International law on terrorism jurisdiction

The case #1 in this scenario portrays how most governments in turmoil violate human rights through the involvement of children in war, use of force without self-will to join such factions and more so abuses such as rape, extra judicial killings and neglect to offer basic amenities to the public like health and food. Since state Y is a member of the United Nations and party to ICCPR, AI may prosecute the government of state Y on behalf of the children suffering human rights abuses. This will work ensure that the involved parties are held accountable and thus an interim body can be installed to correct the situation.
Ai should link with authorities in state Y to identify similar bodies within the state that are task d with safeguarding human rights, in the event they can garner forces to convince the government to take necessary actions. It may well be understood that the government may give in to the demands of masses and ease the situation. Ai may opt to raise funds from the international community to resettle the children in another region as refugees and offer them education after which they may operate until the situation calms. Setting a refugee camp outside state Y will offer a safe haven to the oppressed. Ai should take measures to air the grievances of the situation to the United Nations and act as an intermediary to the government and the human rights council. It could however take a self-role of prosecuting the parties behind the civil war to ensure they are convicted. Moreover Ai could offer advocates in ICJ to back up the prosecution of the parties behind civil war.
The scenario in case #2 is a show of significance of the security of a citizen as much as it’s the responsibility of a government. This case reveals a conflict of interest that may arise due to war but the solutions rather work negatively towards the issue being addressed. The consequences of the wall are public dissatisfaction due to shortcomings like lack of access to work. It’s legally unjustifiable given state bravo undertakes this in an area outside their jurisdiction. Since state I may not hold accountability for terrorists attacking state bravo, it might accuse state bravo in a court of international law for lack of respect to boundaries and infringing its sovereignty. Therefore given state bravo is always threatened; It’s really a matter of concern for state bravo to take such actions outside their state. State bravo are justified in constructing a wall inside the occupied territories if they can fully convince the ICJ that it’s the only available solution to avoid numerous terrorist attacks.  State bravo takes the responsibility to represent the said true owners of occupied states, however since the legality to help them get back to their land is in question then state Bravo should leave the decision on resettlement to the UN general assembly where the occupied territories should be a member. The sovereignty of state bravo however cannot be compromised since it has the responsibility to protect its citizens within the bounds of international law. The ICJ may consider the constructed wall a permanent solution towards the security of state Bravo given that protection given by human rights conventions will last. The validity of this action would be viable given state bravo reconsiders their wall infrastructure  not to cut normal citizens of state I from access to work, social and religious services and cultural amenities