Fefegfra

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

A. Operation Uniting for Democracy constituted an illegal use of force.
The fundamental rule of sovereign equality among states has been and continues to be the central pillar of international law. As described by this Court, “the effects of theprinciple of respect for territorial sovereignty inevitably overlap with those of the principles of the prohibition of the use of force and of non-intervention,” both of which Rantania has breached by their military intervention in Aprophe.

1. Operation Uniting for Democracy reached the necessary threshold to breach article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
The UN Charter clearly establishes that allmembers shall refrain in their international relations from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other States is one of the pillar principles of International Law,considered a jus cogens norm which can only be modified by a subsequent norm of jus cogens.
The use of force in any other manner inconsistent with the UN Charter would also constitute a breach to principle of non-intervention in internal affairs. This principle stems from the customary right of sovereign States to conduct their domestic affairs without outside interference. The 1970 Declaration ofPrinciples of International Law emphasizes that: No State shall organize, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another state, or interfere in civil strife in another state.
In the Nicaragua case, this Court declared that the principle of non-intervention prohibits state ‘to intervene, directly orindirectly, with or without armed force, in support of internal opposition in another state’ and went on to say that acts which breach the principle of not intervention ‘will also, if they directly or indirectly involve the use of force, constitute a breach of the principle of the non-use of force in international relations.’ Further the Court emphasized in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Ugandathat where such an unlawful military intervention reaches a certain magnitude and duration, it would amount to ‘a grave violation of the prohibition on the use of force expressed in article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter’.

2. Operation Uniting for Democracy was not a valid exercise of self-defense
The UN Charter contains two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force: self- defenseunder Article 51 and enforcement action under the appropriate Security Council authorization. These exceptions cannot be used to justify the Respondents military action because they do not apply in these circumstances.
The use of force by Rantania was neither in response to an armed attack by Aprophe (self-defense) or by a Chapter VII resolution. Therefore, as was recognize by this court in theNicaragua case the only exception to article 2(4) is article 51: Force against another state that is not justified by a right of self-defense under Article 51 is in violation of Article 2(4).
Article 51 of the UN Charter allows States to resort to force to legally violate the Sovereignty of another State in order to repel an armed attack where there is substantial involvement by the violatedState. An armed attack is defined as the sending by or on behalf of a state of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to an actual armed attack conducted by regular forces. Aprophe has not been involved in any kind of attack against Rantania or any member of the ENI that could give rise to individual or...