Kingdom of Atlantira v. Republic of Novaris – Hypothetical Judgment by Sobia Neelofar (IJWC 2025)

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Kingdom of Altantira instituted proceedings against the Republic of Novaris by Application dated 14 January 2025, invoking Article 36(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
Both Parties have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36(2). The dispute concerns alleged violations of international obligations under the UN Charter, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and customary international law principles regarding sovereignty, human rights, and cyberspace.
The Court therefore holds that it is competent to adjudicate the present case and that the Application is admissible.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

In 2024, the Republic of Novaris launched a digital intelligence initiative known as Project Sentinel, ostensibly to counter cyberterrorism and prevent transnational crime.
The Kingdom of Altantira alleged that Novaris used this program to conduct mass digital surveillance targeting Altantiran citizens, journalists, and government officials. The surveillance involved unauthorized interception of private communications, accessing encrypted data, and monitoring online platforms.
Altantira maintained that these operations were conducted extraterritorially, without its consent, and that they infringed upon its sovereignty and the human rights of its nationals.
The Republic of Novaris acknowledged the existence of the program but contended that it acted in the interest of international peace and security, invoking its right to self-defense and due diligence obligations under the UN Charter.

III. ISSUES RAISED

The Court identified the following legal issues for determination:
Whether the cyber surveillance operations of the Republic of Novaris constituted a violation of the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Altantira.
Whether such surveillance amounted to a breach of the right to privacy and freedom of expression under Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR.
Whether extraterritorial surveillance in cyberspace can be justified under the principles of self-defense or due diligence in international law.

IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Applicant (Kingdom of Altantira)

Violation of Sovereignty: Unauthorized cyber intrusion breached Altantira’s digital infrastructure and governmental independence, violating the principle of non-intervention.
Breach of Human Rights: The interception of communications violated Article 17 (Right to Privacy) and Article 19 (Freedom of Expression) of the ICCPR.
No Justification under Self-defense: The surveillance did not meet the threshold of an “armed attack” under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Respondent (Republic of Novaris)

Legitimate Security Action: The operations were preventive measures to safeguard international peace.
No Territorial Violation: Cyberspace lacks defined borders; hence no traditional sovereignty breach occurred.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Valid: Cyber operations are justified under evolving principles of state responsibility and due diligence.

V. DECISION OF THE COURT

After examining the written submissions, oral arguments, and relevant authorities, the Court rendered the following judgment:

(a) On Sovereignty

The Court reaffirms that sovereignty extends to cyberspace within a State’s territory. Unauthorized access or interference by another State constitutes a violation of the principle of non-intervention, as recognized in Corfu Channel (1949) and Nicaragua v. United States (1986).
The acts of surveillance carried out by Novaris, directed at Altantiran communications systems, are therefore a breach of Altantira’s sovereign rights.

(b) On Human Rights Obligations

The Court holds that digital surveillance of individuals abroad, when exercised through effective control over their data, triggers a State’s obligations under the ICCPR.
The Court finds that Novaris’s actions violated Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR, as the surveillance constituted arbitrary interference with privacy and an infringement on the freedom of expression of Altantiran citizens.

(c) On Self-Defense and Due Diligence

The Court rejects Novaris’s invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, ruling that cyber surveillance does not amount to an “armed attack.”
Preventive or anticipatory surveillance cannot justify infringement of sovereignty or human rights.
However, the Court recognizes the growing need for cooperative mechanisms and encourages States to engage in the development of international cyber norms through the UN Open-Ended Working Group on ICTs.

VI. HOLDING AND RELIEF GRANTED

The Court, by fourteen votes to one, hereby:

Finds that the Republic of Novaris violated the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Altantira.
Declares that Novaris’s digital surveillance activities breached Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR.

Orders the Republic of Novaris to:

Immediately cease all surveillance operations directed at Altantira;
Destroy or delete all data obtained through unlawful means;
Provide public assurances and guarantees of non-repetition;
Pay a symbolic compensation of USD 5 million for moral and reputational harm.

Encourages both States to pursue bilateral cooperation for cybersecurity governance and mutual legal assistance in combating cyber threats.

VII. SEPARATE OPINION

Judge Valeria Toma dissented in part, agreeing on the human rights violations but observing that the concept of sovereignty in cyberspace is still evolving and should not be rigidly equated with territorial sovereignty in the physical domain.

VIII. CONCLUSION
This judgment establishes that international law applies fully in cyberspace, reaffirming that States must respect both digital sovereignty and human rights when conducting cyber operations.
The decision reinforces the principle that technological advancement cannot override the core obligations of international law, ensuring accountability and the protection of individual dignity in the digital age.