INDIA

INFORMACION GENERAL

The India - officially the Republic of the India (in hindi भारत गणराज्य, Bhārat Gaṇarājya Bharat Ga? Arajya; in English, Republic of India) - is a country located in South Asia. It is the most extensive seventh country and the second one most filled with the world. It borders on the Indian ocean in the southern part, on the Arabic sea in the western part and on the gulf of Bengal in the eastern part, along a coastal line of more than 7517 kilómetros.12 The India also borders on Pakistan in the western part; it notices 2 in the northern part with China, Nepal and Bhutan and in the eastern part with Bangladés and Burma. In addition, the India is near the islands of Sri Lanka, Maldives and Indonesia. His capital is New Delhi and his more populated city is Bombay.

Home of the culture of the valley of the Indus and a historical region for his commercial routes and big empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified by his cultural and commercial wealth in most of his long billiard cue history 13 Four of the most important religions of the world, the Hinduism, the Buddhism, the jainismo and the sijismo originated here, whereas other religions like the zoroastrianism, the Judaism, the christianity and the Islam came during the I millenium, giving form to diverse cultures of the region. Gradually annexed by the British Company of the Indies Oriental from beginning of the 18th century and colonized by the United Kingdom from middle of the 19th century, the India turned into an independent nation into 1947, after a fight for the independence that was marked by a movement of not violence.

The India is a republic composed by 28 conditions and seven territories of the union, with a system of parliamentary democracy. It possesses 11 ª bigger economy of the world in nominal terms, beside having the fourth world GDP in terms of parity of purchasing power. The economic reforms of 1991 have transformed it into one of the economies of more rapid growth; 15 nevertheless, still it suffers from problems like the high levels of poverty, illiteracy, 16 pandemics and malnutrición. Besides a pluralist, multilingual and multiethnic company, the India also shelters a diverse flora and fauna in different protected habitats.

In addition, the India is one of nine nuclear countries, not signer of the Agreement of Not Nuclear Proliferation, provided that, in his current terms, it would not allow him to support his atomic armament.

Capital: Nueva Delhi 28 º 34 ' N 77 º 12 ' E

more populated City: Bombay

official Language: India has 844 dialects and 17 principal languages as the panjabí, thehindí, the Bengali, the Maratí, the Tamil, the Telugú, the Kannada, the Malayalam, besides the Englishman

Gentilicio: Indian, - to and hindú

Forms of gobierno.: federal democratic Republic parlamentaria

President: Pranab Mukherjee

Prime minister: Manmohan Singh

Independence: of the United Kingdom on August 15, 1947

Superficie: Puesto 7. º · Total 3 287 5951 km ² ·

total Population : waters down 9,5 Borders 14 103 km Put 2. º · Register 1 241 492 0007 hab. · Density 377,6 hab./km ²

Geographical location

The geographical Location of the India is one of most favoured of the whole Asia. This country is located in Southern Asia, borders to the northwest and in the western part with Pakistan, in the northern part with China and Nepal, in the eastern part with the region of Myanmar in Burma, in the southern part with the Indian Ocean, to the North-East with Bhutan and Sikkin, to the southwest with the Arabian Sea and to the south-east with the Gulf of Bengal. Due to this geographical location the India dominates the most important sea routes of the continent where goods of all kinds are transported, for what this one considered as the key of the trade of the region.

The geographical composition of the India is not for difficult anything, this is a country of the south of Asia, which develops on the Peninsula of the Hindustan. It possesses a surface of 3287.590 square Km, with approximately 4103 Km from borders and 7.000 Km from coasts. His geographical location accommodates it in the western part with Pakistan and the Indian Ocean in the Arabic sea and Lakshadweep's sea, in the north it limits with Nepal, Bhutan and China, in the eastern part with Burma (Myanmar), Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean, in the Bay of Bengal, and in the southern part once again with the Indian Ocean, in Palk's strait and Mannar's Gulf, which gives step to Ceylon (Sri Lanka).

The capital of the India is New Delhi and account with almost a million inhabitants. His geographical fundamental accident is the Himalayas, this one

possesses from 200 to 300 Km from width, with an extension of length of 2.400 on north margins of the Indian subcontinent, being a separating curtain of another part of Asia. This one is the highest mountainous system and young woman of the whole world, for what it is a merit of which the Hindus live proud.

But not only it is the Himalayas who takes all the merits to himself in the Indian geography. Towards the south and parallel to this accident the plains of the north spread, this one forms a wide belt of plains from 200 to 400 Km from width. This one is one of the major alluvial zones of the north. For what the India, it possesses besides beautiful constructions, beautiful natural landscapes

What type of government has it?

The system of government that governs the India is a Democratic, Sovereign, Socialist and Secular Republic in addition India possesses a bicameral parliament. The India is sovereign because it is supreme and independent. " It is socialist because there exists social and economic equality between all his citizens ". It is secular because he promotes the equality of the religions as well as his tolerance and is democratic because the citizens choose his representatives. The politics of the India is governedFor the constitution of 1950, the president is the Chief of the condition, this one is chosen indirectly by the electoral congress. The chief of government is the prime minister chosen by the president. The executive power is composed by the president, vice-president and the cabinet. The legislative power is composed by the bicameral parliament that consists of the high chamber Rajya Sabha and the lower house Lok Sabha. The judicial power is unitary in three levels which consists of the Supreme court of Justice, top courts and a great number of courts of the first instance. The current president of the indies is Pratibha Patil, is the first woman in the India in coming to this position. His political party is the National Indian Congress that follows Socioliberalismo's ideology with Sociodemocracia. The prime minister is integral Manmohan Singh of the same party that Pratibha Patil.

What ideologies do (political, religious or of another type) influence the government of the country?

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

The India is a democratic republic with a parliamentary system of government. It is an union of conditions, which enjoy certain autonomy, and that have a constitution, which was adopted as a constituent assembly after obtaining the independence. His political system was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and by his philosophy of not violence. The chief of State is the president, there being also a vice-president that they will remain in functions for five years.

The president names the Prime minister, who the cabinet presides, forming this way the executive power.

The president is chosen by a group consisted of members of the parliament and by the legislative assemblies of the conditions. Enter his power the power is to act in case of emergency, or before any threat towards the country. And if there are serious problems in the parliament, he can assume certain functions.

The legislative power resides in the parliament, which consists of a high Chamber (senators chosen by members of the legislative assembly of every condition) and a Lower house (deputies, representatives of the people chosen by universal suffrage). The High Chamber consists of 245 members, being 12 chosen ones for the president and the rest for the legislatures of the conditions.

In the Lower house they are 545 members, being two of them named by the president. They remain in his charges six years the first ones, and five years the second ones. The same distribution repeats itself statewide for every member state of the union, having instead of president, a governor.

This way so, the Executive of the Union is constituted by the President, the Vice-president and the Cabinet by the Prime minister to the head to help and to advise the President.

The prime minister communicates the decisions thought by the cabinet to the President, playing an important paper the secretary of the office in the capture of top-level decisions. The legislation needs the consensus of both chambers, but in case of monetary legislation, always the high chamber prevails.

The government of the India names to if same sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republican.

It is sovereign because it is supreme and independent. It is free with regard to the control and power of foreign countries.

It is socialist because it exists so much socially as economically equality between all his citizens. There will no be discrimination for motives of caste, color, creed, sex, religion, language, etc. All the persons will have equality of opportunities. The government will put all his efforts in order that the power does not center only in few persons. The India has adopted laws as the abolition of the rejection to the untouchable ones.

The India is secular because he promotes the equality of all the religions as well as his tolerance. It is a country that does not have an official religion. Every person can practise any religion, which it chooses. The government does not take part in the religious directives that are given in the colleges. It is democratic because it is a government chosen by the population, and there is a percentage of benches saved for women.

The India is a republic and is in opposition to the monarchy, where the power of the condition would be hereditary.

The government offers a social state safety to the population in services as the education, the health, the protection to the minorities, the promotion of the agriculture, the protection of the monuments, and the safety by means of the police forces.

The beginning of the politics of condition included in the part IV of the Indian constitution it reflects that Indian it is a country safely socially state.

With regard to the collection of the government it is possible to say that it is increasing considerably. In the year 1945 his collection was of a trillion of rupias, coming to a trillion in the year 1995.

The judicial system of the India began under the Britishers, and the concept as well as the procedure looks like greatly that of the Anglo-Saxon countries. The Supreme Court of the India consists of a chief of justice and 25 partners. In the year 1960 the India removed the juror in the majority of the judgments since he found many of corrupt and ineffective them, and the judgments are directed by judges.

Undoubtedly, the most important personage in the politics of the India was Gandhi. It obtained in a very special way the independence of the country. Today, his family continues moving for political areas

In July, 2012 there was chosen to Pranab Mukheerjee as the decimotercer president of the history of India. To his 76 years of age, he has been a holder of Finance and is considered to be one of the most influential personalities of the Government. The system of voting used in the India is a system where the citizens can vote for several candidates, though establishing an order of preferences.

In the choices of this year, the leader of the Party of the Congress Sonia Gandhi decided not to accept the post of the first secretary of the India after having gained the legislative, like that choices since she gave up being the boss of the new Executive. They have been many those who have tried that was reconsidering his decision, so much inside the government as in the streets, and even there is the one who threatened to commit suicide if Sonia Gandhi was not accepting the post of the first secretary. It is said that the decision thought by Sonia was very influenced by his children, which were pressing his mother in order that it leaves the politics after the death of his father.

India and his beliefs

India is the second country most filled with the world and one of the poorest. In spite of having the most important fourth economy of the world in terms of Parity of purchasing power his problem is the great concentration of wealth and the bad political administration that lives at present. According to the Indian customs the one that is born poor does not have right to progress, has to die

poor, there middle class does not exist what does not allow that those of low resources should enter to necessary services as the education, the health between others.

India has been the country of the major religious trends of the world. The mysticism, the meditation and the spiritual exercises of the venerable Vedic teachers across the centuries have given light to multiple religious traditions that have spread in essence and it forms virtually towards all the principal civilizations of the world. In India at present there exist four religions of Indian origin. The Hinduism - 180 millions, the Buddhism - 7.5millones, the yainismo - 3 millions and the sijismo - 18 millions, predominating notably over the Hinduism In India the cows are adored, for them they are like gods; they can be doing thereabouts of theirs and nothing is said to them. The hindúes explain his adoration to the cows as the ritual to many gods and that of some form or other one with the cow it unifies to all. According to his mythology, on having died it is necessary to cross a very mighty river, and a cow helps you to cross across of the shore, then if you treat well to the cows in life, let's say, they are going to help to cross you up to other one Side. This sacralización seems to western many to be paradoxical in a country in which they reign the poverty and the hunger. Nevertheless this tradition is neither very ancient nor very nearby, it is necessary to emphasize that the religion that prohibits to damage to them to the cows is the Hinduism.

CUSTOMS OF THE INDIES

It is very difficult to know the customs or at least of the majority of they when you visit to a country for the first time. The India is a country of very deep-rooted customs, let's remember that this one is a region with a thousand-year-old culture.

One of the most atypical examples of his customs is the greeting, which expresses saying the word Namaste and they join the hands opposite to the chest, under the cheeks, between a man and a woman in this region it is improper to embrace each other or to give him the hand, not being like that in case of the same sex, it is common in this country to see two men to walk with the taken hands, which serious rare in any Europa's region or America.

The matrimonial question is different of the slightly common customs already to this height of the life. The marriages are arranged on the part of the family of the boyfriends, which agrees between persons of the same caste and of similar status of life, level social and economic, used to that the family of the girlfriend provides that of the boyfriend of some ability. This civilization trusts that the love comes after the marriage.

In the gown it is common to see the men to use beard and turbans, which are named Sikhs, which belong to an Indian religion, which practises 4 % of the

population in this region. These persons though considered a minority, they represent a great impact in the company, such example the current president of this country.

Traditions of the India

The India no doubt is one of the countries that possesses more typical customs, which in his immense majority are sustained by a religious value, which to be rests on the Hinduism, Buddhism or the Islamism. This country supports thousand-year-old customs as his own existence, which is an event to observe as such an ancient country supports customs that already should have disappeared with the step of the centuries and the development.

Of the India there are different the customs that are called the attention of the international tourism, we can mention a few, which make the most incredulous open-mouthed. For example it is true that in The India the " cows are sacred ". This forces the settlers to feed of another type of meat, such as the buffalo, the chicken or the pork, though it is worth clarifying that the immense majority they are vegetarian. The hindúes do not even dare to prove the milk of this animal, which serious a blasphemy and offense to his compatriots. These ruminants are considered in the India animal divine, for what the same ones it is normal to spy them in the streets, which live in total tranquility.

Other one of the abnormal customs is the case to consume food, only they use the right hand, this it is not a custom of label, but it is a question of hygiene, since this this extremity considered a tool of tidiness and hygiene, turning out to be the left side a dirty extremity for being the one that offers to him the cleanliness to the body.

As Michael Mann does it, only I am going to generalize in a process of the ideology in the India, which is the part of the Hinduism and of the partial characterization of the castes. Not with it I want to exclude to the Buddhism and his importance inside the historical process of this context.

Given the processes of conformation and merger of some peoples inside the analytical frame of the origin and stabilization of the Indian civilization, close to the ideological reconfigurations, in which there were accompanied the expressions of the writing, the philosophy and the religion; they made possible to a great extent the constitution of an ideological very strong trend that is the Hinduism.

What really brings with it the Hinduism is the conformation of the castes, that with considered by Mann (Pág. 495) in a ceiling power of the ideology. The problem to characterize this system of castes, is basically the concepción and interpretation on the part of theoretical as Huton, Hocart, and the same Max

Weber, who from his generally sociological and Western visions, complejizan the real meaning of this system of social organization (This like reflection).

When Michael Mann says: " I adduce that the castes she is, really, it forms of ideological power, with a considerable autonomy I concern of the economic, military and political power. But it is not based on the ideas as independent factor on the social life, but rather on specific technologies of organization that are a partner spatially transcendental " Mann (Pág. 496).

These affirmations break with the idealism descontextualizado in those who were had conceived to the social structures of the India, since the theoretical ones that began to define this civilization, rushed with the way as these they could be established, and in addition, the theoretical ones always are influenced by his context, already be of nature politically, economically, etc. For the case to define otrasculturas different theirs, it turns out to be a complicated task, Another important factor of the indies, is the classification from the varnas. The varnas are four features in descending order of purity, of the brahmines (priests), the Kshatriyas ( Gentlemen and warriors), the vayshyas (farmers and merchants) and the shudras (servants). A fifth varna that of the untouchable ones was added very much later below all the rest. These varna are in the whole India, though with regional variants. (Mann Pág. 497).

The interesting of this classification of specific structures, it is that it adds other approaches directed to the hierarchy, the specialization and the purity.

