Illegality of Operation Uniting for Democracy.

Destruction of cultural property.

Indeed, the Convention "On Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage" in paragraph 3 of Article 6 prohibits the use of heritage sites as military facilities, but... General Andler did not violate this requirement: there was no cover or base of troops, or military production! And what was there? Just legitimate Government has escaped from the bombing, during the international aggression of Rantania, in order to save themselves and civilians of the capital city from death!

The destruction of the building of the temple complex was the only way to save the inhabitants of the country (military and civilian. Yes, them both! In spite of rantanian statement, that only military objects are bombed). The destruction of a building as a way to save people from death during the bombing and preparing ground operations, as well as from new oppression from the pro-ENI ex-president!

This situation is interpreted jus cogens as the necessity in the situation of disaster.

It should be also noticed, that, despite fierce airstrikes of Rantanian aviation, General Andler did not performed the conditions of her own ultimatum: instead of destroying one building per day of continued aggression after two (!) days only one building was “partially destroyed” (so it’s damaged, but not vanished!). It shows that even in situation like thas General Andler cares about the object of cultural heritage of both nations (Rantanian and Aprophe’s), regardless of the diplomatic and military conflicts of the parties.

Effectiveness of such measure (damage of the building) is presented in the immediate (!) termination of the aggression against Aprophe (aircraft returned to their station and Operation Uniting for Democracy was stopped).

Thus, the damage to stone (yes, valuable, but not living) saved living citizens from being buried under Rantanian bombs. Aprophe had no alternative way to save people, so the destruction of the building didn’t violate international law.

And now I would like to tell about the operation, which carried our people (due to greed of politicians) only bombs, but not happiness.

Illegality of Operation Uniting for Democracy.

At first.

Rantania thinks or simply persuades Your Excellencies that it has implemented the “intervention at the invitation”. But to begin the intervention rightfully the state should observe some conditions.

There are six conditions mentioned in the Advisory opinion and decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case against the United States in 1986:

· Request to intervene has been received before the start of the operation. This condition is observed by Rantania. Only one.

· Next. The request is received from legal government. But! Former president of Rantania (who inclined Rantania to intervention), in the first place, was not a representative of Aprophe any more, and secondly, he’s no longer legitimate.

· After that. Any intervention should not make the situation worse and not and shouldn’t prevent peaceful settlement of the conflict.

But what we see there? Instead of arrest of resisting rebels, planned by the government of Aprophe, Rantania carried out the murder of the soldiers and the destruction of production facilities and infrastructure throughout the country.

The fate of those same rebels in the north of Aprophe since the conflict began was not under the concern of Rantanian interest (and we remember our colleagues, that the rebels were marked as a military object too!), all claims and efforts were made to capture of General Andler and her army or their physical destruction.

· Look further. The nature of intervention by invited State must conform the criteria of proportionality and necessity. Rantania violated even this condition, since it bombed sites around the country, not even involved in conflict of the government of Aprophe against rebels. We think, that bombed objects did not make an effective contribution to the fight, they couldn’t because of far position. But they were targets for bombs too. Why? They were simply citizens of Aprophe.

Therefore, Rantania violated Article 52 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

· Next. If troops are sent to the right to collective self-defense, it should be ensured that there was an armed occupation of territory. There was no seizure of territory of Aprophe by Andler armed forces, but a legitimate rise to power as a result of the nationalist movement (the movement against the ENI oppression, provided by ex-president Green).

· And the last, but not the least. If the troops are sent into the territory of another state to exercise of the right to collective self-defense, the State sending them must immediately inform the UN Security Council. Before the Operation Uniting for Democracy the ENI did not inform anyone, so it broke Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Secondary. Article 41 of the UN Charter says that first of all non-military coercive measures established by UN Security Council are used, and only then according to Article 42 – the military measures are used. Article 45 and 46 of the UN Charter gives the opportunity to apply emergency measures (but it is not a full-scale operation, which was performed by Rantania, but prevention), but plans for their use are also being developed by the Security Council. There was no plan of Operation Uniting for Democracy, or any of its measures which were coordinated with UN Security Council.

The third. Rantania violated Article 24 of the Rules of Air Warfare (The Hague, 1922-1923.) of non-bombing non-military targets and military installations in case of impossibility of damaging civic buildings. Rantania bombed sites even in the capital of Aprophe, which led inevitably to the destruction of civilian buildings. The State Violated the Rules must compensate the damage.

Mistakes. Mistakes. Mistakes.

As said a famous Russian parliamentarian of the beginning of 20^th century Miliukov, “is it foolishness or treason?”

Thus intervention is unrightful both in its foundation and in its execution.

4. And now, to summarize our position.

Andler government is the rightful government of the Republic of Aprophe, therefore the Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case.

Courts of Rantania have no jurisdiction in the case of Turbando, et al., v. The Republic of Aprophe. It means, that Rantania violated international law. So Rantania may not permit its officials to execute the judgment in the case.

Aprophe’s destruction of a building of Mai-Tocao Temple did not violate international law.

Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy.

5. That’s all, Your Excellencies and Mister President. Thank you for your attention. Provide us your precious justice.

Поиск по сайту: