1

COMPROMIS FOR THE 4TH EDITION OF THE ALL-KENYAN MOOT COURT COMPETITION (AKMCC), 2016.

(ARBITRATION CATEGORY)

THE 4TH ALL - KENYAN MOOT COURT COMPETITION (AKMCC)

26TH AND 27TH FEBRUARY 2016

KENYATTA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW (KUSOL)AND

JMILES & CO ARBITRATION

HYPOTHETICAL CASE1

1. The Claimant, Finest Extracts LLC (in this case referred to simply as “Finest Extracts”) is an international company active in various regions of the world in the exploration and production of mineral resources. The Finia Government owns 60% of Finest Extracts while the rest 40% is owned by a consortium of investors with interest and expertise in mineral exploration and production.

2. The Republic of Finia and the Republic of Barota are both parties to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. They also entered into a Bilateral Investment Treaty in 1980 with a view to promoting and protecting investments interests between the two countries (See the BIT Attached below).

3. On April 1 2007, the Respondent, Republic of Barota issued an international tender for exploration of mineral resources in its Coast Gulf region. Under the laws of Barota, foreign investors were required to incorporate a subsidiary company, provide at least 10% share for Barota government participation in the mining project, and create an Environmental Restoration Fund into which they will deposit sufficient

1 Do not assume any facts beyond those stated in this problem, even if there is resemblance to events, publicized or otherwise, in the relevant period. Additional facts may be given only in the clarifications or corrections.

2

money as security for environmental restoration or used to remedy environmental pollution.

4. After the bidding process, the Government of Barota intended to award exploration licenses to Finest Extracts. On June 15 2007, Finest Extracts incorporated its subsidiary company in Barota, Finest Extracts (Barota), LLC (herein referred to as (FEB). In this subsidiary, the Government of Barota through its fully state-owned corporation, Barota Mining Corporation (BMC), acquired a compulsory 10% interest. The rest 90% interest was held by Finest Extracts International LLC. FEB also created the FEB Environmental Fund (the Fund) and deposited 10,000,000 USD. The Barota Mining Corporation (BMC) is the main state corporation that invests and holds interests in mining on behalf of the Government and advises Barota on viable mining projects. The BMC is composed of experts from different areas, including mining, environment, geology, commerce, international investments, and law.

5. On 28 July 2007, the Government of Barota awarded FEB a 5-year non-exclusive mineral exploration licence. A month later, the Government of Barota issued petroleum exploration licenses to another company (Barota Best LLC) owned mainly by senior Barota nationals.

6. FEB produced assessment reports to the relevant government ministries, including an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, which were approved. After the exploration exercise, FEB announced that it has discovered large deposits of niobium and rare minerals worth over 50,000,000,000 USD. This release excited not only the government, but also other investors who reportedly initiated frantic efforts to acquire significant interests in the overall project. Hence, the Barota Ministry of

3

Mines became one of the busiest in “deal negotiations/transactions” with investors.

7. During the FEB’s exploration phase, there was a lot of unease at and around the Coast Gulf arising from allegations of increasing environmental pollution in the area. Some residents, through support of the Barota Coast Environmental Rights Organisation (BCERO) reported to the Barota Environmental Management Authority (BEMA) that the water in the Coast Gulf River (“River”)-the second largest river in the country connected to the ocean- which is widely used for domestic and industrial use was rapidly changing its colour. BCERO is a non-governmental organisation whose objectives include protection of the environment and environmental rights in the coastal region of Barota. Media reported incidents dead fish and other marine animals in the river. Industrial companies, fishermen, beach operators, farmers and other enterprises were increasingly closing their business citing unsafe water and generally unhealthy environment for their operations. BEMA responded that it has received the complaints and it was considering them.

8. Although no one did a scientific research to establish the cause of the pollution, residents and local NGOs attributed it to the mineral exploration exercise especially leakages of the dumping system and general illegal dumping of toxic wastes by FEB into the river. FEB on its part dismissed these theories as politically motivated by local leaders who were hell bent on misleading the local community to interfere with its project. It reiterated that all bodies involved in the process are composed of experts including the directors of the Barota Mining Corporation, the Ministry of Mines and the BEMA-none of which has raised any concern to how the exploration was conducted. FEB was

4

particularly surprised at the lack of mention of the Barota Best LLC which was conducting petroleum exploration adjacent to Finest Extracts.

9. On January 10 2013, FEB conducted an Environmental Impact Audit on the project and submitted its report to BEMA for approval. Despite intensifying local pressure, BEMA approved the Audit report paving the way for FEB’s application for extraction license. On February 20 2013, FEB submitted its application for extraction license to the Ministry of Mines and a further exploration license covering other mineral blocks within the Coast Gulf. The BCERO, local residents and local politicians submitted statements of objections to the issuance of the licenses to FEB. In a joint statement issued by the BEMA and the Minister for Mines, Mr. Peter McZooka, the complaints and statements of objections were still being considered.

10. By that time, general elections in Barota were to be held in about five months, that is, 14th August 2014. The general perception is that politics in Barota are known to be a matter of seeking popularity by anything possible including unfounded allegations, hate speech, populist meetings, and quest for money to finance political campaigns. It is considered by many that this is the most corrupt season of Barota where bribery and fraudulent dealings are at its peak. The Minister for Mines had expressed intentions to defend his seat. On July 15 2014, a month before the Cabinet Secretary resigned from his office for campaigns, he approved FEB’s application for further licenses. This was not made public immediately. In August 2014, the general elections were held in Barota. A new government was elected. Mr. Peter McZooka lost his seat to the new Minister of Mines, Mr. Mbala.

5

11. Because of the deteriorating situation of the Gulf Coast, in November 2014, BCERO learnt that FEB was issued with the further licenses. BCERO mobilised the community, other NGOs, and local government leaders to join protests against FEB. These protests resulted into massive vandalisation of FEB’s Properties. FEB’s requests to the Government to contain the situation were unsuccessful.

12. The local community became divided and incidences of mild violence were reported. Pressure was mounted on the government and the Ministry of Mines to revoke all licenses given to FEB and take urgent remedial actions. BCERO stated that based on credible confidential information it had received the licenses were issued through corruption and the purported consent of the people as detailed in the EIA and the EIA reports was also obtained through fraud, undue influence and bribery. The movement attracted international concern.

13. Due to the increasing pressure, the new Minister of Mines (Mr. Mbala) upon directions of the new President quickly reviewed the licenses issued and all the concerns submitted. On December 25 2015, he issued an executive order revoking all licenses issued to FEB on grounds that the company had failed in its obligations to protect environment and in any case the licenses were procured fraudulently. He also directed the BMC to take over the activities that were being done by FEB until further notice (date unspecified). These instructions are contained in the directive made by the Minister (Attached below). The Government of Barota also seized all monies in the Environment Restoration Fund claiming that that would be used for environmental restoration and remedying environmental pollution. FEB got this further information from their Bank.

6

14. After assessment, FEB reported that it had suffered big losses due to property destruction and exploration costs. FEB also had a claim for lost profits and business opportunity arising from the revocation of licenses. Finally, FEB claimed against the arbitrary seizure of all monies in the Environment Restoration Fund.

15. Following this disagreement, Finest Extracts and FEB initiated negotiations with Barota to resolve the issues. However, Barota insisted that since the government of Finia owned majority interest in Finest Extracts, the dispute should be resolved through diplomatic channels of the two states. This was opposed by the government of Finia citing that pure commercial dealings should be resolved through the dispute settlement clauses contained in the relevant trade agreements.

16. Responding to Finia’s response, Barota released a statement to international media that:

“…it is known globally that mining companies from the Finia Government do not care much about the environment and the rights of the local people….The matters at hand concern massive violation of human rights and extensive pollution of the environment leading to inexplicable suffering and breakdown of our economy. Such disputes will be effectively resolved by application of Barotan and international laws in the Barotan Courts...”

17.Having reached a stalemate, FEB with support of its parent company invoked the provisions of the BIT and filed a request for international arbitration at the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA) on March 10, 2015.