To conclude in outline this frame of analysis of India, we say that the biggest icon we it frame in the recognition of the ideological power, and even more, the religious device as the sustenance generated of the company in this case. We see again the castes as propitious space for the manifestation of two expressions: the simbología and the ritual. Without them, the studding towards the definition of four sources of power would be complex, and the concept of intersectalidad would not do present to itself since it was given in this company..The already mentioned varnas, refer to a model of social stratification in the India, each of which fulfills a function and a strict sense inside the society.

· what internal events can influence the external politics of the country?

The Exterior Politics of India from his beginnings with the process The Exterior Politics of India from his beginnings with the process of independence has suffered important transformations, specially from the moment in which the country I initiate his process of economic opening and expansion at the beginning of 1990, being characterized for exercising a paper of representation of the Third World countries of Africa and Asia meeting on this I go on to a process of political opening from the government of Rajiv Gandhi, this process I realize with special emphasis it was seizing China And the Asian southeast in the year of 1997 places the bases for the establishment of new relations of

vicinity, based on the projection of a pacific hegemony and on the cooperation as tool to go out of the underdevelopment. Nevertheless the process of accomplishment of nuclear tests I take her to a new panorama inside the international context, defining and reaffirming his position opposite to the use and the right of an autonomous status in nuclear matter, which made it receive critiques of the antinuclear movements; to what answered that the nuclear tests were symbolizing the process of reaffirmation of the power of the India, what I generate an interpretation of transformation of his tradition pacifist

The progressive pace of economic growth of India and of other countries that compose the BRIC, and that represent 18 % of the Internal Product Global Brute and possess 48 % of the world population, it makes them necessary to take joint actions to study the need of a financial and economic reform to face the competition of The Economic European Union and The United States, beside positions to take concerning the behaviors of economic character India with the course of the years transformed into an ascending power according to Mallavarapu that explains since has turned into an actor with aptitude to internments turn into a country decisor key into the game of the relations, nevertheless for multiple reasons still has not acquired this status, for which it becomes the group necessary in economic block to have a degree of acceptable influence opposite to the consolidated powers, for which they have to direct his actions it was seizing a joint growth that in 10 years would make them possible to overcome the GDP of The United States in ten years; they can be considered of vital importance The elements India possesses and that predispose it to mark a major potential as country ,such elements are: his great size, his great and young population, his wealth and variety of natural resources, as well as his inheritance and cultural plurality, these generate a process of use and transformation, since in case of the population that by means of the process of access to education, housing, etc. They allow him to generate changes in his social structure capable of taking up office of taking up office and stimulating new processes of development, since it it shows the projects of collaboration of the EU related to the management of the water, which shows as India has got accommodated, for To realize activities of improvement of the social life and especially to penetrate into the search of relations with other countries since is the case of his incursion in Central America where it offered credits for the development of the countries of the System of the Central American Integration.

As for cooperation opposite to other countries, India has destined resources for this field, since I demonstrate in Manmohan Singh's visit [8], Prime minister of India who offered US$500 million in assistance to Afghanistan, which has generated a tension reaction in Pakistan that has accused India [9] of being behind the terrorists who from time to time commit an outrage in his territory, since a process of filtration has taken place for New Delhi of a list of suspects that was dedicated to Islamabad This demonstrates that though the India has a

representation and a wide enough power in the region, is criticized in topics of deeply global worry and interests since is the case of the terrorism that comes from Pakistan for which it becomes necessary to resort to the search of cooperation and to the diplomatic action to avoid moments of crisis and possible clashes between the countries. It is for this that the condition of India like power in ascent measured in terms to be able and his capacity of influence worldwide demonstrates that though an important way has been crossed in the international plane Even it does not assemble l the characteristics that would group her with the powerful countries; India has taken an important paper and his potential goes in increase, but even it has character of the second order.

Exterior politics political internal vs: the India like international actor at the beginning of the 21st century

The principal definition that characterizes the India in the international context of beginning of the 21st century is that of ascending power (Mallavarapu, 2007, pp. 99-101), that is to say, an actor with aptitude to turn into a key decisor into the game of the international relations but that, for diverse reasons, still he has not acquired this status. Between the characteristics that define the emergency of the India there are situated a series of elements that can be considered to be dice - it is to say, that they are inherent in the country - since it is the case of his great size, his great and young population, his wealth and variety of natural resources, as well as his inheritance and cultural plurality Nevertheless, these elements of for yes do not predispose the major potential of a country, but it is the way in which they are in use and transform (for example, in case of the population, by means of the expansion of the access to the education, housing, etc.), simultaneously that combine with other aspects of more strategic nature, which can generate this capacity. In case of the India it is of special relevancy the existence of a democratic model who, in spite of his weaknesses, is kept stable, the importance of a military significant capacity (especially increased by the existence of nuclear weapon) and the evidence of an economic development that has been particularly continued from the change of century. Neither it suits to forget the cultural factor in his current or modern sense (across the literature, the cinema or even the culinary art) so, though it has minor influence in the political occupation, there helps to project a certain external image of the paísla India tries, over everything, the reaffirmation in the external plane, to be accepted in equality of conditions that the big power, which carries a struggle for being admitted into the principal forums in which the country still is not present and to accept his nuclear status (Bava, 2007, p. 6). On the other hand, the India represents an accommodating enough power to the international way, in the sense that is going to look for the negotiation and the dialog opposite to the individual action. Even in the most sensitive topics of safety, since it is the case of the terrorism (and especially the one that comes from Pakistan), the governments of the country have resorted to the search of a

cooperation and to the diplomatic action opposite to the use, for example, of a hypothetical military action in a neighboring State.

Nevertheless, the condition of India of power in ascent, clearly measured this one in terms to be able and capacity of influence in the international plane, also comes To indicating that still it does not assemble the necessary characteristics that could elevate it to the select club of the powerful countries. It is more, though at first it seems that the Indian potential goes in increase, also there can happen that this one does not manage to consolidate in the next decades and that the India, in spite of his relative superiority opposite to other States, is kept as an important power, but of the second order (Kumar, 2008, p. 28) The reasons for it are of diverse nature.

The defense of the multilateralismo in the treatment of the international matters.

Politics of the consensus to confront the principal global challenges (opposite to the unilateral action), but also as a form of diplomacy in which it turns out easier to promote certain worries or national problems (Saran, 11/I/2006). The exercise of the multilateralismo allows to design an order more favorable to the Indian interests, not only because it represents a way of approaching in a more effective way certain matters (climate change, terrorism, management and prevention of catastrophes, fight against the poverty, disarmament, etc.), but because also it allows to face to possible balances of power (in Asia) unfavorable for the country. Nevertheless, this politics of cooperation does not concern all the areas. When it refers to the treatment of hanging disputes in which the India is a part, it continues giving priority to the defense of a strict bilateralism

Politics of credible Defense.

The politics of credible defense comes to indicate that the India is not going to resign the improvement and modernization of his military capacities, partly because it is located in an unstable scene that supposes a constant threat to his safety, and partly because the India does not form a part of any military alliance endorsed by the USA (Sahni, 2006, p. 164). Therefore, before any possible situation of danger, the most probable thing it is that the country has to possess his own forces. The guarantee of a credible defense appears as a measure of prevention (of exercise of dissuasion) before a possible violent evolution of the regional context, in case the diplomatic means do not work.

For it, the politics of defense includes the maintenance of a capacity of nuclear (credible) dissuasion opposite to a possible adversary, as well as of a constant renovation and improvement of the military equipment, by means of the purchase to third countries, but also with an emphasis in The national output. In the last years special attention is receiving the naval modernization - in which

the India is situated in a certain disadvantage with regard to other powers with presence in the zone since it is the case of China-, given the needs to exercise a major maritime control to safeguard the national coasts and to attack threats as the drug trafficking, the terrorism or the piracy, beside protecting the commercial routes.

The India and the relation with the big powers: the India is necessary; another India, also It

Does little more than 10 years the image and the information that was coming on the India to most of the European countries, exempting probably the United Kingdom, was the relative one to that of a distant country with an own idiosyncrasy in the political, economic, social occupation and especially culturally. Nowadays, the specificity that the India represents has been assimilated and to a certain extent domesticated because, over everything, the India is necessary

The India is necesariapara the economies of the powerful countries for his great market, especially the variable spectrum that supposes the middle class, his need of creation of big infrastructures (with limited internal capacities in this plane) and for his skilled workforce and English-speaker. The average growth of 8 % of the GDP in the last years also represents an achievement encomiable for a State that even it does little it was seen like essentially poor. Nevertheless, though the previous thing represents the habitual mantra with which the country is presented in numerous forums, determining others exist. In the India there lives a sixth part of the world population and if there are included his frontier neighbors of South Asia (exempting China), one is speaking about an area in the one that lives more of fourth one part of the humanity. Therefore, the behavior and the action of the government of New Delhi in matters as environmental, humanitarian questions, prevention of catastrophes, resolution of conflicts and military aspects, between others, is going to be transcendental for a good part of the planet. The India can be more or less powerful in agreement with the parameters generally assumed to qualify to the big powers, but his participation and collaboration turns out to be indispensable in the search of a consensus in the principal problems that affect the humanity

On the other hand, the country has turned into a desirable partner for the most powerful States, which they see in New Delhi an ally with whom to be able to satisfy other interests of more strategic character. For the present time, the nature of these alliances is limited enough, but it has interlaced the India with the principal world centers of power and decision. Nevertheless, still India is not known if this new dynamism materializes in substantial earnings for the country and in addition, concretely, up to what point New Delhi is an ally in foot of equality in these relations and in what measure, across these agreements, helps to re-define the international scene.Though it appreciates that the

principal powers have looked for points of approximation and cooperation with the India, it is not less true that in the last decade New Delhi has been particularly active in reinforcing bows with this group of countries. Partly, this activity can be considered to be a politics of reaffirmation of the own power, though also as a need to solve some ballasts that have reduced the possibilities of creating a regional and international scene more favorable to the Indian interests. The most evident case is the draft that there have taken the relations Indus - American or the sustantivación of a dialog but Indian, in spite of the frontier hanging dispute with China.

India and the USA: from the disagreement to the nuclear agreement

The relation of the India with the USA has been traditionally qualified like of misunderstandings, but especially there has been a distancing lost interest by both parts. Nevertheless, from the area Indian politician - académico-burocrático the predominant image of the USA has been that of admiration - in view of the power that it represents - and of rejection, especially from the sectors of the left side, before a hegemony qualified like oppressive with the least favored countries These two visions continue being present nowadays, even from a part of the own Indian company, though the current bows established with Washington have been accepted more or less as a normality between both big countries.Of Washington, New Delhi has looked first of all for recognition, not only to his economic dynamism and technological and military capacity, but also in relation to his paper of regional power and to his particular position with regard to Pakistan in the contentious one of Kashmir (Mohan, 2008). This recognition has obtained it partly, while the USA has tried to accommodate the India in sensitive aspects as the nuclear one and has outlined an approximation with this country not only for the satisfaction of interests of the American economy, but for other more strategic ends related to the distribution of power and influence in Asia.

During George W. Bush's Administration the military cooperation between both countries received a new impulse, especially from the draft in the regional politics after the attempts of 11-S. The USA raised the sanctions that were weighing on the armament sale and there was restored the Group of Politics of Defense (India-US Defence Policy Group) - that had not met from the nuclear Indian tests of 1998-, in order to facilitate the exchange of personnel, to realize military joint exercises, etc. Up to the date this workgroup has celebrated eight meetings, with significant results in the strategic bilateral plane (Haté, Schaffer, 2007) The strategic - military dimension also has met reinforced by the agreement of transfer of technology and nuclear material, which has had a complex and controversial gestation for almost three years, up to his final countersignature for the American president on October 8, 2008.

In addition, though it is not possible to indicate in an express way, is observed that the USA has moved from a position of equidistance on the question of Kashmir and the problem of the terrorism in the region, towards a major comprehension of the continuous accusations of the Indian government on this topic. In fact, Washington has recognized as terrorist groups to several formations that were acting in Kashmir (between them Laskhar-e-Toiba yYaish-e-Muhammad) and has pressed Pakistan in order that he was adopting the same measures, especially during the development of the bilateral crisis Indian - Pakistani of 2001-2002. The USA is conscious that the resolution of the conflict of Kashmir turns out to be crucial in the evolution of the regional scene of safety, but also it seems to admit, indirectly, that there exists a series of realities (the functioning of the Line of Control like a border of fact between both countries, the relative accommodation of a sector of the company cashmere to the new political environment) that favor the Indian position. Nevertheless, there continue being basic problems as the question of the human rights in the zone and the need to guarantee a frame of regional autonomy for the normalization of relations between Srinagar and New Delhi, which they concern the perception that the USA has of the problem.

Definitively, though Indus - American can speak of a normalization of the relations, for the present time this major interaction has appeared in a certainly limited way (Bajpai, 2008, pp. 44-45), with a predominance of the strategic - military aspect. The India has turned into a principal partner into the region for Washington, though notable differences continue existing between both. Such differences can accent depending on how the current North American Administration approaches some topics, especially the question of Kashmir and the instability in Pakistan, but also of the general evolution of the relations between the USA and China. In addition, it stays for to see of what concrete form substance of a practical way the nuclear agreement Indus - American.

The politics of brotherhood with China

In the last years has re-arisen strongly the motto that popularized the good relations between China and the India at the beginning of the 50s of the 20th century, the Hindi-Chini bhai, bhai (the India and China are brothers). The full normalization of the political high-level dialog, partly propitiated by a process of negotiations for the resolution of the frontier hanging dispute, has given place to a new phase of understanding between both countries. Nevertheless, this does not want to say that Frictions exist, especially derived from the military superiority of China, the distribution of influences in the Asian continent and the competition for a hegemony in the region.

How to approach the treatment with China has been a very complex topic for the politicians and the bureaucrats involved in the capture of decisions in New Delhi (Mattoo 2000, Guihong, 2006) given the frustrating experiences of the

past, which only has been solved for the present time by means of the recognition of a series of realities. On one hand, one has tried to reduce the principal sources of conflict between both countries and to cooperate in areas where mutual interests exist. On the other hand, it has put on emphasis in not resigning the national aspirations as for projection aspects of the Indian interests (consolidation like nuclear power, major representation) and to adopt an active politics To re-define a more favorable regional, enclosed scene in the relation with those countries that support deep bows with Pekin, since it is the case of Myanmar.

The existing points of friction.

Since it has distinguished itself previously, the frontier bilateral dispute is probable that it is solved in a pacific way and of mutual consensus, but this does not want to say that new voltage sources should arise in the future. On the one hand, it turns out possible that differences demonstrate, already latent, derivatives of the aspirations of the India of great power and of his desire to exercise a major influence in the Asian continent. For other one, it fits the possibility that there arise rivalries motivated by a major interaction between the two, especially in the commercial plane (trade wars) and for the competition in the obtaining of energetic resources and the safety of the maritime routes, concretely in the Indian Ocean.

The aspect that more anxious to China in relation to his neighbor of the South is the nuclear question. China was very critical with the Indian tests and blamed in his day New Delhi of unleashing a new war of armaments in Asia. Already in more recent dates, in 2008, also it has returned to show certain disapproval in the GSN (Group of Nuclear Suppliers) to facilitate the viability of the nuclear agreement Indus - American (123 Agreement). The arguments of Pekin are based the fact that India continues without proliferation linking itself to the principal international agreements on not, though also there exist Indus - American. On the other hand, for India, the objections of China are indicative of a double rasero, since this country has contributed to the problem on having facilitated assistance to the nuclear Pakistani program.

Therefore, though it appreciates a wide margin for the collaboration between both countries, it does not exclude the persistence of substantial differences, riddled with a significant competition in certain areas. In this respect, depending on how it evolves the relation between New Delhi and his neighbor of the North, India will be able to bid for a more Asian international order or not.

The regional politics: a priority area for the interests of India?

In the environment of the India it appreciates a progressive definition of a regional area or transregional priority, understanding this term in wide sense, that is to say, in relation to the regions near the environment of the India.

Therefore, it concerns a space that includes the Eastern Africa, Gulf States Pérsico, Central Asia, South Asia and Asian Southeast. In certain way, it can be said that there understands good part of the riverside countries of the Indian Ocean - grouped in the India Ocean Rim Regional Association For Cooperation - though also it includes to the central Asiatic republics.

In this regional priority area the India tries to exercise a dominant influence, simultaneously that treats itself about a central scene for his economic interests. First, he understands a series of countries that are characterized for being the principal energetic suppliers of the India. Secondly, in this zone it appreciates an increasing activity of the Indian companies in diverse sectors as the energetic one, the construction, etc. And, thirdly, it is an area that represents an important market for the Indian products, particularly in case of the countries of the Asian Southeast and of the Persian Gulf. For it, though it includes very heterogeneous territories, it is possible to identify a wide space in which the India occupies a central part.

The special case of Pakistan

Inside Southern Asia, the exterior politics towards Pakistan deserves a special attention, since it is a question of the only country that it defies in an opened way the hegemonic power of the India in the zone. Pakistan supposes, in addition, his principal royal threat, well be in a direct way on the part of the State, good across individuals or groups that meet favored by the internal scene of instability. On the other hand, the existence of the contentious one of Kashmir continues determining somehow the international projection of the India, though in the last years this perception on the part of the international community has changed in a notable way The attainment of a certain political normalization hospitalizes in Yamú's State and Kashmir and the adoption of a process of dialog with Pakistan they have been positive in this reorientation of the dispute. In addition, the India has obtained some earnings concerning the treatment of this dispute as consequence of the process of dialog initiated in 2004 (Schofield, 2008, p. 89) .too , in a particular way, from 2001 there has been an increasing solidarity or recognition of the problem of the terrorism of islamist sign that the country suffers and that, at least partly, comes from Pakistan (Mohan, 2003, p. 109). Now then, this does not want to say a complete acceptance of the theses of the politicians and bureaucrats of New Delhi with regard to the general perception of this question.

Nevertheless, whereas the India emerges as a model of more or less successful democracy and a country capable of assuming his international commitments, the image of Pakistan, on the contrary, is that of a State that sinks (to political and economic level), with a government that possesses few credibility to face to the serious challenges which the country faces. New Delhi is conscious of this situation, which somehow benefits him, but he lacks a clear

strategy on how approaching the problem of threat that represents the neighboring State. Today per today, though a military action of Pakistan would not be disposable given the paranoia general that there concerns the relations Indus - paquistaníes (and in this case I make concrete more the political - decision-making area Pakistani), the most probable thing is that the principal threat proceeding from the neighboring country avenges in the shape of terrorist actions or, eventually, it is an indirect consequence of a collapse of this State.

The last two governments of New Delhi have realized notable efforts in the most pragmatic redefinition of a strategy to approach the problem of Pakistan and this has benefited extremely the India. On the one hand, they have realized that the maintenance of a dialog opened with Islamabad turns out to be indispensable because he supposes the only way of bringing positions over and favoring changes in the hard decision-making core civilian - military man. For other one, also they have seen that a major implication of the India in the global matters and the sending of univocal answers to problems like the terrorism or the question of the nuclear proliferation, reverberates in a positive way in the way in which the principal powers observe the question India - Pakistan.

In spite of these changes, from the India it continues predominating over an a bit simplistic vision at the moment of examining the dynamics of rivalry with his neighbor. It is true that some of the principal powers have recognized implicitly a major responsibility and coherence in the Indian part: especially in the nuclear aspect, in the abstention of using the use of the force with his neighbor in spite of accusing it of not controlling the terrorist violence that comes from his territory, and even in the efforts for facilitating a political normalization in the Indian Kashmir. Nevertheless, there has no been a change of positioning concerning the resolution of the contentious one of Kashmir ,That continues being perceived as a matter to resolving between both countries and in that no third estate wants to take part in favour of any of the contenders.

Conclusions

The exterior politics current indies are characterized by a great dynamism, by a major coherence in the vertebración of certain regional and global strategies and by a certain degree of continuity, though there are shades according to whom it governs in New Delhi. As result, the India has gained a major international presence and has turned into a vertex distinguished from the balances that are formed, so much in Asia as worldwide.

Now then, the major pragmatism on the part of the Indian governments in the design of his exterior strategy, to general level, in relation to the principal powers, does not carry the adoption of significant initiatives. In other words, the India has put major emphasis in " being accepted " between the big ones, according to the parameters that dominate the game of the international relations, that in trying to re-define (looking for supports) an order more

favorable that it bears others in mind determining, derivatives of the experience of the country. Also it suits to bear in mind that the exterior action has met the fact that the principal power, for diverse motives, have adopted a politics to accommodate and include the India.

In addition, the Indian strategy continues being it of supporting a certain autonomy in the external plane. For it, the alliances that it establishes always are going to be limited, since, though it has not been explicitado, the slogan to continuing is it of not compromising in matters in which the country could be capable of breaking the rules of game at any one time, since it is the case of the nuclear question. Nevertheless, this also has to see with a direct critique to an international order that is raised like unequally.

Whereas the " great politics " towards other power can be considered essentially of search of recognition and of normalization of relations, the regional politics understood with wide sense, has turned into the principal scene into that New Delhi has played his letters. The regional politics of the India, in contraposition to the previous one, is characterized by a strategy directed to turning into a great power into the zone, but in a cooperative way, into that the paper of the country is accepted and recognized by other States. Also it is a question of a scene (the regional one) in which the immediate interests of the country are in game (of safety, economic, energetic) For what they urge actions directed to preserving them. In this respect, it is possible to affirm that New Delhi appears as a cooperative enough actor, though problems continue existing at the moment of treating certain matters, since it is the relation with Pakistan.

Allied

the big allies of indies are Chinese, rusia and usa

Enemies

the enemies of indies are pakistan for cashmere and Nepal.

RIEF OF THE CONDITION OF CROATIA TO NEED THE Intervention GIVES THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AND PROCEEDS IN AGAINST DESERBIA AND MONTENEGRO IN THE CASE CROATIA V. SERBIAN:

Application GIVES THE Convention FOR THE Prevention AND THE Sanction OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE. Pretensions The Republic of Croatia requests before the International Court of Justice to own name and as parens patriae of his citizens

i) That concludes and one declares that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, his officials, agents and secondary they are persons in charge of violating the Convention for the Prevention and the Sanction of the Crime of Genocide during the frame of the Serbo-Croatian war, with base in the articles

2 º, 3 º, 4 º, 6 º, 9 º of the above mentioned Convention; ii) That decides the responsibility of the current Republic of Serbia and one condemns to effect the opportune repairs for hurts to the citizens; the Croatian economy; the private property, and; the cultural and environmental property of the Nation;

Iii) The Court will determine the nature and characteristic; the amount, and; the way in which these repairs will be effected

iv) That him is ordained to the Republic of Serbia to take charge of the pertinent investigations to provide information brings over of more than 3000 still missing persons.

International court of Justice

Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

We Admit that the court has full jurisdiction to know about this controversy by virtue of the article 9 º about the Convention for the Prevention and the Sanction of the Crime of Genocide, to treat itself about a request of the Republic of Croatia for the resolution of a disputa between Contracting parties in relation with the application, interpretation and fulfillment of the Convention, that in this case it turns on the responsibility of the State of Serbia for acts described in the article 3 º of the same one.

Identification of the demanded

part The Croatian State, as plaintiff, is allowed to highlight that for effects of this case he identifies fullly to the current State of the Republic of Serbia as inheritor of the responsibilities derived from the actions of the former State of the Federal Yugoslavian Republic, and therefore as demanded part. Since it was established by the Court in the document ' Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), ' the juridical international personality of the missing person Estado de la República Federal Yugoslavian happens directly and only to the State of Serbia. This

implies besides the fact that Serbia is under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and of the Convention for Prevention and the Sanction of the Crime of Genocide, by virtue of the convention of Vienna of the Law of the agreements.

1 Like precedent one can consult the case of 1997, Gabcikovo-Nagymaros in which the Court established the responsibility of Slovakia derived from the process of secession of Checoslovakia's State.

International court of Justice

Declaration of Facts

1. On June 25, 1991 one declared the independence of the Republic of Croatia.

2. On January 15, 1992 and May 22, 1992, the European Community and the United States, respectively, recognized to the Republic of Croatia as a sovereign State.

3. On December 21, 1990 a group of Serbian located in the border between Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Vojvodina they declared illegally the establishment of supposed " Republic of Serbia Krajina ". This declaration was the product of a process stimulated from Belgrade to demolish the legitimate authority and sovereignty of Croatia in his territory. This declaration was recognized by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

4. Belgrade used advertising and nationalistic messages, besides demonstrations of his armed forces to motivate to the Serbian groups in Croatia to developing constituent activities of the crime of genocide.

5. Belgrade provided the armament that was in use for carrying out the military operations directed to establishing an illicit regime in the Croatian territory.

6. On February 28, 1991 the leaders in the region of the Knin announced his intention of unifying to all the Serbian ones in Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina to create the " Great Serbia ". This aim was endorsed during his government, and reflected the politics of State of Slobodan Milosevic, president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

7. By the ends of 1991 the so called JNA it had used 19,029 pieces of artillery (including 1,799 weapon antitank), 4,200 rifles without setback (recoilless), 6,400 mortars and 2,000 cannons anti-aircraft in opposition to Croatia. These assaults were realized by approximately 100,000 members of the so called JNA (soldiers and mercenaries) in operation of approximately 1,000 tanks, 900 troop carriers armoured, 250 aircraft of war, 90 helicopters, 200 warships of the navy of the JNA.

8. Up to the moment, later to 1995, Croatia Banovina, Dalmatia and the region has found at least 120 common graves, principally in Slavonia of this, Knin.

9. Before the cessation to the fire of January 2, 1992 the so called JNA it managed to control near a third of the territory of Croatia.

10. As consequence of the aggression of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia it suffered, between others, it following hurts:

-20,000 deaths and 55,000 wounded persons;

800,000 displaced persons of his territory of origin;

- thousands of Croatians were apprehended and mobilized to Serbia and other areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Of more of 7,000 to present apprehended, 60 % was imprisoned or arrested.

- in agreement with the National Commission for the Record and Valuation of the Hurt of War, 590 peoples and villages they suffered hurts.

-1,821 cultural monuments were destroyed or damaged

.-323 historical places were destroyed.

-170,000 homes were destroyed, this reduced in 10 % the capacity of housing and housing in Croatia.

Approximately 450 catholic Croatian churches were destroyed or damaged in a severe way.

-210 libraries were destroyed or damaged.

-22 journalists who were trying to report the events in Croatia were murdered.

- up to 3,000,000 of mines it anti

-presents and antitank they were planted on the Croatian territory. 11. In January, 1992 an agreement of cessation was signed in Sarajevo to the fire. This one was violated by the JNA and as consequence Croatia threw the " Operation Flash " in defense of his territory. 12. From the beginning of the aggressions on the part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatia it had the full intention of negotiating a pacific resolution

13. In January 30 of 2002, Slobodan Milosevic, who had practised as president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the epoch of the demanded actions, had to appear in The Hague opposite to the Penal International Court of the former Yugoslavia. Milosevic was accused formally of crimes of genocide and complicity of genocide in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. The judgment came

to his term when Milosevic died in March, 2006, before the court was coming to a deliberation.

Explanation of the Crime of Genocide

In the first measure is important to clarify that the obligation not to incur acts of genocide, dedicated the Convention, is a norm that has been recognized like ius cogens, or imperative norm of right internacional2, for what 2 The definition of Ius Cogens's procedure is a difficult topic for a definitive list does not exist of which they are these procedure. Nevertheless, in agreement to the international doctrine, the Commission of International Law and even the International Court of Justice exists a Communis Opinio of which the prohibition of the genocide does part of these procedure. (Gutierrez Sword and Cervell Hortal, 2008).

Breach is inexcusable and transports a sanction that will have to determine the Court. In agreement with the Convention the following acts " perpetrated with the intention of destroying, total or partially, to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group " constitute the crime of genocidio3:

a) members' Slaughter of the group;

b) serious Injury to the physical or mental integrity of the members of the group;

c) intentional Submission of the group to conditions of existence that have to transport his physical, total or partial destruction;

d) Measures destined to prevent the births in the bosom of the group;

e) I move for force of children of the group to another group. " Additional, it is worth adding that the Convention does not sanction only the direct commission and consumption of the crime of genocide but in addition he punishes other modalities of execution of the crime, as well as other autonomous crimes related to the genocide. To knowing:

a) The genocide;

b) The association to commit genocide;

c) The direct and public instigation to committing genocide;

d) The attempt of genocide;

e) The complicity in the genocide "

Imputability of the Acts of Genocide to the Serbian State In the judgment of 1986 on the case Nicaragua this Court raised a few considerations that have happened to be recognized as the test of Nicaragua. By means of this test it established that the link between the Cons and the United States was not sufficient to impute to him international responsibility for the totality of actions of this group. Even this way, the Court proceeded to condemn to the part demanded by concrete actions in the Nicaraguan territory directed by agents of

the CIA who were operating as state organs of fact, for what it was possible to attribute direct responsibility to him to. United States

The judgment allows to establish bosses to impute responsibility to a State according to the degree of control that has on the military actions of a paramilitary group inside another State. Nevertheless, there exist clear differences between the participation of The United States in Nicaragua and the role of the Serbian State in the present case.

Since it has distinguished itself previously, the Popular Army of Yugoslavia, or National Army of Yugoslavia (JNA) was operating in the epoch as the official militia of the Yugoslavian State and not as a paramilitary group. Into this measure his acts relapse directly on this State. This relation is similar to that of the State

Turkish with the Republic of Northern Cyprus, whose militia operated directly within the island of Cyprus. For these actions, the European Court of

Human rights sentenced directly to the Republic of Turkey for violations of human rights to the citizens of Chipre5.

