- •The 2012 philip c. Jessup international law
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •I. The Court is without jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims, since the Andler regime and its representatives cannot appear before this court in the name of the Republic of Aprophe
- •II. The use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania, and in any event, that use of force was not illegal
- •III. Since the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the Turbando case was consistent with international law, Rantanian officials may execute the judgment in that case
- •IV. Aprophe violated international law by destroying a building of the Temple of Mai-Tocao
- •Pleadings
- •I. The Court is without jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims, since the Andler regime and its representatives cannot appear before this court in the name of the Republic of Aprophe
- •A. The Andler regime is not the government of Aprophe since it has no democratic mandate from the Aprophian people
- •1) Customary international law has evolved so as to deny standing to regimes installed incoups d’etat
- •2) Alternatively, denial of standing to the Andler regime is justified because of its manifestly unpopular and repressive nature
- •B. Alternatively, the Andler regime is not the government of Aprophe since it does not exercise sufficientde factocontrol over the territory and the population of Aprophe
- •1) The Green government has not been completely overthrown
- •2) The Andler regime has not been accepted by the population
- •II. The use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania, and in any event, that use of force was not illegal
- •A. The use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania
- •1) The use of force is attributable to the eni since the latter exercised effective control over the military forces involved in oud
- •2) Participation of Rantania in the decision-making process of the eni is not a sufficient ground to attribute the use of force to Rantania
- •B. Alternatively, the Court is precluded from assessing the legality of Operation Uniting for Democracy so long as the eni is not a party to the present proceedings
- •C. In any event, the use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy did not violate international law
- •1) The use of force was requested by the legitimate government of Aprophe
- •B) The un Security Council did not obligate the eni Member States to terminate oud after March 1, 2011
- •1) The waiver clause in 1965 Treaty did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in theTurbandocase a) The waiver clause is void as conflicting with ajus cogensnorm
- •B) Alternatively, the waiver clause is inapplicable since it is incompatible with the provisions of the subsequent treaties to which both Aprophe and Rantania are parties
- •C) In the further alternative, the waiver does not cover claims arising out of violations of international humanitarian law
- •2) Aprophe was not entitled to sovereign immunity in theTurbandocase
- •A) Rantania is under no legal obligation to provide immunity to Aprophe
- •B) Alternatively, Rantania legitimately relied on an exception to the general rule of immunity
- •C) In case of conflict between obligation to grant immunity and human rights obligations the latter shall prevail
- •B. Execution of judgment in theTurbandowas in accordance international law
- •IV. Aprophe violated international law by destroying a building of the Temple of Mai-Tocao
- •A. Rantania has standing to bring the claim against Aprophe in protection of the Mai-Tocao Temple
- •1) The destruction was in breach of obligations owed by Aprophe to Rantania under the 1965 Treaty
- •2) Rantania has the right of action since the wrongful act committed by Aprophe specially affects Rantania
- •3) Rantania is entitled to invoke responsibility of Aprophe by virtue of obligationserga omnes
- •B. Cultural heritage of outstanding universal value enjoys absolute protection
- •C. Alternatively, even if the military necessity exception constitutes a part of the customary international law, Aprophe cannot invoke it in the case at hand
- •D. Partial destruction of the Mai-Tocao site does not qualify as a countermeasure
- •Prayer for relief
TEAM 127 R
The 2012 philip c. Jessup international law
MOOT COURT COMPETITION
AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF MAI-TOCAO
THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE,
Applicant
v.
