JUSTICE DIPAK MISHRA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON2(11)

OF 2021

TEAMCODE:- TC 17

INTHE
INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICELE

COURINTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ATTHE
PEACEPALACETHEHAGUE,N
ETHERLANDS

GENERALLISTNO.YEA
R2021
CASECONCERNINGINTERNATIONALLAWANDINTERNATIONAL HEALTH
REGULATIONS

(REQUEST FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION)

JUSTICE DIPAK MISHRA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON

2(11) OF 2021

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFAPPLICANT
1
JUSTICE DIPAK MISHRA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITON2(11)
OF 2021
STATEOF V STATE OF MANDRIN

ON SUMMITION TO INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE

MEMORIALONBEHALFOFAPPLICANT
2
 TABLEOFCONTENT

A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………

B. INDEXOFAUTHORITIES...................................................................................................4

C. STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION….................................................................................8

D. STATEMENTOFFACTS......................................................................................................9

E. STATEMENTOFISSUES.....................................................................................................15

F. SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS.............................................................................................16

G. ARGUMENTADVANCED...................................................................................................18

1. THE STATE OF INDIANA HAD DENIED THE MINIMAL RIGHT OF

SELFDETERMINATIONTOTHECITIZENSOFKUDRITAN..........................................18
1.1 Self-DeterminationisanInherentRightunderInternational Law…...............................18

1.2 Righttoself- determinationisaperemptorynorm..............................................................18

2. THESTATEOFINDIANAHASVIOLATEDTHEHUMANRIGHTSOFTHECITIZENSOFP
 AFIANAANDKUDRITAN.......................................................................................................20

3. STATEOFINDIANAHADVIOLATEDTHECUSTOMARYINTERNATIONALLAWBYLA
UNCHING ADIRECTASSAULTON THESOVEREIGNTYOFPAFIANA...........................21
3.1. SimlaAgreementJuly2, 1972......................................................................................................22

3.2. TashkentDeclarationJanuary10,1966..........................................................................................22

3.3. WorldSummitOutcome2005....................................................................................................23

3.4. ForcesofIndianaviolated theresolutionsofGeneralAssembly.........................................24

3.4.1 Resolution42/22ofthe GeneralAssembly.....................................................................24

3.4.2 Indiana forceshaveviolatedManilaResolution................................................................24

3.5. Indianahasviolated theprincipleofprohibitionofuseofforce...........................................24

3.6. ThisCourtshouldordertheimmediatecessationofIndiana’swrongfulacts......................25

3.6.1 Cessationasa consequenceofanInternationallyWrongfulAct...................................25

4. THESTATEOFINDIANAHADVIOLATEDTHEINTERNATIONALLAWBOTHCUSTOMA
RY AND CONVENTIONAL BY NOT RELESING OFFICIALS OF PAFINA HELDAS
HOSTAGES........................................................................................................................................27

4.1 GenevaConvention...................................................................................................................27

4.2 InternationalConventionagainsttheTakingofHostages......................................................28

5. THESTATEOFINDIANAHADPUTTHELIFEOFTHEPEOPLEOFPAFIANAUNDE
R THREAT BY DECIDING TO STOP THE FLOW OF WATER
INTOPAFIANA/BREACHOFTREATY BETWEENTWOCOUNTRIES.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
6. PRAYER..................................................................................................................................31
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ARISWA Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts

IHR International Health Regulations

IHO International Health Organization

ILC International Law Commission

ICJ International Court of Justice

UN Doc United Nations Documnet

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNTS United Nations Treaty Series

VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

WHO World Health Organization

SCALE Supreme Court Almanac

CA Company Appeals

CIRP Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process

IB Insolvency Board
 NCLAT National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

NCLT National Company Law Tribunal

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

CLJ Company Law Journal

Cal Calcutta

Civ Civil MEMORANDUM

INDEXOFAUTHORITIES

 INTERNATIONALTREATIES AND AGREEMENTS

 American Convention on Human Rights, November 22, 1969

 European Convention on Human Rights, September 3, 1953

 InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights,December16,1966,993U.N.T.
S.3
 Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, May 23, 1969

 UniversalDeclarationonHumanRights,1948.
  International Health Regulations,2005

 Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, December 12,2001

 United Nations Charter, 1945

 Draft article on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with

commentaries, 2001

 RESOLUTION

 The UNGA Resolution 56/83, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
A/56/49(Vol. I), December 12,2001

 UNGAResolution.421(V),DraftInternationalCovenantonHumanRightsandMeasuresofIm
plementation,A/RES/421,4/12/1950
 ACTSANDREPORTS

 Article6, 7, 10, and 11ofthe International Health Regulations,2005

 Article 1, 2, 14, 28, 31 and 34 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful
Acts,2001

 Article 18, 26, 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, May 23,1969

 Article 63 of the WHO Constitution, July 22, 1946

 Article 12 of InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights, December 16,

1966

 Article 26 of American Convention on Human Rights, November 22, 1969

 Article 2(c) of the Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities, with commentaries, 2001

 Article 74 of the United Nations Charter, 1945

 WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2:14th Jan- 10th Feb

 COVID-19 and China: A Chronology of Events (December 2019-January 2020)

 CESCR General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of
Health

 Fighting COVID-19: China in Action

 Statement on the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and economic, social and
cultural rights ,11 April 2020

 WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.

 Regulation of Wild Animal Wet Markets,

 Report of the ILC, 53rd Session, 159, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001

 CASES

 United Kingdom v. Albania, ICJ GL No 1, [1949]

 United States v. Iran (1980) ICJ 1

 Asiye Genc v. Turkey ECHR 027 (2015)

 Poblete Vilches and Others v. Chile March 8,2018 Serie C No.349

 The Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (USA v Canada) 1941, UN Rep Intl Arb Awards
1905 (1949)

 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) 2010 ICJ Reports

 Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996

 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1949 ICJ Decision of April 9.
Paragraph 23
 ADVISORYREPORTS

 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT (9 July 2004 General List
No. 131)

 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. 226 (1996).

 BOOKSANDARTICLES

 Epicenter of coronavirus outbreak, says 5 million people left the city before travel
restrictions were imposed’, Market Watch, 28 January 2020

 Timeline : China's COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown of Wuhan , 22 January 2020

 Jian, M., ‘Xi Jinping has buried the truth about coronavirus’, The Guardian, 26 February
2020

 A Timeline of China's Response in the First Days of COVID-19 | China's COVID Secrets
| FRONTLINE | PBS |, February 2, 2021

 Timeline: The early days of China's coronavirus outbreak and cover-up – Axios, March
18, 2020

 Coronavirus (COVID-19) events as they happen, July, 2020

 Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China,
February,15,2020

 Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17’, South
China Morning Post, 13 March 2020

 Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally’, Science, 26
 January 2020

 Mother Jones: China's response to the coronavirus outbreak was pretty bad – Hot Air,
May 15,2020.

 China hid the severity of its coronavirus outbreak and muzzled whistleblowers —
because it can, Feb 10,2020

 How the death of Li Wenliang, a doctor and ordinary citizen, sparked Chinese demands
for freedom of speech’, South China Morning Post, 12 February 2020.

 Animal Origins of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus: Insight from
ACE2-S-Protein Interactions, 2006

 The Liability of China and International Adjudication of the COVID-19 Pandemic,

APRIL 10, 2020.

 China’s State Responsibility for the Global Spread of COVID19: An International Law
Perspective, 23 JUN 2020.

 Covid-19: China’s Responsibility and Possible Legal Actions, 10 MAY 2020.

 Economic Consequences of the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Need for Epidemic

Preparedness, 29 May 2020.

 Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy, 24 January 2021.

 CHINA IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR COVID-19 DAMAGE AND CLAIMS

COULD BE IN THE TRILLIONS, 23 MARCH 2020.
 STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION

THE IHO AND STATE OF MANDARIN RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THEIR DISPUTE CONCERNING
INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULAIONS AND TRANSBOUNDARY HARM
TOTHEINTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICEBY ADVISORY OPINIONPURSUANTTOARTICLE
65(1)OFTHESTATUTEOFTHE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 1.THEPARTIES HAVE
AGREED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE COMPROMIS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON 20 TH
April 20, 2021.

THE IHO UNDERTAKE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT ASFINALAND BINDING.

1
The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request.
 STATEMENTSOFFACTS

A group of countries have approached IHO2(International Health Organization) to apportion accountability

on the part of Countries or Institutions which are responsible for flouting various rules of International
Health Regulations. These countries particularly blame Country Mandarin3for its response in the early days
of the coronavirus, when the outbreak could still have been successfully contained. Instead of sharing
information transparently with the international community, Mandarin opted to censor, misrepresentand
suppress data about the novel corona strain. They allege that this criminal negligence on the part of
Mandarin rendered it extremely difficult for the International Health Organization (IHO) and foreign
governments to adequately prepare for this calamitous infection. Therefore, they seek reparation for loss of
lives, large scale economic distress and also devise some punitive measures in order to forestall similar
outbreaks in future.

2
The Constitution, Organization, structure, powers and functions of the IHO are parimateria to WHO.
3
Pari Materia to Communist Republic of China.
 STATEMENTOFISSUES

1. WHETHER COMMUNIST REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION

OF ARTICLES 6 AND 7 OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS?

2. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE UNDER ‘TRANSBOUNDARY

HARM’ PRINCIPLE BECAUSE OF ITS ECONOMIC POLICIES AND LAWS
REGULATING WET MARKETS IN MANDARIN.
 SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER COMMUNIST REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE FOR

VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 6 AND 7 OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH
REGULATIONS?

2. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE UNDER ‘TRANSBOUNDARY

HARM’ PRINCIPLE BECAUSE OF ITS ECONOMIC POLICIES AND LAWS
REGULATING WET MARKETS IN MANDARIN.
 ARGUMENTSADVANCED

1. WHETHER COMMUNIST REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF

ARTICLES 6 AND 7 OF INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS?
The COVID-19 outbreak is a global catastrophe of a historic scale. The novel SARS type virus reported
by Mandarin has spread rapidly, due to its very high rate of human-to-human transmission, causing
millions of deaths and significant disruption to the global economy. The People’s Republic of Mandarin
(PRM) was bound by international law, in the form of the International Health Regulations (2005), to
report timely, accurate and detailed public health information. However, throughout December 2019
and January 2020, the Mandarian Communist Party (MCP) – the government of the PRM – failed in its
obligations to do this. In fact, it appears at least possible that this was a deliberate act of mendacity. As
a direct consequence of the MCP’s decision to not share information about the initial stages of the
outbreak of COVID-19, the disease spread far faster than it would otherwise have done and reactions
by countries globally were hampered. It is possible that – had accurate information have been provided
at an early juncture – the infection would not have left Mandarin. The COVID-19 pandemic originated
in Mandarin, and the first government to become aware of it was that run by Mandarian Communist
Party (MCP). From the outset, the MCP tried to censor attempts by Mandarian citizens to identify and
publicize the truth concerning the origins, nature and dangers of the virus. The first issue would be
explained thoroughly in further sub issues.

