(Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

New Tarajan Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:21 am

THE FEDERAL ARISTOCRATIC KINGDOM OF NEW TARAJAN VERSUS THE EMPIRE OF GREAT EURUSSIA

The Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, being the victim of an unjustified attempt of diffamatio against its Navy and its government by the Empire of Great Eurussia, calls for a legal judgement of the World Alliance Court of Justice.

As the Court already knows, from the discussions related to the previous case Eurussia vs. New Tarajan, the Eurussian government attempted to vilify the international reputation and credibility of our Navy and our government during an accident occurred to one of their nuclear submarines in the international waters of the Shirouma Sea.
Indeed, they publicly blamed our Navy for the fact it did not intervene to rescue the submarine (differently from the Atletian and Shirouman Navies). Particularly, the Eurussian Ministry of Defense referred to our people as "saddened by their insensitivity".

As the Court already knows from the previous case, our Navy was not informed of the route of the submarine, thus making us impossible to even be aware of the accident. Eurussia used this point against us, in order to blacken our image.

Consequently, New Tarajan respectfully asks to this Court a compensation for this attempt, under the following terms:

1)1.000.000 (one million) Prands to the Royal Tarajani Navy, as symbolic compensation;

2)Apologies by the Eurussian Prime Minister, on this issue, together with a public solemn promise to not proceed anymore with attempts to blacken our image and that of our Armed Forces;

We submit also our main evidences to the Court:

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t295p75-world-alliance-national-news-network

For the reconstruction of the accident relevant to this case (particularly, the fact the communication system of the submarine was damaged, thus making impossible for anybody not knowing its route to rescue it) we respectfully ask to the Court to consider the statements already provided by the defamer, Eurussia, during the previous case Eurussia vs. New Tarajan.
Thank you.

New-Zealand Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:46 pm

Oh, dear god! Not Again!

Ireland Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:50 pm

New-Zealand wrote:Oh, dear god! Not Again!

exactly what I was thinking New Tarajan deal with it its over.

New-Zealand Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:32 pm

A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:Oh, dear god! Not Again!

exactly what I was thinking New Tarajan deal with it its over.

Now that's where we differ. I think New Tarajan got a pretty unfair verdict in the first case. In fact it was a blatant injustice. But at the same time, the entire COJ case was stupid in both of these cases. Why Eurussia went to the COJ in the first place, I will never understand, seems quite petty to be honest. That said, New Tarajan is acting exactly the same by starting this case. You're being kinda biased by telling New Tarajan to get over it, I think that in the first place Eurussia shouldn't have been so overkill by taking some stupid RP case all the way to the COJ and making such a big deal out of it. However, I would have expected New Tarajan to be the bigger man and simply let things go. If it's supposedly okay for Eurussia to take this case so seriously and then APPEAL a verdict in which he was still winner because he wanted MORE COMPENSATION, I do not think New Tarajan did anything wrong by putting this case forward as I do not see how this is any more immature then Eurussia's previous actions.

I implore the COJ to dismiss this case and no longer encourage this immaturity (For which I blame both Eurussia and New Tarajan equally). It's making a mockery of the WA and the COJ.

New Tarajan Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:09 pm

Please guys, please.
This has no more to do with the Orenburg blockade.
This is a question related only to the submarine...for the simple reason, that I really was not informed of what was happening there (OOC speaking), thus someone used my Fleet (or, better to say, refused to use it) without my consent. I am sure this case will be quickly closed. I have no intention to publicize it on the news network et similia.

Europe and Asia Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:40 pm

Firstly, the court requests all individuals unrelated to the case to leave the courtroom. Second, does Great Eurussia have anything to say in its own defense?

Ireland Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:58 am

New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:Oh, dear god! Not Again!

exactly what I was thinking New Tarajan deal with it its over.

Now that's where we differ. I think New Tarajan got a pretty unfair verdict in the first case. In fact it was a blatant injustice. But at the same time, the entire COJ case was stupid in both of these cases. Why Eurussia went to the COJ in the first place, I will never understand, seems quite petty to be honest. That said, New Tarajan is acting exactly the same by starting this case. You're being kinda biased by telling New Tarajan to get over it, I think that in the first place Eurussia shouldn't have been so overkill by taking some stupid RP case all the way to the COJ and making such a big deal out of it. However, I would have expected New Tarajan to be the bigger man and simply let things go. If it's supposedly okay for Eurussia to take this case so seriously and then APPEAL a verdict in which he was still winner because he wanted MORE COMPENSATION, I do not think New Tarajan did anything wrong by putting this case forward as I do not see how this is any more immature then Eurussia's previous actions.

