Question 1 Aronia and Etia were two neighbouring countries with the border running across the Linking Mountains. The biggest river of the Linking Mountains - Vista - was a common resource of the two countries for centuries and was the boundary line between the two countries. In August 2015 Presidents of Aronia and Etia met at a Friendship Summit to discuss the potential economic investment related to the river. At the end of their meeting they have signed the following document: Memorandum of Understanding between Aronia and Etia regarding the use of river Vista

1. The Participants have determined that common and efficient use of the river Vista is a shared objective.

2. This MOU will enable joint cooperation in order to develop a hydroelectric power plant.

3. The Participants understand the importance of regional cooperation and have determined to continue discussions regarding the power plant.

4. Participants agree that the joint investment shall be financed in 70% by Aronia and in 30% by Etia. Representatives of Aronia and Etia met again in July 2016 and, after negotiations, signed the Treaty on the Construction of the Hydroelectric Power Plant. Both parties stated that the treaty signifies a conclusion of years of talks and organic development of their mutual cooperation. The treaty specified a timeline for the construction of the Hydroelectric Power Plant (HPP) and created an international organisation (Organisation) which was to be responsible for the execution of the project. They agreed to provide an initial funding for the organisation by a way of equal financial contribution to cover the cost of setting up the Organisation. The treaty contained no other provisions regarding financial matters. The internal memo of negotiators of the two teams indicated that the topic does not need to be settled by the countries because of an already existing agreement in this respect. After 3 months of functioning, the Organisation run out of money. Etia requested Aronia to provide the 70% of the needed sum, yet Etia refused. Aronian prime minister stated that the countries should be financing the Organisation in equal shares. Etia is a party of VCLT, Aronia is not. Etia has submitted a declaration about the acceptance of compulsory ICJ Jurisdiction, Aronia has not.

Advise Etienne prime minister:

1. Whether his country is obliged to finance the Organisation equally and;

2. What are the ways for Etia to start a respective procedure at ICJ in order to let the court decide the issue?

Question 2 (20 points) Ogaria was a well-developed, rich in resources country. It bordered the country of Tania, which has been torn for years by internal conflicts. In 2010 the government of Tania signed a contract with 'Wildfire', a company with its seat in Ogaria. The contract foresaw that Wildfire would fight the militant groups opposing Tanian government. The company was also supposed to exercise temporary administrative control over the territories freed by Wildfire. As the internal conflict within Tania intensified and some Ogarian nationals died in the fights, Ogarian president decided to step in to restore order. The Tanian government welcomed this declaration, with Tanian president saying "At last our friends have decided to help us! We will do whatever it takes to use this chance!". A battalion of Ogarian soldiers entered the Tanian territory and quickly defeated local militias. After the initial battles the battalion set a camp in the middle of the jungle to perform local administrative functions. At the same time a group of Wildfire soldiers advanced to the same territory, not knowing about the involvement of Ogarian army. Effectively Wildfire attacked the Ogarian Camp and killed Ogarian soldiers and civilians. Furthermore, the Wildfire-militants poisoned the local river in order to cut-off local militants from water supply. The poison was transmitted by the river flow to the territory of Ogaria and devastated the local flora and fauna. Ogarian government was appalled. President of Ogaria claimed that the Tanian government is responsible for the attack and should pay a due reparation. Tanian government responded with a statement saying "Ogaria was on our territory in the first place and used force on our territory, which is a breach of international law. Secondly, Ogarian were attacked by an Ogarian company. Tania cannot be held responsible for such an inter-ogarian conflict." Ogarian prime minister replied: "These are all fake-claims. Tania is responsible both for the death of our soldiers and for the environmental damage on our territory!"

Advise Ogaria:

1. On the legality of its intervention in Tania

2. Whether it can claim Tanian responsibility for breach of international law?

Question 3 (10 points) Australian company Butz has signed a contract with an Indonesian client. According to the contract, the client was supposed to deliver secured car batteries to Sydney, where they would be processed by Butz in order to obtain lead. The contract obliged the parties to use "Australian Lead-Processing Principles". Furthermore, it contained a following clause: Jurisdiction clause Any disputes arising under this contract shall be dealt with by the Supreme Court of New South Wales A transport of batteries from January 2010 was incorrectly secured by the client. In consequence, the batteries exploded while the package was being opened by Buth employees. Several employees were wounded, and a considerable material damage caused.

Advise:

1. Would the NSW Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the matter?

2. What would be the proper law of the contract?

3. Which law would be applicable to the claim for compensation raised by Butz?