SIM 04A

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS

2020 GENERAL LIST NO. 299

QUESTIONS RELATING TO PROTECTION OF BATS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE MEASURES

FEDERAL STATES OF ALDUCRA

(APPLICANT)

V.

REPUBLIC OF RUNBETI

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

2020-21
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................iv

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.....................................................................................................xi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................xii

STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................xiii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................xv

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1

I. Runbeti violated international law through its wind farm project.................................1

A. Runbeti violated its obligations under EUROBATS.................................................1

1) Runbeti violated the fundamental obligations under Article III............................1

2) Runbeti violated the national implementation obligation under Article IV...........5

B. Runbeti violated its obligations under the CBD........................................................7

1) CBD obligations are binding..................................................................................7

2) Runbeti violated the duty to conserve biodiversity................................................8

C. Runbeti violated its obligations under the CMS......................................................10

D. Runbeti violated CIL................................................................................................11

1) Runbeti violated the duty to prevent transboundary harm...................................12

a. Transboundary harm occurred........................................................................12

b. In any event, Runbeti violated the duty to act with due diligence.................14

2) Runbeti violated the precautionary principle.......................................................15

3) Runbeti violated the principle of sustainable development.................................16

E. Runbeti’s actions are not justified under the UNFCCC and the PA........................17

ii
 II. Alducra did not violate international law through its trade measures for tapagium

products................................................................................................................................17

A. Alducra’s measures are consistent with ARTA provisions......................................18

1) Article VIII of ARTA is not applicable since Alducra and Runbeti’s products are not

‘like’.............................................................................................................................19

2) Alternatively, Alducra’s measures complied with Article VIII...........................20

3) Alducra’s measures complied with Article IX of ARTA.....................................22

B. Alducra’s measures are justified under Article X of ARTA....................................23

1) Alducra’s measures fall within the exceptions under Article X..........................23

a. Alducra’s measures are justified under Articles X(a) and X(b).....................23

i. Alducra’s measures are designed to protect public morals and the life and

health of plants, animals and humans..................................................................23

ii. Alducra’s trade restriction is necessary......................................................25

b. Alducra’s measures are justified under Article X(g)......................................27

2) Alducra’s measures comply with the chapeau of Article X.................................28

C. Alducra’s measures are justified under its ratified MEAs.......................................29

D. Alducra’s trade measures constitute a valid countermeasure..................................30

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................32

iii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books and Treatises

ANTONIO CASSESSE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 306 (2005)................................................................31

BOWMAN ET AL., LYSTER’S INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 37 (2010).......................................7

Edward B. Arnett et al., Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: A Global Perspective, in

BATS IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: CONSERVATION OF BATS IN A CHANGING WORLD 295, 315

(2016)...........................................................................................................................................6

LYLE GLOWKA, A GUIDE TO THE CBD, INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF

NATURE 59 (1994).......................................................................................................................8

MITSUO MATSUSHITA ET AL., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE AND POLICY

196 (2015)..................................................................................................................................21

PATRICIA BIRNIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW & THE ENVIRONMENT 170 (2009)...............................14

PETER VAN DEN BOSSCHE, WERNER ZDOUC, THE LAW AND POLICY OF THE WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION 575 (2013)........................................................................................................19

Thomas H. Kunz, Roosting Ecology of Bats, in ECOLOGY OF BATS 1, 1 (1982)............................3

XUE HANQUIN, TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 4-10 (2003).....................12

U.N. Documents and Other International Documents

Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with

commentaries, Rep. of the Int'l Law Comm'n, on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, U.N.

Doc. A/CN.4SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), at 152 12, 14

G.A. Res. 37/7 (XXXVII), ¶11, U.N. Doc. A/RES/37/7 (Oct. 28, 1982). 15

iv
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153

(1994). 18

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n on the

Work of its Fifty-Third Session, U.N. Doc. A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4 (2001), art. 50 30

U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol.I), annex I, at Principle 2 (Aug. 12,

1992) 12, 15, 16

UNEP Draft Principles of Conduct on Shared Natural Resources, UNEP/1G.12/2, Annex to

UNEP/GC.6/17. 13

Miscellaneous

Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines, CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, at Practical

principle 3, https://www.cbd.int/sustainable/addis.shtml..........................................................16

Bat Conservation Trust, Bats as Indicators of Biodiversity, BATS (Sept. 5, 2020, 10:30 PM),

https://www.bats.org.uk/about-bats/why-bats-matter/bats-as-indicators-of-biodiversity/uk-

biodiversity-indicator-species......................................................................................................9

BOYAN PETROV ET AL. , EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF

ALL BAT SPECIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 2018 – 2024, at 15 (2018)....................................6

Decision IV/15, CBD COP 4th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/4/15 (May 4-15, 2018).................29

Decision X/1, CBD COP 10th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1 (Oct. 29, 2010)........................29

Decision X/33, CBD COP 10th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33 (Oct. 29, 2010)....................8

EUROBATS National Implementation Report, Doc. Inf.EUROBATS.MoP8.34, Netherlands

(2018)...........................................................................................................................................6

v
EUROBATS National Implementation Report, Doc. Inf.EUROBATS.MoP8.35, Norway (2018).

.....................................................................................................................................................6

FIONA MATHEWS ET AL., RENEWABLE UK, REPORT FOR UK DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND

CLIMATE CHANGE (DECC), UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES

(BATS) AT ONSHORE WIND TURBINE SITES TO INFORM RISK MANAGEMENT 18 (2016)...........6

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, INVESTIGATING THE ROLE

OF BATS IN EMERGING ZOONOSES: BALANCING ECOLOGY, CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC

HEALTH INTERESTS (2011)...........................................................................................................8

HUBERT LAGRANGE ET AL., MITIGATING BAT FATALITIES FROM WIND POWER PLANTS THROUGH

TARGETED CURTAILMENT: RESULTS FROM 4 YEARS OF TESTING OF CHIROTECH (2013)......2

IUCN, GUIDELINES FOR USING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA (2019),

http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (last accessed Oct. 23, 2020).. 13

IUCN, MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY, FACT SHEET: BAT-FRIENDLY TEQUILA,

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/bat-friendly_tequila_factsheet.pdf (last accessed Oct. 28,

2020)..........................................................................................................................................25

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocol on

Biosafety, U.N. AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 (2009)..............................7

NATIONAL WIND COORDINATING COLLABORATIVE, WIND TURBINE INTERACTIONS WITH BIRDS,

BATS, AND THEIR HABITATS: A SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS AND PRIORITY QUESTIONS

6 (2010)........................................................................................................................................3

Natural England and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affair, Bats: protection and

licences, GOV. UK (Aug. 30, 2020, 6:00 PM), https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-protection-

surveys-and-licences....................................................................................................................3

vi
Press Release, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD14 sees 90

countries sign up to UN roadmap for elimination of harmful fishing subsidies,

UNCTAD/PRESS/U14/PR/2016/010 (July 20, 2016)..............................................................16

R. Medellín, Leptonycteris yerbabuenae, THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES, 5

(2016), https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/136659/21988965#habitat-ecology (last accessed

Oct. 28, 2020)............................................................................................................................24

SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE. ADVICE ON THE INTEGRATION OF

BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS KYOTO PROTOCOL 154 (2003)......7

Stricter Domestic Measures, CITES SC54 Doc. 37 (Rev. 1) (2006)............................................30

UNEP EUROBATS SECRETARIAT, GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION OF BATS IN WIND FARM

PROJECTS REVISION 2014 (2014).......................................................................................3, 4, 16

UNEP/EUROBATS SECRETARIAT, A GUIDE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON

THE CONSERVATION OF POPULATIONS OF EUROPEAN BATS (EUROBATS), VERSION 2, 3

(2019)...........................................................................................................................................3

United Nations Environment Program, 22nd Meeting of the EUROBATS Advisory Committee,

Report of the Intersessional Work Group on Wind Turbines and Bat Populations, Doc.

EUROBATS.AC22.10.Rev.1 (Mar. 29, 2017)............................................................2, 3, 10, 14

United Nations Environment Program, CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and

Technological Advice, Mainstreaming of Biodiversity into Energy and Mining Sectors, Doc.

CBD/SBSTTA/21/INF/9 (May 26, 2018)...................................................................................8

vii
United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 11.16, (Nov. 4-9, 2019).

...................................................................................................................................................30

United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 11.27, (Nov. 4-9, 2014).

...................................................................................................................................................10

United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 7.5, (May 18, 2018).. 10

United Nations Environment Program, EUROBATS Meeting of Parties, Res. 7.8, (Sept. 15-17,

2014.............................................................................................................................................5

United Nations Environment Program, EUROBATS Meeting of Parties, Res. 8.4, (Oct. 8-10,

2018)........................................................................................................................................2, 5

Wind farm shuts down turbines to protect birds and bats (Oct. 17, 2020, 2:00 PM), DUTCH

NEWS, https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/02/wind-farm-shuts-down-turbines-to-protect-

birds-and-bats/...........................................................................................................................10

Articles

Akehurst, The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law, 47 BRITISH Y.B. INT’L L. 273, 275

(1976).........................................................................................................................................17

Arie Trouwborst, Transboundary Wildlife Conservation in a Changing Climate: Adaptation of

the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and Its Daughter Instruments to Climate Change,

4(3) DIVERSITY 258, 266 (2012)................................................................................................10

Charlotte Roemer et al., Bat flight height monitored from wind masts predicts mortality risk at

wind farms, 215 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 116, 120 (2017).................................................4

Chris B. Thaxter et al., Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind

farms revealed through a trait-based assessment, 284 (1862) PROC. ROYAL SOC’Y B 9 (2017).

.....................................................................................................................................................4

viii
Edward B. Arnett et al., Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, 07-2

WILDLIFE SOCIETY TECHNICAL REV., Sept. 2007, at 7, 11.......................................................14

Elliott B. Stafin, Trade Barrier or Trade Boon: A Critical Evaluation of Environmental

Labelling, 21 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 225 (1996)........................................................................25

Herbert Inhaber, Why wind power does not deliver the expected emission reductions, 15

RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REV. 2257, 2557–2562 (2011)................................17

Jens Rydell et al., Bat mortality at wind turbines in northwestern Europe, 12(2) ACTA

CHIROPTEROLOGICA 261, 265 (2010)........................................................................................15

Jens Rydell et al., Phenology of migratory bat activity across the Baltic Sea and the south-

eastern North Sea, 16 ACTA CHIROPTEROLOGICA 139, 140 (2014)............................................9

Joost Pauwelyn, The nature of WTO obligations 11 (N.Y.U. Law Sch. Jean Monnet Ctr. for Int’l

& Reg’l Econ. & Law Justice, Working Paper 1/02, 2012)......................................................30

K Shawn Smallwood et al., Effects of Wind Turbine Curtailment on Bird and Bat Fatalities , 84

J. OF WILDLIFE MGMT. 685, 685 (2020)...................................................................................10

Manuel Roeleke et al., Habitat use of bats in relation to wind turbines revealed by GPS tracking,

6 SCI. REP., Jul. 4, 2016, at 1, 6...................................................................................................4

Riccardo Pavoni, Mutual Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A

Watershed for the WTO-and-Competing Regimes Debate?, 21 EUR. J.INT’L L. 649, 655

(2010).........................................................................................................................................29

Robert M.R. Barclay et al., Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities:

Assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height, 85 CANADIAN J. ZOOLOGY 381, 387, 384

(2007)...........................................................................................................................................4

ix
Roberto-Emiliano et al., Save Our Bats, Save Our Tequila: Industry and Science Join Forces to

Help Bats and Agaves, 36 NATURAL AREAS J. 523 (2016).......................................................24

Simon P. Gaultier et al., Bats and Wind Farms: The Role and Importance of the Baltic Sea

Countries in the European Context of Power Transition and Biodiversity Conservation, 54(17)

ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 10385, 10390 (2012)................................................................................9

Treaties and Conventions

Agreement on the Conservation of Populations of European Bats, Dec. 4, 1991, 1863 U.N.T.S.

101...............................................................................................................................................1

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

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna art. XIV(1)

(b), Mar. 3, 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 243..........................................................................................29

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, June 6, 1979, 1651

U.N.T.S. 333....................................................................................................................1, 11, 29

Paris COP Decision & Paris Agreement, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/REV.1 (Dec. 12, 2015)

...............................................................................................................................................1, 17

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107. .1,

17

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 26, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.................7

Judicial Decisions

Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (U.S. v. Fr.), 18 R.I.A.A. 417, ¶444.........................31

Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Measures Affecting the Imports of Retreaded Tyres, ¶139,

WT/DS332/AB/R (Dec. 3, 2007)........................................................................................23, 26

x
Appellate Body Report, Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, 18, WTO Doc.

WT/DS31/AB/R (Jul. 30, 1997)................................................................................................18

Appellate Body Report, Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, 475-6, WTO Doc.

WT/DS31/AB/R (Jul. 30, 1997)................................................................................................21

Appellate Body Report, Colombia-Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel

and Footwear, ¶¶5.68, 5.89, 5.126, WTO Doc. WT/DS461/AB/R (Jun. 22, 2016).................24

Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-

Containing Products, ¶¶113, 117, 122, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R (Apr. 5, 2001).19, 24, 27

Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Prohibiting the Importation and

Marketing of Seal Products, ¶5.169, WT/DS400/AB/R (May 22, 2014)......................23, 25, 28

Appellate Body Report, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, 20–2, 25, WTO Doc.

WT/DS8,10,11/AB/R (Nov. 1, 1996)........................................................................................19

Appellate Body Report, Korea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef,

¶135, WTO Doc. WT/DS161,169/AB/R (Jan. 10, 2001)..............................................21, 23, 26

Appellate Body Report, Thailand-Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the

Philippines, ¶130, WTO Doc. WT/DS371/AB/R (Jul. 15, 2011).............................................21

Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp

Products, ¶72, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, (Oct. 12, 1998).......................................13, 27, 28

Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling

and Betting Services, ¶291, WTO Doc. WT/DS285/AB/R (Apr. 20, 2005).................18, 23, 27

Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and

Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products-Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico, ¶7.281,

WTO Doc. WT/DS381/AB/RW (Dec. 3, 2015)........................................................................18

xi
Appellate Body Report, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline,

20-21, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R, (May 20, 1996).................................................................27

Appellate Body Reports, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods, ¶¶5.216-219,

WTO Doc. WT/DS438,444,445/AB/R (Jan. 26, 2015).............................................................22

Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.) and

Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica),

Judgment, 2015 I.C.J. Rep.665 (Dec. 16)..................................................................................14

Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta), Judgment, 1985 I.C.J. Rep. 13 (June 3)................................16

Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. Rep. 7 (Sept. 25) 16, 30,

31

Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. Rep. 226 (July

8)................................................................................................................................................12

Panel Report, Dominican Republic-Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of

Cigarettes, ¶¶7.297, 7.301, WTO Doc. WT/DS302/R (May 19, 2005)..............................21, 22

Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of

Seal Products, ¶¶7.409-7.411, WTO Doc. WT/DS400/R (Nov. 25, 2013)..............................24

Panel Report, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, ¶6.24, WTO Doc. WT/DS8,10,11/R (Nov.

