Alexander
GA Member
- Oct 11, 2023
- 358
Empire de France
Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères
To: State Chamber of the International Court of Justice
CC: Her Excellency Claire Martin, Ministre de la Justice, France
Classification: Public
Subject: Request for a Binding Decision on the legality of the 'Egyptian Interdiction Zone' or EIZ
Your Honours,
Empowered by the Constitution of the Third French Empire and the Empress of the French, and with consultation of the Ministry of Justice, I hereby humbly submit a case against the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan, hereafter referred to as Egypt, concerning their stated doctrine of an 'Egyptian Interdiction Zone', hereafter referred to as EIZ, and request the Court to rule on whether this doctrine is legal under international law, and if deemed to be not so renders a decision to that effect.
The arguments of the Third French Empire, hereafter referred to as France, centre on several long-standing core-tenets of Customary International Law, the Charter of the Global Assembly, and other binding sources of international law. Our argument is laid out as follows.
The Egyptian Interdiction Zone
Egypt has on 15 March 2003 announced its policy of extending a zone over the entire Middle East, and the majority of Africa, imposing its authority well beyond its borders. The policy makes two distinctions, core and peripheral territories. In 'core territories' no nation outside this EIZ is allowed to act in any military way nor implement a wide range of diplomatic measures to resolve conflicts amicably. No nation is allowed to attack a territory, either aggressively or in self-defence, and nations are required to refer any dispute to Egypt for resolution by Egypt rather than the aggrieved state itself, and without the guarantee that any action will be taken.
In so-called 'peripheral' territories, no involvement in internal conflicts is allowed, even with the invitation of the nation or when binding treaties require so, and attacks against territories are only allowed in self-defence.
This doctrine was declared unilaterally and without the consent of any affected state, in the two years since then none of these states has voiced their support for these policies either.
The Right to Self-Defence
Already in 1625 the renowned jurist and father of international law, Hugo Grotius declared that 'Most Men assign three Just Causes of War, Defence, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment.', while recovery and punishment have since then become less acceptable causes for war defence remains as a core right of any sovereign state. Even in the United Nations Charter, the right to self-defence was not only created but in fact recognized as having existed before there was a UN and deemed part of Customary International Law. In particular Chapter 7 Article 51 of the UN Charter:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
The inherent right of self-defence in case of an armed attack was affirmed by the predecessor to this Court sharing the same name in the case of Nicarague v. United States of America (1986 I.C.J. 14).
Furthermore, affirming this inherent right as long-standing customary international law, the 19th Century Caroline case whose conclusion have been re-affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal creates the following conditions for even anticipatory self-defence.
- The use of force must be necessary because the threat is imminent and thus pursuing peaceful alternatives is not an option (necessity);
- The response must be proportionate to the threat (proportionality).
The Right to Enter Into Alliances
Article 6 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) states:
Every State possesses capacity to conclude treaties
This article establishes without any doubt that any State is allowed to enter into alliances with other states.
Article 26 VLCT establishes the concept of pacta sunt servanda:
Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
This provision imposes on any party to an international agreement the unconditional requirement to implement the provisions of the treaty.
These two articles combined establish as part of customary international law first the right of any state to enter into agreements and alliances, and second the obligation for a state once part of such an agreement to abide by its conditions.
The Right to Self-Determination
Like self-defence, the right of peoples to self-determination has long been a part of international law, rising in the late 19th century the concept rose together with the establishment of sovereignty as a fundamental part of statehood. The right to self-determination grants peoples the right to self-rule and their own administration without the control of an outside power. This right is universal and applies to any state in the world. Already in the very first chapter and the very first article of the UN Charter, the right to self-determination was established as follows:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Considering the long history of this right and its presence in multiple treaties, it can only be considered jus cogens.
The Question of the Egyptian Interdiction Zone
As established the EIZ imposes on powers outside the unilaterally defined zone an absolute ban on engaging in action as sovereign states, furthermore the doctrine in practice restricts the ability of states within the EIZ to exercise its rights under international law.
The right to self-defence has been established as an absolute right, any state attacked by another state within the EIZ has under international law the right to engage in any actions for individual or collective self-defence. Furthermore, the concept of collective self-defence establishes that if one state within the EIZ is attacked by another, and the defensive state has an alliance with an outside power said outside power would invite Egyptian retaliation if it engages in collective self-defence. Furthermore, it imposes undue pressure on a treaty signatory as per Article 26 VCLT there is an obligation to follow binding treaties yet doing so would subject that state to attack. In practice it also restricts the ability of states within the EIZ to exercise their rights under Article 6 VCLT as entering into any treaty that contains clauses in violation of the EIZ, as it knows such provisions can't even reaasonably be implemented. This would be acceptable if the EIZ was established as part of a multilateral framework, yet the fact it was imposed unilaterally reeks of neo-colonialism. These arguments also relate to the right to self-determination, as peoples through states are sovereign and free to engage in any activity restricted only by international law and valid treaties.
As such we humbly ask the Court to rule on the following questions.
- Does the Egyptian Interdiction Zone violate international law through its restrictions on states to engage in self-defence?
- Does the Egyptian Interdiction Zone violate international law through its restrictions on the right to enter into alliances?
- Does the Egyptian Interdiction Zone violate international law through its restrictions on the right to self-determination?
- Must the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan rescind the Egyptian Interdiction Zone?
- Must the Sultanate of Egypt and the Sudan modify the Egyptian Interdiction Zone, and if so how?
Sincerely,
Sophie Dubois,
Ministre de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères.
Global Assembly
