- •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.
4) Rantania’s actions are inconsistent with the Peace Agreement.
Among the obligations of the UN member both parties lie under an obligation to perform their duty in accordance with the Peace Agreement between Rantania and Aprophe. The primary provision of this treaty clearly states that all hostilities between the parties ended when this agreement entered into the legal force.46 As it was mentioned above Rantania's actions amount to an unlawful use of force against Aprophe. Therefore, the air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy constitute a flagrant breach of an obligation to maintain peace between Rantania and Aprophe. Furthermore, such illegal use of force contravenes of the principle of good faith which governs the performance of legal obligations.47 There is no evidence that abovementioned Agreement was disputed before the conflict hence it should be honored by the parties at the start of Operation Uniting for Democracy. For this reason Rantanian attacks violate not only principles of international law but also the treaty obligations under the Peace Agreemnt of 1965.
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 trial court of the Republic of Rantania should be considered as the violation of the rules of international law. Firstly Rantania has violated the Aprophe’s sovereignty. Secondly Rantania committed an infringement of Aprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. Moreover the exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian courts present the intolerable transgression of the obligations assumed by Respondent in accordance with the Peace Agreement of 1965.
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
The Republic of Aprophe considers the exercise of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court to be contrary to the rules of international law. According to the 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice the Court shall apply “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.”48 These general principles are contained in the United Nations Charter. The article 2 of this Charter prescribes that “The Organization and its Members shall act in accordance with these Principles”49 and establishes the principle of the non-interference of states in the internal affairs of each other and the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Aprophe and Rantania are the members of the United Nations and therefore are obliged to abide by these principles.
Under the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 1970, containing the official interpretation of the basic principles of modern international law, one of the sovereign equality principle elements is that “States are judicially equal.”50 Therefore the concept of sovereignty is closely linked to that of equality of States.