2112

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING

QUESTIONS RELATING TO PROTECTION OF BATS AND INTERNATIOANAL TRADE MEASURES

THE FEDERAL STATES OF ALDUCRA

(APPLICANT)

V.

THE REPUBLIC OF RUNBETI (RESPONDENT)

---------------------------------------------- MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

----------------------------------------------

2020

i

Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ iii

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ....................................................................................................... xiv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... xv

STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... xvi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................. xvii

ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 1

I. Runbeti did not violate international Law with respect to the wind farm project. ............... 1

A. Runbeti complied with its treaty obligations. ..................................................................... 1

1. Runbeti acted in accordance with UNFCCC. .................................................................. 2

2. Runbeti acted in accordance with CMS. ......................................................................... 2

3. Runbeti acted in accordance with EUROBATS. ............................................................. 3

4. Runbeti acted in accordance with CBD. .......................................................................... 6

B. Runbeti did not violate general principles of International Environmental Law. .......... 8

II. Alducra violated International Law with respect to its Trade Measures for Tapagium

Products. ....................................................................................................................................... 12

A. Alducra’s tax measure violates ARTA .............................................................................. 12

i. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:1 ............................................................. 12

ii. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:2. ............................................................ 13

iii. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:3. ............................................................ 14

ii

B. Alducra’s labelling measure violates ARTA. .................................................................... 15

i. Alducra’s labeling measure violates ARTA’s Article VIII:3. ....................................... 15

C. Alducra’s 2019 Statute violates ARTA’s Article IX:1. .................................................... 16

D. The exceptions under ARTA’s Article X are inapplicable. ............................................. 18

i. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(b) ........................................ 18

ii. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(d) ........................................ 19

iii. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(g) ........................................ 20

iv. The 2019 Statute is arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination and is a disguised

restriction on trade .............................................................................................................. 21

E. The 2019 Statute Violates the Principle of Non-Intervention ......................................... 22

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Index of Authorities

International Documents Pages

Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBD/SBSTTA/23/3 (Aug. 19, 2019). ..... 6

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/163

(Dec. 17, 1984). ..............................................................................................

14

Convention on Migratory Species, Renewable Energy Technology

Deployment and Migratory Species: An Overview,

UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.26 (Oct. 24, 2014). ..................................................

3,5

Guidance on the conservation and management of critical feeding areas

and commuting routes for bats, EUROBATS PUBLICATION SERIES NO. 9

(UNEP/EUROBATS) (2019). ........................................................................

3, 22

Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects Revision 2014,

EUROBATS PUBLICATION SERIES NO. 6 (UNEP/EUROBATS) (2015). ......

4, 5

ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of

2001, appended to GA Res. 56/83, Dec. 12, 2001, and with commentary in

ILC Ybk 2001/II(2). .......................................................................................

1

INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY

AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (2019). ............

6

International Law Commission, International liability for injurious

consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law

8

iv

(prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities), 2 Y.B. Int’l

L. Comm’n 144, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1. .............................

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE COUNCIL,

GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

(May 14-16, 2007). .........................................................................................

14

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE STANDARDS AND

PETITIONS COMMITTEE, GUIDELINES FOR USING THE IUCN RED LIST

CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA (2019). ................................................................

9, 19, 20

Permanent sovereignty over natural resources, G.A. Res. 1803, U.N. Doc.

A/RES/1803(XVII) (Dec. 14, 1962). ..............................................................

1

Permanent sovereignty over natural resources, G.A. Res. 2158 (XXI), 29,

U.N. Doc. A/RES/2158(XXI) (Nov. 25, 1966).

1

Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc.

A/Conf.199/20 (Sept. 4, 2002). ......................................................................

1

Rio+20 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, June 20-22, 2012,

The Future We Want, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.216/L.1, 25 (June 19, 2012). ......

1

U.N. Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Braz.,

June 3-14, 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26, vol. II, 7.46 (1992). ...............

9

U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, Swed., June 5-16,

1972, Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N.

Doc.A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (Vol.I) (June 16, 1972). ......................................

1

v

U.N. Environment Programme, Rep. of the Governing Council, 9th Sess.,

May 13-26, 1981, UNEP/GC/9/5/Add.2 (Sept. 4, 1981). ..............................

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de

Janeiro, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I (Aug. 12,

1992). ..............................................................................................................

8, 9

Treaties and Conventions Page

Agreement on the conservation of bats in Europe, Dec. 4, 1991, 1863

U.N.T.S 101. ...................................................................................................

3, 7

Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79. ......... 6, 7

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,

June 23, 1979, 1651 U.N.T.S. 333. ................................................................

3

Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104. ..............................................

2

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992,

1771 U.N.T.S. 107. .........................................................................................

1, 2, 31

United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, Oct. 24, 1945, I U.N.T.S.

XVI. ................................................................................................................

22

Judicial and Arbitral Decisions Pages

ABR, United States — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing

and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/R (June 13, 2012). ..........

16, 18

vi

Appellate Body Report, Argentina — Measures Affecting the Importation of

Goods, WT/DS438/AB/R, WT/DS444/AB/R, WT/DS445/AB/R (Jan. 26,

2015). ..............................................................................................................

16, 18

Appellate Body Report, Brazil — Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded

Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (June 12, 2007) (adopted Dec. 17, 2007). .............

19, 21, 22

Appellate Body Report, China — Measures Related to the Exportation of

Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R,

WT/DS398/AB/R (Feb. 22, 2012). .................................................................

17, 19

Appellate Body Report, India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells

and Solar Modules, WT/DS456/AB/R and Add.1, (Feb. 22, 2016) (adopted

Oct. 14, 2016). ................................................................................................

22

Appellate Body Report, Japan — Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages,

WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, Nov. 1, 1996. ..............

15, 17

Appellate Body Report, Kore — Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh,

Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R (Jan. 10,

2001). ..............................................................................................................

16, 18, 22,

36

Appellate Body Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other

Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R (March 6, 2006) (adopted March 24, 2006). ..

22, 23

Appellate Body Report, Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on

Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371/AB/R (July 15, 2011). .............

17

Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain

Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R (Oct. 12, 1998) (adopted

Nov. 6, 1998). .................................................................................................

23, 24, 25

vii

Appellate Body Report, United States — Import Prohibition of Certain

Shrimp and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by

Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW (June 15, 2001) (adopted Nov. 21, 2001). .....

25

Appellate Body Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and

Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R (Apr. 29, 1996) (adopted May 20,

1996). ..............................................................................................................

21, 24

Appellate Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and

the Exportation of Dairy Products, WT/DS103/AB/RW2 (Dec. 20, 2002)

(adopted Jan. 17, 2003). .................................................................................

21

Case C-3/96, Commission of the European Communities v. The

Netherlands, E.C.R. 1-3031. ...........................................................................

40

Claims of the Salvador Commercial Company (Sal. v. U.S.) 15 R.I.A.A. 467

(1902). .............................................................................................................

1

Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (Apr. 9). ................. 30

EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award

(Oct. 8, 2009). .................................................................................................

1

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25). . 8

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v.

U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27). ......................................................................

26

Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 10183, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (July 30, 1993)

(Phil.). .............................................................................................................

31

Panel Report, Brazil — Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and

Charges, WT/DS472/R, WT/DS497 (Jan. 11, 2019). ....................................

14, 15

viii

Panel Report, Brazil — Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres,

WT/DS332/R (Dec. 17, 2007). .......................................................................