For this judgement, the European Court was guided by the fact that the vast majority of the armed forces involved in the conflict came from the official Army of Turkey. This thesis of attribution was picked up by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia to impute him responsibility to the Serbian State for the actions of paramilitary groups of ethnic Serbs inside Bosnia, given the link of operability between the Serbian State bodies (in the head of the army) and the armed actors.

This background allows to point out that before the performance of the JNA is directly attributed responsibility for the acts that constitute the offence of genocide during the conflict, under the terms of the literal (a) of article 3 of the Convention. The JNA was the operational head of the above named acts where practices directly to persecution and elimination of ethnic Croat in order to remove them from the territory of Krajina to concentrate the domain of Serb nationalists were carried out. Having established that the JNA is an administrative body of the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia we are asking the Court to declare that this is responsible for the crimes of genocide perpetrated by State agents. The criminal nature of these acts was previously established in resolution 47/121 of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

5 see case Loizidou against Turkey (18 November 1996).

Additionally, and of the above facts, clearly argues that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia committed acts of Association to commit genocide, illegal enshrined in the literal (b) article 3 ° of the Convention.

The execution of military operations in conjunction with the Serbian subversive groups in Croatia, as well as the determination that had specific actions, Belgrade are full proof of the relationship of cooperation that existed among the armed actors. While is is accusing the Serb State Commission of genocide carried out directly the JNA, the Act of associating to commit the crime is an illicit autonomous which can be charged independently.

In accordance with the statement of the facts, specifically paragraph 4th, since Belgrade launched one campaign messages that had as their purpose incitement to Serbian groups located in Croatia rebelled against the Croatian, legally established regime. These included, but were not reduced to, the dispensing of Serbian nationalist propaganda and military demonstrations of the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. These facts constitute the crime enshrined in the literal (c) of article 3 of the Convention.

The Convention enshrined in subparagraph (e) of article 3 that a punishable crime is complicity in genocide. In accordance with the facts set out in paragraphs 4, 5 and 7, there was complicity on the part of the Serbian State in the Commission of the offence by providing military training and arms to paramilitary forces linked to the JNA. This was an attitude repeated in both temporal and quantitative terms.

In addition, the Serbian State directly incurs a violation of the obligations enshrined in the Convention. This violation is configured as a Commission by omission to the extent that the Serbian State has unobserved the obligation contained in article 4 of the Convention, which establishes the imperative character of the trial to those who commit acts of genocide. Now, if left unpunished crimes of genocide is a clear violation to the Convention, host and protect persons who committed acts of genocide is a flagrant contradiction with the Convention budget.

All of the above is understood within the framework of a policy of State of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia towards the unification of the Serbs for the formation of the "great Serbia". It is clear that in this context the main objective of these actions of the army of Yugoslavia was to destroy total or partially any group that is opposed, constitute an obstacle or was incompatible with the creation of the "great Serbia".

The International Court of Justice had to rule on a dispute presented by the current state of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro. During the hearings of February and May 2006, the current Serbian authorities denied that Serbia can be held liable for what happened during the existence of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But the ICJ admitted the cause for the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, the enclave under the protection of Bosnian territory UN blue helmets. The President of the ICJ, Rosalyn Higgins, read the ruling established that the massacres committed in

July 1995 "were acts of genocide committed by members of the serbio-bosnio army". However, the Court had rejected the definition of genocide to "massacres them, rapes and expulsions against Bosnian civilians". The decision establishes that in Srebrenica Yes was the Elimination of systematic and programmed from a part of the Bosnian people, after having recognized the identity of the victims. The decision establishes that the facts correspond to the definition of genocide contained in the International Convention voted in 1948.

It is the first time that the ICJ defines a case of genocide, which however had already been tried in the flat criminal by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The United Nations has recognized the genocide of Jews and Gypsies during the second world war, the genocide of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire, and the Tutsis in Rwanda.

The Court said Serbia did nothing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide, but not considered directly responsible for it. Its verdict rejected the demand of Bosnia and consequently does not impose compensation. Muslim and Croat leaders in Bosnia have deplored the decision of the Court, according to some of them, confirmation that "Europe is against Muslims".

C. CONCLUSIONS

The Republic of Croatia must be declared responsible for the facts

during Operation Storm and to this extent it should take steps

effective immediately to ensure compliance with its obligation to:

-punish acts of genocide

-compensate for the consequences of acts unlawfully in the framework

of international law, to pay full compensation to ethnic group and

Serbian national for the damages and losses caused by the acts of genocide

-ensure the normal and peaceful conditions to amend the law relating to

holidays, Memorial days and non-working days

Also, that the Republic of Serbia must not be declared as responsible for

of any act committed before 27 April 1992, the date on which it

It is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Similarly, that should not be subject to the Court's decision the themes

relating to the provision of information on missing persons, nor the

return of cultural property to Croatia.

Implementation of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime

Genocide (Croatia against Serbia and Montenegro)

135. on 2 July 1999 the Republic of Croatia filed a lawsuit against

Serbia and Montenegro (called then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) 12 by

violations of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of

Genocide of 1948 allegedly committed between 1991 and 1995.

136. in its application, Croatia stated that

"to control directly the activities of agents, armed forces

intelligence and various paramilitary detachments, on the territory of...

Croatia, in the region of Knin, Eastern and Western Slavonia and Dalmatia

[Serbia and Montenegro], is responsible for 'ethnic cleansing' of citizens

Croats of those areas... as well as a great destruction of property and must

pay compensation for the damage suffered".

__________________

12 see note 1 above. A/61/4

06-45198 37

Croatia claimed that

"in addition, by ordering Croatian citizens of Serbian origin in the region of Knin

to evacuate the area in 1995, encourage them and urge them to do it, in

moments in which... Croatia reasserted its legitimate governmental authority

... [Serbia and Montenegro] carried out activities that amounted to a second

"ethnic cleansing'". "

137. Accordingly, Croatia requested the Court to declare that Serbia and

Montenegro "has breached its obligations" with Croatia arising out of the

Convention against genocide and

"you have the obligation to pay to..." Croatia, in its own right and as the

parens patriae of its citizens, compensation, which amount will be

set by the Court for damages, caused to persons and property, as well

as the Croatian economy and the environment, for violations of the

above international law".

138. as a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, Croatia invoked article IX

Convention against genocide, which claimed that both Croatia as

Serbia and Montenegro were parties.

139. on 14 March 2001, within the extended time limit set by the Court,

Croatia presented its report. On September 11, 2002, within the time limit. expanded set for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Serbia and

Montenegro opposed certain previous exceptions in relation to the competition and the

admissibility. As a result, the procedure was suspended in connection with the

background (article 79 of the rules of court).

140. at the request of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court, after obtaining

the views of the parties in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 53 of the

Rules of procedure of the Court, made Bosnia and Herzegovina available copies of the

writings and annexed documents.

141. on 25 April 2003, within the time fixed by order of the

Court of 14 November 2002, Croatia filed written observations

on previous exceptions opposed by Serbia and Montenegro.

THEME 2

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (the Democratic Republic of the)

Congo v. Uganda) 11

121. on 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo filed a

demand for "acts of armed aggression against Uganda at the registry of the Court

in flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of

the OAU".

122. in its application, the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that "these acts

of... armed aggression meant, among other things, the violation of the sovereignty and

the territorial integrity of [the Democratic Republic of the Congo], violations of the

international humanitarian law and massive human rights violations".

The Democratic Republic of the Congo intended to "achieve the cessation of the acts of"

aggression directed against it, which constitute a serious threat to peace and the

security in central Africa in general and in the Great Lakes region in

particular"; also, wanted to get Uganda

"compensation in relation to all acts of looting, destruction,"

removal of property and persons and other unlawful acts attributable to that country, in

relationship with them [the Democratic Republic of the Congo] reserves the

right to determine at a later date, the precise amount of the damage

suffered, in addition to its claim that all goods are returned

seized.

123. as a consequence, the Democratic Republic of the Congo requested the Court to that

I fail and declare that Uganda was guilty of an act of aggression contrary to the

paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations; What

It was breaking the Geneva Convention of 1949 repeatedly and the

Additional protocols of 1977 and was guilty of violations of the

human rights, challenging the most elementary principles of law

customary; that, more specifically, to take possession by force of the

hydroelectric dam in Inga, and cause a so deliberate and repeated cuts

massive power, Uganda had become liable for loss very

huge amounts of life among the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and the

surrounding area; and on 9 October 1998, down an airplane in Kindu

Boeing 727 owned by Congo Airlines, causing the death of 40 civilians,

Uganda had also violated several conventions relating to civil aviation

International. The Democratic Republic of the Congo also requested that the Court

I fail and declared that all of Uganda armed forces and nationals of that

country, both natural persons and legal entities, had to withdraw from the territory

Congolese, and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo was entitled to receive a

compensation.

124. the Democratic Republic of Congo claimed as the basis of the

the Court's jurisdiction the declarations by which both States had

accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court with respect to any other State

that accept the same obligation (paragraph 2 of article 36 of the Statute of the)

Cut).

125. the Court, taking into account the agreement of the parties, fixed, by means of

order of 21 October 1999, the 21 July 2000 as the deadline for the

presentation of the report by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 21 of

April 2001 as the deadline for the filing of a counter-memorial by Uganda.

The memory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was submitted within the time limit

established.

126. on 19 June 2000, the Democratic Republic of the Congo filed a

request for the indication of provisional measures, stating that "since 5 of"

June [2000], the resumption of fighting between the armed troops of...

Uganda and other foreign army have caused considerable damage to the Republic Democratic of the Congo and its people"and that"these tactics have been condemned

"unanimously, in particular by the Security Council of the United Nations".

By letters of the same date, the President of the Court, acting in

pursuant to paragraph 4 of article 74 of the rules of procedure of the Court, said "a

the attention of both parties the need to act in a way that any

Providence handed down by the Court on the application for interim measures may have their

due effects".

127. the public hearings to hear the oral observations of the parties on the

request for the indication of provisional measures were held 26 and 28 days of

June 2000. In a public hearing on the 1 of July 2000, the Court rendered its

his Providence, which unanimously established that both parties should

"prevent and to immediately refrain from any action and, in particular, of"

any armed action, which might prejudice the rights of the other party

with respect to any judgment which the Court may make on the cause, or that A/61/4

06-45198 29

You can aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court, or make it harder his

solution;"

"immediately take all measures necessary to comply with all the"

obligations that are incumbent on them under international law, in

particular in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the

Organization of African Unity, as well as resolution 1304 (2000) of the

Council of security of the United Nations, of 16 June 2000;"and

"immediately take all measures necessary to guarantee in the area

conflict full respect for fundamental human rights and the

applicable provisions of humanitarian law."

128 Uganda filed its Counter-Memorial on 21 April 2001, before that date

it expired the time fixed by the Court in his Providence on October 21, 1999. The

Counter-Memorial contained three counter-claims. The first concerned alleged acts

aggression against Uganda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the

second to attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and staff in

Kinshasa and against nationals of Uganda, which was responsible to the

Democratic Republic of the Congo; and the third to alleged violations of the agreement

Lusaka committed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda requested that the

question of compensation is reserved for a later stage of the procedure.

By an order of 29 November 2001 the Court found that two of the

counterclaims brought by Uganda against the Democratic Republic of the Congo

they were "admissible as such and [formed] part of the process in course", but not the

third. In the light of these findings, the Court considered it necessary that the Republic

Democratic Congo to submit a reply and Uganda a Rejoinder that is

they addressed the claims of both parties, and fixed as the time limits for submission of

the reply and the Rejoinder on 29 May 2002 and November 29, 2002,

respectively. In addition, in order to ensure strict equality between the parties,

the Court reserved the right of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to file a

second time their views in writing on the Uganda counter-claims, in an

additional writing that would be subject to a further Providence. The replica was presented

within the prescribed time limit. By an order of 7 November 2002, the Court

It extended the deadline so that Uganda submitted its Rejoinder and fixed as

new deadline of December 6, 2002. The Rejoinder was filed within the time limit

extended set.

129. by an order of 29 January 2003, the Court authorized the Republic

Democratic Congo to submit a written additional, related only to

the counter-claims submitted by Uganda, and fixed as deadline for submission

on 28 February 2003. That letter was submitted within the deadline.

130. the Court had initially fixed 10 November 2003 as the date of start of the public hearings. However, in a letter dated 5 of

November 2003, the Democratic Republic of the Congo asked if they could

postponed the hearings until a later date, in April 2004, to the

Parties may continue with quiet diplomatic negotiations. In one

Letter dated 6 November 2003, Uganda indicated that it supported the proposal and made

his request for the Congo. A/61/4

30 06-45198

131. by a letter dated 6 November 2003, the Registrar informed to

the parties that the Court, acting in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 54

of its rules of procedure, and taking into account the comments made by the parties,

It had decided to defer the start of the oral process, but on the understanding that

It was impossible to fix a date in April 2004 for the resumption of the hearings.

As the judicial calendar for court, that provided for hearings and deliberations

on several other causes, it was adopted some time ago and covered up to

well into the year 2004, later should fix a new date for the home

the oral procedure in this case.

132. the public hearings on the merits of the case were held from 11 to 29 of

April 2005. At the end of these sessions, the parties submitted to the Court the

following closing arguments.

In regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (in relation to its)

requests):

"The Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to fail and"

declare:

1. that the Republic of Uganda, to carry out military actions and

paramilitaries against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, occupying its

territory and providing active support military, logistic, economic and

financial irregular forces operating there, and having carried out

There operations, has violated the following principles of treaty law

and customary law:

-The principle of non-use of force in relations

International, including the prohibition of aggression;

-The obligation to settle international disputes by means

peaceful exclusively, in order to not endanger the peace and the

international security, as well as justice;

-Respect for the sovereignty of States and the rights of peoples to the

self-determination and, consequently, to decide its own political system

and economic freely and without intervention from the outside;

-The principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of

States, including the principle of not providing assistance to the parties in

a civil war operating on the territory of another State.

2. that the Republic of Uganda, by committing acts of violence against

nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, causing them to die

or lesions or stripping them of their property, not have taken measures

adequate to prevent violations of human rights in the

Democratic Republic of the Congo by persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control, or to not have punished persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control who have committed the above-mentioned acts, has violated the

following principles of treaty law and customary law:

-The principle of treaty law and customary law that

It imposes the obligation to respect and ensure respect for the rights

fundamental, even in times of armed conflict, in accordance

with international humanitarian law; A/61/4

06-45198 31

issue in the case, or which could aggravate or prolong the controversy, or

make your solution;

(2) the two parties shall immediately take the necessary measures

for fulfilling all obligations under the law

International, in particular under the Charter of the United Nations and the

Charter of the Organization of African Unity, as well as resolution

1304 (2000) of the United Nations Security Council, of 16 June

2000;

(3) the two parties shall immediately take all measures

necessary to ensure, in the area of conflict, the full respect of the

fundamental human rights, as well as the applicable rules of the law

"humanitarian '."

In what regards Uganda (in relation to the demands of the Republic

Democratic of the Congo and its own counter-claims):

"The Republic of Uganda requests the Court:"

1. to adjudge and declare in accordance with international law:

A) than the demands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with

with respect to activities or situations involving the Republic of Rwanda or

its agents are inadmissible for the reasons set forth in Chapter XV of the

Counter-Memorial and reafirmadas in the verbal allegations;

(B) be rejected the demands of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo that Court fails and declare that the Republic of Uganda is

responsible for various breaches of international law, as alleged

in memory, the replica or the verbal allegations. and

(C) that the counter-claims of Uganda submitted are accepted in the

Chapter XVIII of the Counter-Memorial and reafirmadas in chapter VI of the

replica, as well as in the verbal allegations.

2. which book the question of repairing in relation to the

counterclaims of Uganda for a later stage of the proceedings."

In regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (in relation to the)

counterclaims of Uganda):

"The Congo requests the Court to adjudge and declare:"

With regard to the first counterclaim filed by Uganda:

1 to the extent that refers to the period prior to the decision of the

power by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Uganda demand is unacceptable, already

that Uganda had previously waived his right to present this demand: subsidiarily, that demand is baseless, because

Uganda has failed to establish the facts underpinning;

2 in so far as it refers to the period between the

When Laurent-Désiré Kabila took power and Uganda launched its

attack armed, Uganda demand is baseless, as

123. as a consequence, the Democratic Republic of the Congo requested the Court to that

I fail and declare that Uganda was guilty of an act of aggression contrary to the

paragraph 4 of article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations; What

It was breaking the Geneva Convention of 1949 repeatedly and the

Additional protocols of 1977 and was guilty of violations of the

human rights, challenging the most elementary principles of law

customary; that, more specifically, to take possession by force of the

hydroelectric dam in Inga, and cause a so deliberate and repeated cuts

massive power, Uganda had become liable for loss very

huge amounts of life among the 5 million inhabitants of the city of Kinshasa and the

surrounding area; and on 9 October 1998, down an airplane in Kindu

Boeing 727 owned by Congo Airlines, causing the death of 40 civilians,

Uganda had also violated several conventions relating to civil aviation

International. The Democratic Republic of the Congo also requested that the Court

I fail and declared that all of Uganda armed forces and nationals of that

country, both natural persons and legal entities, had to withdraw from the territory

Congolese, and that the Democratic Republic of the Congo was entitled to receive a

compensation.

124. the Democratic Republic of Congo claimed as the basis of the

the Court's jurisdiction the declarations by which both States had

accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court with respect to any other State

that accept the same obligation (paragraph 2 of article 36 of the Statute of the)

Cut).

125. the Court, taking into account the agreement of the parties, fixed, by means of

order of 21 October 1999, the 21 July 2000 as the deadline for the

presentation of the report by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and 21 of

April 2001 as the deadline for the filing of a counter-memorial by Uganda.

The memory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was submitted within the time limit

established.

126. on 19 June 2000, the Democratic Republic of the Congo filed a

request for the indication of provisional measures, stating that "since 5 of"

June [2000], the resumption of fighting between the armed troops of...

Uganda and other foreign army have caused considerable damage to the Republic

Democratic of the Congo and its people"and that"these tactics have been condemned

"unanimously, in particular by the Security Council of the United Nations".

By letters of the same date, the President of the Court, acting in

pursuant to paragraph 4 of article 74 of the rules of procedure of the Court, said "a

the attention of both parties the need to act in a way that any

Providence handed down by the Court on the application for interim measures may have their

due effects".

127. the public hearings to hear the oral observations of the parties on the

request for the indication of provisional measures were held 26 and 28 days of

June 2000. In a public hearing on the 1 of July 2000, the Court rendered its

his Providence, which unanimously established that both parties should

"prevent and to immediately refrain from any action and, in particular, of"

any armed action, which might prejudice the rights of the other party

with respect to any judgment which the Court may make on the cause, or that A/61/4

06-45198 29

You can aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court, or make it harder

solution;"

"immediately take all measures necessary to comply with all the"

obligations that are incumbent on them under international law, in

particular in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the

Organization of African Unity, as well as resolution 1304 (2000) of the

Council of security of the United Nations, of 16 June 2000;"and

"immediately take all measures necessary to guarantee in the area

conflict full respect for fundamental human rights and the

applicable provisions of humanitarian law."

128 Uganda filed its Counter-Memorial on 21 April 2001, before that date

it expired the time fixed by the Court in his Providence on October 21, 1999. The

Counter-Memorial contained three counter-claims. The first concerned alleged acts

aggression against Uganda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the

second to attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and staff in

Kinshasa and against nationals of Uganda, which was responsible to the

Democratic Republic of the Congo; and the third to alleged violations of the agreement

Lusaka committed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda requested that the

question of compensation is reserved for a later stage of the procedure.

By an order of 29 November 2001 the Court found that two of the

counterclaims brought by Uganda against the Democratic Republic of the Congo

they were "admissible as such and [formed] part of the process in course", but not the

third. In the light of these findings, the Court considered it necessary that the Republic

Democratic Congo to submit a reply and Uganda a Rejoinder that is

they addressed the claims of both parties, and fixed as the time limits for submission of

the reply and the Rejoinder on 29 May 2002 and November 29, 2002,

respectively. In addition, in order to ensure strict equality between the parties,

the Court reserved the right of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to file a

second time their views in writing on the Uganda counter-claims, in an additional writing that would be subject to a further Providence. The replica was presented

within the prescribed time limit. By an order of 7 November 2002, the Court

It extended the deadline so that Uganda submitted its Rejoinder and fixed as

new deadline of December 6, 2002. The Rejoinder was filed within the time limit

extended set.

129. by an order of 29 January 2003, the Court authorized the Republic

Democratic Congo to submit a written additional, related only to

the counter-claims submitted by Uganda, and fixed as deadline for submission

on 28 February 2003. That letter was submitted within the deadline.

130. the Court had initially fixed 10 November 2003 as the date of

start of the public hearings. However, in a letter dated 5 of

November 2003, the Democratic Republic of the Congo asked if they could

postponed the hearings until a later date, in April 2004, to the

Parties may continue with quiet diplomatic negotiations. In one

Letter dated 6 November 2003, Uganda indicated that it supported the proposal and made

his request for the Congo. A/61/4

30 06-45198

131. by a letter dated 6 November 2003, the Registrar informed to

the parties that the Court, acting in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 54

of its rules of procedure, and taking into account the comments made by the parties,

It had decided to defer the start of the oral process, but on the understanding that

It was impossible to fix a date in April 2004 for the resumption of the hearings.

As the judicial calendar for court, that provided for hearings and deliberations

on several other causes, it was adopted some time ago and covered up to

well into the year 2004, later should fix a new date for the home

the oral procedure in this case.

132. the public hearings on the merits of the case were held from 11 to 29 of

April 2005. At the end of these sessions, the parties submitted to the Court the

following closing arguments.

In regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (in relation to its)

requests):

"The Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to fail and"

declare:

1. that the Republic of Uganda, to carry out military actions and

paramilitaries against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, occupying its

territory and providing active support military, logistic, economic and

financial irregular forces operating there, and having carried out

There operations, has violated the following principles of treaty law

and customary law:

-The principle of non-use of force in relations

International, including the prohibition of aggression;

-The obligation to settle international disputes by means

peaceful exclusively, in order to not endanger the peace and the

international security, as well as justice;

-Respect for the sovereignty of States and the rights of peoples to the

self-determination and, consequently, to decide its own political system

and economic freely and without intervention from the outside;

-The principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of

States, including the principle of not providing assistance to the parties in

a civil war operating on the territory of another State.

2. that the Republic of Uganda, by committing acts of violence against

nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, causing them to die

or lesions or stripping them of their property, not have taken measures

adequate to prevent violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control, or to not have punished persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control who have committed the above-mentioned acts, has violated the

following principles of treaty law and customary law:

-The principle of treaty law and customary law that

It imposes the obligation to respect and ensure respect for the rights

fundamental, even in times of armed conflict, in accordance

with international humanitarian law; A/61/4

06-45198 31

-The principle of treaty law and customary law that

It imposes the obligation at all times make a distinction in the

conflicts between objectives civil and military;

-The right of the national Congolese to enjoy rights more

Elementary, both civil and political, and economic, social and

cultural.

3. that the Republic of Uganda, by proceeding to the illegal exploitation of

natural resources Congolese, looting their resources and wealth, and not

take adequate measures to prevent the illegal exploitation of resources

of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control, and/or not to punish persons subject to its

jurisdiction or control who have committed the above-mentioned acts, has violated the

following principles of treaty law and customary law:

-The applicable rules of international humanitarian law;

-Respect for the sovereignty of States, even on their own

natural resources;

-The duty to promote the realization of the principle of the equality of the

peoples and their right to self-determination, and consequently not

exposing people to subjugation, domination or exploitation

Foreign;

-The principle of non-interference in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the

States, even in economic affairs.

4 to) that exposed violations of international law in the

allegations 1, 2 and 3 constitute wrongful acts attributable to Uganda, which

Uganda is internationally responsible;

(b) that the Republic of Uganda should cease immediately all the

international wrongful acts, and in particular its support for irregular forces

that operate in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as their exploitation

the richness and the Congolese natural resources.

(c) that the Republic of Uganda provides guarantees and securities

concrete that will not repeat the unlawful acts subject to the demand;

(d) that the Republic of Uganda is obliged before the Republic

Democratic Congo to repair all the damage caused by the violation of

the obligations emanating from international law mentioned in the

allegations 1, 2 and 3 above;

(e) that the nature, form and amount of the repair is

determined by the Court, failing according to the connection between the parties, and that

the Court will reserve a subsequent procedure for that purpose.

5 that the Republic of Uganda has violated the order of the Court

from 1 July of 2000, because it has failed to achieve the following measures

Provisional:

('1) both parties must prevent and refrain immediately from

any action, and in particular any armed action, which might

prejudice the rights of the other party with respect to the failure that the Court may A/61/4

32 06-45198

issue in the case, or which could aggravate or prolong the controversy, or

make your solution;

(2) the two parties shall immediately take the necessary measures

for fulfilling all obligations under the law

International, in particular under the Charter of the United Nations and the

Charter of the Organization of African Unity, as well as resolution

1304 (2000) of the United Nations Security Council, of 16 June

2000;

(3) the two parties shall immediately take all measures

necessary to ensure, in the area of conflict, the full respect of the

fundamental human rights, as well as the applicable rules of the law

"humanitarian '."

In what regards Uganda (in relation to the demands of the Republic

Democratic of the Congo and its own counter-claims):

"The Republic of Uganda requests the Court:"

1. to adjudge and declare in accordance with international law:

A) than the demands of the Democratic Republic of the Congo with

with respect to activities or situations involving the Republic of Rwanda or

its agents are inadmissible for the reasons set forth in Chapter XV of the

Counter-Memorial and reafirmadas in the verbal allegations;

(B) be rejected the demands of the Democratic Republic of the

Congo that Court fails and declare that the Republic of Uganda is

responsible for various breaches of international law, as alleged

in memory, the replica or the verbal allegations. and

(C) that the counter-claims of Uganda submitted are accepted in the

Chapter XVIII of the Counter-Memorial and reafirmadas in chapter VI of the

replica, as well as in the verbal allegations.

2. which book the question of repairing in relation to the

counterclaims of Uganda for a later stage of the proceedings."

In regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (in relation to the)

counterclaims of Uganda):

"The Congo requests the Court to adjudge and declare:"

With regard to the first counterclaim filed by Uganda:

1 to the extent that refers to the period prior to the decision of the

power by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, Uganda demand is unacceptable, already

that Uganda had previously waived his right to present this

demand: subsidiarily, that demand is baseless, because

Uganda has failed to establish the facts underpinning;

2 in so far as it refers to the period between the

When Laurent-Désiré Kabila took power and Uganda launched its

attack armed, Uganda demand is baseless.

Historical context.

On 29 May 1997 the Alliance of democratic forces for the liberation of CongoZaire, directed by the Congolese leader Laurent-Desidere Kabila and supported by the Republic of Uganda and the Republic of Rwanda, manages to overthrow the President of the Republic of Zaire, Marshal Mobutu Ssese Seko, proclaiming thus Kabila as President of the country which was renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo. However the new Government, for different reasons, the armed forces of neighboring States--among them Uganda--as well as the Kabila regime opponents organized armed groups continued operating and occupying part of the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Summary of the case.

1. the arguments of the parties:

On 23 June 1999 the Democratic Republic of Congo [in later DRC] initiated proceedings before the International Court of Justice against the Republic of Uganda [in later Uganda] by the dispute relating to the armed activities of the respondent in the territory of the applicant in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity.

The DRC founded the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to hear the matter submitted for its consideration in statements promptly made by both States under the terms of the second paragraph of article 36 of its Statute.

The DRC asked the I.C.J. to judge and declare that Uganda:

-When performing military and paramilitary activities against that country, occupying its territory and supporting military, logistic, economic and financial to the irregular forces operating in its territory violated customary and conventional international principles of non-use of armed force in international relations - including the prohibition of aggression; settle disputes exclusively by peaceful means; respect the sovereignty of States as well as the right to self-determination of peoples and, therefore, the right to choose freely and without external interference, its own system of political and economic; of non-intervention in the Affairs of domestic jurisdiction of States, specifically, abstention from attending parties to a civil war that takes place in the territory of another State;

-to commit acts of violence against the Congolese national - such as killing them, hurting them or deprive them of their property - and failing to take measures to prevent and punish violations of human rights by persons under its jurisdiction or control violated customary and conventional international principles which impose the obligation to respect and ensure respect for fundamental human rights even in time of armed conflict and international humanitarian law which oblige distinguish at all time and in a situation of armed conflict between military objectives and civilians; as well as the right of Congolese national's rights to enjoy more basic civil and political and economic social and cultural;

-illegally exploiting Congolese natural resources, allowing Commission of looting, and failing to take measures to prevent and punish such acts committed by persons under their control or jurisdiction violated customary and conventional international principles of international humanitarian law applicable in respect of the sovereignty of States, including natural resources; the duty to promote the realization of the principle of equality of persons and their right to self-determination and, consequently, to refrain from subjecting the people to subjugation, exploitation and foreign domination; and the principle of non-intervention in affairs within domestic jurisdiction of States including economic issues.

Uganda, for its part, said that as a victim of attacks by insurgent groups coming from the border with the eastern part of the Congo, President Kabila had invited her to deploy its own troops in the border area to secure it since Congolese armed forces did not have the means to control the provinces of the East and the insurgents who were operating there. In this way, according to the respondent, his troops

they were present in Congolese territory with the consent of President Kabila until September 11, 1998, time began to act in self-defence until July 10, 1999, day in which the DRC consented again such a presence through the Lusaka Agreement.

In addition, Uganda asked the Court to adjudge and declare that the DRC had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations by not providing the Embassy of Uganda in the territory of the DRC and its effective protection against serious attacks suffered diplomatic staff, and must repair the damage.

2. the Court ruled that:

-Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in relations

international and non-intervention;

-Uganda violated its obligations under the international law of human rights and international humanitarian law during the hostilities in Kisangani;

-Uganda violated international obligations with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;

-the Democratic Republic of the Congo violated obligations with regard to Uganda under provisions of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations of 1961.

3. the Court reasoned:

In relation to the so-called consent granted by the R.D.C. and effective from May 1997 until September 1998, the Court observed that the relationship between the two States had been close to such an extent that they signed on 27 April 1998 the Protocol of security along the common border with the desire to put an end to the existence of the rebel groups operating in the border area said. The parties agreed that their respective armed forces would cooperate in order to achieve security and peace along the border. The Court considered that both the lack of objection to the Ugandan presence prior to the signing of the Protocol and subsequent to its signing practice supported the criterion that this presence was permitted by the DRC under the Protocol. However, that consent could be revoked at any time by the Congolese authorities unless it were necessary formality

alguna. En este sentido, el Tribunal interpretó que fue revocado el 8 de agosto de 1998 al finalizar la Cumbre de "Victoria Falls" (reunión a la cual asistieron los países miembros de la SADC -Southern African Development Community-) en la que se condenó la agresión sufrida por el Congo y la ocupación de ciertas partes de su territorio. Por ende, las posiciones ocupadas por Uganda en el este de la RDC y otras áreas del país entre agosto de 1998 y julio 1999 y la presencia de tropas ugandesas en ellas para el período ulterior a 1999 no podía considerarse que hubiese sido consentida por acuerdos ulteriores. Así, el Acuerdo de Lusaka -firmado el 10 de julio de 1999- establecía el retiro total de las tropas extranjeras del territorio de la RDC conforme a un calendario

pactado, lo que en modo alguno podía interpretarse que implicaba el reconocimiento de la presencia de Uganda en la RDC como legítima o conforme a derecho puesto que sólo constituía un acuerdo de modus operandi para las partes. Las revisiones del esquema acordado que se plasmaron en el "Kampala Disengagement Plan" del 8 de abril de 2000, el "Harare Disengagement Plan" del 6 de diciembre de 2000, y el Acuerdo de Luanda celebrado entre la RDC y Uganda sobre "el retiro de las tropas ugandesas de la República Democrática del Congo, cooperación y normalización de las relaciones entre los dos países" tampoco cambiaron la situación legal de la presencia de tropas ugandesas en la RDC. Por ende, la Corte concluyó que los distintos tratados dirigidos a alcanzar y mantener el cese del fuego, el retiro de las tropas extranjeras y la estabilización de las relaciones entre la RDC y Uganda de ninguna manera constituyeron consentimiento por parte de la RDC a la presencia de las tropas de Uganda en su territorio durante el período posterior a julio de 1999, en el sentido de convalidarlo en derecho.

Once analyzed and rejected all the arguments concerning the issue of consent, the Court went on to consider whether Uganda in the DRC military activity could be justified by having been carried out in self-defence.

According to Uganda, from September 11, 1998 he had begun to act in self-defence. The Court, after reviewing the activities of the respondent at certain points in the DRC, came to the conclusion that his actions during August 1998 had otherwise ceased to carry out activities against the rebels attacking it from the border and began to carry out military attacks that had like result the peoples of BeniBunia and Watsa. The Court understood that these actions were outside any mutual agreement between the parties relating to the

presence of Uganda on Congolese territory near the border. Attentive to it, said that it was completely irrelevant when the consent was revoked when the actions in question were more than cooperation "in order to ensure the peace and security

along the common border"as had been agreed by both States in the Protocol of April 27, 1998.

Now, ruled that Uganda during the month of August had acted in self-defence, the Court analyzed if its actions from mid-September 1998 had such character and, consequently, if that country was enabled to engage in military actions against the DRC. In that sense, Court ruled out - for lack of sufficient evidence - the existence of an agreement between the DRC and Sudan to participate or support actions military carried out by Allied Democratic Forces (ADF, by its acronym in English) against the respondent and that the alleged actions deployed by the Sudan against were of such character that justify that it has

acted in self-defence. To do so, the Court took into account that Uganda at no time informed the Security Council events which would justify acting in self-defence and, in addition, that also proved that the Government of the DRC was involved, directly or indirectly, in attacks by the ADF. In conclusion, it was not credited that the attacks came from armed or irregular bands submitted by the DRC or that they acted in their interest, in the sense of article 3 of the resolution of the General Assembly no. 3314 (XXIX) on the definition of aggression. Thus, the Court held that based on the evidence provided, even in the case that this series of deplorable attacks could be regarded as cumulative, they were not attributable to the DRC by what in fact necessary and legal conditions for the exercise of the right of self-defence by Uganda against the DRC were not present.

Rejecting the invocation to self-defence vis-a-vis the attacks in question, Court went on to consider whether the use of force by Uganda within the territory of the DRC could be described as self-defence.

Uganda said that the military operation "Safe Heaven" (based on the official document called "position of the high command over the presence of the UPDF (Uganda Peoples´ Defense Forces) in the DRC" concerning the decision of the high command in Kampala - DRC - keep the UPDF forces in order to ensure the legitimate interests of their country's security) not constituted a use of force against an anticipated attack. However, the Court noted that the document in question was not

reference to armed attacks that had taken place against Uganda from the DRC but which referred to that it was necessary to preserve legitimate security interests of Uganda that most - except one - were essentially preventive (for example, to prevent attacks by genocidal elements or protect Uganda of threats or irresponsible invasions). On the other hand, he stressed that in the months of August and September 1998 Uganda never informed the Security Council events that considered that they enabled it to act in self-defence and he never claimed to be the object of an armed attack by the armed forces of the DRC but the AFD mentioned.

For all these reasons, the Court found that the circumstances were in fact and law for the exercise of self-defence against the DRC does not present so it did not understand necessary to analyze whether the response was necessary and proportionate.

The Court recalled that the prohibition of the use of force is the cornerstone of the Charter of the United Nations (article 2.4) and that its article 51 justifies it in cases of self-defence only within the strict confines there willing. So much so that it does not authorize use a State to protect what they can perceive this as of interest to your security beyond the parameters set since States have other means to achieve such protection.

The Court found that since the August 7, 1998 hereinafter Uganda used armed force for purposes and in places in which did not have consent to do so. In addition, he understood that the facts pointed out by Uganda did not justify the use of force in self-defence

The evidence showed that the UPDF traversed vast regions of the DRC, violating its sovereignty and became involved in military operations in different locations - such as Bunia, Kisangani, Gbadolite and Ituri-, acts which constituted grave violations of article 2.4 of the Charter. In addition, already the Security Council, on 16 June 2000, had considered as a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC return to fighting between Ugandan and Rwandan in Kisangani military forces.

The DRC had alleged in court that the MLC (Mouvement de libération du Congo) rebel group led by Mr. Bemba aiming to overthrow the Government, had been created and was controlled by Uganda. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence with that expected and concluded that although it was credited to the respondent you trained him and gave military support had not been accredited which controlled it or you could control the

way in which Mr. Bemba may have used such aid. For the Court, the conduct of the MLC was not of an organ of Uganda (art. 4 of the project of responsibility of States for facts internationally wrongful for the International Law Commission, 2001) nor that of an entity exercising prerogatives of public power on their behalf (article 5 of the draft). The Court considered not accredited that the MLC had received instructions or which acted under the direction or control of the respondent (art. 8 of the proposed). However, even if the conduct of the MLC was not attributable to Uganda, training and military support given by Uganda to the ALC (Congo Liberation Army) - a military wing of the MLC - behaved violation of certain international obligations.

Thus, the Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations provides that "every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of war or acts of terrorism in another State or allow organized activities within its territory aimed at the Commission of such actsWhen the acts referred to in this paragraph imply recourse to the threat or use of force." This statement also establishes that "all States shall also refrain from organizing, support, promote, finance, instigate or tolerate armed, subversive or terrorist activities aimed at changing by violence the regime of another State, and to intervene in a civil war in another State". In the Tribunal's view, these provisions are customary international law.

The Court considered, in this way, that Uganda violated the obligations of the principles of non-use of force and non-intervention, to violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC and interfere in its internal affairs and the civil war that took place.

In order to understand other points of the demand of the DRC, the Court decided that it was essential to examine whether Uganda was an occupying power in parts of Congolese territory where its troops were present. In this regard said that you according to customary international law, as reflected in article 42 of the rules of the Hague of 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the enemy army and the occupation does not extend but the territories where this authority is established and capable of exercising it. In the light of the provided test concluded that Uganda was the occupying power

in ITURI and not in the rest of the places and peoples mentioned by the DRC since was not credited that it had exercised authority in those places. As the occupying power, according to article 43 of the rules of procedure of the Hague of 1907, Uganda had the obligation to take all measures that were at its disposal to restore and preserve, insofar as possible, order and life public, respecting, except absolute impediment, the laws in force in the DRC. This obligation includes the obligation to ensure respect for international standards in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law to protect the inhabitants of the occupied territory of acts of violence and the duty not to tolerate violence by a third party. Therefore, the responsibility of Uganda as an occupying power in Ituri understand any kind of Act of its armed forces which comportasen the violation of its international obligations and also the lack of surveillance to prevent violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by other actors present in the occupied territory, including the rebel groups acting on their own. In addition, at all times was responsible for the actions and omissions of its own armed forces in the territory of the DRC violating its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law that were relevant and applicable in the specific situation.

The Court, after analyze and warn the coincidences between the resolutions of the Security Council, the reports of the Commission on human rights, and those of the Secretary-General concluded that the Ugandan troops (UPDF) committed massive violations to human rights and international humanitarian law in the territory of the DRC. These troops were murdered, tortured and committed other inhumane acts against the civilian population, destroyed villages and civilian buildings, did not distinguish between military and civilian targets, failed to protect civilians from the fighting, incited ethnic conflict (between the Hema - of Ugandan origin and the Lendu) and took no measures to put an end to this conflict, were involved in the recruitment and training of child soldiers, and did not take steps to ensure respect for human rights and international

humanitarian law in the occupied territories. The acts and omissions of the UPDF were clearly attributable to Uganda to the conduct of an organ of the State because according to a well established rule of general international law: "the conduct of any State organ must be considered as an act of the State". In terms of individual behaviour of the soldiers and officers of the UPDF, this was also seen as conduct of the organ - and therefore, attributable to Uganda-military character and his function. The Court noted that it was irrelevant to the attribution of their conduct to Uganda if the UPDF personnel acted contrary to instructions given or exceeded their authorities since according to a well-established customary rule, reflected in article 3 of the quarter the Hague Convention concerning laws and customs of war on land of 1907 to article 91 of Protocol I additional to the conventions of Geneva of August 12, 1949, a party to the armed conflict is responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces. The Court recalled that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, being applicable international instruments of human rights with respect to acts committed by a State in the exercise of its jurisdiction outside its own territory, particularly in the case of occupied territories. On the other hand, according to article 2 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 "Apart from the provisions which should enter into force in time of peace, the present Convention shall apply in case of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more high contracting parties, although one of them has not recognized the State of war. The Convention will also apply in all cases of occupation of all or part of the territory of a high contracting party, even if this occupation is not military resistance". Therefore, acts committed by the UPDF and its soldiers and officers constituted clear violations of the obligations contained in the rules of the Hague of 1907 - arts. 25, 27 and 28 as well as the arts. 43, 46 and 47 - relating to the obligations of the occupying power which were binding on the parties as customary international law. Uganda also violated the following provisions of the instruments of both branches of international law of which the DRC and Uganda are parties: arts. 27, 32 and 53 of the fourth 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, referred to the obligations of the occupying power; paragraph 1 of article 6 and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights; Arts. 48, 51, 52, 57, 58, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of article 75 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts referred to the general protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities and international; Arts. 4 and 5 of the African Charter of rights Human and peoples; paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 38 of the Convention of the rights of the child; and arts.

1, 2, and paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

In conclusion, the Court understood that Uganda is internationally responsible for violations of both branches of international law committed by the UPDF and its members in the territory of the DRC and for not complying with its obligations as an occupying power in Ituri with respect to violations of these branches in the occupied territory.

In what refers to the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC, the Court understood that while there was not enough evidence that credited that the Ugandan Government had a policy aimed at the exploitation of those resources or that its military intervention would have been in order to gain access to them, it had been demonstrated that officers and soldiers of the UPDF - including those of high rank - were involved in the looting and exploitation and that the military authorities to take steps to put an end to such acts. However, it could not do place the pretense of the DRC that Uganda violated the principle of permanent sovereignty over their natural resources since, even though this principle has customary character, it is not applicable to a situation of looting and exploitation by members of the armed forces of a State involved in another State. However that their behaviors were violation of the ius bello in banning the plundering pursuant to article 47 of the rules of procedure of the Hague of 1907 and article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

Also, the Court noted that both States are parties to the African Charter on human rights and peoples of June 27, 1981, which in paragraph 2 of article 21 States that "in case of spoliation, the dispossessed people shall have the right legal property recovery as well as to an adequate compensation". Thus, Uganda had violated its obligation of vigilance not to take appropriate measures to ensure that military forces not committed looting, incurring international responsibility. In addition, Uganda as occupier in the Ituri district, was responsible for the obligation to take appropriate measures to prevent the looting and exploitation of natural resources in the occupied territory not only by its armed forces but also private persons in that district, having been accredited rather than prevent the smuggling of natural resources - including diamonds-senior members of the UPDF facilitating such activities by part of commercial entities. Finally, the Court stressed that the argument of Uganda on the exploitation of resources for the benefit of the local population - such as international humanitarian law - would allow it had not been supported by reliable evidence.

The Court concluded that Uganda is internationally responsible for acts of looting and exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC by members of its armed forces in the territory of the DRC, for violating its obligation of vigilance in relation to such acts and for failing to comply with its obligations under article 43 of the rules of procedure of the Hague of 1907 as an occupying power in Ituri district.

Attentive to it and taking into account that Uganda is responsible for internationally wrongful acts (illegal use of armed force, violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity, military intervention and occupation of Ituri, violations of international law of human rights and of international humanitarian law, plunder and exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC in the occupied territory) the Court considered that it is obliged to repair the damage causedwhich will be resolved in a later procedure.

