TEAM 252A

THE 2017 PHILIP C. JESSUP

INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The Case Concerning the Sisters of the Sun

FEDERATION OF THE CLANS OF THE ATAN

(APPLICANT)

v.

KINGDOM OF RAHAD

(RESPONDENT)

On Submission to the International Court of Justice

The Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................. I

Statement of Jurisdiction .................................................................................................. XIV

Questions Presented ............................................................................................................. XV

Statement of Facts .............................................................................................................. XVI

Summary of Pleadings ......................................................................................................... XX

Pleadings ................................................................................................................................... 1
I. EXTRACTION OF WATER FROM THE AQUIFER VIOLATES
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY RAHAD AND
CONSTITUTES AN INEQUITABLE USE OF A SHARED RESOURCE. .......... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
A. Rahads extraction from the Aquifer violates its international obligations with
respect to use of a shared resource. .................................................................................... 1
1. Rahad violates the international obligations undertaken by Rahad. .............Error!
Bookmark not defined.
2. Rahad is in breach of its customary international law obligations. ..............Error!
Bookmark not defined.
a. Rahads use of the Aquifer was inequitable and unreasonable.................Error!
Bookmark not defined.
b. Rahad caused significant transboundary harm. Error! Bookmark not defined.
c. Rahad did not discharge its duty to co-operate.Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. In any event, the wrongfulness of Rahads usage is not precluded by necessity.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Rahads essential interests were not threatened. .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. There was no grave and imminent peril. .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. The act was not the only means of safeguarding Rahads essential interest.Error!
Bookmark not defined.
4. The Pipeline impaired an essential interest of Atania. ........ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
II. THE SAVALI PIPELINE OPERATIONS VIOLATE RAHADS
INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE KIN CANYON
COMPLEX AND THEREFORE MUST CEASE. ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
A. Rahad violated the international obligations not to harm the Complex in Atanian
territory. ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. The Pipeline constitutes a violation of Rahads treaty law obligation..........Error!
Bookmark not defined.
2. Rahad breached its customary international law obligation to prevent
transboundary harm. .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
B. Rahad acted in breach of its obligation to protect the Complex in Rahadi territory.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Atania has the standing to invoke Rahads international responsibility. ......Error!
Bookmark not defined.
2. Rahad failed to protect the heritage. .................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
C. Rahad must cease operation of the Pipeline. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.
III. RAHAD MUST IMMEDIATELY RETURN THE RUBY SIPAR TO ATANIA,
ITS LAWFUL OWNER. ..................................................................................................... 9
A. Rahad violated its obligation to return the Ruby Sipar under treaty law. ................ 10
1. The Sipar is cultural property under the 1970 Convention. .............................. 10
2. Rahad was bound to return the Sipar in discharge of its obligations under VCLT.
11
B. Rahad violated its obligation to return the Sipar under customary international law.
13
C. Rahad must return the Sipar as restitution for its internationally wrongful act. ...... 14
1. Atania has the standing to make a claim for reparation. ...................................... 14
a. Atania is the lawful owner of the Ruby Sipar. ................................................. 14
b. Rahads violations deprived Atania of the enjoyment of its ownership rights.
16
2. Rahad must return the Sipar as reparation for Atanias injury. ........................... 16
IV. ATANIA OWES NO COMPENSATION TO RAHAD FOR ANY COSTS
INCURRED RELATED TO THE KIN MIGRANTS. ................................................... 17
A. Rahad the lacks standing to make a claim of violations on behalf of the Kin. ........ 17
1. Atania did not violate its international obligations. ............................................. 17
a. The WRAP is not discriminatory. .................................................................... 17
 b. Atanias conduct is not in violation of the right to food and water. ................ 19
c. Atania did not violate the cultural rights of the Kin. ....................................... 20
d. Atania did not violate the right to life of the Kin. ............................................ 21
e. Atania did not violate the right to freedom of movement. ............................... 22
2. There is no causal link between damage suffered by Rahad and Atanias breach.
23
B. In any event, Rahads claims are barred by the doctrine of clean hands. ................ 24

Prayer for Relief ..................................................................................................................... 26

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I.C.J. & P.C.I.J. CASES

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina/Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 2007 I.C.J. 43 ............ 11, 30

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (D.R.C./ Uganda), Judgment, 2005 I.C.J. 168
.............................................................................................................................................. 11

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (D.R.C./Rwanda), Jurisdiction, 2006 I.C.J. 126
................................................................................................................................................ 1

Corfu Channel (U.K./Albania), Merits, 1949 I.C.J. 4 ............................................................ 4, 6

Factory at Chorzow (Ger./Pol.), Jurisdiction, 1927 P.C.I.J (ser.A) No. 9 .............................. 22

Factory at Chorzow (Ger./Pol.), Merits, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No.17 .................................... 22

GabkovoNagymaros Project Case (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7 ....... 2, 3, 8

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,

Advisory Opinion, 2004 I.C.J. 136 ...................................................................................... 11

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den./Nor.), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti,1933

P.C.I.J. (ser.A/B) No 53 ....................................................................................................... 31

Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den./Nor.), Judgment, 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser.A/B) No. 53 .... 1

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226 .......... 4

North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger./Den., Ger./Netherlands), Merits, 1969 I.C.J. 3 ............ 6, 18

Nuclear Tests Case (Australia/France), Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 253 ......................................... 1

Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand/France), Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 457 ................................... 1

Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium/Senegal), Merits, 2012 I.C.J. 422 ................. 12

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay), Judgment, 2014 I.C.J. 14 .............. 2, 6

Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple
of Preah Vihear (Cambodia/Thai.), Separate Opinion of Judge Canado Trindade, 2011
I.C.J. 151 .............................................................................................................................. 12

I
Reservations to the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
Advisory Opinion, 1951 I.C.J. 15 ............................................................................ 12, 15, 17

Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia/Thai.), Merits, 1962 I.C.J. 6 .......................................... 23

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd/United Republic of Tanzania, [ICSID] No. ARB/05/22 (2008)
.............................................................................................................................................. 30

British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco (Great Britain/Spain), 2 R.I.A.A. 615 (1924)
.............................................................................................................................................. 22

CMS Gas Transmission Co./Argentina, [ICSID] No. ARB/01/8 (2005) ................................... 8

Continental Shelf Arbitration (UK/Fr.), 5 I.L.R. 6 (1979) ...................................................... 15

Dix case, 9 R.I.A.A. 119 (1902) .............................................................................................. 30

Heirs of Lebas de Courmont, 13 R.I.A.A. 761 (1957)............................................................. 22

MOX Plant (Ireland/U.K.), 43 I.L.M 1187 (2003) .................................................................... 5

Rainbow Warrior (Fr./N.Z.), 20 R.I.A.A. 270 (1990) ............................................................. 14

Russian Indemnity Case, 9 R.I.A.A. 421 (1912) ....................................................................... 7

Trail Smelter (U.S./Canada), 3 R.I.A.A. 1906 (1941)............................................................... 4

United States-German Mixed Claims Commission, Administrative Decision No. II, 7 R.I.A.A.
23 (1923) .............................................................................................................................. 30

Walter Fletcher Smith (U.S./Cuba), 2 R.I.A.A. 915 (1929) .................................................... 22

OTHER INTERNATIONAL CASES

A/Australia, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997) .......................................................... 28

B Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band/Canada, U.N.Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40), Individual
Opinion of Ando (1990)....................................................................................................... 27

Buscarini and others/San Marino, [ECtHR] 30 EHRR 208 (2000) ........................................ 28

Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in
Belgium/Belgium, [ECtHR] 1 EHRR 252 (1968) .......................................................... 24, 25

II
Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on
behalf of Endorois Welfare Council/Kenya, [ACtHPR] AHRR 75 (2009) ......................... 26

Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism,

Advisory Opinion, [IACtHR] OC-5/85 (1985).................................................................... 29

Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Netherlands/Greece, [ECtHR] 1 ECHR 1 (1969) ................ 29

Engel and Others/Netherlands, [ECtHR] 1 EHRR 647 (1976) ............................................... 29

Gorji-Dinka/Cameroon, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002 (2005) .................................... 28

Karnel Singh Bhinder/Canada, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986 (1989) ........................... 24

Kokkinakis/Greece, [ECtHR] 17 EHRR 397 (1993) ............................................................... 28

Kulov/Kyrgyzstan, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/99/D/1369/2005 (2010) ............................................. 28

Lansman/Finland, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992 (1994) ................................................ 27

Lawless/Ireland, [ECtHR] 1 EHRR 15 (1961) .................................................................. 27, 29

Marckx/Belgium, [ECtHR] 2 EHRR 330 (1979) ..................................................................... 24

Prince/South Africa, [ACtHPR] AHRLR 105 (2004) ............................................................. 24

Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica,

Advisory Opinion, [IACtHR] OC-4/84 (1984).................................................................... 25

S. W. M. Brooks/The Netherlands, U.N.Doc. Supp No. 20 A/42/40 (1987) ........................... 24

Sandra Lovelace/Canada, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/24/1977 (1981) ..................................... 26

Van Alphen/The Netherlands, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (1990) .............................. 28

Vrountou/Cyprus, [ECtHR] App. No. 33631/06 (2005) .......................................................... 24

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Agreement between Poland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the Use of
Water Resources in Frontier Waters (1965), 552 U.N.T.S. 8054 ...................................... 2, 4

Agreement between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Republic of Niger concerning the
Equitable Sharing in the Development, Conservation and Use of their Common Water

III
 Resources (1990), in GROUNDWATER IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: COMPILATION OF TREATIES

AND OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS (Burchi and Mechlem ed.) 263 (2005).............................. 2

Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Waters of the Spanish-
Portuguese Hydrographic basins (1998), 2099 U.N.T.S. 36496 ........................................... 4

Agreement on the Co-operation for the Sustainable development of the Mekong River Basin
(1995), 34 I.L.M. 864............................................................................................................. 3

ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1985),

http://www.aseansec.org/6080.htm ........................................................................................ 4

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), 1037
U.N.T.S. 151 .......................................................................................................................... 9

Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (2014),

36 I.L.M. 700 ......................................................................................................................... 3

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer
of Ownership of Cultural Property (1972), 823 U.N.T.S. 231 ............................................ 14

Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
(1992), 1936 U.N.T.S. 269 ............................................................................................ 3, 4, 6

Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1954), 189 U.N.T.S. 150 .............................. 31

European Convention on Human Rights (2010), 213 U.N.T.S. 221 ....................................... 21

Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin (2002), 2366 U.N.T.S. 42662................... 4, 5

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), 999 U.N.T.S. 171 .................... 17

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 .... 17

Protocol for the Sustainable Development of Lake Victoria Basin (2003),

http://www.mineac.gov.rw/fileadmin/templates/Documents/Other_EAC_PROTOCOLS/P
ROTOCOL%20FOR%20THE%20SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT%20OF%20TH
E%20%20LAKE%20VICTORIA%20BASIN.pdf ............................................................ 4, 5

Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses in the Southern African Development Community

(2001), 40 I.L.M. 2............................................................................................................. 5, 6

IV
Treaty on the Protection of Artistic and Scientic Institutions and Historic Monuments (1935),
167 L.N.T.S. 289.................................................................................................................. 11

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ................................. 14

NATIONAL LAWS

Abstract and Delimitation of the Law respecting the Classification, Conservation and
Protection of Historical Monuments (1965) (Cambodia) .................................................... 20

Antiquities Law (Passed in Legislative Decree No. 222) (1963) (Syria) ................................ 20

Codicedeibeniculturali e del paesaggio (2002) (Italy) ........................................................... 20

Cultural Property Export and Import Act (1985) (Can.).......................................................... 15

Decision on the Protection of the Cultural Heritage (1993) (Cambodia) ................................ 20

German Civil Code BGB (2002) (Ger.) ................................................................................... 22

Law 25.743 on the Protection of the Archaeological and Palaeontological Heritage (2003)
(Arg.) .................................................................................................................................... 20

Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics (translation) (2007)
(China) ................................................................................................................................. 20

Law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Properties (2004) (Afg.) ............................ 20

Monuments Protection Act (2013) (Aust.) .............................................................................. 20

Promulgating the Antiquities Protection Law (2010) (Egypt) ................................................. 20

Protection of Archaeological Resources (1997) (U.S.) ........................................................... 20

Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act (1986) (Australia) ............................................ 15

The Napoleanic Code (1804) (Fr.) ........................................................................................... 22

DOMESTIC JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S./Russian Federation, 798 F.Supp.2d 260, 27071

(D.D.C.2011) ....................................................................................................................... 17

Attorney General of New Zealand/Ortiz, [1983] 2 All ER 93 ................................................. 20

V
Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus/Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc., 917
F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................................... 20

Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran/The Barakat Galleries Ltd., [2007] EWCA Civ
1374...................................................................................................................................... 22

Kola/MIMA, (2002) 120 F.C.R. 170 ........................................................................................ 30

NAFG/Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, (2003) 131 F.C.R. 57
.............................................................................................................................................. 30

Princess Paley Olga/Weisz, [1929] 1 K.B. 718 ....................................................................... 20

Smith/Philadelphia Transp. Co., 173 F.2d 721 (3rd Cir. 1949) .............................................. 30

Staub/Staub, 376 A.2d 1129, 1132 (1977)............................................................................... 22

Wallander/Barnes, 671 A.2d 962, 966 (1996) ......................................................................... 22

Webb/Ireland, [1988] I.R. 353 ................................................................................................. 20

U.N. RESOLUTIONS

E.C.O.S.O.C. Res. 2008/23, U.N. E.S.C.O.R., 42nd pln. mtg., U.N.Doc. E/RES/2008/23 (2008)
.............................................................................................................................................. 21

G.A. Res. 29/3281, U.N. G.A.O.R., 29th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/29/3281 (1974) ................... 5

G.A. Res. 31/40, U.N. G.A.O.R., 31st Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/31/40 (1976) ......................... 18

G.A. Res. 32/18, U.N. G.A.O.R., 32nd Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/32/18 (1977) ........................ 18

G.A. Res. 33/50, U.N. G.A.O.R., 33rd Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/33/50 (1978)......................... 18

G.A. Res. 38/34, U.N. G.A.O.R., 38th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/38/34 (1983) ......................... 18

G.A. Res. 49/234, U.N. G.A.O.R., 49th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/49/234 (1995) ....................... 5

G.A. Res. 50/152, U.N. G.A.O.R., 50th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/50/152 (1996) ..................... 29

G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. G.A.O.R., 56th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2001)6, 8, 20, 22, 23, 30

G.A. Res. 67/L.34, U.N. G.A.O.R., 67th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/67/L.34 (2012) .................. 18

G.A. Res. 70/76, U.N. G.A.O.R., 70th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/70/76 (2015) ......................... 18

VI
S.C. Res. 1097, U.N. S.C.O.R., 51st Sess., U.N.Doc. S/RES/1097 (1996).............................. 29

U.N. DOCUMENTS

Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Special Rapporteur, Roberto Ago,
U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7 (1980) ................................................................................. 7

An Evaluation of the Obligation to take steps to the Maximum of Available Resources under
an Optional Protocol to the Covenant, U.N.Doc. E/C.12/2007/1 (2007) ............................ 25

CCPR Draft General Comment No. 36 (2015), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/GC/R.36/Rev.2 ............. 27

CCPR General Comment No. 23 (1994), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5 ...................... 26

CCPR General Comment No. 27 (1999), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 ...................... 28

CCPR General Comment No. 29 (2001), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11 .................... 28

CERD Reports submitted by States parties under Article 9 of the Convention (Peru), U.N.Doc.
CERD/C/PER/18-21 (2013)................................................................................................. 31

CESCR General Comment No. 12 (1999), U.N.Doc. E/C.12/1999/5 ................................. 5, 26

CESCR General Comment No. 15 (2003), U.N.Doc. E/C.12/2002/11 ............................... 5, 26

CESCR General Comment No. 20 (2009), U.N.Doc. E/C.12/GC/20 ..................................... 25

CESCR General Comment No. 3 (2003), U.N.Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6/14 ........................... 25

Charter on Ground-Water management, U.N.Doc. E/ECE/1197 (1989) .................................. 3

Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, U.N.Doc. A/63/10/1979 (2008)........ 3

Draft Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N.Doc. A/CONF.189/WG.1/3 (2001) ......... 31

Fourth Report on Shared Natural Resources: Transboundary Groundwaters, Special

Rapporteur, Chusei Yamada, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/580 (2007) ................................................ 5

Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating legal

obligations, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/L.703 (2006)..................................................................... 1, 2

International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally

Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, U.N.Doc. A/56/10 (2001) ................ 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, 23

VII
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting
and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property,
U.N.Doc. C70/15/3.MSP/11 (1970) .................................................................................... 17

Patrick OKeefe, Lyndel Prott, National Legal Control of Illicit Traffic, U.N.Doc.CLT-
83/WS/16 (1983)............................................................................................................ 15, 21

Protection of Refugees in Mass Influx Situations: Overall Protection Framework, Global

Consultations on International Protection, U.N.Doc. EC/GC/01/4 (2001).......................... 31

Recommendation Concerning the Most Effective Means of Rendering Museums Accessible to

Everyone, U.N.Doc. CPG.6l.VI.11 A (1960) ...................................................................... 16

Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations,

U.N.Doc. CPG.57.VI.9A (1956).......................................................................................... 11

Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First
Instalment of E2 Claims, U.N.Doc. S/AC.26/1998/7 (1998) ........................................... 31

Report of the Expert Seminar on Remedies available to the Victims of Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and on Good National Practices, U.N.Doc.
A/CONF.189/PC.1/8 (2000) ................................................................................................ 31

Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Thirty-Second Session,
U.N.Doc. A/35/10 (1980) ...................................................................................................... 6

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N.Doc. A/CONF.I51/26 (1992) ...... 4, 5

Second report on the law of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses, Special
Rapporteur, Stephen McCaffrey, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/399 (1986) .......................................... 3

Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, U.N.Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4 (1985).................................... 28, 29

Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to
its Countries of Origin, U.N.Doc. CLT/CH/INS-2005/21 (2005) ....................................... 17

Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference in the Human Environment,

U.N.Doc. A/CONF.48/14 (1972) ................................................................................... 3, 4, 6

Summary Records of the 308th Meeting of the UN Commission of Human Rights, U.N.Doc.
E/CN.4/SR.308 (1952) ......................................................................................................... 25

VIII
Third report on shared natural resources: Transboundary groundwaters, Special Rapporteur,
Chusei Yamada, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/551 (2005) .................................................................... 4

Third report on State responsibility, Special Rapporteur, James Crawford, U.N.Doc.

A/CN.4/507 (2001) ........................................................................................................ 22, 30

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Model Provisions on State
Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects,
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/UNESCO-
UNIDROIT_Model_Provisions_en.pdf (2011) ................................................................... 21

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Justiciability of the right to food,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0511e/a0511e03.pdf ........................................................ 25

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Voluntary Guidelines to support the
Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food
Security, http://www.fao.org/3/a-y7937e.pdf (2004) .......................................................... 25

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial
Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f17a1a4.html
(2007) ................................................................................................................................... 30

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Resettlement Handbook Chapter 3,

http://www.unhcr.org/3d464c954.html ................................................................................ 31

World Heritage Committee Decision 29 COM 7B.18 (2005). ................................................ 10

World Heritage Committee Decision 29 COM 7B.21 (2005) ................................................. 10

World Heritage Committee Decision 31 COM 7B.1 (2007) ................................................... 13

World Heritage Committee Decision 31 COM 7B.11 (2007) ................................................. 13

World Heritage Committee Decision 31 COM 7B.4 (2007) ................................................... 13

BOOKS

AMREI MLLER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF HEALTH RELATED ISSUES IN NON-
INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS, 115 (2013) ................................................................. 25

IX
BARBARA HOFFMAN, ART AND HERITAGE: LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE, 4 (2006)............... 18

FRANCESCO FRANCIONI, THE 1972 WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION: A COMMENTARY, 635

(2008) ..................................................................................................................................... 9

JOHN SPRANKLING, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF PROPERTY, 302 (2014) .............................. 21

LORD HAILSHAM, HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (vol. 25), 1227 (2010) .......................... 21

MARK VILLIGER, COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF TREATIES,
89 (2009) .............................................................................................................................. 15

PATRICK OKEEFE, COMMENTARY TO THE 1970 CONVENTION, 36-37 (2007) ......................... 15

SILVIA BORELLI & FEDERICO LENZERINI, CULTURAL HERITAGE, CULTURAL RIGHTS, CULTURAL
DIVERSITY: NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 403 (2012) ............................. 10

STEPHEN MCCAFFREY, THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL WATERCOURSES, 401 (2001) ................. 5

ARTICLES

Albert Utton, Protective Measures and the "Torrey Canyon", 9 B.C.L. REV. 613, 613 (1968) 8

Elizabeth Klesmith, Nigeria and Mali: The Case for Repatriation and Protection of Cultural
Heritage in Post-Colonial Africa, 4 NOTRE DAME JOURNAL OF INTL & COMP. L. 45, 67
(2014) ................................................................................................................................... 18

Erica Thorson, The World Heritage Convention and Climate Change: The Case for a Climate-
Change Mitigation Strategy beyond the Kyoto Protocol, in ADJUDICATING CLIMATE
CONTROL: SUB-NATIONAL, NATIONAL, AND SUPRA-NATIONAL APPROACHES (Wil C. Burns
& Hari Osofsky, eds.), 263 (2007) ....................................................................................... 10

Francesco Francioni, The Human Dimension of International Cultural Heritage Law: An

Introduction, 22 E.J.I.L. 1, 13 (2011) .................................................................................. 12

Franscesco Francioni, Federico Lenzerini, The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and
International Law, 14 E.J.I.L. 4, 633, 634 (2003) ............................................................... 11

Gabriel Eckstein, Commentary on the UN International Law Commissions Draft Articles on

the Law of Transboundary Aquifers, 18 COLO. J. INTL ENVTL. L. & POLY 537, 568 (2007)
................................................................................................................................................ 3

X
John Cohan, An Examination of Archaeological Ethics and the Repatriation Movement
Respecting Cultural Property (Part Two), 28 ENVIRONS ENVTL. L. & POLY J. 351, 381, 397
(2004) ................................................................................................................................... 16

John Merryman, The Public Interest in Cultural Property, 77 CAL. L. REV. 339, 342, 353
(1989) ................................................................................................................................... 16

John Merryman, The Retention of Cultural Property, 21 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 477, 483 (1988)
.............................................................................................................................................. 17

Joseph Fishman, Locating the International Interest in Intranational Cultural Property

Disputes, 35 YALE J. INT'L L. 34, 368 (2010) ...................................................................... 17

Katherine Del Mar, Weight of Evidence Generated through Intra-Institutional Fact-finding

before the International Court of Justice, 2 J. INTL. DISP. SETTL. 393, 415 (2011) ........... 11

Lyndel Prott, The International Movement of Cultural Objects, 12 INTL. JOURNAL CULT.
PROP. 225, 231 (2005) .......................................................................................................... 21

Richard Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 CAL. L. REV. 1735, 1791-1803 (1985) .............. 30

Robert Meyer, Travaux Preparatoires for the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, 2 EARTH
L. J. 45, 53 (1972) ................................................................................................................ 10

Roger Mastalir, A Proposal for Protecting the Cultural and Property Aspects of Cultural
Property Under International Law, 16 FORDHAM INTL L. J. 4, 1092 (1992) ..................... 19

Roger OKeefe, World Cultural Heritage: Obligations to the International Community as a

Whole?, 53 I.C.L.Q. 189, 190 (2004) .................................................................................. 12

Sebastian Martinez, Locus Standi before the International Court of Justice for Violations of the
World Heritage Convention, 10 T. D. M. 5, 9 (2015) .......................................................... 13

Stephen Legomsky, Secondary Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third
Countries: The Meaning of Effective Protection, 15 INTL J. REFUGEE L. 567, 573 (2003) 30

William Merill, The Return of the Ahayu: da: Lessons for Repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and
the Smithsonian Institution, 34 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 5, 523 (1993) ........................ 18

Zaisheng Han, Alluvial Aquifers In North China Plain, in AQUIFER SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT:
DARCYS LEGACY IN A WORLD OF IMPENDING WATER SHORTAGES (Laurence Chery and
Ghislain de Marsily eds.), 121-122 (2007) .......................................................................... 13

XI
 NEWS REPORTS

Looted statues returned to China in Pinault donation, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-

china-23093720.................................................................................................................... 18

Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Museum of Art to Return Scientific Instrument to Germany,
http://www.toledomuseum.org/provenance/astronomical-compendium-or-astrolabium-
astrolabe ............................................................................................................................... 18

United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Germany returns seized
object to Iraq, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-
property/other-cases-of-return-or-restitution-of-cultural-objects/germany-to-iraq/ ............ 18

United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Return of six of the nine
statues looted from Cambodia, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-
trafficking-of-cultural-property/other-cases-of-return-or-restitution-of-cultural-
objects/cambodia/ ................................................................................................................ 18

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Culture and Development,
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002255/225521E.pdf ............................................ 18

MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES

Council Directive 2001/55/EC, 44 OJ L 212 (2001) ............................................................... 31

European Conference against Racism, Draft Political Declaration, WCR/IC/2001/Misc.4

(2000) ................................................................................................................................... 31

International Commission of Jurists, Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd5730.html (1997) .................... 25

International Council of Museums, Declaration on the Importance and Values of Universal

museums, http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ICOM_News/2004-
1/ENG/p4_2004-1.pdf (2002) .............................................................................................. 16

International Council of Museums, ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums,

http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf (1986) . 21

International Council of Museums, The Statutes of the International Council of Museums,

http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Statuts/2016_Statutes_ENG.pdf.............. 16

XII
Providing for the Protection of Native American Graves and the Repatriation of Native
American remains and Cultural Patrimony, Calendar No. 842, Senate Report 101-473 (1990)
.............................................................................................................................................. 19

Russian Fur Seals Controversy, 86 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 220 (1857) ............ 7

Strasbourg Declaration on the Right to Leave and Return, adopted by the meeting of experts,
Strasbourg, France on 26 November 1986, 81 AM. J. INTL L. 1, 432-438 (1987) .............. 29

XIII
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Federation of the Clans of the Atan (Atania/Applicant) and the Kingdom of Rahad
(Rahad/Respondent) appear before the International Court of Justice in accordance with
Article 40(1) of its Statute through submission of a Special Agreement for resolution of all the
differences concerning the Sisters of the Sun. This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute
pursuant to Article 36(1) of its Statute. The parties concluded this special agreement and
Compromis in The Hague, The Netherlands and jointly notified this Court of their Special
Agreement on 12 September 2016.

XIV
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The Federation for the Clans of the Atan respectfully requests the Court to adjudge:

I.

Whether extraction of water from the Aquifer violates the international obligations undertaken
by Rahad and constitutes inequitable use; and

II.

Whether the Savali Pipeline operations violate Rahads international obligations with respect
to the Kin Canyon Complex; and

III.

Whether Rahad must immediately return the Ruby Sipar to Atania, its lawful owner; and

IV.

Whether Atania owes compensation to Rahad for the costs incurred related to the Kin migrants.

XV
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Atania is a newly industrialising State with a population of 22 million and a hydrocarbon-based

industry. It borders Rahad, a developing country with whom it occupies the Nomad Coast. The
two nations share the resources of the Greater Inata Aquifer (Aquifer) which, prior to
extraction, contained 35km3 of extractable freshwater, and was the largest source of fresh water
in the Nomad Coast. 65% of the Aquifer is located in Rahad and 35% in Atania, with people
of both States relying on its discharge. The recharge rate of the Aquifer is negligible due to the
arid climate of the Nomad coast.

The Nomad coast experienced severe drought between 1983 and 1988, forcing both States to
import water to meet their domestic needs. Rahad has since ended its reliance on imported
water supply. Drought conditions returned in 1999 and persist until the present day. The Nomad
Coast experienced an average temperature increase of 1.6 degree Celsius between 1970 and
2000, forecasted to result in long-term shortage of water for the people of Rahad and Atania.

SAVALI PIPELINE PROJECT

In light of the persistent drought, Rahad decided to exploit the freshwater resources of the
Aquifer. It built a network of subterranean pipelines in its territory that would pump water from
the Aquifer, known as the Savali Pipeline Project (Pipeline). The Pipeline has been in
operation since February 2006, pumping water at a consistent rate of 1.2km3 annually in order
to end Rahads reliance on imports and achieve self-sufficient supply, with the extracted water
primarily used for agriculture and the natural gas industry. As the Aquifer was non-renewable,
Rahad acknowledged that its use of the Aquifer would result in the eventual extinction of the
resource.

In 2009, a study by an international panel commissioned by the Atanian Ministry of Water and
Agriculture concluded that the Pipeline project had permanently lowered the water table in the
Nomad Coast and that the discharge from the Aquifer could no longer provide a sufficient
source of water for Atanian agriculture. By 2010, 20% of Atanian farmland could no longer be
farmed and it was expected that an additional 30% would be lost within the next ten years, if
extraction continued at the present rate.

KIN CANYON COMPLEX

XVI
The Kin Canyon Complex (Complex) was located on the Atanian-Rahadi border, with two
of three canyons in Atanian territory, and the third in Rahad. It is one of the most famous
archaeological sites in the world, attracting an average of 350,000 tourists annually. The
Complex has tremendous significance as a source of critical archaeological discoveries,
providing insight into early human civilisation. International recognition of its outstanding
universal value resulted in the addition of the Complex to the World Heritage List
established under the World Heritage Convention, 1972, which came into force on 17
December 1975, with both Atania and Rahad becoming parties to it.

In late 2010, people noticed environmental degradation of remote sections of the Complex,
with subsequent investigation by a panel of geologists commissioned by the Atanian
government confirming the structural degradation of the Canyons in Atanian territory. The
panel attributed such damage to subsidence of lands caused due to depletion of the Aquifer. As
a result of the seriousness of the damage, the Complex was added to the World Heritage in
Danger List.

CLAN KIN

Original inhabitants of the Nomad Coast comprised of 17 clans. Sixteen of these clans,
including the Clan Kin (Kin) elected to form the Atanian Republic, with the remaining clan
forming the Kingdom of Rahad. However, the Kin remained culturally and politically isolated
from the rest of the Atanian society, living off the land through farming, hunting and gathering.
As of January 2013, the Kin accounted for 98% of subsistence farmers in Atania.

THE RUBY SIPAR

The Ruby Sipar was a ceremonial shield associated with a war hero of the Kin, who honoured
this memory by establishing the Sisters of the Sun (Sisters), a group of women who served
as cultural leaders within the Kin Society. The Sisters also wore replicas of the Sipar as a
symbol of their loyalty to the founders of their order. The original Ruby Sipar was handed over
to the University of Atanagrad after its excavation in 1903, then transferred on loan to the State-
owned Kin Canyon Cultural Centre which was built in the Atanian part of the Complex.

WRAP ACT

Faced with the continued loss of farmable land, the Atanian government enacted the Water
Resource Allocation Program Act (WRAP) in 2012 to allocate more water to agricultural
production. The WRAP imposed quotas on water consumption and required all farming

XVII
operations to purchase licenses to utilize public water. However, it offered license exemptions
to farms that sold more than US$75,000 worth of crops per year. Those using over-quota water
and those who failed to obtain licenses were subject to prosecution for theft of public
property. Most Kin farmers did not apply for these licenses and continued to use water in
excess of the quota limit, claiming that that their cultural traditions prevented them from
seeking State permission to use natural resources.

The Atanian Parliament later amended the WRAP to terminate water supply to and impose
criminal penalties on farms using water in violation of the Act. By the end of 2013, the
government cut off water supply to majority of the Kin farms, forcing the Kin to abandon
subsistence farming, also causing various food-deprivation related illnesses to the Kin
population.

THE PROTESTS

On 17 July 2014, Carla Dugo, one of the Sisters, called upon the fellow Sisters to protest against
the Atanian governments treatment of the Kin. Around 5000 Sisters and Kin demonstrators
joined the protests, using the Sipar as the symbol of the movement. The protesters blocked
roads and prevented employees from entering municipal offices. In response, the government
ordered the removal of the original Sipar from public display, and that all Sipar pendants worn
in public be confiscated and destroyed. The Atanian police also arrested over 900 Sisters and
Kin protesters.

