You are on page 1of 40

TEAM CODE: ‘E’

IN THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS




YEAR 2011

THE CASE CONCERNING CONFLICTING ORDERS OF THE COURTS OF
BOLITA AND GARUNDI




THE REPUBLIC OF BOLITA (APPLICANT)
V.
THE REPUBLIC OF GARUNDI (RESPONDENT)



ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT STATE

- REPUBLIC OF BOLITA-



D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................I
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................XI
STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................XII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED...................................................................................... XIV
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................XV
BODY OF ARGUMENTS
1 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE.......................................................................................1
1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY...............................................................................1
1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH OTHER’S
COURTS............................................................................................................................3
1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMITY FOR EACH OTHER’S LAWS......................4
1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY CONTRACT.....5
1.2.1 THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW ...............5
1.2.2 THE TRANSACTION HAS ITS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT
STATE’S LAW.................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
TREATY LAW......................................................................................................................7
TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
1.3.1 INTERNAL LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICY DO NOT INVALIDATE INTERNATIONAL TREATY
OBLIGATIONS...................................................................................................................8
1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE
LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE..........................................................................................9
2 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE.........................................................................................11
2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING EMILY‟S CUSTODY
DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY...................................................................................11
2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND
HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF HER CUSTODY..................12
3 THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION TO
HAND OVER JANE AND JANET...............................................................................17
3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARREST WARRANT
ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE...........................................................17
3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE THAT THE
RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET...........................................................19
4 ARGUENDO, THE RESPONDENT STATE’S COURTS CAN NOT ACCORD
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL................................................................................20

PRAYERS...........................................................................................................................XVII

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
I
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

