D. Partial destruction of the Mai-Tocao site does not qualify as a countermeasure

Aprophe may claim that its actions in relation to the Mai-Tocao Temple were performed in response to unlawful conduct of Rantania and thus qualify as a countermeasure.¹⁹⁴However, this claim fails because customary IHL prohibits reprisals against cultural property.

One of the basic principles of the law of countermeasures is that “obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals” may under no circumstances be subject of countermeasures.¹⁹⁵An obligation to protect cultural property is among such obligations. The rule prohibiting any act directed against cultural heritage by way of reprisals is contained in universally accepted international instruments,¹⁹⁶and its customary character is out of question.¹⁹⁷Therefore, even assuming that the OUD constituted an internationally wrongful act, Aprophe may not justify its own unlawful destruction of one of the buildings at the Mai-Tocao site by invoking the concept of countermeasures.

Prayer for relief

For the foregoing reasons Rantania respectfully requests that the Court:

1. DETERMINEthat it is without jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims;

In the alternative,

2. DECLAREthat Rantania is not responsible for the use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy;

3. DECLAREthat the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in theTurbandocase was consistent with international law andRULEthat Rantania may execute the judgment in that case;

4. DECLAREthat Aprophe violated international law by destroying a building of the Temple of Mai-Tocao.

1 Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 993 UNTS 110 Art.36(1) [ICJ Statute]; ICJ, Rules of Court, at http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=3&p3=0, Art. 40(1).

2 Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) (Tinoco Concessions case) [1923] I UNRIAA 369, 381 [Tinoco]; Jennings R., Watts A. (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law. Vol. I: Peace, 9th ed. (1992), 152-153.

3 UNGA Res.46/7 (1991), UN Doc. A/RES/46/7; OAS Res.MRE/RES.2/91, Doc.OEA/Ser.F/V.1 (1991).

4 UNGA Res.48/17 (1993), UN Doc. A/RES/48/17; UNSC Res.1072 (1996), UN Doc. S/RES/1072.

5 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 102/93 (1998).

6 UNGA Res.49/197 (1994), UN Doc. A/RES/49/197.

7African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights,Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, Comm. Nos. 147/95 and 149/96 (2000).

8 OAU Res.CM/2004(LXVI)-C-(1997); UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/36.

9UN Doc. SG/SM/7174 (1999); Commonwealth, Durban Communiqué (1999), para.18, at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/35247/FileName/Durban_Communique.pdf.

10 UN Doc. SG/SM/8781 (2003); AU Communiqué, MEC/AMB/COMM.(XCIII) (2003).

11 UN Doc. S/PRST/2008/30; AU Communiqué, PSC/MIN/Comm.2 (CLI) (2008).

12 SADC Extraordinary Summit of the Organ Troika on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, Communiqué (2009), at http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/474.

13 UNGA Res.63/301 (2009), UN Doc. A/RES/63/301; OAS Res.CP/RES.953(1700/09), OEA/Ser.G (2009); EU Presidency Declaration on Honduras, 11530/09 (2009).

14African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights,ACHPR/Res.162(EXT.OS/VIII)(2010).

15 UNGA Res.46/7 (1991), UN Doc. A/RES/46/7, para.2.

16 UNGA Res.63/301 (2009), UN Doc. A/RES/63/301, para.3.

17 UNGA Meeting Records, UN Doc. A/46/PV.31, UN Doc. A/63/PV.93.

18 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA) (Merits) [1986] ICJ 14, paras.188, 191 [Nicaragua]; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ 136, paras.87-88 [Wall].

19 Charter of the Organization of American States (1948) 119 UNTS 3, Art.9, as amended by Protocol of Washington (1992) 33 ILM 1005; OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) 40 ILM 1289, Art.18-22; Representative Democracy, OAS GA Res.1080 (1991), OAS Doc.OEA/SerP/XXIO2 Doc.2739/91, paras.1, 2.

20 Constitutive Act of the African Union (2000), available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4937e0142.html, Art. 4(p), 30 [AU Constitutive Act]; Lomé Declaration on the Framework for an OAU Response to Unconstitutional Changes of Government (2000) (AHG/Decl.5 (XXXVI).

21 Document of the Moscow Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1991) 30 ILM 1670, paras.17.1, 17.2.

22Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance (2001), A/SP1/12/01, Art.45.

23Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration (1995), at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141096, para.3.

24 Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment (1998) 2177 UNTS 383, Art.4, 5.

25 Final Document of the XIV NAM Ministerial Conference (2004), at http://www.nam.gov.za/media/040820.pdf, para.9.

26 UNGA Res.55/96 (2001), UN Doc. A/RES/55/96, para.13.

27 Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, UNGA Res.396(V) (1950), para.1.

