2015 MOOT COURT OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF TORIN (IUC)

By: Alagie Jinkang

On the 13th of July, the IUC held there first moot court of the academic year 2014/15.

The session that was organized and facilitated by the IUC administration, was done primarily to develop the expertise of her students.

The court session which was comfortably done in the IUC library also serve as the final exam of the students on International Litigation.

Prof. Avi, their instructor of the course gave them a week duration for preparations after a month of continuous lessons on international arbitration and other affairs and relations among others.

The professor who stood his course, has long prepare his master students for what he called a challenging area. “You might be international lawyers tomorrow and it is important you express yourself well and justify your points to earn a voice” he always reiterate. However, the students were well prepared and were able to earn a complement from him after the court.

Prof. Mikele Spano and Becker were the panel of moderators on behalf of the administration and the chief judge prof. Avi who was only available on Skype.

Prof. Antonio was the technical man who made the Skype call possible without distractions and problems.

The event that started at 2:30 was well formulated on a touching world issue.

An extract for the moot…On the request of the United States a panel of the World Trade Organisation in response to an Indian law — Vasseypore Gas Leak Tariff on Foreign Chemical Corporations Act — that imposes a unilateral tariff on all imports of chemicals from those countries which do not sign a bilateral or multilateral agreement with India which contains explicit waiver of jurisdictional and corporate veil challenges to claims for damages arising out of environmental causes of action are excluded from the sanctions regime of the Act. The tariff is directed at covering the costs of punitive damages, compensation and costs of toxic cleanup. In addition, the residual amount from the Act is designed to create an insurance pool for future toxic liability arising from acts of corporations from chemical spills and other environmental hazards. According to the preamble of the legislation, which was passed in accordance with Indian law, and has withstood a constitutional challenge, the tariff was necessitated due to the hazardous nature of the chemicals used for industrial use, and the U.S. courts’ refusal to enforce judgments rendered holding Total Chemical and its merged company, Olympic Chemical Company, liable for the toxic cleanup and compensation for the victims, and compensation for the environmental damage caused downstream in Balkanistan, (whose case before the ICJ was successful to the extent that damages were awarded for $440 million euros, with the further ruling that if Balkanistan is able to demonstrate that actual compensation to victims for damages to their health, livelihood and environment is greater than calculated, they may approach the ICJ for further damages), which India has still not paid despite the ICJ ruling because it claims that it has not been able to collect damages from those liable under the polluter pays principle. Only those country which sign a bilateral or multilateral agreement with India which contains explicit waiver of jurisdictional and corporate veil challenges to claims for damages arising out of environmental causes of action are excluded from the sanctions regime of the Act. India has justified the measure against not only the U.S. but other courts on the basis both as a SPS measure, and also a measure under Article XX (b) of GATT. The U.S. reference to the panel states that the tax is discriminatory against U.S. Companies and a violation of GATT and the agreements both countries have signed up for. The European Union has also joined the action as an intervenor, arguing that its countries, which have not had any specific issues, should not be coerced into signing a specific agreement. India has not contested the reference to a panel. Balkanistan has been allowed to be impleaded as an interested party, and is arguing for the appropriateness of the measures. Further, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also been admitted into the case as amicus curiae, and is arguing against the measures, and the appropriateness of the form of corporate limited liability, established as a rule of international law in Barcelona…support of the Indian Government’s position.

On the above argument, the groups that were 5, two in two groups and three in two other groups and a person for the other side mooted well and answered questions from each other and from both the moderators and the chief judge Prof. Avi.

When the dust settled down, the participants received complements from the satisfied chief judge and then end the moot court.