Applicant Memorial 2011

TEAM CODE: ‘E’

IN THE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

YEAR 2011

THE CASE CONCERNING CONFLICTING ORDERS OF THE COURTS OF

BOLITA AND GARUNDI

THE REPUBLIC OF BOLITA (APPLICANT)

V.

THE REPUBLIC OF GARUNDI (RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT STATE

- REPUBLIC OF BOLITA-

D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................I

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................XI

STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................XII

QUESTIONS PRESENTED...................................................................................... XIV

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS..................................................................................XV

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

1 THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND THE

APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO DETERMINE

ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE.......................................................................................1

1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY...............................................................................1

1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH OTHER’S

COURTS............................................................................................................................3

1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMITY FOR EACH OTHER’S LAWS......................4

1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY CONTRACT.....5

1.2.1 THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW ...............5

1.2.2 THE TRANSACTION HAS ITS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT

STATE’S LAW....................................................................................................................6

1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL

TREATY LAW......................................................................................................................7

TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

1.3.1 INTERNAL LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICY DO NOT INVALIDATE INTERNATIONAL TREATY

OBLIGATIONS...................................................................................................................8

1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE

LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE..........................................................................................9



EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE.........................................................................................11

2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING EMILY‟S CUSTODY

DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY...................................................................................11

2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND

HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF HER CUSTODY..................12

3 THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATION TO

HAND OVER JANE AND JANET...............................................................................17

3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARREST WARRANT

ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE...........................................................17

3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE THAT THE

RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET...........................................................19

4 ARGUENDO, THE RESPONDENT STATE’S COURTS CAN NOT ACCORD

FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL................................................................................20

PRAYERS...........................................................................................................................XVII

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

I D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

UN DOCUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS PAGE

NO.

Convention on The Rights Of The Child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No.

49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989)

16, 17

United Nations Charter, as amended June 26, 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119 9

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR

Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989)

9, 17,

20

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA res. 2200A (XXI), 21

UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 993 UNTS 3; 6 ILM 368 (1967)

9, 17

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA res. 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) 9, 17,

20

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842. 8, 9

American Dredging Co. v. Miller, (1994) 510 U.S. 443, 449 n. 2. 5

Amin Shipping Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1983] 2 ALL ER 884, [1983] 3 WLR

241

5

Anonymous v. Anonymous, (1964) 41 Misc. 2d 886, 246 N.Y.S.2d 835 10

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), [2007] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 160 ff

1

Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations

Headquarters Agreement case, [1988] I.C.J. Rep.

8

ARY Jewelers v. Krigel, 277 Kan. 464, 481, 85 P.3d 1151 (2004) 7

Attn. Gen. v Rowe [1862] 1 H. & C.31 14

B.P. Exploration Co. (Libya) v. Hunt, [1983] 2 A.C. 352 (H.L. 1981) 3

Bailey v. South Carolina Inc. Co., (1813) 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread. Const.) 381, 415 3

Barcelo v. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd., (1932) 48 C.L.R. 391 6

Bates v. Bates, (1930) 53 Nev. 77, 292 P. 298 3

Beagle Channel case, [1977] HMSO at 12; 52 ILR 93 2

Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319 14

Belsito v. Clark (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E.2d 760 10

Bennett v. Hymers, (N.H. 1958) 147 A.2d 10

Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, [1951] AC 201 (Privy Council) 8

British Controlled Oilfields v. Stagg, [1921] 1 Lloyd‟s Rep. 613 6


II D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Brown v. Gadson, (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) 654 S.E.2d 179 7

Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd. (1932) 285 U.S. 413, 422 5

Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship

Of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55

1, 8

Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant Of 11 April 2000 (D.R.C. v. Bel) [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 18

Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France, (1929) PCIJ,

Ser.A, no. 20

5

Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits), (1926) PCIJ Series A, No. 7 8

Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands Co., (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 (C.A.) 5

Coast Lines Ltd. v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, [1972] 1 ALL ER 451 5, 7

Cohen v. Cohen, (Sup. Ct. 1993) 602 N.Y.S.2d 994, 998 15

Commonwealth v. Cass, (Mass. 1984) 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1330 11

Commonwealth v. Morris, (Ky. 2004) 142 S.W.3d 656 10

Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation S.A. v. Compagnie d’Armement Maritime S.A., [1971]

A.C 572

5

Compania Mexicana Rediodifusora Franteriza v. Spann, (N.D. Tex. 1941) 41 F.Supp 907,

