This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
THE PEACE PALACE THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF MAI TOCAO
THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE (APPLICANT)
THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RANTANIA (RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
2011. On September 12. the parties signed jointly a Compromis and submitted the same to the International Court of Justice. The Compromis submitted to the ICJ is about the differences between the Applicant and the Respondent concerning the Mai Tocao Temple. signed in The Hague. . “States may bring cases before the Court by special agreement. pursuant to the article 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The Netherlands.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Republic of Aprophe (Applicant) and the Federal Republic of Rantania (Respondent) submit the following dispute to the International Court of Justice.
THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW.. ET. II. IV. WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY RANTANIAN COURTS IN THE CASE OF TUBANDO. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THE CASE. WHETHER RANTANIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE AGAINST APROPHE IN THE CONTEXT OF OPERATION UNITING FOR DEMOCRACY. RANTANIA MAY NOT PERMIT ITS OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE. III. WHETHER APROPHE’S DESTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OF THE MAI TOCAO TEMPLE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. AL v. SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF APROPHE. .
The skirmishes lasted for two years until it reached a stage of stale mate which made the two states to resort in good office and engage in peace negotiations. . Aprophe. Rantania. The agreement concluded The Treaty of 1965. Many disputes engaged from small scale as between tribal and ethnic groups to full scale wars as between the two states. Its economy has blossomed in recent years. The issue is predicated on the fact that when Aprophe was founded. the Mai Tocao War happened when Aprophian soldiers were attacked by villagers of unknown nationality who hid unto Rantanian territory near Mai Tocao site. there was no settled boundary between Approphe and Rantania. due to its diplomatic and trade relations with the three neighboring countries: Lamarthia. It was founded in 1698 at the council of Marcelux which is the present day capital of the State. in large part. on the other hand. The Mai Tocao Complex. has a population of almost 90 million people and is located to the immediate east of Aprophe. has approximately 50 million inhabitants. sovereignty over Mai Tocao a point of contention between the two for 300 years since Mai Tocao is situated near the border.STATEMENT OF FACTS The Republic of Aprophe and the Federal Republic of Rantania are two adjacent states. Verland and Pellgrinia. In 1962. which awarded the entirety of Mai Tocao Temples to Aprophe placing the same 10km within the latter’s boundary. was the center of all of Aprophe and Rantania’s arguments since they first became state. As a result.
Nonetheless. ISLA filed a petition against Rantania on the grounds that it deprived its nationals to their inalienable rights to the Eastern Nations Court.During the war.s elite army. an award winning documentary brought to public attention the experiences of the surviving internees. The Aprophe decline to participate. Andler confronted them by taking arms which resulted to several casualties. though not paid. The ENC directed Ratania to proceed with the trial. the government of Aprophe under President Green. . The trial court dismissed the case which was then affirmed by the Aprophian Supreme Court. 2011. However. By the used of Aprophe. Andler faced some opposition from those who were still loyal to Green. On January 15. ILSA instituted similar proceeding in a Rantanian court but it was dismissed and later affirmed by the Rantanian Supreme Court. They were called “military internees”. more than 500 Rantanians were forced to labor to provide goods and services to the army of Aprophe. After dismissal. it caught the attraction of International League for Solidarity and Access (ILSA) who instituted a proceeding against Aprophe in local court on behalf of the internees and one Mr. In August 2001. was overthrown by a coup d etat headed by General Paige Andler who subsequently assumed office under an “interim government” Under the interim government. Richard Turbando. Rantania ordered its officials the execution of non-diplomatic properties of the government of Aprophe located in Rantania. but instead submitted a letter asserting that Rantanian court was obliges to dimiss the claim on the basis of sovereign immunity grounds. they were provided with food three times a day and were given shelters.
one temple was blown down as response to the non-stop bombing campaign of Rantania. Aprophe filed an application before the Registry of the International Court of Justice to institute a proceeding against Rantania. . intervened with the internal conflict of Aprophe and conducted an airstrike destroying several significant military installations on Aprophe. Rantania reversed its former decision not to accede to the ICJ and thereafter announced that Rantania would engage Aprophe before the ICJ. he will detonate the temples one by one.On the other hand. as urged by Green. As Andler’s forces were shattered into pieces. on the condition that Aprophe withdraw its application and instead agree jointly to submit to the Court all claims that the parties might have against one another. On May 12. As her warnings were left unheeded. On July 1. 2011. However. the Rantanian force started to mobilized to the border to capture Andler who took refuge in the great antechamber of Mai Tocao Temple. 2011. Andler installed explosives on the temples in the complex and argued that if the Rantanian forces continue to advance. Rantania.
