PR30 Petitioner

Paras Diwan Moot Court Competition 2016 Memorial on behalf of Petitioner
Team Code: PR30

6th Dr. PARAS DIWAN MEMORIAL INTERNATIONAL ‘ENERGY LAW’
MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE,
THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS)

Under Article 40 (1) of the statute of International Court of Justice
IN THE MATTER OF
THE REPUBLIC OF ALBROSA……………………………………………..PETITIONER 1
STATE OF BONG BONG…………………………………………..…………PETITIONER 2
STATE OF KOLRA…………………………………………………………....PETITIONER 3
V.
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF BRISSELANTA
………………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT
______________________________________________
Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner
Page | 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………….…………..4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………….6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................10
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.........................................................................................................13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………….………….……………….………..14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................................17
ISSUE 1 – THAT THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS FALLS WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF ICJ……………........................................................................................17
(1.1) That the Dispute Settlement clause of 123 Agreement is not satisfied……………………17
(1.2) That the Petitioner 2 and 3 are necessary parties to the dispute and their participation is
required for the purpose of rendering a judgment………………………………………………19
(1.3) That the parties are not bound to settle the dispute through alternate dispute
settlement……………………………………………………………………………………….20
ISSUE 2 – THAT THE RESPONDENT, BEING A SUPPLIER OF NUCLEAR
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL, CAN BE HELD LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE
APPLICANTS FOR NUCLEAR DISASTER...........................................................................22
Page | 1
(2.1) That the nuclear disaster occurred due to latent defect in the power plant which was due to
respondent's negligence…………………………………………………………………………22
(2.2) That the domestic legislation CLNDA will prevail over the 123
Agreement………………………………………………………………………………………24
ISSUE 3 – THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE
APPLICANTS FOR THE POLLUTION OF THEIR MARINE
ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………………….…………………………27
(3.1) That the respondent is liable to compensate as per domestic legislation of petitioner 1, i.e.
CLNDA………………………………………………………………………………………...27
(3.2) That the respondent is liable to compensate as it is the main cause behind pollution of the
environment……………………………………………………………………………………..28
(3.3) That the respondent’s contention denying liability out of reasons beyond territorial
jurisdiction of Petitioner 1 is untenable…………………………………………………………29
ISSUE 4 – THAT ALBROSA’S INDEFINITE MORATORIUM ON URANIUM
IMPORTS IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE 123 AGREEMENT………………………….30
(4.1) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (a) of the 123
Agreement………………………………………………………………………………………..30
(4.2) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (b) of the 123
Agreement………………………………………………………………………………………32
Page | 2
(4.3) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (g) of the 123
Agreement……………………………………………………………………………………….34
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………...36
Page | 3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
AB Appellate Body
Art. Article
BISD Basic Instruments and Selected Documents
BPPEC Brisselanta Power for Power Electrical Company
Can. Canada
CLNDA Civil Liability for Nuclear Disaster Act
EC European Communities
Ed. Edition
FNPP Floating Nuclear Power Plant
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
Ibid Ibidem
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
i.e. That is
Misc. Miscellaneous
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Para Paragraph
PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice
Pg Page
Page | 4
SC Supreme Court
SD Signed
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
US United States
V. Versus
WTO World Trade Organization
Page | 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes, Conventions & Resolutions-

1. Charter of the United Nations
2. Statute of the International Court of Justice
3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
4. ICSID Convention
5. The 1999 Resolution of the Institute of International Law (II)
Books, Journals, Commentaries & Reports-

1. Aron Broches, “The Convention on the settlement of International Disputes: some
observations on jurisdictions” 5 Columbia Journal of International Law.
2. Georges R. Delaume, ‘ICSID Arbitration and the Courts’ (1983) 77 American Journal of
Law.
3. Christopher Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press
2001)
4. Dispute Settlement, UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.232/Add.19
5. H. Thirlway, ‘The International Court of Justice 1989-2009: At the Heart of the Dispute
Settlement System?’ (2010) 57 Netherlands Law Review 347-95
6. H. Thirlway, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989,
Supplement 2005: Parts One and Two’
7. International Seminars on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies 46th Session, edited by R
Ragaini
8. The Relationship Between International and Domestic Law By Constantin Economides

