Conclusion/Prayer for Relief

Aprophe respectfully asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:

(1) the Court may exercise jurisdiction over all claims in this case, since the Andler government is the rightful government the Republic of Aprophe;

(2) Rantania is responsible for the illegal use of force against Aprophe in the context of Operation Uniting for Democracy;

(3) since the exercise of jurisdiction by Rantanian courts in the case of Turbando, et al., v. The Republic of Aprophe violated international law, Rantania may not permit its officials to execute the judgment in that case; and

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

[1]Shaw M., International Law (6th edn) [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008], p. 455 (‘Shaw’); B. R. Roth, ‘Commentary: The Enduring Significance of State Sovereignty’, [56 Fla. L,(2004)], p. 1025 (‘Roth’).

[2]Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [GA Res.2625 (XXV), UN GA, UN Doc.A/RES/2625, (XXV) (1970), Annex] (‘Friendly Relations Declaration’); Charter of the United Nations [June 26 1945, 59 Stat. 1031], Art. 2(7) (‘UN Charter’).

[3]S. Talmon, ‘Who is a legitimate government in exile? Towards normative criteria for governmental legitimacy in international law, in Guy Goodwin-Gill/Stefan Talmon (eds.), The Reality ofInternational Law. Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie [Oxford University Press, (1999)], p. 32 available at: http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/jessup12/Talmon_Who%20is%20a%20legitimate%20government%20in%20exile.pdf (‘Talmon’).

[4] Tinoco Arbitration(GB v. Costa Rica) [1 RIAA 369, 1923], p. 378 (‘Tinoco Arbitration’); Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Transmitting a Memorandum on the Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the United Nations [UN Security Council, S/1466, (1950)], p. 6; D. Wippman, ‘Military Intervention, Regional Organizations, and Host-State Consent’ [7 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 209, (1996)], p. 4 (‘Wippman’); K. Nowrot, E. W. Schabacker, ‘The Use of Force to Restore Democracy: International Legal Implications of the ECOWAS Intervention in Sierra Leone’ [14 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 321, (1998)], p. 388-389. (‘Nowrot’).

[5] Tinoco Arbitration, p. 378.

[6] Culculla arbitration (Culculla (US) v. Mexico) [reprinted in: J. B. Moore, ‘International Arbitrations’, Vol. 13, (1868)],p. 2873, 2876 (‘Culculla arbitration’); Tinoco Arbitration, p. 382; C. Fenwick, International Law (3rd edn) [New York, Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1948], pp. 159-160 (‘Fenwick’); A. H. Maranan, ‘The Dillema of legitimacy: A two-face resolution’ [Philippine Law Journal, Vol. 6, (1986)], pp. 156-157 (‘Maranan’).

[7] GA Resolutions, ‘The situation in Hungary’ [1004-1008 (ES-II), (1956)]; Report of the Credential Committee [Doc. A/Conf.25/L. 37, (17 April 1963)]; Edward McWhinney, ‘The world court and the contemporary international lawmaking process’[Sijthoff & Noordhoff International Publishers B. V., The Netherlands, 1979], p. 151.

[8] United Nations Yemen Observation Mission (UNYOM), Yemen - Background[available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unyombackgr.html]; Roth, p.274.

[9] Culculla arbitration, p. 2873, 2876; Tinoco Arbitration, p. 382; Fenwick, pp. 159-160; Maranan, pp. 156-157.

[10] Report of the Credential Committee [Doc. A/Conf.25/L. 37; (17 April 1963)]; Roth, p. 267. The same situation took place in Cambodia concerning Samrin Government supported by Vietnamese forces, as cited in D. J. Harris, Cases and materials on International Law (5^th edn) [London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1998], p. 157-158 (‘Harris’).

[11] Maranan, pp. 156-157.

[12] H. Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State [Anders Wedberg trans., (1961)], p. 118.(‘Kelsen’).

[13] BBC News, ‘Thousands greet Guinea coup chief’ [24 December 2008; available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7799279.stm].

[14] Report of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’etat on 28 June 2009 [A/HRC/13/66; 2010], p. 4.

[15] Mokotso v. King Moshoeshoe II [Lesotho High Court, 90 International Law Reports 427, 519, (1990)].

[16] Compromis, para. 34.

[17] Compromis, 12 September 2011 - the date when dispute between Rantania and Aprophe was jointly notifieded to ICJ.

[18] Arantzazu Mendi [A. C. 256, 264-265, (1939)] as cited in Harris, p.166.