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RANTANIA,
Respondent
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES v
STATEMENT OF FACTS xvii
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS xxii
PLEADINGS 1
I. The Court is without jurisdiction over the Applicant’s claims, since the Andler regime and its representatives cannot appear before this court in the name of the Republic of Aprophe 1
A. The Andler regime is not the government of Aprophe since it has no democratic mandate from the Aprophian people 1
1) Customary international law has evolved so as to deny standing to regimes installed in coups d’etat 1
2) Alternatively, denial of standing to the Andler regime is justified because of its manifestly unpopular and repressive nature 5
B. Alternatively, the Andler regime is not the government of Aprophe since it does not exercise sufficient de facto control over the territory and the population of Aprophe 7
1) The Green government has not been completely overthrown 7
2) The Andler regime has not been accepted by the population 7
II. the use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania, and in any event, that use of force was not illegal 8
A. The use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania 9
1) The use of force is attributable to the ENI since the latter exercised effective control over the military forces involved in OUD 9
2) Participation of Rantania in the decision-making process of the ENI is not a sufficient ground to attribute the use of force to Rantania 11
B. Alternatively, the Court is precluded from assessing the legality of Operation Uniting for Democracy so long as the ENI is not a party to the present proceedings 12
C. In any event, the use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy did not violate international law 13
1) The use of force was requested by the legitimate government of Aprophe 13
2) Alternatively, the use of force was authorized by the ENI in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter 14
a) The ENI was empowered to undertake OUD with the subsequent authorization by the UN Security Council 14
b) The UN Security Council did not obligate the ENI Member States to terminate OUD after March 1, 2011 16
III. Since the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the Turbando case was consistent with international law, Rantanian officials may execute the judgment in that case 17
A. Rantania exercised jurisdiction in the Turbando case in accordance with international law 17
1) The waiver clause in 1965 Treaty did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the Turbando case 17
a) The waiver clause is void as conflicting with a jus cogens norm 18
b) Alternatively, the waiver clause is inapplicable since it is incompatible with the provisions of the subsequent treaties to which both Aprophe and Rantania are parties 19
c) In the further alternative, the waiver does not cover claims arising out of violations of international humanitarian law 20
2) Aprophe was not entitled to sovereign immunity in the Turbando case 21
a) Rantania is under no legal obligation to provide immunity to Aprophe 21
b) Alternatively, Rantania legitimately relied on an exception to the general rule of immunity 22
c) In case of conflict between obligation to grant immunity and human rights obligations the latter shall prevail 24
B. Execution of judgment in the Turbando was in accordance international law 25
IV. Aprophe violated international law by destroying a building of the Temple of Mai-Tocao 26
A. Rantania has standing to bring the claim against Aprophe in protection of the Mai-Tocao Temple 27
1) The destruction was in breach of obligations owed by Aprophe to Rantania under the 1965 Treaty 27
2) Rantania has the right of action since the wrongful act committed by Aprophe specially affects Rantania 27
3) Rantania is entitled to invoke responsibility of Aprophe by virtue of obligations erga omnes 28
B. Cultural heritage of outstanding universal value enjoys absolute protection 29
C. Alternatively, even if the military necessity exception constitutes a part of the customary international law, Aprophe cannot invoke it in the case at hand 31
