Respondent Memorial 2R

TEAM 2R

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 2013

COMPROMIS BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIS (APPLICANT) AND THE GOVERNMENT OF RECHO (REPONDENT) TO SUBMIT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE A CASE CONCERNING THE EVACUATION OF A FOREIGNER DURING AN OUTBREAK OF A MALIGNANT INFLUENZA MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The Government of Armis (Applicant) and The Government of Recho (Respondent) submit the present dispute concerning the “evacuation of a foreigner during an outbreak of a malignant influenza” to the International Court Justice, pursuant to Article 40 paragraph 1 of the Court’s Statute. In accordance of Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Court’s Statute, the judgment of this Court shall be treated as final and binding and each party shall execute it in good faith.

QUESTION PRESENTED The Government of Recho presents the following questions to the Court: 1. Whether or not Recho has breached the treaties which Armis and Recho are parties or any international customary law 2. Whether or not Ms. Shunzette and her child’s health is at prejudice when she was residing in Recho 3. Whether or not Ms. Shunzette’s employment contract is in consonant to the treaties to which Recho and Armis are parties 4. Whether or not Recho or the Ms. Shunzette’s employer deprived her from her right to flee and return to her country 5. Whether or not Recho discriminated Ms. Shunzette and her child

STATEMENT OF FACTS In March 2010, Megoose was experiencing a malignant influenza and as a response to the disease, the Government of Megoose ordered the inhabitants living within the 30kilometer radius from where the influenza was greatly affected not to move in and out of the area.

As response also the malignant influenza experiencing by Megoose, The Government of Armis, ordered the residents living in Recho to evacuate the latter’s country at once. Recho, borders Megoose at a 50 kilometer distance from the area where the influenza was the most serious. Only about 30 percent of Armis national opted to avail of the government’s instruction. The country of Armis does not border either Recho or Megoose.

Ms. Shunzette works in the National Research Institute of Recho since March 2009 under a 3 year contract. The company is funded by the Government. In addition, the company is situated at a distance of 60 kilometer from the area where the malignant influenza experiencing in Megoose was described as the most serious. She was the only female Armis researcher employed in the company and unlike the rest of the researchers who are Armis citizens; she is the only employee who lives with her child, the male Armis national researchers had to live apart from their family.

Ms. Shunzette was one of the 30 percent Armis nationals who followed the instruction of the Armis Government and decided to return to Armis together with her child at the time of the malignant influenza.

When Armis lifted its order on June 2010, Ms. Shunzette flew back to Recho to continue her employment to the company. There she discovered that she has been dismissed as a punishment. As a consequence of her dismissal, her rental lodge in the company’s campus has been cancelled. Dismissal as a punishment disqualifies her for reemployment.

Ms. Sunzette, had no choice but to leave Recho and return to Armis. She filed a suit against the Government of Recho, and demanded the revocation of her dismissal. The case was heard by the district court of Recho which had jurisdiction over the matter and decided in favor of the government. The court accepted the government’s contention that her dismissal was the consequence of Ms. Shunzette’s action of failing to ask permission from her employer regarding her absence at work.

The district court’s decision lead Ms. Shunzette to sought the assistance of the Government of Armis regarding its right of diplomatic protection. The Government of Armis, requested and sought for the revocation of Ms. Sunzette’s dismissal to which the Government of Recho declined.

No negotiations were made between the two countries. Both agreed to present the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The defendant over this case, the Government of Recho, prays that the Internation Cour of justice declare :

The Government of Recho breached no treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties or any international customary law in relation to the spread of the malignant influenza in Megoose in March 2010.

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

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS I.

