Part 1: State A enters into a bilateral agreement with State B in 2012, which provides for the joint exploration and exploitation of resources on both sides of the border separating these two States. In 2016, State A explores unprecedented and unforeseen oil and gas deposits on the border zone common to both States; its government decides that it should retain for the survival of its population the profits from the exploitation of the gas and oil, and to this aim it constructs a wall which draws a new border line different from the 2012 border. With this new wall, State A extends its territory beyond the 2012 borders and occupies new territory including several small towns and villages which used to belong to State B. With the newly constructed wall, people who are now under the control of State A cannot have access to their relatives and friends living on the other side of the border. It is not only that the wall limits access to health services, schools, and an adequate standard of living, but State A also transfers large numbers of its citizens to this newly acquired territory changing the ethnic character of the community there. In response, State B, without any warning, freezes all the assets of the nationals of State A within its territory; it also forcibly invades and occupies a small town belonging to State A.

1. Does State A have a right to stop sharing the profits of the joint venture agreement of 2012? Discuss in relation to the responsibility of States in International Law.
2. Does State A violate International Humanitarian Law?
3. Does State B have the right to freeze the assets and to occupy the town of State A?

Part 2:
Can there be a use of force which does not harm the territorial integrity or political independence of a State? Make your evaluation considering the use of force to rescue nationals, to promote democracy, and to further self-determination, and explain whether or not such cases can be compatible with Article 2(4).