[GA] ICJ Case #005

[Odinson]

Olhouser rubbed his face and looked at the German prosecution, "Can you tell us when and how they violated those articles?"
@NagandEmerald

 

[NagandEmerald]

@Odinson @Naio90 @JJSmithJr @HeadlessSeeker @Dutchy @Retroliser
"Absolutely. The major violations that I speak of include keeping diplomatic personnel in a country that no longer required nor wanted their services for a total greater than 48 hours; as was stated in the article, they therefore forfeited their diplomatic immunity, but attempted to state that Brazil never received any message declaration of persona non gratta. Were they acting responsibly, and as a country should be acting in such a scenario, they would have known that the message was a public declaration announced by the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs; this is the violation of the International Relations that my government and I speak of." The ambassador proceeded to then hand out copies of the public release of information in regards to Brazil's racist and derogatory statements regarding the Republic of Taiwan.

"My government acted in accordance to the defense of the Republic of Taiwan from racism and belligerent behavior, which we were well in our right to do. The notice was, indeed, public, and testimony from other foreign ministers or equivalents, who were involved with the Brazilians, can attest to this matter. Regarding the second major claim, acts of terrorism, an official police report from the Federal Police, as well as from a neutral mediating party — who agreed to His Majesty, the Kaiser, in a phone call to thank him for his duty and service in protect the officers and civilians present — to be brought forth as a witness to attest to the Brazilian diplomats having taken 6 German nationals, who were considered to be 'non essential personnel' in their roles, as hostages, and threatened to kill them and anyone else who came to arrest them. Given that the official police report is still classified and under local investigation, I feel that it would be more prudent to present testimony from the witnesses regarding the Brazilians and their crude, barbaric, and disturbing behavior as presented by their diplomats, who are supposed to represent their country on an international scale."

 

[Naio90]

"Ms. Seifried, you do understand that to begin with there is no universal definition to terrorism, and therefore anyone can argue you on that very serious allegation? Could you also specify how the brazilian government carried out such act against the german interests? What did Brazil, or its Head of State do in practice for you to make this claim? Because, as far as I know, the one who showed up with armed officials and a battering ram was the german side.

Also, please further detail what "clandestine operations" are and what kind of evidence you present.

As for the "violation of international law" you are quoting:

Chap. 2 Art 5: "Promoting Friendly Relations between the Sending State and the Receiving State, and developing their Economic, Cultural and Scientific Relations." First, this is a rather subjective article and can be interpreted in different ways. A nation is not obliged to mantain friendly relations with another state, as it is an sovereign entity who can decide its own foreign affairs. If that wouldn't be the case, we would be here all day discussing how nations are "mean to each other". Also, if I'm not wrong, Brazil had no issue at all with Germany at the start of the Dispute, but actually started after the German Government tried to close the brazilian diplomatic representation in Berlin, in that case violating the same article you are accusing Brazil to break, as you weren't exactly "promoting friendly relations" by involving yourself in a problem which did no involve Germany.

Chap. 1 Art. 5 "No Person shall be subjected to CRUEL, INHUMAN or DEGRADING Treatment, Punishment or Torture in all their forms." Can you please enlighten the court on how did Brazil break that specific law?

Finally, again, the principles of the GA are rather guidelines subject to interptetation of how everyone should act rather than written laws. And in the end, Brazil, or Mr. Romero, did not take any real action in the whole event, but rather react on the Embassy being besieged.

With that said... Your demands for sanctions are beyond reason, as doing almost any of them, even though they are not corresponding for this case, would set a very dangerous precedent for cases to come.

And before I finish, I would like to call to the attention of the present court that Germany has actually violated Chapter 2, Art. 3 of the GA Reoslution on International Law ( If "Diplomatic Relations" are broken off between two States / A mission is permanently or temporarily recalled, the Receiving State must (Even in case of armed conflict) respect and protect the Premises of the mission, together with its Property and Archives. ) at the moment of attempting to raid the brazilian diplomatic representation, even in the case of the attempted removal of its diplomatic nature.

With all this considered, I would recommend to the court not taking the present case, given its lack of real arguments, or even open an investigation into Germany's violation of the GA's Reoslution on International Relations.

 

[NagandEmerald]

@Odinson @Naio90 @JJSmithJr @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker

"With all due respect, your honor, I would like to offer several corrections and clarifications to your claims. Firstly, in regards to Chap. 2, Art. 5, I would say that this case absolutely should be looked at in addition with the other cases regarding the Defendant, Brazil, simply for the fact that you even got your own law wrong. Chapter 2, Article 5 states, and I quote, '(I) The Receiving State may at any time (And without having to explain its decision), notify the Sending State that the "Head of the Mission or any member of the "Diplomatic Staff of the Mission" is PERSONA NON GRATA. The sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned / terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared NON GRATA before arriving in the Territory of the Receiving State. The Sending State has 48 Hours to recall the Member of the Mission or his immunity is "ANNUL".' This essentially states, unequivocally, that the Brazilian government absolutely violated the law and, potentially, did so intentionally, as the declaration of persona non grata was a publicly-released correspondence in response to the way that the Brazilian government referred to and continues to refer to the Republic of Taiwan as 'Turdwain', and other expletives such as 'stupid asshole'. When Taiwan fired back with similar derogatory insults, the Prosecution initially advised them to stand down and 'be the bigger man', as it were; they haven't thus far. That is their own issue at this juncture, but the fact of the matter remains that the Defendant started the ordeal via defamation and direct racism against the Taiwanese as a people, and we, along with many other European nations, got involved to protect the reputation of a nation that had, in no way, actually wronged Brazil prior to this." Ms. Seifried took a sip of water from the table of the Prosecution as she continued.

"Secondly, in regards to Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I would consider locking 6 non-essential German personnel of the Embassy in a small room at gunpoint with threats to kill them, should the police step inside the embassy, should easily fill in the qualification of 'cruel or degrading treatment'. Three of the hostages, the police officer in command of the operation, and the neutral mediator of the situation can all attest to the situation being considered cruel. Not only that, but essentially equating their lives as expendable in the face of a police force with a valid warrant for arrest is what I would not only call degrading, but terroristic, as it is exactly what other terrorist groups do: utilize human shields in an effort to preserve themselves first thanks to international law protecting non-combatants. This is not the behavior of diplomats resorting to drastic measures thanks to illegal persecution, which I can also disprove since both His Majesty and the Reich Chancellor did give a warrant for their arrest — I will get to that in a second — but the actions and behavior of a nation that hired unprofessional, thuggish goons as an international relations corps, and allowed them to get away with threats and barbaric acts of terrorism; this can also be proven by the head of the Embassy threatening police with assault, should they do their civic duty and arrest the men inside." The woman would then provide a copy of the testimony list to the Argentinian judge, as well as any disclosed information regarding the police investigation, such as statements/threats from the Head of the Embassy, pictures of the room the hostages were all placed in, pictures of all six hostages, and a picture of the weapons procured on-site, including UZIs and the Barret .50 caliber, with corresponding titles on post-it notes.

"Thirdly, regarding your questions and concerns that the German government had broken international law, it was stated by His Majesty, in a public apology, that the decision to besiege the embassy was all on the former Interior Ministry's hands. Whilst the Kaiser and Reich Chancellor both agreed that a warrant for the arrest of the diplomats should be issued — given that their diplomatic immunity had been made 'annul', and therefore such claims of diplomatic immunity and respect were no longer valid, as they were technically squatting on private property — it was not expected that the Interior Minister at the time would besiege the embassy without warning and attempt a forcible arrest without alerting them to their crime until after the siege began. He has, since, been arrested and imprisoned on charges of treason on the authority of His Majesty. The reasoning behind the arrest was given originally as a trespassing charge; however, the charge was expanded to include terrorism and, if I may clarify, potential clandestine operations. In particular, it was assumed by the Federal Minister of Justice that there was potential for espionage, which is clandestine and, therefore, illegal under many local laws. The blame for any laws broken, if any were broken, and responsibility for such actions was solely on the Interior Ministry and, therefore, they were made to pay for treason in accordance with the stated intention of the warrant for arrest simply being a trespassing charge, which would have seen the diplomats returned to Brazil after an appropriate punishment was instituted." The GA representative took another sip of water, presenting a transcript for the public apology to Brazil for any trouble caused thanks to the actions of the Interior Minister, and following posts belittling and degrading the Germans, instead of working to amend for their own diplomatic shortcomings in the situation.

"I honestly cannot see justifiable reason to not present this case, nor take it as seriously as other cases levied against the Brazilian government, as this is, in many ways, related to their previous violations of international law that have been discussed between this very same assembly of judges."

 

[Naio90]

"Mister, a declaration of war is the same as the interruption of diplomatic relations and ipso facto the nullification of the immunities. In the case we are reiewing it did not get to that point, but your State decided to violate the building anyway, when there was no need to, and therefore endagering thousands of lives with the escalation of the conflict. Had Germany not intervened in firt place, we wouldn't be here today.

As for calling other States silly names... That is no crime, and cannot be used as an excuse to raid an Embassy, it is of questionable morality if you want to avoid an open war. The taking of hostages on the other hand can surely be trated as a crime, and could be cause of an investigation itself, but I would not tipify it as "terorrism" in itself. However, we have to take into account that that vile act was a direct consequence of your Governments decision to raid the building without attempting to establish a dialogue with the personnel inside beyond the letter, which Brazil stated to not have recieved it.

After your police forces arrived at the scene and tried to enter the building by force, the brazilian ambassador acknowledged the order and was ready to leave the country, something your Governent refused plainly.

All your other allegations such as trespassing, espionage etc. are ocnsequence of your Governments lack of capacity to deal with a situation it provoked themselve.

As for your denial of responsability in regard of violating international law, the german Minister of Interior was appointed and a representative from the german State, resulting in a direct responsability from its part. Germany should be accountable for that action, same as should be for the invididual who decided to use hostages to negotiate the way out of the siege.

My position is firm. I do not see it viable for the court to take the case or to judge in favor of Germany in this case. I could however accept a particular investigation in the circumstances that led to the decision to take hostages as a consequence of the armed aggresion agains the building.

I also repeat my conviction that Germany violated Chapter 2, Art. 3 of the GA Reoslution on International Law.

I leave now the floor to my colleagues from the court to explain their positions."

 

[Moe]

The Brazilian President, Victor Romero, along with his two lawyers, four unarmed bodyguards, have just departed Brasilia in an Embraer Lineage 1000 jet. He will bring with him files and laptops for his defense, and a good sense of humor.

The Embraer will first fly to Lisbon Airport, Peru, quickly refuel and then fly directly to Rotterdam, while avoiding French airspace.

Route:HI>HJ>HK>HL>HM>IN>JO

@Odinson @Naio90 @Ellie @NagandEmerald @HeadlessSeeker

 

[Dutchy]

Dutch Air Traffic Control would guide the Embraer to land at Rotterdam The Hague Airport. Upon arrival all members would be fast tracked at passport control and customs and would be allowed into the country after it was insured they were not carrying any weapons.

With Mr Romero being a head of state he would receive a full security escort from the 1 BSB Peleton of the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee. The convoy of Mercedes G-class vehicles would drive from the airport to the Peace Palace in The Hague.

Arriving at the International Court of Justice the 1 BSB Peleton would remain on site to provide additional security to the Brazilian head of state. The delegation would be escorted through the building, the foreign minister, attorneys and assistants would be allowed into the chamber, the Marechaussee would request the bodyguards to wait outside the chamber.

 

[NagandEmerald]

@Odinson
@Dutchy
@JJSmithJr
@HeadlessSeeker

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"If I may, this whole case has become an apparent waste of time and resources. On behalf of both parties involved. The Brazilians as bad actors and running late, and the Prosecution for wasting time. This case has done nothing more then make a mockery of the justice system. There is no legal basis apparent here. As such, my recommendation for such a waste of time and resources is that both parties pay a fine to the Global Assembly to cover the costs incurred by this dramatic and pointless waste of time. I would like to ask my fellow justices if they concur with this?"

@NagandEmerald @Moe @Naio90 @Dutchy @JJSmithJr @Odinson

 

[NagandEmerald]

@HeadlessSeeker @Naio90 @Dutchy @JJSmithJr @Odinson

"If I may object, your honor, I would not say that this has been a waste of time or resources," Federal Justice Minister Rainer Balzer stated, with a rather annoyed tone. Ms. Seifried already was looking like she was going to have a heart attack as soon as he started speaking, knowing that what he said could cause the ICJ to drop the case.

"How is there no real legal basis here? Suspect of clandestine action, charges of terrorism, and what I believe is deliberate ignorance of international and national law should absolutely not be seen as a mockery of the justice system. Especially considering that we have brought forth testimony for the actions of the Brazilian government, which have broken more laws and have caused such an increase in world tension that, in our humble opinion, have led to a near-global conflict. It is this court that is beginning to become a mockery of the justice system, because the law is so vague at this juncture, that the Brazilians could absolutely get away with causing irreparable international relations catastrophes." Sonja looked like she was about to die on the spot as Minister Balzer sat back down, and she turned around to gauge the court's reaction to his interruption.

 

[JJSmithJr]

"To my fellow Justice if I may, Is it not an established fact of this case that the Brazilians took hostages during the escalation at the embassy? Surely the seizure of Citizens of one country in another is a violation of international laws. A very serious one indeed. I do not wish to get bogged down in the chatter about they have said this insulting thing or another. However I am intensely interested in the scene at the embassy. I see no reason to dismiss this case at the moment while we as judges have not discussed it at length.

If Nigerian Embassy Guards in Hanoi seized Vietnamese citizens working at that embassy at the force of arms are you suggesting this wouldn't violate international law and be a serious enough issue to at least hear from the witnesses? Please, I surely must misunderstand my esteemed colleagues."