1, 1996)......................................................................................................................................20

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. Rep. 1, (Apr. 20)..........14

R v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1944] 49 DLR 161, 173-74 (Can.)....................................15

Report of the Panel, United States-Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances, ¶¶2.5,

5.2.8, L/6175 (Jun. 17, 1987) GATT BISD (34th Supp.), at 136 (1988)..................................20

Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Canada), 3 R.I.A.A 1907, 1965 (1938/41)..............................12

xii
United Kingdom v. Commission, [1998] ECR I-2265, ¶99 (U.K.)...............................................15

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 2014 ICJ GL

No. 148 (Mar. 31) ¶46.............................................................................................................3, 8

xiii
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Whether Runbeti violated international law with respect to its wind farm project?

II

Whether Alducra violated international law with respect to its trade measures for tapagium

products?

xiv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to the Joint Notification and the Record concluded on 24 July, 2020, including the

Clarifications agreed to therein, between the Federal States of Alducra [“Alducra”] and the

Republic of Runbeti [“Runbeti”], and in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the

International Court of Justice [“ICJ”], the Parties hereby submit to this Court, their dispute

regarding the differences between the States concerning the Questions Relating to the Protection

of Bats and International Trade Measures.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Special Agreement, notified to the Court on 24 July, 2020,

the International Court of Justice is hereby requested to adjudge the dispute in accordance with

the rules and principles of international law, including any applicable treaties.

The parties have agreed to respect the decision of this Court.

xv
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

Alducra and Runbeti are neighboring countries located on Architerpo continent. (R.¶1) Both

countries are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity [“CBD”], Convention on the

Conservation on Migratory Species of Wild Animals [“CMS”], Agreement on the Conservation

of Populations of European Bats [“EUROBATS”], United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change [“UNFCCC”] and the Paris Agreement [“PA”]. (R.¶4-R.¶8) In 2000, Alducra,

Runbeti, and the other countries on Architerpo entered into a trade agreement, entitled

Architerpo Regional Trade Agreement [“ARTA”], to inter alia strengthen trade relations and

promote sustainable development. (R.¶12)

Royal Noctules and Architerpan long-nosed bats are endemic to Architerpo and are listed in

IUCN Red List as vulnerable and in CMS Appendix II and EUROBATS Annex I. These bats are

ecologically significant, indicator species, and are protected under Alducra’s national laws.

(R.¶14)

Runbeti’s Wind Farm Project

Runbeti subsidized and approved the first phase of Pinwheel Energy Co.’s 300MW Wind farm

project [“Project”] in a location, which was known Royal Noctule migration route, roosting

area, feeding and commuting area, after only conducting a national Environmental Impact

Assessment [“EIA”]. (R.¶17-19) Runbeti declined to adopt any mitigation measures the wind

farm but they allowed monitoring of the area by Chiroptera Crusaders who discovered 237 dead

Royal Noctules near the wind turbines in 2017 and 356 in 2018. (R.¶20&21) On 10 January

2019, the monitoring was disallowed by Runbeti. (R.¶24)

Alducra’s trade measures

xvi
Architerpan long-nosed bats fed and pollinated agaves for decades. Farmers in both countries

produced and exported tapagium, from agaves, in an unsustainable manner to meet the growing

demand. In 2015, Alducra transitioned to bat-safe farming practices by mandating domestic

farmers to allow 5% agave crops to flower. (R.¶15) Since Runbeti refused to cooperate, in 2019,

Alducra passed a statute [“measures”], imposing 20% tax on all sales of tapagium produced

contrarily to its 2015 Statute, and eco-labels indicating “bat safe” and “not bat safe”, on imported

and domestic products, to protect bats, environment and farmers. (R.¶25- R.¶26)

Diplomatic Exchanges

 Alducra accused Runbeti’s Project of violating international law and requested Runbeti to

shut it down until appropriate mitigation measures are employed. Runbeti denied

Alducra’s request and decided to proceed with the next phase. (R.¶23)

 Runbeti accused Alducra’s measures as international trade restrictions violating ARTA,

and requested Alducra to repeal them. Aldcura denied the accusations and request.

(R.¶27- R.¶28)

Dispute

After failed negotiations, Alducra and Runbeti submitted the disputes to the ICJ. (R.¶29)

xvii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Runbeti’s act of establishing the wind farm violated the EUROBATS, CBD, CMS and

customary international law [“CIL”]. Runbeti failed to perform its obligations by locating it in

an area crucial for Royal Noctules and not undertaking mitigation measures for their protection

which eventually lead to a substantial number of Royal Noctules’ deaths. Additionally, Runbeti’s

actions resulted in transboundary harm and it failed to discharge its due diligence obligation of

monitoring the project. Moreover, it violated the precautionary principle by refusing to undertake

preventive measures despite the threat of harm. Finally, Runbeti’s actions are not justified under

the UNFCCC and the PA.

II

Alducra’s measures conform to the provisions of ARTA since they apply indiscriminately to

imported and domestic tapagium products and do not constitute a quantitative trade restriction on

the imports. Alternatively, Alducra's measures are justified under Article X since they relate to

the protection of public morals, protection of life and health of bats, and conservation of

exhaustible natural resources. Moreover, they comply with its chapeau. Further, the measures are

justified under Alducra’s obligations pursuant to its ratified Multilateral Environmental

Agreements. Additionally, the measures constitute a valid countermeasure as they comply with

the requirements under international law. Therefore, Alducra’s trade measures did not violate

international law.

xviii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. RUNBETI VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH ITS WIND

FARM PROJECT.

By approving and subsidising Pinwheel Energy Co.’s wind farm project [“Project”], Runbeti

violated EUROBATS1 [A]; CBD2 [B]; CMS3 [C]; and CIL [D]. Additionally, its actions are not

justified under the UNFCCC4 and the PA5 [E].

A. RUNBETI VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER EUROBATS.

Runbeti failed to perform the fundamental obligations under Article III [1]; and the national

implementation obligation under Article IV [2].

1) Runbeti violated the fundamental obligations under Article III.

Under Article III(2), states must identify areas important for bat conservation and protect them

from any harm. Additionally, EUROBATS Resolution 8.4 provides that under this duty, states

must not develop wind farms within conservation zones. 6 Even if such projects are developed,
1
Agreement on the Conservation of Populations of European Bats, Dec. 4, 1991, 1863 U.N.T.S.

101 [“EUROBATS”].
2
Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S.79 [“CBD”].
3
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, June 6, 1979, 1651

U.N.T.S. 333 [“CMS”].

4
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 107

[“UNFCCC”].
5
Paris COP Decision & Paris Agreement, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/REV.1 (Dec. 12, 2015)

[“PA”].
6
United Nations Environment Program, EUROBATS Meeting of Parties, Res. 8.4, (Oct. 8-10,

2018) [“Resolution 8.4”].

1
states must conduct post-construction assessment, monitor bat mortality for at least 3 years, 7 and

undertake appropriate mitigation measures.8 Accordingly, states have adopted measures such as

automated turbine switch-off systems in France; 9 blade feathering and increased cut-in speed in

Croatia, France, Serbia and Switzerland; and a combination of increased cut-in speed and

deterrents in Lithuania, Slovakia and Spain.10 Such measures reduce the fatalities by 50-87%.11

Pertinently, EUROBATS Resolutions are binding12 as they assist in treaty interpretation.13

7
United Nations Environment Program, 22nd Meeting of the EUROBATS Advisory Committee,

Report of the Intersessional Work Group on Wind Turbines and Bat Populations, Doc.

EUROBATS.AC22.10.Rev.1 (Mar. 29, 2017) [“IWG Report”].

8
Resolution 8.4, supra n.6.
9
HUBERT LAGRANGE ET AL., MITIGATING BAT FATALITIES FROM WIND POWER PLANTS

THROUGH TARGETED CURTAILMENT: RESULTS FROM 4 YEARS OF TESTING OF CHIROTECH

(2013).
10
IWG Report, supra n.7.
11
NATIONAL WIND COORDINATING COLLABORATIVE, WIND TURBINE INTERACTIONS WITH

BIRDS, BATS, AND THEIR HABITATS: A SUMMARY OF RESEARCH RESULTS AND PRIORITY

QUESTIONS 6 (2010).
12
UNEP/EUROBATS SECRETARIAT, A GUIDE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT ON

THE CONSERVATION OF POPULATIONS OF EUROPEAN BATS (EUROBATS), VERSION 2, 3 (2019).

