TEAM CODE: 7

NLIU ANNUAL UNIVERSITY POOL SELECTIONS, 2022

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE

PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE

ARSENALIA (APPLICANT)

v.

ROJO DIABLO (RESPONDENT)

ON THE DIFFERENCES ARISING BETWEEN THE STATES CONCERNING THE

WENGER INCIDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [TABLE OF CONTENTS]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities.................................................................................................................II

Statement of Jurisdiction.......................................................................................................III

QUESTIONS PRESENTED..................................................................................................IV

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................V

Summary of pleadings..............................................................................................................1

pleadings....................................................................................................................................2

[I]. Whether The Blockade Of The Suite Of Software Offered By BatterSoft In Arsenalia
Is In Consonance With The Principles Of The Arbit And A Necessary Unilateral Economic
Sanction Against The State Of Rojo Diablo?.................................................................................2

A. THE BLOCKADE IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ARBIT....2

1. BatterSoft Is Not An Investment of Rojo Diablo....................................................2

2. Consonance With Article Vi (b) Of The Arbit........................................................3

3. Non-Discriminatory And In Accordance With Due Process Of Law.....................3

B. IT IS A LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY ECONOMIC SANCTION...............................4

1. Legitimate Countermeasure.....................................................................................4

2. Proportionate............................................................................................................5

3. Necessary.................................................................................................................5

Prayer for relief.........................................................................................................................7

PAGE | I
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2..........................................................5

France v. United States (1978) 18 R.I.A.A. 416....................................................................................4

Genin v. Estonia, Award, 25 June 2001, para. 367. See Dolzer and Schreuer, Principles of
International Investment Law, chapter VII........................................................................................3

Portuguese Colonies case (Naulilaa incident), UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 1011, at pp.
1025–1026 (1928).............................................................................................................................5

Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. V. The United Mexican States Case No. Arb (Af)/00/2......3

Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15........3

Statutes

Article 22, ARSIWA.............................................................................................................................4

Article 30, ARSIWA.............................................................................................................................5

Article 31, ARSIWA.............................................................................................................................5

Article 48, ARSIWA.............................................................................................................................4

Article 49(2), ARSIWA.........................................................................................................................5

Article 51, ARSIWA.............................................................................................................................5

Article 52(1) (b), ARSIWA...................................................................................................................5

Article 54, Draft Articles on State Responsibilit....................................................................................5

Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations..................................................................................4

Other Authorities

'Use of Force' (2018) 78 Int'l L Ass'n Rep Conf 588.............................................................................4

Legal Aspects of a New International Economic Order' (1980) 59 Int'l L Ass'n Rep Conf 26..............4

Mary Ellen O'Connell, 'Report of the Economic Sanctions Committee - The Impact of Sanctions on
the Development of New International Law' (2001-2002) 2001 Proceedings of the American
Branch of the International Law Association 86................................................................................4

Report of the Committee on Economic Sanctions' (1997-1998) 1997 Proceedings of the American
Branch of the International Law Association 104..............................................................................3

PAGE | 2
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

The American Journal of International Law , Oct., 2002, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 817-83.......4

Treatises

Article VI (b), ARBIT...........................................................................................................................3

PAGE | 3
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The parties have approached the Honourable Court under Section 40(1) of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice which reads as follows:

Article 40 of the Statute of International Court of Justice

“(1) Cases are brought before the Court, as the case may be, either by the notification of the
special agreement or by a written application addressed to the Registrar. In either case the
subject of the dispute and the parties shall be indicated.

(2) The Registrar shall forthwith communicate the application to all concerned.

(3) He shall also notify the Members of the United Nations through the Secretary-General,
and also any other states entitled to appear before the Court”

They have further approached the Court under Article XIII of ARBIT, which reads as
follows:

Article XIII of ARBIT

“In the event of a dispute arising with respect to the rights conferred by this Treaty, in
addition to any arbitration proceeding to which an Investor of a Party may be entitled under
this Treaty or by contract, the Party of said Investor’s nationality may bring claim before the
International Court of Justice, and the other Party shall accept the personal and subject
matter jurisdiction of that Court.”

