- •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.
1) Andler government is legal as consistent with international law doctrine
Despite of Respondent’s allegations Applicant is strongly convinced that Andler government conforms all the necessary requirements to be legitimate for the next reason. Since article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states that while deciding case court may apply number of different sources and among other “…teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations…”2 we find it possible to refer to this argument. In particular Estrada doctrine holds that foreign governments should abstain from judgment of the changes in governments of other nations if such action would indicate a breach of sovereignty. Furthermore, this doctrine is in compliance with the principles of international law and declarative theory of statehood. Declarative theory “is adopted by most modern writers and supported by arbitral practice.”3 Hence, the Estrada doctrine seems applicable and the most suitable in regard to Andler government. Under our earnest conviction Estrada doctrine is the best to apply in this situation of all others. This statement is contingent on the fact that Estrada doctrine is one of the latest in international law, which means that it gives the best expression to the modern situation in the international society. Today growing number of states, such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Australia, leaves behind the practice of formal recognition.4
Moreover, the fact that 14 states recognized Andler government indicates that unsubstantiated Rantanian’s proclamations concerning illegality of mentioned government do not prevent it from taking participation in the external relations. It follows from the Tinoco Arbitration that “recognition by other Powers is an important evidential factor in establishing proof of the existence of a government in the society of nations.”5 And non-recognition of Andler's legal government by Rantania and other ENI members for reasons valid under their internal policy may not be an obstruction for its representation of Aprophe's interests in UN organs6. With regard to abovementioned Rantanian allegations it is important to note the lack of rules in international law which determine that only democratically elected governments7 constitute a legitimate government of the state. Thus several numbers of governments which were formed without elections were recognized by the international community.8
To sum up, legitimacy of Andler government is strongly supported by the court’s practice and international law doctrine. The recognition of its rightfulness does not create any controversy to the external policy of a large number of modern states and the established case law. And furthermore the fact of recognition “is usually of little relevance to the question as to whether an entity is or is not a government.”9 Thereby with reference to Applicant’s earnest conviction the Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe.