- •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.
3. The Rantania has violated it’s obligations under The Peace Agreement of 1965
In fact Rantania did not perform its obligations under the Peace Agreement of 1965 and thereby has violated two interrelated fundamental general principles of international law, that is pacta sunt servanda principle and the principle of good faith. The former is the oldest principle of international law. It constitutes the basis of the law of treaties and means that a treaty is binding upon the parties. The latter is enshrined in the Article 2(2) of the United Nations Charter stating that “all Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.”68 Thereto, the duty of states “to fulfill in good faith their obligations resulting from international law generally, including treaties”69 is also elaborated in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.
The principle of good faith is “one of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source”70, because “trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation, in particular in an age when this co-operation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential.”71 Consequently, with reference to foregoing its possible to draw an inference that the exercising of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts constitutes intolerable transgression against the essence of Aprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts, and also presents the glaring violation of the 1965 Treaty.
IV. Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law
Whereas Rantania has committed an act of aggression and its military operations against Aprophe were in contrary to United Nations Charter, the destruction of a Mai-Tocao Temple was the invocation on the imperative military necessity in urgent circumstances when there was not other possible alternative. Furthermore Aprophe has taken all measures as far as possible to safeguard the Mai-Tocao complex. Therefore Aprophe’s destruction of the Mai-Tocao Temple should be justified in accordance with the provisions of international humanitarian law.
Rantania has violated its obligations under the un Charter
Being a member of the United Nations Organization Rantania is obliged to act in accordance with its Principles. Under the Charter Rantania has a duty to settle its international disputes by amicable means and “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”72 except for the right of self-defence. Instead of performing this duty Rantania has committed actions inconsistent with the UN Charter and whereby exposed “international peace and security”73 to danger. As it follows from the Compromise facts Rantanian actions were not the exercise of the right of self-defense, therefore Rantania had to get Security Council permission to use force against Aprophe, but also failed to perform this obligation. And being fully aware that its indignant and unlawful using of force can lead to great number of victims and destruction of civil objects Rantania preferred to use violence. Furthermore Rantanian using of armed forces has violated Aprophe’s territorial integrity and sovereignty by armed attack and bombardment which should be classified as an act of aggression under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Definition of Aggression 74. Therefore Rantanian air strikes were in gross violation of its obligations under the UN Charter and present a serious crime against international peace.