I implore the COJ to dismiss this case and no longer encourage this immaturity (For which I blame both Eurussia and New Tarajan equally). It's making a mockery of the WA and the COJ.

I agree that New Tarajan got somewhat of an unfair deal. Maybe the punishment could be lessened a little bit.

Europe and Asia Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:18 am

A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:
A Republican Ireland wrote:
New-Zealand wrote:Oh, dear god! Not Again!

exactly what I was thinking New Tarajan deal with it its over.

Now that's where we differ. I think New Tarajan got a pretty unfair verdict in the first case. In fact it was a blatant injustice. But at the same time, the entire COJ case was stupid in both of these cases. Why Eurussia went to the COJ in the first place, I will never understand, seems quite petty to be honest. That said, New Tarajan is acting exactly the same by starting this case. You're being kinda biased by telling New Tarajan to get over it, I think that in the first place Eurussia shouldn't have been so overkill by taking some stupid RP case all the way to the COJ and making such a big deal out of it. However, I would have expected New Tarajan to be the bigger man and simply let things go. If it's supposedly okay for Eurussia to take this case so seriously and then APPEAL a verdict in which he was still winner because he wanted MORE COMPENSATION, I do not think New Tarajan did anything wrong by putting this case forward as I do not see how this is any more immature then Eurussia's previous actions.

I implore the COJ to dismiss this case and no longer encourage this immaturity (For which I blame both Eurussia and New Tarajan equally). It's making a mockery of the WA and the COJ.

I agree that New Tarajan got somewhat of an unfair deal. Maybe the punishment could be lessened a little bit.

Maybe you could do what I said and stop posting because you're not relevant to the case. Thanks!

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:08 am

THE FEDERAL ARISTOCRATIC KINGDOM OF NEW TARAJAN VERSUS THE EMPIRE OF GREAT EURUSSIA

The Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan, being the victim of an unjustified attempt of diffamatio against its Navy and its government by the Empire of Great Eurussia, calls for a legal judgement of the World Alliance Court of Justice.

As the Court already knows, from the discussions related to the previous case Eurussia vs. New Tarajan, the Eurussian government attempted to vilify the international reputation and credibility of our Navy and our government during an accident occurred to one of their nuclear submarines in the international waters of the Shirouma Sea.
Indeed, they publicly blamed our Navy for the fact it did not intervene to rescue the submarine (differently from the Atletian and Shirouman Navies). Particularly, the Eurussian Ministry of Defense referred to our people as "saddened by their insensitivity".

As the Court already knows from the previous case, our Navy was not informed of the route of the submarine, thus making us impossible to even be aware of the accident. Eurussia used this point against us, in order to blacken our image.

Consequently, New Tarajan respectfully asks to this Court a compensation for this attempt, under the following terms:

1)1.000.000 (one million) Prands to the Royal Tarajani Navy, as symbolic compensation;

2)Apologies by the Eurussian Prime Minister, on this issue, together with a public solemn promise to not proceed anymore with attempts to blacken our image and that of our Armed Forces;

We submit also our main evidences to the Court:

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t295p75-world-alliance-national-news-network

For the reconstruction of the accident relevant to this case (particularly, the fact the communication system of the submarine was damaged, thus making impossible for anybody not knowing its route to rescue it) we respectfully ask to the Court to consider the statements already provided by the defamer, Eurussia, during the previous case Eurussia vs. New Tarajan.
Thank you.

Eurussia issues our opinion, as we are not yet recognizing the validity of this case, on the issues thrown against us by New Tarajan, before this honourable tribunal, as we believe that this case New Tarajan vs Eurussia is simply baseless, groundless, and is obviously must be dismissed and rejected by the Court of Justice due to the following grounds:

1) Eurussia perfectly believes that this case is obviously connected to the case Eurussia vs New Tarajan that has been decided already by this tribunal, with which we would like to inform this body that our government haven't received yet any compensation.

2) Eurussia perfectly believes that this case is obviously connected to the case Eurussia vs New Tarajan that has been decided already by this tribunal, therefore there is no justification to tackle issues involved in an already resolved case as any changes brought by hearing this already groundless case will simply have a detrimental impact on the old case with which can never be overturned by the tribunal as the decision is final and executory. Thus, only affecting the credibility of the tribunal in flip flopping judicial decisions.