1.1 Whether mandarin intentionally misrepresent, censor suppress the data and relevant
information about novel corona virus?
The question of making the republic of mandarin liable for violation of article 6 and 7 depends
upon the factual information that whether mandarin showed intentional delay in the assessment of
disease and sharing of information of the disease to World health Organization Article 6 and 7 talks
about the proper assessment of the disease within the territories of a nation in accordance with
annexure 2 and proper sharing of information of the same to the IHO within a period of 24 hours
but statistics speak the contrary.
When the IHO finally declared an international emergency on 30 January, the disease had already
been exported overseas from Mandarin. On 26 January, the Mayor of Wuhan admitted on official
 media that five million people had left Wuhan prior to the imposition of the quarantine. 4 And we
can’t ignore the fact that mandarin own medical and health experts tried to warn about the deadly
virus but they mummed them too,5 On 30 January, Dr Li Wenliang spoke to the New York Times
about official failures to disclose essential information about the virus to the public. 6 Dr. Li
Wenliang, IHO shares a lab report indicating the pathogen is a SARS-like virus.7On 31 January, the
first two cases of COVID-19 were confirmed in the UK.
It is evident from this sequence of events that the mandarin authorities deliberately understated the
severity of the growing epidemic and allowed it to spread unchecked for several weeks, particularly
throughout the vital first fortnight of January, by which time it was clearly spreading increasingly
rapidly from person to person. The Mayor of Wuhan’s acknowledgement that five million
travellers left his city during this major incubation window explains the subsequent spread of the
disease inside Mandarin and overseas, leading directly to the current pandemic.
A well drafted timeline about the cover ups by mandarin during the initial days of virus spread tell
a lot about mandarin negligence. In mid-December People begin turning up at hospitals in Wuhan
with strange white spots on their lung scans. Many of the cases are traced back to the city’s Huanan
Seafood Market, where a variety of live animals are sold. Whether the market is where the virus
first leapt from animals to humans is unknown.8 On December 24, 2019 a sample is taken from a
Wuhan Central Hospital patient’s lung and sent to Vision Medicals, a private company 500 miles
from Wuhan that produces a partial genetic sequence of the virus within 48 hours.The sequence
from the patient in Wuhan is strikingly similar to the virus that caused SARS, which sickened over
8,000 people and killed more than 700 in 2003. 9 Around 30 December 2019, hospitals in Wuhan
start seeing dozens of patients with severe pneumonia and Doctors begin warning about the disease
independently on social media — most prominently Dr. Li Wenliang, IHO shares a lab report
indicating the pathogen is a SARS-like virus.10 The first 41 hospitalized patients IHO had

4
Fottrell, Q., ‘Mayor of Wuhan, epicentre of coronavirus outbreak, says 5 million people left the city before travel restrictions
were imposed’, MarketWatch, 28 January 2020, available at: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/mayorof-wuhan-epicenter-of-
Coronavirus-outbreak-says-5-million-people-left-the-city-before-travel-restrictions-wereimposed-2020-01-26, last visited: 28
March 2020.
5
Timeline: China's COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown of Wuhan (apnews.com)
6
Jian, M., ‘Xi Jinping has buried the truth about coronavirus’, The Guardian, 26 February 2020, available at: https://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/the-reaction-to-the-outbreak-has-revealed-the-unreceonstructeddespotism-of-the-
chinese-state, last visited: 28 March 2020
7
Timeline: China's COVID-19 outbreak and lockdown of Wuhan (apnews.com)
8
A Timeline of China's Response in the First Days of COVID-19 | China's COVID Secrets | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site
9
ibid
10
Timeline: The early days of China's coronavirus outbreak and cover-up - Axios
 confirmed infections with what has been dubbed 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In the
earliest case, the patient became ill on 1 December 2019.11 On 31 December IHO asked Mandarin
to share the relevant information about the recent spread of unknown pneumonia cases which it
came to know from some social site not the mandarin government itself. 12 Around Mid-January:
The Lunar New Year travel rush — the world’s largest annual human migration — gets underway,
with millions of people leaving Wuhan to return home or passing through on their journeys. on Jan.
18: Tens of thousands of Wuhan families take part in a mass Lunar New Year banquet hosted by
the city. Many became infected. Jan. 20: A top Mandarian medical expert, Dr. Zhong Nanshan,
announces on state television that the virus is transmissible between people. These events clearly
portraits how blatantly Mandarin has tried hold and misrepresent the information.
There is a huge confusion about the origin of virus or the patient zero. What if mandarin knew
about the spread of virus far earlier than it reported its first case, if that would be the case then
mandarin is far more than liable for causing death of millions of people. The agent would like to
provide some evidences before the Hon’ble court that will collaborate my statement about origin of
virus. One media account – citing unpublished Mandarian government documents – states that the
initial case was recorded in Wuhan on 17 November 2019. According to this source, the number of
cases rose rapidly, reaching 266 on the last day of December and 381 on the first day of 2020. At
this stage the medical authorities withheld authorisation to report the outbreak both internally and
to the public, and no defensive action was taken. 13 All these are factual based yet contains enough
evidences to believe the facts.
A different aspect about human-to-human transmission also shows that Mandarin censored the
information, a detailed research shows that there is a considerable probability that human to human
transmission was there during mid-December but Mandarin chose the path of misrepresentation by
claiming that there is no human-to-human transmission and informing the same to IHO. It was
noted that two-thirds of a sample of victims could be linked to the Huanan Market in Wuhan,
which soon became accepted as the likely source of the outbreak. This of course shows that one