28 Memorandum on the Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the United Nations (1950), UN Doc. S/1466, 6; Roth B., Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law (2000), 261-283, 318 [Roth].

29 Report of the Credentials Committee (1992), UN Doc. A/47/517/Add.1 (Haiti); Report of the Credentials Committee (2009), UN Doc. A/64/571, paras.8-11 (Madagascar, Guinea); Report of the Credentials Committee (2010), UN Doc. A/65/583/Rev.1, para.7 (Ivory Coast).

30 Charter of the United Nations (1945) 993 UNTS 110, Art.2(7) [UN Charter]; Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.2625 (1970), UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) [Friendly Relations Declaration].

31 PCIJ, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion, Series B, No.4, p.24 (1923); Simma B. (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol. I (2002), 157.

32 E.g. UNGA Res.45/150 (1990), UN Doc. A/RES/45/150, paras.1-2; UNGA Res.56/159 (2002), UN Doc. A/RES/56/159, Preamble, para.4.

33 Fox G., ‘The Right to Political Participation in International Law’, (1992) 17 YJIL 539, 593; d’Aspremont J., ‘Legitimacy of Governments in the Age of Democracy’, (2006) 38 NYU J. Int’l Law & Politics 877, 899-909.

34 Roth B., ‘Secession, Coups and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine’, (2010) 11 MJIL 393, 430.

35 Acevedo D., The Haitian Crisis and the OAS Response: A Test of Effectiveness in Protecting Democracy, in Damrosch L. (ed.), Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflicts (1993), 119-120; Roth B., supra fn.28, 405.

36 UNSC Res.940 (1994), UN Doc. S/RES/940, preambular para.4 (Haiti, 1991); UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/42 (Sierra Leone, 1997); IACHR, Honduras: Human Rights and the Coup d’Etat, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.55 (Honduras, 2009).

37 Compromis, para.14.

38 Compromis, paras.15, 23.

39 Compromis, para.28.

40 Compromis, para.34.

41 Ibid.

42 Compromis, para.32.

43 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ 595, para.44; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Provisional Measures) [1993] ICJ 3, paras.12-13; Cyprus v. Turkey (1975), ECHR No.6780/74, 6950/75, Admissibility, para.3.

44 Compromis, para.31.

45 Compromis, para.33.

46 Tinoco, supra fn.2, 379; Lauterpacht H., Recognition in International Law (1947), 93-97; Roth, supra fn.28, 183.

47 Compromis, paras.30, 34.

48 Compromis, paras.27, 29.

49 Compromis, paras.31, 33.

50 Oppenheim, supra fn.2, 150.

51 Republic of Fiji v. Prasad [2001] 2 LRC 743; Tinoco, supra fn.2, 379; Mitchell v. DPP [1986] LRC (Const) 35.

52 Compromis, para.28.

53 Ibid.

54 Compromis, para.34.

55 Compromis, para.29.

56 ILC, Draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries (2011) 2 YILC-II, Art.7 [DARIO]; ILC, Third Report on State Responsibility (1971) 1 YILC-II, 272-273; Crawford J., Pellet A., Olleson S. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (2010), 299-301.

57 R (Al-Jedda) (FC) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58, Opinion of Lord Bingham of Cornhill, paras.18-23.

58 Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (2007), ECHR Nos.71412/01, 78166/01, paras.29-33, 133; Kasumaj v. Greece (2007), ECHR No.6974/05, Decision on Admissibility; Gajic v. Germany (2007), ECHR No.31446/02, Decision on Admissibility.

59 Compromis, paras.35.

60 Compromis, para.37.

61ILC, Second Report on Responsibility of International Organizations (2004), UN Doc. A/CN.4/541, paras.32-33, 40-41.

62 DARIO, supra fn.56, Art.2(d), 6(1); Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ 174, 177 [Reparation].

63 Compromis, para.35.

64 Compromis, para.37.

65 Compromis, para.39.

66 Compromis, para.35.

67 Clarifications, No.2.

68 Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1989] ICJ 177, para.51; Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion [1999] ICJ 62, para.46.

69 Compromis, Annex III, The Treaty Establishing the Eastern Nations International Organization (1990), Art.84(4)(a) [ENI Treaty].

70 Compromis, para.43.

71 Nuhanović v. The Netherlands, Court of Appeal in The Hague, Case No. 200.020.174/01 (2011), para.5.10; Venice Commission, Opinion on Human Rights in Kosovo, No.280/2004, CDL-AD(2004)033, para.14.