3) Without affecting our previous opinions, Eurussia perfectly believes that New Tarajan failed to provide how their nation was affected by a simple statement from a Eurussian official who is just simply expressing his opinion, which is a constitutionally protected and inviolable right enjoyed by all nations under the WA Constitution.

4) Without affecting our previous opinions, Eurussia perfectly believes that New Tarajan has no right to seek for financial compensation as there has been no proven physical damage, even if a damage haven't been established as well, to any of its property or assets.

5) Without affecting our previous opinions, Eurussia perfectly believes that New Tarajan has no right to ask for apology from our de facto prime minister, the Chancellor, as there is absolutely nothing to apologize for based on facts and merits, notwithstanding the fact that it is not even the Chancellor who made the statement New Tarajan is referring to.

6) Without affecting our previous opinions, Eurussia perfectly believes that New Tarajan has no right to ask for apology as doing so from an official of our government is considered an official act of state which is a part of a nation's constitutional protect and inviolable right to exercise sovereignty and independence, with which we believe the tribunal knows.

7) Last but not the least, Eurussia perfectly believes that New Tarajan, seeking for a legal judgement, based on its own official argument, FAILED to provide any existing international law nor constitutional provision that our country has violated for this case to even be heard and be allocated time by the tribunal therefore making the case simply MOOT on its face as the tribunal is not a mediating body nor a counseling organization judging based only on complaints but is constitutionally mandated to decide on a case based on LEGAL GROUNDS and that is according to MERITS and INTERNATIONAL LAWS which this case obviously do not possess at all, in any part of the argument provided thereof by New Tarajan itself.

Nevertheless, if given that the tribunal even considers this case despite having no merits at all, Eurussia would like to inform this court that Eurussia is even deserving to receive a massive compensation and even apology from New Tarajan due to the following grounds:

1) Statement from Tarajani Prime Minister Rumaki,

"Because this is the truth: Articmania is being used by Eurussia to pursue its own interests....but civilians are dying! Austinia is in ruin and for what? Everybody knows that a rebel movement is not like an official government: to bomb a city already hit by civil war is a crime against humanity! I do not know for how long time Moscow will continue with its lies, but the truth is that civilians are dying for no reasons. And New Tarajan will never support this, nor it will refuse to see this truth... Eurussia is destroying a country, like a plaything, and is destroying also the WAPF mission."

2) Statement from Tarajani Admiral Conrad Amasya,

"The destroyers of the Royal Navy are ready to shoot down the Eurussian missiles aimed to hit positions in Texania."

3) Statement from Tarajani King Friederick,

"The Civil War in Texania, the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians under unuseful bombings, the support to a rebel group without any respect of international law.....behind all these facts, there was only one hand: the Great Empire of Eurussia... Now it is the time for Eurussia to choose what to do. Two hours ago, I ordered to the 1st Fleet of the Royal Tarajan Navy to move toward the Eurussian Duchy of Orenburg, with the aim to enforce a total blockade of the island."

4) Statement from Tarajani Royal Council,

"We are forced to take further actions against the Duchy of Orenburg... Order to the 1st Fleet to strenghten the blockade against the Eurussia Duchy of Orenburg halting any ship or airplance arriving or departing from it... We invite every foreign citizen to leave the Duchy... If the Eurussian government will persist in its unresponsable behavior, New Tarajan will seriously ponder further, more incivise, but necessary, actions... "

4) Statement from Tarajani Diet,

"The last trick Moscow is using against us. When we will react accordingly?"

5) Statement from Tarajani Foreign Minister Sondenburg,

"The Eurussian military is simply ridiculous, and can be explained only with the intention to threaten the security of all those States in the continent which oppose themselves to the policies of Moscow."

6) Statement from Tarajani Foreign Minister Sondenburg,

"Now we know why Eurussia did not want the intervention of the WAAF before: with the WAAF in place, they would have no claim for their imperialistic conquest."

7) Statement from Tarajani Foreign Minister Sondenburg,

"Eurussia actually suffers a period of bad relations, just to use an euphemism, with two key players inside the SECURS, New Tarajan and Aloia, and it is obvious they do not want our forces to be deployed not so far from their borders."

8) Statement from Tarajani King Friederick,

"But let me say that we were not the only one to commit a mistake: first of all, the Court... Is Eurussia paying? They claim to be a superpower, but the reality is....that they are cowards!"

Hence, Eurussia believes that all these opinions speaks for themselves. If ever this honourable tribunal, notwithstanding all our previous opinions, grants to hear this case, even without merits, Eurussia informs this court that it will seek counter compensation and counter apologies for all the slanders and accusations against Eurussia thrown by high ranking officials of the Tarajani Government despite all the silence of our government. Eurussia will even seek 1 trillion euros for compensation and public apology from the people of the Kingdom of New Tarajan.

Eurussia have said enough, and we await the dismissal of this case. Thank you!

New Tarajan Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:53 am

This line of defense is simply a non-sense.
Eurussia is trying to hide the truth behind some statements of our government, placed outside their context, and without giving any explanation. They are practically denying the same "right of opinion" they called in their defense during the last trial. This is ridiculous. If they wish to track down the reasons of the dispute, then we would be obliged to remind all the times Eurussia offended us, not least also a member of the Royal House! But this would be ridiculous. We are now discussing of a fact for which Eurussia did not provide any kind of effective defense.
Did or not Eurussia deliberately not inform our Navy of the route of its submarine?
Did or not Eurussia take occasion of the accident to vilify our Navy?
These are the facts, honourable judges.
Moreover, we wish also to inform the Court that, instead limiting its activities in the framework of this Court, as for any civilized country, Eurussia is simultaneously asking to ALL the organizations of the World Alliance to suspend New Tarajan simply because of the previous verdict, which did not provide for any measure like this. What better demonstration of the fact Eurussia has not real defense?
Sincerely, we are deeply offended by this unjustified behavior of Eurussia. However, we have no intention to ask for more compensations, since we do not like such kind of behavior. We will leave this decision to the judgement of the Court.

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:04 am

This line of defense is simply a non-sense.
Eurussia is trying to hide the truth behind some statements of our government, placed outside their context, and without giving any explanation. They are practically denying the same "right of opinion" they called in their defense during the last trial. This is ridiculous. If they wish to track down the reasons of the dispute, then we would be obliged to remind all the times Eurussia offended us, not least also a member of the Royal House! But this would be ridiculous. We are now discussing of a fact for which Eurussia did not provide any kind of effective defense.
Did or not Eurussia deliberately not inform our Navy of the route of its submarine?
Did or not Eurussia take occasion of the accident to vilify our Navy?
These are the facts, honourable judges.
Moreover, we wish also to inform the Court that, instead limiting its activities in the framework of this Court, as for any civilized country, Eurussia is simultaneously asking to ALL the organizations of the World Alliance to suspend New Tarajan simply because of the previous verdict, which did not provide for any measure like this. What better demonstration of the fact Eurussia has not real defense?
Sincerely, we are deeply offended by this unjustified behavior of Eurussia. However, we have no intention to ask for more compensations, since we do not like such kind of behavior. We will leave this decision to the judgement of the Court.

As what we have stated in our opinions, all the grounds with which Eurussia believes this case must simply be dismissed in which we firmly believe New Tarajan has miserably failed to address for its case to stand before this honourable court of the world.

Also, we also believe that all issues surrounding the previously resolved case are considered resolved already by the mere fact the court has found New Tarajan guilty which encompasses all the events that transpired which resulted to that verdict. And with the recent statement, New Tarajan failed again to justify.

Furthermore, we believe that this tribunal has nothing to do on the suspension requests of New Tarajan on independent international organizations of the world as they are submitted all based on merits all resulted from the conviction of New Tarajan who aggrieved us.

Hence, Eurussia awaits for the dismissal of this case.

New Tarajan Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:18 am

First point: the Court did not express in the previous verdict a judgement ALL OVER the dispute, and not on this specific matter (attempt to vilify); alternatively, the Court would have already dismissed this case.

Second point: we took in front of the Court the actual behavior of Eurussia (illegal request of suspension from every WA Organization) only to demonstrate the ratio of their behavior. And, since this Court already expressed the verdict upon which Eurussia itself is basing its offensive requests for the suspension of New Tarajan, we believed to be necessary to inform this Court.

Thank you.

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:30 am

First point: the Court did not express in the previous verdict a judgement ALL OVER the dispute, and not on this specific matter (attempt to vilify); alternatively, the Court would have already dismissed this case.

Second point: we took in front of the Court the actual behavior of Eurussia (illegal request of suspension from every WA Organization) only to demonstrate the ratio of their behavior. And, since this Court already expressed the verdict upon which Eurussia itself is basing its offensive requests for the suspension of New Tarajan, we believed to be necessary to inform this Court.

Thank you.

Eurussia simply believes that New Tarajan misses the point and we further remind New Tarajan that the tribunal is not yet hearing the case as it has been awaiting yet the official submission of our party to the case.

