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

Different hierarchical levels of the rules making up the international legal order received official consecration not earlier than in 1969 when the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was adopted. It was recognized that a treaty can be void if at a time of its conclusion it conflicts with a “peremptory norm of general international law”³⁶.

Such norms also referred to as jus cogens are norms thought to be so fundamental that it even invalidates rules drawn from treaty or custom. Usually, jus cogens norm presupposes an international public order sufficiently potent to control states that might otherwise establish contrary rules on a consensual basis”³⁷.

Force labor is a serious violation of international law and its prohibition may be considered jus cogens norm.

But the goal of jus cogens is to prevent any states to come up with any treaties embracing and implementing force labor or trying to escape responsibility for it. Such treaty in accordance to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties³⁸ would be considered void. However, if such treaty was concluded and a violation took place there were several ways to resolve the situation and protect the rights of victims but there no one is granted a right to freely dismiss the treaty and overcome procedural obstacles of overcoming a state immunity in civil procedure. Especially, if a treaty was concluded before the concept of jus cogens was formed.

Jus cogens norms exist to prevent the violations but not to deal with the consequences of the unlawful acts of the past. Nullity of treaties that infringe jus cogens rule constitutes the ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts provide for a duty of States to “cooperate” (Article 41 (1)) if a serious breach of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law has occurred. Such cooperation may have been in a way in a form of Aprophe and Rantania turning to the ICJ with request to deliver justice.

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

The very status of prohibition of forced labor as a peremptory norm is quite questionable as for the present day no concrete evidence of that is present as there is no official list of jus cogens norms. The Commentary to the draft articles on state responsibility contains examples of such norms³⁹. As does Ian Brownlie, Rosalyne Higgins, examples given by the ICJ in Barselona Traction case⁴⁰. However, among those examples prohibitions of forced labor is not specifically named. Nevertheless, prohibition of some close crimes as slavery is evidently a norm of jus cogens⁴¹.

b) APPLICANT DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS

The Republic of Aprophe had undoubtful right for the internment to the camp of the disarming and rounding up Rantanian’s “military internees” (villagers)⁴². The item 5 of the Clarifications established that these people did not engage in hostilities against the Aprophian army during the Mai-Tocao War⁴³, but in comparison with the fist sentence we can make the output that they were not civilians, but combatants with arms⁴⁴. The main reason why these villagers couldn’t attack the Aprophian army was the qualitatively performed operation of our military divisions⁴⁵. International law didn’t provide unified standards on the period of working hours⁴⁶. There is only ILO’ recommendations and standards⁴⁷. Both parties of the conflict are not state-members of these normative acts. Domestic state practice sets its own legal regime of working hours. Some states’ have 40 hours per week (as ILO standards), some over 48 hours per week. “Military internees” worked for 12 hours per day to provide goods and services to the Aprophian army⁴⁸. It is not prohibited by the item “a” Article 50 of Geneva Convention III⁴⁹. Article 51 of Geneva Convention prescribes to use the working standards on the nationals of the Detaining Power. There is no any information about labor standards in Aprophian state. ILO Recommendation 116, on the Reduction of Hours of Work (1962) provides guidance on overtime exceptions. These exceptions can be permanent, temporary or periodic. Permanent exceptions include, but are not limited to: where the work is intermittent (such as agriculture), this is connect with our case⁵⁰. As it is clear from the ILO Conventions and other related ILO guidance, there is no standardized limit on working hours over 48 hours per week⁵¹. The outcomes:

• “Military internees” were involved in the actions for supplying Aprophian army by food and services, according to the Article 50 (a), (b) of Geneva Convention (III);

• Working ours for the internees had been in accordance with the Article 53 of Geneva Convention (III).

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

Cases to which states are parties fall under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice⁵². The situation when the supreme court of one sovereign state obliges the other sovereign state to pay out compensations for the deeds of not even some individuals but of a state itself is inconsistent with another principle of international law – the principle of sovereign equality⁵³.