Recho did not violate any treaties to which Armis and Recho are parties or any international customary law in relation to the spread of the malignant influenza in Megoose

A. Recho did not place Ms. Shunzette’s life and her child’s health at prejudice (RESEARCH ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATES…. BLAH FROM HARM)

The government of Recho has the responsibility to issue an instruction to notify and protect their inhabitants from any disease such as malignant influenza as this case is about. Recho was 50 kilometers away from the area where the spread of influenza was most serious. The government of Megoose issued a restriction only at 30-kilometer radius from where the spread of influenza was serious. Moreover, she was working 60 kilometers farther. Compared to Armis, Recho borders Megoose which means that Recho has the higher possibility of being affected from the disease. On the other hand, the government did not issue any order as response to the malignant influenza. The government did not see any warning that the country will be affected from it. The issuance of the Megoose’s instruction regarding the inhabitants in the area where the influenza was at most serious satisfies Recho that its country as well as its inhabitants will not be harmed.

B. Recho did not breach any treaties with regard to Ms. Shunzette’s employment contract Ms. Shunzette was deemed to have been absent without leave for three months (March to June 2010) and as a consequence thereof was dismissed as punishment from work.

There was no prosecution and imprisonment on the basis of her breach in the employment contract.1 She was dismissed from work in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment she has freely entered into. Ms. Shunzette left for Armis, under the instructions of its government, prior to the lapse of her 3-year contract. As an employee, She had the obligation to seek the permission of her employers to be absent from her responsibilities. It does not follow that when there’s an order from the government, she can set aside her “duties” as an employee. If an employee can freely leave her work without prior notice to the company, the company will then placed in prejudice as regards its business routine and productivity of the institution.

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

2

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

family home. At the time of the cancellation, she was no longer an employee of the company. Her benefits as an employee which includes shelter is automatically revoked. She can no longer enjoy the benefit of the staying in the company’s campus. It is the responsibility of the employer to make sure that its employees are protected from harm thus preventing a non-employee like Ms. Shunzette is only proper.

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

1

Article 11 of ICCPR: No one shall be imprisoned on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation 2 Article 17(1) of ICCPR: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family home or correspondence, not to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation

Ms. Shunzette was not restrained from leaving Recho during the outbreak. There are no acts from the government of Recho which prevents her from leaving the said country. Though she was not restrained from leaving Recho, she must be aware of the consequences she might be having for breaching her employment contract with her employer3. Whatever punishment her employer will give her, she must accept it for the reason that she has breached the said contract. Recho in this case, did not violate any of the rights of Ms Shunzette with regards to her rights in leaving the country. Furthermore, Recho could not find any valid reason that makes Ms. Shunzette leave the premise because the distance of where she was residing as well as to her place of work is far from the infected area. Though the said places were not affected by the malignant influenza, Recho did not prevent Ms. Shunzette and her daughter from leaving the country. Ms Shunzette was not imprisoned for breach of the employment contact. She was dismissed from work in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment she has freely entered into. She had the obligation to seek the permission of her employers before she left. It does not follow that when there’s an order from the government, she can set aside her “duties” as an employee. If that’s the case then the company can be prejudiced.4

D. Recho did not discriminate Ms. Sunzette and her 5-year old daughter 3

Article 12 (3) of ICCPR The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. 4 Article 11 of ICCPR No one hall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation

All inhabitants of the territory were equally treated in the sense that there was preferential treatment for the citizens over the foreign workers or vice versa and they were all subject to the same rights and benefits at that that time. Hence, there was no violation in the obligations under ICCPR and Ms. Shunzette was rightfully expected to report to work during March to June 2010 as stipulated in her employment contract. It cannot be said that discrimination exists on her part because she was not denied of due process.

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

It was stated in her employment contract that any employee

dismissed for punishment is not entitled to separation pay as well as to reemployment. It is the discretion of her employer to whatever sanction will be given to her for breaching the contract which she freely entered into. There was no violation of due process in this case since her case was heard before the district court of Recho.5

5

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

PLEADINGS For the foregoing reasons, Recho, the Respondent, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court:

i. DECLARE that the Government of Recho did not place Ms. Shunzette and her child’s health is at prejudice when she was residing in the country at the time of the malignant influenza

ii. DECLARE that the employment contract of Ms.Shunzette and the employer is in consonant with the treaties which Recho is a party

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

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