PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 2013 CLASS MOOT COURT
In the International Court of Justice The Peace Palace The Hague, The Netherlands ________________________________________________________________
CASE CONCERNING THE EVACUATION OF A FOREIGNER DURING AN OUTBREAK OF A MALIGNANT INFLUENZA
The State of Armis APPLICANT v. The State of Recho RESPONDENT
________________________________________________________________ MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT ________________________________________________________________
2013
Table of Contents PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW..................................................................1 TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................3 TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, AND UN DOCUMENTS...............................................................3 JUDICIAL AND ARBITRAL DECISIONS................................................................................. 3 ESSAYS, ARTICLES, JOURNALS, AND MISCELLANEOUS..........................................................3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................................4 QUESTIONS PRESENTED..........................................................................7 STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................8 PLEADINGS...........................................................................................13
2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Treaties, Conventions, and UN Documents • • • • • • • • • • • •
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Discrimination against Women the Convention on the Rights of the Child Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. ILO Convention 87 on the Freedom of Association and Protecton of the Right to organize Convention ILO 158 Termination of Employment Convention, 1982, Database of Labour Legislation International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families Universal Declaration of Human Rights Workers with Family Responsibilites Convention Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts Termination of Employment Convention International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
Judicial and Arbitral Decisions • • •
Lotus (France v Turkey) (Merits) (PCIJ Rep Series A No 10), North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Merits) ([1969] ICJ Rep 3) (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) ([1986] ICJ Rep 14)
Essays, Articles, Journals, and Miscellaneous • •
USLegal, Ratione Personae Law & Legal Definition Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The State of Armis and the State of Recho submit the following dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Pursuant to Article 38 (a) and (b) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, States may bring cases before ICJ, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; and b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law. 1 In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the Court must, before doing so, satisfy itself, not only that it has jurisdiction in accordance with Articles 36 and 37, but also that the claim is well founded in fact and law. 2 The State of Armis and the State of Recho are the involved states in the dispute concerning the evacuation of a foreigner during an outbreak of a malignant influenza. The preceding statement is supported in conformity with paragraph 1 Article of the Statute of ICJ which provides that, “Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.”3 The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters especially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations (Armis and Recho are members of the United Nations, Compromis, paragraph 1 “C.1”) or in treaties and conventions in force.4 There are treaties and conventions involved in the case which are: a. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), b. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), c. 1
International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Articles 38(a) and 38(b), International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court 1945, available at: http://www.icjcij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_III, last accessed on 17 March 2013. 3 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Article 34, 4 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Article 36, 2
4
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and d. the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (C.1). Aside from the requisites mentioned above, there are another requirements to adjudicate case in the ICJ. These are jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction ratione materiae. Ratione personae literally means by reason of his person or by reason of the person concerned. In some international cases, a court’s jurisdiction depends upon whether a defendant is residing within the territory of the court or whether a defendant is a citizen of the state to which the court belongs. In such cases, jurisdiction of a court is decided by reason of the defendant or ratione personae. In international law, ratione personae expresses the rule of law that only a state that is a party to an international treaty can take part in international dispute resolution process. 5 Ratione materiae on the other hand, otherwise known as subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to decide a particular case. It is the jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. The reasoning behind subject-matter jurisdiction is that the court with the greatest interest in deciding the dispute should be the court that has the opportunity to make a ruling on it. 6 Both jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction ratione materiae are present in the case. State of Armis and State of Recho are sovereign states (ratione personae), the former advocating the claims in its exercise of diplomatic protection against the latter (C.9). And the two states agreed to refer the dispute to the ICJ, hence, jurisdiction ratione materiae is being complied with (C.11). 5
USLegal, Ratione Personae Law & Legal Definition, available at: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/rationepersonae/, last accessed on 17 March 2013. 6 USLegal, Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae Law & Legal Definition, available at: http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jurisdiction-ratione-materiae/, last accessed on 17 March 2013.
5
Furthermore, the parties have agreed to the contents of the Compromis, subject to the Corrections and Clarifications. In accordance with Article 36(1) 7 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Thus, each party will accept the judgment of this Court as final and binding and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith. With all the foregoing, the International Court of Justice is competent enough to exercise jurisdiction over the dispute.