Also, how can such a request of suspension become illegal when Eurussia is merely requesting due to the court verdict and not even forcing the organizations to do so?

Moreover, Eurussia asks New Tarajan which nation acted on a request for suspension of Eurussia from SOWESO immediately and right after the verdict? Even if Eurussia is proven innocent? With which our nation simply resigned from SOWESO as a humanitarian gesture for New Tarajan as it is keen on expelling us out of SOWESO.

Nevertheless, Eurussia believes the case will be dismissed by the Court of Justice.

New Tarajan Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:40 am

Please, do not joke with us.
We never asked for your expulsion from the SOWESO. And please, do not hide youself behind the mask of "humanitarian gesture", which is clearly offensive, while we always tried to keep a correct behavior, in the limits of the dispute, with Eurussia.
Also, the motion to suspend Eurussia from the SOWESO was related to THIS CASE, and not to the previous one, which would have been a non-sense. So, of course, if the Court will find Eurussia not-guilty, New Tarajan will personally ask for a re-integration of your country in the SOWESO, even if you have choosen, deliberately, to quit from it, for no reason. And maybe this is a far more human gesture, than everything Eurussia has done until now.
About your requests of suspension for New Tarajan: yes, they are illegal, since the verdict of this Court did not ask for anything like this, and we already paid you what the Court requested us to pay. So, your act is simply harassment.
Finally, the first point: the Court would have stopped AT THE VERY BEGINNING this trial, if the case would have been really already subject of the previous verdict.
Thus, we leave the word to the honourable Court.

Europe and Asia Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:54 am

Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding.

The Court will issue a memorandum of what it has seen.

Great Eurussia claimed in an international news post that its submarine had been wrecked and that it was not aided by the Tarajani navy, a claim which is useless because by Eurussia's own word in a previous case the Tarajani Navy was unaware of the situation.

That is the main concern of this case.

Furthermore, a request of $1 Trillion is extremely unreasonable.

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:46 am

About your requests of suspension for New Tarajan: yes, they are illegal, since the verdict of this Court did not ask for anything like this, and we already paid you what the Court requested us to pay. So, your act is simply harassment.
Finally, the first point: the Court would have stopped AT THE VERY BEGINNING this trial, if the case would have been really already subject of the previous verdict.
Thus, we leave the word to the honourable Court.

Eurussia simply believes that New Tarajan persistently misses the point of a LEGAL JUDGEMENT as it persistenly says the ILLEGALITY of things when it also persistently FAILS to cite an existing INTERNATIOBAL LAW that has been violated by Eurussia in the very first place.

Also, we would like to remind New Tarajan that our requests for its suspension before other INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATIONS, even not ordered by this tribunal, is simply LEGAL as it is based on its MERITS as Eurussia is a member state of these organizations which has been aggrieved by another co-equal member, which is New Tarajan itself. So there is nothing to debate this NON-ISSUE before this tribunal. And in fact, we would like to point out before this court that we respectfully submitted ourselves to the decision of an international organization after our request since it is an independent judgement solely based on the merits of the request.

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t122p15-waesco-wa-educational-scientific-and-cultural-organization#11174

Eurussia is extremely confident that our OPINION can withstand ALL LEGAL SCRUTINY as New Tarajan persistently fails to provide any legal basis for asking apology and compensation. We would just like to remind New Tarajan as well that as the tribunal said that it is yet to issue a MEMORANDUM on the case, and our position that we are questioning the validity of this case is a mere and obvious FACT that these are not yet official.

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:19 pm

Chief Justice Europe and Asia presiding.

The Court will issue a memorandum of what it has seen.

Great Eurussia claimed in an international news post that its submarine had been wrecked and that it was not aided by the Tarajani navy, a claim which is useless because by Eurussia's own word in a previous case the Tarajani Navy was unaware of the situation.

That is the main concern of this case.

Furthermore, a request of $1 Trillion is extremely unreasonable.

Eurussia deeply appreciated the immediate intervention of the court of finally issue a memorandum on the case forwarded by New Tarajan and our opinions questioning the grounds of this baseless case.

We also appreciate the fact that the court has directly identified the main root of this case which is about the issuance of statement of a Eurussian official on the submarine incident who just expressing an opinion which is an inviolable constitutional right to freedom of expression, in support to the own words of the tribunal itself about the issue at hand.

