- •Table of contents
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law 9
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention 16
- •Index of authorities
- •I. International materials
- •II. Jurisprudence
- •III. Secondary materials: monographs
- •IV. Secondary materials: articles
- •V. Other materials
- •Statement of jurisdiction
- •Questions presented
- •Statement of facts
- •Summary of pleadings
- •Pleadings
- •A. Rigalia’s Predator Drone strikes against Zetian terrorists in Rigalia and Ardenia were in accordance with the provisions of international law
- •1. Unlawful Zetians’ actions countenanced by Ardenia infringed some international provisions
- •I. Zetian terrorists violated some provisions of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
- •II. Ardenia supported Zetian terrorists in committing the act of aggression
- •2. Predator Drone launching was a self-defense act of Rigalia
- •B. The Court has no prerogative to stop the drone attacks
- •A. Rigalia does not have to bear the responsibility to hold an inquiry into the attack or to make up for it since the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital was not related to Rigalia
- •1. Rigalia is not responsible for the attack on the Bakchar Valley hospital
- •2. Rigalia is not obliged to scrutinize the attack and to compensate Ardenia for it
- •B. The act of Rigalia should be considered as a part of a legal and balanced antiterrorism operation
- •1. Actions of Rigalia were consistent with international law
- •2. Actions of Rigalia and Morgania were adequate to the situation
- •III. Rigalia’s limited ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls is consistent with international law
- •A. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- •B. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls does not violate their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- •C. Rigalia’s ban of the Mavazi for Zetian women and girls protects their rights
- •1. “Mavazi ban” terminates the women discrimination and provide gender equality
- •2. Zetians girls and women wear Mavazi because they are threatened with beatings
- •3. Zetian girls and women wear Mavazi because they are may be punished by being confined to their homes for long periods of time if they refused to wear this garment
- •4. If Rigalian women refused to wear this full-veil, they are forced to leave the Zetian Provinces
- •IV. Ardenia’s failure to investigate and prosecute the alleged corruption and to provide legal assistance to Rigalia constitute breaches of the oecd Anti-Bribery Convention
- •A. Ardenia has been unfairly subtracting from its obligations to initiate a corruption inquiry
- •1. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribery surrounding the renewal of the Moria Mine exploration contract
- •2. Rigalian authorities suspect mdi of bribing members of the provincial tribal councils in the Northern Provinces of Rigalia
- •B. Ardenia was obliged to provide legal assistance but did not respond to Rigalia's mla request
- •C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
- •Conclusion and prayer for relief
C. Ardenia breached the oecd Decision on mne Guidelines
The failure of the Ardenian NCP to respond to the complaint by the Rigalian CRBC constitutes the breach of the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines. Ardenia’s NCP refused to examine the complaint against MDI and RRI filled by the Committee for Responsible Business Conduct (CRBC), a Rigalian non-governmental organization, on July 1, 2009. This complaint concerned the violation of chapter VI of the MNE Guidelines to the NCP by those enterprises.78 The NCP, established by Ardenia in accordance with the Decision of the OECD Council on the OECD Guidelines for MNE79 "[h]ave an important role in enhancing the profile and effectiveness of the Guidelines"80 and NCP is "[e]xpected to respond to legitimate enquiries requested by other NCPs, non-governmental organisations, the public and governments."81 The Respondent considers that this refusal was unfair and did not satisfy the international obligations according the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines.
In particular Ardenian NCP stated that "[t]he complaint should be dealt with by the NCP of Rigalia where the alleged misconduct occurred."82 In this connection it is necessary to consider that MDI - an Ardenian corporation - was a party in alleged offence and this circumstance complicates the investigation of bribery by Rigalia. Therefore the complaint was filled in order to get a support from Ardenia.
The Applicant’s NCP also claimed that the MNE Guidelines do not apply to RRI83. But the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises directly states that:
The Guidelines are not aimed at introducing differences of treatment between multinational and domestic enterprises; they reflect good practice for all. Accordingly, multinational and domestic enterprises are subject to the same expectations in respect of their conduct wherever the Guidelines are relevant to both.84
Therefore the Respondent considers that the adhering Guidelines are relevant not only for MNE, operating in Regalia’s territory, but also for domestic enterprises so the Applicant could not explain its refusal referring to this cause.
Likewise, as explained by the Ardenian NCP “[i]t could not deal with the complaint since investigations had been launched in Ardenia and Rigalia concerning these allegations.”85 However on June 3, 2009, the Public Prosecutor of Ardenia, Sam Strong, dropped the investigation. Consequently later, on July 1, 2009 the CRBC filed a complaint against MDI and RRI for violation of chapter VI of the MNE Guidelines to the National Contact Point86 in order to do all in Rigalia's power to investigate the case of bribery in observance of the international provisions. Thus this reason represented by the Applicant is quite groundless. Therefore the Respondent insists that the inquiry should have been responded.
Moreover after Ardenia’s NCP represented abovementioned grounds the CRBC requested that it organize a meeting with all the parties involved to discuss ways to resolve these issues, including the possibility for the NCP to cooperate with Rigalia’s NCP in addressing the complaint. Ardenia’s NCP never answered this request.87 This omission of Ardenian NCP is unacceptable in such situation. Concerning the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines, NCPs deal with issues arise relating to implementation of the Guidelines in specific instances and are expected to help resolve them88; they shall respond to enquiries about the Guidelines from”89 in particular non-governmental organizations.90 NCPs will act as a forum for discussion of all matters relating to the Guidelines"91 and where the issues raised merit further consideration, the NCPs would discuss the issue further with parties involved and offer “good offices” in an effort to contribute informally to the resolution of issues.92 For this purpose, they will consult with these parties and exercise other practices described in the Decision on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.93 But after all the requests made by Rigalia's side the Applicant's NCP did not perform any of those options and did not give a satisfactory explanation. Therefore the Applicant violated of the OECD Decision on MNE Guidelines.