4. Dispute doesn't follow from commercial or labor activity which act as possible restrictions of immunity, according to Convention position about jurisdictional immunities.26

Actions of Eprofe with 1962 for 1964 it can be considered as occupation of territories as occupied territory «undoubtedly belonging Rantanen».²⁷ Article 41 of the Geneva Convention allows for compulsory settlement in a particular place or internment of the population of the occupied territory, and art. 51 of 4th Geneva Convention²⁸ Occupying Power may refer to the forced labor of protected persons necessary for the needs of the occupying army. This article defines the working conditions of internment.

During the war, peacetime treaties do not apply²⁹, and apply the rules of international humanitarian law and not the national labor law. Thus, in fact it is a violation of humanitarian law, public records related to work internees.

The issue of protection of international humanitarian law has not been in court of Eprofe and accordingly we can’t  talk about exhaustion of remedies from Eprofe’s citizens on the territory of Rantanen.³⁰

5. Application of the provisions of Article 11 of the Convention is not applicable,

As first activity was led on territory which has departed subsequently to Eprofe³¹, thus, actually activity was performed on territory of Eprofe.

3. Actions of Rantaten’s courts are contrary to the peace treaty of 1965.

1. According to the Agreement of 1965 Rantanen and its citizens refuse every possible requirements to Eprofe, following of the conflict which has begun in August, 1962³². Moreover, both states have assured that they have powers under the legislation to refuse such requirements on behalf of the citizens³³. In turn, Eprofe believes that Rantanen has certain obligations under the Treaty of 1965, to be performed by the principle of good faith performance of their international obligations (pacta sunt servanda).³⁴

Also since Eprofe through its Foreign Minister Ken A. Barrow said that the decision of the Rantaten’s court  is "a flagrant violation of the Treaty on 1965,"³⁵ it is clear that there is a dispute between States concerning the application of Art. XV of the treaty. All disputes following from its interpretation and application are permitted by the International court of the United Nations.³⁶ This suggests that it is the International Court of Justice instead of the Court of the Eastern nations has the right to make final conclusions as to whether to bring Rantanen to Eprofe these requirements in the international order.

2. Eprofe is not obligated to implement the provisions of the Charter of the eastern nations.

Eprofe isn't the participant of the Charter of east nations. On January, 23rd, 2011 Minister for Foreign Affairs of Eprofe has notified the Secretary general of the United Nations on denouncement by Eprofe of the given Charter³⁷ on the basis of item 45 of the given Charter.

Objections about termination of the contract as denouncement it has not been directed by Rantanen³⁸.

Therefore even if the Charter also contradicts the Agreement of 1965, this fact doesn't release Rantanen from duties discharge before Eprofe under the Agreement of 1965. In case of contradiction of the above documents Rantanen must inevitably breaks   obligations under the Charter or an obligation to Eprofe, and incurred the responsibility. These are legal consequences of rash signing by it of the Charter in 1980. A provision in paragraph 2 of Art. 45 of the Charter on the preservation Eprofe’s obligations  after denunciation of the Charter in this case does not matter, because the whole of the Charter ceased to Eprofe, and can’t be assumed that the effect of a later contract (charter) terminate the provisions of the Treaty of 1965.³⁹ There is only one Agreement of 1965 which should be performed. Therefore Rantanen can't make the demands to Eprofe in connection with events of 1962-1965 even through the International court of the United Nations.

3. The concept of estoppel requires compliance  earlier commitments by Rantaten, do not imply a change of position on a particular issue.

According to the concept of estoppel Rantanen is prohibited to take the position that it is clearly supported earlier.⁴⁰ A legal investigation by court of the first instance the court has twisted about application of item 15 of the agreement of 1965⁴¹. According to the subsequent refusal of its application will be wrongful.

4. Public officials of Rantanen have wrongfully arrested the property of Eprofe located in Rantanen. Immunity from foreign jurisdiction consists of several elements, and along with judicial immunity provides also immunity from enforcement powers on decision execution, and also immunity of the property of the state.

1. Rantanen was unable to carry out measures of execution of a foreign court.

Elements that make up the state immunity from foreign jurisdiction does not depend on each other. . Even if Eprofe agreed to resolve the dispute, it would not mean that the decision may be enforced in the territory of Rantanen. This rule is generally accepted as a doctrine⁴², and international practice⁴³.

In addition, this rule confirms by the Convention on jurisdictional immunities, which is a codification of prevailing practices in this area.⁴⁴

Article 19 of the Convention provides three cases where the decision may be enforced, but any of them in this case is not applicable in this case. In addition, as the contents of this article category of the dispute which, in principle, may be important to solve the question of refuse of judicial immunity to that element of the State immunity does not apply.

2. .Rantanen could not arrest the property of a foreign state.

The right of state property is determined and that  is important established by the internal law of that State under the doctrine of "act of state"⁴⁵ .This rule is a legal tradition, the consequence of the sovereignty of the state and was confirmed in the sources of international law⁴⁶. As to the foreign property which acquired out of sphere of jurisdiction of the given state and has appeared in its territory the national law solves questions on its accessory, recognizing exterritorial action of the corresponding foreign legislation owing to a principle of respect of the sovereignty and independence of other states. The accessory of the property to Eprofe isn't challenged by Rantanen.