@NagandEmerald @HeadlessSeeker @Naio90 @Odinson @Moe

 

[Odinson]

"I would agree with my Nigerian colleague. Violating the sovereignty of an embassy and taking individuals in it hostage is very serious. I would like to hear more about this as well," Olhouser said.

 

[Dutchy]

Leaning forward to the microphone Justice Cuijpers would say, "Minister, the charges of clandestine action and especially terrorism is not something specifically detailed in any Global Assembly resolution, giving us no legal basis to say whether or not the charges are valid. You also repeat that the Brazilians have deliberately ignored national law, which I presume is a reference to German national law, however we lack the verdict of you charges from a German national court. Therefore we once again are unable to make a verdict on the charges."

"As we are tasked with looking for breaches in international law, I believe this case is centered around the Global Assembly Resolution on International Relations. This resolution is focused on the protection of diplomatic missions and agents. We are not here to manage the international relations of nations, as that would be a breach of the sovereignty. Therefore this case must look at the Brazilian breach of the Resolution on International Relations when they remained within embassy grounds 96 hours after they had been declared Persona Non Grata."

"In regards to the seizure of German citizens, I believe this act is most likely illegal in German law. My conclusion is that most charges listed in this case fall under the jurisdiction of German national law rather than international law and I call upon the German justice system to act according to its own constitution and legislation to ensure those who broke the law will be tried as per the German penal code."

 

[JJSmithJr]

"With all respect once again, to my esteemed colleague, using government paid agents to hold civilians at gunpoint is almost certainly a violation most sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most vividly Chapter 1, Article 13. We have an obligation to seek justice on an international scale, Surely foreign government agents taking hostages within a diplomatic mission clearly follows under our judicial review privileges."

@Dutchy @NagandEmerald @Naio90 @HeadlessSeeker

 

[NagandEmerald]

@Odinson @Naio90 @JJSmithJr @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker

"This is an outrage!" the disgruntled Minister exclaimed in a rather insulted tone, resulting in Chancellor Nahles sitting him back down as Sonja shushed him and cleared her throat.

"Your honors, what the Prosecution means to say is that, even if we were to try them for national crimes, the Brazilian government would not respect such laws in the first place, as they have already shown, rather crudely I might add, had shown to a court summons from the Swedish government. This was brought to the international level because, at this juncture, the Brazilians' actions in diplomacy have affected at least five different nations, four of which are within the European sphere of influence. It is outrageous for such a case to be dismissed purely on the basis of this being a national issue that Germany has with Brazil because, at this point, this encompasses multiple countries."

 

[Dutchy]

"Of course, however I'd as I stated, these acts of hostility carried out by those government agents, I'd like to encourage nations to exhaust all options before calling upon the International Court of Justice."

Looking at the German delegation, "I am not looking to dismiss this case, the actions taken by the accused cannot be excused. However, a precedent must be voiced to ensure that nations do not simply run to the International Court of Justice without exhausting national options. We have seen multiple cases regarding Brazil, with some cases valid and some not."

 

[NagandEmerald]

@Retroliser @Odinson @JJSmithJr @Naio90 @Dutchy @HeadlessSeeker

"Now, this is a fair and just statement I can agree with regarding how a precedent needs to be set," Sonja declared, "But it should still be noted that, even if we had tried to summon them, they would have likely done exactly what they had done with the Swedes: fondling themselves in public whilst choosing not to attend the summons. It was why the Prosecution chose to bring this to the international level. I am just explaining my country's position on that matter. Now, if we can move along, I would like to call up the Prosecution's first witness, and to set a precedent that this is an International affair, Detective-Inspector Yuksel Karaca of the Ottoman Constabulary."

 

[JJSmithJr]

"Before we call said witness I have a question for the prosecution, Is it your belief that a police raid, likely resulting in casualties or injuries would have occurred if your government had attempted to seek justice locally rather than here in these body?"

@NagandEmerald

 

[NagandEmerald]

@JJSmithJr

"Absolutely," Chancellor Nahles stated, stepping up with an air of power and grace, much like her predecessor, Angela Merkel, "The Brazilian diplomats publicly stated that, if they were not given clearance to leave, even after their diplomatic immunity had been made annul, they would have fired upon police officers and, to the extent of my knowledge, on the hostages during the siege. We would have sought local justice, but the Brazilian 'diplomats' had chosen instead to act out terroristically against German government personnel and civilians."

 

[Dutchy]

"Chancellor, may I ask where the Brazilian diplomatic agents currently are? Are they in your custody or have they been returned to Brazil?"
@NagandEmerald