INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF MAI TOCAO

THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE (APPLICANT)

VS.

THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF RANTANIA (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

2012

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Republic of Aprophe (Applicant) and the Federal Republic of Rantania (Respondent) submit the following dispute to the International Court of Justice, pursuant to the article 40 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, States may bring cases before the Court by special agreement. On September 12, 2011, the parties signed jointly a Compromis and submitted the same to the International Court of Justice. The Compromis submitted to the ICJ is about the differences between the Applicant and the Respondent concerning the Mai Tocao Temple, signed in The Hague, The Netherlands.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THE CASE, SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF APROPHE.

II.

WHETHER RANTANIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE AGAINST APROPHE IN THE CONTEXT OF OPERATION UNITING FOR DEMOCRACY.

III.

WHETHER THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY RANTANIAN COURTS IN THE CASE OF TUBANDO, ET., AL v. THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, RANTANIA MAY NOT PERMIT ITS OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE.

IV.

WHETHER APROPHES DESTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OF THE MAI TOCAO TEMPLE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Republic of Aprophe and the Federal Republic of Rantania are two adjacent states. Aprophe, has approximately 50 million inhabitants. It was founded in 1698 at the council of Marcelux which is the present day capital of the State. Rantania, on the other hand, has a population of almost 90 million people and is located to the immediate east of Aprophe. Its economy has blossomed in recent years, in large part, due to its diplomatic and trade relations with the three neighboring countries: Lamarthia, Verland and Pellgrinia. The Mai Tocao Complex, was the center of all of Aprophe and Rantanias arguments since they first became state. The issue is predicated on the fact that when Aprophe was founded, there was no settled boundary between Approphe and Rantania. As a result, sovereignty over Mai Tocao a point of contention between the two for 300 years since Mai Tocao is situated near the border. Many disputes engaged from small scale as between tribal and ethnic groups to full scale wars as between the two states. In 1962, the Mai Tocao War happened when Aprophian soldiers were attacked by villagers of unknown nationality who hid unto Rantanian territory near Mai Tocao site. The skirmishes lasted for two years until it reached a stage of stale mate which made the two states to resort in good office and engage in peace negotiations. The agreement concluded The Treaty of 1965, which awarded the entirety of Mai Tocao Temples to Aprophe placing the same 10km within the latters boundary.

During the war, more than 500 Rantanians were forced to labor to provide goods and services to the army of Aprophe. They were called military internees, though not paid, they were provided with food three times a day and were given shelters. In August 2001, an award winning documentary brought to public attention the experiences of the surviving internees, it caught the attraction of International League for Solidarity and Access (ILSA) who instituted a proceeding against Aprophe in local court on behalf of the internees and one Mr. Richard Turbando. The trial court dismissed the case which was then affirmed by the Aprophian Supreme Court. After dismissal, ILSA instituted similar proceeding in a Rantanian court but it was dismissed and later affirmed by the Rantanian Supreme Court. However, ISLA filed a petition against Rantania on the grounds that it deprived its nationals to their inalienable rights to the Eastern Nations Court. The ENC directed Ratania to proceed with the trial. The Aprophe decline to participate, but instead submitted a letter asserting that Rantanian court was obliges to dimiss the claim on the basis of sovereign immunity grounds. Nonetheless, Rantania ordered its officials the execution of non-diplomatic properties of the government of Aprophe located in Rantania. On January 15, 2011, the government of Aprophe under President Green, was overthrown by a coup d etat headed by General Paige Andler who subsequently assumed office under an interim government Under the interim government, Andler faced some opposition from those who were still loyal to Green. By the used of Aprophe,s elite army, Andler confronted them by taking arms which resulted to several casualties.

On the other hand, Rantania, as urged by Green, intervened with the internal conflict of Aprophe and conducted an airstrike destroying several significant military installations on Aprophe. As Andlers forces were shattered into pieces, the Rantanian force started to mobilized to the border to capture Andler who took refuge in the great antechamber of Mai Tocao Temple. However, Andler installed explosives on the temples in the complex and argued that if the Rantanian forces continue to advance, he will detonate the temples one by one. As her warnings were left unheeded, one temple was blown down as response to the non-stop bombing campaign of Rantania. On May 12, 2011, Aprophe filed an application before the Registry of the International Court of Justice to institute a proceeding against Rantania. On July 1, 2011, Rantania reversed its former decision not to accede to the ICJ and thereafter announced that Rantania would engage Aprophe before the ICJ, on the condition that Aprophe withdraw its application and instead agree jointly to submit to the Court all claims that the parties might have against one another.

ARGUMENT

I.

THE

INTERNATIONAL

COURT

OF

JUSTICE

MAY

EXERCISE

JURISDICTION OVER ALL CLAIMS IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ANDLER GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHTFUL GOVERNMENT OF REPUBLIC OF APROPHE.