Page | 6
9. Natural Resources Conservation Law, By Sairam Bhat
10. J. Crawford – The ILC’s articles on state responsibility: Introduction, text and commentaries
(2002)
11. R.K., Gardiner, ‘ International Law’, Longman Law Series, London, 2003
12. Katie Sykes, Sealing Animal Welfare into the GATT Exceptions: The International
Dimension of Animal Welfare in WTO Disputes
13. Nuclear Scars : The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, Greenpeace International
Report, Published in March 2016
14. De Legibus by Marcus Tullius Cicero, Book III
15. European Perspectives on Environmental Law and Governance By Suzanne Kingston
16. The Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements – A Report from a Nordic
Project
Judicial Decisions-
1. Fedax NV vs Venezuela, (1998) 37 ILM 1378
2. Phoenix v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award of 15 April 2009
3. Salini Construttori S.p.A. v Morocco, (2003) 42 ILM 609 (ICSID)
4. Biwater v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/2
5. Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Question, Judgment
of June 15, 1954), ICJ Reports (1954).
6. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports (1995), 90
Page | 7
7. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria),
Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998.
8. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984,
Page 392
9. Interhandel Case, I.C.J. Reports 1959, Separate opinion by Judge Percy Spender
10. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
11. Chorzow Factory case, PCIJ (1928) Ser. A No. 17 at 47
12. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project. (1997) ICJ Reports 226, paras 149 et
seq
13. United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting
Services of 7 April 2005, WT/DS285/R
14. US-Gambling, AB Report, supra n. 9
15. EC – Seals Products case, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING
THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS.
16. Korea – Measures affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, AB Report adopted
on 10 January 2001, WT/DS169/AB/R.
17. European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products,
AB Report adopted on 12 March 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R.
18. US – Shrimp/Turtle I AB report
19. GATT Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting Exports of Unprocessed Herring and
Salmon, L/6268, adopted 22 March 1988, BISD 35S/98
Page | 8
20. United States – Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, BISD
29S/91, para 4.9, Canada – Measures affecting exports of unprocessed Herring and Salmon,
BISD 35S/98
Websites referred-
1. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/
Encyclopedia -
1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, POCKET EDITION, St. Paul: Thomson West (B.A.
Garner ed., 4th ed. 2011)
2. Black Law Dictionary, 10th Edition
Page | 9
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The applicant humbly submits to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble International Court of Justice under
the Article 40(1)1 of the statute of International Court of Justice. The present petition sets forth
the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.
1
Article 40(1) of the statute of International Court of Justice:
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.
Page | 10
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Albrosa is a developing archipelagic island nation located in high risk
seismic zone. The energy situation in Albrosa is rather dismal. The unstable electricity
supply from conventional energy sources and a high rate of energy importation has
significantly stunted Albrosa’s industrial growth. This prompted the Albrosan government to
endorse a switch to nuclear energy.
2. The People’s Republic of Brisselanta is a developed and technologically advanced nation. In
2004, Brisselanta announced plans to build Floating Nuclear Power Plants. Brisselanta
aspires to install FNPPs in multiple countries with the intention to provide power to coastal
areas.
3. On 1st February 2010, the two states entered into the “123 Agreement”. As per the 123
agreement, Brisselanta was to be supplier of nuclear equipment and material while Albrosa
was to be operator of the FNPP. This agreement provided liability of the operator in the event
of a nuclear disaster.
4. Albrosan Parliament strongly objected the liability clause of the 123 Agreement. The
Parliament of Albrosa enacted a new legislation called as Civil Liability for Nuclear Disaster
Act which provided the operator the right of recourse against the supplier. But the
government of Albrosa, realizing the importance of FNPP, amended Art V of the 123
Agreement. This led to the fall of government in Albrosa. The new government denied the
validity of the 123 Agreement through an official notification dated 2nd February 2011. But
regardless of this notification, both the countries evinced their continued interest in operating
under the 123 Agreement.
Page | 11
5. The first FNPP was planned for the Morsin kkkuyu site which became fully functional on 31
January 2014.Serious concerns were raised about the desired site by the Bong Bong island,
situated 400 miles away from the said site.
6. On 21 June 2014, the Bong Bong island was hit by an underwater earthquake which led to
the collision of an aircraft super carrier with the FNPP at the Morsin kkkuyu site. The
collision produced equipment failures, which culminated in loss of coolant and was followed
by a nuclear meltdown and release of radioactive material into the territorial waters of Bong
Bong, Kolra and Albrosa. There is a projection of 18500 deaths linked to short term
overexposure to radiation. Also, the fishing industry of Albrosa, Kolra and Bong Bong has
come to a standstill and eco-tourism has taken a hit.
7. The Albrosan Atomic Energy Agency constituted an expert body to determine the cause
underlying the nuclear disaster. Based on the said report, the state of Albrosa retorted that the
snag in coolant supply was due to a latent defect in the nuclear reactor coolant and generators
supplied by BPPEC (flagship government company of Brisselanta) petition was filed before
the Supreme Court of Albrosa. On 28th September 2014 the Supreme Court of Albrosa
passed an ex parte judgement against BPPEC who failed to appear for the trial.
8. The republic of Albrosa, along with the island states of Bong Bong and Kolra, brings a claim
before the International Court of Justice, claiming the outstanding compensation from the
People’s Democracy of Brisselanta for the nuclear disaster and the pollution of their marine
environment which reduced their economies to shambles.
Page | 12
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1 – Whether the ICJ has the jurisdiction to hear the present case?
ISSUE 2 – Whether the Respondent, being a supplier of nuclear equipment
and material, can be held liable to compensate the Applicants for the nuclear
disaster?
ISSUE 3 – Whether the Respondent is liable to compensate the Applicants for
the pollution of their marine environment that gravely dented their economic
interests?
ISSUE 4 – Is Albrosa’s indefinite moratorium on uranium imports from
Brisselanta violative of the 123 Agreement?
Page | 13
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
JURISDICTION OF ICJ.
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the dispute. ICSID will not have any
jurisdiction over this dispute as Dispute Settlement clause of 123 Agreement is not satisfied here.
The current dispute is not an investment dispute in entirety. It is linked to deaths of thousands of
people in the state of Albrosa. It is also related to pollution of marine environment and also on
