The use of force against Aprophe is not attributable to Rantania.

Andler regime and its representatives cannot represent Republic of Aprophe since it is illegal.

Since the authority over the Aprophe was gained with the use of illegal measures under the law of Aprophe and the legality of Andler regime cannot be recognized by the world community, the court under “?[1]” Statute of ICJ has no jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims.

a. The Andler regime was established with the coup d’état

The unlawful actions of the ex-general Paige Andler trying to gain control over the state with use of military forces must be considered as coup d’état. Under E. Luttwak[2] this activities have all elements of putch, prohibited under international law[3]? Andler’s regime also was called as “the military coup d’état[4]” and condemned by the ENI Council.

b. Andler regime cannon be recognized as legal.

Under the Tobar doctrine[5] new government, established during the coup d’état which breaks constitutional law of the state[6]. Moreover, popular doctrine of effective control states, that the government could be recognized if it takes an effective control over the territory and population? of the state[7]. As 20% of population and 800 members of the Aprophe armed forces are still loyal to the President Green[8], there is no basement for stating applicant’s effective control. Moreover, 27 nations didn’t recognize Andler regime[9] .

- effective control doctrine[10]

Andler and its representatives cannot represent Republic of Aprophe since president Green is the only legal representative of Republic of Aprophe.

Since the government of President Green have been forced the territory of the Republic of Aprophe it still should be (must be?) considered as a legal government of the state. International practice shows the existence of the government in exile institute. Stefan Talmon allocates several criteria of the recognition of such government[11]. Since all the criteria have been complied President’s Green government is a legal government of the Republic of Aprophe and.

a. Representative character.

“lawful president of Aprophe^[12]”

b. Independence.

c. Illegality of the government in situ

“the assault upon the pro-Green units was condemned by several nations^[13]”

4. Thus, the Court is without jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims[14].

B. the use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy is not attributable to Rantania, and in any event, that use of force was not illegal;

Under Draft Articles on Responsibility of the States for Internationally Wrongful Acts[15] the state is responsible for internationally wrongful act since this act is attributable to the state and it breaches state’s international obligations under international law. Since Rantania is not attributable to the Operation Uniting for Democracy and the Operation is consistent under international law, Respondent cannot be a subject of responsibility on Operation Uniting for Democracy.

The use of force against Aprophe is not attributable to Rantania.

a. Rantania took part in the Operation Uniting for Democracy

- ENI Council Resolution

- President Green proclamation[16]

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 814