Respondent Memorial 2R

7/28/2019 Respondent Memorial 2R

1/13

TEAM 2R

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

2013

COMPROMIS

BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIS (APPLICANT) AND THE GOVERNMENTOF RECHO (REPONDENT)

TO SUBMIT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEA CASE CONCERNING THE EVACUATION OF A FOREIGNER DURING AN

OUTBREAK OF A MALIGNANT INFLUENZA

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT


2/13

TABLE OF CONTENTS


3/13

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES


4/13

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Government of Armis (Applicant) and The Government of Recho

(Respondent) submit the present dispute concerning the evacuation of a foreigner

during an outbreak of a malignant influenza to the International Court Justice, pursuant

to Article 40 paragraph 1 of the Courts Statute. In accordance of Article 36 paragraph 1

of the Courts Statute, the judgment of this Court shall be treated as final and binding

and each party shall execute it in good faith.


5/13

QUESTION PRESENTED

The Government of Recho presents the following questions to the Court:

1. Whether or not Recho has breached the treaties which Armis and Recho are

parties or any international customary law

2. Whether or not Ms. Shunzette and her childs health is at prejudice when she was

residing in Recho

3. Whether or not Ms. Shunzettes employment contract is in consonant to the

treaties to which Recho and Armis are parties

4. Whether or not Recho or the Ms. Shunzettes employer deprived her from her

right to flee and return to her country

5. Whether or not Recho discriminated Ms. Shunzette and her child


6/13

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In March 2010, Megoose was experiencing a malignant influenza and as a response to

the disease, the Government of Megoose ordered the inhabitants living within the 30-

kilometer radius from where the influenza was greatly affected not to move in and out of

the area.

As response also the malignant influenza experiencing by Megoose, The Government

of Armis, ordered the residents living in Recho to evacuate the latters country at once.

Recho, borders Megoose at a 50 kilometer distance from the area where the influenza

was the most serious. Only about 30 percent of Armis national opted to avail of the

governments instruction. The country of Armis does not border either Recho or

Megoose.

Ms. Shunzette works in the National Research Institute of Recho since March 2009

under a 3 year contract. The company is funded by the Government. In addition, the

company is situated at a distance of 60 kilometer from the area where the malignant

influenza experiencing in Megoose was described as the most serious. She was the

only female Armis researcher employed in the company and unlike the rest of the

researchers who are Armis citizens; she is the only employee who lives with her child,

the male Armis national researchers had to live apart from their family.


7/13

Ms. Shunzette was one of the 30 percent Armis nationals who followed the instruction of

the Armis Government and decided to return to Armis together with her child at the time

of the malignant influenza.

When Armis lifted its order on June 2010, Ms. Shunzette flew back to Recho to continue

her employment to the company. There she discovered that she has been dismissed as

a punishment. As a consequence of her dismissal, her rental lodge in the companys

campus has been cancelled. Dismissal as a punishment disqualifies her for

reemployment.

Ms. Sunzette, had no choice but to leave Recho and return to Armis. She filed a suit

against the Government of Recho, and demanded the revocation of her dismissal. The

case was heard by the district court of Recho which had jurisdiction over the matter and

decided in favor of the government. The court accepted the governments contention

that her dismissal was the consequence of Ms. Shunzettes action of failing to ask

permission from her employer regarding her absence at work.

The district courts decision lead Ms. Shunzette to sought the assistance of the

Government of Armis regarding its right of diplomatic protection. The Government of

Armis, requested and sought for the revocation of Ms. Sunzettes dismissal to which the

Government of Recho declined.


8/13

No negotiations were made between the two countries. Both agreed to present the

dispute to the International Court of Justice.

The defendant over this case, the Government of Recho, prays that the Internation Cour

of justice declare :

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.

The applicant, Governement of Armis, prays that the International Court Justice decides

otherwise.


9/13

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Recho did not violate any treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties or

any international customary law in relation to the spread of the malignant

influenza in Megoose

A. Recho did not place Ms. Shunzettes life and her childs health at prejudice

(RESEARCH ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES. BLAH FROM HARM)

The government of Recho has the responsibility to issue an instruction to notify and

protect their inhabitants from any disease such as malignant influenza as this case is

about. Recho was 50 kilometers away from the area where the spread of influenza was

most serious. The government of Megoose issued a restriction only at 30-kilometer

radius from where the spread of influenza was serious. Moreover, she was working 60

kilometers farther. Compared to Armis, Recho borders Megoose which means that

Recho has the higher possibility of being affected from the disease. On the other hand,

the government did not issue any order as response to the malignant influenza. The

government did not see any warning that the country will be affected from it. The

issuance of the Megooses instruction regarding the inhabitants in the area where the

influenza was at most serious satisfies Recho that its country as well as its inhabitants

will not be harmed.