Nevertheless, these NEVER CHANGE THE FACT that there is no legal basis to seek for compensation nor even an apology as that is equivalent to a state's inviolable right to exercise sovereignty and independence not to mention the fact as well that there has been no physical damage ever established. Furthermore, there is NO INTERNATIONAL LAW that New Tarajan has cited that Eurussia violated simply making this case UNJUSTIFIED furthermore making the tribunal to have no LEGAL BASIS to further base its judgement and even the DEFENSE to depend its arguments in the very first place.

Eurussia remains firm on its opinion that this issue has been tackled and involved in a previously resolved case that therefore affirms our belief that discussing this baseless case has detrimental effect on the already irreversible resolved case.

Furthermore we clarify before this tribunal that we are NOT SEEKING for compensation and apology, at this moment, from New Tarajan, as we are just showing the gravity of the slanders and accusations coming from the King, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Admiral, their Royal Diet and Royal Council, all high ranking officials and institutions of the Tarajani Government in comparison to a simple statement coming from a Eurussian official exercising only his opinion. As if ever this case is officially heard by the tribunal despite having no international law to base upon, this will set PRECEDENT to all future and normal diplomatic exchange of words among nations that may simply charge each other for simple reactions on various scenarios which are all right to freedom of expression protected by the WA Constitution.

Nevertheless, Eurussia remains extremely confident of its opinions which could stand scrutiny on all legal basis. Hence, we await the court's memorandum.

New Tarajan Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:25 pm

The legal basis of the Eurussian defense is simply non-existent.
First of all, a legal judgement, for its own definition, exhaustes the subject submitted to it. The Court of Justice issued a verdict about the previous case: we accepted that verdict in all its parts and we complied with its provisions. Consequently, New Tarajan CANNOT BE accused anymore (and thus, prosecuted, by every mean) for that same thing, rendering the actions of Eurussia voids and illegals: you in first place claimed that the case is "irreversiblly closed", but at the same time your actions contradict you. And now you are trying to hide yourselves behind the "merits of the request": Eurussia has no more merits than New Tarajan, and your continuous harassment toward us is simply offensive.
So said about the issue of the WA Organizations, let us come back to the real subject of this trial.
First of all, we NEVER ASKED for 1 Trillion compensation, which would be absurd. We respectfully ask to the Court to check again our original request, which was of one million Prands, an absolutely symbolical and reasonable amount of money, and for public apologies of Chancellor Putin and a solemn promise not to try again to vilify our nation.
Secondly, Eurussia seeks for the international law it violated: diffamatio is a crime, everywhere and everytime. And you act was an attempt to vilify our Navy, since Eurussia was well aware of the situation and deliberately used it for its own advantage (OOC speaking: you deliberatley didn't inform me), thus creating all the conditions for this trial.
Eurussia continues to fail to demonstrate that our Navy was really guilt of not providing assistance to their submarine, the only thing which could really render our charges voids, thus making Eurussia innocent.
Thirdly, it is simply absurd, and doubly offensive, how Eurussia uses the "right of opinion" to defend themselves, while at the same time denying us the same right. We are not talking about the "right of opinion": because this right, as every right, as its limits. And when we brought accuses against your government, was always on the base of facts, stated by your government itself, not using such tricks as you have done in this case.

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:09 pm

Secondly, Eurussia seeks for the international law it violated: diffamatio is a crime, everywhere and everytime.

Eurussia greatly appreciates this direct to the point statement of New Tarajan, thus, greatly aiding the tribunal to decide on its memorandum, much more will also greatly help boost the stance of our opinions.

We wish to witness the tribunal itself, as we ask New Tarajan, that even if defamation is yet to be established, and if it is indeed a crime everywhere and every time, in the words of New Tarajan itself, can its government show before this tribunal as to where in the WA Constitution and in all international laws passed by the WA Government through its legislative organs, thus defamation is declared and enforced as an international crime?

Thank you very much.

New Tarajan Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:05 pm

We would like to ask WHERE in the World Alliance Constitution, then, it is written that a blockade enforced in International Waters is an act of aggression. Because we checked it, and we did not find absolutely no articles or paragraphs about this. Thus, following your own argument, the previous verdict of this Court should be deemed to be illegal and void?
Of course it isn't. Why? Because there is something, in jurisprudence, that we call "interpretation" of the law, particularly valuable in the field of International Law. This Court condemned New Tarajan of crimes against peace even if we didn't do anything to harm the population of Eurussia directly, because it interpreted a rule existing in customary international law.
This is exactly the same case: diffamatio is a crime, sic et simpliciter. It is not listed in the Constitution, but it is recognized in customary international law due to the double-rule of diuturnitas and opinion juris ac necessitate (we sincerely hope it is not necessary to explain to the Eurussian delegate how customary law is created).
At least, the argument of Eurussia comes to our favour: since the Constitution explictly provides for the "right to participate to the World Alliance", as stated in Article II, then, the attempt of Eurussia to carry out the suspension of New Tarajan from EVERY organization related to the WA government could even be seen as a violation of this constitutional right of New Tarajan.