13
Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 2014 ICJ

GL No. 148 (Mar. 31) ¶46 [“WHALING”].

2
EUROBATS recognises damage to habitat as a major threat to bats. 14 Roosts are primary habitat

for bats where they hibernate, copulate and breed 15 and therefore, damaging them is illegal in

UK.16 Furthermore, bat activity is greatest in migration routes, and feeding areas, making them

particularly sensitive.17 Pertinently, wind turbines constrain commuting routes, disconnect

feeding and roosting sites,18 and cause direct harm through collision and barotrauma.19 Turbines

higher than 65 metres20 and larger than 1.25 MW cause highest fatalities.21

14
EUROBATS, supra n.1, Preamble.
15
Thomas H. Kunz, Roosting Ecology of Bats, in ECOLOGY OF BATS 1, 1 (1982).
16
Natural England and Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affair, Bats: protection and

licences, GOV. UK (Aug. 30, 2020, 6:00 PM), https://www.gov.uk/guidance/bats-protection-

surveys-and-licences.
17
UNEP EUROBATS SECRETARIAT, GUIDELINES FOR CONSIDERATION OF BATS IN WIND FARM

PROJECTS REVISION 2014 (2014) [“GUIDELINES”].

18
Manuel Roeleke et al., Habitat use of bats in relation to wind turbines revealed by GPS

tracking, 6 SCI. REP., Jul. 4, 2016, at 1, 6.

19
GUIDELINES, supra n.17, at 11.
20
Robert M.R. Barclay et al., Variation in bat and bird fatalities at wind energy facilities:

Assessing the effects of rotor size and tower height, 85 CANADIAN J. ZOOLOGY 381, 387, 384

(2007).
21
Chris B. Thaxter et al., Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind

farms revealed through a trait-based assessment, 284 (1862) PROC. ROYAL SOC’Y B 9 (2017).
3
Common Noctules, specifically, face high risk of collision from turbines. 22 Royal Noctules are

physically, behaviourally and genetically similar to Common Noctules, 23 and therefore, may face

similar impact. Despite concerns raised by the Chiroptera Crusaders, 24 Runbeti approved the

Project within the migration, commuting, feeding and roosting areas of Royal Noctules. 25

Additionally, the Project used turbines as tall as 115 metres and as large as 2 MW 26 without any

mitigation measures.27 Runbeti also failed to conduct post-construction assessment, 28 and even

disallowed third-party monitoring after January 2019.29 Finally, the Project directly caused 237

Royal Noctule deaths in 2017 and 356 deaths in 2018.30

Therefore, Runbeti violated its fundamental obligations under Article III.

2) Runbeti violated the national implementation obligation under Article IV.

Under Article IV, states must enact legislative and administrative measures for conservation of

bats. Moreover, EUROBATS Resolutions 8.4 and 7.8 mandate development of national

22
Charlotte Roemer et al., Bat flight height monitored from wind masts predicts mortality risk at

wind farms, 215 BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 116, 120 (2017).

23
Clarifications, A11.
24
Record, ¶18.
25
Record, ¶19.
26
Record, ¶17.
27
See generally, Record.
28
Record, ¶21.
29
Record, ¶24.
30
Record, ¶21.
4
guidelines for protection of bats from turbines 31 and their feeding and commuting areas, 32

respectively.

Accordingly, in the EU, destruction of roosts is prohibited33 and undertaking mitigation measures

is mandatory.34 In Great Britain, harming bats is an offence. 35 Furthermore, legislations govern

bat protection in Norway,36 and Netherlands37 where a permit is required for construction of wind

farms in bat sensitive areas.38

31
Resolution 8.4, supra n.6.
32
United Nations Environment Program, EUROBATS Meeting of Parties, Res. 7.8, (Sept. 15-17,

2014.
33
BOYAN PETROV ET AL. , EUROPEAN COMMISSION, ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF

ALL BAT SPECIES IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 2018 – 2024, at 15 (2018).

34
Id. at 57.
35
FIONA MATHEWS ET AL., RENEWABLE UK, REPORT FOR UK DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND

CLIMATE CHANGE (DECC), UNDERSTANDING THE RISK OF EUROPEAN PROTECTED SPECIES

(BATS) AT ONSHORE WIND TURBINE SITES TO INFORM RISK MANAGEMENT 18 (2016).

36
EUROBATS National Implementation Report, Doc. Inf.EUROBATS.MoP8.35, Norway

(2018).
37
EUROBATS National Implementation Report, Doc. Inf.EUROBATS.MoP8.34, Netherlands

(2018).
38
Edward B. Arnett et al., Impacts of Wind Energy Development on Bats: A Global Perspective,

in BATS IN THE ANTHROPOCENE: CONSERVATION OF BATS IN A CHANGING WORLD 295, 315

(2016).
5
Unlike Alducra39, Runbeti failed to enact legislations or guidelines for bat conservation, 40 as

evidenced by its rejection of laws mandating bat-safe agave farming. 41 Therefore, Runbeti

violated its national implementation obligations under Article IV.

B. RUNBETI VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CBD.

Runbeti violated the CBD since CBD obligations are binding [1]; and Runbeti violated the duty

to conserve biodiversity [2].

1) CBD obligations are binding.

CBD obligations are binding42 as evidenced by use of words such as “shall”43 and must be

performed in good faith.44 Moreover, where wind energy production poses serious threat to

39
Record, ¶15.
40
See generally, Record.
41
Record, ¶25.
42
Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocol on

Biosafety, U.N. AUDIOVISUAL LIBRARY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1 (2009).

43
BOWMAN ET AL., LYSTER’S INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAW 37 (2010).
44
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 26, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331

[“VCLT”].
6
biodiversity,45 CBD has overriding effect over other treaties, 46 including the UNFCCC.47 Since

Royal Noctules are vulnerable species48 and their fatalities due to the Project threaten grave

biodiversity harm,49 CBD obligations will have overriding effect over all others.

2) Runbeti violated the duty to conserve biodiversity.

Article 8(c) obligates management of biological resources important for biodiversity by

protecting them from harm.50 Additionally, under Article 7, states must identify and monitor

components of biodiversity and projects which are likely to adversely impact biodiversity such

as wind farm projects.51 Furthermore, the CBD Conference of Parties [“COP”], whose decisions

can interpret CBD obligations,52 mandates protecting biodiversity sensitive areas while

implementing renewable energy projects.53

45
SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE. ADVICE ON THE INTEGRATION OF BIODIVERSITY

CONSIDERATIONS INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK

CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS KYOTO PROTOCOL 154 (2003) [“CBD Technical

Series No. 10”].

46
CBD, supra n.2, art. 22.
47
CBD Technical Series No. 10, supra n.45.
48
Record, ¶14.
49
See, Argument I(A)(1).
50
LYLE GLOWKA, A GUIDE TO THE CBD, INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF

NATURE 59 (1994).
51
Id. at 36.
52
WHALING, supra n.14.
53
Decision X/33, CBD COP 10th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33 (Oct. 29, 2010).
7
Wind farms adversely affect biodiversity, particularly migratory bat species, through collisions,

displacement and habitat destruction.54 Bats, in fact, play a keystone role in maintaining

ecosystems by undertaking pollination, seed dispersal, and insect control.55 Status of Royal

Noctule, as an indicator species, 56 reflects biodiversity loss in an ecosystem. 57 Therefore, for

biodiversity conservation, wind farms are not allowed in critical areas for bats in Finland 58 and

are subject to evaluation of risk to bats in Sweden.59

54
United Nations Environment Program, CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and

Technological Advice, Mainstreaming of Biodiversity into Energy and Mining Sectors, Doc.