20, 21, 22

Panel Report, Canada — Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals,

WT/DS31/R, July 30, 1997. ...........................................................................

15

Panel Report, Canada — Import, Distribution and Sale of Certain Alcoholic

Drinks by Provincial Marketing Agencies, WT/DS17/R (Feb. 18, 1992). .....

16

Panel Report, Canada — Measures Affecting the Sale of Gold Coins, L/5863

(Sep. 17, 1985). ...............................................................................................

16

Panel Report, European Communities — Measures Affecting Asbestos and

Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R, (Sept. 18, 2000) (adopted

Apr. 5, 2001). ..................................................................................................

25

Panel Report, European Union and its Member States — Certain Measures

Relating to the Energy Sector, WT/DS476/R (Aug. 10, 2018). .....................

18, 19

Panel Report, Mexico — Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages,

WT/DS308/R (Mar. 24, 2006). .......................................................................

15

Panel Report, Philippines — Taxes on Distilled Spirits, WT/DS396/R,

WT/DS403/R (Jan. 20, 2012). ........................................................................

16

Panel Report, Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from

the Philippines, WT/DS371/R (July 15, 2011). ..............................................

18

Panel Report, United States — Certain Measures Affecting Imports of

Poultry from China, WT/DS392/R (Oct. 25, 2010). ......................................

16

ix

Panel Report, United States — Measures Concerning the Importation,

Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/R (Sept. 15,

2011) (adopted June 13, 2012). ......................................................................

18, 21, 24

Panel Report, United States — Standards for Reformulated and Conventional

Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, (May 20, 1996). ..........................................................

18

Panel Report, United States —Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and

Amendments thereto, WT/DS186/R (Nov. 7, 1989). ......................................

15

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 I.C.J. 1 (Apr. 20). ..... 15

The Case of the S.S. Lotus (Fr. v Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sep.

7). ....................................................................................................................

14

Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938 & 1941). ... 7, 9

Books Pages

ALEXANDER GILLESPIE, PROTECTED AREAS AND INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 102 (2007). .................................................................

3, 23

CYRILLE DE KLEMM & CLARE SHINE, BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CONSERVATION AND THE LAW: LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR CONSERVING

SPECIES AND ECOSYSTEMS (1993). .................................................................

8

Günther Handl, The Principle of Equitable Use as Applied to Internationally

Shared Natural Resources: Its Role in Resolving Potential International

Disputes Over Transfrontier Pollution, in TRANSFONTIER POLLUTION AND

THE ROLES OF STATES (1981). .......................................................................

14

x

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, IUCN GUIDELINES

FOR APPLYING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORY (2013). ............

22

JAMES CRAWFORD, STATE RESPONSIBILITY 118 (2013). ................................. 21

Jeroen P. van der Sluijs & Wim C. Turkenburg, Climate Change, and the

Precautionary Principle, in IMPLEMENTING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

PERSPECTIVES AND PROSPECTS (Elizabeth Fisher, Judith Jones, René von

Schomberg eds., 2006). ..................................................................................

13

JOHN ALTRINGHAM, BATS FROM EVOLUTION TO CONSERVATION (2011). ..... 8, 11

LYLE GLOWKA, ET. AL., A GUIDE TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY 35 (1994). .......................................................................................

6

MICHAEL BOWMAN, PETER DAVIES, & CATHERINE REDGWELL, LYSTER’S

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 552 (2010). ..................................................

3

OSCAR SCHACHTER, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THEORY AND PRACTICE

(DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW) (1991). ........................................

7

PATRICIA BIRNIE ET AL., INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT

(2009). .............................................................................................................

9

SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, HANDBOOK

OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: INCLUDING ITS CARTAGENA

PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY (2005). ..................................................................

7

Essays, Articles, and Journals Pages

Anthony Barnosky et al., Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already

arrived?, 471 NATURE 51 (2011). ...................................................................

6

xi

Balraj Sidhu, The Protection of Migratory Species of Bats, 41 ENVTL. POL’Y

& L. 222 (2011). .............................................................................................

2, 23

Catharine Krieps, Sustainable Use of Endangered Species under CITES: Is it

a Sustainable Alternative, 17 U.PA. J. INT’L L. 463 (1996). ..........................

6

Curtis Moore, Existing Authorities in the United States for Responding to

Global Warming, 40 ENV’T. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10185 (2010). ........

30

Cyril De Klemm, Migratory Species in International Law, 29 NAT.

RESOURCES J. 938 (1989). ..............................................................................

28

Hugo Rebelo, et al., Predicted impact of climate change on European bats

in relation to their biogeographic patterns, 12 GLOB. CHANGE BIOL. 561

(2010). .............................................................................................................

4, 6

Joanne Isaac, Effects of climate change on life history: implications for

extinction risk in mammals, 7 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH 115 (2009).

.........................................................................................................................

6

Joseph Cullen, Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Wind-Generated

Electricity, 5 AM. ECON. J.: ECON. POL’Y 107 (2013). ...................................

22, 23

Julia Nagi et al., Analysis of the impacts of global warming on European bat

species’ range area in the 21st century using regional climate model

simulation, 121 Q. J. HUNGARIAN METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE 298 (2017). ..

4, 6, 7

Luo J., et al., Global warming alters sound transmission: differential impact

on the prey detection ability of echolocating bats, J. R. SOC. INTERFACE 11

(2014). .............................................................................................................

4, 6

xii

Peter Baffoe, Selecting Suitable Sites for Wind Energy Development 16

GHANA MINING J. 1 (2016). ............................................................................

25

Rahman Saidur et. al, Environmental Impact of Wind Energy, 15 RENEWABLE

AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS 2423 (2011). .......................................

X

Thomas Van der Meij et al., Return of the bats? A prototype indicator of

trends in European bat populations in underground hibernacula, 80

MAMMALIAN BIOLOGY 170 (2014). ................................................................

7

Warwick Gullett, Environmental protection and the precautionary principle:

a response to scientific uncertainty in environmental management, 14 ENV’T

& PLANNING L.J. 59 (1997). ...........................................................................

31

Xi Lu et. al., Global Potential for Wind-Generated Electricity, 106 PROC.

NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI. 10933 (2009). ...............................................................

4, 25

Zoltán Bátori et al., Microclimate-vegetation relationships in natural habitat

islands: species preservation and conservation perspectives, 118 IDOJÁRÁS

257 (2014). ......................................................................................................

6, 7

Scientific Reports Pages

BLACKSPRING RIDGE 1 WIND PROJECT, NON-CONFIDENTIAL FINAL REPORT

(2015). .............................................................................................................

3, 24

EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS AND NATURA: EU

GUIDANCE ON WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EU

NATURE LEGISLATION (2011). .........................................................................

3, 4, 5, 24,

25, 30

xiii

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE CHANGE 2014

SYNTHESIS REPORT (Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer eds.,

2015). ..............................................................................................................

22

ZOOLOGY SOCIETY OF LONDON, CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY OF

MIGRATORY SPECIES (2010). ..........................................................................

5, 23, 24

Miscellaneous Pages

Mikael Lundmark, The Bonn Convention A study of approaches and

decision-making within the field of biodiversity Conservation (2011). .........

23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan

(1995). .............................................................................................................

39

Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, Tequila Interchange Project

(TIP), https://www.batfriendly.org/ (last visited Nov. 12, 2020). ..................