Now, does Eurussia have a REAL and EFFECTIVE defense, justifying the reason of what they have done, or they will continue to use this trick in order not to answer our questions?

Great Eurussia Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:26 pm

We would like to ask WHERE in the World Alliance Constitution, then, it is written that a blockade enforced in International Waters is an act of aggression. Because we checked it, and we did not find absolutely no articles or paragraphs about this. Thus, following your own argument, the previous verdict of this Court should be deemed to be illegal and void?
Of course it isn't. Why? Because there is something, in jurisprudence, that we call "interpretation" of the law, particularly valuable in the field of International Law. This Court condemned New Tarajan of crimes against peace even if we didn't do anything to harm the population of Eurussia directly, because it interpreted a rule existing in customary international law.

Eurussia is simply perplexed on these statements coming from New Tarajan asking our government where in the WA Constitution a naval blockade is an act of aggression? Isn't it the tribunal itself have affirmed and was already proven and even resolved that the naval blockade itself, enforced, and even admitted by New Tarajan was already considered a violation of our sovereignty? We simply believe that New Tarajan is misleading itself.

Now, our government asks again New Tarajan of our very simple question which remains unanswered, can its government show before this tribunal as to where in the WA Constitution and in all international laws passed by the WA Government through its legislative organs, thus defamation is declared and enforced as an international crime?

Eurussia believes that this is the most important thing that New Tarajan must be able to justify for the honourable tribunal even consider this case formally due to grounds of compensation even if there is considerable damage proven much more an apology. Nevertheless, we hope that New Tarajan answer the simple question for the sake of its own case and for the benefit of this court and all parties involved.

Thank you.

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:33 am

Eurussia does not want to recognize the facts.
We already have proven, IN OUR PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, our reasoning. However, Eurussia is the defendant, here, and, at least, it is his their duty to provide a defense of their actions. This is not a trial against New Tarajan, it is a trial AGAINST EURUSSIA.
Yes, it was the Court to decide that the blockade was an act of aggression, but, until the evidences will prove the opposite, it is not written inside the Constitution.
Here, the only perplexed are us. The case is the same: do not turn around it, and state your defense, instead of trying to prove this trial is illegal (which is absolutely not the case).
Or, at the contrary, if you desire to continue to offend us and the honourable Court with these tricks, then, please, report in front of us the part of the Constitution where it is CLEARLY STATED that a blockade in International Waters is an act of aggression (of course, our argument is not against the previous verdict, honourable judges; our only intention is to demonstrate with such a clear and easy example how the position of Eurussia lacks of any ground).
And why didn't Eurussia answer to our last statement, that they are violating a constitutional right of New Tarajan by asking our suspension in every WA Organization? It is an interesting demonstration of how Eurussia is avoiding to answer the questions where they cannot provide a real defense.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:45 am

Eurussia does not want to recognize the facts.
We already have proven, IN OUR PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, our reasoning. However, Eurussia is the defendant, here, and, at least, it is his their duty to provide a defense of their actions. This is not a trial against New Tarajan, it is a trial AGAINST EURUSSIA.
Yes, it was the Court to decide that the blockade was an act of aggression, but, until the evidences will prove the opposite, it is not written inside the Constitution.
Here, the only perplexed are us. The case is the same: do not turn around it, and state your defense, instead of trying to prove this trial is illegal (which is absolutely not the case).
Or, at the contrary, if you desire to continue to offend us and the honourable Court with these tricks, then, please, report in front of us the part of the Constitution where it is CLEARLY STATED that a blockade in International Waters is an act of aggression (of course, our argument is not against the previous verdict, honourable judges; our only intention is to demonstrate with such a clear and easy example how the position of Eurussia lacks of any ground).

Eurussia, again, reminds New Tarajan, that the grounds of the case for it to be heard are yet to be decided on by the honourable tribunal as the Chief Justice have stated, that it is yet to issue a memorandum, as we question the validity and grounds of the case.