Finally, the Court analyzed the request of Uganda concerning violations by the DRC of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations by not providing effective protection to your Embassy and its diplomats. In this regard the Court considered proven claim and noted that it breached the special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the Mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any attack on the person of diplomatic agents, and must repair the DRC caused damage which will be also resolved by the Court in a subsequent procedure.-

TECHNICAL VOCABULARY

I hope that...

•Son fundamental pillars for...

•Be at once by all reality

•Pero it is clear that we are to...

•A call to general awareness

•By to fight all of you have been...

•The planned measures will make a big push for...

• Do not share that...

•Vamos to treat first of...

• It is a significant fact that... • participate actively in...

•There been object of concern and priority attention...

•And with everything that that entails

•To as soon as possible

•Algo as simple as...

•Aportan your effort

•Contribuye with a substantive contribution...

•Quiero formally move our support to...

•EStara fully operational within a few weeks...

•With a special emphasis in...

•Valoramos very positively to...

•Puntos that need to be addressed...

•It is forced to act with urgency and rigour

•It is contributing to the sustainability of

•Always considering that

•Give full compliance to

•Give a unconditional backing to

•I want assure you that we have started the road to recovery...

•In this sense return to raise

•Posicion clear and forceful

• you be gaining increasing importance...

•Give a unconditional backing to

•Quiero assure you that we have started the road to recovery...

•Constituye a great priority

•Ponerle emphasis in...

•Adoptacion of new measures

•Android OS must confensar that...

•Me will endeavour to achieve this

•Yo I simply invite you to...

•Pronto are going to be able to assess its results...

•Incapaces fight properly against...

•Sensacion of outrage

•Serio and rigorous

•About the bases that

•A forget other very important topic

•Afectando of singular way to...

•Order support of

Absolutely •Carece of sense

•Talante and serenity

• Be at the height of the needs of

•How can not be otherwise

•For this must have suitable conditions

•For accordingly, we believe that it is an inadequate measure

•Quiero devote special attention to

•Destinada to the development of

•It is fast becoming the first...

•Plantea the need for

•Soy the first that feels it as well

•Hoy is a good day to remember

•It is essential

•Mayoritaria and determinant

•Work together and thoroughly on the issue of security for...

•For all the above

•What has allowed that...

•Tal as it has been doing gala

• One of your highest goals

•Tendremos the opportunity to assume greater responsibilities

•You can and must improve

•SUS effects are no longer limited to

•Do not have turned back

•Otra of the key issues

•Pido that is consistent with

•Forman part of operational schemes...

•Quiero make a recognition of the very important work of...

•This in the next 12 months must be corrected

•What have characterized much of the action of...

•This leads us to remember that...

•It can be very useful...

•Vamos to lead this effort

•And you mean something that is as important as...

Sumo •me the wishes expressed

•It is a bet for the future

•For put real examples

•Mainly due to

Of views •Intercambio

•The first line of Defense of

•Canalizar resources in a uniform manner...

•This work will be reinforced with

•Do not know what brings in hands

•Impulsaremos an ambitious agenda

•Siendo a development axis

•Pondra every effort in...

•Frequency response clear and transparent

•Do not be to rise to the occasion...

•Ligado to one final thought

•We have in our hands...

• Increase media destined to

•In this field...

• Agile and safe procedure...

•You can corroborate that...

•It is the great need of our time

•Estamos working intensely in

•What is certainly the object that we have been making...

•Traslado the interest of my Department

• It is a task to undertake urgently

Essential •parte of...

•From the point of view of...

•Apoyando a project of special importance

Depending on the conditions

Known •Sobradamente

•From representative nature

•Hacia you reference to

•Graves problems of

•Avanza substantially in some subjects...

•From irremediable way

•For this reason again that...

Their ideas and their land •Leal

•The most recent data do predict

•The main challenges that we had to address in the future...

Negative •Condicionantes...

•It requires very few explanations

•Our goal is to work for the development of

•In depending on the characteristics of

•Hoy more than ever

•And do not fit you any doubt that

•This logically has to do with

•In the same conditions had been developed

•For your part

•Capaces guarantee...

Preferential syndicate with

•They must challenge

•Develops all relevant aspects

•Ademas it

•About this matter

Multidirectional •eslabon

•And most importantly

•Debemos be firm in

•For whose development we will ask for the support of...

•Tendremos which continue to face adverse situations...

•With the nuances that you necessary

•Hoy know the results of

•It should lead to reduced

•It will concentrate the efforts of

•Reforzando the...

•Basicamente using the same criteria

•Son undoubtedly very significant

•With a specific attention to

•In line with...

•As know...

•To be able to move forward in

•And have certainly acted firmly

•Do not yet, we are to

•VA time that you have a position on the issue

•In lathe to the need for improvement of

•Knowledge of first-hand the dimension of

Has broken the barrier of

• All it brought as a consequence

Has been of a very important efficiency

•We will make any consideration in this regard

•The reality to which we refer

•Queda a great stretch to go

•A I assure

Is reflected in

•It has commissioned to carry out the

•Llevar practice points above

•Do not should occur

•The things can be achieved from

•Enfocadas u oriented to

•It has established itself as

•From a constant and rigorous

•Sera without a doubt a great shock for what represents

Between the participating countries

•Cuantitativamente and qualitatively

•Cuya task will go down in history for its

•The goal is the same

•The allowing better defend the interests of

Convergence •proceso

•With the end

•The first step that we are going to adopt

•Priorizar the maximum effort in

Courtesy •cuestion

•Vamos to study it with pleasure

•Encima of any political interest

•Conforme to the established order

•We have the challenge of improving the efficiency

•These are the guidelines for the action of

•Puso manifesto

•In depending on the different characteristics

•Valiosas contributions

•Estamos strongly committed with

•When we will not add

•The Outlook is bleak

•Principal coordinating body

•Pero is not less true that

•Desbordado for events

•And increasingly more...

•In pursuant to a set of rules

•As well known

•Yo think that therefore...

•Lack of management capacity

•Studied the question

•In the path of

• All the elements involved in it...

•Pero yes I would like to make it very clear

•Solution successful 1 •Quisiera highlight...

The same goal as you •Compartimos...

•We have doubts concerning...

•Quiero express my satisfaction by...

•Perform an analysis thorough envelope...

•Dada the current situation...

•Action that go in the direction of...

Between them stand out...

•Me welcome particularly to...

•With which ultimately...

•It has designed a package of measures

• It is especially important...

•There been priority attention

•Your performance will be marked by...

•Deberiamos clarify some aspect...

• It is an indispensable condition for...

•Lineas of action that have been raised

•Action that shall be accompanied of

•Instrumento that allows to develop...

•We have surpassed the test with more than...

•Our main challenge is...

•Paso then to speak of...

•Basicamente, basically...

•Do not let be a contradiction if it...

•Achieve the maximum possible satisfaction

•To achieve these objectives we will carry out the following measures...

•Use with the same coherence

•Hoy is more necessary than ever

•From special relevance

•Seguiremos putting in place measures and pose new challenges

•Porque understand that this is the only way to get that...

•Quiero especially underline...

•As well aware...

•With an important contribution of...

No doubt •Obedece to the work of

•It will be substantially increased

•Quiero congratulate you for this commitment

•Pero I want to reassure you because

•Only fit a conclusion...

•Finally, I would like to make a reflection on...

Dear •you highlight the commitment that has been put in...

•Debo highlight that from now on...

• It is the best way to...

•Action that could allow a better...

•Never we have considered priority...

• One of the fundamental objectives that we set...

•The goal we will achieve

•For certain circumstances beyond our control...

•To provide greater details on

•The increase in registered

•In global terms...

•Tengo much to say thank you...

•Your importance is highlighted by

• Propose future lines of action

•Hoy want to make sure that...

•Debemos consider their impact

•Your work is important

• The sad reality is that...

Obvious •Resulta that

•Quiero publicly reiterate...

Develop instruments and tools to deal with...

•Due to the lack of understanding

•Pero at the same time, require the participation of

•MIS first words are addressed to

•Once established the basics of...

•These are indispensable goals

•To address a challenge of this nature need...

•Dificultades on all fronts

•Obstaculos in the fight by

•Remember you...

•In a process that has no return

•We have suffered sharp increases of

•From a more concrete way to...

•To counter the effect of...

•Other relevant aspect is...

•What is suffering from long ago

Has caused a special expectation

•To starting from this observation

•We have who carry out these activities without affecting to...

•Expressing clearly the will of

•We have ahead the challenge of

•Be ensured the safety of

•This is an essential factor

•we would deploy a set of immediate actions

• The same might say of...

•Has wide experience in

•You do not think that it is more appropriate

• supposed a substantial step in...

• address in depth the problem

•It is a worthy mission and copy

•We have addressed other issues pertaining to...

•Lo which emphasizes the singular importance of...

•And in very special way

•And especially acknowledge the presence of

•Has as its main objective to...

•I want so thank you all for...

Serious analysis of reality...

•We gives sustainability in time

•I want add me to...

•It has spread practically

•To do this would add the commitment to sustain the effort in...

•Extraordinaire contribution of

•In winch to

•maintain live the hope of

•set bases for

•I believe necessary to record...

•In terms of...

•In this sense...

Has undergone substantial changes...

It has made a great work...

•The first issue that we must address...

•After you hard and complex negotiations...

•There are two issues that they should be treated with the utmost rigor...

•And certainly are not going to do what...

•In short...

• variousinitiative in that direction

•It has focused especially on

•ESA is the reason why...

•We have the firm intention of

•Finally I refer to...

•Hoy announcement before you...

•It is excruciating, intolerable, unacceptable,...

•Do not should be limited to...

• submit it for your consideration...

•I want first of all thank the efforts of...

• but yes I would like to point out that...

•It is now a reality...

•In any mode...

•boost of MLAs

Decidedly •Posicionarnos in...

•ESA is the reason why...

•By especially by...

•requires a continous effort...

•you be contributing to achieving

•Develop a plan of action against

•Be also represent a challenge...

•The threshold of substantial change...

•It has launched the...

•we are talking about a field of enormous significance for...

•Ello is also of special importance...

•All those aspects which refer to...

•As know...

•Nearby all this...

•In the framework of...

•You I'd like to know

•In terms of effectiveness

•The convenience of

•Dicho is

•Reforzado

•Especialmente desire...

•With the peculiarity that

•Situarse in the environment of

•Son a clear example

•Soy well aware of the enormous difficulty that implies

•Me would like that to be the main message...

•adrees mainly the issue of

• The reality is quite clear

•As previously announced some weeks ago

Has shown that the reality is not

•The main beneficiaries of this measure

• ally firm and committed

• transcends the borders of

•I want stress that...

•For so-called

•And hope that history may judge us for having...

•Ante new threats

•Act to the dictates of their interests

•A fundamental policy in this field

•Best way to show the degree of loyalty

•When I just refer

•spread course in

•I have confidence in

•Tantas times as required

•Pero should first of all like to express

•Son an indispensable decision-making parameter...

•From urgent

•It is immersed in a process of renewal...

•Ante plight living...

•Conforme is set...

•Lo yes I can assure you is that...

•Do not is a mere assertion

•Procederemos your application and development...

•A radically opposed against this type of...

•In terms strictly of...

Totally unsustainable

•Yo agree with the logic of

•This is the situation real day of hoy•Que without a doubt will make it possible, •

You have made reference to, •the enormous difficulties...

Motions

The motions are the facilities delegates to propose changes and modifications in the course of the debate.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS

Motion to modify the speaker time

By this motion, a delegate requested that you modify the time awarded to each speaker. The delegate, to propose the change should be noted the amount of time requested. Up to two delegations may speak in favour of the motion, and up to two can do it against.

Motion to initiate an extraordinary session of interpellations

The delegate that mocione requests a special meeting of interpellations. Up to two delegations may speak in favour of the motion, and it will require the acceptance of the delegate on the floor.

Motion to suspend the session

This motion is made to move to an informal discussion, moderated or not. The delegate that mocione must specify a certain amount of time. This motion requires an immediate vote.

Motion to move from informal to formal

This motion can be made to move to a formal debate, when the time given for an informal discussion still has not been completed. This motion requires an immediate vote.

Motion of recess

This motion aims to close the session to resume it in some time. This motion requires an immediate vote.

Motion of replica

It allows a delegation which feels directly offended to respond to the intervention of another delegation. It must be requested to the President in writing through the ushers, explaining the reasons for which the delegate was offended. The Presidency will judge if the order is valid or not, and will determine the appropriate time to retort. Who has raised the point, must wait to be recognized to express their reasons. Mere disagreements between delegations are not considered grounds for making a right of reply.

Motion to close the debate

This motion is performed so that the Council passes the resolution stage. Once a delegate feels that its position was exposed with clarity, that there is sufficient draft resolutions, and all are ready to conclude, it can promote this motion. Up to two delegates (one that promotes and another that secunde) may contact against the closure of the debate. A delegate to speak in favor of the closure is not required.

Motion or agenda item

Used to be noted a violation of the rules of procedure of the model, or to point out inappropriate behavior by any delegate or member of the Presidency.

Decision of the Presidency

Motion or point of personal privilege

It allows delegates express their displeasure with some element that would limit their ability to participate in the debate. For example, noise, inconvenience, volume, etc. Delegates who raise this point should be immediately recognized by the President, who judged the validity of the point freely.

Motion or point of parliamentary questions

Allows delegates to clarify doubts with regard to the rules of procedure.

Appeal of the decision of the President

This motion is made when a delegate feels that the President has taken a wrong decision. The delegate who wants to question the President to do this motion orally, as the other motions, or in writing. He is granted time to delegate, and then the President based his original decision, before put to the vote before the Council.

How to make a working pallets

In other words, a working paper is a draft resolution. This will be drafted once the discussion is carried out. However, it is always a good idea to write a draft of the working paper before the Conference to get the idea base that will assist in the drafting of the final working paper.

The role of labour must always follow a certain structure. It is important to be drafted when you follow this style without exception.

1 begins with the name of the Commission, and the subject. Subtitles must be in bold.

2. subsequently the resolution code is written. The one which should go in bold underline. The code consists of 3 digits.

A) the first is the one that refers to the number of the Committee within the UN General Assembly.

(B) the second relates to the topic, and the order in which this was discussed (for example, if the role of work is about the first theme that began to discuss, is written 1).

(C) the third and last digit is provided by the table. This refers to the order of arrival of work papers in La Mesa.

1 write the countries "block heads"; the "Editors" and "signers" in underlined letter. Signatory countries, because of its quantity, can both write in the role of work, or on a separate sheet and attach it to this. In this case it is obligatory to write the following: the list of signatory countries shall be appended to this working paper.

Please note the following:

-Countries block heads are those who lead the role of work. Therefore, thin representing them shall be borne by their reading when it is submitted to the Commission. All working papers will be two countries "Block heads."