D. Partial destruction of the Mai-Tocao site does not qualify as a countermeasure 32
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 34
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
|
A. Treaties and Conventions |
Page |
|
Charter of the United Nations (1945) 993 UNTS 110 |
5, 13, 16, 17 |
|
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) 993 UNTS 110 |
1, 13 |
|
Charter of the Organization of American States (1948) 119 UNTS 3 |
3 |
|
Constitutive Act of the African Union (2000), at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4937e0142.html |
3, 15 |
|
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954) 249 UNTS 240 |
31, 33 |
|
Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, UNGA Res.59/38, UN Doc. A/59/49 (2004) |
23, 26 |
|
ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance (2001), A/SP1/12/01 |
3 |
|
European Convention on State Immunity (1972) CETS 74 |
24 |
|
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949) 75 UNTS 287 |
21 |
|
Hague Convention IV (1907) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 36 Stat. 2227 |
21 |
|
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 999 UNTS 171 |
19, 20 |
|
MERCOSUR Ushuaia Protocol on Democratic Commitment (1998) 2177 UNTS 383 |
4 |
|
OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) 40 ILM 1289 |
3 |
|
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (1977) 1125 UNTS 3 |
21, 32, 33 |
|
Protocol of Washington to the Charter of the Organization of American States (1992) 33 ILM 1005 |
3 |
|
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1999), UNESCO Doc. HC/1999/7 |
32 |
|
UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) 1037 UNTS 151 |
30 |
|
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) 1155 UNTS 331 |
18, 19, 20 |
|
B. United Nations Resolutions and Other Documents |
Page |
|
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, UNGA Res.60/147 (2005), UN Doc. A/RES/60/147 |
25 |
|
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res.2625 (1970), UN Doc. A/RES/2625(XXV) |
5, 13 |
|
Definition of Aggression, UNGA Res.3314 (1974), UN Doc. A/RES/3314(XXIX) |
13 |
|
Human Rights Committee, Protection of Cultural Heritage as an Important Component of the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/6/11 |
30 |
|
ICJ, Rules of Court, at http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=3&p3=0 |
1 |
|
ILC, Conclusions of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (2006), UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 |
24 |
|
ILC, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries (2001) 2 YILC-II |
13, 28, 29, 33 |
|
ILC, Draft articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, with commentaries (2011) 2 YILC-II |
9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
ILC, Report on the work of its forty-third session (1991), UN Doc. A/46/10 |
24 |
|
ILC, Report on the work of its thirty-first session, (1979) 2 YILC-II |
14 |
|
ILC, Second Report on Responsibility of International Organizations (2004), UN Doc. A/CN.4/541 |
10 |
|
ILC, Seventh Report on Responsibility of International Organizations (2009), UN Doc. A/CN.4/610 |
11 |
|
ILC, The Effect of Armed Conflicts on Treaties (2005), UN Doc. A/CN.4/550 |
24 |
|
ILC, Third Report on State Responsibility (1971) 1 YILC-II |
9 |
|
Memorandum on the Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the United Nations (1950), UN Doc. S/1466 |
4 |
|
Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, UNGA Res.396 (V) (1950) |
4 |
|
Report of the Credentials Committee (1992), UN Doc. A/47/517/Add.1 |
4 |
|
Report of the Credentials Committee (2009), UN Doc. A/64/571 |
4 |
|
Report of the Credentials Committee (2010), UN Doc. A/65/583/Rev.1 |
4 |
|
Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004), UN Doc. A/59/565 |
15 |
|
Report of the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery on its ninetieth session, UN Doc. CES.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/33, para.101(12) |
18 |
|
Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during armed conflict, Report of the Special Rapporteur (1998), UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13 |
19 |
|
UN Doc. S/22133 (1991) |
15 |
|
UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/36 |
2 |
|
UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/42 |
6 |
|
UN Doc. S/PRST/2008/30 |
2 |
|
UN Doc. S/PRST/5 (1998) |
15 |
|
UN Doc. SG/SM/7174 (1999) |
2 |
|
UN Doc. SG/SM/8781 (2003) |
2 |
|
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Abolishing Slavery and its Contemporary Forms, UN.Doc.HR/PUB/02/4(2002) |
18 |
|
UNGA Meeting Record, UN Doc. A/46/PV.31 |
3 |
|
UNGA Meeting Record, UN Doc. A/63/PV.93 |
3 |
|
UNGA Res.36/103 (1981), UN Doc. A/RES/36/103 |
13 |
|
UNGA Res.45/150 (1990), UN Doc. A/RES/45/150 |
5 |
|
UNGA Res.46/7 (1991), UN Doc. A/RES/46/7 |
2, 3 |
|
UNGA Res.48/17 (1993), UN Doc. A/RES/48/17 |
2 |
|
UNGA Res.49/197 (1994), UN Doc. A/RES/49/197 |
2 |
|
UNGA Res.55/96 (2001), UN Doc. A/RES/55/96 |
4 |
|
UNGA Res.56/159 (2002), UN Doc. A/RES/56/159 |
5 |
|
UNGA Res.63/301 (2009), UN Doc. A/RES/63/301 |
2, 3 |
|
UNSC Meeting Record, UN Doc. S/PV.3988 |
15 |
|
UNSC Res.1072 (1996), UN Doc. S/RES/1072 |
2 |
|
UNSC Res.1162 (1998), UN Doc. S/RES/1162 |
15 |
|
UNSC Res.1234 (1999), UN Doc. S/RES/1234 |
16 |
|
UNSC Res.1244 (1999), UN Doc. S/RES/1244 |
15 |
|
UNSC Res.502 (1982), UN Doc. S/RES/502 |
16 |
|
UNSC Res.660 (1990), UN Doc. S/RES/660 |
16 |
|
UNSC Res.788 (1992), UN Doc. S/RES/788 |
15 |
|
UNSC Res.940 (1994), UN Doc. S/RES/940 |
6 |
|
C. International Cases and Arbitral Decisions |
Page | |
|
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion [2010] ICJ Gen. List No.141 |
16 | |
|
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v. Nigeria, Comm. No. 102/93 (1998) |
2 | |
|
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia, Comm. Nos. 147/95 and 149/96 (2000). |
2 | |
|
Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica) (Tinoco Concessions case) [1923] I UNRIAA 369 |
1, 7, 8 | |
|
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1989] ICJ 177 |
11 | |
|
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ 595 |
6 | |
|
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Provisional Measures) [1993] ICJ 3 |
6 | |
|
Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece) [2011] ICJ Gen. List No.142 |
12 | |
|
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda) [2005] ICJ 168 |
12 | |
|
Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (2007), ECHR Nos.71412/01, 78166/01 |
10 | |
|
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant (DRC v. Belgium) [2002] ICJ 3 |
22, 25 | |
|
Case concerning the Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain) [1970] ICJ 4 |
19, 25, 29 | |
|
Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) [1980] ICJ 4 |
24 | |
|
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections [1992] ICJ 240 |
12 | |
|
Cyprus v. Turkey (1975), ECHR Nos.6780/74, 6950/75, Decision on Admissibility |
7 | |
|
Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion [1999] ICJ 62 |
11 | |
|
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) [1995] ICJ 90 |
13, 29 | |
|
ECHR, Al-Adsani v. UK (2001), No.35763/97 |
23 | |
|
ECHR, Cudak v. Lithuania (2010), No. 15869/02 |
24 | |
|
ECHR, Fogarty v. UK (2001), No.37112/97 |
24 | |
|
ECHR, Hornsby v. Greece (1997), No.18357/91 |
26 | |
|
ECHR, Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany (2002), No.59021/00 |
26 | |
|
ECHR, McElhinney v. Ireland (2001), No.31253/96 |
22 | |
|
ECHR, Slivenko et. al v. Latvia (2003), No.48321/99 |
19 | |
|
Gajic v. Germany (2007), ECHR No.31446/02 |
10 | |
|
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Trial Judgment (2004), IT-99-36-T |
32 | |
|
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furindzija, Trial Judgment (1998), IT-95-17/1-T |
23 | |
|
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, Interlocutory Appeal (1995), IT-94-1 |
31 | |
|
Kasumaj v. Greece (2007), ECHR No.6974/05 |
10 | |
|
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ 53 |
16, 17 | |
|
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ 136 |
