Membership in the ENI does not absolve Rantania from its international obligations

On the one hand, being a member of the ENI organization Rantania clearly has some certain obligations, but on the other hand both Applicant and Respondent are the members of the United Nations Organization. And the possibility of conflict between obligations of the ENI Member State and UN Member State are regulated with the article 83 of The Treaty Establishing the Eastern Nations International Organization which states that “the obligations contained in the UN Charter shall prevail under the ENI Member State obligations”[27]. In addition the Court has already took a stand on this matter which states that “...the Charter obligations prevail over conflicting obligations from another international treaty...”[28]. This provision logically follows from the principle that every state has an obligation “to fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by it in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”[29]. This means that membership in the ENI does not excuse Rantania from commission of actions inconsistent with UN Charter.

Furthermore, Applicant is strongly convinced that Respondent's actions constitute an internationally wrongful act which entails the international responsibility[30]. Responsibility incurs when internationally wrongful act “is attributable to the State under international law”[31]. The facts of this case make it obvious that perpetrating this air strikes is attributable to Respondent as far as, firstly, the “Activation orders” were proposed by Rantania, secondly, the operation was headed by Rantanian national, then the operation itself was executed by the Rantanian Air Force and finally the Operation Uniting for Democracy was suspended only after the order of Rantanian president. This sequence clearly indicates that Rantania from the very beginning was intended to illegally use force against Aprophe. In addition responsibility of state arises when there is a breach of international obligation by this state[32] which “may be established by a customary rule of international law, by a treaty or by a general principle”[33].

Moreover it is logically to suggest that if Rantania was so concerned about the conflict broke out in Aprophe it was granted with authority to “bring any dispute... to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly”[34], but instead Respondent preferred to use violence. Therefore Respondent was not authorized to use force in regard to Applicant except for the cases mentioned in the article 51 of the UN Charter. But in the light of all the events mentioned in the Compromise Respondent’s actions can not be classified as self-defense. In all other cases only the Security Council is authorized to permit the use of force by UN Member States.

Security Council never allowed Rantania to use force against Aprophe.