- •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.
Summary of pleadings
The Court possesses the jurisdiction over this case. Such authority is granted by the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the circumstances of this case which indicate the parties’ intentions to solve all claims in the Court. Moreover, despite Respondent’s allegations Adler government is legal and clothed with authority to represent Aprophe in the Court. Its lawfulness is based on the facts that Andler government is effective and enjoys with support of the population. Furthermore the changes in Aprophe’s government are fully in compliance with international law doctrine. What is more Green government may not be called Aprophe’s lawful government as far as he lost his authority as the head of the state.
All air strikes in the context of the Operation Uniting for Democracy are attributable to Rantania since it has neglected with its international obligations prevailing under its obligations as ENI member-state. Thus Rantania breachedbasic principles of international law which establish the peaceful cooperation among states and inadmissibility of any intrusion into its territory. By committing air strikes Respondent illegally used force and broke into Applicant’s territory. ThereforeRantaniafailed to follow the language of the Charter of the United Nations, breached international air law and infringed the Peace Agreement between parties.By accomplishing such actions Rantania perpetrated an intentionally wrongful act.
By administrating justiceRantanian courtsinfringedAprophe’s sovereignty and such conduct does not consist with the norms of international law. Therefore, the decision of the trial court of the Republic of Rantaniaconstitutes the breach of the basic principles of international law. Initially this decision has violated the sovereignty of Aprophe. FurthermoreAprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts was broken byRantania. Moreover fact that Rantanian courtsdispensed jurisdiction turns up to be the intolerable transgression of the obligations undertaken by Respondent accordingly to the Peace Agreement of 1965.
Aprophedid not perpetrate a violation of international law by detonating a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple. The destruction of building was obliged due to the imperative military necessity in urgent circumstances as far as there was no alternative to stop this Rantanian attack which constitutes an act of aggression and contravenesthe United Nations Charter.MoreoverAprophe has taken all possible measures to protect the Mai-Tocao complex. ThusAprophe’sactions should be justified in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law.
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.
The Court is empowered with jurisdiction in this case with the provisions of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and the fact that both parties submitted their claims to the Court. Furthermore, under all circumstances Andler government is legal since it is consistent with international law doctrine, is effective and possesses the representative character. On the contrary Green government is illegal since it has no authority and may not represent the interests of Aprophe.
A) All claims in this case are under the jurisdiction of the I.C.J.
Being a member of the United Nations Organization both Applicant and Respondent lie under an obligation to comply with its purposes and principles. All these purposes and principles resulted in the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. In that case conduct of both parties must be governed in coherence with these documents. Hence the question of whether the Court may exercise the jurisdiction over the claims of this case can be solved by resorting to the UN documents. Accordingly to the article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice the Court has jurisdiction over “any question of international law.”1 The stated questions - such as the recognition of government, illegal use of force, lawfulness of dispensation of justice by Rantanian courts and the breach of international obligations - are solvable within the frame of international law.
Moreover, we find it self-evident that the I.C.J. is empowered to take cognizance of the claims in this case due to the fact that both parties agreed to submit these abovementioned claims to the Court together. This indicates that both parties want this dispute to be resolved by the Court. Therefore, the rightfulness of Andler government has no influence on the Court’s jurisdiction. And all claims in this case are under the Court’s jurisdiction.
B) The Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe.