- •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
2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
According to the United Nations Charter joint Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were legitimate means of self-protection. This treaty guarantees that all States have the inherent right of self-defence.7 In order to take part in acts of self-defense on the territory of another state a state must meet two requirements. First of all, an act or series of acts must have such criterion as sufficient gravity8, which the actions of the Zetian terrorists have. Secondly, the armed attack must have a sufficient bond to the state upon which the act of self-defence will be carried out.9 As it was proved above, Ardenia had nexus to the armed attack.
Thirdly, lawful acts taken in self-defense should meet the important requirements of necessity and proportionality.10 The necessity means the existence or absence of other means of responding the threat posed by an armed attack11 and the period of time between the armed attack and the act of self-defence.12 Morgania’s and Rigalia’s act of self-defence meets the requirement of necessity because they used force in the case of emergency, when their citizens were in great danger and there were no other available means to protect their state. Regarding proportionality, a response must be sufficient to protect the defender’s rights, ensure its security but it must not be more hostile.13 It can be confirmed with confidence that the collective actions of Morgania and Rigalia were proportionate since they acted only in reasonable limits and deadly attacks of Zetian terrorists in Rigalia were increasing.
B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
As was proved above the use of predator drones by Rigalia against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia was adequate and did not break clauses of international law. In addition, under the Statute of the International Court of Justice “the states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize … the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: … c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation.”14 There was not any event which could have broken any international obligation. Even “a missile fired from a drone is no different from any other commonly used weapon, including a gun fired by a soldier or a helicopter or gunship that fires missiles.”15 Consequently, the court is not entitled to cease the drone attacks.
II. The attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not attributable to Rigalia and Rigalia has no obligation to investigate the attack or to compensate Ardenia therefore. Moreover, the act was not an act of aggression but part of a legitimate and proportionate operation to defend against Zetian terrorists
Rigalia was not involved in the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital since the hospital was targeted by Morgania. That means the Respondent is not going to examine the attack or to pay reparations to Ardenia. Besides, all actions of Rigalia constituted lawful and adequate parts of antiterrorism struggle. Rigalia’s aim was to defend its population and to give a proportionate response to terrorists.