21

xiv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHETHER RUNBETI ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

WITH RESPECT TO THE WIND FARM PROJECT; and 2. WHETHER ALDUCRA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO ITS

TRADE MEASURES FOR TAPAGIUM PRODUCTS.

xv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (“Court”), the

Federal States of Alducra (“Alducra”) and the Republic of Runbeti (“Runbeti”) submit their

dispute by Special Agreement, a copy of which is duly transmitted to the Registrar of the Court on

24 July 2020. The Parties submit to the Court’s jurisdiction to decide the dispute concerning the

Windfarm Project and trade measures for Tapagium products, and determine the legal

consequences arising from any judgment on the questions presented.

xvi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Alducra and Runbeti are agricultural neighboring States in the Architerpan Continent.

Architerpo is home to 13 bat species, including the Royal Noctule (“RN”) and the Architerpan

Long-nosed Bat (“ALB”) which are ecologically important to Alducra and Runbeti.

Alducra and Runbeti both domestically produce Tapagium from agave. This

notwithstanding, Alducra still imports approximately 10 million liters of Tapagium from Runbeti.

Additionally, both States trade other products within the Architerpan Continent. To bolster trade,

Archipetan States entered into the Archipeto Regional Trade Agreement (“ARTA”). ARTA

generally requires Member States to eliminate trade barriers.

In January 2015, Alducra passed a statute requiring its agave farmers to allow 5% of their

crops to flower. Between March and May 2019, Alducra requested Runbeti to impose a similar

statute. Runbeti refused due to other pressing concerns and economic constraints. In response, by

November 2019, Alducra imposed a 20% sales tax and labeling requirements on Runbetian

Tapagium.

Meanwhile, Runbeti implemented a subsidy program to encourage alternative energy

projects and selected Pinwheel Energy Co.’s (“PECO”) multi-phased windfarm project

(“Project”). PECO began the Project’s Phase I construction on 75km2 piece of undeveloped track

of land after Runbeti’s extensive environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) and issuance of

permits. The Chiroptera Crusaders – a regional bat conservation group – monitored the Project’s

Phase I operations and submitted reports to Alducra and Runbeti.

Upon discovery of RN fatalities near the Project, Alducra demanded Runbeti to cease

operations for violating international law. Runbeti denies any violation of international law.

xvii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. RUNBETI DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH THE PROJECT.

PECO’s operation of the Project is not attributable to Runbeti, nor did it violate

International Law. Runbeti complied with International Environmental Law. Runbeti’s acts with

respect to the Project complies with UNFCCC as it mitigates the effects of climate change. Runbeti

complies with CMS as a party to EUROBATS. Runbeti complied with EUROBATS upon

identifying the areas important for the RN’s conservation and protecting the RNs through

mitigation and avoidance measures – all simultaneous with the Project’s construction and

operation. Runbeti acted in accordance with CBD considering that the Project conserves and

protects the RNs and ensures its sustainability. Finally, Runbeti’s acts with respect to the Project

complies with the precautionary principle, the cooperation principle, and the principles of equity.

II. ALDUCRA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH ITS TRADE MEASURES.

Alducra’s trade measures are inconsistent with ARTA and the principle of non-

intervention. Alducra’s 20% sales tax (“Tax”) and bat-safe label (“Label”) violated ARTA’s

Article VIII:2 by taxing Runbetian Tapagium in excess of that applied to Alducran Tapagium.

Alducra’s measures are also inconsistent with ARTA’s Article VIII:3 by effectively granting

Alducran Tapagium a price advantage and influencing consumer preference, resulting to

Runbetian Tapagium’s less favourable treatment. The measures also violate ARTA’s Article IX:1

for increasing Runbetian Tapagium’s retail and importation cost through higher production costs

and the imposition of a sales tax and non-“bat-safe” label for non-compliance with Alducra’s 2019

Statute. Alducra’s measures are not exempt under ARTA’s: Article X(b) as they were not

necessary nor primarily designed to protect the ALB; Article X(d) as they do not secure

xviii

compliance to any specific Alducran law; Article X(g) as the ALB is not an exhaustible natural

resource nor do they relate to its conservation. In any event, the measures are arbitrary,

unjustifiable, and are disguised restrictions of international trade. Finally, Alducra’s measures

violate the principle of non-intervention.

1

ARGUMENTS

I. RUNBETI DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH RESPECT

TO THE WIND FARM PROJECT.

A State commits an internationally wrongful act (“IWA”)1 when acts or omissions

attributable to it under International Law constitute a breach of its international obligations.2

Here, the Wind Farm Project’s (“Project”) construction and operation is not attributable to

Runbeti because Pinwheel Energy Co. (“PECO”) is not a State organ3 exercising legislative,

executive, or judicial powers.4 Further, Runbeti’s acts and supervision relating to the Project

complied with its international obligations.

A. RUNBETI COMPLIED WITH ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

Under the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources (“PSNR”), Runbeti

has sovereign and inalienable right over its natural resources5 in determining appropriate

compliance measures for its environmental treaty obligations.6 As a developing agricultural State,7

Runbeti disproportionately suffers from climate change.8 In adopting urgent and ambitious

measures9 necessary to mitigate climate change, Runbeti exercised its PSNR in compliance with,

1 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res. 56/83, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/RES/56/83, art. 1 (Dec. 12, 2001) [“ASR”]. 2 ASR, art. 2. 3 EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 51 ¶190 (Oct. 8, 2009); Clarifications,¶17. 4 ASR, art. 4; Claims of the Salvador Commercial Company (Sal. v. U.S.) 15 R.I.A.A. 467 (1902) 5 Permanent sovereignty over natural resources, G.A. Res. 1803, U.N. Doc. A/RES/1803(XVII) (Dec. 14, 1962). 6 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79, pbl. [“CBD”].; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107 [“UNFCCC”].; Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, 23 June 1979, 1651 U.N.T.S. 333, art. II(c) [“CMS”]. 7 Record,¶1. 8 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, CLIMATE CHANGE 2007: IMPACTS, ADAPTATION AND VULNERABILITY. CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING GROUP II TO THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 13,40 (Martin L. Perry et al. eds., 2007). 9 Rio+20 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development, June 20-22, 2012, The Future We Want, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.216/L.1, 25 (June 19, 2012).

2

not just the (1) United Nations Framework on Climate Change10 (“UNFCCC”), but also: (2)

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species11 (“CMS”); (3) Agreements on the

Conservation of Bats in Europe12 (“EUROBATS”); and (4) Convention on Biological Diversity13

(“CBD”).

1. Runbeti acted in accordance with UNFCCC.

The Project complies with UNFCCC’s directive to formulate programs that mitigate climate

change,14 like subsidizing renewable energy (“RE”).15 Runbeti’s subsidy of the Project took into

account climate change considerations16 and sustainable economic development.17 The Project

generates RE for Runbeti’s economic development and simultaneously mitigates the climate

change impact,18 especially on migratory species 19 like the Royal Noctules (“RN”).20 Thus,

Runbeti complies with UNFCCC.