Exhaustion of Available Local Remedies Ms. Shunzette exhausted all legal remedies available to her in Recho by instituting a suit, which she eventually lost against the Goverment of Recho (C.9). The rule on exhaustion of local remedies was fully complied with.
7
International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Article 36 (1)
6
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether the Government of Recho breached the treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties. II. Whether the Government of Recho breached international customary law.
7
STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Countries Armis and Recho are members of the United Nations. They are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties.
2. Armis does not border Recho and Megoose, but Recho borders Megoose. In March 2010, a malignant influenza was going around Megoose, but there were not enough vaccines for the entire population. The Government of Megoose issued an instruction to inhabitants living within a 30-kilometer radius from the area where the spread of influenza was most serious to not move, in principle, in and out of the area.
3. The Government of Armis instructed all nationals of Armis living in Recho as well as in Megoose to evacuate each country at once by the use of chartered flights arranged by the Government. About 30 percent of the nationals of Armis living in Recho left to return to Armis.
8
4. In April 2010, the Government of Megoose revoked the restriction placed on movement, recognizing that the influenza epidemic was waning. 8
Recho borders Megoose at 50 kilometer distance from the area where the spread of influenza was the most serious.
8
5. In June 2010, the Government of Armis lifted the order not to visit Recho, after assessing that the epidemic of influenza in Megoose had almost waned.
6. Ms. Shunzette, a national of Armis, had worked as a researcher in the National Research Institute of Recho (situated at a distance of 60 kilometer from the area where the spread of influenza was the most serious) since March 2009, under a three-year employment contract. She was accompanied by her 5 year old daughter. After the influenza outbreak, she returned home on board the chartered flight, following the instruction of the Government of Armis.
9
7. Following the lifting of the order not to visit Recho, Ms. Shunzette went back to Recho to resume her work at the Institute, but found that she had been dismissed as a punishment
10
and that her contract on a rental lodge in the
campus had been cancelled.
8. Ms. Shunzette had no choice but to leave Recho for Armis, and brought a suit against the Government of Recho in the competent district court of Recho which 9
The researchers from Armis, except Ms. Shunzette, all of whom were men, lived in Recho apart from their family. They continued their work in the Institute, in spite of the instruction of the Government of Recho. 10
According to the employment contract, an employee dismissed for punishment gets no dismissal payment, and is disqualified for reemployment.
9
had jurisdiction over the matter, demanding the revocation of her dismissal. 11 The court supported the Government of Recho’s contention that she was justly punished for absence from work without the permission required under the employment contract. Ms. Shunzette lost the suit. 12
9. Ms. Shunzette asked the Government of Armis to exercise its right of diplomatic protection against the Government of Recho. The Government of Armis accepted her request and sought the revocation of her dismissal from the National Institute, which was rebuffed immediately.
10. The two countries engaged in further negotiations. In the course of the negotiations, Armis held that Recho violated international law by punishing a national of Armis, Ms. Shunzette, for the reason as follows: (1) Ms. Shunzette suffered a disadvantage (a dismissal as punishment) as the result of departing from Recho. (2) It was a violation of the principle of freedom to leave any country. (3) Her right to work under safe conditions, which all women shall enjoy, was injured by being dismissed for disobeying the employment contract, or for leaving Recho at the peak of the malignant influenza outbreak. (4) If Ms. Shunzette remained in Recho, the right of her five year old daughter to enjoy the highest 11
National Research Institute of Recho is financed out of the budget of the Government, and employee matters are under the control of the Government. 12
In the district court, Ms. Shunzette invoked domestic laws and regulations relating to human rights as well as the conventions on human rights themselves, but the court did not fully discuss her legal arguments
10
standard of protection against epidemics, which all children have, would be injured. Recho refuted as follows: The engagement contract consented to by Ms. Shunzette was based on laws and regulations enacted to be consonant with the treaties to which Recho is a party. As a matter of fact, Recho neither prevented any departure, nor discriminated against anyone, including Ms. Shunzette and her daughter.
11. The negotiation reached an impasse. Eventually, the two countries agreed to refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
12. The applicant, Armis, requested that ICJ adjudge and declare as follows: The Government of Recho breached the treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties as well as international customary law in relation to the spread of the malignant influenza in Megoose in March 2010.
