APPLICANT RESPONDENT

Say di awal bahwa acknowledge arguments Appli.,

tapi as the injured State we want to argue egregious
violation of the Treaty
EXPROPRIATION
YE, in the present case Applicant has taken the
property of one of our nationals which amounts to
expropriation which does not have public purpose

2 public policy reasoning:

a. Kay Ector is a primary donor to RPP; -->
purpose of this adalah utk punish yang
circumvent sanction, bukan krn dia primary
donor
b. Focus on the asset. YE when they took away
xx, there is no evidence it used to support the
war, nor it contributes whatsover to
circumvent the sanction, after the seizure juga
ga say bahwa Kay Ector stops having the
ability to support the RPP.

Susah utk rebut bahwa it is part of a bigger picture.

Assessment must be made individually, not the whole

impact?
Phillip Morris v Uruguay. YE we submit our measure
cannot be achieved in a bigger goal in legitimate
public purpose, there must be individual direct
impact on ending the war.
Krn kalo gini will leave room of abuse,
You need to prove benefit of violating individual’s
right

Stop the war --> legitimate, Phillip Morris there

should be direct public benefit --> Appli cannot argue
that the seizure of Prydwen Place is part of a bigger
goal without proving the individual contribution on
the seizure, we submit that:
1. The prydwen place was never proven to be
utilized to circumvent the sanction;
2. (no) Kay ector’s financial capability tied with
the prydwen place;
3. Kay ector will continue to donate.
4. The nature of sanction is punitive in nature

Also bilang bahwa kay ector do secondary bukan

karena he has the asset, tapi karena his own actions
so will continue to try to circumvent the sanction

Phillip Morris v Uruguay, Award

407. The Tribunal’s conclusions on the evidence
would be as follows: (1) the SPR was not the subject
of detailed prior research concerning its actual
effects, which would in any case have been difficult to
conduct since it involved a hypothetical situation; (2)
there was consideration of the proposal by the
Tobacco Control Program in consultation with the
Advisory Commission of the MPH, although the paper
trail of these meetings was exiguous; 584 (3) the SPR
was in the nature of a “bright idea” in the context of
a policy determination to discourage popular beliefs
in “safer” cigarettes 585 but, as held by the WHO,
“the rationale for this action [was] supported by the
evidence.”
408. As to the utility of the measure, the marketing
evidence on either side is discordant. According to the
Claimants, tobacco consumption in the legal domestic
market remained close to the trend, which had been
projected in 2008 (prior to the Challeged Measures)
by Euromonitor, an independent market research
firm, to decline by 150 million cigarettes from 2008-
2012. 587 The Respondent relies on various sources,
including ITC, Uruguayan National Report of August
2014, to show that the rate of smoking prevalence,
which was around 32% prior to the measures, by 2009
dropped to 588 25% in persons 15 years or older,
estimated by a 2011 survey to be “approximately
23%.”

306. … Moreover, the Challenged Measures were

introduced as part of a larger scheme of tobacco
control, the different components of which it is
difficult to disentangle. But the fact remains that the
incidence of smoking in Uruguay has declined,
notably among young smokers, 408 and that these
were public health measures which were directed to
this end and were capable of contributing to its
achievement. In the Tribunal’s view, that is sufficient
for the purposes of defeating a claim under Article
5(1) of the BIT.

In order for a measure to be considered as a bigger

picture, there needs to be concrete direct imapct to
achieve the aim.
 STRUCTURE
Direct expro, CIL.
GATT
mm
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
- The time frame adalah up until the
- Kenapa bisa disregard ILSA Report? The
assessment of impact before conducting
transport based on the foreseeable
information up until the point of action. The
ILSA Report, although we are not submitting
they are inaccurate, was submitted one
month after the last batch of transport.
- We should have known? We completely
agree, if this was in our own territory, as a
sending state we do not have complete
iformation of the data in Etna
- REPRESENTATION, GUARANTEE
GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATION The exact paragraph:
… as States as are not obligated to continue 45. Considering that Malaysia stated further that a
negotiations when they conclude that the party is not obliged to continue with an exchange of
possibilities of reaching an agreement have been views when it concludes that the possibilities of
exhausted. Hlm. 37. reaching agreement have been exhausted;