908-09, aff'd (5th Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 609

9

Coulborn v. Joseph, (1943) 195 Ga. 723, 25 S.E.2d 576 3

D’Etchegoyen v. D’Etchegoyen [1888] 13 PD 132 14

David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991) 16

Davis v. Davis, (Tenn. 1992) 842 S.W.2d 588, 597-98 6, 9

DeYoung v. DeYoung, (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 521, 165 P.2d 457 3

Deva Prasad Reddy v. Kamini Reddy, AIR 1985 GUJ 187 3

Doe v. Attorney Gen., (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) 487 N.W.2d 484 9

Dr. Padmini Mishra v. Dr. R. C. Mishra, AIR 1991 Ori 263 4

E v E [1998] 2 FLR 980 16

Eisenstadt v. Baird, (1972) 405 U.S. 438 9

Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Welgrow Int'l Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 954 F. Supp. 101, 104 3

Findlay v Findlay (No 2) [1995] SLT 492. 15

Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), [1973] I.C.J. Rep. 9

Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan. App. 2d 890, Syl. P4, 159 P.3d 1042

(2007)

7

Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, (1932) PCIJ Series A/B, No. 46 8

Friedrich v. Friedrich, (6th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 15

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. 9


III D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Co, (1947) 330 U.S. 5

Grant v Grant, (1931) S.C. 238 10, 13

Greco-Bulgarian Communities, (1930) PCIJ Series B, No. 17 8

Greenshields Inc. v. Johnston, (1981) 119 D.L.R. (3rd) 714 8

Harben v. Harben, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 261 10

Hilton v. Guyot, (1895) 159 U.S. 113 4, 9

Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320 6, 7

Hope v. Hope, (1854) a DeG.M. & G. 328 10, 13

Hornbuckle v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., (Ga. 1956) 93 S.E.2d 727 10

Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya), (N.D. Tex. 1980) 492 F. Supp. 885 3

In re C.K.G., (Tenn. 2005) 173 S.W.3d 714 6

In Re Callaghan [1948] NZLR 846. 11

In re Doe, (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2005) 793 N.Y.S.2d 878 6

In Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd’s Claim, [1956] Ch 323, [1956] 1 ALL ER 129 (Chancery

Division)

8

In Re Jones’ Estate [1921] 192 Iowa 78, 182 NW 227 14

In RE K (Abduction: Consent : Forum Conveniens) [1995] 2 FLR 211, CA 15

In re M.K.H., 169 P.3d at 1031-32. 7

In Re Marriage of Adams, 133 Ill. 2d 437, 447, 551 N.E.2d 635, 141 Ill. Dec. 448 (1990) 7

In re Marriage of Buzzanca, (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280, 282 6

In Re A (Minors) [1996] 1 WLR 25 15

In Re P (GE) (an infant), [1965] 3 ALL ER 977 10, 13

In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL

4304448

6

In re Rutherford's Estate, 182 Misc. 1019, 46 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sur. Ct. 1944) 3

In Re Salaman [1908] 1 Ch 4 11

In re United Railways of Havana v. Warehouses Ltd., [1960] Ch, 52, 91 (C.A.) 7

In Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 324 (C.A.) 10, 13

In Re Y (minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136 14

In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685 14

In The Interest of K.M.H., (2007) 169 P.3d 6

In the Interest of O.G.M., A Child, (Tex. Civ. App., 1st Dist., 1999) 988 S.W. 2d 473 10

Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger, (7th Cir. 1987) 833 F.2d 680, 685 11

Iran v. USA, Case No. A/18, 5 Iran–US CTR 2

Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, (1884) 12 QBD 589 (Court of Appeal) 7


IV D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Jesse Lewis (U.S.) v. Gr. Br. (David J. Adams case), (1921) 6 RIAA 85; 1 AD 2

John and Jane D. v. Regents of the University Of California, (2003) WL 21956362 (C.A.9) 20

Johnson v. Calvert, (Cal. 1993) 851 P.2d 776 6

Jopp v Wood [1865] 4 D.J. & S.616 14

Kane v. Central Am. Mining & Oil, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 235 F. Supp. 559 3

Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. 1, 2

Kass v. Kass, (App. Div. 1998) 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174 6

Kelly v. Gregory, (N.Y. 1953) 125 N.Y.S.2d 696, 698 10

La Société du Gaz de Paris v. Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Français”,

[1925] 23 Lloyd's List. Rep. 209, 213 (Sess.)