THE MASS MIGRATION

By September 2014, as many as 100,000 Kin had crossed into Rahad, fearing arrests and
starvation. The Rahadi Parliament subsequently enacted the Kin Humanitarian Assistance Act
(KHAA) which afforded refugee status to the Sisters and their families and permitted all other
Kin to apply for the same. As of July 2016, over 800,000 Kin had migrated to Rahad, with only
the Sisters and their relatives afforded refugee status. The migration of the Kin to Rahad had
caused its infrastructure to stretch beyond breaking point. The Rahadi Ambassador
demanded Atania to compensate Rahad for all costs incurred relating to the Kin migrants,
which Atania refused.

THEFT OF THE SIPAR

XVIII
In October 2014, Carla Dugo stole the Sipar and handed it over to the Rahadi Ministry of
Culture claiming that it belonged to the Kin wherever they were. The Rahadi Ministry rejected
Atanias request for return of the Sipar on grounds of the threat posed to it in Atania.

APPLICATION TO THIS COURT

Atania and Rahad have agreed to refer all aforementioned disputes between the two States to
this Court by a Special Agreement dated 12 September 2016.

XIX
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

FIRST PLEADING

Rahads extraction of water from the Aquifer violates the international obligations expressly
undertaken by it and breaches the customary international law obligation to ensure equitable
and reasonable use of shared natural resources. Rahad failed its duty to co-operate with Atania
as it commenced extraction from the Aquifer despite the risk posed to the existence of the
Aquifer itself, and to Atanias use of the same. Moreover, Rahad is responsible for the
subsequent transboundary harm caused to Atania, and cannot preclude the wrongfulness of its
actions on grounds of necessity as none of the requirements for the invocation of such condition
under international law were met.

SECOND PLEADING

Rahad failed to comply with both its treaty and customary law obligations concerning the
Complex, a listed world heritage. Atania as a specially affected State, has the standing to invoke
Rahads failure to undertake measures to protect the Complex, as the obligations under the
WHC are owed erga omnes partes. Since Rahad was aware of the threat of damage to the
Complex arising from the Pipeline project, it breached its obligation not to undertake deliberate
measures that would threaten harm to heritage located in the territory of another State.
Moreover, once such harm was realised, Rahad breached its customary obligation not to
undertake measures that cause harm to heritage or cause transboundary harm.

THIRD PLEADING

The Ruby Sipar qualifies as Atanias cultural property both under the Declaration deposited by
Atania as well as under Article 1 of the 1970 Convention. Atania was therefore entitled to
request Rahad to return the Sipar upon its illegal removal from the Kin Canyon Cultural Centre
and import into Rahad. Rahad was bound under treaty law, being a signatory to the 1970
Convention as well as under customary international law to return the Sipar upon such request,
as the conditions for refusal on grounds of threat of destruction did not exist.

Atania as the lawful owner of the Sipar suffered the unlawful deprivation of its possession of
the same, due to Rahads wrongful refusal to return the Sipar. Rahad is bound under
international law to honour Atanias request, as Atania has the right to make a claim for
reparation of this injury through its return.

XX
FOURTH PLEADING

Rahad does not have the standing to claim compensation for the costs incurred in running the
camps for the Kin migrants and reintegrating them within Rahadi society, as Atania has not
violated the erga omnes obligations that form the basis of Rahads claim. Moreover, no causal
link between the termination of water supply or the enactment of the WRAP and the damage
suffered by Rahad may be established. Alternatively, Rahad is precluded from claiming
compensation as it violated the obligation of non-discrimination between asylum seekers by
not affording refugee status to the remaining Kin migrants.

XXI
 PLEADINGS

I. THE REVOCATION OF THE TREATY BY LOCASIA IS INVALID UNDER

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Locasias revocation of the treaty is invalid under international law because the construction
of the Nicarian Trading port does not violate any International Environmental Law Obligations
[A]. Moreover, Locasia cannot contend a fundamental change in circumstances for the
revocation of the treaty [B].

A. THE NICARIAN TRADING PORT WOULD NOT VIOLATE AN INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS

Locasia imputes that it was forced to revoke the treaty contract between itself and the State of
Grandiana in furtherance of its International Obligations.1 However any such trading port was
not in violation of any existing Environmental obligations due to Locasias status of being a
Least Developed Country (LDC) and the universal principle of common but differentiated
responsibility. Furthermore, Locasias reliance on Rio Declaration2 as a source of authoritative
Environmental obligations are misplaced as it establishes only a framework of flexible, non-
binding commitments.3

1. Rio Declaration talks about common but differentiated responsibility.

Rio Declaration says that Least developed countries such as Locasia4 have special
circumstances and may have to bear a disproportionate and abnormal burden under the
Convention, giving scope to differentiated responsibility.5 The policies and measures to protect
the environment against human-induced change should be appropriate for the specific
conditions of each Party and should be integrated with national development programs, taking
into account that economic development is essential for adopting measures to address climate
change.6 Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not

1
Factsheet
2
Factsheet
3
4
5
Rio Declaration Principle 7
6

1
constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on
international trade.7

Common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, implies that while the same
objective is pursued, individual actors may assume actions according to their (financial and
institutional) carrying capacity. Therefore, the Nacaria trading port was not a violation of Rio
Declaration principles as Locasia being a least developed country has a lower threshold
regarding environmental obligations vis--vis its status as a least developed country

2. Locasia has the Sovereign Right to develop its own resources.

Contrary to the Rio Declaration being a bar on Locasia developing the Nicarian Trading Port,
the Rio Declaration recognizes the sovereign right of States to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own developmental policies.8 In March 2016 the States of Grandiana and
Locasia signed a treaty to establish a Sea Trading Port.9 This trading port would bring huge
revenue to the poor country like Locasia.10 Therefore such a trading port which brings
economic prosperity to an impoverished country like Locasia would not be deemed a violation
of the Rio Principles as every country has its legitimate right to develop its natural resources

3. Locasia was not bound by the precautionary principle and its not a binding
obligation

The precautionary approach is not a customary law as it does not satisfy the two conditions i.e.
the acts or rules concerned must amount to settle practice and secondly, those acts or rules must
be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory
by the existence of a rule of law requiring it (existence of opinio juris).11

It is not a settled practice of states in the form of texts of international instruments, decisions
of international courts, decision of national courts, national legislation, diplomatic
correspondence, opinion of national legal advisors, and practice of international
organizations,12 and thus fail to prove the existence of precautionary principle as customary

7
Principle !2 Rio Declaration
8
Rio Declaration
9
Fact
10
Fact
11
Statute of the International Court of Justice, art.38.(b), June 26,1945, 59 Stat. 1031; Military and Paramilitary
Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), [1986] ICJ Rep. 14 at 97-9; Continental shelf (Libya. v.
Malta) [1985] ICJ Rep. 13 at. 29-30, 27; The S.S. Lotus case, [1927] PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, at 28 [Lotus case];
MALCOLM N. SHAW , INTERNATIONAL LAW, (5TH ED. 2005) at 70.
12
Report of the International Law Commission to the Genaral Assembly, Ways and means for making the
evidence of Customary International law more readily available, 2 Y.B. INTL. L 368-372 (1950).

2
international law. Further, it lacks opinio juris. ICJ in Asylum Case held, The party which
relies on a custom of this kind must prove that the custom is established in such a manner that
it has become binding on the other party.13 The decision puts that the party who is alleged to
have accepted any practice must have done with a definite and conscious understanding of
having an international legal obligation and that the frequency or even habitual character of
the acts is not in itself enough.14

Locasia revoked the treaty based upon an EIA report citing its obligations to Rio Principles.
Locasia revoked the treaty even before any damage had occurred in pursuance to Precautionary
principles. Such Principles were not binding on the state of Locasia and therefore the treaty
contract should not have been revoked.

4. Revocation of the Treaty contract is against the principle of Sustainable

Development

Underdeveloped countries have been accorded special status in applicable treaties as well as
customary international law.15 The Applicant state is an underdeveloped country.16 This
country is stricken with abject poverty and long famines.17 Also it has not been able to achieve
proper industrialization yet.18 It still depends on the exports of rudimentary goods; and the
agriculture for its finances. Locasia has an obligation under international law to ensure its
peoples right to development.19 The right to development is a human right by virtue of which
every human person is entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social,
cultural and political development.20 It is a right based on the right of self-determination of

13
Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru) [1950] ICJ Rep. 266.
14
North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G./Denmark; F.R.G./Netherlands) [1969] ICJ Rep. 3 at 77.
15
U.N. Charter, Pmbl; CBD, Pmbl, Arts.20(4), 20(6); United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
Stockholm Declaration, June 16, 1972, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.48/14 & Corr. 1., Principle 11; Declaration on the
Right to Development, G.A. Res.41/128, U.N.G.A.O.R., 97th plen. mtg., Art.4, 2, U.N.Doc.A/RES/41/128
(1986); Resolution on International Development Strategy for the U.N. Second Development Decade,
G.A.Res.2626(XXV), U.N.G.A.O.R., 25th Sess., U.N.Doc.A/RES/2626(XXV) (1969).
16
Factsheet
17
18
Factsheet
19
See Declaration on the Right to Development, G.A. Res. 41/128, annex, 41 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53), U.N.
Doc. A/41/53 (1986). Art.s 1,2,4,6,7 and 8; Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 31 ILM 874,
UNCED Doc A/Conf.151/5/Rev.1 (1992), Principles 1,4 and 5
20
See Art. 1, Declaration on the Right to Development, G.A. Res. 41/128, annex, 41 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 53),

U.N. Doc. A/41/53 (1986). Art.s 1,2,4,6,7 and 8; Rio Declaration Supra Note 6, Principles 1,4 and 5.

3
peoples.21 States have a primary responsibility to create national and international conditions
favorable to the realization of right to development.22 Locasia, therefore, had an obligation to
develop the Nacarian trading port for the development of its people and for the full realization
of this fundamental human right.

B. LOCASIA CANNOT CONTEND FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES

Locasia unilaterally terminated the Treaty Contract and breached its obligations by stopping
construction work on the Trading Port even after Grandiana had transferred USD 20 million
for the establishment of the trading port. The doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances
applies only when the change is so substantial that it alters the obligations under the treaty, and
causes a significant imbalance in the responsibilities of both parties.23 Here, there was no
fundamental change of circumstances [1]. Moreover, Locasia has not complied with the
procedural compulsions of Art.62 [2].