11
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
12
Coronavirus (COVID-19) events as they happen (who.int)
13
Ma, J., ‘Coronavirus: China’s first confirmed Covid-19 case traced back to November 17’, South China Morning Post, 13
March 2020‘Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally’, Science, 26 January 2020, available
at: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreadingglobally, last
visited: 30 March 2020.
 third were not.14 Since the market was closed on 1 January, it seems reasonable to infer at least that
subsequent cases could well be the result of human-to-human transmission.
According to Caixin, a respected Mandarin news organization, hospitals in Wuhan sent samples
from their pneumonia cases to commercial companies for analysis in late December 2019. Several
of those companies informed the hospitals that the patient samples indicated a novel coronavirus.
One company, BGI Genomics, completed genomic sequencing of the novel coronavirus on
December 26, 2019, Caixin reports.15 The next entity reported to have sequenced the genome was
the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), an affiliate of the Mandarin Academy of
Sciences.16Mandarin state media say WIV sequenced the virus’ genome on January 2. A timeline in
a March 26, 2020, article by Mandarin CDC experts and others in The New England Journal of
Medicine indicates Mandarin CDC sequenced the genome on January 3, 2020. Mandarin’s official
timelines provide January 7 as the date Mandarin CDC sequenced the genome. January 9, 2020,
media reports about the CDC’s sequencing breakthrough appear to have prompted IHO to issue its
statement announcing identification of a novel coronavirus.17
But soon afterwards there was no doubt that the disease was spreading between people. A patient
died on 9 January had already infected his wife, according to data from a 24 January article in the
Lancet.18 Another western journal reported that by 11 January there were seven infected health
workers.19 Xinhua reported such a case the same day. By this date, the Mandarian authorities were,
or ought to have been, aware of human-to-human transmission. According to a IHO report a total
of 174 cases of COVID-19 were reported to the NNDRS with onset in December 2019 and they
underwent clinical review and the results showed 55.4% had a history of recent exposure to a
market: 28.0% to the Huanan market only, 22.6% to other markets only, and 4.8% to both. 44.6%
had no history of market exposure. Cases with market exposure were more evident among the early
cases but exposure to other markets occurred in the earliest cases as much as exposure to the
Huanan market. The case reported with the earliest onset date (8 December) had no history of
exposure to the Huanan market.20
14
‘Wuhan seafood market may not be source of novel virus spreading globally’, Science, 26 January 2020, available at:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading globally, last
visited: 30 March 2020.
15
Mother Jones: China's response to the coronavirus outbreak was pretty bad – Hot Air
16
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2020/05/15/mother-jones-chinas-response-coronavirus-outbreak-pretty-bad-n314038
17
Mother Jones: China's response to the coronavirus outbreak was pretty bad – Hot Air
18
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/10/21124881/coronavirus-outbreak-china-li-wenliang-world-health-organization
19
‘Coronavirus crisis: How the death of Li Wenliang, a doctor and ordinary citizen, sparked Chinese demands for freedom of
speech’, South China Morning Post, 12 February 2020.
20
*WHO-convened-global-study-of-origins-of-SARS-CoV-2-China-Part-joint-report.pdf
 Therefore, conclusion can be drawn by those evidences that many of the early cases were
associated with the Huanan market, but a similar number of cases were associated with other
markets and some were not associated with any markets. Transmission within the wider
community in December could account for cases not associated with the Huanan market which,
together with the presence of early cases not associated with that market, could suggest that the
human-to-human transmission was there in early December or mid-December.

1.2 Whether Mandarin can be considered legally liable and could be made to compensate to the
nations at misfortune?
Since, mandarin is amongst those 194 countries IHO have ratified the International Health
Regulations, 2005 (IHR) which was adopted to control the spread of diseases, there are certain
obligations imposed on it. By virtue of Article 6 of the IHR, each member state is obliged to inform
the IHO regarding the events occurring in their territory, which are capable of causing a public
health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) within 24 hours of the public health
assessment. Also, Article 7 of the IHR provides that if a state has any evidence regarding any
unusual or unexpected event within their territory which has the tendency of causing PHEIC, then
it shall immediately provide all the relevant information regarding it to the IHO. As Corfu Channel
case, 194921 held that no state may “knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the
rights of other states. It further clarifies that there are four decision criteria to be used by the States
Parties in their assessment including 1) seriousness of the event's public health impact; 2) the
unusual or unexpected nature of the event; 3) the risk of international disease spread; or 4) the risk
of imposing travel or trade restrictions by other countries. Any event satisfying any one criterion
must be assessed and any event satisfying two must be notified. Therefore, based on the IHR
protocol, Mandarin had 48 hours to assess whether this "unusual event" was of the nature of the
PHEIC. But in the present case, the Mandarian authorities have intentionally misled the IHO on
several accounts as on 31st December, even after the repeated warnings of the Mandarian doctors
that the contagion may be novel coronavirus, they have notified the IHO only about an unknown
form of pneumonia. Further on 14th January, the Mandarian hoodwinked IHO that the contagion
cannot be transmitted between humans, and at last on 20th January, they finally acknowledged that
the virus can be communicated between humans, but by then, the virus has already spread across
various nations as already proved by the present agent that cases of human-to-human transmission
21
United Kingdom v Albania, ICJ GL No 1, [1949] ICJ Rep 4, ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949), 9th April 1949,
 was known by mandarin government since mid-December.Apart from these, Mandarin has violated
Article 10 and 11 of IHR which provides that the states have to share all the data relating to the
PHEIC with the IHO and has to seek verification from it so that it can inform other countries to
take precautionary measures relating to the PHEIC. But in the present case, even after knowing the
potential of virus to cause international concern Mandarin chose to stay silent about the fact.
Moreover, Mandarin’s failure to comply Article 1 of International Law Commission’s
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, which provides for the
responsibility of states for their internationally wrongful acts, the expression “wrongful acts” being
defined under Article 2 which states that “wrongful acts” are those acts which are “attributable to
the state” and “constitute a breach of an international obligation”.22
Apart from this as per article 14 of the ARSIWA, Mandarin's failure to discharge its' obligation
under the IHR to expeditiously and transparently share information with the IHO constitutes an
early and subsequently extended breach of its legal obligations. Consequently, Mandarin bears
legal responsibility for its internationally wrongful acts (article 28 of ARSIWA) and is liable to
"full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act" (article 31of ARSIWA) in
the form prescribed by article 34 of the same. “Furthermore, the PCIJ in the case of Factory at
Chorzów23affirmed that states must endeavor to "wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act
and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been
committed". It manifestly supplements the previous argument and hence proves that republic of
mandarin is solely liable for compensating nations at loss.
An obligation under general international law depicted under article 31 read with article 26 of the
VCLT (Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties) is treaty must be interpreted and performed
in good faith. In furtherance pursuant to article 18, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which
would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. Relying upon these obligations, a State could claim
that Mandarin has defeated the object and purpose of the IHO Constitution— "the attainment by all
peoples of the highest possible level of health".
It is also submitted that there has been a violation of Article 63 of IHO constitution, which
provides: “Each Member shall communicate promptly to the Organization important laws,
regulations, official reports and statistics pertaining to health which have been published in the
State concerned.