PAGE | IV
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [QUESTIONS PRESENTED]

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

[ISSUE I]

WHETHER A HARM HAS BEEN CAUSED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW DUE

TO THE WENGER INCIDENT AND WHO HAS CAUSED IT, IF ANY?

[ISSUE II]

WHETHER THE BLOCKADE OF THE SUITE OF SOFTWARE OFFERED BY

BATTERSOFT IN ARSENALIA IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF ARBIT AND A NECESAARY UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTION
AGAINST THE STATE OF ROJO DIABLO?

PAGE | V
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

ARSENALIA AND ROJO DIABLO SIGN ARBIT

Arsenalia is a populous, developing state in the equatorial region of Central Asia whose
population is predominantly young and indigenous agriculturalists and fishers in the great
Wenger River. It shares borders with Rojo Diablo which is an industrial behemoth with a
booming tech industry. The two states, with the intention of furtherance of their ties, signed a
Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment1 in 2012.

BATTERSOFT AND SMALL RAM

Battering Ram Inc.2 was a company listed on the stock exchange of Rojo Diablo in 1992. It
decided to incorporate Small Ram Inc.3 in Arsenalia. Small Ram setup its manufacturing unit
in a designated Free Trade Zone within Swapner Natyashala and a distribution unit in
Emiraton in Arsenalia. Intending to enter the software company, Battering Ram incorporated
a wholly owned subsidiary of BatterSoft Pte. Ltd. 4. This entered arrangements with Small
Ram such that Small Ram Li-ion batteries would come with BatterSoft suite of software pre-
installed on their devices which helped it to gain hold in Arsenalia.

PANDEMIC AND THE WENGER INCIDENT

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for Li-ion batteries by 235%. Small Ram
kept up with the demand by decreasing the manpower on each barge and increasing
surveillance. On October 22, 2020, the Wenger River was hit by Cyclone Deepika. That night
Small Ram had shipped five barges of shipments on the Wenger River. The captain of the
first barge suffered from a heart attack and was left incapacitated and there was only one
other security personnel left. As a result of the spray caused by the cyclone and the lack of
communication, the second barge collided with the first and both the barges along with
2,00,000 Li-ion batteries sunk to the bottom of the Wenger River.

SUBSEQUENT REACTION AND CALL FOR NEGOTIATION

1
Hereafter referred to as ARBIT
2
Hereafter referred to as Battering Ram
3
Hereafter referred to as Small Ram
4
Hereafter referred to as BatterSoft

PAGE | 6
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [STATEMENT OF FACTS]

Immediately after the incident Meekalar Teta, the Chancellor of Arsenalia called for
negotiations to find a peaceful solution. Rojo Diablo did not issue any official statement in
response to this. In September 2021, Arsenalia Watch, a leading investigative journal,
interviewed the fishers of Arsenalia who said that there had been a fall in demand by 62%
and the fall was a result of the hazardous Li-ion battery leakage in the riverbed.

BLOCKADE OF THE SOFTWARE SUITE PROVIDED BY BATTERSOFT

Frustrated due to the inaction and lack of assurances from Rojo Diablo, the Ministry of
Information Technology of Arsenalia invoking its power under the Information Technology
Act of Arsenalia, decided to block the entire suite of software provided by BatterSoft on
October 1, 2021. They did so because as per the information available, this software was
engaged in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty, defence, security of the state and public
order of Arsenalia.