[19] Republic of Somalia v. Woodhouse Drake & Carey Suisse S. A. [Q. B. 54, (1993)] as cited in Harris, pp. 162-169 (‘ Republic of Somalia v. Woodhouse Drake’).

[20]Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States [Seventh International Conference of American States, December 26, 1933]; Republic of Somalia v. Woodhouse Drake, p. 165-6.

[21]SC Resolution 733 [23 January 1992, UN Doc.S/RES/733].

[22] Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) [Judgment 1994, ICJ Rep. 6]; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Niger) [Press Release No. 2010/24, 2010, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/149/15981.pdf] (‘ Frontier Dispute Press Release’); Certain questions concerning diplomatic relations (Honduras v. Brazil) [Press Release No. 2009/30, 2009 available at:http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/147/15585.pdf] (‘ Honduras v. Brazil Press Release’).

[23] Frontier Dispute Press Release.

[24] Information available at http://www.allgov.com/Official/Toure_Aminata_Maiga_Djibrilla; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Niger) [ICJ Order, 14 September 2010, General List 149, available at; http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/149/16117.pdf].

[25]UN News Centre, ‘Deploring coup in Niger, Ban calls for peaceful resolution’[available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=33835&Cr=niger&Cr1].

[26] Honduras v. Brazil Press Release.

[27] Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Transmitting a Memorandum on the Legal Aspects of the Problem of Representation in the United Nations [UN Security Council, S/1466, (1950)], p. 6.

[28] Kelsen, p. 118.

[29] Acevedo D., ‘Haitian crisis and OAS response: the test of effectiveness in protecting democracy’ [in L. F. Damrosh ‘Enforcing restraint: collective intervention in internal conflicts’, Council on Foreign Relations, 1993], p. 142.

[30] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [999 UNTS 171], Art.4(1) (‘ICCPR’); UNHRC General Comment No. 29: States of emergency (Art.4) [31 August 2001, CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add.11], para.2 (‘General Comment No. 29’).

[31] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation with the International Bar Association, ‘Human rights in the administration of justice: The administration of justice during the state of emergency: a manual for human rights for judges, prosecutors and lawyers’ [UN, NY and Geneva (2003)], p. 825.

[32] European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [4 November 1950, ETS 5, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3b04.html], Art. 15 (1); American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San Jose" [22 November 1969, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36510.html], Art. 21 (1); General Comment No. 29, para.3.

[33] Case of Lawless v. Ireland [ECHR, 1 July 1961, App. No. 332/57, 1961]; Case of Brannigan and McBride v.UK [ECHR, 25 May 1993, App. No. 14553/89, 14554/89,1993]; Case of A. and others v. UK [ECHR, 19 February 2009, App. No. 3455/05, 2009].

[34] ICCPR, Art. 4(3).

[35] Case of Phosphates in Morocco [Judgment, 1938, PCIJ, Series A/B, No.74] p. 10 at p. 28; ILC, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts [Dec.12, 2001, GA Res. 56/83, Supp.No.10, UNDoc.A/56/10], Art. 2 (‘ARSIWA’).

[36] Case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), [Merits, Judgment, 1986 ICJ 14](‘ Nicaragua’), 57; Case of United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [Judgment, 1980ICJ 3](‘ Tehran Hostages case ’), 56;Case of Dickson Car Wheel Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States [UNRIAA vol. IV p. 669 (1931)], p. 678.

[37] D. Earnshaw and Others (Great Britain) v. United States (Zafiro case), [UNRIAA, vol. VI pp. 160-165 (1925)] p. 162; Charles S. Stephens and Bowman Stephens (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States [UNRIAA, vol. IV p. 265-268 (1927)] p. 267; ARSIWA, Article 8; Shaw, p. 790.

[38] Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, [November 1999, Judgment, ICTY, Case No. IT-94-1-A], para. 120 (‘Tadic’).

[39] Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway [ECHR, Decision, Grand Chamber, 2 May 2007], para 32 (‘ Behrami case’)

[40] Behrami case, para 138

[41] Case of Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), [Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1992 ICJ 240], paras. 47, 48.

[42] UN Charter, Article 2 (4).

[43] Ibid; Nicaragua, paras 186, 190.

[44] Nicaragua, para 190.

[45] Case of Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) [Judgment, 2005 ICJ 168], para 148 (‘DRC v. Uganda’).

[46] Nicaragua, para 202.