1. There is no fundamental change of circumstances.

There are two conditions under which the doctrine of fundamental change can be invoked:
(i)The changed circumstances constitute the essential basis of the consent of the parties to the
treaty; and (ii)The change radically transforms the extent of obligations to be performed under
the treaty and is unforeseeable at the time of conclusion of the treaty.24 Art.62 suggests a high
threshold for invocation. Both the above conditions need to be met in order to claim
fundamental change. A change that affects the motives of one party alone does not concern the
rebus doctrine.25 Such expectations come under the purview of the doctrine only if their
absence/change makes the consent provided by the aggrieved party at the time of conclusion
devoid of any material ground.26

21
1986 ILA Declaration on the Progressive Development of Principles of Public International Law relating to a
New International Economic Order (Seoul Declaration), Principle 6, par.1.
22
1986 ILA Declaration on the Progressive Development of Principles of Public International Law relating to a

New International Economic Order (Seoul Declaration), Supra Note 108, Art 3, 1.

23
Commentary on the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, Report of the International Law Commission,
G.A.O.R., 56thSess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter DARSIWA Commentary].
24
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 (1969), Art. 62 [hereinafter VCLT].
25
ATHANASSIOS VAMVOUKOS, TERMINATION OF TREATIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (OUP,
1985) [hereinafter VAMVOUKOS].
26
As interpreted by Austria, Prussia and Russia in 1846; Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa,
India and Canada in 1939.

4
In the present case, the parties consented to the contract because it was beneficial for the
economic development of Locasia and would promote better economic cooperation between
the two countries. The circumstances have not changed and the fact still remains that the
construction of the trading port would be of immense value to both the parties. Moreover, in
the present circumstances, Locasia has also not made any loss because it had made no
investments in the first place.

As regards the second condition, radical means, affecting the fundamental nature of
something27, while extent is the size/scale of something.28The change should
fundamentally alter the scale of the obligations. Furthermore, to constitute a ground for
fundamental change, it must imperil the partys existence and render the performance
essentially different from what had been undertaken.29 The treaty should be incompatible with
the vital interests of the state and its performance should be impossible except at an
unreasonable sacrifice.30 Additionally, in a commercial treaty, rebuc sic stantibus applies when
one party fails to perform its reciprocal obligations, upon receiving benefits for the same31, in
the present case the USD 20 million received by Locasia for the construction of the trading
port.

Grandiana contends that there is no fundamental change, as obligations under the treaty can
still be performed.32 The only obligation under the treaty which Locasia had to perform was to
continue the construction of the trading port with the technical assistance of
Grandiana.33Clearly, the performance of these obligations is not impossible despite the
Environmental Impact Assessment. Fundamental change should make performance of the
treaty impossible which has clearly not happened in the present case.34 Furthermore, Grandiana
has performed its obligations under the treaty which include paying USD 20 million for the
construction and providing necessary technical assistance.35 Under such circumstances,
Locasia caanot invoke the doctrine of fundamental change.

27
ANGUS STEVENSON, OXFORD DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH (OUP, 2010) [hereinafter OXFORD].
28
Ibid
29
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
30
W.R. Hooper v. The United States, 22 Court of Claims Reports, 408 (1887).
31
Bremen v. Prussia, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, Case No. 266, (1925-26).
32
MARK VILLIGER, COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF
TREATIES (Nijhoff, 2009) [hereinafter VILLIGER].
33
Compromis, p.
34
VCLT Commentary, at 256.
35
Compromis, p.

5
 2. Moreover, Locasia has not complied with the procedural compulsions of Art. 62.

The doctrine of fundamental change has a procedural component too, which is CIL36 and
prevents unilateral termination of the treaty.37 Art.62 of the VCLT seeks to avoid the risk of a
unilateral assertion of the fundamental change of circumstances as a pretext for terminating the
treaty.38 It also does not provide automaticity. Art.62 gives a right to call for termination and if
that call is disputed, a right to submit the dispute to a body empowered to determine whether
fundamental change has occurred. The party must first seek to obtain recognition from the other
party that its claim is legitimate39 and the aggrieve party must then pursue the other to enter to
into an agreement, even though they are under no obligation to agree.40 Further, the aggrieved
party must ensure that the negotiations are meaningful, without insisting upon its own
position.41 Even if negotiations fail, there cannot be unilateral termination.42

In the present case, Locasia has not attempted to negotiate the termination or revision of the
treaty in any manner. As a result, the termination of treaty has been completely unilateral. Even
if Locasia argues that fundamental change has occurred, it has misconstrued its right to invoke
the doctrine and assumed it to mean termination at will. Therefore, Lacosia has not respected
the compulsions of good faith and has assumed termination without seeking any avenues to
resolve the dispute between the two parties. Thus, it has not fulfilled the procedural
requirements of Art. 62.

II. THE BAN ON IMPORT OF CONSUMER GOODS WAS VALID

The ban on import of consumer goods is valid because the decision to ban the import of
products does not fall under the TBT [A]. Even if the ban falls within the TBT it is consistent
with Art 2.1 of the TBT [B] and fulfils all the obligations under Art. 2.2 of the TBT [C].
Furthermore, the ban on imports is in consonance with Art. 2.4 of the TBT.

A. THE DECISION TO BAN THE IMPORT OF PRODUCTS DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE TBT

A measure falls within the ambit of the TBT Agreement if it is a technical regulation as defined
under Annex 1.1 of the TBT.43 A measure is a technical regulation if it concerns an identifiable

36
Vamvoukos, at 210
37
Fisheries Case
38
Viliger, supra note
39
Vamvoukos, supra note
40
Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Lithuania v. Poland), 1931 P.C.I.J. (Ser. A/B) No. 42.
41
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Germany v. Denmark), 1969 I.C.J. 3.
42
VAMVOUKOS, at 212
43
Cf. EC Asbestos, [59]; Kudryavtsev (2013), 26; Marceau (2013), 5.

6
product, lays down product characteristics or related processes and production methods and, is
mandatory.44 Granadiana submits that the decision to ban imports from Locasia is not a
technical regulation because it does not lay down processes and production methods that are
related to product characteristics.
Processes and production methods (PPMs) have traditionally been classified into product-
related (PR) and non-product-related (NPR).45 In EC Seal Products, the AB confirmed that
PR PPMs are within the scope of the TBT.46 Furthermore the traveux and the language of the
TBT indicates that NPR PPMs do not fall within the scope of the TBT.47 PR PPMs on the other
hand are those that affect the physical characteristics of the product itself.48
Granadiana contends that the decision to Ban imports from Locasia on account of violation of
human rights and labour rights of the workers does not leave any PR PPMs because the
requirements proscribed do not leave any physical trace on the products. Therefore, Grandiana
submits that the present ban on certain imports does not fall within the scope of TBT.
B. EVEN IF THE BAN ON IMPORTS FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF TBT, IT IS CONSISTENT

WITH ART. 2.1 OF TBT

Art. 2.1 of the TBT mandates that members are prevented from according less favourable
treatment to imported products as compared to domestic products. Art. 2.1 of the TBT thus
establishes a national as well as MFN treatment obligation under the TBT.49 The appellate
board has noted that less favourable treatment under Art. 2.1 is accorded when a measure
causes a detrimental impact which does not stem from a legitimate regulatory distinction.50
Grandiana submits that it complies with Art. 2.1 because the ban on imports does have a
detrimental impact on Locasian imported products as compared to like domestic products and
like imported products from other countries. [1]. Additionally, even if the panel finds a
detrimental impact, it stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction [2].
1. The ban on imports and its enforcement is consistent with Grandianas obligation
under Art. 2.1 of the TBT

44
ABR, EC Asbestos, [66-70]; ABR, EC Sardines, [176].
45
Conrad (2011), 28.
46
ABR, EC Seal Products [5.12].
47
Conrad (2011), 378; Kudryavtsev (2013), 45.
48
Hudec (2000), 191.
49
ABR, US Clove Cigarettes, [87]; ABR, US COOL, [267].
50
ABR, US Clove Cigarettes, [182].

7
With regard to national treatment of goods under the TBT, the appellate board has noted that
TBT and GATT have comparable scope and objectives.51 Therefore, both the treaties must be
interpreted similarly.52 Art. I:1 of GATT prohibits advantageous treatment and is a cornerstone
of GATT53 which espouses the principle of non-discrimination.54Also, in US-Gasoline, the
appellate board stressed on the fact that with reference to the general rule of interpretation in
Article 31(1) of the VCLT that the words of a treaty are to be given their ordinary meaning,
in their context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose.55 Furthermore, the MFN
status between Grandiana and Locasia prohibited discrimination among like products
originating in different countries.56 In the present case Grandiana submits that there has been
no discrimination against Locasia in particular. The ban on imports applies equally to all
countries where goods are manufactured by exploiting human and labour rights of workers.57
2. Even if the panel finds a detrimental impact, it stems exclusively from a legitimate
regulatory distinction.

The appellate board has observed that Art. 2.1 of the TBT does not prohibit a priori any
obstacle to trade.58 The decisive aspect is such cases is whether the regulatory distinction is
legitimate.59 For a technical regulation to be considered legitimate, it must establish a balance
between the impact of the measure adopted and its objective.60

When interpreting no less favorable treatment the sixth recital of the preamble of the TBT must
be considered, which recognizes the protection of inter alia human and animal health.61
Garndiana submits that the measures adopted by it are in pursuance of legitimate objectives
including protection of human and labor rights of workers and animal health.62 It does not
amount to arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination and applied in an even manner.63 Thus the
actions of Grandiana are consistent with Art. 2.1 of TBT.

51
Ibid
52
Ibid
53
ABR, Canada Autos, [69].
54
Ibid, [82]
55
ABR, US Gasoline, 17.
56
Ibid. [84]; cf. Lester et.al. (2008), 330.
57
Compromis, p.
58
ABR, EC Asbestos, [100]
59
Ibid. [182].
60
Ibid
61
Sixth recital of the Preamble of the TBT; cf. ABR, US Clove Cigarettes, [173].
62
Compromis, p.
63
Compromis, p.

8
 C. THE BAN ON IMPORTS IS IN CONSONANCE WITH GRNADIANAS OBLIGATION UNDER ART.
2.2 OF THE TBT AGREEMENT

Art. 2.2 of the TBT prohibits members from adopting technical regulations which create
unnecessary obstacles to international trade. The ban on imports is consistent with Grandianas
obligation under Art. 2.2 of TBT as the regulation pursues a legitimate objective [1] and it is
not more trade restrictive than necessary [2].

1. The ban on imports pursues a legitimate objective

The ban on imports was pursues to protect the human and labor rights of workers as well as
prevent illegal animal hunting. A legitimate objective is something that is lawful, justifiable or
proper.64 Art. 2.2 provides that the protection of human health and animal health or safety, is a
legitimate objective.65

In the present case, banning of imports from countries which manufacture goods by violating
human and labor rights are intended to protect the health and safety of the workers in question.
Furthermore, the banning of import of goods produced due to illegal animal hunting seeks to
promote animal health and safety. Thus, the banning of certain imports by Grandiana seeks to
pursue a legitimate objective.

