241. The Court will rule on the objections raised by the Respondent State, before examining, if necessary, the other admissibility requirements not in contention. i. Objection alleging the incompatibility of the Application with the Constitutive Act of the AU 242. The Respondent State asserts that the Application is incompatible with the provisions of the Constitutive Act of the AU and is, therefore, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Protocol and Article 56(2) of the Charter and Rule 50(2)(b) of the Rules. It contends that the Constitutive Act is the principal instrument governing relations between Member States of the African Union and that, accordingly, the Charter and Protocols adopted by the AU, including the Protocol, must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure consistency with the Constitutive Act. 243. For the Respondent State, an interpretation of the aforementioned instruments implies an assessment of consistency with the Charter as well as with the Constitutive Act, particularly in the case of inter-State applications. An application lodged by a State must, therefore, be compatible with the provisions of the Constitutive Act. In examining the admissibility of an inter-State application, the Respondent State submits, that the Court must ensure its compatibility with the principles and objectives of the Constitutive Act. 244. The Respondent State argues that the principles of the African Union, enshrined in Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitutive Act, include peace, security, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The objective and responsibility of the African Union, as contained in Article 3(b) and (f) of the Constitutive Act, include “defending the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States” and “promoting peace, security and stability on the Continent”. 56