[47] Definition of Aggression [GA Res.3314 (XXIX), Annex, UN Doc.A/RES/3314(XXIX), Jan. 1, 1975], Article 3 (b).

[48] Ibid, Article 5; The Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations [GA Res.42/22, Annex, UN Doc.A/RES/42/22 Nov. 18, 1987], Article 3.

[49] UN Charter, Article 51.

[50] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [Advisory Opinion, 2004 ICJ 136], para 139; Nicaragua, para 211.

[51] Nicaragua, para 195.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Nicaragua, para 196-8.

[54] Letter dated 18 February 1986 from the permanent representative of Chad to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council [UN Doc S/17837, 18 February 1986] on France/Chad.

[55] Letter dated 4 August 1993 from the permanent representative of Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General [UN doc S/26241, 5 August 1993] on Russia Tajikistan.

[56] Letter dated 7 February 1965 from the representative of the United States of America to the President of the Security Council [UN Doc S/6174, 8 February 1965] on USA/Vietnam; USSR/Czechoslovakia [1968 UN Yearbook, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/, 298]; USSR/Afghanistan [1980 UN Yearbook, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/, 296]; UN Publications, ‘The UN and the Iraq/Kuwait Conflict 1990-1996’ [available at https://unp.un.org/, 16] on USA and UK/Kuwait.

[57] UN Charter, Article 51.

[58] Nicaragua, para 200.

[59] Nicaragua, para 192; also in Friendly Relations Declaration.

[60] DRC v. Uganda,para 165.

[61] SC Resolution 1474 [8 April 2003, UN Doc.S/RES/1474]; SC Resolution [16 December 2003, UN Doc.S/RES/1519].

[62] 1986 UK Yearbook of International Law [57 BYIL 1986], 614, as cited in Christine D. Gray, International law and the use of force, 3rd ed. [Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008] p. 81-82 (‘Gray’).

[63] DRC v. Uganda; para 177.

[64] GA Resolution 35/37 [A/RES/35/37, 20 November 1980].

[65] 1958 UN Yearbook [available at http://unyearbook.un.org/ 36, 41].

[66] Nicaragua case, para 246.

[67] SC Resolution 660 [2 August 1990 UN Doc.S/RES/660].

[68] Nicaragua, paras 267, 268.

[69] Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v. Alb.) [1949 ICJ 4 (Apr. 9)] p. 35.

[70] Corfu Channel CaseVerbatim Record of the ICJ Public SittingPleadings [Oral Proceedings, Vol. III, CR 1949/1] p.296.

[71] Ministerial Declaration, 23^rd Annual Meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the group of 77 [24 September 1999, available at http://www.g77.org/doc/Decl1999.html], para 69.

[72] Declaration of the Group of 77 South Summit, Havana, Cuba [10-14 April 2000, UN GA UN Doc.A/55/74, Annex I, May 12, 2000], para 54.

[73] Keynote address by Vice President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, presented at the Ninth Annual Seminar on International Humanitarian Law for Diplomats accredited to the United Nations ‘Humanitarian Intervention and International Humanitarian Law’ [Geneva, 8-9 March 2000, available at http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources /documents/misc/57jqjk.htm].

[74] 1979 UN Yearbook [available at http://unyearbook.un.org/, 271 at 274], as cited in Gray, p. 34.

[75] 1992 UK Yearbook of International Law [63 BYIL 1992] 826, 827.

[76] 2005 World Summit Outcome [UN GA Resolution 60/1, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005], para. 139; Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change ‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’ [UN GA Resolution 59/565, UN Doc A/59/565, 2 December 2004], paras 200, 201, 203; Report of the ICISS ‘Responsibility to Protect: Supplementary Volume.’[International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2001], paras 1.25, 4.13, 6.17.

[77] Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change ‘A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility’ [UN GA Resolution 59/565, UN Doc A/59/565, 2 December 2004], paras 201, 203; 1992 UK Yearbook of International Law, [63 BYIL 1992] 826, 827.

[78] SC Resolution 929 [22 June 1994, UN Doc.S/RES/929].

[79] Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Rwanda [UN Doc S/1994/640, 31 May 1994], 10.

[80] Gray, p. 351-353.

[81] SC Resolution 1203 [24 October 1998, UN Doc.S/RES/1203].

[82] UN Charter, Art. 2(1); UN GA, Friendly Relations Declaration.

[83] Chile Eboe-Osuji, ‘State Immunity, State Atrocities and Civil Justice in the Modern Era of International Law’ [(2007), xlv CYIL 223].