UN DOCUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS
PAGE
NO.
Convention on The Rights Of The Child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No.
49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989)
16, 17
United Nations Charter, as amended June 26, 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119 9
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR
Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989)
9, 17,
20
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21
UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 993 UNTS 3; 6 ILM 368 (1967)
9, 17
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA res. 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) 9, 17,
20
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842. 8, 9
American Dredging Co. v. Miller, (1994) 510 U.S. 443, 449 n. 2. 5
Amin Shipping Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1983] 2 ALL ER 884, [1983] 3 WLR
241
5
Anonymous v. Anonymous, (1964) 41 Misc. 2d 886, 246 N.Y.S.2d 835 10
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), [2007] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 160 ff
1
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations
Headquarters Agreement case, [1988] I.C.J. Rep.
8
ARY Jewelers v. Krigel, 277 Kan. 464, 481, 85 P.3d 1151 (2004) 7
Attn. Gen. v Rowe [1862] 1 H. & C.31 14
B.P. Exploration Co. (Libya) v. Hunt, [1983] 2 A.C. 352 (H.L. 1981) 3
Bailey v. South Carolina Inc. Co., (1813) 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread. Const.) 381, 415 3
Barcelo v. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd., (1932) 48 C.L.R. 391 6
Bates v. Bates, (1930) 53 Nev. 77, 292 P. 298 3
Beagle Channel case, [1977] HMSO at 12; 52 ILR 93 2
Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319 14
Belsito v. Clark (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E.2d 760 10
Bennett v. Hymers, (N.H. 1958) 147 A.2d 10
Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, [1951] AC 201 (Privy Council) 8
British Controlled Oilfields v. Stagg, [1921] 1 Lloyd‟s Rep. 613 6
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
II
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Brown v. Gadson, (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) 654 S.E.2d 179 7
Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd. (1932) 285 U.S. 413, 422 5
Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship
Of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55
1, 8
Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant Of 11 April 2000 (D.R.C. v. Bel) [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 18
Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France, (1929) PCIJ,
Ser.A, no. 20
5
Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits), (1926) PCIJ Series A, No. 7 8
Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands Co., (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 (C.A.) 5
Coast Lines Ltd. v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, [1972] 1 ALL ER 451 5, 7
Cohen v. Cohen, (Sup. Ct. 1993) 602 N.Y.S.2d 994, 998 15
Commonwealth v. Cass, (Mass. 1984) 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1330 11
Commonwealth v. Morris, (Ky. 2004) 142 S.W.3d 656 10
Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation S.A. v. Compagnie d’Armement Maritime S.A., [1971]
A.C 572
5
Compania Mexicana Rediodifusora Franteriza v. Spann, (N.D. Tex. 1941) 41 F.Supp 907,
908-09, aff'd (5th Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 609
9
Coulborn v. Joseph, (1943) 195 Ga. 723, 25 S.E.2d 576 3
D’Etchegoyen v. D’Etchegoyen [1888] 13 PD 132 14
David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991) 16
Davis v. Davis, (Tenn. 1992) 842 S.W.2d 588, 597-98 6, 9
DeYoung v. DeYoung, (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 521, 165 P.2d 457 3
Deva Prasad Reddy v. Kamini Reddy, AIR 1985 GUJ 187 3
Doe v. Attorney Gen., (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) 487 N.W.2d 484 9
Dr. Padmini Mishra v. Dr. R. C. Mishra, AIR 1991 Ori 263 4
E v E [1998] 2 FLR 980 16
Eisenstadt v. Baird, (1972) 405 U.S. 438 9
Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Welgrow Int'l Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 954 F. Supp. 101, 104 3
Findlay v Findlay (No 2) [1995] SLT 492. 15
Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), [1973] I.C.J. Rep. 9
Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan. App. 2d 890, Syl. P4, 159 P.3d 1042
(2007)
7
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, (1932) PCIJ Series A/B, No. 46 8
Friedrich v. Friedrich, (6th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 15
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 9
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
III
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Co, (1947) 330 U.S. 5
Grant v Grant, (1931) S.C. 238 10, 13
Greco-Bulgarian Communities, (1930) PCIJ Series B, No. 17 8
Greenshields Inc. v. Johnston, (1981) 119 D.L.R. (3
rd
) 714 8
Harben v. Harben, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 261 10
Hilton v. Guyot, (1895) 159 U.S. 113 4, 9
Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320 6, 7
Hope v. Hope, (1854) a DeG.M. & G. 328 10, 13
Hornbuckle v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., (Ga. 1956) 93 S.E.2d 727 10
Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya), (N.D. Tex. 1980) 492 F. Supp. 885 3
In re C.K.G., (Tenn. 2005) 173 S.W.3d 714 6
In Re Callaghan [1948] NZLR 846. 11
In re Doe, (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2005) 793 N.Y.S.2d 878 6
In Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd’s Claim, [1956] Ch 323, [1956] 1 ALL ER 129 (Chancery
Division)
8
In Re Jones’ Estate [1921] 192 Iowa 78, 182 NW 227 14
In RE K (Abduction: Consent : Forum Conveniens) [1995] 2 FLR 211, CA 15
In re M.K.H., 169 P.3d at 1031-32. 7
In Re Marriage of Adams, 133 Ill. 2d 437, 447, 551 N.E.2d 635, 141 Ill. Dec. 448 (1990) 7
In re Marriage of Buzzanca, (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 282 6
In Re A (Minors) [1996] 1 WLR 25 15
In Re P (GE) (an infant), [1965] 3 ALL ER 977 10, 13
In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL
4304448
6
In re Rutherford's Estate, 182 Misc. 1019, 46 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sur. Ct. 1944) 3
In Re Salaman [1908] 1 Ch 4 11
In re United Railways of Havana v. Warehouses Ltd., [1960] Ch, 52, 91 (C.A.) 7
In Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 324 (C.A.) 10, 13
In Re Y (minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136 14
In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685 14
In The Interest of K.M.H., (2007) 169 P.3d 6
In the Interest of O.G.M., A Child, (Tex. Civ. App., 1st Dist., 1999) 988 S.W. 2d 473 10
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger, (7th Cir. 1987) 833 F.2d 680, 685 11
Iran v. USA, Case No. A/18, 5 Iran–US CTR 2
Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, (1884) 12 QBD 589 (Court of Appeal) 7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
IV
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Jesse Lewis (U.S.) v. Gr. Br. (David J. Adams case), (1921) 6 RIAA 85; 1 AD 2
John and Jane D. v. Regents of the University Of California, (2003) WL 21956362 (C.A.9) 20
Johnson v. Calvert, (Cal. 1993) 851 P.2d 776 6
Jopp v Wood [1865] 4 D.J. & S.616 14
Kane v. Central Am. Mining & Oil, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 235 F. Supp. 559 3
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. 1, 2
Kass v. Kass, (App. Div. 1998) 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174 6
Kelly v. Gregory, (N.Y. 1953) 125 N.Y.S.2d 696, 698 10
La Société du Gaz de Paris v. Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Français”,
[1925] 23 Lloyd's List. Rep. 209, 213 (Sess.)
5
Lagos v Baggianini, [1955] 22 ILR 533 17
Laker Airways v. Sabena, (1984) 731 F.2d 909 18
Lamaritata v. Lucas, (Fla. Ct. App. 2002) 823 So.2d 316 6
Lauritzen et al v Government of Chile, [1956] 23 ILR 70 17
Layne Christiansen Co. v. Zurich Canada, 30 Kan. App. 2d 128, 141-42, 38 P.3d 757
(2002)
7
Liechtenstein v Guatamela (Nottebohm Case), [1955] I.C.J. Rep 17
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America (Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie)
[1992] I.C.J. Rep.
8
Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 146 Wn. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261 6, 11
Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), European Court of Human Rights, Series A,
No. 310
2
Lloyd v. Guibert, (1865) LR 1 QB 115, 6 B & S 100 (Exchequer Chamber) 5
Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Manniben, AIR 2002 KAR 356 3
Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd.,(3d Cir.2006) 436 F.3d 349. 5
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), [1995] I.C.J. Rep.
1
May v. Roberts, (1930) 133 Ore. 643, 286 P. 546 3
McDonald v. McDonald, (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) 608 N.Y.S.2d 477 6
McM. V. C. (No. 2), [1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 27 10
Military and Paramilitary Activities Case, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 17
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, (Vt. 2006) 912 A.2d 951, 965-68 7
N. V. Handel Maatschappij J. Smits v. English Expoertes (Londaon) Ltd., [1955] 2 Lloyd‟s
Rep. 317
7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
V
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Neporany v. Kir, (1st Dep't 1958) 5 App. Div. 2d 438, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146 3
Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer (1998) 2 All ER 728 at 737, CA 14
Nike Informatic Systems Ltd. v. Avac Systems, (1979) 105 D.L.R. 3 rd 455 8
North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G./Den.; F.R.G./Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20) 17
Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 377 (8th Cir. 1995) 16
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), [2003] I.C.J. Rep. 2
Oral Pleadings of the United States, Question and Interpretation and Application of the
1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.),
Prelim. Obj., (Oct. 15, 1997)
20
Owens v. Bell (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 6 OBR 65, 67-68, 451 N.E.2d 10
Peal v Peal (1930) 46 T.L.R. 645 10, 13
People v. Sorensen, (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 280, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495 10
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Shand, (1865) 3 Moo PCC NS 272, 6 New
Rep 387
5, 7
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981) 5
Qureshi v. Qureshi (1972) Fam.173 14
Ramsay v Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588 14
Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethai Ltd., [1956] 2 Q.B. 490,514, 523 (C.A.). 8
Reino de Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459–60, 2008
A.M.C. 83 (S.D. N.Y. 2008)
1
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), [1952]
I.C.J. Rep.
2
Robert v. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] ALL ER 164 5, 6
Robert v. Sandbach Justices, ex p Smith, [1951] 1 KB 62. 13
Royal Trustco Ltd. v. Campeau Corp. (1981) 118 D.L.R. (3
rd
) 207 8
Russian Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N. Y. 255. as quoted in “Comity” 12 Va. L. Rev. 353 4
Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8
th
Cir. 1995) 16
Sayers v. International Drilling Co., [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1176, 1187 (C.A.). 7
Showlag v. Mansour, [1995] 1 A.C. 431 (P.C. 1994) (appeal taken from Jersey) (U.K.) 3
Smith v. Brennan, (N.J. 1960)157 A.2d 497 10
Somportex, Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp, (3d Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 435, 440 4
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 1
Speranza v. Repro Lab Inc., (1st Dept. 2009) 62 A.D.3d 49, 52-55, 875 N.Y.S.2d 449 6
Strnad v. Strnad, (Sup. Ct. 1948) 190 Misc. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390 10
Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 736, 100 L. Ed. 2d 743, 108 S. Ct. 2117 (1988). 7
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
VI
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Systems Design v. Kansas City P.O. Employees Cred. Union, 14 Kan. App. 2d 266, 269, 788
P.2d 878 (1990)
7
Taintor (1940) 18 Can BR 10
Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), [1994] I.C.J. Rep. 1
The Abidin Daver, [1984] 1 A.C. 3
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 9 11
The Eleftheria, [1970] P 94, [1969] 2 ALL ER 4 (Admiralty Division). 6
The Italian National Re-extradition Case, [1970] 70 ILR 374 17
The State (Duggan) v Tapley, [1951] 18 ILR 109 17
Thomson v. Thomson, 119 D.R.4
th
253 (Can. 1994) 16
Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig
Territory (1932) PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44
8
Tzortzis v. Monark Line, A/B [1968] 1 W.L.R. 406, 411 (C.A.) 6
Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc 10, 13
U.S. v. Stuart, 1989-1 C.B. 312, 489 U.S. 353, 368, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas.
(CCH) P 9185, 63 A.F.T.R.2d 89-681 (1989)
2
United States v. Ahmed Amer, 110 F.3d at 873 20
Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936). 3, 17
Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78. 81-82 (D. Mass 1994) 15, 16
Weckstrom v. Hyson, [1966] V.R. 277 7
Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777 11
Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc., 269 Kan. 194, 209-10, 4 P.3d 1149 (2000) 7
Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287 14
Young Loan Arbitration (Belg. v. FRG), [1980] 59 ILR 495 2
BOOKS, DIGESTS AND TREATISES
Alexander Orakhelashvili, The United Nations Convention Against Torture. A Commentary.
Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University
Press: 2009) (2009) 20 EJIL 457.
19
David McClean, ed., Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 4
th
ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell,
1993)
12
Ernst Rabel, The conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, 2
nd
ed. (1958-64) vol. 1 13
Falconbridge, Conflict of Laws, 5
th
ed 5
Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge:
1986)
2
Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 18
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
VII
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
(Cambridge University Press: 1996)
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6
th
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1979)
4, 17,
19, 20
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834) 4
J. H. C. Morris and P. M. North, eds., Cases and Materials on Private International Law,
(London: Butterworths, 1984)
7
James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International Law: Essays in
Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
4, 18
Lauterpacht ed., Hersch Lauterpacht International Law Collected Papers, (Cambridge:
1970) vol. 1
4
Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11
th
ed. (London:
Stevens & Limited, 1987)
10, 13,
14
M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty To Extradite
Or Prosecute In International Law (1995)
19
M. Cherif Bassiouni, Foreword to Treaty Enforcement and International Cooperation in
Criminal Matters, Rodrigo Yepes- Enríquez & Lisa Tabassi eds. (2002)
19
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6
th
ed. (Cambridge: 2008) 10
Marc Henzelin, Le Principe de l’Universalité en Droit Pénal International: Droit et
Obligation pour les États de Poursuivre et Juger selon le Principe de l’Universalité, (2000)
19
P.E. Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia, 6
th
ed., (1995) 14
P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed.
(LexisNexis Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999)
10, 13
Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et seq 13
Perry v. Ponder, (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1980) 604 S.W.2d 306 13
R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law 9
th
ed. (1992) vol. 1 1, 17
Rancis Wharton, A Treatise On The Conflict Of Laws 2d ed. (1881) 4
Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 1
Ronald F. Roxburgh, ed. Oppenhiem’s International Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook
Exchange, Ltd., 2005) vol. 1
19
Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 6
th
ed. (Oxon: Professional Books
Limited, 1976)
2
TREATIES AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc.
CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982)
9, 20
American Convention on Human Rights, OAS Treaty Series No. 36; 1144 UNTS 123
(1969)
9, 20
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
VIII
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, 1950 9, 20
European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of
Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, (20 May, 1980) Eur T.S. 105
15
EC, Convention of 10
th
June 2009 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of
Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5
12
Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement
and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of
Children, [1996] O.J. L 48/3
15, 16
EC, Convention of 1998 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments
in the Matrimonial Matters ( Brussels II), [1998] OJ C221/2
14
EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of
parental responsibility, [2003] O.J. L 338
12, 16
EC, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction And The
Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2000] O.J.
L 12
12
EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments
In Civil And Commercial Matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC
12
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention Concerning the Powers
of Authorities and the Law Applicable in Respect of the Protection of Infants, 5 October
1961, UNTS 1969, pp. 145 ff.
12, 15,
16
International Law Commission’s Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States,
G.A.Res. 375 (IV) of 6 December 1949
1
Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on the International Return of
Children, 15 July 1989, OAS, Treaty Series, No. 70
16
The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 5, 6
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (May 23, 1969) U.N. Doc. A./CONF. 39/27
(1971)
1, 2, 8,
17
ARTICLES AND JOURNALS
Anastasia Grammaticaki-Alexiou, “ARTs and Conflict of Laws”, 60 La. L. Rev. 1113. 20
Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Breard: Court to Court” (1998) 92 A.J.I.L. 708 11
A. Alexander, “Foreign Judgments ––Under the Comity of Nations”, (1928-1929) 17 Geo.
L. J. 221
4
Catherine Heard, “The New European Extradition System” (2009) 25 No. 10 Int'l Efrcmt L.
Rep. 398
18
Donna M. Sheinbach, “Examining Disputes Over Ownership Rights To Frozen Embryos” 10
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
IX
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
(1999) 48 Cath. U.L. Rev. 989.
Fischer, “Misappropriation of Human Eggs And Embryos And The Tort Of Conversion: A
Relational View,” 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 381, 420-423 (1999)
20
Hans Smit, “International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”, (1962) 9 UCLA L. REV.
44, 53
4
Jacqueline D. Golub, “The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act Of 1993: The
United States' Attempt To Get Our Children Back” (1999) 24 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 797
20
Jan Komárek, “European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: In Search of
the Limits of “Contrapuntal Principles” (2007) 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9
18
Janet Walker, “Foreign Public Law And The Colour Of Comity: What's The Difference
Between Friends?” (2003) 38 Can. Bus. L.J. 36
19
Joseph T. Latronica, American Jurisprudence Treaties 2d. ed. 74 Am. Jur. 2
L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002), 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 4, 18
“Major „Minor‟ Progress Under The Third Pillar: EU Institution Building In The Sharing Of
Criminal Record Information” (2008) 8 Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 111.
18
N. Jansen Calamita, “Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International
Parallel Proceedings”, (2006) 27 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 601
3
“Note, Power to Stay Federal Proceedings Pending Termination of Concurrent State
Litigation”, (1950) 59 Yale L.J. 978, 983
3
Peter Pfund, “The Hague Conference Celebrates Its 100th Anniversary” (1993) 28 Tex. Int'l
L.J. 531
14
“Rebus Revisited: Changed Circumstances in Treaty Law” (2005) 43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.
459
9
Richard D. Kearney and Robert E. Dalton, “The Treaty on Treaties” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int‟l
Law 495
1
Rosenne, “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law
Commission‟s Draft Articles: A Comparison,” (1966) 5 Col. J. Transnat‟l Law 205, 221.
1
Sonia Bychkov Green, “Interstate Intercourse: How Modern Assisted Reproductive
Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law” (2009) 24 Wis. J.L.
Gender & Soc'y 25.
6
Symeon C. Symeonides, “Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007: Twenty-First
Annual Survey”, (2007) 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 301
6
Ved P. Nanda, “Bases for Refusing International Extradition Requests: Capital Punishment
and Torture” (2000) 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1369.
19
Willis Reese, “The Hague Conference on Private International Law” (1985) 19 Int'l Law
881
14
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
X
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
MISCELLANEOUS
Alabama Claims arbitration, J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations (New York: 1898) vol.
1
8
Child Support Act 1991 (U.K.), 1991 c. 48 14
Conference organized by CLT Scotland, Resolving The Problems Of Jurisdiction In Family
Law, Brussels II And Points West, Janys M. Scott, Advocate, (Scotland, 26 October 2005).
12
Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings, 10 December 2001, 14867/1/01
REV I COPEN 79 CATS 50
18
Council Framework Decision on Taking Account of Convictions in the Member States of
the European Union in the Course of New Criminal Proceedings COM(2005/0018 (CNS), 2
July 2007.
18
Domicile Acts 1982 (Cth.). (Australia) 14
Domicile Act 1976 (N.Z.), 1976/0017 (New Zealand) 14
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K.) 1973 c.45 14
Explanatory report on the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child
abduction, 1980 by Eliza Perez-Vera (Madrid, April 1981)
16
Family Law Act 1986 (U.K.), 1986 c. 55 14
ILC Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, 1966, Yrbk. ILC vol. 2 1
ILC Report on aut dedere aut judicare, Amnesty International Publications, (2009) 19
Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3, 11
Indian Draft Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill & Rules, (2008) 10
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (1993) 18 U.S.C. 1204 20
Letter from Elihu Root, Secretary of State, to Victor H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce
and Labor (Mar. 16, 1906), in 288 Domestic Letters Of The Department Of State, cited in
Green H. Hackworth, Digest Of International Law (1942)
4
Louisiana Civil Code (1986) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:124-125 10
Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10
(A/59/10)
19
The Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties (1935) 29 Am. J. Int‟l Law Supp. 653 8


STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XI
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Applicant, the Republic of Bolita, on one side, and the Respondent, the Republic of
Garundi on the other, have submitted by Special Agreement their differences, pursuant to
Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Therefore, both
parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Statute of the
Court.


STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XII
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Economic Union Treaty: Bolita and Garundi two developing countries formed an
economic union in 1978 which provided for respect and comity for each other‟s laws and
recognition and enforcement of orders of each other‟s courts. International law is recognized
by the Constitutions of both nations as one of the sources of law in the interpretation of
domestic laws.
Citizenship Rules of Bolita and Garundi: Under Bolitian Laws, a child is a citizen of
Bolita if he is born in Bolita or he is born outside of Bolita but to Bolitian citizens. Children
born outside of Bolita to couples where only one parent is Bolitian are not entitled to
citizenship unless the Bolitian parent is resident in Bolita at the time of delivery. Garundian
Laws state that a child born in Garundi is a citizen of Garundi if its mother is a citizen of
Garundi. Children born outside of Garundi are citizens of Garundi if their parents are
Garundian citizens.
The Surrogacy Contract: Jane Rathna, a Garundian citizen travelled to Bolita in 1992 and
decided to work there. She married John Botisa in 1992 and had a daughter, Emily.
Complications led Jane to undergo a hysterectomy rendering her unfit to bear any more
children. In 2003, John and Jane froze their sperm and eggs, hoping to have future children
by means of in vitro fertilization. In 2006, John and Jane trusted Janet Rathna (Jane‟s sister -
a Garundian citizen) to carry the baby to term. As per their surrogacy contract, Janet was to
deliver the child in Bolita – for the child to clearly be a citizen of Bolita, but, in her final
trimester, Janet decided to fly back to Garundi due to family reasons for a few days. Soon
after, she developed complications, went into labour and delivered a baby boy – Robert, in
Garundi. Jane and Emily immediately travelled to Garundi to bring Robert back to Bolita.
STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XIII
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
Breach of the Surrogacy Contract: The concept of was surrogacy was unknown in
Garundi. Janet came under tremendous local political and religious pressure not to hand over
the child to Jane. John flew into Garundi to take Emily back to Bolita. Despite strong protests
John had to fly back to Bolita without Emily, as Jane insisted that Emily remain in Garundi
until the matter was resolved. Meanwhile, Janet filed with the Registrar of Births in Garundi
as the mother of the child, naming the child Robert Rathna and declaring the father to be
“unknown”. Her refusal to hand over Robert to Jane resulted in friction between the sisters as
well as in Jane and John‟s relationship.
Conflicting Orders of the Courts of Bolita and Garundi: John filed for the specific
performance of the Surrogacy contract with Janet in Bolita. The court pronounced an ex parte
interim order declaring itself to have jurisdiction as per the surrogacy contract and ordering
Janet to appear before the court within 30 days with Robert for the matter to be resolved as
per the terms of the contract. John also initiated legal proceedings before the courts in
Garundi for an order to compel Janet to appear before the courts in Bolita. Janet filed
objections between the courts in Garundi stating that she should not be compelled to travel to
Bolita as the child was a citizen of Garundi. Janet also filed objections before the courts in
Bolita, stating that they had no jurisdiction over the child. John in the meantime filed a claim
before the courts in Bolita requesting that Jane be compelled to hand over custody of Emily
to him. Jane entered objections before the Bolitian courts. Jane then filed for custody of
Emily with the Garundian courts.
Criminal Proceedings: John‟s lawyers initiated criminal proceedings against Jane and Janet
in the Bolitian courts for kidnapping and stealing genetic material respectively. The Bolitian
courts issued arrest warrants to ensure attendance and appearance of Jane and Janet. Bolitian
authorities were considering requesting Garundi to hand over Jane and Janet to face trial
under the economic union treaty.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XIV
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1 WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND
WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO
DETERMINE ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE?

2 WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND
WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO
DETERMINE EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE?

