Summary of Pleadings:

Applicant:

II

Ranovstayo violated International Law by failing to hand over Ms. Keinblat Vormund to
the Aprepluyan authorities when requested on 9 June 2018. Particularly, the Respondent
breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as Its
consular authorities disregarded Aprepluya’s laws and regulations, interfered with its
internal affairs and used its consulate in a manner incompatible with its functions.
Furthermore, Ranovstayo violated Aprepluya´s sovereignty by preventing It to enforce its
criminal jurisdiction within its territory. All in all, Ranovstayo’s conduct is no justified
under general international law since diplomatic asylums is not recognized as a customary
international law rule, and even if it were, Ms. Vormund was prosecuted for common
crimes. Ranovstayo can neither justify its action under humanitarian considerations nor
with non-refoulment principle.

III

The International Court of Justice may not exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s
counterclaim concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft under the terms of Applicant’s
reservation to its optional declaration. First, the Mantyan Incident was a military activity.
Second, it is a matter essentially within Aprepluya’s domestic jurisdiction as determined by
the applicant. In any event, the incident should be characterized as a domestic matter
according to international law. Moreover, Respondent has no standing to appear before this
Court. It cannot rely on erga omnes or erga omnes partes obligations, nor in the ICCPR as a
basis for standing. Additionally, Ranovstayo appears before this Court with unclean hands.

IV

Even if the Court were to exercise jurisdiction over the counterclaim, Aprepluya did not
violate international law by shooting down the aircraft since it acted in accordance with the
duty to protect life imposed by article 6 (1) of the ICCPR. Aprepluya used force to protect
innocents lives from a threat. The operation carried out was necessary and it adopted all
feasible precautions. As such, Applicant acted under an honest and reasonable error of fact.
Additionally, the actions against the Mantyan airliner were in accordance with the Chicago
Convention as it was an exercise of Aprepluya’s domestic prerogatives, not cover by article
3 bis. In the alternative, Applicant’s conduct was justified as a means to deal with a terrorist
threat since it acted in anticipatory self-defense responding to an armed attack of a terrorist
group.

Respondent:

II

Ranovstayo acted lawfully by refusing to hand over Ms. Keinblat Vormund to the
Aprepluyan authorities, as long as It was entitled to grant her protection since she had a
well-founded fear of persecution for the sole reason of manifesting her political opinion and
she was outside of the jurisdiction her country of origin. Besides, under humanitarian
considerations, Ranovstayo was able to grant shelter to Ms. Vormund as endorsed by
customary international law, and the fact that Ms. Vormund was subject to a threat to her
liberty coming from the arbitrary behavior of the Applicant. Furthermore, Ranovstayo
acted in compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relation
as long as offering shelter within consular premises is compatible with consular functions.

III

The International Court of Justice may exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s

counterclaim concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft under article 36 (2) of the Statute of
this Court since Applicant’s reservation to its optional declaration is not applicable. The
above as the shooting-down of the Mantyan airliner was not a military activity and because
Aprepluya’s self-judging reservation is invalid for being contrary to article 36 (6) of the
Statute. Alternatively, that reservation must be interpreted in light of international law.
Therefore, Applicant’s conduct is not a matter essentially within its domestic jurisdiction.
Ranovstayo has standing to appear before this Court. First, article 3 bis of the Chicago
Convention enshrines an erga omnes partes obligation and second, articles 41 and 44 of the
ICCPR entitle Respondent to present its claim.
 IV

Aprepluya violated international law by shooting down the Mantyan airliner. Article 3 bis
of the Chicago Convention is applicable to national aircraft, thus, by using force against a
civil airliner, Aprepluya breached the Convention. Moreover, Applicant cannot rely on
article 51 of the United Nations Charter as it was not a victim of an armed attack and
anticipatory self-defense is not accepted under article 51 of the Charter. In any event, the
shooting down of the Mantyan airliner was neither necessary nor proportional. In addition,
Applicant breached article 6 (1) of the ICCPR by arbitrarily depriving the life of two
civilians. The wrongfulness of the Aprepluya’s conduct is not precluded since it cannot rely
on distress nor on necessity.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