The ICJ can absolutely exercise jurisdiction over the claims in this case. Even though the interim government of Aprophe under Andler is a de facto government a government of fact, one actually exercising power and control in the state as opposed to the true and lawful government, it has already gain international acceptance (Cruz, Isagani). As the matter of fact, 14 Nations recognize Andlers government at the time of the filing of the Compromis. Furthermore, even Rantania itself has impliedly asserted to the reality that the Government of Aprophe under Andler is the rightful government when the latter bargained to jointly submit to the in order to stop the application of Aprophe in instituting a proceeding against Rantania. When the internal conflict of Aprophe became full-scale, a State of belligerent was recognized. Under the traditional rule, third states could either remain neutral or otherwise support the governing authorities. In the case at bar, the intervention done by Rantania with regards to the internal affairs of Aprophe, made the former responsible for its action and must justify the same under International Law.

II.

RANTANIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF FORCE AGAINST APROPHE IN THE CONTEXT OF OPERATION UNITING FOR DEMOCRACY.

The illegal use of force against Aprophe during the outbreak of internal hostilities by Rantania through air strikes and continuous bombing was a blatant violation of the United Nation Charter. Under the commonly known international law principle domestic jurisdiction clause as long as the matter remains internal, the same cannot be the subject of intervention. Furthermore, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter provides that, all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purpose of the United Nations (U.N. Charter, Article 2 (4)). The air strike and bombing by Ratanian force cannot find justification in international law. Without the authority of the Security Council, it constitutes a violation of the prohibition against the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Aprophe. Moreover, it cannot be justified as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter for want of an arm attack against Rantania. Even assuming anticipatory and preemptive self-defense is allowed under Customary International Law, the same may only be justified in case an armed attack is clearly imminent. Here, there was no threat of imminent armed attack that would justify anticipatory or preemptive self-defense (U.N. Charter, Article 50).

III. THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY RANTANIAN COURTS IN THE CASE OF TUBANDO, ET., AL v. THE REPUBLIC OF APROPHE VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW; RANTANIA MAY NOT PERMIT ITS OFFICIALS TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE.

Rantanias exercise of jurisdiction over the case was in clear violation of an elementary rule in International Law. Accordingly, a foreign state cannot be sued before local courts of another state without its consent. Article 7 (2) of the United Nation Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property provides that an agreement by a State for the application of law of another State cannot be interpreted as a consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts of the other State (Sarmiento, R.). Furthermore, every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another within its territory (Underhill v. Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897)). In regards to the claim of the internees, Article 2 (2) of the 1930 Forced Labor Convention, forced or compulsory labor shall not include (d) any work or service exacted in cases of emergency like War or Calamity. Therefore, the judgment and even the case have no international legal basis at all.

IV.

APROPHES DESTRUCTION OF A BUILDING OF THE MAI TOCAO TEMPLE DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The destruction of one of the temples in Mai Tocao was made as the sacrifice taken to draw the attention internationally about the unlawful military operations spearheaded by Rantania. Such recourse was a better way to justify the ending of war by having detonated the half of the temple structure than that ordering a last ditch of military defense that would inevitably cost more lives of more soldiers. During World War II, the allies dropped atomic bomb over Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan which lead to the unconditional surrender of the latter. National Geographic, the world was at war, and the A-bomb was said to be a way to hasten an end to the conflict, thereby saving the lives of American servicemen who might otherwise have been doomed in a protracted invasion of the Japanese homeland(Microsoft Encarta (2009)). If it would have not made, more lives could have been wasted in both sides. Under the World Heritage Convention, if the cultural heritage site is endangered of destruction or is threatened by serious and specific danger it must be keep up to date and publish whenever circumstances may require. Aprophe, prior to the detonation of one of the Temple of Mai Tocao, never failed to inform the public and specially Rantania through media by satellite uplink of the measures it is going to take. Such announcement definitely complied with the requirements for the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and heritage (World Heritage Convention, 1983). As a matter of fact, the destruction was attributable to the violent act of Rantania. The latters failure to heed on the announcement made by Aprophe and cease the bombing immediately thereafter, the detonation could have been prevented. If only Rantania has answered the call without delay in a humanly manner, the temple could have been saved.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Applicant, Republic of Aprophe, respectfully requests that the Court adjuge and declare that: I. The Andler Government is the rightful government of Republic of Aprophe and the court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in the case; II. III. Rantania be held responsible for the use of illegal force against Aprophe; The exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the case of Turbando, et,. al v. The Republic of Aprophe violated international law, Rantania cannot permit its officials to execute the judgment in that case; and, IV. The destruction of a building of the Mai tocao Temple did not violate any international law.

Respectfully submitted, DAVE L. CANUMHAY (Agent of the applicant)

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS Isagani A. Cruz, International Law, (2003). Ralph A. Samiento, Public International Law (2009). TREATIES and COVENTIONS U.N. CHARTER. World Heritage Convention, 1983. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, (May 23, 1969). International Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1970. Geneva Conventions, 1949, 1968, and 1976. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of State and their Property. The 1930 Forced Labor Convention. JUDICIAL DECISION Underhill v. Hernandez 168 US 250 (1897) OTHERS Microsoft Encarta (2009)