13. The defendant, Recho, requested that the ICJ adjudge and declare as follows: The Government of Recho breached no treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties or any international customary law in relation to the spread of the malignant influenza in Megoose in March 2010.
11
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I.
Recho breached the treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties because: a. It violated the principle of the right of liberty of movement for everyone who is lawfully within a State party’s territory; b. All women enjoy the right to work and under safe conditions. Recho breached Ms. Shunzette’s right to work; and c. It violated the right of all children to enjoy the highest standard of protection against epidemics.
II.
Recho breached international customary law because: a. It violated employee’s right to work under safe conditions; b. It terminated Ms. Shunzette’s employment without valid cause and due process; c. It violated the human right to impartial trial; and d. Ms. Shunzette suffered damages as a result.
12
PLEADINGS
I.
RECHO BREACHED THE TREATIES TO WHICH ARMIS AND RECHO ARE PARTIES. A. Recho violated the principle of the right of liberty of movement for everyone who is lawfully within a State party’s territory. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. Such right shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).13 The dismissal from work of a national of Armis, Ms. Shunzette, defeated the principle of freedom to leave any country. It was her right to leave Recho for her own justifiable reason. Hence, Recho should not have punished her because of the exercise of such right. It is innate for any one to wish to flee in light of unfortunate events. Especially if this hampers employment and health issues. Every person has the right to look out for his/her own best interest. This is not a punishable act since everyone is entitled to such.
13
ICCPR, Art. 12 (3)
13
B. All women enjoy the right to work and under safe conditions. Recho breached Ms. Shunzette’s right to work. Every state has specific legal obligations to respect and protect every person’s right to work. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular: The right to work as an inalienable right of all human beings 14 and the right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction. 15 Furthermore, Recho breached what the Article 5(d) of the Termination of Employment Convention of the International Labour Organization stated, that “race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction, or social origin” do not constitute as valid reasons for termination. 16 The right to work under safe conditions, which all women shall enjoy, was injured by dismissing Ms. Shunzette for disobeying the employment contract, or for leaving Recho at the peak of the malignant influenza outbreak (C.7).In this case, she was punished for exercising her duty as parent in protecting not only herself, but her child, which is well within the sphere of familial responsibility. This cannot be made the basis of any lawful termination as stated in the aforementioned law. In the compromis, it was stated that researchers from Armis who were all men continued their work despite Armis instructions. They lived in 14
Convention on the Elimination of all forms Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article 11 (1a) CEDAW, Article 11, (1f) 16 Termination of Employment Convention, 1982, Article 5(d) 15
14
Recho apart from their family and this fact separates from the heavier responsibility which Ms. Shunzette has and that is to protect her daughter who lives with her in Recho. As a result, her work permit was lost as well as her residence in Recho. With this, Recho failed to respect Ms. Shunzette’s right to work. It is inherent for a woman to want to be subject to a safe working environment. It must be ascertained as such and maintained as so. C. All children enjoy the highest standard of protection against epidemics In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 17 States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.18 If Ms. Shunzette remained in Recho, the right of her five year old daughter to enjoy the highest standard of protection against epidemics, which all children have, would be injured. The thought of confining Ms. Shunzette and her child within the vicinity of influenza outbreak, would run contrary to the obligations of states to promote and ensure the safety of children. Thus, it is reasonable for Ms. 17 18
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 3 (1) CRC, Article 3 (2)
15
Shunzette to take her daughter home to Armis via chartered flight arranged by the Government of Armis.
II.