5

Lagos v Baggianini, [1955] 22 ILR 533 17

Laker Airways v. Sabena, (1984) 731 F.2d 909 18

Lamaritata v. Lucas, (Fla. Ct. App. 2002) 823 So.2d 316 6

Lauritzen et al v Government of Chile, [1956] 23 ILR 70 17

Layne Christiansen Co. v. Zurich Canada, 30 Kan. App. 2d 128, 141-42, 38 P.3d 757

(2002)

7

Liechtenstein v Guatamela (Nottebohm Case), [1955] I.C.J. Rep 17

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America (Questions of Interpretation and

Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie)

[1992] I.C.J. Rep.

8

Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 146 Wn. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261 6, 11

Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), European Court of Human Rights, Series A,

No. 310

2

Lloyd v. Guibert, (1865) LR 1 QB 115, 6 B & S 100 (Exchequer Chamber) 5

Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Manniben, AIR 2002 KAR 356 3

Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd.,(3d Cir.2006) 436 F.3d 349. 5

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.

Bahrain), [1995] I.C.J. Rep.

1

May v. Roberts, (1930) 133 Ore. 643, 286 P. 546 3

McDonald v. McDonald, (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) 608 N.Y.S.2d 477 6

McM. V. C. (No. 2), [1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 27 10

Military and Paramilitary Activities Case, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 17

Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, (Vt. 2006) 912 A.2d 951, 965-68 7

N. V. Handel Maatschappij J. Smits v. English Expoertes (Londaon) Ltd., [1955] 2 Lloyd‟s

Rep. 317

7


V D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Neporany v. Kir, (1st Dep't 1958) 5 App. Div. 2d 438, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146 3

Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer (1998) 2 All ER 728 at 737, CA 14

Nike Informatic Systems Ltd. v. Avac Systems, (1979) 105 D.L.R. 3 rd 455 8

North Sea Continental Shelf (F.R.G./Den.; F.R.G./Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20) 17

Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 377 (8th Cir. 1995) 16

Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), [2003] I.C.J. Rep. 2

Oral Pleadings of the United States, Question and Interpretation and Application of the

1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.),

Prelim. Obj., (Oct. 15, 1997)

20

Owens v. Bell (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 6 OBR 65, 67-68, 451 N.E.2d 10

Peal v Peal (1930) 46 T.L.R. 645 10, 13

People v. Sorensen, (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 280, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495 10

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Shand, (1865) 3 Moo PCC NS 272, 6 New

Rep 387

5, 7

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981) 5

Qureshi v. Qureshi (1972) Fam.173 14

Ramsay v Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588 14

Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethai Ltd., [1956] 2 Q.B. 490,514, 523 (C.A.). 8

Reino de Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459–60, 2008

A.M.C. 83 (S.D. N.Y. 2008)

1

Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. USA), [1952]

I.C.J. Rep.

2

Robert v. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] ALL ER 164 5, 6

Robert v. Sandbach Justices, ex p Smith, [1951] 1 KB 62. 13

Royal Trustco Ltd. v. Campeau Corp. (1981) 118 D.L.R. (3rd

) 207 8

Russian Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N. Y. 255. as quoted in “Comity” 12 Va. L. Rev. 353 4

Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1995) 16

Sayers v. International Drilling Co., [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1176, 1187 (C.A.). 7

Showlag v. Mansour, [1995] 1 A.C. 431 (P.C. 1994) (appeal taken from Jersey) (U.K.) 3

Smith v. Brennan, (N.J. 1960)157 A.2d 497 10

Somportex, Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp, (3d Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 435, 440 4

Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. 1

Speranza v. Repro Lab Inc., (1st Dept. 2009) 62 A.D.3d 49, 52-55, 875 N.Y.S.2d 449 6

Strnad v. Strnad, (Sup. Ct. 1948) 190 Misc. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390 10

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 736, 100 L. Ed. 2d 743, 108 S. Ct. 2117 (1988). 7


VI D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Systems Design v. Kansas City P.O. Employees Cred. Union, 14 Kan. App. 2d 266, 269, 788

P.2d 878 (1990)

7

Taintor (1940) 18 Can BR 10

Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), [1994] I.C.J. Rep. 1

The Abidin Daver, [1984] 1 A.C. 3

The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 9 11

The Eleftheria, [1970] P 94, [1969] 2 ALL ER 4 (Admiralty Division). 6

The Italian National Re-extradition Case, [1970] 70 ILR 374 17

The State (Duggan) v Tapley, [1951] 18 ILR 109 17

Thomson v. Thomson, 119 D.R.4th 253 (Can. 1994) 16

Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig

Territory (1932) PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44

8

Tzortzis v. Monark Line, A/B [1968] 1 W.L.R. 406, 411 (C.A.) 6

Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc 10, 13

U.S. v. Stuart, 1989-1 C.B. 312, 489 U.S. 353, 368, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas.

