrutiny and oversight. As has been stated by the ICJ, the use of force, indirect or otherwise, which affects the environment, is against international law.

Using weather manipulation techniques that induce droughts violates ENMOD, as Orduna committed in this case. Veridonia’s negative impacts from military gains here are hard to justify. The destruction of farms and the displacement of the populace are also included. In addition, the environmental impacts are not targeted and are not temporary; these violations are violations of the values enshrined in ENMOD. The United Nations Environment Programme (2023) study on Environmental Security shows the increasing concerns over the environmental impact of military technology. The Court also takes into account the humanitarian effects of such activities, as stated in the report.

Issue 2: Veridonia Citizens Detention and ICCPR

The ICCPR is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is a very important document that protects the liberty and security of individuals. Article 9 of ICCPR – This article prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention and entitles everyone to the right to be informed of the reasons for the arrest.

The Court looks at A v. Australia (2000) in which the Human Rights Committee of the UN held that detention without trial is contrary to ICCPR. Just like in the case of Van Alphen v. The Netherlands (1990), where the Human Rights Committee ruled that the prolonged detention of a person without trial and legal counsel violates his right to liberty and security of the person. In addition, the Court also considers the references to the Amnesty International Report (2025) that extended arbitrary detention and lack of remedy in its conflict-oriented discussions.

The ICCPR’s Article 9 has been violated when Orduna detained Veridonia nationals without trial or legal assistance. Even with the national security arguments of Orduna, the detainees have not been charged with anything and have not been provided any legal remedy. Hence, the basic provision of due process under international law is being violated.

Issue 3: Reparations:

International law today has recognised reparation as a common principle. It is especially relevant when a state commits a wrongful act against another state. The ICJ ruling on the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (1997) states that the compensation of damage should be compensation and a guarantee against repetition.  The reparation principle aims to compensate the victim of the illegal act.

Unlike that, the Court finds Veridonia entitled to compensation for Orduna’s damage to the environment as well as the wrongful detention of its nationals. The money should help the farmers rebuild their farms. It must also help the displaced citizens. It should also be punished by death.  Orduna was ordered to provide compensation and take action to prevent this from happening once more.

Findings & Conclusions:

1. The Court finds that Orduna’s use of environmental modification techniques constitutes a violation of the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) and customary international law.
2. The Court determines that the prolonged detention of Veridonia nationals by Orduna violates Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
3. The Court concludes that Veridonia is entitled to reparations for the environmental damage and compensation for the wrongful detention of its nationals.

Discard, or inoperative, component:

1) The verdict of the court said that Orduna had violated the ENMOD Convention by utilizing weather manipulation techniques in the southern region of Veridonia. After that, the court instructed Orduna to give Veridonia with full recompense for the damage that it had caused to the community’s environment. 
2) In addition, the fact that Orduna is holding Veridonian nationals for an extended period of time is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For the past three days, Orduna has been obligated to release the captives. 
3) It is ordered that Orduna give compensation to Veridonia for the illegal detention of its citizens, and that procedures be put into place to guarantee that future compliance with international human rights legislation is maintained. Veridonia is entitled to receive compensation for the situation. 
4) The court decides to compensate Veridonia for the environmental damage that was brought about by the actions of Orduna during the legal proceeding. It takes into account the compensation for the economic harm that was incurred as a result of the agricultural land, which resulted in the relocation of the people and the loss of life.

Signed
Judge (Hypothetical) Momota Rakshit 

(Hypothetical) International Court

References:

• Corfu Channel (1949) ICJ Rep 4; UN Human Rights Committee, A v Australia (2000) UN Doc CCPR/C/69/D/560/1993
• Journal of International Environmental Law, ‘The Legality of Environmental Weapons under International Law’ (2023).
• Van Alphen v The Netherlands UN Doc CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988.
• Convention on the Prohibition of Military and Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Article 9
• The Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (1997) ICJ Rep 7 International Court of Justice
• The Legality of the Use of Force International Court of Justice (2019)
• The UN Environment Programme has drafted a report on Environmental Security (2023).