72 Compromis, paras.31, 35, 37.

73 DARIO, supra fn.56, Art.2(a); Reparation, supra fn.62, 178-179.

74 DARIO, supra fn.56, Commentary to Art.62, para.2; Higgins R., ‘The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-fulfilment by International Organizations of their Obligations toward Third Parties’, (1995) 66-I Yearbook of the Institut de Droit International 251, 260.

75 ILC, Seventh Report on Responsibility of International Organizations (2009), UN Doc. A/CN.4/610, para.90.

76 Ibid.

77 DARIO, supra fn.56, Art.58-61.

78 ENI Treaty, supra fn.69, Art.5(1).

79 Compromis, paras.31, 35.

80 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections [1992] ICJ 240, para.55; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda) [2005] ICJ 168, para.204; Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) [2011] ICJ Gen. List No.142, para.43.

81 Compromis, para.35.

82 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States of America) [1954] ICJ 19, 32; East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) [1995] ICJ 90, para.28.

83 ICJ Statute, supra fn.1, Art.34(1).

84 UN Charter, supra fn.30, Art.2(4); Friendly Relations Declaration, supra fn.30.

85 ILC, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries (2001) 2 YILC-II, Commentary to Art.26, para.6 [DARS]; Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res.3314 (1974), UN Doc. A/RES/3314(XXIX), Art.3(e); UNGA Res.36/103 (1981), UN Doc. A/RES/36/103, Annex, para.2.II.o); Nicaragua, supra fn.18, para.246.

86 Compromis, para.31.

87 See supra, I.A.

88 See supra, I.B.1.

89 Institut de Droit International, ‘Military Assistance on Request’, Res.10RES-C (2011), Artt.2(2), 3(1).

90 ILC, Report on the work of its thirty-first session, (1979) 2 YILC-II, 110; Gray C., International Law and the Use of Force, 2nd ed. (2004), 72-73; Schachter O., International Law in Theory and Practice (1991), 115.

91 Compromis, paras.36, 38.

92 Compromis, para.35.

93 Deen-Racsmány Z., ‘A Redistribution of Authority Between the UN and Regional Organizations in the Field of Maintenance of Peace and Security?’, (2000) 13 LJIL 297, 304.

94 UN Doc. S/22133 (1991); UNSC Res.788 (1992), UN Doc. S/RES/788 (ECOWAS in Liberia); UN Doc. S/PRST/5 (1998); UNSC Res.1162 (1998), UN Doc .S/RES/1162 (ECOWAS in Sierra Leone); UN Doc. S/PV.3988; UNSC Res.1244 (1999), UN Doc. S/RES/1244 (NATO in Yugoslavia).

95 NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Recasting Euro-Atlantic Security: Resolution 283, NATO Doc. AR.295.SA (1998), para.15(d); AU Constitutive Act, supra fn.20, Art.4(h).

96 Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004), UN Doc. A/59/565, para.272(a); Simma, supra fn.31, 865; Franck T., Recourse to Force (2002), 162; Abass A., Regional Organizations and the Development of Collective Security (2004), 53-55.

97 Compromis, para.30.

98 Compromis, para.33; A/RES/65/598.

99 Compromis, paras.38, 41.

100 Compromis, para.34.

101 Compromis, para.41.

102 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ 53, para.114 [Namibia]; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion [2010] ICJ Gen.List No.141, para.94.

103 UNSC Res.1234 (1999), UN Doc. S/RES/1234, paras.1-2; UNSC Res.660 (1990), UN Doc. S/RES/660, Preamble, para.2; UNSC Res.502 (1982), UN Doc. S/RES/502, Preamble, para.3.

104 Compromis, para.41.

105 UN Charter, supra fn.30, Art.39; Simma, supra fn.31, 726-727.

106 UN Charter, supra fn.30, Art.54.

107 Compromis, para.41.

108 UN Charter, supra fn.30, Art.25.

109 Namibia, supra fn.102, para.114; Simma, supra fn.31, 458; Higgins R., ‘The Advisory Opinion on Namibia: Which UN Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?’, (1972) 21 ICLQ 270, 281-282.

110 Wood M., ‘The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions’, (1998) 2 MPYBUNL 73, 82; Shaw M., International Law, 6th ed. (2008), 1220 [Shaw].

111 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections [1998] ICJ 9, paras.43-44; Gazzini T., ‘NATO Coercive Military Activities in the Yugoslav Crisis (1992-1999)’, (2001) 12 EJIL 391, 395.

112 Compromis, para. 21.

113 Compromis, Annex I.

114 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) 1155 UNTS 331, Art.53, 64 [VCLT].