Applicant

The United Republic of Aprepluya instituted proceedings against the Democratic State of
Ranovstayo with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations of international law by
Ranovstayo. Aprepluya notified the Court of its intention to challenge the Court’s
jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s counter-claim, as well as to defend against it on the merits
in the event that the Court rejects the jurisdictional challenge. On 17 August 2020 both
States agreed on this Court’s jurisdiction over Aprepluya’s claims, and to have those claims
and Ranovstayo’s counter-claim, as well as Aprepluya’s challenge of jurisdiction over the
counter-claim, heard together in a single phase of the proceedings. On 10 September 2020,
the Parties have jointly notified to the Court a Statement of Agreed Facts.

Respondent.
By virtue of a Joint Notification of a Statement of Agreed Facts on 10 September 2020, and
in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [“ICJ”],
the Democratic State of Ranovstayo and the United Republic of Aprepluya hereby refer to
this Honorable Court their dispute concerning the J-Vid-18 Pandemic.

Both parties have agreed that a “dispute” between them exists with respect to each of the
issues presented, and that the counter-claim is “directly connected with the subject matter”
of at least one of the claims; the latter is subject to Aprepluya’s objection to the jurisdiction
of the Court over the counter-claim presented by Ranovstayo. There Aprepluya is seeking
to invoke its reservations, maintaining that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s
counter claim because: (1) it exclusively concerns matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of Aprepluya and (2) it concerns Aprepluyan military activities.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Applicant:

I. Whether Ranovstayo violated international law by applying its entry regulation

to Aprepluya, and whether the former is thus obligated to compensate the
Applicant for the resulting economic losses.
II. Whether Ranovstayo violated international law by failing to hand over Ms.
Keinblat Vormund to the Aprepluyan authorities after they requested her
surrender on 9 June 2018.
III. Whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s counter-claim
concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft.
IV. Whether, in case that the Court were to exercise jurisdiction over the counter-
claim, Aprepluya violated international law by shooting down the aircraft.

Respondent:
 I. Whether Ranovstayo violated international law by applying its entry regulation
to Aprepluya, and in case it did, whether it should be required to compensate
Aprepluya for any claimed economic losses.
II. Whether Ranovstayo violated international law by refusing to hand over Ms.
Keinblat Vormund to the Aprepluyan authorities.
III. Whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s counter-claim
concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft.
IV. Whether Aprepluya violated international law by shooting down the aircraft.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

APLICANT:

For the foregoing reasons, Aprepluya respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and
declare that:

I. Ranovstayo violated international law by applying its entry regulation to

Aprepluya, and is thus obligated to compensate it for the resulting economic
losses;
II. Ranovstayo violated international law by failing to hand over Ms. Keinblat
Vormund to the Aprepluyan authorities after they requested her surrender on 9
June 2018;
III. The Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s counter-claim
concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft; and
IV. Even if the Court were to exercise jurisdiction over the counter-claim,
Aprepluya did not violate international law by shooting down the aircraft.

Respectfully submitted,

Agents of the Government of the United Republic of Aprepluya

RESPONDENT:
For the foregoing reasons, Ranovstayo respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and
declare that:

I. Ranovstayo did not violate international law by applying its entry regulation to
Aprepluya, and even if it did, it should not be required to compensate Aprepluya
for any claimed economic losses;
II. Ranovstayo did not violate international law by refusing to hand over Ms.
Keinblat Vormund to the Aprepluyan authorities;
III. The Court may exercise jurisdiction over Ranovstayo’s counter-claim
concerning the Mantyan Airways aircraft; and
IV. Aprepluya violated international law by shooting down the aircraft.

Respectfully submitted,

Agents of the Democratic State of Ranovstayo