REACTION OF ROJO DIABLO

The blocking of the suite of software offered by BatterSoft came as a huge blow to it as it
was a fledging company engaged in data mining only in Arsenalia. It demanded the
intervention of Rojo Diablo in the matter. In a statement issued by Rojo Diablo, it denied any
responsibility for the Wenger incident and regarded the action of Arsenalia as an unlawful
use of force which was further vehemently denied by Arsenalia. Due to increasing diplomatic
pressure, the diplomats of both the sides met on May 19, 2022, to negotiate a settlement in
The Hague, The Netherlands. However, they could not reach an agreement

AGREEMENT TO REFER TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

After weeks of unsuccessful negotiations, the parties, Arsenalia and Rojo Diablo, agreed to
the refer the matter to the International Court of Justice.

PAGE | 7
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS]

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

[ISSUE I]

WHETHER A HARM HAS BEEN CAUSED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW DUE TO THE
WENGER INCIDENT AND WHO HAS CAUSED IT, IF ANY?

According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which binds this Court, treaties
are to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary contextual meaning of their
terms.5

While Rojo Diablo is responsible for the harm caused to Arsenalia on account of the
WENGER incident, it was the fault of the negligent acts of the company in handling the ships
which led to the catastrophic incident. As there was a rise in demand for batteries and
production increased the manpower on each barge decreased significantly.6

It is further submitted that on the night of 22 October 2020, the WENGER river was hit by
cyclone Deepika, and as the captain of the first barge suffered a heart attack he was left
incapacitated, which was the start of a chain reaction leading up to the incident.7

Due to the incident, Arsenalia faced major economic loss as the production of molluscs and
crustaceans was drastically reduced as the Li-ion battery leakage disturbed the natural
ecosystem of the river.

[ISSUE II]

WHETHER THE BLOCKADE OF THE SUITE OF SOFTWARE OFFERED BY BATTERSOFT IN

ARSENALIA IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ARBIT AND A

NECESSARY UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTION AGAINST THE STATE OF ROJO DIABLO?

5
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art.31(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter
VCLT]. This Court is directed to apply international conventions and custom and general recognized
principles of law by Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Statute of the International
Court of Justice, art. 38, T.S. No. 993 (1945) [hereinafter ICJ Statute].
6
¶ 9, Factsheet.
7
¶ 10, Factsheet.

PAGE | 8
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS]

It is humbly submitted before the Court that the blockade of the suite of software offered by
BatterSoft in Arsenalia is in consonance with the principles of the ARBIT, and is a justified,
proportional, and necessary unilateral economic sanction against the State of Rojo Diablo.

It is in accordance with the principles of ARBIT as the action of the Government of Arsenalia
is a legitimate non-discriminatory measure that was taken in good faith in order to protect the
legitimate public welfare objective of Arsenalia. It is taken in response to the harm caused
due to the Wenger incident to the people in Arsenalia who are predominantly engaged in
pisciculture. It has also not violated the principles of fair and equitable treatment and full
protection and security as this measure was necessary as it had tried all the alternatives to
settle the dispute.

It is further submitted that it is a justified and proportional unilateral economic sanction that
is permitted under Section 48 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts8 .It is an action directed against the state with the legitimate objective of
pressuring the state of Rojo Diablo for stopping the harm caused by the Wenger incident and
repairing the harm caused due to the incident. It is, therefore, a legitimate countermeasure
allowed under customary international law.

8
Hereafter referred to as ARSIWA

PAGE | 9
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

PLEADINGS

A. WEATHER A HARM HAS BEEN CAUSED UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW DUE TO

THE WENGER INCIDENT AND WHO HAS CAUSED IT, IF ANY?

[1].It is submitted that the WENGER incident was caused due to the negligence of
Small Ram, (which is a subsidiary of Battering Ram as it is the major
shareholder)9 firstly, Small Ram had decreased the number of authorized
personnel to handle the ship. The Decrease in Manpower in combination with the
weather conditions caused the incident, Secondly, it is submitted that the harm is
attributed to the state on basis of the facts.

B. NEGLIGENT ACTS OF THE RESPONDENT

[2].It is humbly submitted before this court that the respondent has been negligent in
its conduct regarding the handling of the cargo shipment. Firstly, the current
situation does not come under the ambit of force majeure, Secondly, the
respondent was negligent in its conduct.