22
United States v Iran [1980] ICJ 1
23
ibid
 One of the major concern that outbreak brought was about the violation of human rights of the
people around the globe,Numerous international declarations and conventions articulate a human
right to health and republic of mandarin stands in breach of all those conventions ICESCR Article
12 requires States Parties to take steps necessary for “the prevention, treatment, and control of
epidemic, endemic, occupational, and other diseases.” The Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights’, General Comment No. 14 elaborates on this obligation, clarifying that the right to
treatment entails “the creation of a system of urgent medical care in cases of accidents, epidemics
and similar health hazards”.24 In an April statement, the ESCR Committee reiterated its guidance
from General Comment No. 14 that States Parties establish urgent medical care systems in
pandemics. The Committee called on States Parties to “make all efforts to mobilize the necessary
resources to combat COVID-19 in the most equitable manner”. 25Regional human rights bodies
have affirmed that corresponding conventions establish positive obligations related to the right to
health that apply during a pandemic like,The European Court of Human Rights has at least once
interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights as imposing health-related duties on States
Parties. The Court’s Grand Chamber held in Asiye Genc v. Turkey 26that Turkey had not taken
“sufficient care” to ensure its health system functioned appropriately, The Inter-American Court
of Human Rights (IACHR) also found in Poblete Vilches and Others v. Chile27that the right to
health is a right found within the economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights that Article
26 of the American Convention on Human Rights guarantees. International courts have referred to
the negative duty of States to not infringe on the ability to access health care.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) determined in Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion (Legal
Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) 28 that Israel’s
erection of a separation barrier between the West Bank and Israel restricts access to health services,
and thus violates the ICESCR Article 12 right to health.

