The destruction of Chiquita monument constitute the breach of international law

If the Court holds that the sovereignty over the Shutka Islands belong to the Banana Republic, the destruction of the Chuquita monument constitutes the aggression against the Banana Republic, the breach of sovereignty and the breach of international human rights law.

Alternatively, if the Court holds that the sovereignty over the Shutka Islands belongs to the PRC, the destruction of Chiquita monument constitute the breach of obligation not to destroy cultural heritage and the breach of international human rights law.

Under international law states have a "sovereign authority over property within its own territory."[38]

However, contemporary international law changed and the states' authority over cultural property is not unlimited.

The ICTY statute lists several crimes against property, including wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity, plunder of public or private property, and seizure or destruction of cultural property.[39] The ICTY in the Prosecutor v. Kordic & Cerkez case pointed out that the initial destruction of religious buildings "manifests a nearly pure expression of the notion of ‘crimes against humanity,’ for all humanity is indeed injured by the destruction of a unique religious culture and its concomitant cultural objects”[40] and stated that it is a criminal violation of customary international law.

CESCR in its General Commentary №21 stated that “[c]ultural heritage must be preserved, developed, enriched and transmitted to future generations as a record of human experience and aspirations, in order to encourage creativity in all its diversity and to inspire a genuine dialogue between cultures.”[41]

One of the recent documents relevant to the current claim is The UNESCO Declaration Concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage:

" A State that intentionally destroys or intentionally fails to take appropriate measures to prohibit, prevent, stop, and punish any intentional destruction of cultural heritage of great importance for humanity, whether or not it is inscribed on a list maintained by UNESCO or another international organization, bears the responsibility for such destruction, to the extent provided for by international law." [42]

The list of international documents reaffirms the existence of opinio juris among states.

Coupled with state practice[43] it proves the existence of customary rule prohibiting the intentional destruction of cultural heritage in peace- and war-time.

This rule is applicable in our case because the PRC intentionally destroyed Chiquita monument[44], and the PRC knew that it was a cultural and religious site.

Thus, the PRC violated the customary international law ruling prohibiting states to destroy the cultural heritage intentionally.

The violations of international law are attributable to the PRC.