- •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
Interim president Andlers ultimatum
On February 27, 2011 interim president Andler and the government moved from the defenceless capital Marcelux to the Mai-Tocao site seeking protection from the airstrikes among the walls of the ancient temple. The next day Major-General Brewscha, commander of ENI operation against Aprophe, ordered a mobilization of the ENI ground forces on the Aprophe-Rantanian border. Left with no other means to protect her country facing the ENI invasion interim president Andler made an announcement in which she condemned the attacks on Aprophe and stated that the continuation of aggression against Aprophe will lead to destruction of buildings of the Mai-Tocao complex. Nevertheless the aerial bombing of military installations in near Marcelux continued and on March 3, 2011 Andler ordered a controlled detonation of explosives in one of the buildings of Mai-Tocao complex.
Submission before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
On May 12, 2011 Aprophe filed an application with the Registry of the International Court of Justice, instituting proceedings against Rantania. However, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court over the matter Rantania agreed to engage Aprophe before the International Court of Justice. Both parties submitted to the ICJ’s ad hoc jurisdiction to adjudicate this conflict – Aprophe as Applicant, and Rantania as Respondent.
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
According to the effective control doctrine and Estrada Doctrine Andler government should be recognized as rightful representative of Aprophe because Andler government exercises effective control over the state: 80% of population of the state and 90% of territory. Examples of international practice (recognition of Libyan Transitional Government and example about Costa Rica) confirm position of the Applicant.
Therefore, according to the point 1 article 34 of Statute of International Court of Justice the claims of Aprophe and Rantania are under jurisdiction of ICJ.
Rantania is responsible is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of operation uniting for democracy
Rantania committed act of military intervention to the sovereign territory of Aprophe during the Operation Uniting for Democracy. Rantanian military actions against Aprophe is considered as an act of aggression and violation of international law according to the articles 39, 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and article 1 of General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX).
Since Rantania is attributable to the Operation Uniting for Democracy and the operation, which is in consistent under international law, Respondent must be a subject of responsibility for the Operation Uniting for Democracy.
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