115 Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on its ninetieth session, UN Doc. CES.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/33, para.101(12); UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Abolishing Slavery and its Contemporary Forms, UN.Doc.HR/PUB/02/4(2002); Doe I v. Unocal Corp. 395 F.3d 932, 945-947 (2002); Cleveland S., ‘Norm Internalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions’, 26 YJIL (2001), 1, 27.

116 Сase concerning the Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain) [1970] ICJ 4, paras.33-34 [Barcelona Traction]; Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflict, Report of the Special Rapporteur (1998), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13, para.46; Brownlie I., Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (2008), 511.

117 Forced Labour in Myanmar (Burma), Report of the Commission of Inquiry, ILO (1998), para.203, at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb273/myanmar3.htm#A.%20General%20international%20law,%20including%20slavery.

118 Wall, supra fn.18, paras.157-158.

119 Feichtner I., ‘Waiver’ in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006), para.14 [Feichtner]; Orakhelashvili A., Peremptory Norms in International Law (2008) [Orakhelashvili], 341.

120 VCLT, supra fn.114, Art.30(3).

121 ECHR, Slivenko et. al v. Latvia (2003), No.48321/99, paras. 60-61.

122 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 999 UNTS 171 [ICCPR].

123 Compromis, paras.20, 47.

124 Compromis, paras.10, 15, 32.

125 ICCPR, supra fn.122, Art.2(3)(a), 8, 14.

126 Compromis, Annex II, Arts.1, 10, 11, 13.

127 Compromis, paras.15, 21,

128 Compromis, para.19.

129 VCLT, supra fn.114, Art.31(3)(c).

130 Sandoz Y., Swinarski C., Zimmermann B. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987), para.3645 [Sandoz].

131 Hague Convention IV (1907) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2227, Art.3.

132 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), 75 UNTS 287, Art.148 [Geneva Convention IV]; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977) 1125 UNTS 3, Art.91 [Protocol I].

133 Geneva Convention IV, supra fn.132, Art.6, 7; Sandoz, supra fn.130, paras.3648-3649, 3651.

134 Geneva Convention IV, supra fn.132, Art.95; Henckaerts J.-M., Doswald-Beck L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol.I (2005), 331 [Customary IHL].

135 Compromis, para.7.

136 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) [1974] ICJ 253, para.44 [Nuclear Tests]; Feichtner, supra fn. 119, para.18.

137 The Case of the S.S.“Lotus”(France v. Turkey), PCIJ, Ser.A. No.10, 19 (1927) [Lotus]; Brownlie, supra fn.116, 299.

138 Lotus, supra fn.137, 18.

139 Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant (DRC v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ 3, 63, Sep. Op. Higgins et al., para.71 [Arrest Warrant]; Higgins R., Problems and Process (1994),78 [Higgins]; Caplan L., ‘State Immunity, Human Rights and Jus Cogens’, (2003) 97 AJIL 741, 771.

140 Hafner G., Kohen M., Breau S. (eds.), State Practice Regarding State Immunities (2006), 196-197 [State Practice Regarding State Immunities]; McElhinney v. Ireland (2001), ECHR No.31253/96, Dis. Op. Caflisch et al., 20 [McElhinney]; Orakhelashvili, supra fn.119, 337.

141 R v. Bow Street Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 147 (UKHL 1999); Supreme Court of Greece, Prefecture of Voiotia v. Germany (2000), No.11/2000, 129 ILR 514; Italian Court of Cassation; Ferrini v. Germany (2004), No.5044/4, 128 ILR 659 [Ferrini].

142 Institut de Droit International, ‘Naples Resolution on the Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons who Act on Behalf of the State in Case of International Crimes’ (2009), Preamble, para. 3 [Naples Resolution]; ECHR, Al-Adsani v. UK (2001), No.35763/97, Dis. Op. Rozakis et al., para.3; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furindzija, Trial Judgment (1998), IT-95-17/1-T para.155.

143 See supra, III.A(1)(a).

144 State Practice Regarding State Immunities, supra fn.140, 98-101.

145 UN GA Res.59/38, UN Doc. A/59/49 (2004).

146 Compromis, para.47.

147 Examples of personal injury include a psychological illness caused by stress at work and psychological injury sustained by a victim in the course of a crime: Black’s Law Dictionary, 7^th ed. (1999).

148 Compromis, para.6.

149 Ferrini, supra fn.141, paras.6.2-6.3.

150 European Convention on State Immunity (1972), CETS 74, Art.31; ILC, Report on the work of its forty-third session (1991), UN Doc. A/46/10, Commentary to Art.12, para.10.