[84] Al-Adsani v. UK [ ECHR, Judgment, 2000, 34 EHRR 111, 107 ILR 536], para. 54 (‘ Al-Adsani ’).

[85] Panditaratne, D., ‘Rights-Based Approaches to Examining Waiver Clauses in Peace Treaties: Lessons from the Japanese Forced Labor Litigation in Californian Courts [2005, 28 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 229], p. 303-304.

[86] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [May 23 1969, 1155 UNTS 331], Art. 26 (‘VCLT’).

[87] Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) [Written Observations of the Italian Republic (Article 80 of the Rules of Court), 24 March 2010], para. 31.

[88] Treaty of Peace with Japan [1951, 136 U.N.T.S. 45], Art. 14 (b).

[89] The 1999 Sierra Leone Peace Accord, Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone [Togo, May 18, 1999], Art. IX(2).

[90] R v. Bow Street Metropolian Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (Amnesty International Intervening) [UKHL, Judgment, 2000, 1 AC 147, 119 ILR], p. 152; Al-Adsani, para. 54.

[91] Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law, 5^th ed. [Oxford University Press, New York, 2002], pp. 106, 312-13, 386 (‘Brownlie’); Shaw, p.653; Fox, H. The Law of State Immunity (2d ed.) [Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008], p. 70-1 (‘Fox’).

[92] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations [1961, U.N.T.S. vol. 500], Preamble; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [1963, U.N.T.S. vo1.1], Preamble.

[93]Caplan, L., ‘ State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory’ [available at http://www.asil.org/ajil/caplan.pdf], p. 748.

[94] United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property [UN GA, 2 December 2004, A/RES/59/38], Article 8 (‘UNCJISP’); European Convention on State Immunity [16 May 1972, Basle, CETS No.: 074], Art.2 (‘ECSI’); Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 [October 21, 1976, 90 STAT. 2891, Public Law 94-583], para. 1605 (‘FSIA’); Kahan v. Pakistani Federation [1951, 2 KB 1003; 18 ILR], p. 210.

[95] UNCJISP, Art.8; ECSI, Art. 1; Siderman v. Republik of Argentina [US District Court of CA, 1992, 965F.2d 699, 103 ILR], p. 454.

[96]Case of Ferrini v. Federal Republic of Germany [Italian Ct of Cassation, Judgment No. 5044, 11 March 2004; 128 ILR 658 translation available at http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/pdf_state/Ferrini.pdf], para.8.1; Case of Prefecture of Voiotia v. Federal Republic of Germany [Areios Pagos, Hellenic Supreme Court, No 11/2000, 4 May 2000; 123 ILR 513].

[97] Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), [Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 3], para. 58.

[98] McElhinney v. Ireland, para. 36.

[99] McElhinney v. Ireland, para. 36.

[100] Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany [U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C.Cir., 1 July 1994, 26 F. 3d 1166]; Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation [U.S. Supreme Court, January 23, 1989, 109 S.Ct. 683, 28 ILM 382].

[101] Gaddafi, sub nom SOS Attentat and Castelnau d’Esnault v. Khadafi, Head of the State of Lybia [French Court of Cassation, Criminal Chamber, March 2000, No.00-87.21513].

[102] Nicaragua, para. 207.

[103] Ibid.

[104] Brownlie, pp. 8, 34–35, 599–662.

[105] Wiesinger, E., ‘Enforcement Jurisdiction, Foreign State Property and Diplomatic Immunity’ [University of Vienna. 2006]; Schaumann, W. and Habscheid,WJ., ‘The Immunity of Foreign States Under International Law and German Civil Procedure Law’ [ 1968, 8 JASIL, 138].

[106] Jurisdictional Immunitites of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) [Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany, ICJ, 12 June 2009].

[107] FSIA, para. 1609-1611; UNCJISP, Article 19; ECSI, Art. 23.

 

[108] Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, [14 May 1954, 249 UNTS 240], Article 4(d), (‘1954 Hague Convention’); Second Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict [26 June 1999, UNESCO Doc. HC/1999/7], Art. 6(b), (‘Second Protocol’).

[109] Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to Hague Convention No IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land [18 October 1907, 36 Stat. 2227, T.S. No 539], Article 27, (‘1907 Hague Regulations’).

[110] 1954 Hague Convention, art. 4(d); Second Protocol, Art. 6(1).

[111] 1907 Hague Regulations, Art. 27, 56.