3, 19, 29 | |
|
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA) (Merits) [1986] ICJ 14 |
3, 13 | |
|
Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States of America) [1954] ICJ 19 |
13 | |
|
Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion, PCIJ, Series B, No.4, (1923) |
5 | |
|
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) [1974] ICJ 253 |
21, 29 | |
|
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections [1998] ICJ 9 |
17 | |
|
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ 174 |
10, 11 | |
|
The Case of the S.S.“Lotus” (France v. Turkey),PCIJ, Ser.A.,No.10, (1927) |
22 | |
|
D. Municipal Cases and Laws |
Page |
|
Doe I v. Unocal Corp. 395 F.3d 932, 945-947 (2002) |
18 |
|
Ferrini v. Germany (Italian Court of Cassation) (2004), No.5044/4, 128 ILR 659 |
22, 24 |
|
Mitchell v DPP [1986] LRC (Const) 35 |
8 |
|
Nuhanović v. The Netherlands (Court of Appeal in The Hague), Case No. 200.020.174/01 (2011) |
11 |
|
Prefecture of Voiotia v. Germany (Supreme Court of Greece) (2000), No.11/2000, 129 ILR 514 |
22 |
|
R (Al-Jedda) (FC) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 58 |
9 |
|
R v. Bow Street Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 147 (UKHL 1999) |
22 |
|
Republic of Fiji v Prasad [2001] 2 LRC 743 |
8 |
|
E. Treatises and Other Books |
Page |
|
Abass A., Regional Organizations and the Development of Collective Security (2004) |
15 |
|
Boylan P., Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: The Hague Convention of 1954 (1993) |
31 |
|
Brownlie I., Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (2008) |
19, 22, 26 |
|
Caplan L., “State Immunity, Human Rights and Jus Cogens”, (2003) 97 AJIL 741 |
22 |
|
Crawford J., Pellet A., Olleson S. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (2010) |
9 |
|
Damrosch L. (ed.), Enforcing Restraint: Collective Intervention in Internal Conflicts (1993) |
6 |
|
Fleck D., The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2nd ed. (2008) |
32 |
|
Franck T., Recourse to Force (2002) |
15 |
|
Gray C., International Law and the Use of Force, 2nd ed. (2004) |
14 |
|
Hafner G., Kohen M., Breau S. (eds.), State Practice Regarding State Immunities (2006) |
22, 23, 26 |
|
Henckaerts J.-M., Doswald-Beck L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I (2005) |
21, 30, 31, 32, 33 |
|
Higgins R., Problems and Process (1994) |
22, 26 |
|
Jennings R., Watts A. (eds.), Oppenheim’s International Law. Volume I: Peace, 9th ed. (1992) |
1, 8 |
|
Lauterpacht H., Recognition in International Law (1947) |
7 |
|
Orakhelashvili A., Peremptory Norms in International Law (2008) |
19, 22 |
|
Roth B., Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law (2000) |
4, 6, 7 |
|
Sandoz Y., Swinarski C., Zimmermann B. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (1987) |
20, 21 |
|
Schachter O., International Law in Theory and Practice (1991) |
14 |
|
Shaw M., International Law, 6th ed. (2008) |
17, 33 |
|
Simma B. (ed.), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Vol I. (2002) |
5, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Tams C., Enforcing obligations erga omnes in international law (2005) |
29 |
|
Toman J., Cultural Property in War: Improvement in Protection (2009) |
31 |
|
Triffterer O. (ed.), Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2008) |
30, 31, 32 |
|
Vrdoljak A., Cultural Heritage in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2009) |
30 |
|
F. Journal Articles |
Page |
|
Cannizzaro E., “The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures” (2001) 12 EJIL 889 |
33 |
|
Cleveland S., “Norm Internalization and U.S. Economic Sanctions”, 26 YJIL (2001), 1 |
18 |
|
d’Aspremont J., Legitimacy of Governments in the Age of Democracy, (2006) 38 NYU J. of Int’l Law & Politics 877 |
5 |
|
Deen-Racsmány Z., ‘A Redistribution of Authority Between the UN and Regional Organizations in the Field of Maintenance of Peace and Security?’, (2000) 13 LJIL 297 |
15 |
|
Dickinson A., “Status of Forces under the UN Convention on State Immunity”, (2006) 55 ICLQ 427 |
24 |
|
Feichtner I., ‘Waiver’, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2006) |