CBD/SBSTTA/21/INF/9 (May 26, 2018).

55
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, INVESTIGATING THE ROLE

OF BATS IN EMERGING ZOONOSES: BALANCING ECOLOGY, CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH

INTERESTS (2011).
56
Record, ¶14.
57
Bat Conservation Trust, Bats as Indicators of Biodiversity, BATS (Sept. 5, 2020, 10:30 PM),

https://www.bats.org.uk/about-bats/why-bats-matter/bats-as-indicators-of-biodiversity/uk-

biodiversity-indicator-species.
58
Simon P. Gaultier et al., Bats and Wind Farms: The Role and Importance of the Baltic Sea

Countries in the European Context of Power Transition and Biodiversity Conservation, 54(17)

ENVTL. SCI. & TECH. 10385, 10390 (2012).

59
Jens Rydell et al., Phenology of migratory bat activity across the Baltic Sea and the south-

eastern North Sea, 16 ACTA CHIROPTEROLOGICA 139, 140 (2014).

8
Despite the sensitive conservation status of Royal Noctules and their importance in biodiversity

protection,60 Runbeti approved the Project within an area critical for their conservation. 61 Runbeti

also failed to identify and monitor either the Royal Noctules or the Project. 62 Moreover, despite

considerable fatalities,63 Runbeti declined to shut-down the Project and plans to move forward

with the subsequent phases.64

Therefore, Runbeti violated its duty to conserve biodiversity.

C. RUNBETI VIOLATED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CMS.

Under Article II(1), migratory species with unfavourable conservation status require special

attention. CMS Resolutions interpret treaty obligations and specify measures for their

implementation.65 Accordingly, Resolution 7.566 mandates identification of areas where wind

turbines threaten harm to migratory species, whereas Resolution 11.27 67 prohibits siting wind

farms in such areas. It also mandates measures such as “shutdown on demand”68 which are
60
See Argument I(1)(A).
61
Record, ¶19.
62
See generally, Record.
63
Record, ¶21.
64
Record, ¶23.
65
Arie Trouwborst, Transboundary Wildlife Conservation in a Changing Climate: Adaptation of

the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species and Its Daughter Instruments to Climate Change,

4(3) DIVERSITY 258, 266 (2012).

66
United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 7.5, (May 18, 2018).
67
United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 11.27, (Nov. 4-9,

2014).
68
Id.
9
already employed in Netherlands69 and Germany,70 resulting in significant reduction of

fatalities.71

Since Royal Noctules are listed in Appendix-II of CMS, 72 they hold an unfavourable

conservation status.73 However, Runbeti authorised construction of the Project 74 despite the high

risk of mortality to Royal Noctules due to its location 75 without mandating any mitigation

measures.

Therefore, Runbeti violated its obligations under the CMS.

D. RUNBETI VIOLATED CIL.

Runbeti violated CIL by violating the duty to prevent transboundary harm [1]; the precautionary

principle [2]; and the principle of sustainable development [3].

69
Wind farm shuts down turbines to protect birds and bats (Oct. 17, 2020, 2:00 PM), DUTCH

NEWS, https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/02/wind-farm-shuts-down-turbines-to-protect-

birds-and-bats/.
70
IWG Report, supra n.7.
71
K Shawn Smallwood et al., Effects of Wind Turbine Curtailment on Bird and Bat Fatalities , 84

J. OF WILDLIFE MGMT. 685, 685 (2020).

72
Record, ¶14.
73
CMS, supra n.3, art. IV(1).
74
Record, ¶19.
75
See Argument I(1)(A).
10
 1) Runbeti violated the duty to prevent transboundary harm.

The states’ duty to prevent activities within their jurisdiction from causing environmental harm

in another State is recognised under CBD, 76 and CIL, contained in international instruments 77 and

judicial decisions.78

Runbeti violated this duty as transboundary harm occurred [a]; and it failed to act with due

diligence [b].

a. Transboundary harm occurred.

Transboundary harm occurs when there is human causation, physical relationship between the

harm and the concerned activity, and transboundary movement of damage.79 Further, harm must

be “significant”, which is more than “detectable”, though not “serious” or “substantial”. 80 For

76
CBD, supra n.2, art. 3.
77
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (Vol.I), annex I, at Principle 2 (Aug. 12, 1992)

[“Rio Declaration”]; Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous

Activities, with commentaries, Rep. of the Int'l Law Comm'n, on the Work of its Fifty-Third

Session, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), at 152 [“ILC Transboundary”].

78
Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Canada), 3 R.I.A.A 1907, 1965 (1938/41); Legality of the

Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. Rep. 226 (July 8).
79
XUE HANQUIN, TRANSBOUNDARY DAMAGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 4-10 (2003).
80
ILC Transboundary, supra n.77, at 152
11
shared natural resources, like migratory species, 81 “significant” harm implies any damage

exceeding de minimis harm.82

Runbeti’s Project resulted in deaths of 593 Royal Noctules within 2 years, 83 establishing both

human causation and the requisite physical nexus. As these deaths would reduce Royal Noctule

populations in Alducra, a shared resource, 84 transboundary movement of damage also exists.

Additionally, Royal Noctules are ecologically important to Alducra, 85 and are listed as vulnerable

on the IUCN Red List,86 demonstrating a high risk of extinction.87 Therefore, the deaths have

diminished the species’ survival prospects and caused significant harm.

b. In any event, Runbeti violated the duty to act with due diligence.

The duty to prevent transboundary harm mandates acting with due diligence, 88 requiring

enactment of guidelines and administrative measures. 89 Additionally, due diligence requires

81
Appellate Body Report, United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp

Products, ¶72, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R, (Oct. 12, 1998) [“ABR-US-Shrimp”].

82
UNEP Draft Principles of Conduct on Shared Natural Resources, UNEP/1G.12/2, Annex to

UNEP/GC.6/17.
83
Record, ¶21.
84
Record, ¶22.
85
Record, ¶14.
86
Id.
87
IUCN, GUIDELINES FOR USING THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA (2019),

http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf (last accessed Oct. 23, 2020).

88
ILC Transboundary, supra n.77, at 154.
89
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. Rep. 1, (Apr. 20).
12
continuous monitoring,90 over the entire life of the project. 91 Accordingly, guidelines require

monitoring of wind farms in Israel and France 92 and US States prohibit wind farms in bat

concentration areas.93 Further, states must consult and notify in good faith with states which may

be affected, before undertaking the concerned activity.94

Runbeti approved the Project without employing any preventive guidelines and administrative

measures.95 Further, Runbeti failed to undertake post-construction monitoring, and even

disallowed monitoring.96 Finally, Runbeti failed to consult or notify Alducra before initiating the

Project, despite high risk of transboundary harm due to Project’s proximity to Alducra. 97

Therefore, Runbeti violated the duty to prevent transboundary harm.

90
PATRICIA BIRNIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW & THE ENVIRONMENT 170 (2009).
91
Id. at 165.
92
IWG REPORT, supra n.7.
93
Edward B. Arnett et al., Impacts of wind energy facilities on wildlife and wildlife habitat, 07-2

WILDLIFE SOCIETY TECHNICAL REV., Sept. 2007, at 7, 11.

94
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.) and

Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), Judgment,

2015 I.C.J. Rep.665 (Dec. 16).

95
Record, ¶20.
96
Record, ¶24.
97
Record, ¶17.
13
 2) Runbeti violated the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle is provided under the CBD 98 and CIL, as evidenced by state

practice99 and opinio juris.100 It mandates undertaking preventive measures where there exists a

mere threat of serious environmental damage, even if there is scientific uncertainty about the

impact of the activity.101

Wind farms threaten significant harm to bats 102 and resultantly migratory species like Common

Noctule suffer highest fatalities in Europe. 103 Despite being cautioned about foreseeable

threats,104 Runbeti approved the Project within areas critical to the Royal Noctule, 105 and failed to

take precautionary measures such as careful planning of site layouts, and monitoring fatalities

and demolition of roosts.106 Therefore, Runbeti violated the precautionary principle.

