- •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 icj
- •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.
2) Green’s government in Rantania has no authority
I. Green’s government does not meet the criteria of legal government
As it follows from the abovementioned arguments, Applicant is convinced that group of ministers headed by Green does not meet the definition of the legal government in exile. This statement is grounded on the fact that the authority while being exiled must be independent and must have representative character21. But Green's government possesses none of these characteristics. Taking into consideration several facts we find it important to mention that serious suspicions of the loyalty to Rantania interests may take place in Green’s case. First of all, Green's internal politics was, among other ENI members, directed by Rantania. Secondly, his political decisions placed Aprophe in jeopardy of public unrest. And finally, Rantania was chosen by Green as a host state and later used force against Aprophe's new government. So in the light of all abovementioned facts Green's government-in-exile might be under foreign state control.
In addition this government is not entitled to represent the national will of Aprophe. Green’s government in exile can hardly be called effective since most of the Aprophe population, authorities and armed forces are loyal to the Andler legal government. We honestly believe that the government which committed a flagrant and massive infringement of human rights loses its representative authorities. This announcement is grounded on the practice established in the international community. For example, in the situation when exiled government's representative character was put in doubt the in 1920 Great Britain, the USA and other States declined to recognize Polish government-in-exile in London22. Thus in fact Green's government cannot be recognized as a legal government in exile since it may not be characterized as independent and representative while Andler government possesses both this criteria.
II. The recognition of Green government does not imply its legality
In spite of the Rantania position in this case it should be noted that states are unable “to recognize any authority in exile they like as a legitimate government of another state”23. Therefore by recognizing government-in-exile notwithstanding the effective government in situ Rantania perpetrated interference in the Aprophe's internal affairs. In accordance with the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (hereinafter Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention) every state possesses “the sovereign and inalienable right to determine its own political system”24. Thus Rantania's support of Green's government should be classified as the breach of its obligations under the abovementioned Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention such as “the duty to refrain from any action in whatever form to destabilize or to undermine the stability of another State or of any of its institutions»25. An attempt to discredit an effective and legal government in situ certainly constitutes such violation.
Moreover, the fact that ENI organization has announced Green as “lawful president of Aprophe” is nothing more than just a declaration of several member states’ private opinion since nothing in the treaty established this organization indicates that ENI has the jurisdiction and authority to proclaim anyone neither legal nor illegal president of the member state. And the declaration of all ENI member states and number of other nations that they would maintain diplomatic relations with Green government does not indicate that they have ruptured diplomatic relations with Andler government. There is no evidence that the functions of the diplomatic agents of the states ENI members and 27 other states in Aprophe came to an end26, which in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations constitutes the break of diplomatic relations. Therefore we can draw a conclusion that despite all proclamations maintains diplomatic relations with all mentioned states and has no intention to rupture it.