- •In the international court of justice at the peace palace
- •Index of authorities
- •Index of authorities
- •Treaties and Conventions
- •United Nations Resolutions and Other Documents
- •International Cases and Arbitral Decisions
- •Treatises and Other Books
- •Miscellaneous
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Interim president Andlers ultimatum
- •Summary of pleadings
- •The court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government of the republic of Aprophe
- •Rantania is responsible is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of operation uniting for democracy
- •Pleadings
- •The court may exercise jurisdiction over claims of aprophe and rantania
- •2. Andler government is a rightful government of the republic of aprophe
- •Effective control doctrine
- •Estrada doctrine
- •Tobar doctrine
- •International practice of recognition of a coup government
- •Rantania is responsible is responsible for the illegal use of force against aprophe in the context of operation uniting for democracy
- •Rantanian military actions against aprophe is violation of international law
- •Rantanian actions are agression under international law
- •Rantanian courts lack jurisdiction in the case of turbando, et. Al., V. The republic of aprophe
- •The decision of the rantanian supreme court of december 12, 2009 violates the principle of sovereign immunity of states
- •The rantanian supreme court can not deny aprophe the right of sovereign immunity based on aprophe’s supposed violation of peremptory norms of international law
- •2. Rantanian courts have no legal basis to procede the case turbando, et. Al., V. The republic of aprophe
- •Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the mai-tocao temple did not violate international law Prayer for Relief
Pleadings
A. THE COURT MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE
The court may exercise jurisdiction over claims of aprophe and rantania
According to the point 1 article 34 of Statute of International Court of Justice1 only states may be parties in cases before the Court. In accordance with point 1 article 36 Statute of International Court of Justice the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. In concordance with article 47 of the Compromis both countries are members of the United Nations2. Therefore, the claims of Rantania and Aprophe should be consider by international court of Justice.
2. Andler government is a rightful government of the republic of aprophe
The Regime Andler and its representatives can represent Republic of Aprophe since it is legal and legitimate according to law doctrine. Doctrine of contemporary International Law contains different approaches to the issue of recognition of government.
Effective control doctrine
The effective control doctrine is accepted as the most reliable guide to recognition of governments3. The effective control doctrine4 says that the coup government which execute effective control jurisdiction all over or near all territory and population of the nation of the state is legal and rightful government. It was declared by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of United Kingdom in 1970 that the test employed was whether or not the new government enjoyed, “with a reasonable prospect of permanence, the obedience of the mass of the population . . . effective control of much of the greater part of the territory of the state concerned”5.
The Andler’s Government exercises the effective control over the state: 80% of population of the state and 90% of territory6, which is confirmed by the ICJ case (as a source of the international law7) Great Britain v. Costa Rica: “Coming now to the general issues applicable to both claims, Great Britain contends, first, that the Tinoco government was the only government of Costa Rica de facto and de jure for two years and nine months; that during that time there is no other government disputing its sovereignty, that it was in peaceful administration of the whole country, with the acquiescence of its people”8. On the contrary Green government escape from the state and his government does not have any control over the nation. Moreover, 14 nations recognized Andler’s government9.
Estrada doctrine
The automatic recognition of governments in all circumstances would have legal effects by opinion of Estrada, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations10. Estrada Doctrine says a government established during coup d’etat should be recognized11.
Tobar doctrine
Tobar doctrine suggested that governments which came into power by extra-constitutional means should not be recognized, at least until the change had been accepted by the people12. Although the Tobar Doctrine, embodied in Central American treaties in 1907 and 1923, nowadays it is not used by states because of its conceptual problem that legal orders themselves have extra-legal origins13.