III. RAHAD MUST IMMEDIATELY RETURN THE RUBY SIPAR TO ATANIA, ITS
LAWFUL OWNER.

At the time the Ruby Sipar was stolen from the Kin Canyon Cultural Centre,66 the Convention
on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of
Ownership of Cultural Property67 had not entered into force in Rahad, as it had deposited its

64
Appellate Body Reports, United States Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, 370,
WT/DS384/AB/R / WT/DS386/AB/R (July 23, 2012) [hereinafter US COOL Appellate Body Report].
65
TBT Agreement, Art. 2.2

66
Compromis, 50.
67
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1972), 823 U.N.T.S. 231 [hereinafter 1970
Convention].

9
instrument of ratification with the UNESCO only on 30 September 2014.68 However, by
refusing to return the Sipar, Rahad breached its treaty obligation to refrain from acts that could
defeat the object and purpose of the 1970 Convention,69 [A] and its customary international
law obligation to honour Rahads request [B]. Having suffered direct injury due to this
internationally wrongful act, Atania is entitled to claim reparation through the return of the
Sipar [C].

A. RAHAD VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE RUBY SIPAR UNDER TREATY LAW.

1. The Sipar is cultural property under the 1970 Convention.

According to Article 1 of the 1970 Convention, cultural property must fulfil the dual
requirements of specific designation by the State and be of importance for history, prehistory,
archaeology and science. Atania deposited a declaration with the UNESCO upon its ratification
of the 1970 Convention,70 designating all archaeological excavations within Atania,71 dating
from the year 1900 CE or before as property of importance for archaeology, history,
prehistory, etc..72 State Practice73 supports such designation of cultural property based on the
period of origin,74 as validated by the Special Committee of Governmental Experts to the 1970
Convention.75

68
Compromis, 59, Correction 3.
69
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT],
art. 18(a).
70
Compromis, 60.
71
1970 Convention, art. 1(c).
72
Compromis, 60.
73
Cultural Property Export and Import Act (1985) (Can.), 8(3); Protection of Movable
Cultural Heritage Act (1986) (Australia), 10(6).
74
PATRICK OKEEFE, COMMENTARY TO THE 1970 CONVENTION, 36-37 (2007) [hereinafter
OKEEFE]; Patrick OKeefe, Lyndel Prott, National Legal Control of Illicit Traffic,
U.N.Doc.CLT-83/WS/16 (1983), at 7 [hereinafter OKeefe & Prott].
75
OKEEFE, supra note 74 at 25.

10
Atanias declaration had the effect of modifying and substituting Article 1 of the 1970
Convention.76 Since the Ruby Sipar was associated with Teppas exploits dating back to 500
CE,77 and was a product of Dr. Logress archaeological excavation,78 it qualifies as cultural
property as per the declaration.

In any event, the Atanian government designated the Sipar as a symbol of respect and
veneration that represented the united cultures of all the Atan clans.79 Its public display in the
Kin Canyon Cultural Centre, which is a museum by international standards,80 is also sufficient
proof of its cultural value for Atania81 (notwithstanding its particular significance82 for the Kin)
and the need to protect its national context.83 Therefore, it fulfils the requirements of
designation and cultural importance under Article 1.

2. Rahad was bound to return the Sipar in discharge of its obligations under VCLT.

76
VCLT, Art 2(1)(d); Genocide Convention case, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined.
at 27; Continental Shelf Arbitration (UK/Fr.), 5 I.L.R. 6 (1979) at 50, 52; MARK VILLIGER,
COMMENTARY ON THE 1969 VIENNA CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF TREATIES, 89 (2009).
77
Compromis, 6.
78
Compromis, 2.
79
Compromis, 8, 43.
80
International Council of Museums, The Statutes of the International Council of Museums,
http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Statuts/2016_Statutes_ENG.pdf, art. 2(1);
Recommendation Concerning the Most Effective Means of Rendering Museums Accessible to
Everyone, U.N.Doc. CPG.6l.VI.11 A (1960) at 125.
81
John Merryman, The Public Interest in Cultural Property, 77 CAL. L. REV. 339, 342, 353
(1989).
82
John Cohan, An Examination of Archaeological Ethics and the Repatriation Movement
Respecting Cultural Property (Part Two), 28 ENVIRONS ENVTL. L. & POLY J. 351, 381, 397
(2004).
83
International Council of Museums, Declaration on the Importance and Values of Universal
museums, http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/ICOM_News/2004-
1/ENG/p4_2004-1.pdf (2002).

11
The Ruby Sipar was smuggled into Rahadi territory in violation of export controls,84 after it
was stolen from the Kin Canyon Cultural Centre.85 Since the Sipar was Atanias cultural
heritage,86 it was entitled to exercise its right to request return. Rahad was bound to respect the
same, being a signatory to the 1970 Convention,87 which was enacted to establish a moral and
ethical code to facilitate the recovery and return of stolen, illicitly excavated and illicitly
exported cultural property.88 By rejecting Atanias request,89 Rahad frustrated the purpose of
the 1970 Convention90 and consequently violated Article 18(b) of the VCLT.

Moreover, Rahads refusal cannot be justified on grounds of protection of the cultural rights91
of the Kin, because indigenous peoples are merely usufructuaries who possess the right to
derive benefit from the use of cultural property but are not permitted to remove such property
from the national territory it belongs to.92 This position is consistent with the premise of the
Convention,93 which recognises the Nation-State as the only unit of identity that is entitled to
seek restitution of cultural property.94

84
Compromis, 60.
85
Compromis, 50.
86
1970 Convention, art. 4.
87
1970 Convention, art. 18(b).
88
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property, U.N.Doc. C70/15/3.MSP/11 (1970), 9.
89
Compromis, 52.
90
Genocide Convention case, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 27.
91
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art.
15 [hereinafter ICESCR]; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), 999
U.N.T.S. 171, art. 27 [hereinafter ICCPR].
92
John Merryman, The Retention of Cultural Property, 21 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 477, 483 (1988).
93
Joseph Fishman, Locating the International Interest in Intranational Cultural Property
Disputes, 35 YALE J. INT'L L. 34, 368 (2010).
94
Statutes of the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property
to its Countries of Origin, U.N.Doc. CLT/CH/INS-2005/21 (2005), arts. 2(1), 3(2); Agudas
Chasidei Chabad of U.S./Russian Federation, 798 F.Supp.2d 260, 27071 (D.D.C.2011).

12
 B. RAHAD VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE SIPAR UNDER CUSTOMARY

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Consistent State practice such as the return of Ahayuda to New Mexico City,95 the Astrolabium
to Germany,96 zodiac heads to China,97 statues to Cambodia,98 Sumerian tablet to Iraq,99 fine
arts to Paraguay100 and artefacts to Nigeria101 affirms the obligation of a State to return cultural
property to the State of origin upon its request. Opinio juris for the same102 establishes this
obligation as customary international law.103 However, discharge of this obligation is
contingent upon the existence of an actual threat of destruction of the cultural property in the

95
William Merill, The Return of the Ahayu: da: Lessons for Repatriation from Zuni Pueblo
and the Smithsonian Institution, 34 CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 5, 523 (1993).
96
Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Museum of Art to Return Scientific Instrument to Germany,
http://www.toledomuseum.org/provenance/astronomical-compendium-or-astrolabium-
astrolabe.
97
Looted statues returned to China in Pinault donation, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
china-23093720.
98
BARBARA HOFFMAN, ART AND HERITAGE: LAW, POLICY AND PRACTICE, 4 (2006); United
Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Return of six of the nine statues
looted from Cambodia, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-
cultural-property/other-cases-of-return-or-restitution-of-cultural-objects/cambodia/.
99
United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Germany returns seized
object to Iraq, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-
property/other-cases-of-return-or-restitution-of-cultural-objects/germany-to-iraq/.
100
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Culture and
Development, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002255/225521E.pdf, at 39.
101
Elizabeth Klesmith, Nigeria and Mali: The Case for Repatriation and Protection of Cultural
Heritage in Post-Colonial Africa, 4 NOTRE DAME JOURNAL OF INTL & COMP. L. 45, 67 (2014).
102
G.A. Res. 31/40, U.N. G.A.O.R., 31st Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/31/40 (1976), at 3; G.A. Res.
32/18, U.N. G.A.O.R., 32nd Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/32/18 (1977), at 3; G.A. Res. 33/50, U.N.
G.A.O.R., 33rd Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/33/50 (1978), at 4; G.A. Res. 38/34, U.N. G.A.O.R.,
38th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/38/34 (1983), at 2; G.A. Res. 67/L.34, U.N. G.A.O.R., 67th Sess.,
U.N.Doc. A/RES/67/L.34 (2012), at 3; G.A. Res. 70/76, U.N. G.A.O.R., 70th Sess., U.N.Doc.
A/RES/70/76 (2015), at 5.
103
North Sea, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 77.

13
State of origin.104 Atanias measures, directed towards subduing the internal unrest caused due
to the Kin protests105 did not pose a threat to the original Sipar. Rather, they were consistent
with its international obligation to respect cultural heritage and develop a realization of the
value of cultural property in the public mind.106

Although there are presently no internationally enforceable standards for treatment of items of
cultural significance,107 this obligation mandates that objects of cultural significance must be
treated with respect for such.108 The Sipar, originally a symbol that represented the shared
ideals of Atania instead was used to provoke disruptive elements against the State itself,109
which was antithetical to its cultural significance. Therefore, the destruction of the Sipar
pendants and its removal from public display were justified and necessary to reinforce its
values.

C. RAHAD MUST RETURN THE SIPAR AS RESTITUTION FOR ITS INTERNATIONALLY

WRONGFUL ACT.

1. Atania has the standing to make a claim for reparation.

Being the lawful owner of the Sipar, Atania suffered direct injury110 due to Rahads
internationally wrongful act of refusing to return the Sipar. This denied Atania the enjoyment
of its ownership rights, entitling it to make a claim for reparation through its return. 111

a. Atania is the lawful owner of the Ruby Sipar.

104
Roger Mastalir, A Proposal for Protecting the Cultural and Property Aspects of
Cultural Property Under International Law, 16 FORDHAM INTL L. J. 4, 1092 (1992)
[hereinafter Mastalir].
105
Compromis, 43.
106
1970 Convention, art. 10(b).
107
Providing for the Protection of Native American Graves and the Repatriation of Native
American remains and Cultural Patrimony, Calendar No. 842, Senate Report 101-473 (1990),
at 8.
108
Mastalir, supra note 104 at 1033.
109
Compromis, 43.
110
ARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 42(a).
111
id., art. 31.