2. Runbeti acted in accordance with CMS.

The Range States’ sole obligation with Appendix II migratory species is to conclude

subsidiary conservation agreements.21 Thereafter, obligations under the subsidiary agreement

10 Record,¶8. 11 Record,¶5. 12 Record,¶6. 13 Record,¶4. 14 UNFCCC, Art. 4(1)(b); Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change arts. 3-4, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104. 15 U.N. Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development, June 20-22, 2012, The Future We Want, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.216/L.1, ¶ 128 (June 19, 2012); Record,¶16. 16 UNFCCC, Art. 4(1)(b), Art. 4(1)(f). 17 UNFCCC, Art. 4(1)(b), 2, 3(4). 18 United Nations, supra note 15 at 5; Jacob Cullen, Measuring the Environmental Benefits of Wind-Generated Electricity, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 5, 107, 107 (Nov. 2013). 19 Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twelfth session, FCCC/CP/2006/5, page 23 (January 26, 2007). 20 ZOOLOGY SOCIETY OF LONDON, CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY OF MIGRATORY SPECIES, 13, 15 (2010). 21 CMS art. II & Balraj Sidhu, The Protection of Migratory Species of Bats, 41 ENVTL. PO’Y & L. 222, 224-5 (2011).

3

controls.22 EUROBATS is CMS subsidiary agreement entered into by Runbeti23 governing its

obligations with respect to Appendix II bat species, including RNs.24 Runbeti complies with CMS

as a State Party to EUROBATS.

3. Runbeti acted in accordance with EUROBATS.

Runbeti complies with EUROBATS in all stages of the Project: (1) before construction,

Runbeti identified sites important for conservation,25 and employed appropriate avoidance and

mitigation measures26; (2) the Project’s construction schedule maximized the RN’s period of

inactivity;27 and (3) continued to monitor and supervise the Project’s operations.28

First, the Project, selected from a pool of promising proposals,29 is Runbeti’s first large-

scale 300-megawatts wind farm30 that can reduce its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 600,000

tonnes.31 The Project’s contribution to pollutant and emissions reduction is integral in mitigating

22 CMS art. V & ALEXANDER GILLESPIE, PROTECTED AREAS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 102 (2007). 23 Record,¶6. 24 Agreement on the conservation of bats in Europe, Dec. 4, 1991, 1863 U.N.T.S 101 [“EUROBATS”]; MICHAEL BOWMAN, PETER DAVIES, & CATHERINE REDGWELL, LYSTER’S INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 552 (2010). 25 EUROBATS, art. III(2) & Record,¶17. 26 EUROBATS art. III(4), Dec. 4, 1991, 1863 U.N.T.S 101; EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS AND NATURA: EU GUIDANCE ON WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EU NATURE LEGISLATION 2000, 83 (2011); Record,¶¶17,19,29. 27 EUROBATS PUBLICATION SERIES NO. 9 (UNEP/EUROBATS), 2019, at 13 [“EUROBATS PSN9”]; Record,¶19. 28 Convention on Migratory Species, Renewable Energy Technology Deployment and Migratory Species: An Overview, UNEP/CMS/COP11/Inf.26, 173 (Oct. 24, 2014) ¶21. 29 Record,¶17. 30 Record,¶¶17,19. 31 BLACKSPRING RIDGE 1 WIND PROJECT, NON-CONFIDENTIAL FINAL REPORT 1 (2015).

4

the effects of climate change on the RN, such as negatively affecting prey detection,32 causing

irregular migration and mating seasons,33 and habitat loss [infra A(vi)].34

Runbeti also identified sites important to the conservation status of RNs.35 These sites

frequented by RNs and other bats are commonly open and unhindered spaces36 – location

characteristics necessary to optimize wind energy generation.37 Thus, wind farms commonly

overlap with sites important to bat conservation.38 However, constructing wind farm near these

sites are not intrinsically harmful to bats.39 Appropriate40 avoidance and mitigation measures41,

like turbine construction avoiding direct migration paths42, balances the need to protect the site43

while maximizing RE generation. Here, only a part of the Project’s 75km2 area is traversed by

RNs,44 with rest of the property available for development with minimal impact on the RNs.45

Further, Runbeti’s Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) extensively assessed the Project’s

environmental impact which necessarily includes underlying data on species and habitat type and

32 Luo J., et al., Global warming alters sound transmission: differential impact on the prey detection ability of echolocating bats, J. R. SOC. INTERFACE 11 (2014). 33 Hugo Rebelo, et al., Predicted impact of climate change on European bats in relation to their biogeographic patterns, GLOB. CHANGE BIOL. 12, 561–576 (2010). 34 Julia Nagi et al., Analysis of the impacts of global warming on European bat species’ range area in the 21st century using regional climate model simulation, 121 QUARTERLY J. HUNGARIAN METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE 298, 299 (2017). 35 EUROBATS art. III(2); Record,¶17. 36 EUROBATS PSN9 at 55. 37 Xi Lu et. al., Global Potential for Wind-Generated Electricity, 106 PROC. NAT’L ACADEMY SCI. 10933, 10933-4 (2009) & Peter Baffoe, Selecting Suitable Sites for Wind Energy Development 16 GHANA MINING J. 1, 12 (2016). 38 EUROBATS PSN9 at 55. 39 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS AND NATURA: EU GUIDANCE ON WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EU NATURE LEGISLATION 2000, 29 (2011); EUROBATS PSN9 at 32. 40 EUROBATS, art. III(4) and IV(1). 41 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, supra note 42 at 83; Record,¶¶17,19,29. 42 EUROBATS PSN9 at 55 at 11. 43 EUROBATS art. III(2); Record,¶6. 44 Record,¶17. 45 Guidelines for consideration of bats in wind farm projects Revision 2014, EUROBATS PUBLICATION SERIES NO. 6 (UNEP/EUROBATS) (2015) at 12 [“EUROBATS PSN6”].

5

any aspect likely to affect its conservation objectives46 for the Project’s Phase I47 before issuing

permits to proceed.

Second, Runbeti only allowed Project construction to begin on January 201648 or within

November to March when RNs are typically inactive.49 This minimizes the Project construction’s

impact on the RNs.50

Third, the Project’s operations were monitored by both Chiroptera Crusaders51 and

Runbeti.52 Chiroptera Crusaders’ monitoring revealed that bat fatalities near the Project is

exponentially lower than the 20 to 40 bat fatality per turbine per year in Europe.53 Here, the

Project’s 150 turbines only recording 237 and 356 RN fatalities in 2017 and 2018, or 1.58 and 2.37

per turbine per year.54 Chiroptera Crusaders found RN bodies near the turbines55 without relating

cause of death to the Project nor identifying fatality indicators – such as bats found beneath turbines

with blunt force trauma wounds56 – to conclude death from direct collisions with the turbines.

Likewise, Runbeti monitors the Project and only issues necessary permits at every phase.57 Runbeti

also monitors the Project’s initial phases’ success to possibly expand to additional phases.58

Thus, Runbeti’s measures throughout the Project’s construction and operation complies

with EUROBATS.

46 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, supra note 42 at 73. 47 EUROBATS PSN6 at 10; Record,¶19. 48 Record,¶19. 49 EUROBATS PSN6 at 13. 50 EUROBATS PSN6 at 13; EUROPEAN COMMISSION, supra note 42 at 29. 51 Record,¶20. 52 EUROBATS PSN6 at 32,39; Record,¶17. 53 Convention on Migratory Species, supra note 28 at 173. 54 Record,¶21. 55 Record,¶21. 56 Record,¶21. 57 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, supra note 42 at 83. 58 EUROBATS PSN6 at 32, 39; Record,¶17.

