2011/12/31 (Sat) Jessup 2011 を本気でディクテーション

思えば8年前は、正直半分も分からなかった。ようやくそこそこ聞ける耳になった。大体合ってるんじゃないかなと思う。「たぶん完璧に合ってる」とか言ってみたい。

↓↓ディクテーション結果↓↓

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr President, your Excellencies, 

my name is Christopher Beshara, 

and I am here for the applicant, the State of Ardenia, 

along with my coagent, Glenn Kimbrey.

 

I will be speaking first for 22 minutes,

my coagent will speak second for 20 minutes,

and we reserve 3 minutes for rebuttle.

 

Your Excellencies, 

the attack on the Bakchar Valley Hospital was with about one fifty strikes in a Rigarian campaign had violated Ardenia's territorial integrity and disregarded a the minimum status standards...

 

 

Mr Beshara,

Could I ask to you before you proceed any further?

The claims that you are making with regard to the strikes.

Which claims are you making in terms of your own direct rights,

and which ones are you making the inderect rights, if at all, or are they both the same?

 

 

Mr. President, there is a direct injury to the State of Ardenia, 

namely the drone strikes occurring in Rigaria's territory,

foremost among which was the Bakchar Valley Hospital strikes.

 

There is also drone strikes occurring in Rigaria.

And we note that seperate basis standing are pleaded in relation to each.

 

With respect to the drone strikes in Rigaria, 

we submit that Ardenia has standing on an erga omnes partes basis, 

which the respondent disputes at the pages 1 and 19 of its written submissions.

 

We submit...

 

 

Could I just, ah, why erga omnes?

 

 

Mr President, 

there is no identified Zetian on the compromis over whom diplomatic protection can be asserted with respect to these strikes.

And Ardenia has to have a recourse to the doctorine of erga omnes partes.

 

We submit the standing on this basis derives from the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

to which both Ardenia and Rigaria are states parties.

 

We submit this court should find that these treties confer a legal interest on all states parties in a compliance by other states parties with obligations under them.

And this is supported by the text of the treaties.

Indeed the common article 1 of Geneva conventions obligates all states to ensure respect of international humanitarian law.

And as is been observed by Judge Simmer Simma, in his seperate opinion in the 2005 Armed Activities Case,

one means of ensuring respect of humanitarian law is the institute proceedings in this court. 

 

Similarly, article 2 pargraph 1 of the covenant has been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee in the General Comment 31 of 2004,

as conferring the all states, states parties rather, a legal insterest in the comliance by other states parties with the covenant obligations.

 

Now the strongest argument the respondent has put against us in regard to standing is based on paragraph 91 of this court judgment in the 1970 Barcelona Traction Case,

in which this court stated and I quote:

"Human rights treaties do not confer on States the capacities to protect the victims of infringements of such rights."

 

But in our submission, that statement goes to the question of jurisdiction not standing.

The quote merely noted that many human rights treaties do not contain a compusory interstate dispute resolution mechanism...

 

 

Could I interrupt you again?

You are invoking the covenant committee as authority.

What authority does that have?

What binding character does it have?
For all these other states, will they say every state has a right to bring this act?

 

 

Mr President,

Human Rights Committee,

its view is to be [???] great weight,

as this court made clear in its 2010 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo decision,

it is a chief interpret body of the covenant,

and maybe considered as a subsidiary source of law,

as seen in article 38 1 d of this court statute.

We submit that its statements are persuasive in this regard.

 

 

Will you please say and share with us some state practice on the actual state of basis of erga omnes?

 

 

Your Excellency, 

we can see there is a paucity of state practice, ...

 

 

Paucity?

 

 

There is not much, your Excellency.  [laughter]

 

 

How much or none?

 

 

There is some, your Excellency,

We will note that Australia in Nuclear Test Case, 

did allege that there was an erga omnes obligation not to engage in nuclear testing,

that is found in the written pleadings of the parties.

The court has never applied the doctorine of erga omnes or erga omnes partes.

But we submit that this is the appropriate case, in which we should do it so.

 

 

And ah, you know how it ended that case?

 

 

[Laugh] Yes, your Excellency, we do.  Ultimately no decision needed to be made...