- •Treaties and conventions
- •Judicial decisions
- •Essays, articles and journals
- •U.N. Documents
- •Miscellaneous
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings and authorities
- •I. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government of the Aprophe.
- •1) Andler government is legal as consistent with international law doctrine
- •2) Andler government is effective
- •3) Andler government has the full right to represent Aprophe in the I.C.J.
- •2) Green’s government in Rantania has no authority
- •I. Green’s government does not meet the criteria of legal government
- •II. The recognition of Green government does not imply its legality
- •II. Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy.
- •1) Membership in the eni does not absolve Rantania from its international obligations.
- •2) Security Council never allowed Rantania to use force against Aprophe.
- •I. There was no resolution permitting the use of force from the Security Council
- •II. General Assembly resolution does not empower Rantania to use force
- •1) Rantania acted in contempt of customary international law and the un Charter
- •2) Respondent’s incursion stands equal to an unlawful use of force.
- •3) Rantanian strikes violated Aprophian sovereignty
- •4) Rantania’s actions are inconsistent with the Peace Agreement.
- •The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court presents the violation of Aprophe’s sovereignty and is in contradiction with the rules of international law
- •The decision of the Rantanian court constitutes the violation of Aprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts
- •I. The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court violates the general principle of the sovereign equality
- •II. Aprophe had never voluntary accept the jurisdiction of Rantanian courts and the Eastern Nations Court
- •III. Rantania has jurisdiction entirely only within its own territory
- •The argument of the Rantanian court that immunity does not extend to violations of peremptory norms of international law is groundless
- •There is no universal recognition of the specific procedural effect of jus cogens norms
- •The judicial practice grants state immunity in the disputes related to the norms of jus cogens character
- •3. The Rantania has violated it’s obligations under The Peace Agreement of 1965
- •IV. Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law
- •Rantania has violated its obligations under the un Charter
- •Aprophe’s destruction of a small building of the Mai-Tocao Temple was in compliance with the international humanitarian law
- •The imperative military necessity applies when there is no other admissible alternative available
- •II. The doctrine of imperative military necessity is attributable to destruction of the Mai-Tocao Temple
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
- •17 Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, ga Res 396 (V) 1950.
- •61 European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 21 November 2001, Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom.
- •64 Jones V. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2006] ukhl 26.
- •74 Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974.
61 European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 21 November 2001, Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom.
62 European Court of Human Rights, Decision on Admissibility of Dec. 12, 2002, Kalogeropoulou v. Greece & Germany, App. No. 59021/00.
63 Kerstin Bartsch & Björn Elberling, “Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulouet al. v. Greece and Germany Decision” (2003) 04 GLJ 478.
64 Jones V. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2006] ukhl 26.
65 See Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium), 2002, I.C.J.
66 See Principles of Public International Law, supra note 51 at 325.
67 The Supreme Court of Canada, Schreiber v. Canada (Attorney General), 12 September 2002, at para.17.
68 U.N. Charter, supra note 49, art. 2 (2).
69 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 2008) at 98.
70 Nuclear test cases (New Zealand v. France), I.C.J., 20 December 1974, at para.49.
71 Ibid.
72 U.N. Charter, supra note 49, art. 2(4).
73 Ibid art. 2(3).
74 Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974.
75 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the field, 1949, art. 1; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,1949, art.1; Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1949, art.1; Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949, art.1.
76 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the field, 1949, art. 2.
77 Francois Bugnion, “Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarian law” (2002) 84 IRRC at 21.
78 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention, 14 May 1954, entered into force on 7 August 1956 [hereinafter Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property].
79 Protocol (I) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1977, art.53; Protocol (II) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts,1977, art.16.
80 Francois Bugnion, “The Origins and Development of the Legal Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: 50th Anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”, (14 November 2004), online: The International Committee of Red Cross < www.icrc.org >.
81 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, supra note 78 preamble.
82 Patty Gerstenblith, From Bamiyan to Baghdad: Warfare and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2006) 37 Geo. J. Int'l L. 245 (LexisNexis) [hereinafter From Bamiyan to Baghdad].
83 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, supra note 78 art. 4(2).
84 Jean-Marie Henckaerts, “Study on Customary International Humanitarian law: A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the rule of law in armed conflict” (2005) 87 IRRC at 201.
85 ICRC, Commentary to the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, paragraph 1396.
86 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Trial Judgment, IT-01-42-T, para.227, 31 January 2005.
87 The Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907, entered into force on 26 Jan. 1910, art. 27.
88 See From Bamiyan to Baghdad, supra note 82.
89 See Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Supra note 86, para. 221.
90 Jan Hladic, “The 1954 Hague Convention fort he Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the Notion of Military Necessity” [30 September 1999] №835 IRRC.