- •Table of contents
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention 16
- •Index of authorities
- •I. International materials
- •II. Jurisprudence
- •III. Secondary materials: monographs
- •IV. Secondary materials: articles
- •V. Other materials
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings
- •A. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were in accordance with the provisions of international law
- •1. Unlawful Zetians’ actions countenanced by Ardenia infringed some international provisions
- •I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
- •II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
- •2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
- •B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
- •A. Rigalia does not have to bear the responsibility to hold an inquiry into the attack or to make up for it since the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not related to Rigalia
- •1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital
- •2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
- •B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation
- •1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law
- •2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
- •A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- •C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
- •1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
- •2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
- •3. Zetian girls and women wear Mavazi because they are may be punished by being confined to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to wear this garment
- •4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention
- •A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
- •1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
- •2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
- •B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
- •C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
One of the purposes of the “Mavazi ban” enactment was to end the discrimination of Zetian women and therefore equalize women and men rights. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women prohibits any discrimination against women defined as:
[a]ny distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.36
The discrimination against women also “[v]iolates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity.”37 Consequently women could not be obliged to wear a Mavazi and could not be punished for their refusal to do so.
So Mavazi is a cultural tradition, or custom that is not compatible with human dignity. And in accordance to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women member-states should “[t]ake all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women.”38 Additionally, States all appropriate measures should be taken “[t]o modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.”39 These mean that the “Mavazi ban” is under the international law.
A related issue concerning the wearing of burqa (a Mavazi type dress) in European countries was discussed in a PACE report. It states that “[t]he veiling of women, especially full veiling through the burqa or the niqab, is often perceived as a symbol of the subjugation of women to men, restricting the role of women within the society, limiting their professional life and impeding their social and economic activities.”40 This tradition is probably “[a] threat to women’s dignity and freedom. No women should be coerced into wearing religious clothing by their community or their family and there is a need to protect them against being excluded from public life.”41
This issue is relevant to the situation of Zetian women and girls. If Zetian women in Northern Provinces refuses to wear this full-veil garment they are urgently required to leave the Zetian Provinces, or, if they do not leave and stay and are caught, are punished severely, either by being confined to their homes for long periods of time, or, in the most severe cases, by receiving as many as 40 lashes in a public flogging ceremony. This violates the Human rights because under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”42 Consequently the enactment of “Mavazi ban” was a necessary and justified act.