3 WHETHER THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATION TO HAND OVER JANE AND JANET?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XV
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE
1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY
1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH
OTHER‟S COURTS
1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMITY FOR EACH OTHER‟S LAWS
1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY CONTRACT
1.2.1 THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW
1.2.2 THE TRANSACTION HAS ITS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT
STATE‟S LAW
1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
TREATY LAW
1.3.1 INTERNAL LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICY DO NOT INVALIDATE INTERNATIONAL TREATY
OBLIGATIONS
1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION AND
APPLICABLE LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE
2 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
XVI
D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011
2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING EMILY‟S CUSTODY
DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY
2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND
HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF HER CUSTODY
3 THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION TO
HAND OVER JANE AND JANET
3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARREST WARRANT
ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE
3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE THAT THE
RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET
4 ARGUENDO, THE RESPONDENT STATE’S COURTS CAN NOT ACCORD
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
1
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE
1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY
It is humbly submitted that E U treaty is applicable to the present issue. A treaty in force is
binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.
1
The devotion of
states to this principle of pacta sunt servanda is underscored by the travaux préparatoires of
the VCLT.
2
These rules are regarded by international courts as customary international law.
3

Further, a treaty must also be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and
purpose.
4
However, the object and purpose of a treaty cannot be used to alter the clear
meaning of terms in the treaty.
5
Emphasis lies on the actual text
6
and the words of the

1
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (May 23, 1969) U.N. Doc. A./CONF. 39/27 (1971), reprinted in 63
AM. J. INT'L L. 875, 876 (1969) Art. 26 [Vienna Conv.]; the ILC Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties,
1966, Yrbk. ILC vol. 2 at 210-11, Art 23; International Law Commission’s Draft Declaration on Rights and
Duties of States, G.A.Res. 375 (IV) of 6 December 1949 Art 13; McNair, Law of Treaties, ch 30; Case
Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants (Netherlands
v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 (Declaration of Judge Kojevnikov).
2
Richard D. Kearney and Robert E. Dalton, “The Treaty on Treaties” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int‟l Law 495 at 516.
3
Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 16.
4
Vienna Conv. Art 31; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), [2007] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 160 ff.; Sovereignty over
Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. at 625, 645–6; Kasikili/Sedudu
Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. at 1045; Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad),
[1994] I.C.J. Rep. at 6, 21–2; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain), [1995] I.C.J. Rep. at 6, 18; R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International
Law 9
th
ed. (London: 1992) vol. 1at 1271.
5
Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 198; Reino de
Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459–60, 2008 A.M.C. 83 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
2
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

agreement.
7
If the words express the meaning of the contracting nations plainly, distinctly,
and perfectly, there ought to be no other means of interpretation.
8
Interpretation with extreme
deference to the sovereignty of states, the presumption being in favour of assuming that a
state intends to be bound by the least of any obligation which could be read from a provision
of doubtful content or ambiguous expression, is inconsistent with the principle of
effectiveness.
9
Generally, a treaty should be liberally construed consistent with its intent.
10

The word „context‟ is held to include the preamble and annexes of the treaty as well as any
agreement or instrument made by the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty.
11

Present-day state of scientific knowledge can be taken into account while interpreting a
treaty.
12
In the context of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights,
1955 recourse to the rules concerning the use of force is justified
13
under the provision
whereby any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties
shall be taken into account in interpreting a treaty.
14
Thus, E U treaty is applicable to a
dispute resultant from a surrogacy contract.

6
Rosenne, “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law Commission‟s Draft
Articles: A Comparison,” (1966) 5 Col. J. Transnat‟l Law 205, 221.
7
Gerald Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge: Grotius, 1986)
at 204–7.
8
Georg Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 6
th
ed. (Oxon: Professional Books Limited, 1976) at
134; Joseph T. Latronica, American Jurisprudence Treaties 2d. ed. 74 Am. Jur. § 24.
9
Lauterpacht, “Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties”
(1949) 26 BYIL 48; McNair, Law of Treaties at 345–50; Jesse Lewis (U.S.) v. Gr. Br. (David J. Adams case),
(1921) 6 RIAA 85; 1 AD, p. 331.
10
U.S. v. Stuart, 1989-1 C.B. 312, 489 U.S. 353, 368, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P 9185, 63
A.F.T.R.2d 89-681 (1989).
11
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America), [1952]
I.C.J. Rep. at 176, 196; the Beagle Channel case, [1977] HMSO at 12; 52 ILR 93; Young Loan Arbitration
(Belg. v. FRG), [1980] 59 ILR 495 at 530.
12
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. at 1045, 1060.
13
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), [2003] I.C.J. Rep. at 161, 182; Iran v.
USA, Case No. A/18, 5 Iran–US CTR at 251; Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), European Court of
Human Rights, Series A, No. 310 at 25; 103 ILR 6.
14
Vienna conv. Art 31(3) c.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
3
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNI TI ON AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH
OTHER’S COURTS
In effect an order of Applicant state‟s courts creates estoppel or res judicata between the
same parties
15
without any provisos.
16
When substantial rights are at stake, the court will be
wary to fill-in an omission.
17
Moreover, public interest requires that there be an end of
litigation.
18

Effective application of this provision of the E U Treaty requires that parallel proceedings
should not be conducted. Parallel proceedings carry the risk of inconsistent decisions in
different courts on the same issues between the same parties.
19
A stay of litigation minimizes
the risk of inconsistent judgments with respect to related claims
20
and enables the recognition
and enforcement of orders of each other‟s courts.
21
Additionally, “comity demands that such
a situation should not be permitted to occur …It is a recipe for confusion and injustice.”
22

Additionally where a party having opportunity fails to challenge the jurisdiction of the
foreign Court and allows it to be decided ex parte the presumption
23
can be taken that the

15
Cf Judgment of a foreign Court creates estoppel or res judicata between the same parties, provided such
Judgment is not subject to attack under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 – Indian Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908; Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Manniben, AIR 2002 KAR 356; Deva Prasad Reddy v.
Kamini Reddy, AIR 1985 GUJ 187.
16
Compromis ¶ 1.
17
Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936).
18
Bailey v. South Carolina Inc. Co., (1813) 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread. Const.) 381, 415 (opinion of Smith, J.); Coulborn
v. Joseph, (1943) 195 Ga. 723, 25 S.E.2d 576; Kane v. Central Am. Mining & Oil, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 235 F.
Supp. 559; DeYoung v. DeYoung, (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 521, 165 P.2d 457; Neporany v. Kir, (1st Dep't 1958) 5
App. Div. 2d 438, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146; In re Rutherford's Estate, 182 Misc. 1019, 46 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sur. Ct.
1944); Bates v. Bates, (1930) 53 Nev. 77, 292 P. 298; May v. Roberts, (1930) 133 Ore. 643, 286 P. 546.
19
N. Jansen Calamita, “Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel
Proceedings”, (2006) 27 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 601 at 611.
20
Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Welgrow Int'l Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 954 F. Supp. 101, 104.
21
Compromis ¶ 1.
22
The Abidin Daver, [1984] 1 A.C. at 412; Showlag v. Mansour, [1995] 1 A.C. 431 (P.C. 1994) (appeal taken
from Jersey) (U.K.); Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya), (N.D. Tex. 1980) 492 F. Supp. 885; B.P. Exploration
Co. (Libya) v. Hunt, [1983] 2 A.C. 352 (H.L. 1981) (appeal taken from Eng.); See also “Note, Power to Stay
Federal Proceedings Pending Termination of Concurrent State Litigation”, (1950) 59 Yale L.J. 978, 983.
23
Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 sec 14.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
4
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Court had the jurisdiction to try the case.
24
In the instant case the Applicant State‟s courts
have issued an ex parte interim order.
25
It is humbly submitted that compliance with the E U
treaty requires enforcement of this order and a stay of the parallel proceedings in the
Respondent State.
1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMI TY FOR EACH OTHER’S LAWS
The word comity presupposes friendship and the prevalence of equity and justice”.
26
Many
scholars and courts have variedly characterized „comity‟ as a rule of public international
law,
27
a moral obligation,
28
expediency,
29
courtesy
30
or reciprocity.
31
Thus, the word
“comity” has had numerous interpretations but the basic principle underlining its existence is
international cooperation.
32
Moreover, in the application of choice of law rules even in the
absence of treaty, “they [States] are not, in principle, free to disregard foreign law
altogether.”
33

When there is no written law upon the subject, the duty still rests upon the judicial tribunals
of ascertaining and declaring what the law is.
34
The Applicant State‟s courts have provided
for specific enforcement of surrogacy contracts.
35
Whereas the Respondent State has no laws

24
Dr. Padmini Mishra v. Dr. R. C. Mishra, AIR 1991 Ori 263.
25
Compromis ¶ 7.
26
Russian Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N. Y. 255. as quoted in “Comity” 12 Va. L. Rev. 353 at 359, 1925-19262.
27
Letter from Elihu Root, Secretary of State, to Victor H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and Labor (Mar. 16,
1906), in 288 Domestic Letters Of The Department Of State, cited in Green H. Hackworth, Digest Of
International Law (1942) at 460.
28
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6
th
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) at 28;
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834) § 33; Arthur A. Alexander, “Foreign Judgments –
Enforcements of –Under the Comity of Nations”, (1928-1929) 17 Geo. L. J. 221.
29
Somportex, Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp, (3d Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 435, 440.
30
Rancis Wharton, A Treatise On The Conflict Of Laws 2d ed. (1881) at 5.
31
Hans Smit, “International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”, (1962) 9 UCLA L. REV. 44, 53.
32
L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002), 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 at 504; Lawrence Collins, “Comity
in Modern Private International Law” in James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International
Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
33
Elihu Lauterpacht ed., Hersch Lauterpacht International Law Collected Papers, (Cambridge: 1970) vol. 1 at
38.
34
Hilton v. Guyot, (1895)159 U.S. 113, 164 at 163.
35
Compromis ¶ 4.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
5
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

on this issue.
36
In this light it is humbly submitted that Applicant State‟s laws regarding
surrogacy should be complied with by the Respondent State.
1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY
CONTRACT
The essential validity of a contract is governed by its proper law.
37
The proper law is the
system of law by which the parties intended the contract to be governed, or, where their
intention is neither expressed nor to be inferred from the circumstances, the system of law
with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection.
38
Further, the doctrine of
forum non conveniens
39
provides jurisdiction on considerations of convenience, fairness, and
judicial economy.
40