indefinite moratorium on uranium imports by petitioner no. 1 on respondent which is a trade
related dispute. Such disputes can be handled by the ICJ. Further, petitioners 2 and 3 are
necessary parties to this dispute and their participation is necessary for the purpose of rendering a
judgment. Also, parties are not bound to settle this dispute through alternate dispute settlement
system as current general international law does not consider entering into a negotiation process
a pre-requisite for instituting judicial proceedings. Hence, the claim falls within the jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble court.
ISSUE 2 - THAT THE RESPONDENT, BEING A SUPPLIER OF NUCLEAR
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL, IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE APPLICANTS
FOR NUCLEAR DISASTER.
The respondent, being a supplier of nuclear material, is liable to compensate the applicants as the
nuclear disaster occurred due to latent defect in the plant. The plant was not seismically robust.
The special feature of FNPP, to use surrounding seawater to automatically cool down the plant in
case of an emergency, was missing. Further, the amendment to Art V of the 123 Agreement is
Page | 14
invalid as it is inconsistent with the domestic legislation CLNDA. In case of inconsistency
between bilateral agreement and domestic legislation, domestic legislation will prevail.
Parliament portrays the will of the people. The executive has a power to enter into an agreement
with a foreign nation but if the parliament objects to it, that agreement cannot be considered as a
valid agreement and will have no effects in the domestic legal system. Further, the petitioners 2
and 3, though not a party to the 123 Agreement, are also liable to be compensated here as their
interest have been gravely dented due to this incident, making them necessary parties to the
dispute. Hence, respondent is liable to compensate the applicants for the nuclear disaster.
APPLICANTS FOR THE POLLUTION OF THEIR MARINE ENVIRONMENT.
The respondent is liable to compensate the applicants for pollution of their marine environment
as respondent is the polluter of the environment. It has already been contended that domestic
legislation of CLNDA will prevail over the 123 Agreement. As per the Sec 23 (c) of the
CLNDA, operator shall have right to recourse against the supplier. This shows that even after
heavily affected by this nuclear disaster, the petitioner 1 is fulfilling all its obligations under the
domestic legislation of CLNDA. And after exhausting all the other remedies, they have now
turned to the respondent for outstanding compensation under the Right of Recourse [Section 23
(c) CLNDA]. Further, the accident has occurred due to the latent defect in the plant, which is
negligence on part of the respondent. The general principle of ‘polluter pays principle’ is applied
here, on the basis of which respondent is bound to compensate the petitioners. Also, the
respondent’s contention that it is not liable to pay for damages arising out of reasons beyond
territorial jurisdiction of Albrosa is untenable. Every international wrongful act of a state entails
Page | 15
the environmental responsibility of that state. The respondent is liable to pay damages in this
case as principle of state responsibility binds it do so.
IMPORTS IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE 123 AGREEMENT.
The moratorium on uranium imports is valid under Art XXX of the 123 Agreement. The
moratorium is valid as per Art XXX (a) in order to protect public morals as the lives of animals
has been affected here and animals welfare is universally recognized as part of public morals.
Further, it is valid as per Art XXX (b) as the lives of human and animals have been affected.
This has also affected the health of the people due to overexposure to radiation. Further, it is also
valid as per Art XXX (g) as it is being done to conserve exhaustible natural resources and fish
comes under that category. Hence, the indefinite moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per
Art XXX of the 123 Agreement.
Page | 16
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
JURISDICTION OF ICJ.
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble International Court of Justice that the claims made by the
petitioners fall within the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice.
(1.1) That the Dispute Settlement clause of 123 Agreement is not satisfied.
1. In the present case, only Petitioner 1 (Albrosa) and Respondent (Brisselanta) are parties to
123 Agreement, the other two petitioners, therefore, are not bound by the clauses of this
agreement. For Petitioner No. 1, as per Dispute Settlement Clause of 123 Agreement, any
dispute that cannot be settled by consultation and negotiation can be referred to ICSID. But
ICSID has jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes between a private investor and a state,2 and it
cannot decide any dispute between two states. The main purpose of ICSID as set forth in
Article 1(2) of the ICSID Convention is to provide facilities for the conciliation and
arbitration of investment disputes between Contracting States and nationals of other
Contracting States. As per Art 25(1) of ICSID Convention, jurisdiction extends to investment
dispute between a contracting state and national of another contracting state. Clearly, the
petitioners, being a state party, cannot approach to ICSID against the respondent.
2. The dispute settlement clause also states that if the requirements of Chapter II of ICSID
convention is not satisfied, the parties may approach to ICJ. As per Chapter II of ICSID, the
2
Aron Broches, “The Convention on the settlement of International Disputes: some observations on jurisdictions” 5
Columbia Journal of International Law (1966) 263, at 265
Page | 17
dispute must be arising directly out of investment.3 The term ‘investment’ is not defined
anywhere in the ICSID convention.4 It was left for the states to decide on the definition of the
term ‘investment’ on their own terms.5 Here, in the given case, the definition clause of 123
Agreement provides a narrow definition of the term ‘Investment’.
3. The ICSID tribunal in the case of Fedax NV v. Venezuela6 decided on four main factors on
which the term ‘investment’ depends. These are – (a) that the investment should exist for a
certain duration, (b) the multinational corporation should gain regular profits and returns, (c)
there must be an assumption of risk, (d) there must be a contribution to the economic
development of the host state. Further, jurisprudential development of the term ‘Investment’
was done by the ICSID in the case of Phoenix v. Czech Republic7 where two more factors
were added to the definition – (a) Assets must be invested in accordance with the laws of the
host state. (b) Assets must be invested in a bonafide way.
4. Following the jurisdictional approach as adopted by the ICSID tribunal in Salini
Construttori S.p.A. v Morocco, where the tribunal decided to deny jurisdiction where if not
all of the elements identified in the Fedax case is satisfied.8 This approach was expanded by
the tribunal in Biwater v. Tanzania, where it advocated for adopting more flexible and
pragmatic approach taking into account not only the factors identified in Salini case, but also
3
Art 25(1) of ICSID
4
Georges R. Delaume, ‘ICSID Arbitration and the Courts’ (1983) 77 American Journal of Law 784, 785
5
Christopher Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press 2001) 121 - 125
6
Fedax NV vs Venezuela, (1998) 37 ILM 1378, para 43
7
Phoenix v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award of 15 April 2009, para 114
8
Salini Construttori S.p.A. v Morocco, (2003) 42 ILM 609 (ICSID)
Page | 18