151 Dickinson A., ‘Status of Forces under the UN Convention on State Immunity’, (2006) 55 ICLQ 427, 430.

152 Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) [1980] ICJ 4, para.86; ILC, The Effect of Armed Conflicts on Treaties (2005), UN Doc. A/CN.4/550, para.36.

153 ILC, Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006), UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, para.42; Fogarty v. UK (2001), ECHR No.37112/97, para.33; Cudak v. Lithuania (2010), ECHR No. 15869/02, para.55.

154 Naples Resolution, supra fn.142; Art.II(2).

155 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, UNGA Res.60/147 (2005), UN Doc. A/RES/60/147, para.II(3)(c).

156 Compromis, para.17.

157 Compromis, para. 15.

158 Barcelona Traction, supra fn.116, paras.78-79.

159 Arrest Warrant, supra fn.139, paras.60-61.

160 E.g. Hornsby v. Greece (1997), ECHR No.18357/91, para.40; Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany (2002), ECHR No.59021/00, Part D.(1).(a).

161 State Practice Regarding State Immunity, supra fn.140, 156; Reinisch A., ‘European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures’, (2006), 17 EJIL 803,815.

162 Brownlie, supra fn.116, 342; Higgins, supra fn.139, 85-86.

163 UN Convention, supra fn.144, Art.19(c); State Practice Regarding State Immunity, supra fn.140, 161-162.

164 Heß B., ‘The International Law Commission’s Draft Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property’, (1993) 4 EJIL 269, 278.

165 DARS, supra fn.85, Art.42(a).

166 Compromis, para.43.

167 Compromis, Annex I, Art.I.

168 Ibid., Preamble.

169 Compromis, paras.4, 7.

170 DARS, supra fn.85, Commentary to Art.42, para.12.

171 Compromis, paras.3, 4.

172 Compromis, paras.4, 8, 9.

173 Compromis, para.11.

174 Compromis, paras.11, 12.

175 DARS, supra fn.85, Art.48(1).

176 Barcelona Traction, supra fn.116, para.32; Wall, supra fn.18, para.155; East Timor, supra fn.82, Diss.Op. Weeramantry, 215; Nuclear Tests, supra fn.136, para.52.

177 Institut de Droit International, Resolution ‘Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law’ (2005), Art.1(b); Tams C., Enforcing obligations erga omnes in international law (2005), 166.

178 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), 1037 UNTS 151.

179 Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Adopted by the 32nd session of the UNESCO General Conference (2003), part III, para.1; Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of World Heritage Convention (2001), WHC No.11/01, para.15, at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide11-en.pdf; HRC, Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/6/11, para.5.

180 Vrdoljak A., Cultural Heritage in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2009), 300; Francioni F., Lenzerini F., ‘The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan and International Law’, 14 EJIL 4 (2003) 634, 638; O'Keefe R., ‘World Cultural Heritage: Obligations to the International Community as a whole?’, (2004) 53 ICLQ 190.

181 Triffterer O., (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2^nd ed. (2008), 375-376 [Triffterer]

182 United States Manual for Military Commissions (2007), Part IV, para.6(a)(3), p. IV-3; Customary IHL, supra fn.134, 130.

183 Customary IHL, supra fn.134, 132; Triffterer, supra fn.180, 378; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Interlocutory Appeal (1995), IT-94-1, para.98.

184 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), 249 UNTS 240, Art.4(2) [Hague Convention]

185 Toman J., Cultural Property in War: Improvement in Protection (2009), 90-91, fn.152 [Toman]; Boylan P., Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: The Hague Convention of 1954 (1993), 144

186 Toman, supra fn.184, 97.

187 Compromis, para.47.

188 Fleck D., The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2^nd ed. (2008), 449 [Fleck].

189 Triffterer, supra fn.180, 328; ICTY, Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Trial Judgment (2004), IT-99-36-T, para.596, ft.1509; Customary IHL, supra fn.134, 127.

190 Fleck, supra fn.187, 449.

191 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999, UNESCO Doc. HC/1999/7, Art. 6(a)(i) [Second Protocol to the Hague Convention]; Protocol I, supra fn.132, Art.52(2).

192 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, supra fn.190, Art.1(f).

193 Compromis, para.39.

194DARS, supra fn.85, Art.22; Shaw, supra fn.110, 794-795.

195DARS, supra fn.85, Art.50(1)(c); Cannizzaro E., ‘The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures’, (2001) 12 EJIL 889, 906.

196Protocol I, supra fn.132, Art.53(c); Hague Convention, supra fn.183, Art.4(4).

197Customary IHL, supra fn.134, 524-525; Ruffert M., ‘Reprisals’ (2009) in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, para. 13.

2