Applicant - democratic state Acnefree

Questions presented:
a. Whether Rosedrop is responsible for creating the Icky Zits and Acnefree is
entitled to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy;
b. Whether Rosedrop’s No Zit Act violates the rights of the Acnefree nationals
under international law.

Summary of Pleadings:
Pleading 1
Activities of Exfolia State Lab on creating Icky Zits is attributable to Rosedrop under Article
8 of Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001.

Acnefree is entitled to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy according to

Article 36 of Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001.

Pleading 2
Rosedrop’s ‘No Zit’ act violated Article 1(1) and Article 4(3) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.

Second, ‘No Zit’ act violated the cultural rights of the Acnefree citizens ensured by Article
15(1)(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Rosedrop
also derogated from Article 1(1) and Article 5(1) of the respected Covenant.

Thirdly, Rosedrop defeated the main purposes of the UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding
of the Intangible Heritage, inscribed in Article 1 the same convention.

PLEADINGS

Ⅰ. Rosedrop is responsible for creating the Icky Zits and Acnefree is

entitled to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy.

A. Activity of Exfolia State Lab on creating Icky Zits is attributable to Rosedrop

under Article 8 of Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts 2001.

1. Activity of Exfolia State Lab is attributable to Rosedrop.

On 16 April 2022 a report concluding that the Icky Zits were, in fact, created at Exfolia State
Lab was produced by a task force of Acnefree. The Document contained about 60
attachments in support of that finding.
Under Article 8 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
(“ARSIWA”), conduct by non-State actors such as person, group of persons or entity is only
attributable to a State when undertaken by groups acting under its instruction, direction or
control.

According to the ILC Commentary to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 State using its ownership interest either by specific
directions or by exercising control over a group, in effect assume responsibility for their
conduct.

Rosedrop has 20% of ownership of the Exfolia State Lab. Secondly, Exfolia State Lab is a
government-funded entity. Moreover, Rosedrop’s Deputy Minister of Health is a member of
the Board.

Indeed, Rosedrop used its ownership interest either by specific directions or by exercising
control over an Exfolia State Lab, assuming responsibility for its conduct.

2. Conduct of Exfolia State Lab which constitutes Internationally Wrongful Act of a

State on the basis of Article 2 of the ARSIWA.

In order to constitute International Wrongful Act of Rosedrop, conduct of Exfolia State Lab
is (a) attributed to the Rosedrop; and (b) it constitutes a breach of an international obligation,
mainly breach of international peace and security, promotion and protection of health
enshrined in UN Charter and WHO Constitution

B. Acnefree is entitled to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy

according to Article 36 of Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts 2001.

1. Rosedrop is under an obligation to compensate Acnefree.

Under Article 36 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful

Acts, the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to
compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by
restitution. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of
profits insofar as it is established.
Acnefree’s economy lost over $2.5 million since the beginning of the health crisis: 80% of its
beauty & wellness and tourist businesses had to shut down. The state lacked healthy
employees.

Acnefree is entitled to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy by the

Internationally Wrongful Act of Rosedrop. Latter state is under obligation to compensate.

Ⅱ. Rosedrop’s No Zit Act violates the rights of the Acnefree nationals under
international law.

A) Rosedrop’s ‘No Zit’ act violated Article 1(1) and Article 4(3) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

According to Article 1, by virtue of self-determination rights, people freely pursue their

economic, social and cultural development.

Rosedrop with the ‘No Zit’ act precludes pursuing cultural development in the way of
prohibiting Acnefree nationals to wear their Shiny Veils during the crossing their border and
in public within the territory of Rosedrop.

Moreover, even if Rosedrop derogation from its obligation under present Covenant was
justified, under article 4(3) any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right
of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant,
through the intermediary of the Secretary General of the United Nations, of the provisions
from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. Rosedrop failed to
follow this provision. No communication to Acnefree through the Secretary General took
place. Thus Rosedrop violated Article 4(3) of the present Covenant.

B) ‘No Zit’ act violated the cultural rights of the Acnefree citizens ensured by the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

1. ‘No Zit’ act violated Article 1(1), Article 15(1)(a) and (2) of ICESCR.

According to Article 15(1), Rosedrop should have recognized the right of everyone to take
part in cultural life. However, it did not by issuing discriminatory No Zit act. Moreover
Rosedrop as a State Party did not only conserved, developed and diffused this right, but
prohibited enjoying Acnefreens cultural heritage, as a result violated Article 15 (2). Rosedrop
also violated right of self-determination (Article 1(1)).

2. The limitation of cultural rights by Rosedrop goes to a greater extent than is provided
for in the present Covenant.

C) Rosedrop defeated the main purposes of the UNESCO Convention for

Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage, inscribed in Article 1(a)(b) the same
convention.
Shiny Veils have been on the UNESCO Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage since 2008.
According to Article 16 of UNESCO Convention, a Representative List of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage of Humanity is established to ensure better visibility of the intangible
cultural heritage and awareness of its significance, and to encourage dialogue which respects
cultural diversity.