all the circumstances of the case.9 Applying this approach in the present case, it can be
contended that the dispute in question is not merely an investment dispute.
5. Further, the current dispute is linked to deaths of thousands of people in the state of Albrosa.
It is also related to pollution of marine environment and also on indefinite moratorium on
uranium imports by petitioner no. 1 on respondent which is a trade related dispute. All these
disputes can be decided by the ICJ. The ICJ is competent enough to decide on any legal,
extra-legal, or non-legal matters and there is nothing in the statute of the ICJ which suggests
that the court would be unable to deal with any particular category of disputes.10
6. Hence, it is humbly submitted that Chapter II of ICSID is not satisfied here. Following the
Dispute Settlement clause of 123 Agreement, in case the requirements of Chapter II of ICSID
are not satisfied, the parties may approach ICJ for settlement of their disputes.
(1.2) That the Petitioner 2 and 3 are necessary parties to the dispute and their participation
is required for the purpose of rendering a judgment.
7. It is also submitted that petitioner no. 2 (Bong Bong) and 3 (Kolra) are not a party to the 123
Agreement, due to which they cannot move to ICSID for arbitration. Both petitioners no 2
and 3 are necessary parties to this dispute and without them the court cannot proceed on the
merits of the case. The necessary parties are required parties in a case whose rights or
obligations are the very subject-matter of a dispute submitted by other states and a decisions
on that dispute is not possible without deciding on the rights or obligations of the third state
and making it a party to the proceedings.11
9
Biwater v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/2
10
Dispute Settlement, UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.232/Add.19, Page 35
11
The 1999 Resolution of the Institute of International Law (II)
Page | 19
8. The case of necessary parties was introduced in Monetary Gold case, when states were
detected whose legal rights would not only be affected by a decision, but would form the
subject matter of the decision and vital issue to be settled.12 The absence of a necessary party
caused the court to decide that it lacked the jurisdiction in the case. Further, in the East
Timor case, the court even refused to hear the merits of the case between Portugal and
Australia on the grounds that a necessary party to the dispute is not a part of that case.13
9. In the present case, the petitioners 2 and 3 have also been affected by the nuclear disaster as
their fishing industry and ecotourism has been hit. So, their participation is required for the
purpose of rendering a judgment as they are necessary parties to the dispute and their rights
and interest overlap with the cause of action.
(1.3) That the parties are not bound to settle the dispute through alternate dispute
settlement.
10. It is humbly submitted here that the parties are not bound to first settle their dispute through
alternate dispute settlement. Judicial settlement is widely seen as a better dispute resolution
system than negotiation as it is characterized by a certain degree of formalism and also it is
binding on both the parties. The main advantage of judicial settlement of disputes is that it
produces a settlement, rather than merely smoothing the way to a possible settlement which
12
Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Question, Judgment of June 15, 1954), ICJ
Reports (1954), 19, 32
13
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports (1995), 90
Page | 20
the parties may, or may not, choose to adopt.14 Such settlement is also legally binding on
both the parties.15
11. The current general international law does not consider entering into a negotiation process a
pre-requisite for instituting judicial proceedings. Although negotiation, mediation,
conciliation are cited before judicial settlement in Art 33 of UN Charter, this does not mean
that recourse to judicial settlement is precluded due to absence of previous negotiations, or
conciliation. Under Art 33 of UN Charter, negotiation and judicial settlement are enumerated
together. Negotiation is cited first as it is widely observed that most disputes are resolved
through direct and friendly negotiations between the states concerned. Neither in the UN
Charter, nor otherwise in international law is any general rule to be found to the effect that
the exhaustion of diplomatic negotiations constitutes a precondition for a matter to be
referred to the Court.16
12. Further, there is no requirement of prior exhaustion of negotiating processes as a
precondition to seising the court.17 It is no breach of good faith for a state to seise the court of
a dispute with another state without first affording an opportunity to other state to settle it by
negotiation.18 Also, it is not a condition precedent to a dispute arising that one state must
14
H. Thirlway, ‘The International Court of Justice 1989-2009: At the Heart of the Dispute Settlement System?’
(2010) 57 Netherlands Law Review 347-95 at 355.
15
Art 59, Statute of International Court of Justice
16
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 303, para. 56.
17
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, Page 392, Para 108
18
H. Thirlway, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989, Supplement 2005: Parts
One and Two’, at 10.
Page | 21
indicate its intention to resort to judicial procedure unless claim is satisfied.19 A party to a
dispute is free to make direct recourse to jurisdictional means to solve a dispute.
13. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the claims made falls within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
ISSUE 2 - THAT THE RESPONDENT, BEING A SUPPLIER OF NUCLEAR
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL, IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE APPLICANTS
FOR NUCLEAR DISASTER.
The petitioners humbly submit that the respondent, being a supplier of nuclear equipment and
material, is liable to compensate for this nuclear disaster.
(2.1) That the nuclear disaster occurred due to latent defect in the power plant which was
due to respondent's negligence.
14. It is humbly submitted that the nuclear disaster occurred due to latent defect in the FNPP.
According to Black Law Dictionary, Latent defect is a kind of hidden defect found through
normal use of the product and is typically found through normal inspection/investigation
techniques.20 Such defect is not apparent and can only be discovered through normal usage of
the product over the time.
15. As per the report submitted by an expert body constituted by Albrosan Atomic Energy
Agency, there was a latent defect in the nuclear reactors coolant and generators supplied by
19
Interhandel Case, I.C.J. Reports 1959, Separate opinion by Judge Percy Spender, at p 60
20
Black Law Dictionary, 10th Edition
Page | 22
BPPEC.21 The Morsin-kkkuyu FNPP site was not seismically robust which has led to this
disaster. In 2011, earthquake and tsunami struck Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex,
but neither the quake, nor the inundation caused the contamination. Rather, it was the
aftereffects i.e. cutting of power to the cooling pumps and lack of cooling for reactor cores
which caused the most harm.22 So, it is not the catastrophic scenarios but the aftereffects that
has caused the main damage.
16. The floating nuclear power plants are designed in a way so that it can be automatically
cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst case scenario, which would prevent escape of
radioactive material. This is one of the special features of floating nuclear power plant. In a
land based nuclear power plant, pumping is required for continuous re-circulation of nuclear
