Pleadings

A. 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

According to the point 1 article 34 of Statute of International Court of Justice¹ only states may be parties in cases before the Court. In accordance with point 1 article 36 Statute of International Court of Justice the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. In concordance with article 47 of the Compromis both countries are members of the United Nations². Therefore, the claims of Rantania and Aprophe should be consider by international court of Justice.

2. Andler government is a rightful government of the republic of aprophe

The Regime Andler and its representatives can represent Republic of Aprophe since it is legal and legitimate according to law doctrine. Doctrine of contemporary International Law contains different approaches to the issue of recognition of government.

Effective control doctrine

The effective control doctrine is accepted as the most reliable guide to recognition of governments³. The effective control doctrine⁴ says that the coup government which execute effective control jurisdiction all over or near all territory and population of the nation of the state is legal and rightful government. It was declared by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of United Kingdom in 1970 that the test employed was whether or not the new government enjoyed, “with a reasonable prospect of permanence, the obedience of the mass of the population . . . effective control of much of the greater part of the territory of the state concerned”⁵.

The Andler’s Government exercises the effective control over the state: 80% of population of the state and 90% of territory⁶, which is confirmed by the ICJ case (as a source of the international law⁷) Great Britain v. Costa Rica: “Coming now to the general issues applicable to both claims, Great Britain contends, first, that the Tinoco government was the only government of Costa Rica de facto and de jure for two years and nine months; that during that time there is no other government disputing its sovereignty, that it was in peaceful administration of the whole country, with the acquiescence of its people”⁸. On the contrary Green government escape from the state and his government does not have any control over the nation. Moreover, 14 nations recognized Andler’s government⁹.

Estrada doctrine

The automatic recognition of governments in all circumstances would have legal effects by opinion of Estrada, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations¹⁰. Estrada Doctrine says a government established during coup d’etat should be recognized¹¹.

Tobar doctrine

Tobar doctrine suggested that governments which came into power by extra-constitutional means should not be recognized, at least until the change had been accepted by the people¹². Although the Tobar Doctrine, embodied in Central American treaties in 1907 and 1923, nowadays it is not used by states because of its conceptual problem that legal orders themselves have extra-legal origins¹³.