C.

THE ICJ MAY ADJUDICATE ADAWA’S CLAIM THAT RASASA’S

IMPOSITION OF TARIFFS ON HELIAN PRODUCTS FROM ADAWA
VIOLATES THE CHC TREATY, AND THAT ADAWA IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES REFLECTING THE FINANCIAL HARM IT
HAS SUFFERED TO DATE.

The Court may adjudicate Adawa’s claim because ICJ has jurisdiction and the claim

is admissible.

I. ICJ has jurisdiction.

Both states are States Parties to the UN charter and both acceded to the Statute of

the International Court of Justice.1 Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the ICJ

provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all matters specially provided for

in the UN Charter or in treaties and conventions in force. Legal disputes should as a

general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in

accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court2. Also, Adawa and Rasasa

are parties to the CHC Treaty3. Since the subject of inquiry is exactly the contents of

the CHC Treaty and the security exception contained therein, the case is a justiciable

question which is fit for the Court to be adjudicated.

Claim is admissible

Multiple courts are better than no courts at all.4

1 Compromis, par.8.

2 . Article 36, para. 3 UN Charter

3 Compromis, par 10.

4See Rosalyn Higgins, A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the

Bench, 55 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 791 (2006); Symeon Karagiannis, La
Multiplication des Juridictions Internationales: Un Systdme Anarchique?,
the jurisdiction of international tribunals is consent-based; no "system" of
international tribunals exists;5

Second, as the Soft Drinks example illustrates, declining jurisdiction on the ground

that another proceeding is pending does not necessarily guarantee that the other

proceeding will ultimately resolve the dispute.

Further, because some international courts and tribunals may take years to resolve a

single dispute, it may not be a bad idea to pressure them to expedite their proceedings.

Encouraging a race to a ruling (that is, applying res judicata only, not lis pendens) will

be more effective than encouraging a race to court (that is, applying lis pendens as

well as res judicata). A tribunal's decision will prevail-even though the tribunal was

seized last-so long as the tribunal's decision comes first

Their is no international forum shopping

Parallel agreements

Overlapping jurisdiction of courts

Imposition of tariff violates chc treaty

Compensation

in LAJURIDICTIONNALISATION DU DROIT INTERNATIONAL 7 (Societe Fran~aise

pour le Droit International ed., 2003); Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao,
Multiple International judicial Forums: A Reflection of the Growing
Strength of International Law or its Fragmentation?, 25 MICH. J. INT'L
L. 929, 958-59 (2004).
5 Ibid kong sabihin
 throughout the GATT period, compensation has been indeed awarded by panels to

financially harmed Members.6 compensation, as a matter of practice, has been used to

compel compliance from respondent Members. 7 In the present case, there was

unjustifiable breach of Rasasa’s commitment to the provisions of the CHC Treaty,

specifically in maintaining a bound rate of zero on Helian products. Compensatory

damages are proper.

D. THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF DARIAN GREY WERE

CONSISTENT WITH ADAWA’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL
LAW, AND ADAWA MAY PROCEED TO RENDER HER TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

For applicant argue that

First establish territoriality and nationality jurisdiction of ICC
Applicant has obligation to cooperate--- rome statute, cil, cases
Icc does not recognize immunity----rome statute, cases

This means that the jurisdiction of the ICC is not universal, but territorial or
personal in nature. It also means that the national of a state which is not a party to
the Statute may be prosecuted where the crime is committed in the territory of a
state which is a party8.

6 United States–Measures Affecting Imports of Softwood Lumber from Canada, 41 B.I.S.D. 413–15 (1993).
7 Ibid.
8
Shaw, malcolm. International law sixt h edition 2008 isbn-13 978-0-511-45559-9 pg 412
The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the
territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other
State.9
Republic of Garantia has been a party to the Rome Statute since 2005,10

In February 2009, the remote island Republic of Garantia (not a party to this case or
otherwise involved in this dispute) formally referred a situation to the Prosecutor
of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes and crimes against
humanity that were alleged to have occurred during the 2007-2009 civil war in that
State. The referral noted that “several private foreign enterprises sold weapons
systems and provided training to government militias, and such systems and training
materially aided the [regime then in power] in its unlawful conduct.” The referral
specifically mentioned RRC as one of the accused foreign contractors, and cited Ms.
Grey as having been personally responsible for its activities. In accordance with
ICC procedures, the Office of the Prosecutor opened an investigation in August
200911.

The arrest was made in line with Adawa’s obligation to cooperate under the Rome
Statute.

Article 86 General obligation to cooperate

States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate
fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the
jurisdiction of the Court12.

Customary IHL Rule 161 (ICRC)

“States must make every effort to cooperate, to the extent possible, with each other in
order to facilitate the investigation of war crimes and the prosecution of the
suspects”13

9
Article 4(2) rome statute
10 Clarifications, par. 2.
11
Compromis par 15
12
Article 86 rome statute
On the issue of diplomatic Immunity

Art 27 rome statute-- irrelevance of official capacity

Article 27 Irrelevance of official capacity
1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on
official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a
member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government
official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this
Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.
2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity
of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court
from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person14.

Prosecutor v Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir par 1 and 2

There is neither State practice nor opinio juris that would support the existence of
Head of State immunity under customary international law vis-à-vis an international
court. To the contrary, such immunity has never been recognised in international
law as a bar to the jurisdiction of an international court.15.

The absence of a rule of customary international law recognising Head of State

immunity vis-à-vis international courts is relevant not only to the question of whether
an international court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a Head of State and
conduct proceedings against him or her, but also for the horizontal relationship
between States when a State is requested by an international court to arrest and
surrender the Head of State of another State. No immunities under customary
international law operate in such a situation to bar an international court in its
exercise of its own jurisdiction16.

13
Customary ihl rule 161 icrc
14
article 27 rome statute
15
prosecutor v omar hassan ahmad al-bashir par 1
16
prosecutor v omar hassan ahmad al-bashir par 2