- •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
Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the mai-tocao temple did not violate international law Prayer for Relief
For all the foregoing reasons Aprophe respectfully asks this Court to:
DECLARE that the Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe;
DETERMINE that Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy;
RULE that 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 its officials to execute the judgment in that case;
RULE that Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law.
1 Statute of the International Court of Justice. URL: <http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0> (accessed: 01.12.2012)
2 Compromis, para. 47.
3 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. P. 457.
4
5 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. P. 455.
6 Compromis, para. 29.
7 ICJ Statute, art. 38 (1 “d”).
8 Tinoco Claims Arbitration (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), William H. Taft, Sole Arbitrator, 1 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards 369 (1923).
9 Compromis, para. 31.
10 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. P. 457.
11
12 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008. P. 457.
13 Brad R. Roth. Secessions, coups and the international rule of law: assessing the decline of the effective control doctrine. P. 32
14 UN Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011), adopted by the Security Council at its 6491st meeting, on 26 February 2011, S/RES/1970 (2011).
15 Resolution 2022 (2011) Adopted by the Security Council at its 6673rd meeting, on 2 December 2011. S/RES/2022 (2011).
16 Draft Articles on Responsibility of the States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, art. 2
17 J.L. Holzgrefe, Robert O. Keohane, Humanitarian Intervention Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, 2003, P. 35.
18 The Charter of the United Nations (1945) 993 UNTS 110.
19 Compromis, para. 37.
20 Compromis, para. 42.
21 Compromis. para. 38, 42.
22 The Charter of the United Nations, ibid.
23 Compromis, para. 41.
24 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
25 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
26 The definition of aggression. General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974).
27 J.L. Holzgrefe, Robert O. Keohane, Humanitarian Intervention Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, 2003, P. 17.
28 Compromis, para. 15.
29 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. Done at Vienna on 23 May 1969. Entered into force on 27 January 1980.United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, P. 331.
30 Compromis, para. 20.
31 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation
Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 1970. UN Doc. A/8082.
32 Peter Malanczuk, Michael Barton Akehurst, Akehurst's modern introduction to international law, 1997, P. 118.
33 Compromis, para. 17.
34 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 53, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S 331, 8 International Legal Materials 679 (1969).
35 Declaration on Principles of International Law, ibid.
36 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), art. 53, 64.
37 Mark W. Janis, An Introduction to international law 62–63 (2003), Peter Malanczuk, Michael Barton Akehurst, Akehurst's modern introduction to international law 57-58 (1997).
38 The ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, art.41 (1).
39 Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Commentary on Article 40, paras. 4-6 in Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifth-sixth Session (A/56/10), Pp.283-284.
40 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, P. 3.
41 Cherif Bassiouni, International Crimes Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes. P. 269. URL: http://www.sos-attentats.org/publications/bassiouni.jus.cogens.pdf> (accessed: 23.11.2011).
42 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 4(6).
43 Clarification, item 5.
44 Convention (III), ibid., Article 4 (6).
45 Nothing in the ‘compromis’ or in the ‘clarifications’ couldn’t make any doubt on this fact; military internees was disarmed, Compromis, para. 6.
46 Working time. URL: <http://www.ilo.org/global/standards/subjects-covered-by-international-labour-standards/working-time/lang--en/index.htm> (accessed: 10.10.2011).
47 ILO Recommendation 116, on the Reduction of Hours of Work (1962); ILO Convention No. 30 on the Hours of Work; ILO Convention No. 1, on the Hours of Work (Industry) (1919).
48 Compromis, 6.
49 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. URL: <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375> (accessed: 27.11.2011).
50 ILO, supra n3, article 3.
51 The Global Compact web-course, Human Rights and Business Dilemmas Forum. URL: <http://human-rights.unglobalcompact.org/dilemmas/working-hours/> accessed: 27.11.2011).
52 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 34.
53 The Charter of the United Nations, ibid., art.2 (1).