98
CBD, supra n.2, Preamble.
99
R v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., [1944] 49 DLR 161, 173-74 (Can.); United Kingdom v.

Commission, [1998] ECR I-2265, ¶99 (U.K.).

100
G.A. Res. 37/7 (XXXVII), ¶11, U.N. Doc. A/RES/37/7 (Oct. 28, 1982).
101
Rio Declaration, supra n.77, Principle 15.
102
See Argument I(1)(A).
103
Jens Rydell et al., Bat mortality at wind turbines in northwestern Europe, 12(2) ACTA

CHIROPTEROLOGICA 261, 265 (2010).

104
Record, ¶18.
105
Record, ¶17.
106
GUIDELINES, supra n.17.
14
 3) Runbeti violated the principle of sustainable development.

The principle of sustainable development, which mandates integration of developmental goals

and environmental protection, is a CIL contained in international instruments 107 and judicial

decisions.108 Additionally, CBD mandates sustainable use of components of biodiversity to

restrict their long-term decline109 through harm mitigation110 and elimination of harmful

subsidies.111 For instance, around 90 countries have eliminated subsidies on unsustainable

fisheries.112

By failing to mitigate harm,113 and by subsidising the Project,114 Runbeti violated the principle of

sustainable development.

107
Rio Declaration, supra n.77, Principle 4.
108
Continental Shelf (Libya v Malta), Judgment, 1985 I.C.J. Rep. 13 (June 3); Gabčikovo-

Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. Rep. 7 (Sept. 25) (separate opinion

of J. Weeramantry) [“Gabčikovo-Nagymaros”].
109
CBD, supra n.2, art. 10.
110
Id. art. 10(b).
111
Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines, CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, at Practical

principle 3, https://www.cbd.int/sustainable/addis.shtml (last accessed Oct. 25, 2020).

112
Press Release, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD14 sees 90

countries sign up to UN roadmap for elimination of harmful fishing subsidies,

UNCTAD/PRESS/U14/PR/2016/010 (July 20, 2016).

113
Record, ¶20.
114
Record, ¶16.
15
 E. RUNBETI’S ACTIONS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE UNFCCC AND THE PA.

Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, states must perform obligations under all treaties in

good faith.115 Further, CIL obligations are equally authoritative.116 In any case, wind energy is

ineffective117 in achieving the objective of UNFCCC and PA. 118 Therefore, the Project does not

justify breach of Runbeti’s obligations under various treaties and CIL.

II. ALDUCRA DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW THROUGH ITS

TRADE MEASURES FOR TAPAGIUM PRODUCTS.

Alducra did not violate international law through its trade measures for tapagium products since

they are consistent with the provisions of ARTA [A]. Alternatively, they are justified under

Article X of ARTA [B]; and the ratified Multilateral Environmental Agreements [“MEAs”] [C].

Alternatively, they constitute a valid countermeasure [D].

A. ALDUCRA’S MEASURES ARE CONSISTENT WITH ARTA PROVISIONS.

Articles VII, VIII, IX and X of ARTA mirror Articles I(1), III, XI(1) and XX of the GATT,

respectively,119 and must therefore be interpreted together. 120 Article VII requires comparison of

115
VCLT, supra n.44, art. 26.
116
Akehurst, The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law, 47 BRITISH Y.B. INT’L L. 273,

275 (1976).
117
Herbert Inhaber, Why wind power does not deliver the expected emission reductions, 15

RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REV. 2257, 2557–2562 (2011).

118
UNFCCC, supra n.4, art. 2; PA, supra n.5, art. 2.
119
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement

Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153

(1994).
16
imports from multiple countries,121 and it is not applicable since Alducra only imports tapagium

from Runbeti.122 Article VIII requires equal treatment of imported and ‘like’ domestic products

within a member’s territory,123 and it is not applicable since the impugned products are not ‘like’

[1]. Alternatively, Alducra’s measures complied with Articles VIII [2]; and IX [3].

1) Article VIII of ARTA is not applicable since Alducra and Runbeti’s products

are not ‘like’.

Under GATT/WTO jurisprudence, the determination of ‘like’ products concern the competitive

relationship between products and no adopted criteria is exhaustive. 124 Accordingly,

environmental-friendly processing and production methods are relevant in determining the

120
VCLT, supra n.44, art. 31(3)(c); Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Affecting

the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, ¶291, WTO Doc. WT/DS285/AB/R

(Apr. 20, 2005) [“ABR-US-Gambling”].

121
Appellate Body Report, United States-Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and

Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products-Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico, ¶7.281, WTO

Doc. WT/DS381/AB/RW (Dec. 3, 2015).

122
Clarifications, A10; Record, ¶11.
123
q.
124
Appellate Body Report, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, 20–2, 25, WTO Doc.

WT/DS8,10,11/AB/R (Nov. 1, 1996).

17
products’ nature;125 and defining consumer preferences,126 which are subjective and reflected by

public awareness.127

In line with ARTA’s sustainable development objective, 128 Alducra has already transitioned to

bat-safe farming practices by allowing 5% agave crops to flower, and differs from Runbeti’s

practices where products are solely produced using cloning methods. 129 Hence, the products’

varying nature and consumers’ preferences, as evinced by Alducra’s public awareness of bat

mortalities arising from Runbeti’s wind-farms,130 render them unlike.

2) Alternatively, Alducra’s measures complied with Article VIII.

A measure is inconsistent with Article VIII when the tax on imported products is applied ‘in

excess’ of ‘like’ domestic products to afford protection to domestic production; and accords less

favourable treatment [“LFT”] to ‘like’ imported products.

First, a tax measure is consistent if applied equally on domestic and imported products. 131 In US-

Superfund, tax burden on imported ‘like’ products based on production methods were equivalent
125
PETER VAN DEN BOSSCHE, WERNER ZDOUC, THE LAW AND POLICY OF THE WORLD TRADE

ORGANIZATION 575 (2013).

126
Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-

Containing Products, ¶¶113, 117, 122, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R (Apr. 5, 2001) [“ABR-EC-

Asbestos”].
127
Id. at ¶154.
128
Record, ¶13.
129
Record, ¶15.
130
Record, ¶22.
131
Panel Report, Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, ¶6.24, WTO Doc. WT/DS8,10,11/R

(Nov. 1, 1996).
18
to domestic products since domestic products were subject to additional taxes for materials used

during production.132 Here, Alducra’s taxes on imported tapagium products are not ‘in excess’ of

domestic products since they are uniformly applied to all tapagium sold in Alducra, irrespective

of their origin,133 and the tax burdens are proportionately based on the costs incurred to allow 5%

crops to flower.134

Second, the non-protectionist nature can be discerned from the measure’s stated objective, 135 and

involvement of private actors’ choices.136 Accordingly, Alducra’s measures are not protectionist

since it purports to encourage sustainable tapagium production among both countries, in line

with ARTA’s objectives,137 and contributes all funds to protect bats. 138 Moreover, the sale of

tapagium in Alducra’s market ultimately depends on consumers’ choices and producers are free

to adopt Alducra’s requirement to acquire the benefits.

132
Report of the Panel, United States-Taxes on Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances,

¶¶2.5, 5.2.8, L/6175 (Jun. 17, 1987) GATT BISD (34th Supp.), at 136 (1988).
133
Record, ¶26; Clarifications, A12.
134
Record, ¶¶15, 26.
135
Appellate Body Report, Canada-Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, 475-6, WTO

Doc. WT/DS31/AB/R (Jul. 30, 1997).

136
MITSUO MATSUSHITA ET AL., THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION: LAW, PRACTICE AND

POLICY 196 (2015).

