- •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
III. Secondary materials: monographs
Dinstein, Yoram. War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 3rd ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 4,5
Gardam, Judith. Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force By States (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004). 4
Schachter, Oscar. The Right of States to Use Armed Force(1984)83 Mich. L. Rev. 1626. 5
IV. Secondary materials: articles
Cannizzaro, Enzo, “Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war”, (2006) International review of the Red Cross, Volume 88 Number 864 December. 8
Human Rights Council, Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, Addendum, “Study on targeted killings”, UNGAOR, 14th Sess, UN Doc A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010. 5,7,8
Rose-Ackerman, Susan & Benjamin Billa, “Treaties and National Security”, 40 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 437 (2008), reprinted in Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 595. 22
V. Other materials
OECD, Commentary on the Implementation Procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (June 2000). 24,26
OECD, Directorate for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs, Working Papers No. 2003/2 (June 2003). 20
PACE, Parliamentary Assemble, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe, by Mr Mogens Jensen, Doc. 12266 (25 May 2010). 10,13
Simma, Bruno. ed. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). 4
Statement of jurisdiction
The State of Ardenia (Applicant) and the State of Rigalia (Respondent) submit the Special Agreement (Compromis) concluded on 5 May 2010 to this Court as provided by Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. This Special Agreement (Compromis) includes the differences between the states concerning the Zetian Provinces.
Regarding Article 3(a) of the Compromis, the Applicant and the Respondent request the Court to adjudge the dispute in accordance with the rules and principles of international law, including any applicable treaties.