furnace coolant (light water) to the steam generator to cool the thermal energy generated by
the nuclear power plant. In such plant, ocean is commonly used to supply cooling water for
the power conversion system, but this is not relied upon as the sole system for decay heat
removal due to its complexity and need for external power to operate.23
17. The position is different in case of an FNPP. One of the major advantages of a floating
nuclear reactor is direct access to an ocean, sea or large river as an infinite thermal sink for
decay heat removal. The seawater near the floating nuclear power plant protects it from
earthquakes and tsunamis and can serve as an infinite source of cooling water in case of
emergency, which would eliminate the need of pumping in such scenario.24 In case if an
accident condition arise, seawater can be used to remove heat from the reactor as the plant is
21
Para 16, Page 12 of Compromis
22
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/
23
International Seminars on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies 46th Session, edited by R Ragaini, Page 108
24
http://mitei.mit.edu/news/new-look-nuclear-power
Page | 23
set well below the water line. The necessary flow of water can occur passively without any
need of pumping and seawater contamination.25
18. The main benefit of using the seawater as an unlimited high performance and gravity driven
heat sink is that the likelihood of loss of decay heat removal, similar to that which occurred at
Fukushima (Japan) can be practically eliminated, thereby greatly reducing the risk of
accident of such reactors. Also, in case of FNPP, the fact that one would never run out of
cooling water means that a safe decay-heat-removal state can be maintained for an indefinite
duration, thereby eliminating the need for pumping in of additional cooling water. This
makes the reactor capable of surviving catastrophic scenarios without core damage or
radiation release.26 A sufficient amount of cooling water may be used if a beyond design
basis accident occurs. This special feature of floating nuclear power plant is one of its major
advantages.
19. In the current case, this very basic feature, which is a special ability of FNPP to withstand
catastrophic scenarios like earthquakes and tsunami, is also missing. Hence, the nuclear
disaster has occurred due to the presence of this defect, and not due to negligence of the
operator.
(2.2) That the domestic legislation CLNDA will prevail over the 123 Agreement.
20. Further, it is humbly submitted that the domestic legislation of petitioner 1 i.e. CLNDA will
prevail over the 123 Agreement. The amendment to Article V of 123 Agreement is invalid as
it is inconsistent with CLNDA and also lead to a no confidence motion against the erstwhile
government. The 123 Agreement was strongly objected by the Parliament of Albrosa which
25
Ibid
26
International Seminars on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies 46th Session, edited by R Ragaini, Page 110
Page | 24
later enacted its own domestic law on civil nuclear liability called as CLNDA. The
agreement is a mere executive agreement and has no approval from the Parliament of
Albrosa. Rather, the Parliament passed an inconsistent legislation to the agreement thereby
putting liability on the supplier.
21. In any republic, Parliament portrays the will of the people. The laws made by the Parliament
are part of state’s conduct. The executive has a power to enter into an agreement with a
foreign nation but if the parliament objects to it, that agreement cannot be considered as a
valid agreement and will have no effects in the domestic legal system.27 Being a mere
executive agreement that is indisputably inferior to municipal law, the Agreement cannot
prevail over a prior or subsequent municipal law inconsistent with it.
22. Whenever there is a conflict between international law and municipal law, municipal law will
prevail on the ground that international law is given effect to operate domestically by
municipal law only.28 In the ideal case, there should not be any inconsistency between
international norms and domestic legislation. But in case of any such inconsistency, the
domestic legislation should prevail.29 Also, for the high implication matters like nuclear
issues, a nation cannot bind itself merely by an executive act without the approval of its
legislature. In the given case, Albrosan Parliament has not only objected to the agreement but
also framed its own domestic legislation called as CLNDA, which is inconsistent with the
123 Agreement.
23. A parallel inference of this can be drawn from the Indo – US Nuclear Deal and an
inconsistent domestic legislation of India called as Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act,
27
The Relationship Between International and Domestic Law By Constantin Economides, Page 9
28
R.K., Gardiner, ‘ International Law’, Longman Law Series, London, 2003, P. 141
29
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
Page | 25
2010. An Indo – US Nuclear Deal was signed between India and US which puts the liability
of any nuclear disaster on operator only. But India passed an inconsistent domestic
legislation called as Nuclear Liability Act, 2010 which hold nuclear suppliers responsible and
liable for nuclear damage. So, in India, in the event of a nuclear disaster, its domestic
legislation of Nuclear Liability Act will be binding and prevail over the Indo – US Nuclear
deal.
24. Similarly, Japanese Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage also allows operator to have a
right to recourse against the third party.30 This does not comply with the international
conventions with respect to channeling all the liability only to the operator. Hence, in the
event of any inconsistency between municipal law and international law, municipal law will
prevail.
25. Further, the petitioners 2 and 3, though not a party to the 123 Agreement, are also liable to be
compensated here as their interest have been gravely dented due to this incident, making
them necessary parties to the dispute. Hence, respondent is liable to compensate the
applicants for the nuclear disaster.
30
Section 5, Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1961, (Japan)
Page | 26
APPLICANTS FOR THE POLLUTION OF THEIR MARINE ENVIRONMENT.
The petitioner humbly submits that the respondent is liable to give compensation for pollution of
marine environment of the petitioners.
(3.1) That the respondent is liable to compensate as per domestic legislation of petitioner 1,
i.e. CLNDA.
26. It is humbly submitted here that the respondent is liable to compensate the petitioners for the
pollution of their marine environment. It has already been contended above that the domestic
legislation of CLNDA will prevail over the 123 Agreement. As per Sec 23 (c) of the
CLNDA, the operator shall have right to recourse against the supplier.31 The petitioner 1 is
fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the CLNDA. The petitioner 1, being the operator of
the nuclear plant, has rendered all their obligations even when their economies were reduced
to shambles after the Nuclear Accident.
27. A compensation package of 150 million SDRs arising out of the Nuclear Insurance Pool was
apportioned between all the petitioners on a pro-rata basis.32 Albrosan government has paid
their share in the liability and disbursed another 150 million SDRs in compensation to the
victims from Albrosa, Bong-Bong and Kolra as per Section 23 of the CLNDA. This shows
that even after heavily affected by this nuclear disaster, the petitioner 1 is fulfilling all its
obligations under the domestic legislation of CLNDA. And they have now turned to the
respondent for outstanding compensation under the Right of Recourse [Section 23 (c)
