Clarification Requests 2023

Teams who have received their Team Alias may submit requests for clarification of the case, e.g. of factual ambiguities, if the States have ratified a particular convention, etc. The case committee will be reluctant to respond to requests that ask for a legal conclusion. There are two (2) rounds of clarifications, Round 1 in June and Round 2 in August (please observe the deadlines on the schedule). In each round, each team may submit up to five (5) requests. Each request may contain one (1) question only. Please review below the requests submitted by all teams to avoid duplicate questions (and conserve your team's five requests).

Round 20231

Req. No: 1 Test 1
Seeing if Jurisdiction Request Works

Req. No: 2 Test 2
Challeneged measures

Req. No: 16 Authorization for sale of assets by MK Robotics
Was MK Robotics given authorization under article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation to sell its assets vide Asset Purchase Agreement among MK Robotics SRL and Mimic Tech LLC dated December 24, 2022 (Exhibit C 10)?

Req. No: 17 General Principles of Treatment under the BIT
Whether the general principles of treatment mentioned in Article 5 are in reference to Article 4 or Article 3 of the BIT?

Req. No: 18 Availability of Authorisations in Public Domain
Are authorisations under Article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation (Exhibit R 1) granted by the government of the Republic of Martineek available in the public domain?

Req. No: 13 the identity of "Bill Ortega"
What is the identity of "Bill Ortega" mentioned in CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 ?

Req. No: 14 Effective time of Santions Law
When was the “Santions Law” enacted and came into force ?

Req. No: 15 Time of request for arbitration
When was the Claimant submits its request for arbitration?

Req. No: 3 Factual Clarifications for Claimant
Based on the Claimant’s Exhibit C8, The Head of Committee on International Trade was Bail Organa whereas the CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 it was Bill Ortega. Who is the correct name?

Req. No: 8 evidence for export license
On page 5, paragraph 21, the claimant stated that it had “obtained the licenses for the export of several components as required by the Dual-Use Regulation”, while on page 33, paragraph 6, the respondent pointed out that the claimant “did not comply with the authorization requirement of the Dual-Use Regulation.” The claimant didn’t submit any evidence related to these licenses. Can the Claimant's licenses for the export as required by the Dual-Use Regulation or any supporting evidence be provided?

Req. No: 9 Exact date of selling assets
On Page 33, paragraph 26, it is stated that the claimant sold “its assets on 25 December 2023”. Since the claimant is supposed to sell its assets in 2022, is this a MISTAKE?

Req. No: 10 Compliance with the Narnian Bar Association's Rules
Upon termination of representation, did Dumbledore, Black & Partners (“DBP Law”) comply with Rules 16.1(d) of the Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct? [Rule 16.1 (d): Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. ]

Req. No: 11 BIT article 1
On Page 88, it is provided that “claims to money” does not include “ (iii) any order, judgment, or arbitral award related to sub-paragraph (k) or (l)”. However, sub-paragraph (k) or (l) isn’t provided in the article 1. Are these paragraphs related to the case?

Req. No: 12 Parties to international agreement
Is Respondent a party state to any international human rights covenants or mechanisms? Are the two states parties to any WTO agreements, if so, is there any reference to WTO obligations in the BIT?

Req. No: 4 Can we change the valuation date proposed in the request?
Are participants allowed to amend the parties’ prayer of relief substantively? For instance, we found that the Claimant’s claim for damage is quite hard to support by the Tribunal because it is a little bit unreasonable and is very different from traditional methods of calculating damage for unlawful expropriation.

Req. No: 5 Did the host state provide the investors with any relief or compensation?
We wonder whether the host state provided the investors with any relief or compensation, such as an “opportunity to request for internal judicial review on the challenged decree”.

Req. No: 6 an problem about the clause number of Article 4
In Article 4 of the BIT, there are two provisions, namely 4.1 and 4.6, instead of 4.1 and 4.2. We wonder whether it is a typo or actually what it is.

Req. No: 7 Can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?
We noted that both Respondent's relief and PO2 use Article 9 of BIT as the legal basis. We want to know, in addition to Article 9, can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?

Round 20232