2) Respondent’s incursion stands equal to an unlawful use of force.

Rantania is incriminated the violation of the territorial integrity of Aprophe by using military force, which should be considered as an act of aggression. Rantanian air strikes meet the definition of an act of aggression given in the Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution. And air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy should be classified as bombardment by the armed forces of a Rantania against the territory of Aprophe which like the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State is interpreted as an aggression accordingly the Definition of Aggression Resolution⁴¹.

These air strikes may not be justified with Rantanian non-recognition of the Andler government rightfulness. In particular the Tinoco arbitration stated that non-recognition of any State government “does not provide an excuse for a use of force” against that State⁴². Therefore, Rantania is the aggressor State in this situation. Furthermore, air attacks amount to an unlawful use of force since the only legitimate excuse for the use of force (except the one authorized by the Security Council) is self-defense. But it is obvious that Respondent cannot justify its incursion with the right of self-defense whereas under the article 51 of the UN Charter an armed attack is the sine qua non for the exercise the right of self-defense. And Aprophe never committed acts which may be classified as the use of force against Rantania. Thus there is every indication that Rantanian air attacks unlawful.

3) Rantanian strikes violated Aprophian sovereignty

It is a stated fact that Rantanian air forces under the command of Rantanian national Otaz Brewscha inflicted strikes on the territory of Aprophe. And these strikes resulted not only in the destruction of military objects, but also in human casualties and non-military buildings damages⁴³. These attacks took place in Aprophe without latter permission, and it follows the violation of generally recognized principles of international law. As the incursion of Rantanian air forces into Applicant’s territory was held without the latter’s permission, Respondent violated Applicant’s sovereignty guaranteed under the UN Charter and customary international law. “Sovereignty is the very foundation upon which the international law exists.”⁴⁴ This complex term includes all rights and characteristics inherent to each particular State within its borders. Sovereignty is closely guarded by the basic principles of international law.

Accordingly to the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention, “every state possesses sovereignty and territorial integrity”⁴⁵. Moreover, this Declaration obliges States to abstain in its international relations from the use of force in any form whatsoever to violate the existing internationally recognized boundaries of another State, to disrupt the political, social or economic order of other states. Respondent used force in regard to Applicant from which follows that it failed to follow all abovementioned principles. In addition, this air attacks were the result of Respondent’s condemnation of Applicant’s internal and external policy and its political system.

The Court has already taken a common stand in deciding questions concerning the violation of territorial sovereignty. For instance, in Nicaragua v. United States of America case, USA was found guilty violating the sovereignty “for directing or authorizing over flights of Nicaraguan territory.”⁴⁶ And following the logic applied in this case Rantania must be found guilty even for directing its air forces on Aprophian territory. Therefore air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy constitute a gross violation of Aprophe’s sovereignty.