II. Aprophe had never voluntary accept the jurisdiction of Rantanian courts and the Eastern Nations Court

And as it follows from the theory of the international law sovereign immunity rests on the principle expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet jurisdictuinem. This principle is concerned with the status of equality of the independent sovereign and means that legal persons of equal standing can not have their disputes settled in the courts of one of them⁵¹. Therefore the doctrine of immunity of States from the jurisdiction of the courts of foreign countries is based on sovereign equality of States and accordingly to this doctrine no State can claim jurisdiction over another sovereign, to sue and be sued in the foreign courts unless it gives its consent to be subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Hence under Applicant’s earnest conviction the fact that Aprophe had never expressed consent to be bound by the decisions of Rantanian courts and the Eastern Nations Court, it may not be sued in these courts. And furthermore the reservation to the Eastern Nations Charter made by Aprophe and its denial to participate at trial confirm that Aprophe did not accept the jurisdiction of the foregoing courts and consequently could not be a subject of their jurisdiction.

III. Rantania has jurisdiction entirely only within its own territory

Moreover, Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated in Ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) that “It is a basic principle of international law that one sovereign state (the forum state) does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state. The foreign state is entitled to procedural immunity from the processes of the forum state.”⁵² Thus Rantania has jurisdiction entirely over its own territory and furthermore “In The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon case, decided by the US Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the jurisdiction of a state within its own territory was exclusive and absolute, but it did not encompass foreign sovereigns.”⁵³ Despite of these Rantania by the judgments of its courts committed a gross violation of this important principle of international law.

Thereby, in the light of all abovementioned facts, Aprophe, similar to the arguments of Germany in the case Germany v. Italy⁵⁴, with due consideration of, that International Law recognizes the principle of sovereign immunity which protects sovereign states from instituting proceedings against them before the civil courts of another state, prays the Court to adjudge and declare that Rantania infringed Aprophe’s sovereign immunity by presuming that it has jurisdiction to resolve the case, by enforcing the claims and also by enacting measures of constraint against Applicant’s property in Rantania⁵⁵. Therefore the exercising of jurisdiction by the Rantanian courts presents the violation of Apriophe’s sovereignty and its immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

.

2. The argument of the Rantanian court that immunity does not extend to violations of peremptory norms of international law is groundless