And for the sake of the enlightenment of New Tarajan, that in the previous case Eurussia vs New Tarajan, our government provided firsthand and from the very beginning, the very basic laws that New Tarajan has violated that made the honourable tribunal to look at the face of the complaints and hear the case immediately. And here it is,

https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t339-resolved-eurussia-vs-new-tarajan#10592

Therefore, it is the same component that results to the lack of merits of this case in the very first place, that is why we are persistently asking and obviously helping New Tarajan to provide an answer to a very very obviously simple question: can its government show before this tribunal as to where in the WA Constitution and in all international laws passed by the WA Government through its legislative organs, thus defamation is declared and enforced as an international crime?

Hence, Eurussia hopes to hear a "Yes or No" response from New Tarajan.

New Tarajan Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:06 am

What you mentioned were simply "rights"...not duties binding nations. Your argument is simply invalid, since it provides "rights" that Eurussia enjoys (as every other country in the World Alliance). But, in reality the Article you mentoned did not provide any ground even for a definition of "act of aggression", thus surely it did not provide any ground for the definition of a blockade as such an act. What about the verdict of the Court, then? It is very simple, in reality: the Court interpreted the Article 2 in light of the event, and of the customary international law, thus making possible to issue a verdict.
Now, if we want to follow the same principle, Eurussia is guilty of violation of our "right to exercise sovereignty and independence" (and, wiilling to extend the thing, also the "right to self-determination") due to the fact that, with the lack of information deliberately caused by Eurussia, our Navy (and our government) was not able to rescue the submarine (OOC: damn, I was not free to use my Fleet as I desired....more lack of sovereignty of this..I'm simply transforming this principles in RP) and thus being attacked with an attempt of diffamatio. Moreover, this same attempt, trying to blacken the reputation of New Tarajan in front of the International Community, was an attack against the same right of New Tarajan to freely exercise our sovereigntiy and independence. It is interpretation, of course; but not different from what Eurussia has already done. Or, at least, Eurussia could provide us with a definition of "attack", thus enlightening us once more?
And we continue to ask to Eurussia about their violation of our constitutional "right to participate in the World Assembly".
Thus, since Eurussia do not want to hear our reasonable argument, then, yes, we will wait for the Court memorandum.

Great Eurussia Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:18 am

What you mentioned were simply "rights"...not duties binding nations. Your argument is simply invalid, since it provides "rights" that Eurussia enjoys (as every other country in the World Alliance). But, in reality the Article you mentoned did not provide any ground even for a definition of "act of aggression", thus surely it did not provide any ground for the definition of a blockade as such an act. What about the verdict of the Court, then? It is very simple, in reality: the Court interpreted the Article 2 in light of the event, and of the customary international law, thus making possible to issue a verdict.
Now, if we want to follow the same principle, Eurussia is guilty of violation of our "right to exercise sovereignty and independence" (and, wiilling to extend the thing, also the "right to self-determination") due to the fact that, with the lack of information deliberately caused by Eurussia, our Navy (and our government) was not able to rescue the submarine (OOC: damn, I was not free to use my Fleet as I desired....more lack of sovereignty of this..I'm simply transforming this principles in RP) and thus being attacked with an attempt of diffamatio. Moreover, this same attempt, trying to blacken the reputation of New Tarajan in front of the International Community, was an attack against the same right of New Tarajan to freely exercise our sovereigntiy and independence. It is interpretation, of course; but not different from what Eurussia has already done. Or, at least, Eurussia could provide us with a definition of "attack", thus enlightening us once more?
And we continue to ask to Eurussia about their violation of our constitutional "right to participate in the World Assembly".
Thus, since Eurussia do not want to hear our reasonable argument, then, yes, we will wait for the Court memorandum.

As New Tarajan failed again to provide the very answer of our simple question on the issue of defamation, then Eurussia is extremely confident in saying that using that defamation as a ground for asking compensation from us and even an apology is already invalid, baseless, and groundless as we can confidently say that there is NOTHING in the WA Constitution and even in existing international (regional laws) about defamation on international diplomacy.

Again, to give New Tarajan the benefit of the doubt, again, we hope that New Tarajan can asnwer our question again, can its government show before this tribunal as to where in the WA Constitution and in all international laws passed by the WA Government through its legislative organs, thus defamation is declared and enforced as an international crime?

Persistent failure to provide an answer is obviously a definite failure to provide justification of the very case itself. Nevertheless, we await the memorandum from the court.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

(Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Opinion

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Response

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Response

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Opinion

Eurussian Opinion

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Opinion

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian News

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Opinion

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia

Eurussian Opinion

Re: (Dismissed) New Tarajan vs Eurussia