- •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.
II. Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy.
Rantania is guilty of willful neglecting its international obligations by violating the norms and principles of international law establishing the peaceful cooperation among states and inadmissibility of any intrusion into its territory. Thus Respondent committed an intentionally wrongful act. Respondent acted not in compliance with the language of the Charter of the United Nations, illegally used force towards Aprophe, violated international law in vertical space by invading on Aprophe’s territory and infringed the Peace Agreement between Rantania and Aprophe.
1) Membership in the eni does not absolve Rantania from its international obligations.
On the one hand, being a member of the ENI organization Rantania clearly has some certain obligations, but on the other hand both Applicant and Respondent are the members of the United Nations Organization. And the possibility of conflict between obligations of the ENI Member State and UN Member State are regulated with the article 83 of The Treaty Establishing the Eastern Nations International Organization which states that “the obligations contained in the UN Charter shall prevail under the ENI Member State obligations.”27 In addition the Court has already took a stand on this matter which states that “...the Charter obligations prevail over conflicting obligations from another international treaty...”28 This provision logically follows from the principle that every state has an obligation “to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”29 This means that membership in the ENI does not excuse Rantania from commission of actions inconsistent with UN Charter.
Furthermore, Applicant is strongly convinced that Respondent's actions constitute an internationally wrongful act which entails the international responsibility30. Responsibility incurs when internationally wrongful act “is attributable to the State under international law.”31 The facts of this case make it obvious that perpetrating this air strikes is attributable to Respondent as far as, firstly, the “Activation orders” were proposed by Rantania, secondly, the operation was headed by Rantanian national, then the operation itself was executed by the Rantanian Air Force and finally the Operation Uniting for Democracy was suspended only after the order of Rantanian president. This sequence clearly indicates that Rantania from the very beginning was intended to illegally use force against Aprophe. In addition responsibility of state arises when there is a breach of international obligation by this state32 which “may be established by a customary rule of international law, by a treaty or by a general principle.”33
Moreover it is logically to suggest that if Rantania was so concerned about the conflict broke out in Aprophe it was granted with authority to “bring any dispute ... to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly,”34 but instead Respondent preferred to use violence. Therefore Respondent was not authorized to use force in regard to Applicant except for the cases mentioned in the article 51 of the UN Charter. But in the light of all the events mentioned in the Compromis Respondent’s actions may not be classified as self-defense. In all other cases only the Security Council is authorized to permit the use of force by UN Member States.