7

18.Upon receipt of the request for arbitration, the Government of Barota raised several preliminary objections on points of law concerning the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute. In particular, it contended that:

a) The arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute since the arbitration clause failed together with the contract when it was effectively repudiated.

b) In any event, the arbitration agreement does not cover or extend to actions done by third parties such as the local communities and NGOs.

c) The dispute is not arbitrable because it involves questions relating to fundamental human rights, fraud, bribery, corruption, national peace and security, and the parties did not specifically subject those matters to arbitration in their agreement;

d) The Republic of Barota is a sovereign state hence entitled to sovereign immunity against legal proceedings in foreign arbitral institutions. Given that the Government of Finia owns majority interest in Finest Extracts and based on the provisions of the BIT, the dispute should be resolved through state-state machinery.

19. The government called upon the tribunal to stay the proceedings on merits and determine jurisdictional issues first. In its view, it would be a total waste of precious time and resources to continue hearing the merits then later determine that it lacked jurisdiction.

8

20.Upon receipt of the preliminary objections, FEB filed a response to the effect that:

a) Although the contract was effectively repudiated, the arbitration clause stands and remains active. Repudiation of a contract does not discharge a party from his liabilities under that contract;

b) The government’s obligation under the BIT includes protection of the investor’s property for all matters including insecurity, local protests and political actions. For purposes of investment disputes, acts by local persons (individuals and corporates such as the NGOs) are attributable to the government;

c) Issues related to human (environmental) rights, fraud, corruption, peace and security are capable of being resolved through international arbitration even though that may not be the possible in domestic arbitration, and the parties need not have specifically subjected all ancillary matters to arbitration.

d) The Republic of Barota cannot rely on sovereign immunity as a shield to liability in these circumstances. Finia’s interest in Finest Extract is irrelevant and does not affect jurisdiction under the BIT.

21. The Company urged the tribunal to refuse stay of arbitral proceedings. It contended that the jurisdiction need not be determined first, but can be issued later.

22. In mid of March 2015, the Registrar of the NCIA facilitated appointment of all the arbitrators since the parties had designated it as the appointing authority. On March 20 2015, the tribunal

9

convened the first pre-hearing session with all parties to agree on certain procedural matters and outline the issues for determination. A summary of the resolutions arrived at are provided below as the “terms of reference” for the arbitral proceedings.

10

TREATY BETWEENTHE REPUBLIC OF FINIA

ANDTHE REPUBLIC OF

BAROTACONCERNING THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND

RECIPROCAL PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

The Republic of Finia and the Republic of Barota (hereinafter referred to as the “Contracting Parties”);Desiring to establish favourable conditions for improved economic co-operation between the two countries, including investment by nationals of one Contracting Party in the territory of the other Contracting Party; and

Acknowledging that offering encouragement and mutual protection to such investments based on international agreements will contribute to stimulating business ventures that will foster the prosperity of both Contracting Parties, consistent with the protection of health, safety, environmental, and international labour standards and the goal of sustainability;

Hereby agree as follows:Article 1

DEFINITIONSFor the purposes of this Agreement:1. The term "Investment" shall be construed to mean every asset that an

Investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or

11

profit, or the assumption of risk in conformity with the laws and regulations of the Territory in which the investment is made.

2. The term "Investment" includes, in particular, but not exclusively:

a) movable and immovable property and any other right " in rem" including, in so far as they may be used for investment purposes, real guarantees on others' property;

b) shares, debentures, equity holdings and any other negotiable instrument or document of credit, as well as Government and public securities;

c) credit for sums of money or any right for pledges or performance of services having an economic value connected with investments;

d) any right of a financial nature accruing by law or by contract and any license, concession or franchise issued in accordance with current provisions governing the exercise of business activities, including prospecting for cultivating, extracting and exploiting natural resources.

3. The term "Investor" shall be construed to mean, with regard to either Contracting Party:a) any natural person holding the legal nationality of a Contracting

Party;b) any legal person established in the Territory of one of the Contracting

Party in accordance with the respective national legislation such as public establishments, joint-stock corporations or partnerships, foundations or associations, regardless of whether their liability is limited or otherwise;

c) legal persons not constituted under the law of that Contracting Party but controlled, directly or indirectly, by natural persons as defined in

12

(a) or by legal persons as defined in (b) above; provided in all cases that the above defined natural and legal persons do not pursue sovereign activities and are not funded by the other Contracting Party.

4. The term “Third Party” shall be construed to mean a natural or legal person that is neither of the Contracting Parties.

Article 2PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS

1. The Contracting Parties shall encourage Investors of the other Contracting Party to invest in their Territory, and shall authorize these Investments in accordance with their laws and pursuant to the terms of this Treaty.

2. The Contracting Parties shall at all times ensure treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security, of the Investments of Investors of the other Contracting Party.

3. The Contracting Parties shall ensure that the management, maintenance, enjoyment, transformation, cessation and liquidation of Investments effected in their Territory by Investors of the other Contracting Party, as well as the companies and firms in which these Investments have been made, shall in no way be subject to unjustified or discriminatory measures.

Article 3NATIONAL TREATMENT AND THE MOST FAVOURED NATION

CLAUSE

13

1. The Contracting Parties, within the bounds of their respective Territories, shall offer Investments effected by, and the Income accruing to, Investors of the other Contracting Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded to Investments effected by, and Income accruing to, its own nationals or Investors of Third States.

2. The treatment accorded by a Contracting Party to the activities connected with the Investments of Investors of the other Contracting Party shall be no less favourable than that accorded to similar activities connected with Investments made by their own Investors or by Investors of a Third State.

3. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article do not apply to the advantages or privileges which one Contracting Party grants or may grant in future to a Third State by virtue of membership in customs or economic unions, common market associations, free trade areas, regional or sub-regional agreements, international multilateral economic agreements, or agreements entered into in order to prevent double taxation or to facilitate cross-border trade.

Article 4NATIONALIZATION OR EXPROPRIATION

1. The Investments to which this Agreement relates shall not be subject to any measure which might limit permanently or temporarily the Investor’s ownership, possession, control or enjoyment, save where specifically provided by law and by judgments or orders issued by any courts, administrative bodies, or tribunals having jurisdiction.

14

2. Investments of Investors of one of the Contracting Parties shall not be directly or indirectly nationalized, expropriated, requisitioned or subjected to any measure having similar effect in the Territory of the other Contracting Party, except for public purposes, or national interest, against immediate full and effective compensation, and on condition that these measures are taken on a non-discriminatory basis and in conformity with all legal provisions and procedures.

Article 5ESSENTIAL SECURITY

Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed:1. To require a Party to furnish or allow access to any information the

disclosure of which it determines to be contrary to its essential security interests; or

2. To preclude a Party from applying measures that it considers necessary for the maintenance or restoration of public order, the fulfilment of its obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of international peace or security, the observance of its international law obligations, or the protection of its own essential security interests.

Article 10OBSERVANCE OF COMMITMENTS

Each Contracting Party shall constantly guarantee the observance of any obligation it has assumed with regard to Investments in its Territory by Investors of the other Contracting Party.

Article 11SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN INVESTORS AND THE

CONTRACTING PARTIES

15

1. For purposes of this Article, an Investment Dispute is defined as a dispute involving (a) the interpretation or application of an Investment agreement between a Contracting Party and an Investor of the other Contracting Party; (b) the interpretation or application of any Investment authorization granted by a Contracting Party’s Investment authority to such Investor; or (c) an alleged breach of any right conferred or created by this Agreement with respect to an Investor or an Investment of an Investor of a Contracting Party.

2. In the event of an Investment Dispute between a Contracting Party and an Investor of the other Contracting Party, the parties to the dispute shall initially seek to resolve the dispute in good faith by consultation and negotiation. If the dispute cannot be so resolved after 2 (two) months from the date the Investment Dispute arose, then the Investment Dispute shall be submitted for settlement in accordance with the applicable dispute settlement procedures upon which they have previously agreed. With respect to claims of expropriation by the Investor, the dispute settlement procedure specified in any applicable Investment agreement between the Investor and the Contracting Party shall remain binding and shall be enforceable in accordance with the terms of the Investment agreement and relevant provisions of domestic laws of such Contracting Party and treaties and other international agreements regarding the enforcement of arbitral awards to which the Contracting Party has subscribed.

3. The Contracting Parties hereby consent to the submission in good faith of Investment Disputes to the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA) for settlement and resolution by binding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the NCIA Arbitration Rules in force at

16

the date of the submission of the dispute, at any time after three months from the date upon which the dispute arose, provided that:

a) the Investment Dispute has not, for any reason, been submitted for resolution in accordance with any applicable dispute settlement procedures previously agreed to by the parties to the dispute; and

b) the Investor has not brought the dispute before the courts having jurisdiction within the territory of the Contracting Party that is a party to the dispute.