6

4. Runbeti acted in accordance with CBD.

CBD emphasizes the State’s role in implementing biodiversity conservation measures “as

far as possible and as appropriate.”59 In selecting Project, Runbeti considered its energy needs

while implementing measures to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, consistent

with CBD.60 Specifically, Runbeti’s RE subsidy for the Project contributes to RN conservation

and sustainability.61

For biodiversity to be sustainable, a species’ capacity to reproduce must be faster than its

depletion.62 Climate change is the greatest driver of RN depletion and impediment to

reproduction.63 Rising CO2 levels have a greater impact on RNs — particularly their habitats64—

than turbines.65 Studies estimate that 5% of species face climate-related extinction at 2°C

warming, with the threat rising to 16% at 4.3°C warming.66 Specifically, the number of terrestrial

species are projected to shrink dramatically even with global warming of 1.5°C to 2°C.67

Endemic and migratory bats like RNs68 are especially vulnerable69 because drastic change

in climate condition negatively affect prey detection,70 cause irregular migration,71 and habitat

59 LYLE GLOWKA, ET. AL., A GUIDE TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 35 (1994). 60 Biodiversity and Climate Change, CBD/SBSTTA/23/3 (Aug. 19, 2019). 61 CBD, art. 10(1). 62 Catharine Krieps, Sustainable Use of Endangered Species under CITES: Is it a Sustainable Alternative, 17 U.PA. J. INT’L L. 463 (1996). 63 Zoltán Bátori et al., Microclimate-vegetation relationships in natural habitat islands: species preservation and conservation perspectives, 118 Időjárás 257 (2014). 64 Nagi, supra note 36. 65 Anthony Barnosky et al., Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?, 471 NATURE 51 (2011). 66 INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS (2019). 67 Id. 68 Record,¶14. 69 Joanne Isaac, Effects of climate change on life history: implications for extinction risk in mammals, 7 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH 115-123 (2009); Catherine Burns et al., Global climate change and mammalian species diversity in U.S. national parks, 100 PROC. NAT. ACAD. SCI. 11474 (2003). 70 Luo, supra note 34. 71 Hugo, supra note 35.

7

loss.72 Climate change fatalities is a more pressing threat73 that increases the chance of RNs’

extinction.74

Comparatively, RN fatalities near the Project is sustainable. Runbeti adopted measures to

mitigate the Project’s impact on the RN.75 Runbeti conducted an extensive EIA76, identified crucial

areas to RN’s conservation,77 selected the Project after considering other promising proposals78,

and undertook precautionary measures by apportioning the Project into phases.79 Notably, even

with higher wind farm bat fatalities in Europe,80 the continent recorded an increase in bat

populations.81

The measures provided under CBD are applied alternatively82 with consideration of the

principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.83 Thus, Runbeti’s measures complied with

CBD.84

Finally, Runbeti did not cause transboundary harm. There is transboundary harm when: (1)

the harm is significant or substantial; (2) harm is caused by human activities; (3) the harm results

to physical damage; and (4) transboundary transfer of the harmful effects.85 All elements must

concur for transboundary harm to be present.86 Here, the elements do not concur.

72 Nagi, supra note 36. 73 Bátori, supra note 66. 74 Nagi, supra note 36. 75 CBD, art. 8(l). 76 Record,¶19. 77 EUROBATS, art. 3(2); Record,¶17. 78 Record,¶17. 79 Record,¶17. 80 UNEP, supra note 57. 81 Thomas Van der Meij et al., Return of the bats? A prototype indicator of trends in European bat populations in underground hibernacula, 80 MAMMALIAN BIOLOGY 170 (2014). 82 SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, HANDBOOK OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: INCLUDING ITS CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY (2005). 83 CBD, art. 20(4). 84 CBD, art. 8(d), 8(e), 8(l) & 14(1). 85 Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938 & 1941) [“Train Smelter”]. 86 SCHACHTER, INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THEORY AND PRACTICE 366 (1991).

8

There is no significant or substantial harm. There must exist a certain significant harm,87 not mere

speculation.88 Applying this standard to depleting biodiversity, the substantial harm of

endangerment of a species or extinction must be almost certain.89 Here, there is no iota of proof

that the minimal fatalities recorded near the Project will cause the RN’s extinction with certainty.90

Assuming there is significant harm, the Project is not the proximate cause. Notably,

numerous factors – such as habitat degradation, pollution, disease, hunting, invasive species, and

climate change91 – significantly affect the decrease of the RN’s population without the Project.

Neither is there a transfer of harm that resulted to physical damage. The RN fatalities is not

a physical harm that transferred to Alducra. Harm, in relation to a shared resource like the RNs, is

only transferred to another State if its depletion physically damages another territory. The Project’s

RN fatalities in Runbeti, which is neither significant nor substantial, could not have caused

physical damage in Alducra. Alducra continues to enjoy the RNs as part of its ecosystem.

Moreover, due to the numerous threats to the RNs, any RN population decrease in Alducra cannot

solely be attributed to Runbeti.

B. RUNBETI DID NOT VIOLATE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

Runbeti acted in accordance with the precautionary principle, the cooperation principle,

and principles of equity.

87 International Law Commission, International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of transboundary harm from hazardous activities), 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 144, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1. 88 Id. 89 CYRILLE DE KLEMM, BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND THE LAW, 277 (1993); Trail Smelter, supra note 88. 90 Record,¶¶21,23. 91 JOHN ALTRINGHAM, BATS FROM EVOLUTION TO CONSERVATION (2011).

9

The precautionary principle92 is inapplicable to the Project. In biodiversity conservation

and natural resource management,93 the precautionary principle requires States to enact

environmental protection measures: (1) despite lack of scientific certainty; (2) when there is a

threat; (3) which is serious and irreversible.94 None of the elements are present.

First, there is no threat. A threat that triggers the precautionary principle must be recurring95

and reasonably foreseeable.96 Here, Runbeti ascertained the absence of a threat by studying and

conducting and extensive EIA97 which included data on each species and habitat type and any

aspect of the Project that affect conservation.98 The Project was also divided into four phases, with

Runbeti assessing each phase before proceeding.99

Second, the Project does not threaten the RNs’ potential extinction. A threat to biodiversity

is serious and irreversible only when it amounts to potential extinction.100 The RN fatalities near

the Project does not threaten its species with potential extinction. European bat populations

recovered and increased despite European wind farms tolerating much higher bat fatality rates.101

Finally, there is an abject lack of scientific evidence relating the RN’s potential extinction

to the Project. The “absence of scientific certainty” does not mean dependence on remote

92 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Braz., June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol. I), Annex I (Aug. 12, 1992); CBD, pmbl. 93 CBD, pmbl. 94 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE COUNCIL, GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (May 14-16, 2007). 95 Trail Smelter, supra note 88. 96 PATRICIA BIRNIE ET AL., INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT (2009). 97 Record,¶19. 98 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, supra note 26. 99 Record,¶17. 100 BIRNIE ET AL., supra note 101. 101 Van der Meij, supra note 84.

