Applicant:

 How does Antrano reconcile its assertion of standing with the principle of state sovereignty, particularly
considering Remisia's argument that its domestic matters, including citizenship laws, are beyond the purview of
international adjudication?
 Can Antrano demonstrate a direct and tangible interest in the outcome of the dispute that is sufficient to satisfy
the criteria for legal standing under Article 34 of the ICJ Statute?
 How does Antrano address potential accusations of intervening in Remisia's internal affairs, especially in light of
the principle of non-interference enshrined in international law?
 What precedent or legal doctrine does Antrano rely upon to argue that the deprivation of nationality, especially
leading to statelessness, is of legitimate international concern and not merely a domestic issue?
 How does Antrano argue that its actions are motivated by concerns over international human rights obligations,
rather than political or other interests?

On Deprivation of Nationality (Issue 2):

 How does Antrano argue that Remisia's deprivation of nationality to the Sterren Forty violates specific
international conventions and norms, especially in the absence of a clear prohibition against deprivation of
nationality in international law?
 What evidence can Antrano present to demonstrate that the Sterren Forty's deprivation of nationality was
arbitrary and lacked a legitimate legal basis under international standards?
 How does Antrano contend with the fact that Remisia had declared reservations to the Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness upon its ratification?
 In what way does Antrano argue that the right to nationality is jus cogens, and how does this impact Remisia's
discretion in nationality matters?
 How does Antrano address the balance between national security concerns and human rights obligations in the
context of deprivation of nationality?
 How does Antrano argue that Remisia's actions violate the fundamental human right to nationality as recognized
in international human rights instruments?
 What international legal precedents can Antrano cite to establish the right to nationality as a non-derogable right
under international human rights law?
 How does Antrano interpret the obligations of states under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness in
relation to Remisia's actions?
 Can Antrano demonstrate that the deprivation of nationality by Remisia constitutes an arbitrary act under
international human rights standards?
 In what ways does Antrano argue that statelessness resulting from Remisia's deprivation of nationality infringes
upon other human rights of the Sterren Forty?
 How does Antrano address the principle of non-discrimination in the context of nationality rights under
international human rights law?
 What arguments does Antrano present to show that children and vulnerable groups among the Sterren Forty are
disproportionately affected by the deprivation of nationality, in violation of international human rights
obligations?
 How does Antrano argue that the right to freedom of expression and assembly of the Sterren Forty has been
violated in the context of their deprivation of nationality?
 Can Antrano provide evidence or legal arguments to establish a direct link between the deprivation of nationality
and the violation of the right to an effective remedy under international human rights law?
 How does Antrano propose the international community, including international courts, should respond to
violations of the right to nationality to ensure compliance with international human rights obligations?
For the Respondent (Remisia):

On Standing (Issue 1):

1. Can Remisia provide examples or precedents where international courts have rejected claims similar to Antrano's
on the grounds of standing or non-interference?
2. How does Remisia address the broader implications of allowing states to challenge other states' citizenship
policies, particularly in terms of international order and sovereignty?

On Deprivation of Nationality (Issue 2):

1. On what legal grounds does Remisia justify the deprivation of nationality of the Sterren Forty, and how does it
align with its international obligations?
2. How does Remisia counter the argument that statelessness resulting from its actions constitutes a violation of
international law?
3. How does Remisia argue that its actions were a necessary and proportionate response to protect national
security and public order?

 What legal arguments does Remisia present to defend its reservation to the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness, particularly in the context of its actions against the Sterren Forty?
 How does Remisia reconcile its nationality laws and policies with the principle of non-discrimination as
enshrined in international human rights law?
 Can Remisia provide a legal rationale for the deprivation of nationality that aligns with the permissible grounds
for such actions under international law?
 How does Remisia address the implications of its actions on the human rights of the Sterren Forty, specifically
the right to an effective remedy?
 In what ways does Remisia argue that its national security concerns justify the deprivation of nationality, without
violating international human rights standards?
 How does Remisia counter arguments that the children and vulnerable individuals among the Sterren Forty are
entitled to special protection under international human rights law?
 What measures has Remisia taken to ensure that its actions do not result in statelessness, in accordance with its
international obligations?
 How does Remisia argue that its actions are consistent with the principles of proportionality and necessity in
international human rights law?
 Can Remisia propose alternative mechanisms to address its national security concerns without infringing upon
the right to nationality and other human rights?