- •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
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
Rigalia was not involved in the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital and for that reason has no obligations towards Ardenia. Rigalia is not guilty for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital because Predator Drones belong to Morgania.16 Furthermore, “the drones, launched from Fort Raucus under the supervision of Morganian soldiers, were operated by members of the Morganian army in Morganville.”17 Thus, Rigalia is not answerable for the Bakchar Valley hospital strike.
2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
According to the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law “states have the duty to investigate in cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law.”18 However, Rigalia did not commit any crime under international law, that is why the Respondent does not have the burden of investigation. For the same reason Rigalia does not have to provide reparation to Ardenia.19
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
Provided by Article 51 of the U. N. Charter “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of … collective self-defense.”20 In addition, “international law permits the use of lethal force in self-defence in response to an “armed attack” as long as that force is necessary and proportionate.”21 Certainly, drones have some positive features, that preeminently distinguish them from other types of weapons. “Drones’ proponents argue that since drones have greater surveillance capability and afford greater precision than other weapons, they can better prevent collateral civilian casualties and injuries.”22 Therefore, joint Rigalian and Morganian actions were lawful acts of collective self-defense and they were intended for attainment of international peace and security.
2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
The Compromis states that “the mountainous terrain and close tribal loyalties of the inhabitants of the five [Zetian] provinces straddling the two countries have made it very difficult to pursue the individuals responsible for the increasingly deadly attacks taking place in Rigalia.”23 Considering these facts Rigalia and Morgania decided to use Predator Drones. It was an adequate response to the increasing assaults and direct threat of new attacks. According to Enzo Cannizzaro’s research “a proportionate response is one which is necessary and appropriate to repel the attack and which entails acceptable side-effects on other interests and values affected by the response.”24 In conclusion, proportionate actions of Rigalia and Morgania had an aim to remove the threat of terrorists’ attacks and to re-establish peace in Rigalia.
III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
The Respondent considers this enactment to be in compliance with international law as non-violating the human rights and maintaining security. In the Northern Provinces of Rigalia, governed by the tribal councils, in accordance with religious tenets, Zetian women and girls over the age of 14 are obliged to wear a "Mavazi", a traditional head covering made from the animal hide.25 Moreover the punishment is imposed on the woman, who refused to wear the garment.26 Besides, the Mavazi covers the entire head, including the face, making identification of the wearer difficult. So it threatens the security as criminals and terrorists could hide under it carrying guns and etc. Consequently the “Mavazi ban” was enacted by Rigalian Parliament prohibiting all Rigalians from wearing a Mavazi in public or from receiving public services while wearing a Mavazi. Therefore according to the article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and preamble of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women the Rigalian legislation satisfies the international law.