10

possibilities;102 active measure of general experience or scientific findings indicating sufficient

probability of the threat must be present.103 Finding dead RNs – with undetermined fatality causes

– near the Project is insufficient to establish the Project’s probability of causing the RN’s

extinction.104

Assuming that precautionary principle applies, Runbeti nevertheless complied. Runbeti’s

extensive EIA is compliance of an even “larger general principle of caution.”105 Runbeti also

applied the precautionary principle in subsidizing the Project as a measure to mitigate climate

change’s threat, despite scientific uncertainty of the magnitude of its effect.106 Climate change’s

threat to wildlife and their habitats is serious and irreversible.107

Runbeti also cooperated108 with Alducra. The cooperation principle calls for States to act

in good faith to prevent disputes109 through timely communications and information sharing.110

Here, Runbeti continuously communicated with and timely responded to111 Alducra and its

concerns. The Chiroptera Crusaders’ Project reports were shared with Alducra.112

Further, the Project complies with principles of intergenerational and shared equity. The

Project contributes to the protection of, not just the RN and its habitat, but biodiversity as a whole

102 Gullett, Environmental protection and the precautionary principle: a response to scientific uncertainty in environmental management, UNIVERSITY OF WOOLONGONG 59 (1997). 103 Id. 104 Record,¶21. 105 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25) [“Gabčíkovo”]. 106 Jeroen P. van der Sluijs & Wim C. Turkenburg, Climate Change, and the Precautionary Principle, in IMPLEMENTING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PERSPECTIVES AND PROSPECTS (Elizabeth Fisher, Judith Jones, René von Schomberg eds., 2006). 107 Curtis Moore, Existing Authorities in the United States for Responding to Global Warming, 40 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10185 (2010). 108 UNFCCC, Art. 4; CBD, art. 5. 109 Gabčíkovo, supra note 110. 110 Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, 1949 I.C.J. 4, 22 (Apr. 9). 111 Record,¶¶23,28. 112 Record,¶21.

11

to ensure the next generation’s enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology113 and Alducra’s

continued access to RN as a shared resource.114 Runbeti also has a clear interest in preserving and

protecting the RNs considering its economy’s reliance on agriculture. 115

113 Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 10183, 224 S.C.R.A. 792 (July 30, 1993) (Phil.). 114 Günther Handl, The Principle of Equitable Use as Applied to Internationally Shared Natural Resources: Its Role in Resolving Potential International Disputes Over Transfrontier Pollution, in TRANSFONTIER POLLUTION AND THE ROLES OF STATES (1981). 115 Record,¶14.

12

II. ALDUCRA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO ITS

TRADE MEASURES FOR TAPAGIUM PRODUCTS.

A State holds sovereign right to enact laws within its territory.116 Conversely, compelling

another co-equal State to adopt one’s domestic environmental policies contravenes the principle

of non-intervention.117 Alducra’s taxation and labelling measures for non-“bat-safe” Tapagium

violates International Law by: (i) being trade-restrictive and discriminatory in violation of ARTA;

and (ii) interfering with Runbeti’s domestic affairs.

A. ALDUCRA’S TAX MEASURE VIOLATES ARTA

A tax measure is compliant with ARTA when its application is non-discriminatory.118

Alducra’s statute on the import and sale of Tapagium (“2019 Statute”) imposes a 20% sales tax

(“Tax”) on all Tapagium sourced from farms whose production is non-compliant with the 5%

flowering of agave crops (“2015 Statute”).119 The Tax discriminates Runbeti’s Tapagium and

violates ARTA.

i. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:1

116 S.S. Lotus (France v Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at ¶47 (Sep. 7). 117 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, art. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/163. 118 Panel Report, Brazil—Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges, ¶7.153, WT/DS472/R, WT/DS497 (Jan. 11, 2019) [“PR, Brazil—Taxation”]. 119 Record,¶¶15,26.

13

Article VIII:1 prohibits internal measures that afford protection to domestic production.120

Differing tax rates between imported and domestic products creates a presumption of

protectionism.121

Here, Alducra’s Tax protects its farmers’ domestic production compliant with the 2015

Statute,122 unlike Runbetian farmers’ mode of production.123 Hence, the Tax discriminates between

imported and domestic Tapagium and is protectionist.124

ii. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:2.

Article VIII:2 requires that the Tax must not distinguish, directly or indirectly,125 between

domestic and imported products126 regardless of a non-protectionist claim127 or its effects on

trade.128 The Tax violates Article VIII:2 because: (1) imported and domestic Tapagium are like

products; and (2) the Tax indirectly applies on imported Tapagium in excess of domestic

Tapagium.

120 Panel Report, United States—Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments thereto, ¶5.10, WT/DS186/R (Nov. 7, 1989). 121 Panel Report, Canada—Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, ¶¶5.38-5.39, WT/DS31/R (July 30, 1997) [hereinafter PR, Canada—Periodicals]. 122 Record,¶15; Clarifications¶15. 123 Record,¶¶25,27. 124 PR, Canada—Periodicals, ¶5.38. 125 Panel Report, Mexico—Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, ¶¶8.44-8.45, WT/DS308/R (Mar. 24, 2006) [hereinafter PR, Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks]. 126 Record,¶13; Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks, ¶¶8.44-8.45. 127 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, p. 19, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R (Nov. 1, 1996) [“ABR, Japan—Alcoholic Beverages II”]. 128 PR, Brazil—Taxation, ¶7.147.

14

First, Runbeti’s and Alducra’s Tapagium are like products129 considering its physical

characteristics,130 end-use,131 and consumers’ tastes and habits.132 Thus, Alducra and Runbeti’s

differing production method for Tapagium are irrelevant133 as both produce the same end-product:

Tapagium.134

Second, Alducran Tapagium are effectively exempt from the Tax due to its compliance

with the 2015 Statute135 vis-à-vis Runbetian Tapagium whose production method are not governed

by a similar statute requirement and ultimately, whose farmers cannot afford altering their

production method136 without increasing their cost of production.137 Thus, the Tax imposed to

Runbetian Tapagium – in excess of the internal sales tax rate for Alducran Tapagium – violates

Article VIII:2.138

iii. Alducra’s Tax violates ARTA’s Article VIII:3.

The Tax violates Article VIII:3 since it: (1) affects Tapagium’s internal sale; (2) covers

like domestic and imported Tapagium; and (3) accords less favourable treatment to imported

Tapagium.139

129 Panel Report, United States—Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from China, ¶¶7.424-7.427,7.429, WT/DS392/R (Oct. 25, 2010).

130 Record,¶11. 131 Record,¶11. 132 Record,¶¶11,15. 133 Panel Report, Philippines—Taxes on Distilled Spirits, ¶7.37, WT/DS396/R, WT/DS403/R (Jan. 20, 2012). 134 Record,¶11. 135 Clarifications,¶15. 136 Record,¶26. 137 Panel Report, Canada—Import, Distribution and Sale of Certain Alcoholic Drinks by Provincial Marketing Agencies, ¶¶5.17-5.22, WT/DS17/R (Feb. 18, 1992). 138 Panel Report, Canada—Measures Affecting the Sale of Gold Coins, unadopted, ¶52, L/5863 (Sep. 17, 1985). 139 Appellate Body Report, Korea—Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, ¶133, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R (Jan/ 10, 2001) [“ABR, Korea—Various Measures on Beef”].

15

First, Alducran and Runbetian Tapagium are like products under Article VIII:2’s first

sentence and, thus, are also like products under Article VIII:3.140

Second, the Tax affects the internal sale of Tapagium as it is only imposed on Runbetian

Tapagium141 [see supra II(a)(ii)] which modifies the condition of competition by creating a price

advantage in favor of Alducran Tapagium.142

Third, the Tax affords less favourable treatment to imported products because it modifies

the conditions of competition to the detriment of Runbetian Tapagium in the Alducran market.143

This creates consumer preference for Alducran Tapagium, made cheaper by the effective Tax

exemption, vis-a-vis Runbetian Tapagium.144 Notably, a potential detriment still qualifies as less

favourable treatment.145

B. ALDUCRA’S LABELLING MEASURE VIOLATES ARTA.

i. Alducra’s labeling measure violates ARTA’s Article VIII:3.

