- •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
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
I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
Ardenia rendered assistance to Zetians who committed crimes that disturbed the public peace and therefore transgressed the international antiterrorism legislation. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings gives constituent elements of offence, committed by Zetian terrorists. “Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility…”1 It is obvious that Zetian terrorists backed by Ardenia carried out crimes within the meaning of this Convention because on the assumption of the Compromis from December of 2008 to February 2009 they blew up a bridge in Rigaliaville and set off bombs at two government buildings - a school and a hospital for several times. More than 155 people were killed, 112 were wounded and some citizens were kidnapped in these criminal incidents. This fact indicates that the offenders acted “with the intention to cause death or serious bodily injury”2 to people. In addition some ZDP members operated “with the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss”3 as they caused harm to Rigalia’s infrastructure. In summary, Zetians’ actions upheld by Ardenia contradicted the international antiterrorism provisions.
II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
According to the Compromis, the International Loan Syndicate Association (ILSA) has gained many facts about the Zetians’ meetings held in Ardenia. In addition, a spokesperson for the Ardenian government did not deny that there were such meetings and even specified that all Zetians who took part in it had Ardenian citizenship. Besides, the Compromis states that on March 15, 2009, the Rigalian Daily Monitor issued an article about President Arwen’s and Zetian tribal leaders’ gathering sometime in January, 2009. As a result they made up a “secret agreement”4, which guaranteed remaining of some tribal customs that violate women’s and children’s rights and help in infringing Rigalian nation's sovereignty by supporting a future Zetian State located on Rigalian territory. Corroborating these allegations, President Arwen’s office confirmed that in fact there was such a meeting between the President and the tribal leaders. But the executive personnel of the President declined to inform about the concrete themes being discussed. It also would neither confirm nor deny the existence of any agreement. It is possible to draw a conclusion that Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists.
In this case we should apply Article I of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which states that “[a]ggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.”5 Moreover, Zetian terrorists infringed Article 11 of the Geneva Convention (IV): “In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the conflict.”6 Therefore, the attacks of Zetian terrorists encouraged by Ardenia should be regarded as acts of aggression against Rigalia.