You are on page 1of 2

Executive Order (E.O. 1225) remains valid and enforceable.

Respondents order for the Algeoans to leave Oducado does not violate International Law. E.O. 1225 does not violate International Law given that it is in valid exercise of Respondents sovereignty. Under the principle of sovereignty, a state has the right to promulgate and enforce laws within its defined territory, especially on matters of national interest. At the same time, E.O. 1225 is not in violation of the principle of non-refoulement since the said principle does not apply to the Algeoans. Following the definition provided by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Ref ugees, the Alegeoans are not refugees. Even assuming that the principle of non-refoulement applies, E.O. 1225 falls under the exception to the obligation to the right to movement since it was issued by reasons of national security and public order. Moreover, Applicants claim, that its citizens should be allowed to continue to migrate to Rapzire as compensation for the alleged damages caused by Respondents coal-mining activities, is untenable for a number of reasons. First, the alleged bleaching of the Kristiu reefs and the hastened submersion of the islands are not attributable to the Respondent. Second, the Respondent did not violate any of its international obligations relating to environment by complying with the international standards in adopting environmental safety measure following the precautionary principle. Moreover, given that the increase in coal mining was borne by reasons of necessity, the interests of the Respondent and Applicant must be weighed and balanced. A balance between sovereignty over natural resources and the environmental concerns must be attained. However, even assuming that Respondent is in violation of its international obligations, the claim of Applicant, that immigration is compensation, is untenable given that compensation generally takes the form of monetary compensation under International Law. With these, E.O. 1225 is indubitably valid and enforceable under International Law.

Applicants breach of the Rapzire-Algeo Bilateral Business Investment Treaty (RABBIT) is in violation of International Law. The principle of pacta sunt servanda, as enshrined in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, provides that treaty obligations must be complied with in good faith. Applicant violated the stipulations of RABBIT in two ways. First, Applicants default on the bonds constitutes indirect expropriation as defined by RABBIT. In this case, the indirect expropriation was invalid given that applicant failed to pay just compensation without delay and is in itself a breach of Article 15 of the RABBIT. In any case, Applicant still committed expropriation following the definition in... Moreover, such violation constitutes an internationally wrongful act under the Articles of State Responsibility on Internationally Wrongful Acts. By virtue of such violations, Applicant should make reparations through monetary compensation or, in case they are unable to pay, through payment in kind by turning over the ownership of the artificial island, Tagleped. The principle of state necessity does not preclude the need to make reparations. Even assuming that the circumstances of Algeo were grave at the time of the breach, present conditions indicate that the said grave circumstances have ceased.