February 14, 1992
Enclosed herewith please find Application Instituting Proceedings.
George Pierre, Foreign Minister
Bruce Clark, Agent
HOLLAND, FRANCE, ENGLAND, SPAIN and PORTUGAL, GUYANA, BRAZIL, BOLIVIA, VENEZUELA, EQUADOR, COLUMBIA AND PERU
SIR: The undersigned, Bruce Clark, LLB, MA, PH.D. (Law), has the honour to submit to the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings on behalf of the aforesaid applicant against the aforesaid respondents and to require the Registrar of the said Court forthwith to communicate the said application as dictated by Articles 40(2) and 40(3) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and Articles 26(1)(a), 29(1), 38(4), 42, 43, 73(2) and 74 of the Rules of the Court.
1. during the imperialist invasion of the Americas the European nations and their successors and assigns agreed amongst themselves, and with native nations, to claim a pre-emptive right to acquire from the native nations titles in possession, while nonetheless respecting upon the condition of consent the natives'previously established liberty and state right;
2. no such consent, nor any conquest, exists, such as in law is capable of having effected a surrender of the territory constituting Amazonia;
3. the place identified as Table Mountain is geographically situate within Amazonia and is legally and effectively occupied, and defended by force of arms against invasion and trespass, by the applicant;
4. the respondents purport to enjoy rights, titles, jurisdictions or state rights that conflict with the aforesaid liberty and state right of the applicant; and
5. by declaration dated 14 February 1992 and filed with the Secretary General of the United Nations the applicant has perfected its locus standi in this Honourable Court;
ACCORDINGLY, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMAZONIA ASKS THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:
6. that the applicant has exclusive liberty, state right and juridical jurisdiction in and over the said place identified as Table Mountain;
7. that the respondents are under an international law obligation to respect the said liberty, state right and juridical jurisdiction;
8. that, in order to prevent the genocide of the applicant pending disposition of this preliminary point of international jurisidictional law, no domestic court ought unilaterally and by force majeure to exercise jurisdiction except with the approbation of this Court, and then only upon such terms respecting comity and security as to this honourable Court shall seem just and reasonable to recommend pursuant to Statute Article 41 and Rules Articles 73 and 74.
The undersigned has been appointed by the Government of Amazonia as its Agent for the purpose of this application and all proceedings thereon.
The address for service at the seat of the Court to which all communications relating to the case should be sent is to Gerardt Brand St. 6 hs, 1054 JJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bruce Clark - Agent
I, George Pierre, the undersigned Amazonia representative, certify the authenticity of the above signature of Dr. Bruce Clark, Agent of Amazonia.
George Pierre - Foreign Minister
2. Its specific maxims; nemo potest esse simul actor et judex (no one can be at the same time suitor and judge), ex turpi causa non oritur actio (fraud vitiates all) and nemo dat quod non habe (one can not give what one does not have).
3. Papal Bull Sublimus Deus, 1535. The preceding principles of law apply to the situation of the native nations in the Americas.
4. Surinam Treaty, 1687. The law has on occasion induced particular commensurate arrangements.
5. ICPR OP articles 1 and 10, ICPR articles 1(1)-(3), 27, 40, 47 and 50, CG article 2, ICES articles 1(1)-(3), 25 and 28, and UDHR articles 8 and 15. The principles of self-determination, the presumptive continuity of existing law, equal application, and the illegality of crimes against mankind and nature, are binding everywhere the rule of law applies on earth.
6. An Act for Preventing Frauds and regulating Abuses in the Plantation Trade 1696 chapt. 22 (GB) section 12. The laws enacted by imperial governments with reference to the constitution of colonial government jurisdictions are paramount over conflicting laws enacted by those colonial governments.
7. Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1773), in Clark, 'Native Liberty', 39-45. Native nations in the Americas occupying territory beyond the treaty frontier are juristically sovereign bodies politic; that is, "states" for juridical purposes.
8. Campbell v. Hall (1774), 98 ER 848,895-9: Only an imperial government can change this juridical status quo, and then only in conformity with previous international law commitments. (Thus, for example, the government of Holland in 1975 could not in contravention of the Surinam Treaty, 1687 legally have constituted a state designated "Surinam")
9. Cameron v. Kyte (1835), 12 ER 679, 682-4: A subordinate colonial government can not unilaterally change this juridical status quo.
10. St. Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. v. R. (1887), 13 SCR 577, 621, St. Catherine's Milling & Lumber Co. V. R. (1888), 14 AC 46(PC), 54, AG Can. v. AG Ont.,  AC 199 (PC), 204-5, 210-11, AG BC v. AG Can.  AC 153 (PC), 163-5, 169-72, R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,  2 ALL ER 118 (CA), 125: The protection of the previously established law respecting the inherent human right of self-determination and the continuity of national sovereignty can be relinquished, but not involuntarily taken, with respect to native American nations nonetheless than with respect to nations upon other continents.
11. Clark, B. Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self-Government in Canada. (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1990). Since colonial government policy is legally incapable of superseding constitutional and international law, the continuity of the native self-government jurisdiction survives even an inconsistent and long standing practice on the part of colonial governments that ignores the natives' juridical independence.
February 14, 1992.