Ex-president Green had no legal right to form new government

Applicant is strongly convinced that Green’s so called government-in-exile is not legitimate and can be proclaimed in no way as Aprophe’s legal government. We believe that from the exact moment of Green's attempt to usurp power by postponing the legal elections, all his actions must be considered as illegal. Since afterwards his activities were aimed exclusively at the illegal retention of this power. Green in fact made it impossible for anyone else to be nominated as a candidate in presidential election by postponing it and not appointing the concrete date of election. It is obvious that normal election campaign just may not be held in the atmosphere created with the help of Green's emergency powers. Therefore, Green's actions aimed at the usurpation of power violated electoral rights of the Aprophe citizens. And this, in turn, contravenes the language of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states that every citizen is entitled to vote to be elected.[19] Hence on a country scale this attempt to retain the power resulted in massive human rights violations.

It is important to mention that in the international practice there were precedents in which some countries refused to recognize governments-in-exile which were guilty of massive human rights violations. Despite the reason of the government-in-exile establishment United Kingdom and Australia refused to recognize Pol Pot Government.[20] Following this logic we suppose that Green's government which is liable for the gross human rights violations may not be recognized as a rightful government of Aprophe. To sum up, Green’s government in Rantania can not be called Aprophe’s legal government due to the fact that the person formed it lost his right to represent Aprophians.

2) Green’s government in Rantania has no authority

i. Green’s government does not meet the criteria of legal government

As it follows from the abovementioned arguments, Applicant is convinced that group of ministers headed by Green does not meet the definition of the legal government in exile. This statement is grounded on the fact that the authority while being exiled must be independent and must have representative character.[21] But Green's government possesses none of these characteristics. Taking into consideration several facts we find it important to mention that serious suspicions of the loyalty to Rantania interests may take place in Green’s case. First of all, Green's internal politics was, among other ENI members, directed by Rantania. Secondly, his political decisions placed Aprophe in jeopardy of public unrest. And finally, Rantania was chosen by Green as a host state and later used force against Aprophe's new government. So in the light of all abovementioned facts Green's government-in-exile might be under foreign state control.

In addition this government is not entitled to represent the national will of Aprophe. Green’s government in exile can hardly be called effective since most of the Aprophe population, authorities and armed forces are loyal to the Andler legal government. We honestly believe that the government which committed a flagrant and massive infringement of human rights loses its representative authorities. This announcement is grounded on the practice established in the international community. For example, in the situation when exiled government's representative character was put in doubt the in 1920 Great Britain, the USA and other States declined to recognize Polish government-in-exile in London.[22] Thus in fact Green's government cannot be recognized as a legal government in exile since it may not be characterized as independent and representative while Andler government possesses both this criteria.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 686