- •Treaties and conventions
- •Judicial decisions
- •Essays, articles and journals
- •U.N. Documents
- •Miscellaneous
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings and authorities
- •I. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government of the Aprophe.
- •1) Andler government is legal as consistent with international law doctrine
- •2) Andler government is effective
- •3) Andler government has the full right to represent Aprophe in the I.C.J.
- •2) Green’s government in Rantania has no authority
- •I. Green’s government does not meet the criteria of legal government
- •II. The recognition of Green government does not imply its legality
- •II. Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy.
- •1) Membership in the eni does not absolve Rantania from its international obligations.
- •2) Security Council never allowed Rantania to use force against Aprophe.
- •I. There was no resolution permitting the use of force from the Security Council
- •II. General Assembly resolution does not empower Rantania to use force
- •1) Rantania acted in contempt of customary international law and the un Charter
- •2) Respondent’s incursion stands equal to an unlawful use of force.
- •3) Rantanian strikes violated Aprophian sovereignty
- •4) Rantania’s actions are inconsistent with the Peace Agreement.
- •The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court presents the violation of Aprophe’s sovereignty and is in contradiction with the rules of international law
- •The decision of the Rantanian court constitutes the violation of Aprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts
- •I. The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court violates the general principle of the sovereign equality
- •II. Aprophe had never voluntary accept the jurisdiction of Rantanian courts and the Eastern Nations Court
- •III. Rantania has jurisdiction entirely only within its own territory
- •The argument of the Rantanian court that immunity does not extend to violations of peremptory norms of international law is groundless
- •There is no universal recognition of the specific procedural effect of jus cogens norms
- •The judicial practice grants state immunity in the disputes related to the norms of jus cogens character
- •3. The Rantania has violated it’s obligations under The Peace Agreement of 1965
- •IV. Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law
- •Rantania has violated its obligations under the un Charter
- •Aprophe’s destruction of a small building of the Mai-Tocao Temple was in compliance with the international humanitarian law
- •The imperative military necessity applies when there is no other admissible alternative available
- •II. The doctrine of imperative military necessity is attributable to destruction of the Mai-Tocao Temple
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
- •17 Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, ga Res 396 (V) 1950.
- •61 European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 21 November 2001, Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom.
- •64 Jones V. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2006] ukhl 26.
- •74 Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974.
2) Respondent’s incursion stands equal to an unlawful use of force.
Rantania is imposed the breach of Aprophe’s territorial integrity with air strikes, which constitutes an act of aggression. Thus Rantanian air attacks meet the international definition of aggression. And air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy should be classified as bombardment by the armed forces of a Rantania against the territory of Aprophe which like the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State is interpreted as an aggression accordingly the Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution.41
These air strikes may not be justified with Rantanian non-recognition of the Andler government rightfulness. In particular the Tinoco arbitration stated that non-recognition of any State government “does not provide an excuse for a use of force against that State.”42 Therefore, Rantania is the aggressor State in this situation. Furthermore, air attacks amount to an unlawful use of force since the only legitimate excuse for the use of force (except the one authorized by the Security Council) is self-defense. But it is obvious that Respondent cannot justify its incursion with the right of self-defense whereas under the article 51 of the UN Charter an armed attack is the sine qua non for the exercise the right of self-defense. And Aprophe never committed acts which may be classified as the use of force against Rantania. Thus there is every indication that Rantanian air attacks unlawful.
3) Rantanian strikes violated Aprophian sovereignty
It is a stated fact that Rantanian air forces under the command of Rantanian national Otaz Brewscha inflicted strikes on the territory of Aprophe. And these strikes resulted not only in the destruction of military objects, but also in human casualties and non-military buildings damages.43 These attacks took place in Aprophe without latter permission, and it follows the violation of generally recognized principles of international law. It should me mentioned that basic norms of international law strictly guard such complex concept as sovereignty.
Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention states that “every state possesses sovereignty….and territorial integrity.”44 Nevertheless Rantania found it possible to carry out air strikes on Aprophe’s territory which means that Respondent failed to honor the mentioned provision. In addition, this air attacks were the result of Respondent’s condemnation of Applicant’s internal and external policy and its political system.
The Court has already taken a common stand in deciding questions concerning the violation of territorial sovereignty. For instance, in Nicaragua v. United States of America case, USA was condemned for the breach of sovereignty “for directing or authorizing over flights of Nicaraguan territory.”45 And following the logic applied in this case even direction of Air Forces on Aprophian territory should result in Rantania’s conviction. Therefore air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy constitute a gross violation of Aprophe’s sovereignty.