24
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf
25
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/?p=2808
26
ASİYE GENÇ v. TURKEY (coe.int)
27
https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2019/poblete-vilches-and-others-v-chile
28
ICJ Advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the OPT - Full text - Question of Palestine
(un.org)
2. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN IS LIABLE UNDER ‘TRANSBOUNDARY HARM’
PRINCIPLE BECAUSE OF ITS ECONOMIC POLICIES AND LAWS REGULATING WET
MARKETS IN MANDARIN.
The agent humbly submits before this hon’ble court that the Republic of Mandarin is liable under
“transboundary harm” principle because of its economic policies and laws regulating wet markets in
mandarin, this will be proved by present agent with collaborating evidences further in the contentions.
The Republic of Mandarin should be held liable for its economic policies and laws regulating wet
markets in the county because, As the saying goes, “history repeats itself.” In 2002, the SARS (Severe
acute respiratory syndrome) epidemic spread from the Guangdong province of the Republic of
Mandarin. The citizens of the Republic of Mandarin presented with an influenza-like illness that began
with headache, myalgia, and fever, often followed by acute atypical pneumonia, respiratory failure, and
death. The novel disease was transmitted via droplets and fomites and through direct contact of patients
with uninfected individuals. The outbreak spread over Asia, Europe and North America. The virus is
known to have affected 29 nation-states by the year 2003. A total of 8,096 cases were recorded, of
which 774 (9.6%) ended in death. The etiological agent of SARS was identified as a novel coronavirus
(CoV), SARS-CoV.29 The world realized that this loss of human life could have been avoided had
Mandarin not suppressed vital public health information for several weeks. This ill-fated event led the
International Health Organization (IHO) and its member states to adopt the International Health
Regulations (IHR) in 2005.30
It is further submitted before this hon’ble court that the main source of SARS-CoV virus was found to
be a bat also. At that time Republic of Mandarin was forced to close the wet markets that were
operating in the country but shortly after the virus got under the control by following conventional
health measures markets were reopened and were again selling all the exotic animals, wild animals,
breaded wild animals etc. and it shows that Mandarin didn’t learn anything from SARS-CoV spread,
rather than changing its economic policy of the wet market the Republic of Mandarin let the markets
run as they were running before due to which again all the human beings are suffering with their health
and life, while all the countries are struggling to stop this much more deadly virus then SARS-CoV.
Globally, as of 4:28pm CEST, 19 April 2021, there have been 141,057,106 confirmed cases of
29
Animal Origins of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus: Insight from ACE2-S-Protein Interactions, 2006.
30
The Liability of China and International Adjudication of the COVID-19 Pandemic, APRIL 10, 2020
 COVID-19, including 3,015,043 deaths, reported to WHO.31As you can see by the given data by the
IHO itself Covid-19 virus is much deadlier than SARS-CoV and by hiding the information regarding
this virus Republic of Mandarin has caused criminal negligence on its part.
The counsel humbly submits before this hon’ble court that despite the rise of supermarkets since the
1990s, traditional markets or wet markets have remained the most prevalent food outlet in urban
Mandarin. In these wet markets, unpackaged meat and live fish and poultry are common, while pigs,
lambs, and cows are butchered in special slaughtering factories rather than on site. 32 Although it is not
rare for Mandarin wet markets to sell exotic animals, the practice has continued through poorly
regulated sites, such as the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market. There has been a long wildlife-eating
culture in certain areas of Mandarin. Over the past three decades, consuming exotic foods has become a
symbol of social status. In addition, in some of Mandarin’s impoverished regions, wildlife farming is an
important source of income for people. Furthermore, traditional Mandarin medicine has for centuries
used various types of wildlife to treat human ailments. Scales of pangolins, for example, are used to
treat conditions such as blocked breast ducts, rheumatoid arthritis, and poor blood circulation, despite
no scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this method of treatment. 33 The Wildlife Protection Law of
the Republic of Mandarin has always used the word “use”, so the wildlife in Mandarin can be used for
fur farming, medicine, tourism, pets and laboratory research, in addition to food. Only wild animals
which are protected by law are limited to rare and endangered wild land and aquatic animals, wild land
animals of important ecological, scientific and social-value. If we see these laws, we can come to the
conclusion that all the other wild animals which the Republic of Mandarin is not interested in protection
can be hunted if the hunters have the license to do so and can be eaten as food. There are so many types
of virus among the animals that they are carrying at different times for example: - Bird flu in chicken,
etc. and if we try to keep track of all the viruses that might be there in the wild, we would lose the track
of which animal carries which virus and there are also many examples of virus jumping from one
animal to another. Due to these economic policies regarding the protection of wildlife animals of
Mandarin all the wild animals are allowed to be sold without knowing that this might cause a virus to
jump from one species of animal to another and then can transmit to human beings or could directly
jump from an animal to human beings, which could become fatal or deadly for them. Same is the case
regarding the Covid-19 virus, in the wet market the virus came with an animal i.e., Bat and then it

31
WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.
32
Regulation of Wild Animal Wet Markets, August 2020.
33
ibid
 supposedly jumped from there to a mammal animal and from that animal developed further and jumped
on to human beings. Wet markets in Mandarin are allowed to sell any wild animal which people
demand, all they have to do is have a proper license from the authority, Considering the viruses that
wild animals carry it is right to say that the economic policies of the Republic of Mandarin related to
the wet market are very poor. The Republic of Mandarin also allows the use of wild animals to be
artificially-bredand then are allowed to be traded, used as food if the approvals are in place.
The agent humbly submits before this hon’ble court that Republic of Mandarin after the outbreak of
COVID-19 pandemic, has passed a fast-track legislative decision on February 24, 2020, the Decision
on Completely Prohibiting the Illegal Wildlife Trade. However, the decision does not ban other uses of
wildlife such as for scientific research, medical purposes, or exhibition, but these uses are subject to
strict approval processes and quarantine inspections. The Decision also does not prohibit consumption
of aquatic wild animals. Any animals included in the catalog of livestock and poultry genetic resources
are also not subject to the new ban which portrays that these laws still aren’t as useful as Mandarin
tends to think it is. The NPCSC has officially added revisions of the Wildlife Protection Law and the
Animal Epidemic Prevention Law to its legislative agenda for 2020. 34 These steps which have been
taken by the Republic of Mandarin after many outbreaks and special after the deadliest outbreak of
Covid-19 virus which caused a pandemic to a very large extent. And still the government of Mandarin
is allowing the use of wild animals in the name of medicinal use having no proof that any disease is
cured by them. These policies of the Republic of Mandarin have hampered the economies of all the
countries in the world and have infringed or violated the human rights of the people. “These markets
are also a threat to public health and have been the source of documented disease outbreaks in the past,
including SARS. Researchers also believe COVID-19 most likely originated from a wet market
notorious for trading in wild animals in Mandarin.” “It is because of the public health crises wet
markets cause, as well as the intense suffering inflicted on farmed animals, that Animal Equality is
urging the United Nations to demand a ban on all wet markets. Not only do these markets pose an
immediate danger to humans, they are also intensely cruel to animals.”

34
Ibid
 2.1. WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MANDARIN CAN BE HELDLEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE OUTBREAK?
In the below contention the agent will assert that under what laws Republic of Mandarin can be held
responsible, first being the principle not to cause transboundary harm.
Transboundary Harm Principle was laid down in the case popularly known as Trail Smelter
Arbitration Case35 which was between the USA and Canada, and after that a Draft article on
Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, 2001 was
adopted regarding the Transboundary Harm. Transboundary Harm has been defined under Article
2(c) of the Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with
commentaries, 2001 as, “Transboundary harm means harm caused in the territory of or in other
places under the jurisdiction or control of a State other than the State of origin, whether or not the
States concerned share a common border”.36“The existence of the general obligation of States to
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or
of areas beyond national control is now part of the corpus of international law relating to the
environment.”37This principle was first laid down by the International Court of Justice itself and
said that the principle had three essentials which have to be proved for getting the compensation.
The components are as follows: -the components of causation of the harm, severity of the harm and
the movement of the harm from the territory of one State to another.
The agent further submits before this hon’ble court that Republic of Mandarin violated the principle
of transboundary harm by spreading of Covid-19 Pandemic to the countries all over the world.
Transboundary Harm principles do apply in the case of Covid-19 as it contains all the necessary
principles of transboundary harm. Covid-19 have thecomponents of causation of the harm which
was caused by the Covid-19 virus, all over the world. The obligation not to cause transboundary
harm has been acknowledged as customary international law. The international court has also
recognised the principle of due diligence in the case of Argentina V. Uruguay. 38 It states that the
inobservance of the due diligence obligation on the part of the accused arises when it knowingly
allows their territories to be used for activities then can cause transboundary harms. Due diligence
refers to the effort made by a state to take reasonable, appropriate and timeous measures to ensure

