- •Table of contents
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention 16
- •Index of authorities
- •I. International materials
- •II. Jurisprudence
- •III. Secondary materials: monographs
- •IV. Secondary materials: articles
- •V. Other materials
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings
- •A. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were in accordance with the provisions of international law
- •1. Unlawful Zetians’ actions countenanced by Ardenia infringed some international provisions
- •I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
- •II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
- •2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
- •B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
- •A. Rigalia does not have to bear the responsibility to hold an inquiry into the attack or to make up for it since the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not related to Rigalia
- •1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital
- •2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
- •B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation
- •1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law
- •2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
- •A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- •C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
- •1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
- •2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
- •3. Zetian girls and women wear Mavazi because they are may be punished by being confined to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to wear this garment
- •4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention
- •A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
- •1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
- •2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
- •B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
- •C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
Index of authorities
I. International materials
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147, (16 December 2005). 7
Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945. 4,7
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13. 12,13
Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS. 11,14,15
Definition of Aggression, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974. 3
Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949. 3
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, G.A. Res. 164, U.N. GAOR, 52nd Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 389, U.N. Doc. A/52/49 (1998), entered into force May 23, 2001. 2
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 19 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171. 9,10,14,15,16
OECD ‘Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions’ (signed 17 December 1997, entered into force 15 February 1999) OECD Doc DAFFE/IME/BR(97)20. 17,19,21,23
OECD Decision of the Council “Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” (June 2000) DAFFE/IME(2000)20, Procedural Guidance. 26
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprise (June 2000) DAFFE/IME(2000)20. 25,26
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945. 5
II. Jurisprudence
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda) (2006), 45 I.L.M. 271. 4
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda) Separate opinion of Judge Kooijmans, [2005] I.C.J. 4
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 14. 4,5
Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (Iran v. United States of America), [1980] I.C.J. Rep. 3. 4