- •Treaties and conventions
- •Judicial decisions
- •Essays, articles and journals
- •U.N. Documents
- •Miscellaneous
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Pleadings and authorities
- •I. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government of the Aprophe.
- •Summary of pleadings
- •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 I.C.J.
- •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.
- •The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court presents the violation of Aprophe’s sovereignty and is in contradiction with the rules of international law
- •The decision of the Rantanian court constitutes the violation of Aprophe’s immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts
- •I. The exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian court violates the general principle of the sovereign equality
- •II. Aprophe had never voluntary accept the jurisdiction of Rantanian courts and the Eastern Nations Court
- •III. Rantania has jurisdiction entirely only within its own territory
- •The argument of the Rantanian court that immunity does not extend to violations of peremptory norms of international law is groundless
- •There is no universal recognition of the specific procedural effect of jus cogens norms
- •The judicial practice grants state immunity in the disputes related to the norms of jus cogens character
- •3. The Rantania has violated it’s obligations under The Peace Agreement of 1965
- •IV. Aprophe’s destruction of a building of the Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law
- •Rantania has violated its obligations under the un Charter
- •Aprophe’s destruction of a small building of the Mai-Tocao Temple was in compliance with the international humanitarian law
- •The imperative military necessity applies when there is no other admissible alternative available
- •II. The doctrine of imperative military necessity is attributable to destruction of the Mai-Tocao Temple
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
- •17 Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, ga Res 396 (V) 1950.
- •61 European Court of Human Rights, Judgment, 21 November 2001, Al-Adsani V. The United Kingdom.
- •64 Jones V. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2006] ukhl 26.
- •74 Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974.
Essays, articles and journals
Francois Bugnion, “Just wars, wars of aggression and international humanitarian law” (2002) IRRC.
Francois Bugnion, “The Origins and Development of the Legal Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict: 50th Anniversary of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”, 14 November 2004.
Jan Hladic, “The 1954 Hague Convention fort he Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the Notion of Military Necessity” (30 September 1999) №835 IRRC.
Jean-Marie Henckaerts, “Study on Customary International Humanitarian law: A Contribution to the Understanding and Respect for the rule of law in armed conflict” (2005) IRRC.
Kerstin Bartsch & Björn Elberling, “Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulouet al. v. Greece and Germany Decision” (2003) GLJ.
Michele Potesta, “State Immunity and Jus Cogens Violations: The Alien Tort Statute Against the Backdrop of the Latest Developments in the Law of Nations” (2010), BJIL.
Talmon Stefan, 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, 1999.
U.N. Documents
Declaration 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).
Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, 9 December 1981 A/RES/36/103.
Definition of Aggression United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974.
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful acts with commentaries, International Law Commission, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, A/56/10.
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/1466Recognition by the UN of representation of a member state.
Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State, GA Res 396 (V) 1950.
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, A/Res/56/83, 56th Sess., 2002, art. 1.
Miscellaneous
Patty Gerstenblith, From Bamiyan to Baghdad: Warfare and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage at the Beginning of the 21st Century (2006) 37 Geo. J. Int'l L. 245 (LexisNexis).
Statement of jurisdiction
The Republic of Aprophe (“Aprophe”) and the Federal Republic of Rantania (“Rantania”) present all differences concerning the rightfulness of Andler government in the Republic of Aprophe, illegal use of force, lawfulness of dispensation of justice by Rantanian courts, destruction of buildings of the Mai-Tocao Temple, and submit a copy thereof for the adjudication by International Court of Justice (“I.C.J.”) according to article 40(1) of the Statute of the I.C.J. (“Statute”). Therefore, Aprophe and Rantania accept the jurisdiction of the I.C.J. as consisted with Article 36(1) of the Statute.