4) Rantania’s actions are inconsistent with the Peace Agreement.

Among the obligations of the UN member both parties lie under an obligation to perform their duty in accordance with the Peace Agreement between Rantania and Aprophe. The primary provision of this treaty clearly states that all hostilities between the parties ended when this agreement entered into the legal force⁴⁷. As it was mentioned above Rantania's actions amount to an unlawful use of force against Aprophe. Therefore, the air strikes in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy constitute a flagrant breach of an obligation to maintain peace between Rantania and Aprophe. Furthermore, such illegal use of force contravenes of the principle of good faith which governs the performance of legal obligations⁴⁸. There is no evidence that abovementioned Agreement was disputed before the conflict hence it should be honored by the parties at the start of Operation Uniting for Democracy. For this reason Rantanian attacks violate not only principles of international law but also the treaty obligations under the Peace Agreemnt of 1965.

1 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, art. 36 [hereinafter ICJ Statute].

2 See ICJ Statute, supra note 1 art. 38.

3 D.J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 6th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) at 145 [hereinafter Cases and Materials on International Law].

4Donald K. Anton, Penelope Mathew, International Law Cases and Materials (New-York: Oxford University Press, 2005) at 51 [hereinafter International Law Cases and Materials].

5 Tinoco Arbitration, Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) 18 October 1923, Reports of international arbitral awards, Vol. 1, at 380.

6United Natons Security Counsil, Letter dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Counsil Transmitting a Memorandum on the Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the United Nations S/1466 !!!! [hereinafter Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the UN]

7 Who is a legitimate government in exile? Towards normative criteria for governmental legitimacy in international law, in Guy Goodwin-Gill/Stefan Talmon (eds.), The Reality of International Law. Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie (Oxford University Press, 1999) at 222 !!!! [hereinafter Talmon].

8Ibid !!!

9See International Law Cases and Materials, supra note 4 at 47.

10See Talmon, supra note 7 at !!!!

11Compromis at para. 24.

12See International Law Cases and Materials, supra note 4 at 50.

13See Cases and Materials on International Law, supra note 3 at 156.

14Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, UN Doc. A/Conf. 39/27 entered into force on 27 Jan. 1980, art. 7.

15 See Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) Preliminary objections, at para. 44.

16Request for Advisory Opinion, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of independence of Kosovo, 22 July 2012, ICJ at para. 109.

17Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, GA Res 396 (V) 1950.

18See Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the UN, supra note 6 at !!!!.

19International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 19 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, art. 25.

20See Talmon, supra note 7 at !!!!

21Ibid !!!!

22See Talmon, supra note 7 at !!!!

23Ibid !!!!

24 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, 9 December 1981 A/RES/36/103 [hereinafter Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention].

25 Ibid

26Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, done at Vienna on 18 April 1961, entered into force on 24 April 1964. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 500, art 43.

27Compromise Annex III art. 83

28European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber decision of 2 May 2007 as to the admissibility of App. No. 71412/01 Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v. France , and App. No. 78166/01 Ruzhdi Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, at para. 27

29Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, G.A. Res. 2625(XXV), GAOR, 25th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/8082 (1970) [hereinafter Declaration Concerning Friendly Relations]

30Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, A/Res/56/83, 56^th Sess., 2002, art.1 [hereinafter Responsibility of States].

31 See International Law Commission, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, A/56/10 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful acts, art. 2 at 34 [hereinafter Responsibility of States Draft Articles].

32See Responsibility of States, supra note 30 art.12 .

33See Responsibility of States Draft Articles, supra note 31 at 55.

34Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, art. 35 [hereinafter UN Charter].

35See UN Charter, supra note 34 art. 33.

36Ibid art. 39.

37See U.N. Charter, supra note 34, art. 10.

38Ibid art. 2(3).

39See Declaration Concerning Friendly Relations, supra note 29

40See Declaration Concerning Friendly Relations, supra note 29

41Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, art. 3

42See International Law Cases and Materials, supra note 4 at 50.

43Compromis at para. 38

44See International Law Cases and Materials, supra note 4 at 4.

45See Inadmissibility of Intervention, supra note 24.

46Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, at § 292

47Compromis Annex I art. 1.

48Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6^th ed. (New-York: Cambridge university press, 2008) at !!!!.