19, 21 |
|
Fox G., The Right to Political Participation in International Law, (1992) 17 YJIL 539 |
5 |
|
Francioni F., Lenzerini F., ‘The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law’, (2003) 14 EJIL 619 |
30 |
|
Gazzini T., ‘NATO Coercive Military Activities in the Yugoslav Crisis (1992-1999)’, (2001) 12 EJIL 391 |
17 |
|
Heß B., “The International Law Commission’s Draft Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property”, (1993) 4 EJIL 269 |
27 |
|
Higgins R., ‘The Advisory Opinion on Namibia: Which UN Resolutions are Binding under Article 25 of the Charter?’, (1972) 21 ICLQ 270 |
17 |
|
Higgins R., The Legal Consequences for Member States of the Non-fulfilment by International Organizations of their Obligations toward Third Parties, (1995) 66-I Yearbook of the Institut de Droit International 251 |
11 |
|
O'Keefe R., “World Cultural Heritage: Obligations to the International Community as a whole?”, (2004) 53 ICLQ 190 |
30 |
|
Reinisch A., ‘European Court Practice Concerning State Immunity from Enforcement Measures’, (2006) 17 EJIL 803 |
26 |
|
Roth B., Secession, Coups and the International Rule of Law: Assessing the Decline of the Effective Control Doctrine, (2010) 11 MJIL 393 |
5 |
|
Ruffert M., ‘Reprisals’, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2009) |
33 |
|
Wood M., ‘The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions’, (1998) 2 MPYBUNL 73 |
17 |
|
G. Miscellaneous |
Page |
|
‘Military Assistance on Request’, Institut de Droit International, Res.10RES-C (2011), |
14 |
|
‘Representative Democracy’, OAS GA Res.1080 (1991), OAS Doc.OEA/SerP/XXIO2 Doc.2739/91 |
3 |
|
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ACHPR/RES.162(EXT.OS/VIII)(2010) |
2 |
|
AU Communiqué, MEC/AMB/COMM.(XCIII) (2003) |
2 |
|
AU Communiqué, PSC/MIN/Comm.2 (CLI) (2008) |
2 |
|
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed. (1999) |
23 |
|
Commonwealth, Durban Communiqué (1999), at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/files/35247/FileName/Durban_Communique.pdf |
2 |
|
Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, Adopted by the 32nd session of the UNESCO General Conference (2003) |
30 |
|
Document of the Moscow Meeting on the Human Dimension of the CSCE (1991) 30 ILM 1670 |
3 |
|
EU Presidency Declaration on Honduras, 11530/09 (2009) |
2 |
|
Forced Labour in Myanmar (Burma), Report of the Commission of Inquiry, ILO (1998) |
19 |
|
IACHR, ‘Honduras: Human Rights and the Coup d’Etat’, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.55 |
6 |
|
Institut de Droit International, ‘Naples Resolution on the Immunity from Jurisdiction of the State and of Persons who Act on Behalf of the State in Case of International Crimes’ (2009) |
23, 25 |
|
Institut de Droit International, Resolution “Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law” (2005) |
29 |
|
Lomé Declaration on the Framework for an OAU Response to Unconstitutional Changes of Government (2000) (AHG/Decl.5 (XXXVI) |
3 |
|
Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme on the Harare Declaration (1995), at http://www.thecommonwealth.org/shared_asp_files/GFSR.asp?NodeID=141096 |
4 |
|
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Recasting Euro-Atlantic Security: Resolution 283, NATO Doc. AR.295.SA (1998) |
15 |
|
Non-Aligned Movement, Final Document of the XIV Ministerial Conference (2004), at http://www.nam.gov.za/media/040820.pdf |
4 |
|
OAS Res.MRE/RES.2/91, Doc.OEA/Ser.F/V.1 (1991) |
2 |
|
OAS Resolution CP/RES.953(1700/09), OEA/Ser.G (2009); |
2 |
|
OAU Res.CM/2004(LXVI)-C-(1997) |
2 |
|
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of World Heritage Convention (2001), WHC No.11/01, at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide11-en.pdf |
30 |
|
SADC Extraordinary Summit of the Organ Troika on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation, Communiqué (2009), at http://www.sadc.int/index/browse/page/474 |
2 |
|
United States Manual for Military Commissions (2007) |
30 |
|
Venice Commission, Opinion on Human Rights in Kosovo, No.280/2004, CDL-AD(2004)033 |
11 |