 THE CURRENT SITUATION DOES NOT COME UNDER THE AMBIT OF FORCE MAJEURE

[3].It is humbly submitted before this court that the respondent has been negligent in
its conduct regarding the handling of the cargo as there had been a drastic increase
in demand and production, and the manpower was significantly decreased10.
[4].It is further submitted that as there was a decrease in manpower, the captain of
ship no.1 was left incapacitated, and the other security personnel was responsible
for the management of goods on the ship. Hence, could not communicate anything
about the situation of the first barge11.
[5].To add to this misery it is submitted that the cyclone Deepika had hit the
WENGER river, due to all this the second barge crashed with the first one and
200,000 Li-on batteries found their way to the bed of the WENGER river12.

9
¶ 5, Factsheet.
10
¶ 9, Factsheet.
11
¶ 9, Factsheet.
12
¶ 10, Factsheet.

PAGE | 10
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

[6].It is submitted that the state of origin (i.e. where the activities are taking place or
are to take place) shall take all appropriate measures to prevent significant
transboundary harm or at any event to minimise the risk13.
[7].It is further submitted that according to paragraph 2 of article 23 of ARSIWA this
instance does not come under the ambit of Force Majeure, as the requisite
conditions have not been met.

C. ATTRIBUTED TO THE STATE.

[8].It is humbly submitted before this court that as held in the case of Trail smelter14,
it is the duty to protect other states against harmful acts by individuals from within
its jurisdiction at all times is the responsibility of the state. Which makes the state
of Rojo Diablo liable for the acts of the Small Ram. The company Smaller Ram
was working under the treaty agreed upon by both the states which make it come
under the jurisdiction of ROJO DIABLO.
[9].It was held in the Island of Palmas case15 that the concept of territorial sovereignty
incorporated an obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other states.

 Economic Harm Caused due to marine pollution.

[10]. It is submitted that principle 16 of the Rio Declaration notes that ‘the polluter
should, in principle, bear the costs of pollution, with due regard to the public
interests and without distorting international trade and investment’. The principle
has been particularly applied with regard to civil liability for damage resulting
from hazardous activities.
[11]. It is further submitted that looking at the facts of the case it can be clearly
inferred that significant damage has been caused to the marine life of the
WENGER river.16
[12]. This has led to a drastic fall in demand and caused economic loss to the
appellant.
[13]. It should be noted that article 1(4) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea,
1982 defines pollution of the marine environment as ‘the introduction by man,
13
Article 3 of Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities in 2001 Report
of the ILC on its 53rd Session, p. 379.
14
(United States, Canada), 3 UNRIAA, p. 1905, 1952
15
2 RIAA, pp. 829, 839 (1928).
16
¶ 13, Factsheet.

PAGE | 11
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

directly or indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine environment . . .

which results or is likely to result in . . . deleterious effects. In other words, actual
damage is not necessary for this context. It is indeed possible that customary
international law may develop in this direction, but it is too early to conclude that
this has already occurred. Most general definitions of pollution rely upon damage
or harm having been caused before liability is engaged.17
 Liability of the respondent

[14]. It is submitted that article 4(d) of the Paris Convention states that it is the
actual operator of the nuclear installation or ship that is to bear the loss and this is
on the basis of absolute or strict liability. Accordingly, no proof of fault or
negligence is required. The conventions require operators to possess appropriate
liability insurance or other financial security under the conditions laid down by the
competent public authorities unless the operator is itself a state, and the relevant
states are to ensure that claims up to the liability limits are met18.
[15]. Hence, it can be concluded that in international law the operator of the
hazardous substance is to be held liable for any harm caused thus.

D. WHETHER THE BLOCKADE OF THE SUITE OF SOFTWARE OFFERED BY

BATTERSOFT IN ARSENALIA IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ARBIT
AND A NECESSARY UNILATERAL ECONOMIC SANCTION AGAINST THE STATE OF ROJO
DIABLO?