137
Record, ¶13.
138
Record, ¶26.
19
Third, a measure accords LFT when it modifies the competitive conditions of products in

market.139 Contrastingly, a measure is consistent when it applies to both imported and domestic

products;140 and evidence of actual detrimental effects on competitive conditions is absent. 141

Here, no LFT is accorded since Alducra’s eco-labelling and taxation requirement applies to both

countries.142 Moreover, given the growing demand for tapagium within Alducra, 143 and since it

only produces some tapagium domestically and imports a significant volume from Runbeti, 144 its

measures would not have any detrimental effect on Runbeti's competitive conditions in its

markets. Therefore, Alducra’s measures complied with Article VIII.

3) Alducra’s measures complied with Article IX of ARTA.

A measure violates Article IX if it quantitatively restricts imports from another state. 145 However,

at the outset, taxes, are excluded from the scope of Article IX. Further, only those restrictions

which have a ‘limiting effect’ on importation qualify as quantitative restrictions, and a mere
139
Appellate Body Report, Korea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef,

¶135, WTO Doc. WT/DS161,169/AB/R (Jan. 10, 2001) [“ABR-Korea-Beef”].

140
Appellate Body Report, Thailand-Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the

Philippines, ¶130, WTO Doc. WT/DS371/AB/R (Jul. 15, 2011).

141
Panel Report, Dominican Republic-Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of

Cigarettes, ¶¶7.297, 7.301, WTO Doc. WT/DS302/R (May 19, 2005) [“PR-Dominican-

Cigarettes”].
142
Record, ¶¶15, 28.
143
Record, ¶26.
144
Record, ¶11.
145
Appellate Body Reports, Argentina-Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods, ¶¶5.216-

219, WTO Doc. WT/DS438,444,445/AB/R (Jan. 26, 2015).

20
condition or burden placed on products for entering the market is not unlawful. 146 For instance, in

Dominican-Cigarettes, a bonding requirement for importation did not constitute ‘limiting

effect’.147

Here, Alducra’s taxes are excluded from the scope of Article IX and its eco-labelling

requirement does not make the right to import tapagium conditional upon farming methods.

Rather, products are freely imported and appropriate eco-labels are applied after a mere factual

verification by an independent scientific organization to determine farming methods. 148

Therefore, Alducra’s measures are not quantitative restrictions having ‘limiting effect’.

B. ALDUCRA’S MEASURES ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE X OF ARTA.

A trade restriction is justified under Article X if it falls within one or more of the enumerated

exceptions and conforms to its chapeau.149 Alducra’s measures are justified by Article X since

they are covered by its exceptions [1], and comply with its chapeau [2].

146
Id. at ¶5.217.
147
PR-Dominican-Cigarettes, supra n.142, at ¶7.265.
148
Record, ¶¶15, 26.
149
Appellate Body Report, European Communities–Measures Prohibiting the Importation and

Marketing of Seal Products, ¶5.169, WT/DS400/AB/R (May 22, 2014) [“ABR-EC-Seal”];

Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Measures Affecting the Imports of Retreaded Tyres, ¶139,

WT/DS332/AB/R (Dec. 3, 2007) [“ABR-Brazil-Tyres”].

21
 1) Alducra’s measures fall within the exceptions under Article X.

a. Alducra’s measures are justified under Articles X(a) and X(b).

Alducra’s measures are justified under Article X(a) and Article X(b), since it is designed to

protect public morals, and the life or health of plants, animals or humans [i], and is necessary to

achieve these objectives [ii].150

i. Alducra’s measures are designed to protect public morals and the life

and health of plants, animals and humans.

The term ‘public morals’ denotes the standards of right and wrong conduct maintained by a

nation.151 In EC-Seal Products, considering EU’s legislative history, animal welfare qualified as

a ‘public moral’.152 Similarly, a measure protecting animal life or health must seek to protect the

animal from a risk to their life or health, and capable of doing so.153 Accordingly, members are

free to determine the level of protection as appropriate based on scientific opinions, 154

notwithstanding uncertainty.155

Since long-nosed bats are almost identical in behaviour to the lesser long-nosed bats, 156 they are

affected by similar activities. Accordingly, the internationally recommended conservation action

150
ABR-Korea-Beef, supra n.139, at ¶180.
151
ABR-US-Gambling, supra n.120, at ¶296.
152
Panel Report, European Communities-Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing

of Seal Products, ¶¶7.409-7.411, WTO Doc. WT/DS400/R (Nov. 25, 2013).

153
Appellate Body Report, Colombia-Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel

and Footwear, ¶¶5.68, 5.89, 5.126, WTO Doc. WT/DS461/AB/R (Jun. 22, 2016).
154
ABR-EC-Asbestos, supra n.126, at ¶178.
155
Id.
156
Record, ¶14; Clarification, A11.
22
is to avoid habitat loss.157 In Mexico and US, due to sustainable farming methods along with

other conservation efforts, the lesser long-nosed bats population recovered.158 Similarly, various

countries have adopted eco-labelling to inform their consumers about products’ environmental

impacts.159

Here, Alducra’s public moral concern constitutes bat-welfare and environmental protection as

evinced by its legislative history.160 The growing demand for tapagium has led to cloning

methods that deprive these bats of food,161 which leads to their habitat loss and population

decline; and promotes loss of genetic diversity among agaves, making them more susceptible to

diseases and, ultimately affecting farmers’ livelihood. 162 Accordingly, Alducra seeks to protect

long-nosed bats, an ecologically important species that depend on agaves for food and pollinate

157
R. Medellín, Leptonycteris yerbabuenae, THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES, 5

(2016), https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/136659/21988965#habitat-ecology (last accessed

Oct. 28, 2020).

158
Roberto-Emiliano et al., Save Our Bats, Save Our Tequila: Industry and Science Join Forces

to Help Bats and Agaves, 36 NATURAL AREAS J. 523 (2016).

159
Elliott B. Stafin, Trade Barrier or Trade Boon: A Critical Evaluation of Environmental

Labelling, 21 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 225 (1996).

160
Record, ¶¶9, 14, 15.
161
Record, ¶¶15, 28.
162
IUCN, MAINSTREAMING BIODIVERSITY, FACT SHEET: BAT-FRIENDLY TEQUILA,

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/bat-friendly_tequila_factsheet.pdf (last accessed Oct. 28,

2020).
23
them,163 by encouraging sustainable farming practices. Thus, Alducra’s measures are capable of

protecting public morals and long-nosed bats.

ii. Alducra’s trade restriction is necessary.

The necessity test under GATT/WTO jurisprudence involves weighing and balancing of three

factors.164 First, the importance of the values or interests at stake; second, measure’s material

contribution to the objective; and third, its degree of trade-restrictiveness, followed by an

examination of whether less trade-restrictive, yet equally effective, alternatives are reasonably

available.165

First, the protection of public morals and the life and health of humans, animals and plants are

interests of utmost importance not only to Alducra, but to the international community as a

whole.166 Second, a measure materially contributes when a genuine relationship exists between

the measure and objective.167 However, such contribution need not be immediately observable.168

Accordingly, Alducra’s measures encourage sustainable products through incentives, educate

public through eco-labelling, and would contribute all funds to the cause. 169 Third, a threat to

human, animal or plant life, outweighs any degree of trade-restrictiveness. 170 Here, the interests

pursued by Alducra’s measures outweigh its trade-restrictiveness.

163
Record, ¶¶14, 15.
164
ABR-EC-Seal, supra n.149, at ¶5.169.
165
ABR-Korea-Beef, supra n.139, at ¶166.
166
ABR-Brazil-Tyres, supra n.149, at ¶144.
167
Id. at ¶145.
168
Id. at ¶210.
169
Record, ¶26.
170
ABR-Brazil-Tyres, supra n.149, at ¶179.
24
Further, Alducra’s measures are least trade-restrictive as they do not prohibit Runbeti’s products

from being sold in Alducra’s market and merely require 5% agave crops to flower to voluntarily

access “bat-safe” eco-labels and tax-exemptions. 171 Lastly, alternatives cannot compromise the

level of protection intended to be achieved, 172 or incur undue financial or technical burden,173

even if they can possibly be implemented.174 Thus, relaxing the existing requirements or any

burdensome alternative, such as transferring funds, are excluded.

b. Alducra’s measures are justified under Article X(g).