The purposes of this Convention are: (a) to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage; (b) to
ensure respect for the intangible cultural heritage of the communities, groups and individuals
concerned.

Not paying respect to the intangible heritage of Acnefree, failing to safeguard Acnefree’s
traditional Shine Veil, not being opened to cooperation with them constitute the defeat of
Rosedrop of main purpose and object of the UNESCO Convention for Safeguarding of the
INtangible Heritage.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Democratic State of Acnefree, the Applicant,
respectfully prays that this Honourable Court:

Ⅰ. DECLARE that Rosedrop is responsible for creating the Icky Zits and Acnefree is entitled
to a compensation of the losses caused to its economy.
Ⅱ. DECLARE that Rosedrop’s No Zit Act violates the rights of the Acnefree nationals under
international law.
Respondent - constitutional monarchy Rosedrop

Questions presented:
c. Whether the creation of the Icky Zits, if proven, is not attributable to
Rosedrop, and in any event Acnefree is not entitled to any compensation;
d. Whether the Act of 20 December 2021 is consistent with international law.

Summary of Pleadings:
Pleading 1
Creation of contagious Icky Zits by Exfolia State Lab, if proven, is not attributable to
Rosedrop under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
2001 and ILC Commentaries to the draft articles. Thus, no Internationally Wrongful Act of
Rosedrop occurred toward Acnefree, which entitles Acnefree for compensation.

Pleading 2
The adoption of the ‘No Zit’ act of Rosedrop was consistent with International law under
Health Regulation 2005, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Constitution of World Health
Organization.

PLEADINGS

Ⅰ. The creation of the Icky Zits, if proven, is not attributable to Rosedrop,

and in any event Acnefree is not entitled to any compensation.

A. Creation of Icky Zits by Exfolia State Lab, if proven, is not attributable to

Rosedrop.

Exfolia State Lab is a legally private entity, despite the fact that it is state-funded, 20% of
which is state owned and one of the representatives of the Board is Rosedrop’s Deputy
Minister of Health.

As ILC emphasizes in its commentaries to these ARSIWA, it is necessary to recall that

international law acknowledges the general separateness of corporate entities at the national
level. Since corporate entities, although owned by and in that sense subject to the control of
the State, are considered to be separate, their conduct in carrying out their activities is not
attributable to the State unless they are exercising elements of governmental authority within
the meaning of article 5. This was the position taken, for example, in relation to the de facto
seizure of property by a State-owned oil company, in a case SEDCO, Inc. v. National Iranian
Oil Co., (1987) where there was no proof that the State used its ownership interest as a
vehicle for directing the company to seize the property.
There is no, indeed, evidence that State used its 20% ownership interest for directing or
controlling an Exfolia State Lab specifically in order to achieve the diffusion of Icky Zits on
the territory of Acnefree.

Because of the absence of any clear proof and evidence that conduct of Lab was under
instruction, direction and control of Rosedrop prima facie is not attributable to the latter state.

B. Rosedrop is not obliged to pay compensation to Acnefree.

Under the required elements of an internationally wrongful act Article 2 ARSIWA the
activities of Exfolia State Lab, which violates an international obligation of Rosedrop, does
not constitute an internationally wrongful act of Rosedrop, as far as conduct of Lab is not
attributable to a state.

Thus Rosedrop did not commit any internationally wrongful act towards Acnefree and is not
obliged to pay any compensation for damage caused to its economy.

Ⅱ. The Act of 20 December 2021 is consistent with international law.

A. Icky Zits caused a public health emergency of international concern.

According to the Health Regulation 2005 Assessment Chart Icky Zits indeed constitutes a
public health emergency of international concern.
(1) Public health impact of the Icky Zit serious. 250,000 Acnefreen people over 5 million
population were infected. (2) Icky Zits has a highly contagious nature. (3) Treatment failure
(salicylic acid and even hormonal medicines resistance). (4) Icky Zit is a previously unknown
disease, caused by unknown agent. (5) There is a significant risk of international spread
among other states, as far as around 300 were registered in Exfolia.

B. Lawfulness of the ‘No Zit’ act under ICCPR and ICESCR.

Article 12(3) of ICCPR and Articles 4 of ICESCR provide lawfulness to the Act of 20
December 2021 in the situation of public health emergency.

C. Following principles of the World Health Organisation.

‘No Zit’ Act did not derogate the principle of the constitution of WHO, under which
Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only
by the provision of adequate health and social measures. Health and social measures arising
from ‘No Zit’ Act fulfilled the obligation of Rosedrop under WHO.

For the aforementioned reasons, the constitutional monarchy Rosedrop , the Respondent,
respectfully prays that this Honourable Court:

Ⅰ. DECLARE that the creation of the Icky Zits, if proven, is not attributable to Rosedrop,
and in any event Acnefree is not entitled to any compensation.
Ⅱ. DECLARE that the Act of 20 December 2021 is consistent with international law.