1.2.1 THE PARTI ES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW
The intention of the parties will be conclusive
41
and this is consistent with policy.
42
Principles
of contract laws will govern surrogacy contracts.
43
Proceedings instituted in breach of such

36
Compromis ¶ 6,8.
37
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Shand, (1865) 3 Moo PCC NS 272, 6 New Rep 387 (Privy
Council); Lloyd v. Guibert, (1865) LR 1 QB 115, 6 B & S 100 (Exchequer Chamber); Robert v. International
Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] AC 500, [1937] ALL ER 164 (House of Lords); Coast
Lines Ltd. v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, [1972] 1 ALL ER 451; Amin Rasheed Shipping
Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1983] 2 ALL ER 884, [1983] 3 WLR 241 (House of Lords); The EEC
Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Art. 8.
38
Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France, (1929) P.C.I.J., Ser. A, no. 20;
Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands Co., (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 (C.A.); Compagnie Tunisienne
de Navigation S.A. v. Compagnie d’ Armement Maritime S.A., [1971] A.C. 572; Amin Rasheed Shipping
Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1984] A.C. 50; Falconbridge, Conflict of Laws, 5
th
ed., at 383-85.
39
Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Co, (1947) 330 U.S. at 507; Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd. (1932) 285
U.S. 413, 422; Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981); American Dredging Co. v. Miller, (1994)
510 U.S. 443, 449 n. 2.
40
La Société du Gaz de Paris v. Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Français”, [1925] 23 Lloyd's
List. Rep. 209, 213 (Sess.); Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd.,(3d Cir.2006) 436 F.3d 349.
41
Compromis ¶ 7; Robert v. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] AC 500, [1937]
ALL ER 164 (House of Lords); Barcelo v. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd., (1932) 48 C.L.R. 391; British
Controlled Oilfields v. Stagg, [1921] 1 Lloyd‟s Rep. 613; Tzortzis v. Monark Line, A/B [1968] 1 W.L.R. 406,
411 (C.A.); Lord Wright, Legal Essays and Addresses, at 164; The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to
Contractual Obligations, Art. 3; In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No.
A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448; Johnson v. Calvert, (Cal. 1993) 851 P.2d 776 at 783; McDonald v. McDonald,
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
6
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

intention shall be stayed.
44
Moreover, Bolitian choice of law is not an attempt to evade
Garundian law,
45
as Garundian law neither addresses nor prohibits gestational surrogacy
agreements.
46
Consequentially, the surrogacy contract is legally enforceable and does not
violate the public policy of the Respondent State.
47
Moreover, even if the Respondent State‟s
public policy is violated; her laws are not applicable in absence of any substantial relationship
with the transaction.
48

1.2.2 THE TRANSACTI ON HAS I TS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTI ON WI TH THE
APPLI CANT STATE’S LAW
Contracts are governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected.
49
In
this inquiry the place of contracting, the place of performance, the places of residence of the
parties, and the nature and subject matter of the contract are taken into consideration.
50
The
lex loci contractus
51
gains additional favour when a contract is made between parties present

(N.Y. App. Div. 1994) 608 N.Y.S.2d 477; In re Marriage of Buzzanca, (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d
280, 282.
42
In re C.K.G., (Tenn. 2005) 173 S.W.3d 714; Speranza v. Repro Lab Inc., (1st Dept. 2009) 62 A.D.3d 49, 52-
55, 875 N.Y.S.2d 449.
43
Davis v. Davis, (Tenn. 1992) 842 S.W.2d 588, 597-98; Kass v. Kass, (App. Div. 1998) 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696
N.E.2d 174; Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320; Lamaritata v. Lucas, (Fla. Ct. App. 2002) 823
So.2d 316; Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 146 Wn. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261.
44
The Eleftheria, [1970] P 94, [1969] 2 ALL ER 4 (Admiralty Division).
45
In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448
at 3.
46
Ibid; Compromis ¶ 6, 8; See also Symeon C. Symeonides, “Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:
Twenty-First Annual Survey”, (2007) 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 301.
47
In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448
at 5-6, 8.
48
Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320 at 326; Sonia Bychkov Green, “Interstate Intercourse: How
Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law” (2009) 24
Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 25.
49
The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Art. 4; In The Interest of K.M.H.,
(2007) 169 P.3d at 1030; Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320; In re Doe, (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2005) 793
N.Y.S.2d 878.
50
Re United Railways of Havana v. Warehouses Ltd., [1960] Ch, 52, 91 (C.A.); Weckstrom v. Hyson, [1966]
V.R. 277; Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 736, 100 L. Ed. 2d 743, 108 S. Ct. 2117 (1988).
51
ARY Jewelers v. Krigel, 277 Kan. 464, 481, 85 P.3d 1151 (2004); Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc., 269 Kan. 194,
209-10, 4 P.3d 1149 (2000); Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan. App. 2d 890, Syl. P4, 159 P.3d
1042 (2007); Layne Christiansen Co. v. Zurich Canada, 30 Kan. App. 2d 128, 141-42, 38 P.3d 757 (2002); In re
M.K.H., 169 P.3d at 1031-32.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
7
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

in the same country.
52
In case of surrogacy contracts place of insemination
53
also determines
the substantial relationship. Courts have often leaned towards lex fori, or law of the forum
absent a clear showing that another state's law should apply.
54
Further, the maxim ut res
magis valeat quam pereat presumes that parties to a contract did not intend to be governed by
a law by which their agreement would be invalid.
55

It is humbly submitted that significant contacts and a significant aggregation of contacts with
Applicant State make application of Applicant State‟s law appropriate and just, since neither
party would have been justified in expecting the Respondent State‟s law to have a controlling
interest as to any dispute between them.
1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER
INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW
The proper law of the contract, and not the law of the place of performance, determines the
excuses for non-performance
56
and the substance of the obligation.
57
In the instant case the
proper law and the intended place of performance both are the Applicant State and public
policy is not an excuse for non-enforcement under the Applicant State‟s laws.

52
Sayers v. International Drilling Co., [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1176, 1187 (C.A.).
53
In Re Marriage of Adams, 133 Ill. 2d 437, 447, 551 N.E.2d 635, 141 Ill. Dec. 448 (1990); Hodas v. Morin,
(Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320.
54
Dragon, 277 Kan. at 790; Systems Design v. Kansas City P.O. Employees Cred. Union, 14 Kan. App. 2d 266,
269, 788 P.2d 878 (1990); Brown v. Gadson, (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) 654 S.E.2d 179; Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-
Jenkins, (Vt. 2006) 912 A.2d 951, 965-68.
55
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v. Shand (1865) 3 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) 272; N. V. Handel
Maatschappij J. Smits v. English Expoertes (Londaon) Ltd., [1955] 2 Lloyd‟s Rep. 317 (C.A.); Coast Lines Ltd.
v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, 44, 48 (C.A.).
56
Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, (1884) 12 QBD 589 (Court of Appeal); J. H. C. Morris and P. M. North, eds.,
Cases and Materials on Private International Law, (London: Butterworths, 1984) at 453.
57
Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, [1951] AC 201 (Privy Council); Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd’s
Claim, [1956] Ch 323, [1956] 1 ALL ER 129 (Chancery Division).
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
8
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

1.3.1 INTERNAL LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICY DO NOT I NVALI DATE I NTERNATI ONAL TREATY
OBLIGATI ONS
States are obliged to not invoke the provisions of their internal law as justification for their
failure to perform a treaty obligation.
58
This is a long-standing principle of customary
international law.
59
The stipulations of a treaty are binding upon the parties, notwithstanding
the public character of their affected national legislations.
60
The basic principle of pacta sunt
servanda makes it impossible for States to be released from their obligations according to a
treaty which they have unilaterally entered into.
61
Further the content of public policy is
variable and reliance it on goes against good faith obligation for observance of treaties.
62

As per the common law attitude there is no room for the application of public policy.
63
Courts
will not allow a contracting party to refuse performance on the ground that by performing he
would be infringing the law of the country in which he resides or of which he is a national.
64

A case of serious injustice must be involved.
65
To justify its refusal to enforce a foreign
judgment, a U.S. court must find that the judgment not only affirmatively acts on matters as
to which local law is silent, but also contravenes a crucial stated public policy affecting a

58
Vienna Conv. Art 27; Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising
from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America) [1992] I.C.J. Rep.
at 3, 32; Greco-Bulgarian Communities, (1930) PCIJ Series B, No. 17, at 32; Certain German Interests in
Polish Upper Silesia (Merits), (1926) PCIJ Series A, No. 7, at 19; Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate
under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement case, [1988] I.C.J. Rep. at 12, 34–5; Alabama
Claims arbitration (UK v US), J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations (New York: 1898) vol. 1 at 495.
59
The Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties (1935) 29 Am. J. Int‟l Law Supp. 653, at 662, art 23,
“Excuses for failure to perform”; Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech
in the Danzig Territory (1932) PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44, at 21, 24.
60
Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory, (1932)
Series A/B, No. 44, at 24; Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, (1932) Series A/B, No. 46, at
167.
61
Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants
(Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 at 140 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cordova).
62
Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants
(Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 at 120-31 (Separate Opinion of Sir Percy Spender).
63
Nike Informatic Systems Ltd. v. Avac Systems, (1979) 105 D.L.R. 3 rd 455; Greenshields Inc. v. Johnston,
(1981) 119 D.L.R. (3
rd
) 714; Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842.
64
Royal Trustco Ltd. v. Campeau Corp. (1981) 118 D.L.R. (3
rd
) 207; Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethai Ltd., [1956] 2
Q.B. 490,514, 523 (C.A.).
65
Hilton v. Guyot, (1895) 159 U.S. 113.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
9
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

fundamental interest of the forum.
66
The narrowness of the public policy exception to
enforcement reflects an axiom fundamental to the goals of comity and res judicata that
underlies the doctrine of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
67
In addition the
public policies prevalent in the Respondent State were not so closely linked to the object and
purpose of the E U treaty that they constituted an essential basis for her consent and they do
not radically alter the extent of the obligations to be performed.
68

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent State‟s constitution recognises International Law
as a source of law for interpretation of domestic laws.
69
The ICCPR, ICESCR to which both
States are parties and various other international instruments favour enforcement of surrogacy
contracts.
70
Consequently, as the Respondent State‟s law is silent on the issue a presumption
lies in the favour of surrogacy contracts being enforceable in the Respondent State.
1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION
AND APPLICABLE LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE
It is humbly submitted that it is a general principle of International Law that either
nationality
71
or domicile
72
determine jurisdiction and applicable law. In the instant case

66
Compania Mexicana Rediodifusora Franteriza v. Spann, (N.D. Tex. 1941) 41 F.Supp 907, 908-09, aff'd (5th
Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 609.
67
Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842.
68
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 104; Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v.
Ice.), [1973] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 40, 43; “Rebus Revisited: Changed Circumstances in Treaty Law” (2005) 43 Colum.
J. Transnat'l L. 459.
69
Compromis ¶ 2.
70
Right to Family, Privacy and Fundamental Freedoms as recognized by Charter of the United Nations, Art. 55;
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 12; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights Art. 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Right Art. 17; American Convention on Human
Rights Arts 11 and 17; European Convention on Human Rights Art. 8; African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights Art. 18; Right to procreational autonomy and privacy in Eisenstadt v. Baird, (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 453;
Doe v. Attorney Gen., (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) 487 N.W.2d 484 at 486; Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588.
71
Hope v. Hope, (1854) a DeG.M. & G. 328; Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 324 (C.A.); Harben v. Harben,
[1957] 1 W.L.R. 261; Re P (GE) (an infant), [1965] 3 ALL ER 977; McM. V. C. (No. 2), [1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R.
27; See Below § 2.2.1.
72
Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6
th
ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 647; See
Below § 2.2.2.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
10
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Robert‟s nationality and domicile both are the Applicant State. Consequently the Applicant
State has jurisdiction and her law is the applicable law.
Pursuant to the Applicant State‟s citizenship rules Robert is her citizen.
73
He is also
domiciled in the Applicant State. Domicile does not depend on the place where the child is
born, nor the place where his mother, father or he reside, but on the domicile of his father in
case of a legitimate child.
74
In fact if parents change their domicile between time of
conception and of birth it is arguable that the law of the father‟s domicile at the former time
deserves consideration.
75
Child conceived using artificial reproductive techniques is not
illegitimate and consent establishes paternity.
76
The embryos were created during John and
Jane‟s marriage confirming Robert‟s legitimacy
77
and their legal status as natural parents.
78

Moreover, it is sensible if a new born takes the habitual residence of his parents.
79
Unborn
children possess legal rights.
80
Personhood of a foetus has been affirmed in certain
instances.
81
It would be absurd to recognize the viable foetus as a person for purposes of

73
Compromis ¶ 3.
74
Peal v Peal (1930) 46 T.L.R. 645; Grant v Grant, (1931) S.C. 238; Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc; P.M. North
and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis Butterworths: New
Delhi, 1999) at 135; Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11
th
ed. (London:
Stevens & Limited, 1987) at 126.
75
Taintor (1940) 18 Can BR 589, 596, 597; P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private
International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 896.
76
Anonymous v. Anonymous, (1964) 41 Misc. 2d 886, 246 N.Y.S.2d 835; People v. Sorensen, (1968) 68 Cal. 2d
280, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495; Strnad v. Strnad, (Sup. Ct. 1948) 190 Misc. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390.
77
In the Interest of O.G.M., A Child, (Tex. Civ. App., 1st Dist., 1999) 988 S.W. 2d 473; Indian Draft Assisted
Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill & Rules, (2008) ch. VII(34)(1)-(5).
78
Belsito v. Clark (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E.2d 760; Owens v. Bell (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 6
OBR 65, 67-68, 451 N.E.2d, 241, 243.
79
P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis
Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 169.
80
Commonwealth v. Morris, (Ky. 2004) 142 S.W.3d 656; Kelly v. Gregory, (N.Y. 1953) 125 N.Y.S.2d 696, 698.
Hornbuckle v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., (Ga. 1956) 93 S.E.2d 727; Bennett v. Hymers, (N.H. 1958) 147 A.2d
108; Smith v. Brennan, (N.J. 1960)157 A.2d 497; Louisiana Civil Code (1986) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:124-125;
Donna M. Sheinbach, “Examining Disputes Over Ownership Rights To Frozen Embryos” (1999) 48 Cath. U.L.
Rev. 989.
81
Commonwealth v. Cass, (Mass. 1984) 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1330; Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777;
Re Salaman [1908] 1 Ch 4; Re Callaghan [1948] NZLR 846.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
11
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

homicide laws and wrongful death statutes but not for purposes of statutes proscribing child
abuse.
82
The „best interests of the child‟ standard has also been extended to pre-embryos.
83

It is humbly submitted that child protection laws that protect Emily and accord the Applicant
State with jurisdiction and applicable law for her custody dispute should also extend to her
brother Robert.
2 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE
APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE
EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE
2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING
EMILY‟S CUSTODY DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY
It is humbly submitted that international judicial comity
84
requires stay of a parallel suit under
the doctrine of lis alibi pendens.
85
A treaty must be given effective interpretation to realize its
object and purpose.
86

A court may stay its proceeding when “related” proceedings are pending in another
contracting state and the court in that State was first seised of the matter and may decline
jurisdiction if the court first seised could consolidate both proceedings and try them
together.
87
“Related” proceedings are those so closely connected that it is expedient to hear

82
Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777 at 780.
83
Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 48 P.3d 261.
84
See Above § 1.1.2.
85
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger, (7th Cir. 1987) 833 F.2d 680, 685; The Bremen v. Zapata Off-
Shore Co., (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 9; Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Breard: Court to Court” (1998) 92 A.J.I.L. 708; The
Indian Code of Civil Procedure (1908) at Sec. 10.
86
See Above § 1.1. and 1.1.1.
87
Compromis ¶ 9; EC, Convention of 10
th
June 2009 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of
Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5 at 13 Art. 28; EC, Council Regulation (EC)
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil
And Commercial Matters, [2000] O.J. L 12 Art. 28; EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on Jurisdiction and
the Enforcement of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC Art. 22(1)(2).
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
12
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from
separate proceedings.
88
In the instant case the matter of Emily‟s custody is so intrinsically
connected to the matter of Robert‟s custody of that both the related proceedings should be
heard and determined by the court first seised of the matter.
Furthermore, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised of proceedings involving the
same cause of action and between the same parties is established any court other than the
court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
89
Where proceedings
relating to parental responsibility of the same child are brought before courts of different
Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such
time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
90
On establishment of
jurisdiction the courts in the place second seised must decline jurisdiction.
91

2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY,
DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE
MATTER OF HER CUSTODY

88
David McClean, ed., Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 4
th
ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1993) at 98.
89
EC, Convention of 10
th
June 2009 On Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In
Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5 Art. 27; EC, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22
December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters, [2000] O.J. L 12 Art. 27; EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC Art. 21.
90
EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,
[2003] O.J. L 338 [Council Regulation]; Conference organized by CLT Scotland, Resolving The Problems Of
Jurisdiction In Family Law, Brussels II And Points West, Janys M. Scott, Advocate, (Scotland, 26 October
2005).
91
Ibid. Council Regulation, Art. 19.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
13
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

It is humbly submitted that it is a general principle of International Law that nationality,
domicile or habitual residence determine jurisdiction and applicable law.
92
In the instant case
Emily‟s nationality, domicile and habitual residence lie with the Applicant State.
93

2.2.1 THE APPLICANT STATE I S THE STATE OF EMI LY’S NATI ONALI TY
Nationality is a criterion for personal law.
94
If the authorities of the State of the infant's
nationality consider that the interests of the infant so require they may after having informed
the authorities of the State of his habitual residence take measures according to their own law
for the protection of his person or property.
95
Courts always retain jurisdiction over citizens
wherever they may be.
96

2.2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE I S THE STATE OF EMI LY’S DOMICI LE
It is universally recognised that questions affecting the personal status should be governed
constantly by one and the same law, irrespective of where the person may happen to be or
where the facts giving rise to the question may have occurred.
97
The custody of a child will
be determined based on the domicile of the child.
98
A legitimate child born during the
lifetime of his father has his domicile of origin in the country in which his father was
domiciled at the time of his birth.
99
. Domicile does not depend on the place where the child is

92
P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis
Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 134 & 162.
93
Compromis ¶ 3, 4.
94
P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis
Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 159 ; Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et seq ; Hague Conference
on Private International Law, Hague Convention Concerning the Powers of Authorities and the Law Applicable
in Respect of the Protection of Infants, 5 October 1961, UNTS 1969, pp. 145 ff. Art. 3.
95
Ibid. Art.4.
96
Hope v. Hope, (1854) 4 DeGM & G 328; 23 LJCH 682; Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 ChD 324; Robert v.
Sandbach Justices, ex p Smith, [1951] 1 KB 62.
97
Ernst Rabel, The conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, 2
nd
ed. (1958-64) vol. 1 at 109; Kahn-Freund (1974)
III Hague Recueil 139, 334-335, 391-492.
98
Perry v. Ponder, (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1980) 604 S.W.2d 306; Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et
seq.; P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13
th
ed. (LexisNexis
Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 134.
99
Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11
th
ed. (London: Stevens & Limited,
1987) at 126.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
14
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

born, nor the place where his mother, father or he reside, but on the domicile of his father in
case of a legitimate child.
100
If both parents are alive but are living apart, the child's domicile
is that of the mother, if the child has his home with her and no home with his father.
101
In the
instant case Emily has a home
102
with her father.
Furthermore, Jane is domiciled in the Applicant State.
103
An existing domicile is presumed to
continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired.
104
A new domicile is not
acquired until there is not only actual residence in some other country but also a fixed
intention of establishing a permanent residence there.
105
If a person intends to reside in a
country for a fixed period or for an indefinite time but clearly intends to leave the country at
some time his domicile does not alter.
106
The burden of proving a change of domicile is a
very heavy one and rests on the claimant.
107

2.2.3 THE APPLICANT STATE I S THE STATE OF EMI LY’S HABI TUAL RESI DENCE
Habitual residence of the child as a determinant of jurisdiction and applicable law as referred
to in the Hague Conference‟s conventions has been influential in establishing customary
norms that are even applied by states that do not formally accede to them.
108
If the parents are

100
D’Etchegoyen v. D’Etchegoyen [1888] 13 PD 132; Peal v Peal [1930] 46 T.L.R. 645; Grant v Grant [1931]
S.C. 238; Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc; Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws,
11
th
ed. (London: Stevens & Limited, 1987) at 421 at 126.
101
Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K.) 1973 c.45, s. 4(1), (2) (a); Domicile Acts 1982
(Cth.). s. 9; Domicile Act 1976 (N.Z.), 1976/0017, s. 6; Re P (GE) (An infant) [1965] Ch 568 at 585-586; Re Y
(minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136.
102
Re P (GE) (An infant) [1965] Ch 568 at 585-586; Re Y (minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136.
103
Compromis ¶ 4, 6.
104
Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319; Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287; Ramsay v
Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588; In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685; Domicile Act 1976
(N.Z.), 1976/0017, New Zealand, s. 11; Domicile Acts 1982 (Cth.). s. 7; P.E. Nygh, Conflict of Laws in
Australia, 6
th
ed., (1995) at 119-200; Re Jones’ Estate [1921] 192 Iowa 78, 182 NW 227.
105
Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 319.
106
Jopp v Wood [1865] 4 D.J. & S.616; Qureshi v. Qureshi (1972) Fam.173; Attn. Gen. v Rowe [1862] 1 H. &
C.31.
107
Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319; Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287; Ramsay v
Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588; In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685.
108
Peter Pfund, “The Hague Conference Celebrates Its 100th Anniversary” (1993) 28 Tex. Int'l L.J. 531; Willis
Reese, “The Hague Conference on Private International Law: Some Observations” (1985) 19 Int'l Law 881;
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
15
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

living together and the child is living with them it will take the parents habitual residence.
109

Habitual residence is the country where the child lived before the marital breakdown.
110
The
parent who absconds with the child cannot claim a new habitual residence.
111
Both parents
must consent to the change of habitual residence.
112
Jurisdiction rests with the courts of the
country from where the child has been wrongfully removed or retained.
113

2.2.3.1 Jurisdiction to determine Emily’s custody lies with the Applicant State in view
of Emily’s wrongful removal and retention in the Respondent State
Improper removal is defined as “the failure to return a child across an international frontier at
the end of any temporary stay in a territory other than that where the custody is exercised”
114

The retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - a) it is in breach of rights of
custody attributed to a person either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the
child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time
of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would
have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.
115
In case of wrongful removal or
retention of the child, the authorities of the Contracting State in which the child was

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K), 1973 c.45, ss. 5,6; Family Law Act 1986 (U.K.), 1986
c. 55, Parts I and III; Child Support Act 1991 (U.K.), 1991 c. 48, s 44(1); EC, Convention of 1998 on
Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in the Matrimonial Matters ( Brussels II),
[1998] OJ C221/2; Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer (1998) 2 All ER 728 at 737, CA (Comments of Thorpe
LJ); de Winter (1969) III Hague Recueil 357, 419-454; Cavers (1972) 21 Am ULR 475.
109
Re A (Minors) [1996] 1 WLR 25.
110
Cohen v. Cohen, (Sup. Ct. 1993) 602 N.Y.S.2d 994, 998.
111
Friedrich v. Friedrich, (6th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 1396, 1401; Cohen v. Cohen, 602 N.Y.S.2d at 994.
112
RE K (Abduction: Consent : Forum Conveniens) [1995] 2 FLR 211, CA; Findlay v Findlay (No 2) [1995]
SLT 492.
113
Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78.
114
European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on
Restoration of Custody of Children, (20 May, 1980) Eur T.S. 105 Art 1(d)(i).
115
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII, Art.3; The Convention On Jurisdiction, Applicable Law,
Recognition, Enforcement And Co-Operation In Respect Of Parental Responsibility And Measures For The
Protection Of Children, 1996 Art 7(2); Inter-American convention on the international return of children, 15
th

July 1989 Art 4.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
16
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention keep
116
or retain
117
their
jurisdiction and shall have jurisdiction to consider a petition for the child's return.
118

Moreover, such jurisdiction can be circumvented if there is specific evidence of grave risk
and mere separation of the child from its parent not sufficient.
119
Acquiescence for removal
of the child requires either an act or statement with the requisite formality, such as testimony
in a judicial proceeding; a convincing written renunciation of rights; or a consistent attitude
of acquiescence over a significant period of time.
120

It is humbly submitted that the Applicant State is the State of Emily‟s „habitual residence‟
wherefrom she has been wrongful removed and retained. Consequentially, the Applicant
State has jurisdiction and her law is the applicable law to determine Emily‟s custody issue.
2.2.3.2 International Child Abduction by a parent to gain jurisdictional advantage in
matters of custody runs counter to the Best Interests of the Child
The best way to combat illegal child removals is to refuse to grant them legal recognition.
121

In all actions concerning children, undertaken by courts of law, the best interests of the child
shall be a primary consideration.
122
The widest possible protection and assistance should be

116
EC, Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-
operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, [1996] O.J. L 48/3,
Art. 7.
117
EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,
[2003] O.J. L 338, p. 1
118
Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, 15
July 1989, OAS, Treaty Series, No. 70, Art. 6.
119
David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991); Thomson v. Thomson, 119
D.R.4
th
253 (Can. 1994); E v E [1998] 2 FLR 980; Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8
th
Cir. 1995); Hague
Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII at Art. 20.
120
Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78. 81-82 (D. Mass 1994); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d
374, 377 (8th Cir. 1995); David v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, N.Y.S. 429 (Fam. Ct.1991).
121
Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII; EC, Explanatory report on the Hague Convention on the
civil aspects of international child abduction, 1980 by Eliza Perez-Vera (Madrid, April 1981)
122
Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.
A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 3.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
17
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

accorded to the family.
123
States shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the abduction
of children for any purpose or in any form.
124
States shall ensure that a child shall not be
separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject
to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such
separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.
125
The effect of consent to such
resolutions of the General Assembly is an expression of an opino juris.
126
Furthermore,
bilateral treaties provide evidence of custom.
127
Consequently, such abduction of a child runs
counter to the best interests of the child and many international agreements; it is therefore
violative of the rights of a child as well as customary international law.
3 THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION TO
HAND OVER JANE AND JANET
3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE
ARREST WARRANT ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE
It is humbly submitted that the E U treaty must be adhered to in good faith in accordance with
the ordinary meaning given to the words used in it.
128
The words „laws‟ and „orders‟ have not

