Speech of Respondent:
• The first issue before the Court is, if Ravisia state violated international law during the presence of military forces in Alicanto. The answer to this question is “NO” for following reasons:
Your Excellency, before we give concrete examples of why Ravisia’s troop presence on territory of Alicanto is legally, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, when Alicanto police have admitted their inability to eliminate the illegal actions of their own country. During this time, the area of Alicanto and Benuu has become repeatedly an area of controversy, where were a number of violent acts, terror and mass violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the death of civilians, there were signs of ethnic cleansing.
Your Excellency, Alicanto not only failed to ensure implementation resolution number 5440, passed by UN security council, but the situation was getting worse day by day. Alicanto failed to ensure fulfillment of the obligations regarding the protection of human rights. I would like to remind you that On 18 February 2008, the head of Ravizia troops, sentenced to the Secretary General about ceasing of the mission in Alicanto, It is another proof that Ravizia was not concerned to interfere
…show more content…
I want to explain the meaning of the humanitarian intervention for Applicant side. According to the international law: Humanitarian intervention is a means to prevent or stop a gross violation of human rights in a state, where such state is either incapable or unwilling to protect its own people, or is actively persecuting them. Rights violations may be caused by the civil war, humanitarian crisis, or genocide. Humanitarian intervention has not aimed to annexation of the second state, but minimize the distress of