Ii. The recognition of Green government does not imply its legality

In spite of the Rantania position in this case it should be noted that states are unable “to recognize any authority in exile they like as a legitimate government of another state”[23]. Therefore by recognizing government-in-exile notwithstanding the effective government in situ Rantania perpetrated interference in the Aprophe's internal affairs. In accordance with the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States (hereinafter Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention) every state possesses “the sovereign and inalienable right to determine its own political system”[24]. Thus Rantania's support of Green's government should be classified as the breach of its obligations under the abovementioned Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention such as “the duty to refrain from any action in whatever form to destabilize or to undermine the stability of another State or of any of its institutions»[25]. An attempt to discredit an effective and legal government in situ certainly constitutes such violation.

Moreover, the fact that ENI organization has announced Green as “lawful president of Aprophe” is nothing more than just a declaration of several member states’ private opinion since nothing in the treaty established this organization indicates that ENI has the jurisdiction and authority to proclaim anyone neither legal nor illegal president of the member state. And the declaration of all ENI member states and number of other nations that they would maintain diplomatic relations with Green government does not indicate that they have ruptured diplomatic relations with Andler government. There is no evidence that the functions of the diplomatic agents of the states ENI members and 27 other states in Aprophe came to an end[26], which in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations constitutes the break of diplomatic relations. Therefore we can draw a conclusion that despite all proclamations maintains diplomatic relations with all mentioned states and has no intention to rupture it.

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

Rantania is guilty of willful neglecting its international obligations by violating the norms and principles of international law establishing the peaceful cooperation among states and inadmissibility of any intrusion into its territory. Thus Respondent committed an intentionally wrongful act. Respondent acted not in compliance with the language of the Charter of the United Nations, illegally used force towards Aprophe, violated international law in vertical space by invading on Aprophe’s territory and infringed the Peace Agreement between Rantania and Aprophe.