SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Rigalia did not violate provisions of international law by using Predator Drones in the strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia. Since Zetian terrorists supported by Ardenia detonated bombs at two government buildings and caused harm to people and infrastructure, it is possible to draw a conclusion that it was an act of aggression against Rigalian population. Consequently, Rigalia was entitled to self-defense and to launching Predator Drones against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia. Besides, Rigalian actions met the requirements of necessity and proportionality. Therefore, the Court has no power to stop the drone attacks.

The destruction of the Bakchar Valley hospital should not be attributed to Rigalia because Predator Drones belong to Morgania. Moreover, they were launched under the oversight of Morganian soldiers and were conducted by members of Morganian army in Morganville. Consequently, Rigalia has no obligations towards Ardenia. Instead, its actions were lawful and adequate to the gravity of the situation. They were directed to prevent further acts of aggression and to establish public order.

Rigalia's limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law. Mavazi is a traditional head covering and women in the Nothern Provinces are obliged to wear it on the religious beliefs. It is necessary to note that women are punished by the members of tribal councils if they refuse to do so. However wearing Mavazi threatens public safety. Moreover it abuses the human rights of women and girls and the obligation to put on a Mavazi constitutes an act of discrimination. As such Rigalia's Parlament enacted the "Mavazi ban" prohibiting all Rigalians from wearing a Mavazi in public or from receiving public services while wearing a Mavazi. Therefore the Rigalian law provides the rights of Zetian women and girls under the international law.

Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials, and the failure of the Ardenian NCP to respond to the complaint by the CRBC constitutes a breach of the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines. There were serious allegations that the contract between MDI and RRI was renewed because of the fact of bribery of foreign public officials. Moreover the ZRF and ZDP are involved and may be accomplices in this offence. Allegations also surfaced that transporters for MDI paid pay mandatory undocumented fees to the members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces to obtain some improper advantages from this officials. Therefore Rigalia and Ardenia as the members of the OECD Convention should have investigated this case and provided Mutual legal assistance. And these state's NCPs should respond to the complaints concerning above-mentioned allegations and provide the complainant with satisfiable result or well grounded refusal. However Ardenia authorities and its NCP did not comply with their duties as the OECD member-state.

PLEADINGS

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

Zetian terrorists supported by Ardenia infringed some provisions of international humanitarian law, particularly they committed an act of aggression. Furthermore, they offended against antiterrorism legislation. That is why Rigalia has the inherent right to self-defense under international law. Clauses of international law do not prohibit using of Predator Drones in the case of emergency, when the population of the country is in danger. Therefore the Court can not pass a judgment on the suspension of the drone attacks.

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

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

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 771