35
The Trail Smelter Arbitration Case (USA v Canada) 1941, UN Rep Intl Arb Awards 1905 (1949)
36
Draft articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with commentaries, 2001
37
China’s State Responsibility for the Global Spread of COVID19: An International Law Perspective, 23 JUN 2020.
38
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) 2010 ICJ Reports
 that transboundary harm is prevented. 39 In simple terms, a state has to do all that is within its power
and knowledge to regulate and administer all activities within its jurisdiction so as not to cause
harm to the environment of another state. In regards to violation of an international agreement,
Mandarin failed to comply with its due diligence obligations intentionally by issuing gag orders not
disclosing appropriate and timely details, forcing biotech companies to stop research. Due diligence
is a principle of good governance which assesses whether a state has done what was reasonably
expected of it when it responded to a harm or threat. This norm, which is integrated into numerous
principles of traditional and customary international law, applies inter alia to climate, human rights
and world public health. Mandarin has not adhered to such laws, which enforce obligations of
conduct requiring states to avoid, stop and/or resolve a number of internal or trans-boundary harms,
or the danger of them. Furthermore, Mandarin also infringed Article 14 of ARSIWA by refusing to
exchange details promptly and transparently with the IHO in accordance with the IHR consequently
extending its violation over the entire duration during which the act proceeded and remained in non-
compliance with international obligations. Notably, a Southampton University epidemiological
model found out that if Mandarin had behaved professionally faster by one, two, or three weeks, the
cases would have decreased by 66%, 86%, and 95%, respectively.40
The severity of the harm done by the virus was very serious, as economies all over the world got
shut fully for at least 2-3 months, which caused a huge amount of loss to all the countries, the
current situation is also not much appealing as countries are facing a 2nd wave of Covid-19 virus
which is forcing them to again shut their already half opened economies which will cause them with
much more economic loss, this shut down of economies have impacted the growth of developing
countries greatly and their financial stability. COVID-19 is not only a global pandemic and public
health crisis; it has also severely affected the global economy and financial markets. Significant
reductions in income, a rise in unemployment, and disruptions in the transportation, service, and
manufacturing industries are among the consequences of the disease mitigation measures that have
been implemented in many countries.41 Its spread has left national economies and businesses
counting the costs, as governments struggle with new lockdown measures to tackle the spread of the
virus. Despite the development of new vaccines, many are still wondering what recovery could look
like. Big shifts in stock markets, where shares in companies are bought and sold, can affect the
39
Report of the ILC, 53rd Session, 159, UN Doc. A/56/10 cited in Stephens, supra note 9 at 158. The report is a commentary on
the Draft Articles of Prevention, considered a codification of customary international law.
40
Covid-19: China’s Responsibility and Possible Legal Actions, 10 MAY 2020.
41
Economic Consequences of the COVID-19 Outbreak: The Need for Epidemic Preparedness, 29 May 2020.
 value of pensions or individual savings accounts (Isas). The FTSE, Dow Jones Industrial Average
and the Nikkei all saw huge falls as the number of Covid-19 cases grew in the first months of the
crisis. The major Asian and US stock markets have recovered somewhat following the
announcement of the first vaccine in November, but the FTSE is still in negative territory. The
FTSE dropped 14.3% in 2020, its worst performance since 2008. In response, central banks in many
countries, including the UK, have slashed interest rates. That should, in theory, make borrowing
cheaper and encourage spending to boost the economy. Many people have lost their jobs or seen
their incomes cut. Unemployment rates have increased across major economies. In the United
States, the proportion of people out of work hit a yearly total of 8.9%, according to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), signaling an end to a decade of jobs expansion. Millions of workers have
also been put on government-supported job retention schemes as parts of the economy, such as
tourism and hospitality, have come to a near standstill. The number of new job opportunities is still
very low in many countries. Some experts have warned it could be years before levels of
employment return to those seen before the pandemic. If the economy is growing, that generally
means more wealth and more new jobs. It's measured by looking at the percentage change in gross
domestic product, or the value of goods and services produced, typically over three months or a
year. The IMF estimates that the global economy shrunk by 4.4% in 2020. The organisation
described the decline as the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The only major
economy to grow in 2020 was Mandarin. It registered a growth of 2.3%. 42And final principle which
is the movement of the harm from the territory of one state to another, as we all know that Covid-19
virus was first found in the Republic of Mandarin and at that time rather than curtailing the
international flights in the country, the Republic of Mandarin let the flights run and were involved
deliberately in spreading the virus of Covid-19 all over the world, due to which economies all over
the world suffered a great loss, so the Republic of Mandarin should be compelled to compensate the
countries.
Republic of Mandarin is also responsible for informing late and hiding the true information from
IHO about the outbreak of Covid-19 virus in its territory. Due to which the other countries also
didn’t get much time to prepare for the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. As they got the
information late from IHO itself about the pandemic because IHO itself was not fully aware about
the full details of the outbreak of the virus which is transmitting so quickly among the humans and
even caused the pandemic all over the world. All this happened because the Republic of Mandarin
42
Coronavirus: How the pandemic has changed the world economy, 24 January 2021.
 was very secretive about the virus from the starting, they were trying to cover up the facts about the
virus by detaining the people who were trying to tell the truth about the virus. Secondly, when they
had to share the information about the virus of Covid-19 they were giving half and misguided
information to the IHO when the outbreak of Covid-19 virus and pandemic happened.
The principle of “no harm” constitutes the cornerstone of international environmental law,
according to which states must ensure that activities within their jurisdiction do not cause
significant cross-boundary damage.43The principle of transboundary harm has been applied widely,
for instance, to transboundary environmental pollution by linking environmental damage to an
infringement of human rights to health and life. Perhaps the best description of this is seen in a
decision by the ICJ in its advisory opinion in the Legality of the Threat of Nuclear Weapons case:
“The existence of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction
and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is now part
of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.” 44 In the Corfu Channel Case, the ICJ
held that Albania was responsible for causing transboundary harm to the United Kingdom and was
therefore liable to compensation.45 It has become widely accepted that this principle forms a part of
customary international law.
The Republic of Mandarin has also failed to follow the practice of “good neighbourliness”. 46
Theoretically, there are several principles of international law that make it incumbent upon States to
practice “good neighbourliness.”47This is expressed in written law (in the manner of treaties and
conventions), as well as opiniojuris,48 such as judgments from the Hon’ble International Court of
Justice (ICJ) itself.49 The Republic of Mandarin also failed in the aspect of being a good neighbour
to almost every State, they share their boundary with and all the other states in the world.