31
Sec 23 (c) of CLNDA, Page 8 of the Compromis
32
Pg 14, Line 3 of the Compromis.
Page | 27
CLNDA], after exhausting all the other remedies. This seems to be the only option available
for the petitioners at this stage.
28. Further, the present Nuclear Accident has revived the memories of Chernobyl Nuclear
disaster and the loss of life is manifold with the projection of 18500 deaths linked to short
term overexposure to radiation. The fishing and Eco-tourism industry which are core
industries of these countries have come to a standstill. The radioactive elements will be
present in phytoplankton and zooplankton, kelp and other marine animals for the next 30
years. The expert committee, in order to avoid the transmission of these radioactive elements
to human food chain, has suggested a ban on fishing for the next 3 years pushing the future
of Kolra and Bong-Bong Islands to an inevitable and impending doom.33
29. So, it is not possible for the petitioners to bear this cost, forcing them to move to the
respondent for the outstanding compensation. Hence, the respondent is liable to compensate
the petitioners under Sec 23 (c) of CLNDA.
(3.2) That the respondent is liable to compensate as it is the main cause behind pollution of
the environment.
30. It is humbly submitted here that the respondent is liable to compensate for the pollution of
the marine environment of the petitioners. The accident has occurred due to the latent defect
in the nuclear power plant, which is negligence on part of the respondent. So the respondent
is the main cause behind pollution of the environment. In environmental damages, a ‘polluter
pays principle’ is applied all over the world.
31. The "Polluter Pays principle” means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment
extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the
33
Para 15, Pg 12 of the Compromis
Page | 28
environmental degradation.34 This principle is enacted to make the party responsible for
paying pollution responsible for paying for the damage done to the environment. This
principle place a strict liability on the polluter, irrespective of its fault.
32. It's a principle in international environmental law in which the polluting party not only pays
for the damage done to the natural environment, but also purifies it. Over the time, this has
taken the form of custom in international law due to the strong support from OECD and EC
countries. This principle too puts the liability on the respondent who is the party responsible
for polluting marine environment of petitioners.
33. In the present case, the accident has occurred due to the latent defect in the plant, which is
negligence on part of the respondent. So, the main cause of this nuclear disaster is the
respondent. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay compensation as per ‘polluter pays
principle’.
(3.3) That the respondent’s contention denying liability out of reasons beyond territorial
jurisdiction of Petitioner 1 is untenable.
34. Also, the respondent’s contention that it is not liable to pay for damages arising out of
reasons beyond territorial jurisdiction of Albrosa is untenable. Every international wrongful
act of a state entails the environmental responsibility of that state.35 If any state has indulged
in any wrongful act internationally, it must be held responsible for the damage. The state is
bound to make full reparation for any internationally wrongful act, which was established in
the Chorzow Factory case of 1928 where the Permanent Court of International Justice held
34
Natural Resources Conservation Law, By Sairam Bhat, Pg 385
35
J. Crawford – The ILC’s articles on state responsibility: Introduction, text and commentaries (2002)
Page | 29
that it is a general conception of law, that any breach of engagement involves an obligation to
make reparation.36
35. The reparation must as far as possible wipe out all the consequences of an illegal act and re-
establish the situation which would have existed, if that act had not been committed. This can
be through restitution, or just by paying compensation. In the environmental context, this
approach was affirmed by the ICJ in the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
Project.37 So, in the given case, respondent is liable to pay for damages as the principle of
state responsibility binds it to do so, even if that liability arises out of causes occurring
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of petitioner 1.
IMPORTS IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE 123 AGREEMENT.
The petitioner humbly submits that Albrosa’s indefinite moratorium on uranium imports is not
violative of the 123 Agreement. The moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX
Para (a), (b), and (g) of the 123 Agreement.
(4.1) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (a) of the 123
Agreement.
36. As per Art XXX (a) of the agreement, nothing in this agreement can prevent adoption or
enforcement by any contracting party of measures necessary to protect public morals. Here,
the term ‘public morals’ is not defined. The interpretation of the treaty shall commence with
36
Chorzow Factory case, PCIJ (1928) Ser. A No. 17 at 47
37
Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project. (1997) ICJ Reports 226, paras 149 et seq
Page | 30
the ordinary meaning of the term in question, and the object and purpose of the treaty shall
also be taken into consideration.38 Going by the ordinary definition, Black’s Law Dictionary
defines the term ‘public morals’ as the ideals or general moral beliefs of a society defining
right and wrong conduct.39 However, according to the GATT panel, the term ‘public morals’
denote standards of right and wrong conduct maintained by or on behalf of a community or
nation.40 So, anything which deviate from the standards of right or wrong in the society may
come under public morals, though it needs fulfillment of a necessity test striking a balance
between legitimate political aims and possible abuses of protective measures.
37. The meaning of ‘public morals’ has been interpreted in many ways. Whenever a treaty
provision does not provide definite meaning to a term or clause, two mechanisms can be
adopted. Either the drafting institution can revisit the text and amend or issue clarifications to
it. Or judicial bodies can interpret and expound the meaning of the text in their rulings. The
meaning of the term ‘public morals’ has been interpreted by the judicial bodies worldwide in
different ways. In the US – Gambling case, the WTO panel defined the term ‘public morals’
and held that trade restrictions on gambling could be encompassed in public morals.41
38. The scope of ‘public morals’ has now widened and restricts international trade in new
context, i.e. protection of animal welfare. In the EU – Seals case, addressing the moral
concerns of welfare of seals, it was held that animal welfare may also be a matter of right or
38
Art 31(1), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
39
Definition of ‘public morality’ in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, POCKET EDITION, St. Paul: Thomson West
(B.A. Garner ed., 4th ed. 2011)
40
United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services of 7 April 2005,
WT/DS285/R, para 6.465
41
US-Gambling, AB Report, supra n. 9, paras 6.471-6.474
Page | 31
wrong and fall under the rubric of public morals42. It was also held that status of animal
welfare is an emerging principle of international law and policy and is not solely a domestic
matter. Thus, the public morals for animal welfare have been universally recognized.
39. In the present case, the petitioner no 1 contends that moratorium on uranium is important not
only for safeguarding the human rights of the citizens of Albrosa, whose interest will be
