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 ICJ

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 ICJ 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.

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 honest 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 recognition⁴.

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 community⁸.

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 honest conviction the Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe.