Memorial High School
The case of armed activity on the territory of the Republic of Turkey does not simply concern recent events, but more so the extended sovereignty of both nations. The main documents upon which my arguments will be based on are the General Assembly’s Resolution 3314, International Customary Law; pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention (III) relative to the treatment of prisoners in war, Paragraphs 138-139 of the World Summit Outcome Document, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In order to determine the legitimacy of the previous documents, the Court must carefully consider its relevancy in regards to its accordance into law. If these documents are valid, than it is my belief that the Syrian Arab Republic did in fact come in direct violation of the standards set in all three documents. In reference to the Memorial of the Republic of Turkey, it is asked that the Judges of the International Court of Justice find the following things: Syria has continuously carried out acts of aggression towards Turkey Syria is found guilty for its proven corroboration with the PKK terrorist group with its plans to attack Turkey That the government of Turkey has failed to uphold its responsibility to protect its civilians from mass atrocity crimes Submission 1
The General Assembly’s Resolution 3314 defines aggression as “the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition.” It is the opinion of this justice that the Syrian Arab Republic has directly defied Resolution 3314 on accounts of armed aggression. Referring to unprovoked use of force of the Syrian regime on the territory of the Sovereign Republic of Turkey on the date of 9 April, 2012 as evidenced by the unwarranted attack and destruction of Turkish...