affected by uranium, but also for protecting the fishes and marine mammals whose interests
are also affected due to it. Marine mammals have been treated in international law as
something of a special category with a ‘heightened moral claim’ to be protected from cruelty
or getting killed.43 Marine mammals are international animals and it is necessary to ensure
their protection. Hence, to ensure the protection of fish and other marine mammals, this
moratorium for protection of public morals is justifiable for animal welfare.
(4.2) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (b) of the 123
Agreement.
40. Further, this moratorium is valid as per Art XXX (b) of the 123 Agreement, as part of
measures ‘necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health’. To ascertain the
validity of this provision, a necessity test needs to be applied that involves a three-stage
analysis. First, it has to be examined whether the measure is in itself apt to achieve its stated
objective. Second, it has to be seen whether the measure is necessary to attain its stated
objective which implies that there are no less trade restrictive alternatives which are available
42
EC – Seals Products case, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION
AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS, 25 November 2013, upheld by Appellate body of WTO on 22 May
2014
43
Katie Sykes, Sealing Animal Welfare into the GATT Exceptions: The International Dimension of Animal Welfare
in WTO Disputes, 471 World Trade Review (July, 2014)
Page | 32
to achieve the same goal. And finally, it involves a process of weighing and balancing the
different elements of the equation against each other. Here, analysis of necessity of import
moratorium needs to be done. This test has been stated in the cases of Korea-Beef44 and EC-
Asbestos45.
41. Applying this necessity test in the present case, the import moratorium by petitioner no 1 on
the respondent is apt to achieve the objective of protecting human, animal, or plant life or
health from further damage from such hazardous substance. Secondly, no other measures are
available, so a moratorium is required to prevent further damage from uranium. A less
restrictive alternative like internal taxes, or regulations, etc cannot be considered as a true
alternative as they are not capable to achieve the same level of protection. Further, it is up to
the state to fix its desired level of protection. And finally, the third step involves a
proportionality test i.e. weighing and balancing the different elements of the equation against
each other. Here, enforcing a moratorium on uranium import is the best available option as
opting for alternatives like internal taxes, or regulations will not serve the purpose of saving
the life and health of the public and animals.
42. Thus, this import moratorium on uranium is appropriate as its usage has led to radiation in
Albrosa, which led to the deaths of 18,500 people and an additional 5,000 casualties are
predicted by WHO. It has also affected the fishes and marine mammals as radioactive
material was released in the waters of the petitioners. These radioactive elements are also
transmitted up the food chain which has contaminated the food in that area. Even after 30
44
Korea – Measures affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, AB Report adopted on 10 January 2001,
WT/DS169/AB/R.
45
European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, AB Report adopted on
12 March 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R.
Page | 33
years of Chernobyl disaster, the locals are forced to eat the radioactive food.46 Such
contamination will continue to pose a risk to the population for decades or even centuries to
come.47
43. Also, in the present case, the radiation has affected the health of the people as WHO
predicted 20,000 cancer cases on account of accumulated radiation exposure. This can be
combined with the legal maxim – salus populi supreme lex esto48 - the health of the people
should be the supreme law. Thus, the import moratorium is justifiable under Art XXX Part
(b) of the 123 Agreement.
(4.3) That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX Para (g) of the 123
Agreement.
44. Also, moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per Art XXX (g) of the 123 Agreement, as
it is done to conserve exhaustible natural resources. Exhaustible natural resources may be
living or non-living and need not be either rare or endangered.49 Living species, though in
principle are capable of reproduction, are in certain circumstances indeed susceptible of
exhaustion and extinction. Living resources are just as finite as petroleum, iron ore and other
non-living resources.50 It is pertinent to mention here that modern international conventions
and declarations make frequent references to natural resources as including both living and
46
Nuclear Scars : The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, Greenpeace International Report, Published
in March 2016
47
Ibid, at page 20
48
De Legibus by Marcus Tullius Cicero, Book III, part III, sub. VIII
49
European Perspectives on Environmental Law and Governance By Suzanne Kingston, Page 78
50
US – Shrimp/Turtle I AB report, para 128
Page | 34
non-living resources.51 Thus, it is deemed to include stocks of fish, marine mammals and
other living creatures.
45. Also, the measures justified under this need not be ‘necessary or essential’ but must be
‘primarily aimed at conservation of natural resource’.52 The words ‘primarily aimed’ referred
not only to the purpose of the measure, but also to its effects on the conservation of the
natural resource.53
46. In the current case, fishes and other marine mammals are affected by this disaster and the
moratorium is placed to protect such creatures. This has been rightly affirmed by the two
adopted GATT 1947 Panel reports – US - Tuna (Canada)54 and Canada – Herring and
Salmon55, that fish comes under the exhaustible natural resources.56
47. Further, here the moratorium on uranium is together with restriction on domestic
consumption. The very fact, that uranium was being imported for all 12 FNPPs and now the
petitioner no 1 has placed a moratorium on uranium for remaining 11 FNPPs, itself proves
that the domestic consumption of uranium has been restricted in Albrosa, justifying the
moratorium under Art XXX (g) of the 123 Agreement.
48. Hence, the petitioner humbly submits that the moratorium of uranium imports is not violative
of the 123 Agreement.
51
Ibid, at para 130
52
GATT Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting Exports of Unprocessed Herring and Salmon, L/6268, adopted
22 March 1988, BISD 35S/98
53
The Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements – A Report from a Nordic Project, Page 99
54
United States – Prohibition of Imports of Tuna and Tuna Products from Canada, BISD 29S/91, para 4.9
55
Canada – Measures affecting exports of unprocessed Herring and Salmon, BISD 35S/98, para 4.4
56
US – Shrimp/Turtle I AB report, para 131
Page | 35
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is most
humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court, to adjudge and declare:
1. That the claim made by the applicants fall within the jurisdiction of this court.
2. That the respondent is liable to compensate the applicants for nuclear disaster.
3. That the respondent is liable to compensate the applicants for polluting their marine
environment.
4. That the moratorium on uranium imports is valid as per the 123 Agreement.
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity
and good conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted and affirmed.
SD/- ______________
AGENTS FOR THE PETITIONERS
PLACE: - The Hague, Netherlands
Page | 36