The 2019 Statute requires the application of a label to differentiate “bat-safe” and “not bat-

safe” Tapagium146 (“Label”), depending on compliance with the 2015 Statute.147

140 Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, ¶7.662, WT/DS371/R (July 15, 2011). 141 Record,¶¶26-27. 142 Record,¶¶15,26; Clarification,¶15. 143 ABR, Korea—Various Measures on Beef, ¶136. 144 Panel Report, United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, ¶6.10, WT/DS2/R (May 20, 1996); Record,¶27. 145 ABR, Japan—Alcoholic Beverages II, ¶109 & Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, ¶135, WT/DS371/AB/R (July 15, 2011). 146 Record,Annex. 147 Record,¶26.

16

Alducra’s Label violates Article VIII:3 because it: (1) affects the Tapagium’s internal sale;

(2) differentiates domestic and imported Tapagium; and (3) affords less favourable treatment to

imported Tapagium.148

The Label meets the first and second elements as it creates price disparity [supra II(a)(iii)]

and influences consumer preferences [infra II(c)], which affects the internal sale between Alducran

and Runbetian Tapagium.

Further, the Label satisfies the third element as it affords less favourable treatment to

imported Tapagium. Again, less favourable treatment is present when competitive conditions in

the market are altered to the detriment of imported products,149 for instance, by imposing labelling

requirements that influence consumer preferences to differentiate among like products.150 As the

Runbetian farmers are unable to comply with Alducra’s 2015 Statute,151 Runbetian Tapagium will

effectively be labelled as not-“bat-safe”, which sways Alducran consumers’ preferences against

Runbetian Tapagium. Given that all elements are present, the Label violates Article VIII:3.

C. ALDUCRA’S 2019 STATUTE VIOLATES ARTA’S ARTICLE IX:1.

Alducra violated Article IX:1 since the 2019 Statute: (1) constitutes as “other measures”;

and (2) restricts Runbeti’s Tapagium importation.152

148 ABR, Korea—Various Measures on Beef, ¶133. 149 ABR, Korea—Various Measures on Beef, ¶136. 150 ABR, United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, ¶¶238-239, WT/DS381/R (June 13, 2012). 151 Record,¶27. 152 Panel Report, European Union and its Member States—Certain Measures Relating to the Energy Sector, ¶7.243, WT/DS476/R (Aug. 10, 2018) & Appellate Body Report, Argentina—Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods, ¶¶5.216-5.218, WT/DS438/AB/R, WT/DS444/AB/R, WT/DS445/AB/R (Jan. 26, 2015).

17

First, the 2019 Statute constitutes as “other measures” under Article IX:1 which prohibits

similar importation restrictions aside from duties, taxes, and other charges.153 Exceptionally, in

Brazil-Retreaded Tyres, a tax or importation fine constitutes as “other measures” when its nature

restricts importation and penalizes failure to comply with an internal trade regulation.154

Here, the Tax and the Label penalizes Runbetian Tapagium for non-compliance with the

2019 Statute’s internal trade regulation155 in relation to the 2015 Statute156 as it makes Runbetian

Tapagium internationally uncompetitive by creating a price advantage favoring Alducran

Tapagium and diminishing consumer preferences for Runbetian Tapagium.157 In effect, Runbetian

farmers must choose between: (i) adopting more expensive farming practices;158 or (ii) maintaining

status quo production but face Alducra’s 20% sales tax and negative labelling for their

Tapagium.159 Both options constitute as importation disincentives and restrictions falling under

“other measures” in Article VIII:3.

Second, the 2019 Statute restricts Tapagium’s importation. Under Article IX:1,

“restriction” pertains to a measure that creates a limiting effect and affects conditions in the

market.160 Taken together, Alducra’s 2019 and 2015 Statutes demand higher production and

internal sales cost for Runbetian Tapagium in Alducran market,161 thus creating less favourable

conditions for Runbetian Tapagium vis-à-vis Alducran Tapagium.162 Moreover, the Label’s “bat-

153 Record,¶13. 154 Panel Report, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, ¶7.372, WT/DS332/R (Dec. 17, 2007) [“PR, Brazil—Retreaded Tyres”]. 155 Record,¶26. 156 Record,¶15. 157 PR, Brazil—Retreaded Tyres, ¶7.370 & Record, ¶26. 158 Record,¶27. 159 Record,¶26. 160 Appellate Body Report, China—Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, ¶319, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R (Feb. 22, 2012). 161 Record,¶27. 162 Record,¶27.

18

friendly” dichotomy effectively influences consumer preferences against Runbetian Tapagium163

and grants competitive advantage to Alducran Tapagium – creating quantitative restrictions against

Runbeti’s Tapagium in violation of Article IX:1.

D. THE EXCEPTIONS UNDER ARTA’S ARTICLE X ARE INAPPLICABLE.

For the exceptions to apply, a trade measure must:164 (1) be provisionally justified as an

exception under Article X; and (2) not be arbitrary or unjustifiably discriminatory, nor a disguised

restriction on international trade.165 Article X’s exceptions are interpreted narrowly.166

i. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(b)

A claim of exception under Article X(b) must be: (1) designed to protect human, animal,

or plant life or health; and (2) necessary to fulfil the policy’s objective.167

First, the 2019 Statute does not address risks to animal life or health.168 While the 2019

Statute, in relation to the 2015 Statute, is designed to secure agave as a food source for the

Architerpan long-nosed bat (“ALB”),169 the agave plant is not its only food source.170

Furthermore, the 2019 Statute is not necessary to achieve Alducra’s objective to conserve

the ALB (“Objective”)171 since there are other reasonably available measures.172

163 Record,¶26. 164 Appellate Body Report, United States—Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, ¶22, WT/DS2/AB/R (Apr. 29, 1996) (adopted May 20, 1996) [“ABR, US—Gasoline]. 165 ABR, US- Gasoline, ¶22 & Appellate Body Report, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, ¶139, WT/DS332/AB/R (June 12, 2007) (adopted Dec. 17, 2007) [“ABR, Brazil—Retreaded Tyres”]. 166 Panel Report, United States—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, ¶5.22, WT/DS381/R (Sept. 15, 2011) (adopted June 13, 2012) [“PR, US- Tuna”]. 167 ABR, US—Gasoline, ¶6.20. 168 ABR, Brazil—Retreated Tyres, ¶7.498. 169 Record,¶26. 170Record,¶15; Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México, Tequila Interchange Project (TIP), https://www.batfriendly.org/(last visited Nov. 12, 2020); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan (1995), p.7-8. 171 Record,¶26. 172 PR, US—Tuna, ¶5.28.

