- •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.
135A
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE PEACE PALACE
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
THE 2012 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION
THE CASE CONCERNING
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STATES CONCERNING THE MAI-TOCAO TEMPLE
THE STATE OF APROPHE
(APPLICANT)
v.
THE STATE OF RANTANIA
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Treaties and conventions
Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945.
Convention for the protection cultural property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954
Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the field, 1949.
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,1949, art.1;
Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949.
Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.1949.
Hague Convention (IV) of 1907 and its annex. 18 October 1907, entered into force on 26 Jan. 1910.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977.
Protocol (II) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts,1977.
Statute of the International court of Justice, 26 June 1945.
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, entered into force on 24 April 1964.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, UN Doc. A/Conf. 39/27.
Judicial decisions
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Congo v. Rwanda) I.C.J., 2006.
Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), 2010, I.C.J.
Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Preliminary objections.
Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), I.C.J., Memorial of The Federal Republic of Germany, 12 June 2009.
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium), 2002, I.C.J.
European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 21 November 2001, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom.
European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v. France, and App. No. 78166/01 Ruzhdi Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway decision of 2 May 2007.
European Court of Human Rights, Decision on Admissibility of Dec. 12, 2002, Kalogeropoulou v. Greece & Germany.
Ferrini v. Germany case, Judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation, 11 March 2004.
Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2006] UKHL 26.
Nicaragua v. U.S., [1986] I.C.J. Rep.14.
Nuclear test cases (New Zealand v. France), I.C.J., 20 December 1974.
Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany, Areopag, Judgment of 4 May 2000.
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, ICTY, Trial Judgment, IT-01-42-T, para.227, 31 January 2005
Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada, 12 September 2002.
Tinoco Arbitration, Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) 18 October 1923.
Request for Advisory Opinion, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of independence of Kosovo, 22 July 2012, I.C.J.
BOOKS
Anton, Donald K., Mathew, Penelope, International Law cases and materials (New-York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Commentary to the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 ICRC.
D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 6th ed., 2004.
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 5th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2003).
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed. (New-York: Cambridge university press, 2008).