TEAM 413 A

THE 2012 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

In the international court of justice at the peace palace

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

CASE CONCERNING THE MAI-TOCAO TEMPLE

THE STATE OF APROPHE,

Applicant

v.

THE STATE OF RANTANIA,

Respondent

MEMORIAL FOR APPLICANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of authorities

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

STATEMENT OF FACTS

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

PLEADINGS…………………………………………………………………………………...

1. THE COURT MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE………………………………………………………..

1. THE COURT MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS OF APROPHE AND RANTANIA………………………………………………………………………………………………………...

2. ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS A RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

B. RANTANIA IS RESPONSIBLE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE AGAINST APROPHE IN THE CONTEXT OF OPERATION UNITING FOR DEMOCRACY………………………………………………………………………………...

1. RANTANIAN MILITARY ACTIONS AGAINST APROPHE IS VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. RANTANIAN ACTIONS ARE AGRESSION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW……………….............

C. SINCE THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY RANTANIAN COURTS IN THE CASE OF TURBANDO, ET. AL., V. THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, RANTANIA MAY NOT PERMIT TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE……………………………………………………………….

1. RANTANIAN COURTS LACK JURISDICTION IN THE CASE OF TURBANDO, ET. AL., V. THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE…………………………………………………………………………………………

   1. THE DECISION OF THE RANTANIAN SUPREME COURT OF DECEMBER 12, 2009 VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF STATES…………………………………………………..

   2. 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…………………………………………………………………………………...

a) QUESTIONABLE STATUS OF FORCED LABOR AS A PEREMPTORY NORMS………………………

b) APPLICANT DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS…………………………..

c) RANTANIAN COURTS CAN NOT ORGANIZE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE STATE OF APROPHE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

D. APROPHE’S DESTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OF THE MAI-TOCAO TEMPLE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW……………………………………………

Index of authorities

1. Treaties and Conventions

Charter of the United Nations (1945) 993 UNTS 110……………………………………...

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) (<http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext>)………………………………………………

ILO Convention No. 30 on the Hours of Work (<http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/convde.pl?C030>)………………………………………………………………………

ILO Convention No. 1, on the Hours of Work (Industry) (1919)………………………......

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 999 UNTS 171………………

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, entered into force Jan. 3, 1976………………………………………………………………………

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) 1155 UNTS 331………………………

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), Treaty Series, vo1. 596, p. 261……….

UN Convention on Jurisdiction Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) UN Doc A/Res/59/38…………………………………………………………………………………

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the

Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (1977), 1125 UNTS 609…………………………………………………………………………………………..

Statute of the International Court of Justice [1945] I UNTS 993 ………………………….