B. Recho did not breach any treaties with regard to Ms. Shunzettes employmentcontract

Ms. Shunzette was deemed to have been absent without leave for three months (March

to June 2010) and as a consequence thereof was dismissed as punishment from work.


10/13

There was no prosecution and imprisonment on the basis of her breach in the

employment contract.1

She was dismissed from work in accordance with the terms of

the contract of employment she has freely entered into. Ms. Shunzette left for Armis,

under the instructions of its government, prior to the lapse of her 3-year contract. As an

employee, She had the obligation to seek the permission of her employers to be absent

from her responsibilities. It does not follow that when theres an order from the

government, she can set aside her duties as an employee. If an employee can freely

leave her work without prior notice to the company, the company will then placed in

prejudice as regards its business routine and productivity of the institution.

In addition, it is only proper that her rental lodge in the campus be cancelled as a result

of her dismissal.2

In her stay in the company, the rental lodge is considered as her

family home. At the time of the cancellation, she was no longer an employee of the

company. Her benefits as an employee which includes shelter is automatically revoked.

She can no longer enjoy the benefit of the staying in the companys campus. It is the

responsibility of the employer to make sure that its employees are protected from harm

thus preventing a non-employee like Ms. Shunzette is only proper.

C. Recho did not prevent Ms.Shunzette and her child from leaving the country

1Article 11 of ICCPR: No one shall be imprisoned on the ground of inability to fulfill a

contractual obligation2

Article 17(1) of ICCPR: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference withhis privacy, family home or correspondence, not to unlawful attacks on his honour andreputation


11/13

Ms. Shunzette was not restrained from leaving Recho during the outbreak. There are no

acts from the government of Recho which prevents her from leaving the said country.

Though she was not restrained from leaving Recho, she must be aware of the

consequences she might be having for breaching her employment contract with her

employer3. Whatever punishment her employer will give her, she must accept it for the

reason that she has breached the said contract. Recho in this case, did not violate any

of the rights of Ms Shunzette with regards to her rights in leaving the country.

Furthermore, Recho could not find any valid reason that makes Ms. Shunzette leave the

premise because the distance of where she was residing as well as to her place of work

is far from the infected area. Though the said places were not affected by the malignant

influenza, Recho did not prevent Ms. Shunzette and her daughter from leaving the

country.

Ms Shunzette was not imprisoned for breach of the employment contact. She was

dismissed from work in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment she

has freely entered into. She had the obligation to seek the permission of her employers

before she left. It does not follow that when theres an order from the government, she

can set aside her duties as an employee. If thats the case then the company can be

prejudiced.4

D. Recho did not discriminate Ms. Sunzette and her 5-year old daughter

3 Article 12 (3) of ICCPR The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject toany restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protectnational security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms ofothers, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.4

Article 11 of ICCPR No one hall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a

contractual obligation


12/13

All inhabitants of the territory were equally treated in the sense that there was

preferential treatment for the citizens over the foreign workers or vice versa and they

were all subject to the same rights and benefits at that that time. Hence, there was no

violation in the obligations under ICCPR and Ms. Shunzette was rightfully expected to

report to work during March to June 2010 as stipulated in her employment contract. It

cannot be said that discrimination exists on her part because she was not denied of due

process.

The only punishment that Ms.Shunzette suffered because of her departure was her

dismissal from work. It was stated in her employment contract that any employee

dismissed for punishment is not entitled to separation pay as well as to reemployment.

It is the discretion of her employer to whatever sanction will be given to her for

breaching the contract which she freely entered into. There was no violation of due

process in this case since her case was heard before the district court of Recho.5

5Article 14 of ICCPR All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals


13/13

PLEADINGS

For the foregoing reasons, Recho, the Respondent, respectfully prays that this

Honourable Court:

i. DECLARE that the Government of Recho did not place Ms. Shunzette and her

childs health is at prejudice when she was residing in the country at the time of

the malignant influenza

ii. DECLARE that the employment contract of Ms.Shunzette and the employer is in

consonant with the treaties which Recho is a party

iii. DECLARE Recho did not prevent Ms.Shunzette and her daughter from leaving

the country

iv. DECLARE Recho did not discriminate Ms.Shunzette and her daughter

Documents

Respondent Memorial 2R