4. In case of arbitration between a Contracting Party and an Investor of the other Contracting Party pursuant to paragraph (3) above, the NCIA, consistent with its Rules, shall determine the venue for arbitration. The venue for arbitration shall be in a country which is a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Moreover, each Contracting Party shall provide for the enforcement within its Territory of NCIA arbitral awards.

5. In any proceeding, judicial, arbitral or otherwise, concerning an Investment Dispute, a Contracting Party shall not assert, as a defense, counter-claim, right of set-off or otherwise, that the Investor concerned has received or will receive, pursuant to an insurance contract, indemnification or other compensation for all or part of its alleged damages from any source whatsoever, including such other Party and its political subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities.

6. For the purpose of any proceedings initiated in accordance with this Article, any company duly incorporated, constituted or otherwise duly organized under the applicable laws and regulations of a Contracting Party or a political subdivision thereof that, before the occurrence of the

17

event or events giving rise to the dispute, was owned or controlled by nationals or companies of the other Contracting Party, shall be treated as an Investor of such other Contracting Party.

7. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to a dispute arising under official credit, guarantee or insurance arrangements pursuant to which the Contracting Parties have agreed to other means of settling disputes.

Article 12SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CONTRACTING

PARTIES

1. Any disputes which may arise between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation and application of this Agreement shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably through diplomatic channels.

2. In the event that the dispute cannot be settled within three months from the date on which one of the Contracting Parties notifies, in writing, the other Contracting Party, the dispute shall, at the request of one of them, be settled in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two States, as in effect on the date of this Agreement.

3. The place of the arbitration proceedings shall be The Hague, The Netherlands.

4. The language to be used in the arbitral proceedings shall be determined by the Contracting Parties.

5. The appointing authority shall be the Secretary General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

6. Nothing in this Article impairs the right of the Contracting Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the

18

interpretation or application of this Agreement by any peaceful means of their own choice.

Article 13RELATIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS

The provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced irrespective of whether or not diplomatic or consular relations exist between the Contracting Parties.

Article 14APPLICATION OF OTHER PROVISIONS

1. Whenever any issue is governed both by this Agreement and by another international agreement to which both the Contracting Parties are parties, or whenever it is governed otherwise by general international law, the most favourable provisions, case by case, shall be applied to the Contracting Parties and to their Investors.

2. Whenever, as a result of laws, regulations, provisions or specific contracts, one of the Contracting Parties has adopted a more advantageous treatment for the Investors of the other Contracting Party than that provided in this Agreement, they shall be accorded that more favourable treatment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement.

DONE AT City V, this thirtieth day of June, in the year one thousand nine hundred ninety four, in English

19

20

REPUBLIC OF BAROTAOFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF MINES

Executive Order No. 2010 – 1023December 25th, 2014

REVOCATION OF LICENCES REGARDING THE BAROTA MINING TRAGEDY

WHEREAS, since 2007, the social, economic, political and environmental status of the Coast Gulf and adjacent areas has been experiencing a surging tragedy related to mining activities (“Barota Mining Tragedy”);

WHEREAS, the Tragedy has been declared an Issue of National Concern (“INC”) and has significantly impacted Barota’s environment, marine ecosystems, other natural resources, security, social coexistence, numerous industries, and the health and safety of individuals living and working in Barota’s coastal areas;

WHEREAS, the Barotan Government has no choice but to immediately intervene in relation to the Tragedy;

WHEREAS, The Government is satisfied that the Barota Mining Corporation (BMC) has the capacity to adequately assist in the Government’s response to the Tragedy;

WHEREAS, Barota’s law authorizes the Minister of Mines during a declared state of Tragedy to suspend or revoke the license of any entity conducting business within the territory of the Republic which would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the Tragedy and to take such steps as are necessary to address the Tragedy;

21

NOW THEREFORE I, Peter Mbala, Minister of Mines of the Republic of Barota, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the laws of the Republic of Barota, do hereby order and direct as follows:

SECTION 1: Finest Extact LLC’s non-exclusive license to explore the Gulf Coast, authorized by the Barotan Government on 24 March 2007, is hereby revoked indefinitely.