19

Here, Alducra’s sole alternative measure – before abruptly implementing the Tax and the

Label – is an attempt to convince Runbeti to pass legislation on bat-safe agave farming practices.173

Alducra could have resorted to other less restrictive and equally effective174 measures such as the

establishment of protected areas175 or the adoption of agri-environmental schemes176 – none of

which were implemented by Alducra. Thus, Alducra failed to prove exhaustion of alternative

measures in achieving its Objective,177 rendering its claim of exception under Article X(b)

untenable.

ii. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(d)

A claim of exception under Article X(d) must be: (1) designed to secure compliance with

domestic laws that are consistent with ARTA; and (2) necessary to secure such compliance.178

First, the disputed measure must be designed “to secure compliance” with specific rules,

obligations, or requirements – and not merely a general reference – of domestic laws or

regulations.179 Further, such measure must not induce another State to comply with other treaty

obligations.180 Here, Alducra’s 2019 Statute generally refers to complying with its domestic law

to protect bats.181 Further, Alducra expressly declared that such domestic law is enforced to meet

173 Record,¶¶25-26. 174 ABR, Brazil—Retreated Tyres, ¶178. 175 INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE, IUCN GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT CATEGORY, 2 (2013); Case C-3/96, Commission of the European Communities v. The Netherlands, E.C.R. 1-3031, ¶4(2). 176 EUROBATS PSN9, at 13. 177 Record,¶¶15,28. 178 ABR, Korea—Various Measures on Beef, ¶157. 179Appellate Body Report, India—Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules, ¶5.58, WT/DS456/AB/R and Add.1, (Feb. 22, 2016) (adopted Oct. 14, 2016) [“ABR, India—Solar Cells”]; Appellate Body Report, Mexico—Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, ¶69, WT/DS308/AB/R (March 6, 2006) (adopted March 24, 2006) [“ABR, Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks”]. 180 PR, Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks, ¶8.162. 181 Record,¶14.

20

its other treaty obligations – specifically CMS, CBD, and EUROBATS.182 By implementing the

2019 Statute, Alducra effectively induced Runbeti to comply with its obligations under the

aforementioned treaties.

Second, the term “necessary” – as used in Article X(b)(d) – is similarly interpreted.183

Assuming that Alducra’s laws protect the bats’ food security, the 2019 Statute is still not necessary.

Thus, 2019 Statute is not justified under Article X(d).

iii. The 2019 Statute is unjustified under ARTA’s Article X(g)

A claim of exception under Article X(g) must (1) relate to the conservation (2) of

exhaustible natural resources and (3) is effective in restricting domestic production or

consumption.184

First, the ALB is not an exhaustible natural resource. Living resources are considered

exhaustible when it is susceptible of depletion, exhaustion, and extinction due to frequent human

activities.185 Mitigating measures must also be considered.186 Here, while the ALB is categorized

as vulnerable under the IUCN Red List, such categorization does not dictate its susceptibility to

extinction since IUCN categories are based on the species’ overall population, thus, a vulnerable

species may not be so in a particular geographical area where its populations are stable.187 The

ALB is found in Architerpo;188 Alducra and Runbeti specifically employ mitigating measures to

182 Record,¶28; ABR, Mexico—Taxes on Soft Drinks, ¶69. 183 ABR, US—Gasoline, ¶40. 184 PR, US—Tuna, ¶5.30. 185Appellate Body Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, ¶128, WT/DS58/AB/R (Oct. 12, 1998) (adopted Nov. 6, 1998) [“ABR, US—Shrimp”]. 186 ABR, US-Shrimp, ¶¶128-129 & INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE STANDARDS AND PETITIONS COMMITTEE, GUIDELINES FOR USING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA (2019), p.19-20 [“IUCN Red List Categories”]. 187 IUCN Red List Categories, p.7. 188 Record,¶14.

21

promote its conservation [supra I(a)(i,iv)]. Thus, the ALB’s current conservation status within

Alducra and Runbeti’s territories removes it from being an exhaustible resource susceptible to

extinction.

Second, the 2019 Statute does not relate to ALB’s conservation. Article X(g) requires a

measure to be primarily aimed at the conservation of an exhaustible resource.189 Here, Alducra’s

2019 Statute is primarily a retaliatory trade measure against Runbeti, evidenced by Alducra’s

demand for the Project’s cessation190 and its call for Runbeti to implement Alducran farming

methods.191

Given that the first and second elements are absent, the 2019 Statute cannot be justified

under Article X(g).192

iv. THE 2019 STATUTE IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIABLE

DISCRIMINATION AND IS A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE

Assuming the 2019 Statute falls under ARTA’s exceptions, it must not constitute: (1) an

arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail; or

(2) a disguised restriction on international trade.193

There is unjustifiable discrimination when a measure primarily demands other States to

adopt essentially the same comprehensive regulatory regime – with achieving the measure’s actual

policy objective only being secondary.194 Moreover, a rigid and inflexible measure constitutes

189 ABR, US—Gasoline, ¶18. 190 Record,¶22. 191 Record,¶25. 192 PR, US—Tuna, ¶5.30. 193 Record,¶13. 194 ABR, US—Shrimp, ¶165.

22

arbitrary discrimination.195 The 2019 Statute requires Runbetian farmers to adopt the same or

equivalent farming methods, disregarding Runbeti’s status as a developing agricultural

economy.196 Further, the 2019 Statute gives Alducran farmers a four-year advantage197 to

transition into the required farming practices,198 unlike Runbetian farmers who were given less

than a year.199

A State also commits unjustifiable trade discrimination when it fails to negotiate in good

faith prior to imposing unilateral trade measures.200 Alducra did not negotiate in good faith with

Runbeti prior to enacting the 2019 Statute.201

Lastly, the 2019 Statute is a disguised restriction on trade because it is protectionist.202

While the 2019 Statute also applies to Alducran Tapagium, only Runbetian Tapagium is

effectively affected [supra II(a)(i)].203 Consequently, Alducran Tapagium is guaranteed a

preferred and protected status due to its price advantage and influence on consumer preference.

E. THE 2019 STATUTE VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION

Under the principle of non-intervention, a State must not directly or indirectly intervene in

the international or internal affairs of another co-equal State.204 Imposing trade restrictive measures

195 ABR, US—Shrimp, ¶177. 196 Record,¶1. 197 Record,¶15. 198 Record,¶15. 199 Record,¶26. 200 Appellate Body Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products–Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, ¶¶115–134, WT/DS58/AB/RW (June 15, 2001) (adopted Nov. 21, 2001). 201 Record,¶¶25,26. 202 Panel Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, ¶8.236, WT/DS135/R, (Sept. 18, 2000) (adopted Apr. 5, 2001). 203 Clarification,¶15. 204 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, art. 2(7), Oct. 24, 1945, I U.N.T.S. XVI. & Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Sept. 25).

23

on another state interferes with the latter’s right to determine its own internal affairs, in violation

of this principle.205

Alducra’s 2019 Statute indirectly interferes with Runbeti’s domestic affairs by compelling

the latter to adopt a domestic environmental policy equivalent to that of Alducra’s.206 This

infringes upon Runbeti’s sovereign right to formulate, implement, and regulate its own internal

environmental policy. Hence, Alducra’s passage of the 2019 Statute violates the principle of non-

intervention.

205 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, art. 1, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/163 & Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 108 (June 27). 206 Record,¶25.

24

CONCLUSION & RELIEFS REQUESTED

The Republic of Runbeti respectfully requests the Honourable Court to adjudge that:

1. The Republic of Runbeti acted in accordance with International Law with respect to the

Wind Farm Project;

2. The Federal States of Alducra violated International Law with respect to its trade measures

for Tapagium products; and

3. The Republic of Runbeti is entitled to reparations in the form of restitution.

Respectfully submitted,

AGENTS FOR RUNBETI