-Drafters are the countries which produce or write the role of work in conjunction with block heads.

-Signers are those countries who want the working paper to be submitted to the Commission. The signatory countries do not compromise your vote in any way, simply expressed his desire that this be read.

2. introductory sentences should start referring to the body of work that addresses the role of work. In the case of a current Commission such as door, SOCHUM, ECOSOC and legal Committee, writes "The General Assembly". In the case of a special organ, such as safety tips, it is necessary to write "The Security Council".

3. as a minimum there must be 5 introductory phrases.

4. the introductory phrases are written in italics and underlined

5. when ready to move to the clauses, it is necessary to write before "Resolves".

6. the clauses must be listed and in italics, and they should end with a period, and eat.

7. as a minimum, must be 7 clauses.

Points to consider when a resolution was drawn up:

1 make a brief historical summary of the events that led to the conflict using as far as possible reference to previous resolutions and decisions taken by the United Nations which reflects in the introductory sentences.

2. in the operative phrases try to make points that give a viable solution to the conflict.

3. try to take into account different points of view, provided these ideas do not come into conflict with their own.

4 delegate discussion points which require the intervention analysis of an entity or agency of the United Nations.

5. do not take decisions which could not be financed adequately or points which does not specify the form of financing of a particular decision.

6. before proposing the creation of a new entity or working group perform proper investigation to be sure that there is an entity that already complies with the same function.

7. avoid repeated decisions of existing resolutions.

Example of Perambulatory phrases

In addition to Recalling

Noting also

Noting with concern

Affirming

Alarmed by

Approving

Looking for

Trusting that

Conscious of

Whereas

Contemplating

Convinced of

Believing

Declaring

Looking forward to

Emphasizing

Waiting for you

Estimating

Expressing

Expressing grave concern by

Expressing thanks by

Expressing its appreciation

Firmly convinced

Guided by

Having adopted

Having considered

Having studied

Having considered

Having heard

Having received

Regretting

Observing

Noting with appreciation

Fully alarmed

Fully aware

Concerned by

Deeply convinced

Reaffirming

Recognizing

Recalling

Referring

Keeping in mind

Clauses

• Acknowledging

• Acting

• Affirming

• Alarmed by

• Also welcoming

• Anxious

• Appreciating

• Approving

• Aware

• Bearing in mind

• Believing

• Calling upon

• Concerned

• Confident

• Contemplating

• Convinced

• Conscious

• Declaring

• Deeply alarmed

• Accepts

• Claims

• Encourages and calls

• Anima

• Supports

• Approves

• Authorizes

• Sentence

• Trust

• Confirms

• Considers

• Declares

• Decides

• Regrets

• Designates

• Highlights

• Praises

• Emphasizes

• Esteem

• Calls

• His desire

• Congratulates

• It makes a call to

• Encourages

• Insta

• Invites

• Regrets

• Draws attention

• Note

• Notes

• Requests

• Proclamation

• Reaffirms

• Rejects

• Recommended

• Recognizes

• Recalls

• Reiterates

• Reiterates its support

• Supports

• Signals

• Transmits

Croatia vs Serbia

accusations of genocide

For a long time the State dome incredibly repeated that it was best that Croatia and Serbia withdraw mutual accusations by genocide before the Court of Justice in the Hague, which finally, thank God, did not happen, so the members of the State dome are dismayed.

Members of the State dome repeated how parrots that condition for Croatia to remove its accusation against Serbia for genocide was that Serbia hand over data on missing Croatian civilians and ex-combatants and say where they are buried. From that it follows that Croatia not blamed Serbia for genocide perpetrated against the Croatian people, the mass killings of Croats and other heinous crimes, but because Serbia does not mean where were killed and buried. The withdrawal of the accusation by Croatia would have been a betrayal. The withdrawal would mean that Croatia accepted the thesis of Serbia, i.e. which was not an aggression of Serbia against Croatia but of a civil war, and in this case Serbia would be aggressor nor Croatia was the victim of aggression, in synthesis, the blame would be shared.

That would have been a political defeat, because Croatia would have withdrawn from the fight for the truth, and in addition there would be shamed before the International Court of Justice that accepting the accusation of Croatia against Serbia for genocide perpetrated offered the possibility that the process will check the truth. We do not know if that truth will be sufficient for the International Court of Justice condemned to Serbia or if other circumstances will influence the judgment of the Court, but regardless of the sentence, it is important that Croatia has the opportunity to rebut, arguments and documents, counterfeiting and false accusations against her before the International Court of Justice.

The most important thing is to know "the real truth". According to its "lies, lies, that something will be" strategy, Serbia raised a false counter-charge against Croatia accusing it of having perpetrated a genocide against the Serbs in Croatia. This Serbia counter-charge aims to equalize the guilt and leave behind the past that doesn't suit you announcing a future of peace and friendship which would be good to remove the mutual accusations. Serbia wants to avoid debate in the International Court of Justice because there you have to get to the truth about who was the aggressor and who was the victim, who perpetrated the genocide and who suffered it.

It is that Serbia believed that the Tribunal in the Hague, on the basis of the monstrous and false accusations against political and military dome of the Patriotic War (1991-1995) with the late President Franjo Tuđman to the head, was going to sentence that the action called "Storm", in which the Croatian

territories occupied by the Serbs, were released was to end ethnic cleansing of the Serb minority.

But the Hague Tribunal released the Croatian General Gotovina and Markač, indirectly freed from all blame to the dome policy and military who chaired the extinct President Franjo Tuđman and removed to Serbia the arguments for the counter-charge against Croatia that in pursuit of a so-called "new regional unit" withdraw the accusation and the counter-charge.

All of this coupled with a psychological war against Croatia to demonstrate with fakes that Serbs during history were the victims of genocide perpetrated by the Croatian people, who, during the Patriotic war, Croats carried out another genocide against the Serbs and Croats are now preparing a new genocide against the Serbs.

The aim is to accuse the Croatian people that in the past had a genocidal policy that allegedly continues to this day. While there was Tito's Yugoslavia, which was a Communist dictatorship with Serbian hegemony, the Serbs built myths that were part of the official propaganda and were imposed by force. Now that the Marshal and his Yugoslavia are dead, myths are falling one by one, and it will also drop the myth that Serbs are victims.

But it won't be easy because in many media, political parties, organizations and other institutions 'fifth column' occupies the main charges and, together with the granserbios that are outside and inside Croatia, working tirelessly to demonize the Croatian people. For this reason do not want to debate before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, they are afraid of the truth that it would definitely fail the granserbia policy, they are afraid of being convicted.

The Croatian State dome are nervous because in his servility anticroatas statements were made that the Serbs are going to quote. This is the destiny of traitors. Truth be know, the "fifth column" in Croatia, that is also a part of the current dome of the State, is not going to be able to continue with its anticroata policy and they will finally find a Croatian court to answer for having helped that the truth about the Patriotic war turns into lying and lying about the Patriotic War indeed.

The truth is very simple, the Serbs attacked us with the help of the Yugoslav army, wanted us to wipe off the map, bombed cities and especially the Catholic churches, hospitals and factories, the dead are ours, the disabled also and also disappeared. Say what you will, the truth is on our side.

Croacia vs Serbia, acusaciones de genocidio

Durante mucho tiempo la cúpula estatal increíblemente repetía que lo mejor era que Croacia y Serbia retiren las acusaciones mutuas por genocidio ante el Tribunal de Justicia de La Haya, lo que finalmente, gracias a Dios, no sucedió, por lo que los integrantes de la cúpula estatal están consternados.

Los integrantes de la cúpula estatal repetían como papagayos que la condición para que Croacia retire su acusación contra Serbia por genocidio era que Serbia entregue los datos sobre los ex combatientes y civiles croatas desaparecidos y diga donde están enterrados. De eso se deduce que Croacia no acusa a Serbia por el genocidio perpetrado contra el pueblo croata, por las matanzas masivas de ciudadanos croatas y otros crímenes horrendos, sino porque Serbia no quiere decir dónde fueron asesinados y enterrados. El retiro de la acusación por parte de Croacia hubiera sido una traición. El retiro significaría que Croacia acepta la tesis de Serbia, es decir que no se trató de una agresión de Serbia contra Croacia sino de una guerra civil y en ese caso ni Serbia sería agresor ni Croacia sería víctima de la agresión, en síntesis las culpas serían compartidas.

Eso hubiese sido una derrota política, porque Croacia habría desistido de la lucha por la verdad, y además se habría avergonzado ante el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia que aceptando la acusación de Croacia contra Serbia por el genocidio perpetrado ofreció la posibilidad de que durante el proceso se compruebe la verdad. No sabemos si esa verdad será suficiente para que el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia condene a Serbia o si algunas otras circunstancias van a influir en la sentencia del Tribunal, pero, independientemente de cual sea la sentencia, es importante que Croacia tenga la posibilidad de rebatir, con argumentos y documentos, las falsificaciones y acusaciones falsas en su contra ante el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia.

Lo más importante es que se sepa “la verdadera verdad”. De acuerdo a su estrategia “miente, miente, que algo quedará”, Serbia levantó una falsa contraacusación contra Croacia acusándola de haber perpetrado un genocidio contra los serbios de Croacia. Con esa contraacusación Serbia pretende igualar las culpas y dejar atrás el pasado que no le conviene anunciando un futuro de paz y amistad por lo cual sería bueno retirar las acusaciones mutuas. Serbia quiere evitar el debate en el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia porque allí tiene que llegar a la verdad sobre quién fue agresor y quién fue víctima, quién perpetró el genocidio y quién lo sufrió.

Es que Serbia pensaba que el Tribunal de La Haya, en base a las monstruosas y falsas acusaciones contra la cúpula política y militar de la Guerra Patria (1991-1995) con el extinto presidente Franjo Tuđman a la cabeza, iba a sentenciar que la acción denominada “Tormenta”, en la que se liberaron los

territorios croatas ocupados por los serbios, tuvo como fin la limpieza étnica de la minoría serbia.

Pero el Tribunal de La Haya liberó a los generales croatas Gotovina y Markač, indirectamente liberó de toda culpa a la cúpula política y militar que presidió el extinto presidente Franjo Tuđman y le quitó a Serbia los argumentos para la contraacusación contra Croacia para que en pos de una supuesta “nueva unidad regional” se retiren la acusación y la contraacusación. Todo esto acompañado de una guerra sicológica contra Croacia para demostrar con falsificaciones que los serbios durante la historia fueron víctimas de genocidio perpetrado por el pueblo croata, que durante la Guerra Patria los croatas perpetraron otro genocidio más contra los serbios y que ahora los croatas están preparando un nuevo genocidio contra los serbios.

El objetivo es acusar al pueblo croata de que en el pasado tuvo una política genocida que supuestamente continúa hasta hoy en día. Mientras existió la Yugoslavia de Tito, que fue una dictadura comunista con hegemonía serbia, los serbios construyeron mitos que formaban parte de la propaganda oficial y se imponían por la fuerza. Ahora que el mariscal y su Yugoslavia están muertos, los mitos van cayendo uno a uno, y va a caer también el mito de que los serbios son víctimas.

Pero no va a ser fácil porque en muchos medios de comunicación, organizaciones no gubernamentales, partidos políticos y otras instituciones la “quinta columna” ocupa los principales cargos y, junto con los granserbios que están fuera y dentro de Croacia, trabajan sin cesar para satanizar al pueblo croata. Por eso no quieren el debate ante el Tribunal Internacional de Justicia de La Haya, tienen miedo de la verdad que quebraría definitivamente la política granserbia, tienen miedo de ser declarados culpables.

Los de la cúpula estatal croata están nerviosos porque en su servilismo hicieron declaraciones anticroatas que los serbios van a citar. Ese es el destino de los traidores. La verdad se va a saber, la “quinta columna” en Croacia, es decir también una parte de la actual cúpula estatal, no va a poder seguir con su política anticroata y finalmente se van a encontrar ante un tribunal croata para responder por haber ayudado a que la verdad sobre la Guerra Patria se transforme en mentira y la mentira sobre la Guerra Patria en verdad.

La verdad es muy sencilla, los serbios nos agredieron con la ayuda del ejército yugoslavo, nos quisieron borrar del mapa, bombardearon las ciudades y especialmente las iglesias católicas, los hospitales y las fábricas, los muertos son nuestros, los inválidos también y los desaparecidos también. Digan lo que digan, la verdad está de nuestro lado.

Honorables miembros de la mesa directiva, delegados y observadores, la delegación de la republica de la india les tiende una grata bienvenida a todos los presentes

“El hombre no será sabio hasta que resuelva toda clase de conflictos con las armas de la mente y no con las físicas.”

Werner Braun

Como representante de la delegación de la republica de la india, tengo el honor de dirigirme a la mesa general con el fin de expresar nuestra profunda preocupación por los grandes conflictos que se han presentado en el pasado siglo xx .

Es muy importante para la delegación de la republica de la india poner en expuesto su infinito desacuerdo; con actos tales como lo son un genocidio o un conflicto entre naciones ,en donde infortunadamente las armas y las fuerzas militares son el apoyo de defensa y protección de aquellos que quieren hacer evidente factores como la soberanía , ligado a la violencia, el vandalismo , y otros factores que con el paso del tiempo han incrementado aun mas ,al punto de convertirlo en la principal causa de muchas de las dificultades que presentan hoy en día cada una de nuestra delegaciones .

Siempre teniendo en cuenta que como pertenecientes de las naciones unidas , estamos en todo el deber de solucionar y evitar aquellos acontecimientos que afectan la buena relación en nuestras delegaciones .teniendo presente nuestras prioridades , necesidades y nuestras nuevas medidas , siendo estos un eje de desarrollo en el momento de expresar sus posiciones y opiniones , solo cabe recordar el propósito por el cual estamos aquí , para que en su final se obtengan buenos resultados , claros y concisos.

Honourable Members of the Board of Directors, delegates and observers, the delegation of the Republic of india tends les a pleasant welcome to everyone

"The man will not be wise until it meets all sorts of conflicts with the weapons of the mind and not the physical."

Werner Braun

As a representative of the delegation of it the Republic of india, I have the honour of addressing the general table in order to express our deep concern about the great conflicts that have arisen in the past 20th century.

It is very important for the delegation of the Republic of india put in exposed his infinite disagreement; with acts such as they do a genocide or a conflict between Nations, where unfortunately the weapons and military forces are the support of defence and protection of those who want to make obvious factors such as sovereignty, linked to violence, vandalism, and other factors than with the passage of time have increased even more, to the point of turning it into the main cause of many of the difficulties that are today each one of our delegations.

Always keeping in mind that as members of the United Nations, we are all duty to solve and avoid those events that affect the good relationship in our present .teniendo delegations our priorities, needs, and our new measures, these being an axis of development at the time of expressing their positions and opinions, only mention the purpose for which we are here , so that in its final obtained good results, clear and concise.