Immunity of the property as well as immunity from decision execution doesn't depend on a dispute category, and on the developed international custom the possibility execution in enforcement action against property solved taking into account the category of property. The reference of Rantanen that the property was not diplomatic isn't well-founded, as the arrest prohibition concerns any property, except for such which directly is used or intends for use by the state for other purposes, than the state non-commercial purposes.⁴⁷ A similar rule is confirmed in a number of international conventions⁴⁸ and jurisprudence⁴⁹.

1 The “Noga” case and the Seizure of the Sedov. International Arbitration Court Decisions 3rd Editio. Ed. S.Bond,F. Bachand. 2011; The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, decided by the US SupremeCourt 7 Cranch 116 (1812); Mighell v. Sultan of Johore (1894). 1 Law Reports, Queen’s Bench Division (U.K. 149).

2 Броунли Я. Международное право. М., 1977. Ч. I. С. 425; H.Steinberger, State Immunity, EPIL 10 (1987), 432; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University, 701-703

3 UN General Assembly resolution of December 2, 2004 N 59/38 "The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their property"

4 UN General Assembly resolution of December 2, 2004 N 59/38 "The UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their property"

5 The Viennese convention on the diplomatic intercourses of 1961, the Viennese convention on the consular intercourses 1963 г

6 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University, 701.

7 Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. P. Malanczuk. Seventh edition. 1997. P.119; the Inter-American Draft Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity of States, approved by the Inter- American Juridical Committee on 21 January 1983, ILM 22 (1983), 292.

8 The declaration of principles of the international law, concerning friendship and cooperation between the states according to Articles of organization of the Incorporated Nations from October, 24th, 1970//the Collection "the United Nations. Resolutions of General Assembly at XXV session", New York., 1970 with. 151 – 155

9 Article 38 of the Statute of the ICJ

10 Compromise.

11 Compromise.

12 The declaration of principles of the international law, concerning friendship and cooperation between the states according to Articles of organization of the Incorporated Nations from October, 24th, 1970//the Collection "the United Nations. Resolutions of General Assembly at XXV session", New York., 1970 with. 151 – 155.

13 Private International Law. Ed. GK Dmitriev, KA Bekyashev. M., 2004. P.547, 548.

14 Art. 4 The Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980

15 Private International Law. Ed. GK Dmitriev, KA Bekyashev. M., 2004. P.259

16The case of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Serbian Loans 1929 PCIJ. Ser. A 20. (1929). P.41, 53. Case of Certain Norwegian loans: ICJ Reports 1957. P.13.

17 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 48th session, 6 May-26 July 1996 p/136 New York : UN, 1996 A/51/10

18 Item 1 from item ‘c’ of the 41 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Optional protocol item 5 to it, in art, 11 and art.14 International conventions about liquidation of all forms

19 P. VI Declaration of Principles that States Parties shall be guided in their mutual relations of the CSCE Final Act (Helsinki, 1 August 1975)

20 Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. P. Malanczuk.Seventh edition. 1997. P.128, 129, Article 7 of the "UN Conventionon Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their property"

21 Compromise

22 Article 15 of the Convention on the Law Institute

23 Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law. P. Malanczuk. Seventh edition. 1997. P.119; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, Sixth ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University, 701.

24 Article 2. Of Convention about jurisdictional immunities

25 Norwegian Embassy v. Quattri 114 ILR, p. 525.

26 Article 110,11 of the Convention on the Law Institute

27 Item 6 of Compromise

28 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, August 12, 1949

29 The international law. Textbook for high schools. Ed. G. V. Ignatenko, O. Tiunov. - M., 2009/S.547

30 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 48th session, 6 May-26 July 1996 p/136 New York : UN, 1996 A/51/10

31 Compromise

32 Article XV of The Agreement 1965

33 Compromise

34 The declaration of principles of the international law, concerning friendship and cooperation between the states according to Articles of organization of the Incorporated Nations from October, 24th, 1970//the Collection "the United Nations. Resolutions of General Assembly at XXV session", New York., 1970 with. 151 – 155.

35 Compromise

36 Art. XXV Of the Agreement on 1965

37 Compromise

38 Article 65 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties

39 The Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 30

40 Art. 45 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969Denmark / Norway on East Greenland, Cambodia / Thailandtemple of Preah Vihear,.

41 Art. 18 of Compromise

42 Private International Law. Ed. GK Dmitriev, KA Bekyashev. M., 2004. S.260.

43 Article 20 of the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities, European Convention on State Immunity 16.V.1972 CETS No.:074

44 Article 19 of the Convention on Jurisdictional   Immunities

45 Folsom AD, Gordon M.U, Spanogl JL International Transactions / Trans. from English. M.1996. S.402. The solution of the U.S. Armed Forces 1987 American Journal of Int. Law 1965. vol.59. # 1p.98, 360; J.-P.Fonteyne, Acts of State, EPIL I (1992), 17-20;

46 Art. 8 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts in 1983

47 Article 19 of the Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities

48 European Convention on State Immunity 16.V.1972 CETS No.: 074

49 Cristina case [1938] AC 485; 9 AD, p. 250. Дело Luther v. Sagor 1921. Luther v. Sagor [1921] 3 KB 532; 1 AD 49.