123
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49)
at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), Art. 23; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA
res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 993 UNTS 3; 6 ILM 368
(1967), Art. 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR
Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), Art. 17; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA res.
217A (III), UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948), Art. 12.
124
Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.
A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 8, 19, 11, 35.
125
Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.
A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 9.
126
R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law 9
th
ed. (London: 1992) vol. 1 at 334;
Military and Paramilitary Activities Case, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. at 89-90, 91.
127
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1973) at 13; Baxter, 129 Haaue Recueil (1970, I), 75-
91; Sorensen, Les Sources de droit International at 96-8 ; Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatamela), [1955]
I.C.J. Rep at 22; Lagos v Baggianini, [1955] 22 ILR 533 at 536-7; Lauritzen et al v Government of Chile, [1956]
23 ILR 70 at 715-16, 729-30; The State (Duggan) v Tapley, [1951] 18 ILR 109; The Italian National Re-
extradition Case, [1970] 70 ILR 374 at 376-7; North Sea, at 25.
128
Vienna Conv. Art. 31; See Above § 1.1.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
18
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

been qualified with any adjective.
129
Where substantial rights are at stake, the court will be
wary to fill-in an omission.
130
The claimant of a meaning other than the ordinary meaning has
the burden of proof.
131

Member States of the European Union automatically enforce each other‟s European arrest
warrants.
132
It requires each national judicial authority to recognize, “ipso facto, and with a
minimum of formalities,” requests in regard to the surrender of a person made by the issuing
judicial authority of another Member State.
133
Member States should regard courts in other
EU countries as “sister courts” and not interfere with, revoke, or review convictions of other
EU countries.
134
The offence of kidnapping shall without verification of double criminality
give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant.
135
EWAs have been issued even
for petty offenses like the theft of piglets or a cupboard door.
136

It is humbly submitted that comity demands international cooperation.
137
Comity is a
chameleon word.
138
Just as the chameleon's colour changes to match its environment, so too
the varying interpretations of comity establish its requirements depending on the environment

129
Compromis ¶ 1.
130
Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936).
131
Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (Cambridge
University Press: 1996) at 52-60.
132
Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant Of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic Of The Congo v. Belgium)
[2002] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 181; Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings, 10 December 2001,
14867/1/01 REV I COPEN 79 CATS 50.
133
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the
surrender procedures between Member States. See http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33167.htm; James B.
Jacobs, “Major „Minor‟ Progress Under The Third Pillar: EU Institution Building In The Sharing Of Criminal
Record Information” (2008) 8 Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 111.
134
Council Framework Decision on Taking Account of Convictions in the Member States of the European
Union in the Course of New Criminal Proceedings COM(2005/0018 (CNS), 2 July 2007.
135
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures
between Member States (2002/584/JHA) Art. 2; Jan Komárek, “European Constitutionalism and the European
Arrest Warrant: In Search of the Limits of “Contrapuntal Principles” (2007) 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9 at 9-10.
136
Catherine Heard, “The New European Extradition System - A Critical Review” (2009) 25 No. 10 Int'l
Enforcement L. Rep. 398.
137
Laker Airways v. Sabena, (1984) 731 F.2d 909; See Above § 1.1.2.
138
L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002) 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 at 504; Lawrence Collins, “Comity
in Modern Private International Law” in James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International
Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
19
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

it operates in.
139
In the instant case the Respondent State‟s comity obligations under the E U
treaty compel her to cooperate with the Applicant State and provide assistance in ensuring
Jane‟s and Janet‟s attendance and appearance before Applicant State‟s courts.
3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
REQUIRE THAT THE RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET
A State must investigate any allegation that there is a person in her territory who has
committed an offence and, if the circumstances so warrant, ensure the person‟s presence for
the purpose of extradition or prosecution.
140
This duty is rooted in the principles of state
responsibility and starts from the assumption that when a crime is committed the injured state
has a right to punish the perpetrators.
141
It is universally recognized.
142
The principle is that
an alleged offender should not find safe haven in the territory of any State.
143
Extradition can
be more advantageous in the sense that the territorial state may have better access to
evidence.
144

Kidnapping, abduction and stealing children are extraditable offences.
145
International child
abduction is a federal crime punishable with up to three years imprisonment.
146
Use of

139
Janet Walker, “Foreign Public Law And The Colour Of Comity: What's The Difference Between Friends?”
(2003) 38 Can. Bus. L.J. 36 at 48.
140
ILC Report on aut dedere aut judicare, Amnesty International Publications, (2009); Marc Henzelin, Le
Principe de l’Universalité en Droit Pénal International: Droit et Obligation pour les États de Poursuivre et
Juger selon le Principe de l’Universalité, (2000); M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut
Judicare: The Duty To Extradite Or Prosecute In International Law (1995) at 22-24; Ian Brownlie, Principles
Of Public International Law 4
th
ed. (1990) at 315; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Foreword to Treaty Enforcement and
International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Rodrigo Yepes- Enríquez & Lisa Tabassi eds. (2002) at vii.
141
M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty To Extradite Or Prosecute In
International Law (1995) at 38-39.
142
Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10 (A/59/10) ¶ 362.
143
Ved P. Nanda, “Bases for Refusing International Extradition Requests: Capital Punishment and Torture”
(2000) 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1369.
144
Alexander Orakhelashvili, The United Nations Convention Against Torture. A Commentary. Commentary on
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University Press: 2009) (2009) 20 EJIL 457.
145
Ronald F. Roxburgh, ed. Oppenhiem’s International Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005)
vol. 1 at 509.
BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
20
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

embryo for any purpose other than that provided for by the embryo provider is punishable
with imprisonment up to three, four or five years.
147

It is humbly submitted that Refusal to extradite along with failure to assume responsibility for
trying suspects is an obvious abuse of power.
148

4 ARGUENDO, THE RESPONDENT STATE’S COURTS CAN NOT ACCORD
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of
the law.
149
However, courts of legal systems that oppose surrogacy contracts will either resort
to their own mandatory rules prohibiting the practice or find it contrary to their public
policy.
150
It is humbly submitted that in light of the Respondent State‟s political and religious
scene
151
and her failure to arrest or bring criminal charges against Jane and Janet it is required
that the Applicant State conduct these proceedings; as the Respondent State cannot
realistically be expected to conduct these cases diligently.
152


146
International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (1993) 18 U.S.C. 1204; United States v. Ahmed Amer, 110
F.3d at 873; Jacqueline D. Golub, “The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act Of 1993: The United
States' Attempt To Get Our Children Back--How Is It Working?” (1999) 24 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 797.
147
John and Jane D. v. Regents of the University Of California, (2003) WL 21956362 (C.A.9) (Appellate
Brief); Fischer, “Misappropriation of Human Eggs And Embryos And The Tort Of Conversion: A Relational
View,” 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 381, 420-423 (1999); West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 367g.
148
Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6
th
ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) at 314.
149
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 26; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 7;
American Convention On Human Rights, 1969 Art. 8, 24; European Convention on Human Rights Art. 6;
African Charter on Human And Peoples' Rights, 1981 Art. 3.
150
Anastasia Grammaticaki-Alexiou, “Conflict Of Laws, Comparative Law And Civil Law: Artificial
Reproduction Technologies and Conflict of Laws: An Initial Approach”, 60 La. L. Rev. 1113.
151
Compromis ¶ 6.
152
Oral Pleadings of the United States, Question and Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal
Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Prelim. Obj., (Oct. 15, 1997) at 3.59,
3.61 available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ilus/iluscr/ilus_icr9719.htm.
PRAYERS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE
XVII
D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

PRAYERS
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited the agent for the
Applicant State most humbly and respectfully prays before this Hon‟ble Court, that it may be
pleased to adjudge and declare:
I. The Applicant State‟s courts have jurisdiction and the Applicant State‟s law is the
applicable law to determine Robert‟s custody issue
II. The Applicant State‟s courts have jurisdiction and the Applicant State‟s law is the
applicable law to determine Emily‟s custody issue
III. The Respondent State has an international obligation to hand over Jane and Janet
The Applicant State additionally prays that the Court may grant any provisional relief that it
may deem fit. The Court may also make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of equity,
justice and due conscience.
And for this act of kindness the Applicant State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Respectfully submitted,
..….……...…………………………
(Agents for the Applicant State)