- •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
Rantanian actions are agression under international law
The party of Applicant considers that Rantania committed the act of aggression. Any action of aggression is illegal. The definition of Aggression contains in the article 1 of General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX): “aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition”26.
There is no opinio juris in the practice of states which used the conditions of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention27.
Rantania wants to establish the government under its control in Aphrope. President Green acted in the interests of ENI, providing “open borders policy”, which was the reason of strikes and demonstrations to protest these measures28. These actions are a treat to the political independence of the Aphrope. But the territorial integrity and political independence is the peremptory norm of international law. This norm is enshrined in Article 53 of the: “For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character”29.
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
The decisions made by the Eastern Nations Court and subsequently by the Supreme court of Rantania on Turbando, et. al., v. The Republic of Aprophe case present an alarming example of ignoring the very principals of international law and thus the seizure of Aprophian property by Rantanian officials can not be justified by such decisions.
Rantanian courts lack jurisdiction in the case of turbando, et. Al., V. The republic of aprophe
Rantanian courts have already dismissed the Turbando, et. al., v. The Republic of Aprophe on the grounds of the doctrine of sovereign immunity30 and Article XV of the 1965 Treaty which demonstrates that these grounds are respected and taken in consideration however the Rantanian Supreme Court was forced to follow the line of the Eastern Nation Human Rights Court.
The decision of the rantanian supreme court of december 12, 2009 violates the principle of sovereign immunity of states
Sovereign immunity31 is one of the fundamental principles of international legal order32. Despite that in its opinion33 the Supreme Court of Rantania clearly disregards this principal and acts in a accordance with dim indications of state immunity not extending to violations of peremptory norms of international law34 successfully coming to a decision on a case thus failing to follow the “duty not to intervene with matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State”35.