To justify a measure under Article X(g), the measure must, first, be primarily aimed at the

conservation or protection of exhaustible natural resources, irrespective of its extra-territorial

application.175 An “exhaustible natural resource” includes living resources that are vulnerable to

depletion and extinction.176 Additionally, the measure must operate jointly with restrictions on

domestic production. 177

Here, Alducra’s measures are primarily aimed at encouraging sustainable farming practices to

protect long-nosed bats,178 an exhaustible natural resource as indicated by IUCN, CITES and

171
Record, ¶26.
172
ABR-EC-Asbestos, supra n.126 at ¶174.
173
ABR-US-Gambling, supra n.120 at ¶308.
174
Id. at ¶169.
175
ABR-US-Shrimp, supra n.81, at ¶133.
176
Id. at ¶¶128, 131.
177
Appellate Body Report, United States-Standards for Reformulated and Conventional

Gasoline, 20-21, WTO Doc. WT/DS2/AB/R, (May 20, 1996).

178
Record, ¶¶15, 26, 28.
25
EUROBATS.179 Further, Alducra’s bat-safe farming requirements are applicable to both

domestic and foreign producers.180 Therefore, the measures are justified under Article X(g).

2) Alducra’s measures comply with the chapeau of Article X.

A measure violates the chapeau if its application results in arbitrary or unjustifiable

discrimination between countries where same conditions prevail, or if it constitutes a disguised

trade restriction.181 Accordingly, the resulting discrimination is not arbitrary if the measures are

flexible and serious negotiations to achieve the objectives were undertaken with exporting states

before proceeding unilaterally.182 Additionally, a measure is not a disguised trade restriction if it

applies to both imported and domestic products.183

Runbeti is the only State that produces tapagium employing unsustainable farming practices. 184

Alducra had to impose unilateral measures after its repeated efforts to protect the bats were

refused by Runbeti.185 Moreover, Alducra’s measures are flexible since they merely require 5%

of agave crops to flower and provided adequate time to comply considering Runbeti’s

179
Record, ¶14.
180
Record, ¶¶15, 26.
181
ABR-EC-Seal, supra n.149, at ¶5.317.
182
ABR-US-Shrimp, supra n.81, at ¶166.
183
Committee on Trade and Environment, Note by the Secretariat: GATT/WTO Dispute

Settlement Practice Relating to GATT Article XX, ¶¶ (b), (d), (g), WTO Doc. WT/CTE/W/203

(Mar. 8, 2002).
184
Record, ¶¶11, 15.
185
Record, ¶¶22, 25.
26
interests.186 Further, Alducra’s measures are not a disguised trade restriction, since it applies to

both imported and domestic producers.187 Therefore, the restriction complied with the chapeau.

C. ALDUCRA’S MEASURES ARE JUSTIFIED UNDER ITS RATIFIED MEAS.

Under Article 22(1) of CBD, states are restricted from exercising their rights under other treaties

whenever they would cause a serious damage or threat to biodiversity. In fact, the same

obligation is also preserved under CIL, 188 as evidenced by state practice and opinio juris. Besides

the CBD which has 196 state parties, 189 state practice is also evidenced from Article XIV of

CITES having 183 state parties,190 and Article XII of CMS having 131 state parties, 191 all of

which allow states to take stricter domestic measures for protecting species. This has been

reaffirmed by the CITES Standing Committee 192 and UNEP/CMS Resolution 11.16,193

demonstrating opinio juris. Accordingly, in case of any conflict between reciprocal trade
186
Record, ¶¶15, 26.
187
Record, ¶26.

Decision IV/15, CBD COP 4th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/4/15 (May 4-15, 2018); Decision
188

X/1, CBD COP 10th mtg., UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1 (Oct. 29, 2010); Riccardo Pavoni, Mutual

Supportiveness as a Principle of Interpretation and Law-Making: A Watershed for the WTO-

and-Competing Regimes Debate?, 21 EUR. J.INT’L L. 649, 655 (2010).

189
CBD, supra n.2, List of Parties, https://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml.
190
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna art.

XIV(1)(b), Mar. 3, 1973, 993 U.N.T.S. 243 [“CITES”]; CITES, id., List of Parties to the

Convention, https://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/index.php.
191
CMS, supra n.3, art. XII; CMS, id. Parties and Range States, https://www.cms.int/en/parties-

range-states.
192
Stricter Domestic Measures, CITES SC54 Doc. 37 (Rev. 1) (2006).
27
obligations and obligations under MEAs, the latter prevail since they represent the collective

interest of all states.194

Alducra and Runbeti are both parties to the CBD, CMS, and CITES, 195 which allow Alducra to

take necessary measures for the conservation of species. Since all states have a collective interest

in the protection of bats and environment, 196 Alducra’s measures are justified under these MEAs

and CIL as they prevail over its reciprocal trade obligations under the ARTA.

D. ALDUCRA’S TRADE MEASURES CONSTITUTE A VALID COUNTERMEASURE.

Under CIL, states have the right to take countermeasures against another state that has

committed an internationally wrongful act.197 Under this right, the injured state has a duty to first

negotiate with and then notify the state against which countermeasures are taken. 198 Additionally,

countermeasures should be proportional.199 Proportionality is assessed based on the interest

193
United Nations Environment Program, CMS Conference of Parties, Res. 11.16, (Nov. 4-9,

2019).
194
Joost Pauwelyn, The nature of WTO obligations 11 (N.Y.U. Law Sch. Jean Monnet Ctr. for

Int’l & Reg’l Econ. & Law Justice, Working Paper 1/02, 2012).
195
Record, ¶4-7.
196
Record, ¶14.
197
Gabčikovo-Nagymaros, supra n.108; Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful

Acts, Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session, U.N. Doc.

A/56/49(Vol. I)/Corr.4 (2001), art. 50 [“RSIWA”].

198
RSIWA, Id. art. 52(1).
199
Gabčikovo-Nagymaros, supra n.108; RSIWA, supra n.197, art. 51.
28
protected by the rule violated, the extent of injury and seriousness of breach, 200 and the necessity

to induce the responsible State to comply with its obligations.201

Alducra’s trade measures were in response to Runbeti’s internationally wrongful act in operating

its Project.202 Alducra negotiated with Runbeti through diplomatic notes for shutting down the

Project and enacting a legislation requiring bat-safe agave farming practices, which Runbeti

declined.203 Thereafter, Alducra introduced the measures as a last resort. Moreover, the measures

are proportional since Runbeti violated its obligations under MEAs to protect bats, 204 which are

ecologically important to Alducra, and are a threatened species. 205 Further, they were the least

restrictive measures available.206 Therefore, the trade measures are a valid countermeasure.

200
Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (U.S. v. Fr.), 18 R.I.A.A. 417, ¶444.
201
ANTONIO CASSESSE, INTERNATIONAL LAW 306 (2005).
202
See Argument I.
203
Record, ¶¶22, 25.
204
See Argument I.
205
Record, ¶14.
206
See Argument II(B)(1)(a)(ii).
29
 CONCLUSION

In light of the above, the Federal States of Alducra requests this Honourable Court to

adjudge and declare that:

1. Runbeti has violated international law through its wind farm project.

2. Alducra has not violated international law through its trade measures for tapagium

products.

Respectfully Submitted

/s/__________________ /s/___________________

Wayne Bruce Rodrigo Agavos

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ambassador

Federal States of Alducra Federal States of Alducra

30