RECHO BREACHED INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW. Recho breached international customary law because of its failure to uphold employee’s internationally recognized rights to work under safe conditions and to termination of employment only upon valid cause and due process. Considering the Draft Articles on State Responsibility which embodies customary international law rules, a State is responsible for an international wrongful act19 when two elements are present: 1) breach of an international obligation and 2) attributability of such breach. 20 The two elements are present when the State of Recho committed an internationally wrongful act when its National Research Institute (NRI) illegaly dismissed Ms. Shunzette from employment. This cinstituted breaches of its obligations under internationak right laws and violations of international labor standards (C.7). A. Violation of employee’s right to work under safe conditions International customary law is created by the practice of States which such States accept as binding upon them. 21 The judgments of the ICJ have been constant in stating that a customary rule requires the presence of State Practice
19
Articles on State Responsibility (ASR), Art. 1 International Law Commission, Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 21 International Court of Justice, Statute of the Court, Art. 38 (1) (b) 20
16
and Opinio Juris.22 In 1929, in the Case of the Lotus (France v Turkey) (Merits) (PCIJ Rep Series A No 10), the PCIJ stated that international law is based on the will of States expressed in conventions or in ‘usages generally accepted as expressing principles of law’.23 The ICJ has developed the two-element theory of customary law, especially in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Merits) ([1969] ICJ Rep 3), where it states that actions by States ‘not only must amount to a settled practice, but they must also be such, or be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of the rule of law requiring it. 24 The need for such a belief, i.e. the existence of a subjective element, is implicit in the very notion of the opinio juris sive necessitatis.25 The States concerned must therefore feel that they are conforming to what amounts to a legal obligation’. 26 Similarly, in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) (‘Nicaragua Case’) ([1986] ICJ Rep 14), the court stated: ‘For a new customary rule to be formed not only must the acts concerned “amount to a settled practice” but they must be accompanied by the opinio juris sive necessitatis’.27
22
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Customary International Law, available at http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e1393&recno=34& (last accessed Mar 27, 2013). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id.
17
In the compromis, state practice and opinio juris on recognition of employee’s right to work under safe conditions can be clearly observed in the evacuation of nationals working in another country performed by Armis and the consent on the departure of Ms. Shunzette by Recho. Basic human rights are inherent to all people because they are human and they are universal, so people everywhere are "rights-holders.” Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Every person has the right to live. Every person has the right to be free and the right to feel safe wherever he or she may live.” 28 Even though there were no instructions from Armis, Ms. Shunzette’s act of leaving Recho would have been justified because of the world known concept of “self-preservation”. It would be an instinct to leave Recho because of the fear that she and her child would catch influenza. International law supports the recognition of a human right to the opportunity to be healthy. For example, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states: “Everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances between his control.” 29 The recognition of a right to health is even more firmly set forth in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which compels the approximately 150 signatory states (which does not include the US) to progressively realize, to the extent feasible given their available 28 29
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25
18
resources, ―the rights of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and undertake ―the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases. 30 In effect, Article 12 recognizes that the right to health obligates states to take actions to protect their populations from infectious diseases. However, upon allowing her to leave, the National Research Institute of Recho dismissed her as punishment. In essence, Recho did not actually recognize the said right of Ms. Shunzette because the consent given to her departure amounted to dismissal. B. Termination of employment without valid cause and due process Through international custom, rules in a treaty become binding on third States.31 Thus, treaties wherein Recho is a third party, binds Recho through customary rule or international law, recognized as such. Therefore, the international labor standards which includes enhancement of worker’s job security and the obligation to protect the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families find applicability in instant case although Armis and Recho are third parties to International Labor Organization Conventions and International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Ms. Shunzette and her daughter left Recho to avoid the threat of the influenza. In fact, their home country Armis initiated this evacuation by arranging 30 31
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, Article 12 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 38
19