[16]. It is submitted that the blockade of the suite of the software is firstly, in
consonance with the principles of the ARBIT and, secondly, a legitimate and
necessary unilateral economic sanction against the state of Rojo Diablo.

E. THE BLOCKADE IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ARBIT

17
commentary to the Montreal Rules adopted by the ILA in 1982, Report of the Sixtieth Conference
18
article 10 of the Paris Convention, article VII of the Vienna Convention and article III of the Brussels
Convention on Nuclear Ships.

PAGE | 12
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

[17]. It is submitted that the blockade of the suite of software offered by BatterSoft
in Arsenalia is in consonance with the principles of the ARBIT as firstly,
BatterSoft is not an investment of Rojo Diablo, secondly, it is in accordance with
Article VI (b) of the ARBIT and thirdly, it has been done in a non-discriminatory
manner after following the due process of law.

BATTERSOFT IS NOT AN INVESTMENT OF ROJO DIABLO

[18]. It is submitted that BatterSoft is a subsidiary wholly owned by Battering Ram

that holds 99% of its shares and the remaining 1% is held privately. 19 It is further
stated that Battering Ram is a company listed on the stock exchange of Rojo
Diablo in 199220 whose major market is not in Arsenalia.
[19]. Further, BatterSoft lacks the characteristics of an investment defined in the
ARBIT the as it has no commitment of capital in Arsenalia. It operates according
to arrangements made with Small Ram but lacks capital of its own 21. It also lacks
expectation of profit or gain22 as it is largely dependent on Small Ram batteries for
its sale. Therefore, it has no independent stake on the profit or loss in the market.
[20]. BatterSoft also does not have any license, permits, and similar rights conferred
to it in pursuance of the domestic law of Arsenalia. 23 It can, therefore, be said that
BatterSoft is not an investment in Arsenalia and consequently does not attract the
immunities provided in the bilateral investment treaty24.

CONSONANCE WITH ARTICLE VI (B) OF THE ARBIT

[21]. It is submitted that the blockade by the Applicant is in consonance with

Article VI(b) of the ARBIT which states that measures that are adopted in good
faith, in a non-discriminatory manner25 and are designed and applied to protect a

19
¶ 6, Factsheet.
20
¶ 3, Factsheet.
21
ARBIT
22
Ibid
23
ARBIT
24
Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15
25
Genin v. Estonia, Award, 25 June 2001, para. 367. See Dolzer and Schreuer, Principles of International
Investment Law, chapter VII

PAGE | 13
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

legitimate public welfare objective do not fall under indirect expropriation 26 and
are valid.
[22]. The Applicant has acted in good faith to protect the life and occupation of its
people who are majorly agriculturalists or fishers in the great Wenger River 27. The
party has acted out of the harm caused to it due to the Wenger incident for which
the Respondent has not provided any compensation 28 and has not taken any
measure to cede the harm.29
[23]. The measure has been taken for a legitimate public purpose 30 that is, to protect
the occupation of its people and induce the respondent to repair the harm caused 31.
It further followed the due process of law as it had the power to block the suite of
software under the Ministry of Information Technology Act of Arsenalia32.

NON-DISCRIMINATORY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE

PROCESS OF LAW

[24]. It is submitted that the measure adopted by the Government of Arsenalia is

non-discriminatory as it is done in response to the international harm incurred to
it33. It protects the legitimate expectations of the investors as it is in proportion to
the harm that has been caused to it. It has also followed the due process of law
under the Information Technology Act of Arsenalia.

F. IT IS A LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY ECONOMIC SANCTION

[25]. It is submitted that the measure taken by the Applicant is a legitimate

countermeasure and as it is justified, proportional and necessary unilateral
economic sanction.

