- •Table of contents
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9
- •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 16
- •Index of authorities
- •I. International materials
- •II. Jurisprudence
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •III. Secondary materials: monographs
- •IV. Secondary materials: articles
- •V. Other materials
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings
- •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
- •I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
- •II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
- •2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
- •B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
- •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
- •1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital
- •2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
- •B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation
- •1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law
- •2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
- •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
- •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
- •C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
- •1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
- •2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
- •3. Zetian 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
- •4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
- •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
- •A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
- •1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
- •2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
- •B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
- •C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
Such punishment as lashing in public for rejection to wear the Mavazi violates human rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States Parties to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.”43 This Convention also states that “States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”44 and “no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”45 The same is prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.46 The Respondent performing its duty under the international law made a necessary measure to prohibit wearing Mavazi in public under its law.
3. Zetian 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
Such sanctions as confining woman to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to weak Mavazi constitute an unlawful restraint of liberty and according to the international law are inadmissible. So under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, “no child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.”47 Besides the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also states that “no one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.”48 Therefore women were unjustly punished by the members of tribal councils in Northern Provinces. Therefore, the Rigalian authorities in accordance to international law enacted “Mavazi ban” which prohibits such unjust sanctions.
4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
Such sanctions aimed to expel the women who refused to wear Mavazi are either inadmissible in a view of international law. They violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that requires “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.”49 Therefore women should not be expelled from the territory of their state where they are willing to live. So the legal Mavazi prohibition is to stop such practice and the violation of human rights.
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
The Respondent considers the grounds for initiating the investigation, prosecution against and providing Mutual Legal Assistance efficient. There are press and police reports that could not be denied. Consequently the alleged case needs to be examined since the bribery itself and especially a bribery of foreign public officials “raises serious moral and political concerns, undermines good governance and economic development, and distorts international competitive conditions”50 and bribery and complicity in it are established as criminal offences under the law51 of states adhering to the OECD Convention. However Ardenia refused to perform its duty under international law and did not provide any reasonable reason for it. Moreover its NCP did not react to CRBC complaint to investigate the bribery allegations without any reasonable grounds and did not cooperate in case consideration. Although it should have responded and cooperated as the OECD state-member in pursuance of the Decision of the OECD Council on the OECD Guidelines for MNE.