Isagani). the intervention done by Rantania with regards to the internal affairs of Aprophe. third states could either remain neutral or otherwise support the governing authorities. In the case at bar. As the matter of fact. it has already gain international acceptance (Cruz. . Under the traditional rule. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THIS CASE. a State of belligerent was recognized. When the internal conflict of Aprophe became full-scale. Furthermore. 14 Nations recognize Andler’s government at the time of the filing of the Compromis. The ICJ can absolutely exercise jurisdiction over the claims in this case. made the former responsible for its action and must justify the same under International Law.ARGUMENT I. even Rantania itself has impliedly asserted to the reality that the Government of Aprophe under Andler is the rightful government when the latter bargained to jointly submit to the in order to stop the application of Aprophe in instituting a proceeding against Rantania. one actually exercising power and control in the state as opposed to the true and lawful government. Even though the interim government of Aprophe under Andler is a de facto government – a government of fact. SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF APROPHE.
Without the authority of the Security Council. Furthermore. . RANTANIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE AGAINST APROPHE IN THE CONTEXT OF OPERATION UNITING FOR DEMOCRACY. Article 2 (4)). the same may only be justified in case an armed attack is clearly imminent. Moreover. the same cannot be the subject of intervention. Under the commonly known international law principle “domestic jurisdiction clause” – as long as the matter remains internal. or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations” (U. Article 50). it constitutes a violation of the prohibition against the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Aprophe. Here. The air strike and bombing by Ratanian force cannot find justification in international law.II. The illegal use of force against Aprophe during the outbreak of internal hostilities by Rantania through air strikes and continuous bombing was a blatant violation of the United Nation Charter. Charter for want of an arm attack against Rantania. Charter. Charter. it cannot be justified as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U. Even assuming anticipatory and preemptive self-defense is allowed under Customary International Law. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter provides that.N.N. there was no threat of imminent armed attack that would justify anticipatory or preemptive self-defense (U. all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.N.
APROPHE’S DESTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OF THE MAI TOCAO TEMPLE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW. IV. ET. Furthermore. Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897)). THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY RANTANIAN COURTS IN THE CASE OF TUBANDO. In regards to the claim of the internees. every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state. Article 2 (2) of the 1930 Forced Labor Convention. Therefore. a foreign state cannot be sued before local courts of another state without its consent. and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another within its territory (Underhill v. AL v. R. THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. “forced or compulsory labor shall not include (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency like War or Calamity.III. RANTANIA MAY NOT PERMIT ITS OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE. the judgment and even the case have no international legal basis at all. Accordingly. Article 7 (2) of the United Nation Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property provides that “an agreement by a State for the application of law of another State cannot be interpreted as a consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of the other State (Sarmiento.).. Rantania’s exercise of jurisdiction over the case was in clear violation of an elementary rule in International Law. .
The latter’s failure to heed on the announcement made by Aprophe and cease the bombing immediately thereafter. the temple could have been saved. National Geographic. “ the world was at war.The destruction of one of the temples in Mai Tocao was made as the sacrifice taken to draw the attention internationally about the unlawful military operations spearheaded by Rantania. 1983). if the cultural heritage site is endangered of destruction or is threatened by serious and specific danger it must be keep up to date and publish whenever circumstances may require. conservation and presentation of the cultural and heritage (World Heritage Convention. protection. prior to the detonation of one of the Temple of Mai Tocao. If only Rantania has answered the call without delay in a humanly manner. Such announcement definitely complied with the requirements for the identification. If it would have not made. . Such recourse was a better way to justify the ending of war by having detonated the half of the temple structure than that ordering a last ditch of military defense that would inevitably cost more lives of more soldiers. Under the World Heritage Convention. the allies dropped atomic bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan which lead to the unconditional surrender of the latter. the destruction was attributable to the violent act of Rantania. never failed to inform the public and specially Rantania through media by satellite uplink of the measures it is going to take. the detonation could have been prevented. more lives could have been wasted in both sides. thereby saving the lives of American servicemen who might otherwise have been doomed in a protracted invasion of the Japanese homeland”(Microsoft Encarta® (2009)). Aprophe. During World War II. and the A-bomb was said to be a way to hasten an end to the conflict. As a matter of fact.
The destruction of a building of the Mai tocao Temple did not violate any international law.CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF Applicant. CANUMHAY (Agent of the applicant) . The Republic of Aprophe violated international law. IV. Respectfully submitted. et. al v. respectfully requests that the Court adjuge and declare that: I. III.. Republic of Aprophe. Rantania be held responsible for the use of illegal force against Aprophe. The Andler Government is the rightful government of Republic of Aprophe and the court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in the case. DAVE L. Rantania cannot permit its officials to execute the judgment in that case. II. The exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the case of Turbando. and.
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of State and their Property. Samiento. Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) OTHERS Microsoft Encarta® (2009) . 1983.N. Public International Law (2009). 1949. CHARTER. International Convention on the Law of Treaties. The 1930 Forced Labor Convention. World Heritage Convention. Ralph A. and 1976. (2003). Geneva Conventions.INDEX OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS Isagani A. Cruz. 1968. 1969). 1970. International Law. JUDICIAL DECISION Underhill v. TREATIES and COVENTIONS U. (May 23. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.