chartered flights for the Armis nationals to evacuate Recho and Megoose. The act executed by Armis is a solid evidence that Recho was not in a safe condition at the time Ms. Shunzette left the said country together with her daughter. In view of the aforementioned, this entails that Ms. Shunzette has a sense of responsibility to her dependent child. The International Labor Organization addresses such type of issue by means of the Workers with Family Responsibilites Convention. The convention “applies to men and women workers with responsibilities in relation to their dependent children, where such responsibilities restrict their possibilities of preparing for, entering, participating in or advancing in economic activity.” 32 By this convention, provisions to assist parents who are also workers were laid out to balance their obligations with their families. In the Article 8 of the same convention, it provides that “Family responsibilities shall not, as such, constitute a valid reason for termination of employment.”33 It was mandated by the International Labor Organization Conventions that States must move towards full and productive employment.34 According to the International Labor Organization Convention on Termination of Employment in 1982, Article 4, s“a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.” 35 Under its period of notice, it was stated 32
Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981, Article 1 Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention, 1981, Article 8 34 ILO Convention 87 on the Freedom of Association and Protecton of the Right to organize Convention, 1948, available at: http://www.canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/Briefing-Note-C87.pdf, last accessed on 19 March 2013. 35 ILO 158 Termination of Employment Convention, 1982, Database of Labour Legislation, available at: http://www.ilocarib.org.tt/projects/cariblex/conventions_8.shtml,last accessed on 19 March 2013. 33
20
that “a worker whose employment is to be terminated shall be entitled to a reasonable period of notice or compensation in lieu thereof, unless he is guilty of serious misconduct, that is, misconduct of such a nature that it would be unreasonable to require the employer to continue his employment during the notice period.”36 It was clear from the preceeding statements that Recho violated the said provisions when they terminated Ms. Shunzette without any valid reason or just cause and without giving her sufficient period of notice or lack of notice. This is an unmistakable requisite which cannot be misplaced. It must be ascertained that a valid cause and a sufficient period must be certain and manifest for such termination to take effect and be justified. Also, it is well established that grave and habitual neglect should be evident practice by the employee in question. While it is tangible in every state's civil code it is common practice and customary law to make plain the gravity of said offense and the frequency of such practice. The requisite of valid cause is not present. The cause of Ms. Shunzette' s flight from Recho is attributed to the outbreak of the influenza, and her proximity to the same. Moreover, a valid order from her state requesting their citizens to return home, on chartered planes availed off by the State of Armis, was issued for those living in infected or prone to exposure areas. Both of these defenses, which where the proximate causes of abondoning her employment, are valid reasons and cannot lead to her dismissal. All the more when these actions where exercised to preserve the safety of her ownself and her child's. 36
ILO 158 Termination of Employment Convention 1982, Article 11
21
The second requisite for valid termination, sufficient notice, is also lacking. Upon Ms. Shunzette's return to the National Research Institute she was informed that she was terminated during her leave, based on a well-grounded concern for safety during the outbreak of the influenza. No notices or whatsoever was given to her to allow her a right to defend herself from termination. This principle is a well-recognized general principle of law which is embodied in the aforementioned cited provisions under the ILO. It is only upon notice can any valid cause of termination ensues. This substantive requisite in termination from employment is imposed in order to provide the worker a right to due process and secure them against arbitrary termination by employers. In this case, the National Research Institute failed to meet this second requisite, therefore, leading to a violation of international labor laws. The National Research Institute also failed to implement laws that will protect workers (migrant) as supposed by unlawfully dismissing Ms. Shunzette from work. Again, Recho infringed from its duty to protect Ms. Shunzette’s right to work. C. Violation of Human Right to Impartial Trial The term "migrant worker" refers to a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national.37 Migrant workers and members of their families shall have
37
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 2(1)
22
the right to equality with nationals of the State concerned before the courts and tribunals.38 As a migrant worker, Ms. Shunzette is entitled to an essential human right to equality with nationals of the State concerned before the courts and tribunals. But when she brought a suit demanding the revocation of her dismissal, against the Government of Recho in the competent district court of Recho which had jurisdiction over the matter, the court decided upon the matter without fully discussing her legal arguments—mainly based on domestic laws and regulations relating to human rights as well as the conventions on human rights themselves. 39
Clearly, such is a violation of her right to equality with nationals before the
courts. D. Damages Suffered by Ms. Shunzette A state which commits an internationally wrongful act is under obligation to make full reparation for the injury it caused. Full reparation may take the form of restitution, compensation, and/or satisfaction. 40 Ms. Shunzette’s full compensation must cover any financially accessable damage incurred from her illegal dismissal such as unused leave, back wages, health and lodging (C.7). She must be compensated fully for all the material and non-material damages caused Recho’s breach of human right laws and
38
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Article 18(1) 39 Footnote of Compromis # 8. 40 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ASR), Art. 34
23
international labor standards. Recho must be adjudged liable to make full reparation as a result of its internationally wrongful acts.
24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF For all these reasons, the State of Armis respectfully requests this Honorable Court to adjudge that: 1. The State of Recho breached the treaties to which both states involved (Armis and Recho) are member parties, and 2. The State of Recho breached international customary law.
Respectfully submitted, AGENTS OF APPLICANT
25