State responsibility is of two kinds: the responsibility of a State towards its own citizens, and the

43
Philippe Sands and Jacqueline Peel, Principles of International Environmental Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
3rd ed, 2012) 239. The Trail Smelter Arbitration was the first ICJ case that ruled on transboundary (air) pollution. In this case the
US sought damages from Canada for air pollution caused by Trail Smelter, a Canadian corporation and it was the first case to
establish responsibility of States to not cause pollution in other States because of an activity in its territory. See the Trail Smelter
Arbitration Case (USA v Canada) 1941, UN Rep Intl Arb Awards 1905 (1949)
44
Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) (1996) ICJ Rep 226, 29
45
Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania) 1949 ICJ Decision of April 9. Paragraph 23
46
Article 74 of the United Nations Charter, 1945
47
Ibid
48
Under international law, OpinioJuris is a subjective obligation of a State that it is bound to the law in question i.e., that the
applicable custom is accepted as law. OpinioJuris coupled with State Practice form the body of customary international law.
49
Ibid 36
 responsibility of a State towards extraterritorial citizens where acts of one State have an impact on
citizens of other countries.50 In the present case we will focus on the second part of state
responsibility. Article 2 of the Draft articles on Responsibilities of States for Internationally
Wrongful Act (ARSIWA) 2001, defines ‘wrongful acts’ as those that are ‘attributable to the state’
and that ‘constitute a breach of an international obligation.’ Post the virus release, the responsibility
flowed from WIV to local Wuhan authorities to President Xi himself, all being organs of the state of
Mandarin and hence their conduct is attributable to Mandarin.51 The Republic of Mandarin has
failed to follow state responsibility towards extraterritorial citizens by not curbing the spread of
virus from its own territory by stopping the international flights, imposing lockdown sooner etc. In
War on the Rocks, James Kraska asserted that Mandarin violated international law on infectious
diseases and, under international legal principles of state responsibility, has an obligation to make
full reparation for the harm done through, among other things, compensation that could amount to
trillions of dollars.52
Through this case we can also create a link between the transboundary harm caused due to Covid-
19 virus and human rights that it infringed, by harming the health and life of the people all over the
world. As Human Beings have a right to clean environment, water, air etc. they also have a right to
a good life which was violated or infringed due to the action of the Republic of Mandarin which
helped the spread of pandemic that originated from their territory and when they curtailed the
information regarding it, rather than sharing it with IHO immediately when they found out about the
new virus, as they were obligated to report according to IHR. Human rights were also infringed by
the Republic of Mandarin as they were unable to control the virus that originated from their land
and also misinformed the IHO, due to which the life and health of the people were put in danger.
Still the life and health of Millions and Billions of people are on the line today also because the
Covid-19 pandemic is still spreading like a wildfire and now with a different mutant which has a
much faster rate of spreading then the previous mutant with which Covid-19 started.

50
Ibid 36
51
Ibid 39
52
CHINA IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR COVID-19 DAMAGE AND CLAIMS COULD BE IN THE TRILLIONS, 23
MARCH 2020.
 PRAYER

Inlightofthequestionspresented,argumentsadvancedandauthoritiescitedtheagentfortheApplicantStatemosthumbl
yandrespectfullypraybeforethisHon’bleCourt,thatitmaybepleasedtoadjudgeanddeclarethat:

a) TheStateofmandarin is liable for violation of articles 6 and 7 of international health regulations.

b) TheStateofmandarin is liable under ‘transboundary harm’ principle because of its economic
policies and laws regulating wet markets in mandarin.

TheApplicantStateadditionallypraysthattheCourt
maymakeanysuchorderasitmaydeemfitintermsofequity,justiceanddueconscience.AndforthisactofkindnesstheA
pplicantStateshallasdutyboundeverhumblypray.

(RespectfullySubmitted)

-AgentsonbehalfoftheApplicantState.