Andler government is legal as consistent with international law doctrine

Despite of Respondent’s allegations Applicant is strongly convinced that Andler government conforms all the necessary requirements to be legitimate for the next reason. Since article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice states that while deciding case court may apply number of different sources and among other “…teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations…”[2] we find it possible to refer to this argument. In particular Estrada doctrine holds that foreign governments should abstain from judgment of the changes in governments of other nations if such action would indicate a breach of sovereignty. Furthermore, this doctrine is in compliance with the principles of international law and declarative theory of statehood. Declarative theory “is adopted by most modern writers and supported by arbitral practice.”[3] Hence, the Estrada doctrine seems applicable and the most suitable in regard to Andler government. Under our earnest conviction Estrada doctrine is the best to apply in this situation of all others. This statement is contingent on the fact that Estrada doctrine is one of the latest in international law, which means that it gives the best expression to the modern situation in the international society. Today growing number of states, such as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Australia, leaves behind the practice of formal recognition.[4]

Moreover, the fact that 14 states recognized Andler government indicates that unsubstantiated Rantanian’s proclamations concerning illegality of mentioned government do not prevent it from taking participation in the external relations. It follows from the Tinoco Arbitration that “recognition by other Powers is an important evidential factor in establishing proof of the existence of a government in the society of nations.”[5] And non-recognition of Andler's legal government by Rantania and other ENI members for reasons valid under their internal policy may not be an obstruction for its representation of Aprophe's interests in UN organs[6]. With regard to abovementioned Rantanian allegations it is important to note the lack of rules in international law which determine that only democratically elected governments[7] constitute a legitimate government of the state. Thus several numbers of governments which were formed without elections were recognized by the international community.[8]

To sum up, legitimacy of Andler government is strongly supported by the court’s practice and international law doctrine. The recognition of its rightfulness does not create any controversy to the external policy of a large number of modern states and the established case law. And furthermore the fact of recognition “is usually of little relevance to the question as to whether an entity is or is not a government.”[9] Thereby with reference to Applicant’s earnest conviction the Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 804