14
Pursuant to the presumption of source nations ownership of cultural property,112 a number of
States including Afghanistan,113 Argentina,114 Austria,115 Cambodia,116 China,117 Egypt,118
Italy,119 Syria120 and USA121 have enacted municipal laws that establish State ownership over
undiscovered objects when there is no prior existing owner.122 However, such ownership ceases
if a third party asserts ownership claims over the object subsequent to its lawful discovery.123
The customary status of this principle is crystallised by the 2011 Model Provisions adopted by
the UNESCO Intergovernmental committee124 and the ECOSOC.125 Atania was thus the de

112
Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus/Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc., 917
F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990), at 34 [hereinafter Autocephalous case]; Attorney General of New
Zealand/Ortiz, [1983] 2 All ER 93, at 34; Princess Paley Olga/Weisz, [1929] 1 K.B. 718, at
722.
113
Law on the Protection of Historical and Cultural Properties (2004) (Afg.), arts. 9, 45.
114
Law 25.743 on the Protection of the Archaeological and Palaeontological Heritage (2003)
(Arg.), art. 4.
115
Monuments Protection Act (2013) (Aust.), 34 [hereinafter Austrian MPA].
116
Abstract and Delimitation of the Law respecting the Classification, Conservation and
Protection of Historical Monuments (1965) (Cambodia), art. 30, Decision on the Protection of
the Cultural Heritage (1993) (Cambodia), 34A.
117
Law of the People's Republic of China on Protection of Cultural Relics (translation) (2007)
(China), art. 5.
118
Promulgating the Antiquities Protection Law (2010) (Egypt), art. 35.
119
Codicedeibeniculturali e del paesaggio (2002) (Italy), arts. 10, 91.
120
Antiquities Law (Passed in Legislative Decree No. 222) (1963) (Syria), art. 4.
121
Protection of Archaeological Resources (1997) (U.S.), 7.13(a).
122
Webb/Ireland, [1988] I.R. 353, at 383 [hereinafter Webb/Ireland].
123
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Model Provisions on
State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects,
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/UNESCO-
UNIDROIT_Model_Provisions_en.pdf (2011), provision 3 [hereinafter UNESCO-
UNIDROIT Model Provisions]; Austrian MPA, supra note 115, 34; id. at 18, 35.
124
UNESCO-UNIDROIT Model Provisions, supra note 123, provision 2.
125
E.C.O.S.O.C. Res. 2008/23, U.N. E.S.C.O.R., 42nd pln. mtg., U.N.Doc. E/RES/2008/23
(2008), at 4.

15
facto owner of the Sipar until its excavation in 1903. Its ownership persisted when even the
Sipar was transferred to the University of Atanagrad126 and to the Kin Canyon Cultural
Centre127 as both these institutions were State-owned,128 merely acting as custodians of public
property129 controlled and owned by the State.130

b. Rahads violations deprived Atania of the enjoyment of its ownership rights.

The right of ownership131 includes the right to undisturbed possession of property.132 Therefore,
various legal systems recognize the owners claims for return against those who possess
property without his or her permission.133 Atanias right to retain possession as the lawful
owner of the Sipar was deprived due to Rahads refusal, which amounts to injury under the
ARSIWA134 as Atanias enjoyment of its individual right was impaired by Rahads wrongful
act.135

2. Rahad must return the Sipar as reparation for Atanias injury.

126
Compromis, 12.
127
Compromis, 13.
128
Compromis, 12, Clarification 4.
129
Webb/Ireland, supra note 122 at 87; International Council of Museums, ICOM Code of
Ethics for Museums,
http://icom.museum/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Codes/code_ethics2013_eng.pdf (1986), prin.
2.

OKeefe & Prott, supra note 74 at 40; JOHN SPRANKLING, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF
130

PROPERTY, 302 (2014).

Lyndel Prott, The International Movement of Cultural Objects, 12 INTL. JOURNAL CULT.
131

PROP. 225, 231 (2005).

132
LORD HAILSHAM, HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (vol. 25), 1227 (2010); European
Convention on Human Rights (2010), 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 1.
133
Autocephalous case, supra note 112 at 290; Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran/The
Barakat Galleries Ltd., [2007] EWCA Civ 1374, at 17; Staub/Staub, 376 A.2d 1129, 1132
(1977); Wallander/Barnes, 671 A.2d 962, 966 (1996); German Civil Code BGB (2002) (Ger.),
985; The Napoleanic Code (1804) (Fr.), art. 2279(2).
134
ARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 42.
135
DARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 272; Third report on State
responsibility, Special Rapporteur, James Crawford, U.N.Doc. A/CN.4/507 (2001), at 26-28
[hereinafter Crawford: Third Report on State Responsibility].

16
 Article 31 of the ARSIWA codifies the customary law principle136 that the State responsible
for an internationally wrongful act must make reparation for the injury caused,137 through the
re-establishment of the situation that existed prior to the occurrence of the wrongful act.138
Decisions of the PCIJ139 and international arbitral tribunals140 confirm that restitution in kind
is the preferred remedy for internationally wrongful acts when it is not materially impossible.141
Since there was no material impossibility, nor disproportionate burden incurred that deterred
the return of the Sipar,142 Rahad was bound to honour Atanias request.

IV. ATANIA OWES NO COMPENSATION TO RAHAD FOR ANY COSTS

INCURRED RELATED TO THE KIN MIGRANTS.

Rahads claim for compensation is untenable on grounds of lack of standing because Atania
has not violated its international obligations under the ICESCR and the ICCPR, to which both
Atania and Rahad are parties [A].143 Further, there is no causal link between Rahads injury
and Atanias alleged breach. Alternatively, Rahads claims are precluded by the wrongfulness
of its conduct [B].

A. RAHAD THE LACKS STANDING TO MAKE A CLAIM OF VIOLATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE

KIN.

1. Atania did not violate its international obligations.

a. The WRAP is not discriminatory.

136
Factory at Chorzow (Ger./Pol.), Jurisdiction, 1927 P.C.I.J (ser.A) No. 9, at 21.
137
ARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 31.
138
DARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 96.
139
Factory at Chorzow (Ger./Pol.), Merits, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No.17, at 47.
140
British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco (Great Britain/Spain), 2 R.I.A.A. 615
(1924), at 621625, 651742; Walter Fletcher Smith (U.S./Cuba), 2 R.I.A.A. 915 (1929), at
918; Heirs of Lebas de Courmont, 13 R.I.A.A. 761 (1957), at 764.
141
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia/Thai.), Merits, 1962 I.C.J. 6 at 3637.
142
ARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 35; DARSIWA, supra note
Error! Bookmark not defined. at 97.
143
Compromis, 59.

17
The WRAP, enacted to allocate additional resources to agricultural production, required all
farming operations in Atania to procure licenses to use public water.144 However, it made an
exception for farms that sold more than US$75,000 worth crops per year.145 The ICESCR and
ICCPR prohibit direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of economic position that has the
effect of impairing the enjoyment of Covenant rights.146 Nevertheless, differentiation based on
reasonable and objective criteria does not amount to prohibited discrimination.147

The WRAP is not discriminatory, due to the operation of the margin of appreciation doctrine148
that allows States to impose reasonable restrictions on non-essential cultural or religious
practices149 to avoid infringement of the rights and freedoms of the rest of the society.150

The award of exemption is also justified151 since the eligible commercial farmers required a
greater share of the scarce water resources. Such differential treatment is permissible even if it
causes hardship to a particular group, so long as it can be justified of grounds of general State
interest, administrative or financial needs,152 as was the case with the WRAP which sought to
maximize use of depleting water resources in light of Atanias financial constraints.153

144
Compromis, 35.
145
id.
146
ICCPR, arts. 2(1), 26; ICESCR, art. 2(2).
147
S. W. M. Brooks/The Netherlands, U.N.Doc. Supp No. 20 A/42/40 (1987), at 13.
148
Prince/South Africa, [ACtHPR] AHRLR 105 (2004), at 50 [hereinafter Prince/South
Africa].
149
Karnel Singh Bhinder/Canada, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/37/D/208/1986 (1989), at 6.2.
150
Prince/South Africa, supra note 148 at 43.
151
Marckx/Belgium, [ECtHR] 2 EHRR 330 (1979), at 33.
152
Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in
Belgium/Belgium, [ECtHR] 1 EHRR 252 (1968), at 23 [hereinafter Belgian Linguistics];
Vrountou/Cyprus, [ECtHR] App. No. 33631/06 (2005), at 5.
153
Compromis, 34.

18
Furthermore, the exemption was proportionate154 to the aforementioned aim because it did not
permit the over-quota use of water by those who were eligible for it.155

b. Atanias conduct is not in violation of the right to food and water.

The obligation to provide minimum access to food and water156 is subject to the Covenants
objective of achieving progressive realization of the enshrined rights,157 assessed depending on
the level of food insecurity or shortage of resources158 and the maximum efforts made by the
State to discharge its obligations.159 Therefore, merely the existence of malnutrition in a
country is not conclusive in proving whether a State has violated the right to food and water.160

The WRAP imposed licenses as a measure to regulate existing water supply, in light of the
depleting water reserves in Atania. While the Kin are entitled to greater protection by virtue of
their indigenous status,161 the lack of such a provision is attributable to the severe resource

154
CESCR General Comment No. 20 (2009), U.N.Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, at 13; Proposed
Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory
Opinion, [IACtHR] OC-4/84 (1984), at 57; Belgian Linguistics, supra note 152 at 10.
155
Compromis, 35.
156
ICESCR, arts. 11(2), 12.
157
ICESCR, art. 2(1); Summary Records of the 308th Meeting of the UN Commission of
Human Rights, U.N.Doc. E/CN.4/SR.308 (1952), at 5; An Evaluation of the Obligation to take
steps to the Maximum of Available Resources under an Optional Protocol to the Covenant,
U.N.Doc. E/C.12/2007/1 (2007), at 11; AMREI MLLER, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: AN
ANALYSIS OF HEALTH RELATED ISSUES IN NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS, 115
(2013).
158
CESCR General Comment No. 3 (2003), U.N.Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6/14, at 1 [hereinafter
CESCR General Comment No. 3]; International Commission of Jurists, Maastricht
Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
http://www.refworld.org/docid/48abd5730.html (1997), at 14(f); United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization, Voluntary Guidelines to support the Progressive Realization of the
Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security, http://www.fao.org/3/a-
y7937e.pdf (2004), at 14.3.
159
CESCR General Comment No. 3, id. at 9.
160
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Justiciability of the right to food,
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0511e/a0511e03.pdf, at 13.
161
General Comment 15, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 7.

19
constraints faced by Atania.162 Despite these constraints, Atania took all practicable steps to
publicize the trials and give the Kin reasonable opportunity to comply with the WRAP. 163

The termination of water supply, undertaken as a last resort, was necessary to achieve the
WRAPs aim because the Kins over quota consumption would have an immediate adverse
impact on the already scarce resources in Atania.164 The substantial annual loss of food and
agricultural products in the State as a whole,165 also justifies Atanias inability to redress the
starvation.166

c. Atania did not violate the cultural rights of the Kin.