26
Article VI (b), ARBIT
27
¶ 1, Factsheet.
28
Report of the Committee on Economic Sanctions' (1997-1998) 1997 Proceedings of the American Branch of
the International Law Association 104
29
¶ 12, Factsheet.
30
Article VI (a), ARBIT
31
Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. V. The United Mexican States Case No. Arb (Af)/00/2
32
¶ 14, Factsheet
33
Legal Aspects of a New International Economic Order' (1980) 59 Int'l L Ass'n Rep Conf 263

PAGE | 14
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

LEGITIMATE COUNTERMEASURE

[26]. It is legitimate as under certain circumstances, the commission by one State of

an internationally wrongful act may justify another State injured by that act in
taking non-forcible34 countermeasures35 in order to procure its cessation and to
achieve reparation for the injury36.
[27]. The term “sanctions” has been used for measures taken in accordance with the
constituent instrument of some international organization, under Chapter VII of
the Charter of the United Nations37.
[28]. In taking countermeasures, the injured State effectively withholds
performance for the time being of one or more international obligations owed by
it38 to the responsible State in response to an international harm that has been
caused.39
[29]. Therefore, the action by the State of Arsenalia is allowed as a legitimate
countermeasure to induce the Respondent for cessation40 or reparation41.

PROPORTIONATE

[30]. The countermeasure taken must be in proportion to the harm that has been
caused by the defaulting state42. This proportionality must be both qualitative and
quantitative43.
[31]. It is submitted that the measures are proportionate as the harm has been caused
to the major source of income of Arsenalia, that is, pisciculture 44. In response, it
has blocked the software of a company that provides Rojo Diablo with the largest
34
Use of Force' (2018) 78 Int'l L Ass'n Rep Conf 588
35
France v. United States (1978) 18 R.I.A.A. 416
36
Article 22, ARSIWA
37
Mary Ellen O'Connell, 'Report of the Economic Sanctions Committee - The Impact of Sanctions on the
Development of New International Law' (2001-2002) 2001 Proceedings of the American Branch of the
International Law Association 86
38
The American Journal of International Law , Oct., 2002, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 817-832
39
Article 48, ARSIWA
40
Article 30, ARSIWA
41
Article 31, ARSIWA
42
Portuguese Colonies case (Naulilaa incident), UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No. 1949.V.1), p. 1011, at pp. 1025–
1026 (1928)
43
Article 51, ARSIWA
44
¶ 1. Factsheet.

PAGE | 15
MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT [PLEADINGS]

source of income in the form of tax45 as Rojo Diablo is a country largely based on
technology-related industries46.
[32]. The measures can also be easily reversed 47 if the Respondent fulfils its
responsibility which is an essential requirement.48 Hence, the measures are
proportional to the harm caused to the Applicant.

NECESSARY

[33]. It is submitted that the countermeasure adopted is necessary 49 as the Applicant

has exhausted all the local remedies available 50. It had also called for negotiation
to which it received no response from the Respondent51.
[34]. There is a continuing harm that is being suffered by the Applicant due to the
Wenger incident in the form of a 62% fall in demand relating to fisheries 52 which
when coupled with the inaction of the Respondent make it necessary for the
Applicant to take a countermeasure.

45
¶ 15, Factsheet.
46
¶ 2, Factsheet.
47
Article 49(2), ARSIWA
48
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2
49
Article 52(1) (b), ARSIWA
50
Article 54, Draft Articles on State Responsibility
51
¶ 12, Factsheet.
52
¶ 13, Factsheet.

PAGE | 16
MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT [PRAYER FOR RELIEF]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prayed before this Court that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I. Rojo Diablo is responsible for the harm caused to Arsenalia on account of the
Wenger Incident; and

II. The blockade of the suite of software offered by BatterSoft on Arsenalian territory
is in consonance with the principles of the ARBIT, and is a justified, proportional,
and necessary unilateral economic sanction against the State of Rojo Diablo.

And pass any other order as it may deem fit in favour of the APPLICANT to meet the
ends of justice, fairness and equity.

All of which is humbly prayed.

PAGE | 17