MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE 2011 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION

THE CASE CONCERNING

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE STATES

CONCERNING THE ZETIAN PROVINCES

IN ARDENIA AND RIGALIA

THE STATE OF ARDENIA

(APPLICANT)

v.

THE STATE OF RIGALIA

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. I

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.. IV

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.. V

STATEMENT OF FACTS. VI

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS. X

PLEADINGS. 1

I. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia are consistent with Rigalia’s rights under international law, and thus the Court has no authority to order cessation of the drone attacks 1

A. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were in accordance with the provisions of international law.. 1

1. Unlawful Zetians’ actions countenanced by Ardenia infringed some international provisions 1

i. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. 1

ii. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression. 2

2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia. 3

B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks. 5

II. The attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not attributable to Rigalia and Rigalia has no obligation to investigate the attack or to compensate Ardenia therefore. Moreover, the act was not an act of aggression but part of a legitimate and proportionate operation to defend against Zetian terrorists. 6

A. Rigalia does not have to bear the responsibility to hold an inquiry into the attack or to make up for it since the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not related to Rigalia. 6

1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital 6

2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it 7

B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation 7

1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law.. 7

2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation. 8

III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9

A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 9

B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 11

C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights. 11

1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality. 12

2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings. 14

3. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are may be punished by being confined to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to wear this garment 15

4. In Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces. 15

IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. 17

A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry. 18

1. Rigalian authorities suspect MDI of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract 18

2. Rigalian authorities suspect MDI of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia. 19

B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's MLA request 20

C. Ardenia breached the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines. 23

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF. 27

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 608