- •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) Security Council never allowed Rantania to use force against Aprophe.
I. There was no resolution permitting the use of force from the Security Council
As it follows from the article 33 of the UN Charter in case of conflict which puts in jeopardy international peace and security parties should primarily try to dissolve their dispute “by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice”35. But being fully aware that any military actions will lead to the escalation of the conflict between Aprophe and other ENI Member States Rantania still chose to use force instead of the peaceful regulation. Accordingly to the article 39 of the UN Charter “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken … to maintain or restore international peace and security”36. But as we can see from the provisions of the Compromise the Security Council never issued the Resolution authorizing Rantania to apply force toward Aprophe. Furthermore Security Council was unanimous in putting Operation Uniting for Democracy to condemnation in its resolution, which indicates that Rantania’s actions meet no approval from the international society.
II. General Assembly resolution does not empower Rantania to use force
Under Applicant’s honest conviction Respondent’s actions can not be justified with the General Assembly resolution A/RES/65/598. As follows from the General Assembly functions it is empowered only to “discuss any questions or any matters within the scope of the UN Charter and may make recommendations to the Members of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such questions or matters”37. And indeed abovementioned resolution did call upon the Security Council to interfere in Aprophes’ situation. But as it is stated in the previous paragraph only Security Council itself can issue resolution empowering its Member State to use force. Consequently General Assembly resolution A/RES/65/598 has significance for the Security Council but in no way may be considered as permission to initiate military operation.
B) Respondent’s actions contravene the primary principles of international law and violate agreement between Rantania and Aprophe.
1) Rantania acted in contempt of customary international law and the un Charter
Being a member of the United Nations Organization Rantania is obliged to follow its purposes and principles. Nevertheless Applicant is wholly convinced that Respondent failed to perform its duty. In particular, Rantania’s conduct is to be governed with the principle which insists that all states-UN members must decide all their international conflicts by peaceful means.38 We find it important to bring to the Court’s notice the absence of any conflicts between Rantania and Aprophe. But even assuming the possibility of conflicts' existence under all circumstances Rantania should use the possible measures which can be applied to international peace and security mentioned in Article 33 of the UN Charter. Following this, Respondent was bounded with an obligation to abstain from force “in its international relations against territorial integrity of any state.”39 And still Rantania found it possible to use force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy. Hence, Rantania’s air strikes cannot be interpreted as anything else but the use of force from which the “states shall refrain”40.