[112] Case of Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar [31 January 2005, Trial Judgment, ICTY, Case No IT-01-42-T], para. 310, (‘ Strugar ’).

[113] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts[ICRC, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3],Article 52(2), (‘Additional Protocol I’); Hague Convention No IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land [18 October 1907, 36 Stat. 2227, T.S. No 539], Article 23(g).

[114] Additional Protocol I, Article 52(2); Second Protocol, Article 1(f); ICTY Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [13 June 2000, PR/P.I.S./510-E].

[115] Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic [5 December 2003, Trial Judgement, ICTY, Case No. IT-98-29-T], para. 51, (‘Galic Trial Judgment’).

[116] Australia, The Manual on the Law of Armed Conflict, [11 May 2006, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters], para. 5.27-5.29.

[117] France, Manuel de droit des conflits armes, [2001, Ministere de la Defense, Direction de Affaire Juridique, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit europeen, Bureau du droit des conflicts armes], p.90.

[118] Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, [2006, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School on Military Law, Second Edition], pp.23-24; The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, [13 August 2001, Canada, Office of the Judge Advocate General], para. 406.

[119] 1954 Hague Convention, Article 8(3).

[120] Droit des conflicts armee et droit international humanitaire, [2006, Manuel de l’instructeuer en vigueur dans les forces de la defense, Ministere de la Defense, Presidence de la Republique, Etat-major des Armees, p.215] para.521 translation available at Henckaerts, J., Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1: Rules [Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005], Rule 8, (‘Customary IHL’).

[121] Prosecutor v. Ljube Boskoski, Johan Tarculovski, [10 July 2008, Trial Judgment, ICTY, Case No. IT-04-82-T], para.357; Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic et al [14 January 2000, Trial Judgment, ICTY, Case No. IT-95-16-T], para 524, (‘ Kupreskic ’); Galic Trial Judgment, para 58.

[122] Galic Trial Judgment, para 58.

[123] 1907 Hague Convention, Article 23 (g).

[124] Customary IHL, Rule 38.

[125] The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict [1 July 2004, Ministry of Defense], para.15.18.

[126] Humanitar Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding [2005, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht], Militar Juridische Dienst, paras. 0526-0528 and 0531-0532 translation available at Customary IHL, Rule 39.

[127] Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagyamaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [Judgment, 1997ICJ 7], p. 55, para. 83, (‘ Gabcikovo-Nagyamaros case’).

[128] Tehran Hostages case, at p. 28, para. 53.

[129] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [Advisory Opinion, 225 ICJ (1996)], paras. 38, 96, (‘Nuclear Weapons case ’).

[130] Gabcikovo-Nagyamaros case, para.84; Nicaragua, para. 249; ARSIWA, Art. 47-50.

[131] Gabcikovo-Nagyamaros case, para. 85; Responsibility of Germany for Damage Caused in the Portuguese Colonies in the South of Africa (Portugal v. Germany) [2 RIAA 1052, 1928], Cysne Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) [2 RIAA 1035, 1930].

[132] Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts[August 1992, Manual DSK W207320067, VR II 3, English translation], para.1206; see also, Law of War Decree [8 July 1938, Italy, Royal Decree No.1415]; Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, [1994, Australian Defense Force Publication, Operation Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition], para.920; Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, [11 September 2004, Ministry of Defense], para.1.2.18.

[133] Thomas M. Franck, ‘On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law’ [AJIL, Vol. 102:715].

[134] Gabcikovo-Nagyamaros case, para.85.

[135] Nuclear Weapons case, para.46.

[136] Kupreskic, para. 524.

[137] Responsibility of Germany for Damage Caused in the Portuguese Colonies in the South of Africa (Portugal v. Germany) [2 RIAA 1011, 1928], Cysne Arbitration (Portugal v. Germany) [2 RIAA 1035, 1930], Air Services Agreement (United States v. France) [18 RIAA 417, 1978], para.90.

[138] Kupreskic, para. 535.

[139] The Law of Land Warfare [18 July 1956, Field Manual, 27-10, US Department of the Army], para.497 (a), (d), (f), and (g).

[140] Statement at the CDDH [Official Records, Vol. IX, CDDH/I/SR.48, 30 April 1976], at p.86, para.14.

[141] Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts” [1991, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defense], p.19

[142] Hass and Priebke, [Italy, Supreme Court of Cassation, Judgment on Trial of Third Instance, 16 November 1998]; Rauter case, [Netherlands, Special Court of Cassation, 4 May 1948].