SECTION 2: BMC is hereby authorized to assist the Barotan Government by securing control of the relevant mining blocks or mining area and coordinating the ongoing response, removal, assessment, and other cleanup efforts at the Gulf Coast, and taking any action necessary in furtherance thereof, until such time as this order will be revoked and further directions issued.

SECTION 3: This Order is effective upon signature and shall be made applicable this day, December 25, 2014, and will continue in effect until amended, modified, terminated, or rescinded by the President, or terminated by operation of law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand officially and caused to be affixed the Great Seal of Barota, at the Capitol, in the City of New Bary, on this 25th day of December,2015.

Peter Mbala ____________________MINISTER OF MINESGOVERNMENT OF BAROTA

TERMS OF REFERENCE

22

In accordance with Article 18 of the NCIA Rules, and based on the submissions of the parties, the following terms of reference have been agreed:

1. PartiesThe Applicant/Respondent is Republic of Barota (a sovereign State) while the Respondent/Claimant is Finest Extract LLC (an international mining company).

2. Parties’ Addresses for Notifications

Parties will be notified through their email addresses designated for that purpose in their application details.

3. Relief Sought

At this time, the Parties seek only findings in accordance with their contentions with respect to the preliminary objections ONLY. The Tribunal is not called upon to make any finding or decision with respect to the substantive claims on liability and damages. The Claimant/Respondent is seeking a stay of the arbitral proceedings so that the matter can be decided in its national courts. The Respondent urges the tribunal to continue hearing the merits of the matter and deliver an award.

4. Issues in Dispute

After the comprehensive pre-hearing session with the parties, it was agreed that the Tribunal shall determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of the claims and counterclaims submitted by the Claimant and Respondent respectively having regard to:

A. Whether the arbitration clause failed together with repudiation of the contract as a whole;

23

B. Whether actions of third parties like local community and non-state funded organizations were covered in the arbitration agreement and whether such actions are attributable to the Respondent;

C. Whether allegations of fraud, bribery, and corruption can take away jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, whether in the circumstances the dispute is arbitrable, and whether parties have to specifically subject to arbitration all matters related to the dispute;

D. Whether the Respondent is entitled to rely on its domestic law and international legal notions of sovereign immunity against arbitral proceedings;

E. Whether the interest held by the Government of Finia in Finest Extracts is relevant

F. On the reliefs sought, the parties contest on whether the tribunal should rule on the issue of jurisdiction first before hearing the dispute on its merits.

5. Place of Arbitration

The place of arbitration shall be Parklands, Nairobi. Oral hearings shall be held at the premises of Kenyatta University School of Law (KUSOL).

6. Arbitrators

For purposes of this Competition, the fictitious arbitrators are Professor Abalala Hars (chairperson), Dr. Barry Corn (member), and Mr. Mohamed Beduin (member). For purposes of the Competition, the arbitrators will be substituted in the oral hearings.

7. Language:

The language of the arbitration shall be English.

8. Conflict of law/rules:

24

For the purposes of the Competition, the AKMCC Moot Rules 2015 shall supersede other conflicting rules.

9. Facts and evidence

The Tribunal’s fact-finding will be based exclusively on the facts and evidence provided by the AKMCC Moot organizers. Pleadings should not be accompanied by the documentation or by signed statements of the witnesses and experts; references to the evidence provided by the organizers will suffice. However, exhibits such as a drawing used for illustrations ONLY may be permitted.

Further relevant facts may come forward in the course of clarifications issued by the Competition organizers in response to Requests for Clarification.

10. Pleadings

It was agreed that pleadings will be by written memorials: each team submitting three copies for each side of the case.

The cover page should contain the following information (a) the text [insert name here], (b) the title of the documents stating whether it is submitted on behalf of Claimant(s) or Respondent(s), and the team number.

Documents should be submitted in PDF format.

11. Order of submissions

The Applicant/Respondent will first make submissions followed by the Respondent/Claimant. Time for rebuttals must be specifically reserved.

12. All other matters not specifically provided for in these terms of references will be done according to the general AKMCC Rules

25

Signed:

Counsel for Claimant

Counsel for Respondent

26