States are required to take measures to protect indigenous peoples right to maintain their
traditional beliefs and customs.167 However, statutory restrictions affecting these cultural rights
are permissible insofar as they have a reasonable and objective justification and are consistent
with the other provisions of the Covenant.168 The cultural beliefs that prohibited the Kin from
taking State permission to use natural resources,169 excluded the operation of the WRAP, which
aimed at securing the realization of Covenant rights for the whole Atanian population.170 The
restriction on these beliefs was necessary because State recognition of such would amount to
denial of the Atanian populations Covenant rights, and was not disproportionate since the
targeted beliefs were not integral to the subsistence of the Kin.171 In any event, indigenous

162
Compromis, 34.
163
Compromis, 37.
164
Compromis, 36.
165
Compromis, 29.
166
General Comment 12, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 17.
167
ICCPR, art. 27; Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights
Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council/Kenya, [ACtHPR] AHRR 75
(2009), at 241.
168
Sandra Lovelace/Canada, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/13/D/24/1977 (1981), at 16; CCPR General
Comment No. 23 (1994), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, at 8.
169
Compromis, 37.
170
Compromis, 34.
171
Lansman/Finland, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992 (1994), at 7.10, 9.4.

20
peoples refusal to change their traditional way of life at the expense of the economic
development of a society as a whole is unlawful.172

d. Atania did not violate the right to life of the Kin.

Article 6 of the ICCPR imposes an obligation on State parties to protect the individuals right
against arbitrary deprivation of life. Atania duly discharged this obligation considering that the
arrests of the protestors were in accordance with the procedure established by law.173

The provision also binds State parties to the due diligence obligation to take long-term
measures to address conditions such as widespread hunger and malnutrition that may
eventually give rise to direct threats to life.174 However, limited derogation is permissible on
grounds of public emergency,175 proven if national authorities have sufficient reason to
believe176 that there exists a threat to the functioning of basic institutions of the country.177

The threat of depleting water resources manifested itself through the rapid loss of farmable
land, food and agricultural products178 and the significant decrease in Atanias GDP.179 This
was capable of endangering Atanias economic survival and the basic functioning of its
industries that are largely reliant on the water reserves.180 Since Atania discharged its minimum
due diligence obligation to protect the right to life of the Kin by taking all steps to notify them

172
B Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band/Canada, U.N.Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40), Individual
Opinion of Ando (1990), at 1.
173
Compromis, 45, Clarification 7.
174
CCPR Draft General Comment No. 36 (2015), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/GC/R.36/Rev.2, at 28.
175
ICCPR, art. 4.
176
Lawless/Ireland, [ECtHR] 1 EHRR 15 (1961), at 28 [hereinafter Lawless case].
177
CCPR General Comment No. 29 (2001), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, at 7;
Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, U.N.Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4 (1985), prin. 39 [hereinafter Siracusa
Principles].
178
Compromis, 29.
179
Compromis, 2.
180
Compromis, 2, 29.

21
of the consequences of non-compliance of the WRAP181 despite their over-quota water
consumption,182 its derogation is permissible.

e. Atania did not violate the right to freedom of movement.

State interference with the right to freedom of movement has been deemed necessary in a
democratic society,183 if it corresponds to a pressing social need such as public order, national
security or public health184 and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.185

Public order does not refer simply to the maintenance of physical order, but also includes the
organization of society in a manner that strengthens the functioning of democratic
institutions.186 Since the demonstrations by the Kin blocked roads, interfered with local
businesses, and impeded the peaceful functioning of the Atanian society,187 the arrests of the
protesters were justified. Not only were the protesters duly intimated about President Vhens
orders, they were also granted safeguards against arbitrary arrest.188

181
Compromis, 37.
182
Compromis, 6.
183
Buscarini and others/San Marino, [ECtHR] 30 EHRR 208 (2000), at 39;
Kokkinakis/Greece, [ECtHR] 17 EHRR 397 (1993), at 48-49.
184
ICCPR, art. 12(3).
185
CCPR General Comment No. 27 (1999), U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, at 13, 14;
Gorji-Dinka/Cameroon, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002 (2005), at 5.1; Van Alphen/The
Netherlands, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (1990), at 5.8; A/Australia, U.N.Doc.
CCPR/C/59/D/560/1993 (1997), at 9.2; Kulov/Kyrgyzstan, U.N.Doc.
CCPR/C/99/D/1369/2005 (2010), at 8.
186
Strasbourg Declaration on the Right to Leave and Return, adopted by the meeting of experts,
Strasbourg, France on 26 November 1986, 81 AM. J. INTL L. 1, 432-438 (1987), art. 4(e)
[hereinafter Strasbourg Declaration]; Siracusa Principles, supra note 177, prins. 22-23;
Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism,
Advisory Opinion, [IACtHR] OC-5/85 (1985), at 64, 68; Engel and Others/Netherlands,
[ECtHR] 1 EHRR 647 (1976), at 98.
187
Compromis, 42.
188
Compromis, 43.

22
Moreover, Article 12(4) of the ICCPR confers upon all individuals the voluntary right189 to
return to ones own country,190 which can be limited in times of an exceptional crisis that
threatens the organized life of the community.191 As the Kin crisis had disrupted the normal
functioning of the Atanian society, the restriction on the Kins right to return until the Atanian
government could restore access to public water, was justified. Moreover, Rahad cannot claim
that Atania violated the Kins right to return because such a claim is inconsistent with its
customary international law obligation of non-refoulement192 and cannot be fulfilled until the
internal unrest subdues.

2. There is no causal link between damage suffered by Rahad and Atanias breach.

Rahad is barred from making claims of violations on behalf of the Kin considering that Atanias
alleged breach was not a necessary condition for the consequences to have occurred193 because
this fails the requirement of a causal link194 between the breach and the damage suffered by
Rahad.195 The WRAP sought to counter the imminent threat of the loss of 50% of farmable

189
G.A. Res. 50/152, U.N. G.A.O.R., 50th Sess., U.N.Doc. A/RES/50/152 (1996), at 17, 18.
190
S.C. Res. 1097, U.N. S.C.O.R., 51st Sess., U.N.Doc. S/RES/1097 (1996), at 8.
191
Lawless case, supra note 176 at 28; Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Netherlands/Greece,
[ECtHR] 1 ECHR 1 (1969), at 112.
192
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Advisory Opinion on the Extraterritorial
Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f17a1a4.html (2007), at
7; NAFG/Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, (2003) 131 F.C.R.
57, at 60-64; Kola/MIMA, (2002) 120 F.C.R. 170, at 60; Stephen Legomsky, Secondary
Refugee Movements and the Return of Asylum Seekers to Third Countries: The Meaning of
Effective Protection, 15 INTL J. REFUGEE L. 567, 573 (2003).
193
Smith/Philadelphia Transp. Co., 173 F.2d 721 (3rd Cir. 1949), at 281; Richard Wright,
Causation in Tort Law, 73 CAL. L. REV. 1735, 1791-1803 (1985).
194
ARSIWA, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined., art. 31; Crawford: Third Report on
State Responsibility, supra note 135 at 16.
195
Compromis, 57.

23
land in Atania.196 This threat was of a gravity that could result in starvation, which was cited
as the main reason for the migration.197

The protests by the Sisters created a situation of public disorder in Atania, which substantially
aggravated the mass migration of Kin members to Rahad acting as an intervening cause,198 thus
failing to establish a direct and certain nexus between the breach and the injury.199

B. IN ANY EVENT, RAHADS CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF CLEAN HANDS.

In any event, Rahad is foreclosed from making a claim for compensation due to the operation
of the doctrine of clean hands.200 The KHAA recognized the Kin migrants as facing
persecution in their homeland.201 However, while it afforded refugee status to the Sisters and
their family members, the rest of the Kin migrants were only granted temporary protection.202

States often acknowledge refugees on a group basis in situations of mass influx203 and have an
obligation under customary international law, comprising of State practice204 and opinio

196
Compromis, 34.
197
Compromis, 47.
198
United States-German Mixed Claims Commission, Administrative Decision No. II, 7
R.I.A.A. 23 (1923) at 30; Dix case, 9 R.I.A.A. 119 (1902), at 121.
199
Bosnian Genocide, supra note Error! Bookmark not defined. at 462; Biwater Gauff
(Tanzania) Ltd/United Republic of Tanzania, [ICSID] No. ARB/05/22 (2008), at 758.
200
International Law Commission, Summary Record of 2793rd Meeting, U.N.Doc.
A/CN.4/SR.2793 (2004), at 4; Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den./Nor.), Dissenting
Opinion of Judge Anzilotti,1933 P.C.I.J. (ser.A/B) No 53, at 95; Report and Recommendations
Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of E2 Claims,
U.N.Doc. S/AC.26/1998/7 (1998), at 170.
201
Compromis, 48.
202
Compromis, 48.
203
Protection of Refugees in Mass Influx Situations: Overall Protection Framework, Global
Consultations on International Protection, U.N.Doc. EC/GC/01/4 (2001), at 3, 6.
204
Council Directive 2001/55/EC, 44 OJ L 212 (2001), at 16 [hereinafter EU Council
Directive]; CERD Reports submitted by States parties under Article 9 of the Convention
(Peru), U.N.Doc. CERD/C/PER/18-21 (2013), at 7.

24
juris,205 not to differentiate between asylum seekers206 when there is no reasonable justification
for the same.207 This obligation can be traced to Article 26 of the ICCPR and Article 3 of the
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,208 to which Atania and Rahad are parties.209
Rahad violated its obligations towards the Kin migrants since there was no reason for affording
differential treatment to the Kin vis--vis the Sisters, both of whom faced the same threat210
and is thereby precluded from claiming compensation.

205
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Resettlement Handbook Chapter 3,
http://www.unhcr.org/3d464c954.html, at 77; Draft Declaration and Programme of Action,
U.N.Doc. A/CONF.189/WG.1/3 (2001), at 10.
206
European Conference against Racism, Draft Political Declaration, WCR/IC/2001/Misc.4
(2000), at 26; Report of the Expert Seminar on Remedies available to the Victims of Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and on Good National Practices,
U.N.Doc. A/CONF.189/PC.1/8 (2000), at 28.
207
EU Council Directive, supra note 204 at 16.
208
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1954), 189 U.N.T.S. 150.
209
Compromis, 59.
210
Compromis, 48.

25
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Federation of the Clans of the Atan respectfully requests this Court to declare that:

I.

Extraction of water from the Aquifer violates international obligations undertaken by Rahad
and constitutes an inequitable use of a shared resource; and

II.

The Savali Pipeline operations violate Rahads international obligations with respect to the Kin
Canyon Complex and therefore must cease; and

III.

Rahad must immediately return the Ruby Sipar to Atania, its lawful owner; and

IV.

Atania owes no compensation to Rahad for any costs incurred related to the Kin migrants.

Respectfully submitted,

Agents of the Government of the Federation of the Clans of the Atan.

26