PR30 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PR30 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paras Diwan Moot Court Competition 2016 Memorial on behalf of Petitioner

Team Code: PR30

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE (NETHERLANDS)

THE REPUBLIC OF ALBROSA……………………………………………..PETITIONER 1

STATE OF BONG BONG…………………………………………..…………PETITIONER 2

Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner

required for the purpose of rendering a judgment………………………………………………19

ISSUE 2 – THAT THE RESPONDENT, BEING A SUPPLIER OF NUCLEAR

EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL, CAN BE HELD LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE

APPLICANTS FOR NUCLEAR DISASTER...........................................................................22

ISSUE 3 – THAT THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE THE

APPLICANTS FOR THE POLLUTION OF THEIR MARINE

jurisdiction of Petitioner 1 is untenable…………………………………………………………29

ISSUE 4 – THAT ALBROSA’S INDEFINITE MORATORIUM ON URANIUM

IMPORTS IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE 123 AGREEMENT………………………….30

BISD Basic Instruments and Selected Documents

BPPEC Brisselanta Power for Power Electrical Company

CLNDA Civil Liability for Nuclear Disaster Act

FNPP Floating Nuclear Power Plant

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICJ International Court of Justice

ICSID International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PCIJ Permanent Court of International Justice

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

WTO World Trade Organization

Statutes, Conventions & Resolutions-

2. Statute of the International Court of Justice

3. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

5. The 1999 Resolution of the Institute of International Law (II)

Books, Journals, Commentaries & Reports-

observations on jurisdictions” 5 Columbia Journal of International Law.

3. Christopher Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press

4. Dispute Settlement, UNCTAD/EDM/Misc.232/Add.19

Settlement System?’ (2010) 57 Netherlands Law Review 347-95

Supplement 2005: Parts One and Two’

8. The Relationship Between International and Domestic Law By Constantin Economides

9. Natural Resources Conservation Law, By Sairam Bhat

Dimension of Animal Welfare in WTO Disputes

Report, Published in March 2016

14. De Legibus by Marcus Tullius Cicero, Book III

15. European Perspectives on Environmental Law and Governance By Suzanne Kingston

16. The Effectiveness of Multilateral Environmental Agreements – A Report from a Nordic

1. Fedax NV vs Venezuela, (1998) 37 ILM 1378

3. Salini Construttori S.p.A. v Morocco, (2003) 42 ILM 609 (ICSID)

4. Biwater v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/2

of June 15, 1954), ICJ Reports (1954).

Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998.

10. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

11. Chorzow Factory case, PCIJ (1928) Ser. A No. 17 at 47

Services of 7 April 2005, WT/DS285/R

14. US-Gambling, AB Report, supra n. 9

15. EC – Seals Products case, EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING

THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS.

on 10 January 2001, WT/DS169/AB/R.

17. European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products,

AB Report adopted on 12 March 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R.

18. US – Shrimp/Turtle I AB report

Salmon, L/6268, adopted 22 March 1988, BISD 35S/98

Garner ed., 4th ed. 2011)

2. Black Law Dictionary, 10th Edition