(CCH) P 9185, 63 A.F.T.R.2d 89-681 (1989)

2

United States v. Ahmed Amer, 110 F.3d at 873 20

Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936). 3, 17

Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78. 81-82 (D. Mass 1994) 15, 16

Weckstrom v. Hyson, [1966] V.R. 277 7

Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777 11

Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc., 269 Kan. 194, 209-10, 4 P.3d 1149 (2000) 7

Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287 14

Young Loan Arbitration (Belg. v. FRG), [1980] 59 ILR 495 2

BOOKS, DIGESTS AND TREATISES

Alexander Orakhelashvili, The United Nations Convention Against Torture. A Commentary.

Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University

Press: 2009) (2009) 20 EJIL 457.

19

David McClean, ed., Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell,

1993)

12

Ernst Rabel, The conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, 2nd

ed. (1958-64) vol. 1 13

Falconbridge, Conflict of Laws, 5th ed 5

Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge:

1986)

2

Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court 18


VII D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

(Cambridge University Press: 1996)

Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1979)

4, 17,

19, 20

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834) 4

J. H. C. Morris and P. M. North, eds., Cases and Materials on Private International Law,

(London: Butterworths, 1984)

7

James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International Law: Essays in

Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

4, 18

Lauterpacht ed., Hersch Lauterpacht International Law Collected Papers, (Cambridge:

1970) vol. 1

4

Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th ed. (London:

Stevens & Limited, 1987)

10, 13,

14

M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty To Extradite

Or Prosecute In International Law (1995)

19

M. Cherif Bassiouni, Foreword to Treaty Enforcement and International Cooperation in

Criminal Matters, Rodrigo Yepes- Enríquez & Lisa Tabassi eds. (2002)

19

Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed. (Cambridge: 2008) 10

Marc Henzelin, Le Principe de l’Universalité en Droit Pénal International: Droit et

Obligation pour les États de Poursuivre et Juger selon le Principe de l’Universalité, (2000)

19

P.E. Nygh, Conflict of Laws in Australia, 6th ed., (1995) 14

P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed.

(LexisNexis Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999)

10, 13

Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et seq 13

Perry v. Ponder, (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1980) 604 S.W.2d 306 13

R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law 9th ed. (1992) vol. 1 1, 17

Rancis Wharton, A Treatise On The Conflict Of Laws 2d ed. (1881) 4

Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 1

Ronald F. Roxburgh, ed. Oppenhiem’s International Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook

Exchange, Ltd., 2005) vol. 1

19

Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 6th ed. (Oxon: Professional Books

Limited, 1976)

2

TREATIES AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc.

CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982)

9, 20

American Convention on Human Rights, OAS Treaty Series No. 36; 1144 UNTS 123

(1969)

9, 20


VIII D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, 1950 9, 20

European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of

Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, (20 May, 1980) Eur T.S. 105

15

EC, Convention of 10th June 2009 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of

Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5

12

Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement

and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of

Children, [1996] O.J. L 48/3

15, 16

EC, Convention of 1998 on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments

in the Matrimonial Matters ( Brussels II), [1998] OJ C221/2

14

EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction

and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of

parental responsibility, [2003] O.J. L 338

12, 16

EC, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction And The

Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2000] O.J.

L 12

12

EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments

In Civil And Commercial Matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC

12

Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention Concerning the Powers

of Authorities and the Law Applicable in Respect of the Protection of Infants, 5 October

1961, UNTS 1969, pp. 145 ff.

12, 15,

16

International Law Commission’s Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States,

G.A.Res. 375 (IV) of 6 December 1949

1

Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on the International Return of

Children, 15 July 1989, OAS, Treaty Series, No. 70

16

The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 5, 6

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (May 23, 1969) U.N. Doc. A./CONF. 39/27

(1971)

1, 2, 8,

17

ARTICLES AND JOURNALS

Anastasia Grammaticaki-Alexiou, “ARTs and Conflict of Laws”, 60 La. L. Rev. 1113. 20

Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Breard: Court to Court” (1998) 92 A.J.I.L. 708 11

A. Alexander, “Foreign Judgments ––Under the Comity of Nations”, (1928-1929) 17 Geo.

L. J. 221

4

Catherine Heard, “The New European Extradition System” (2009) 25 No. 10 Int'l Efrcmt L.

Rep. 398

18

Donna M. Sheinbach, “Examining Disputes Over Ownership Rights To Frozen Embryos” 10


IX D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

(1999) 48 Cath. U.L. Rev. 989.

Fischer, “Misappropriation of Human Eggs And Embryos And The Tort Of Conversion: A

Relational View,” 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 381, 420-423 (1999)

20

Hans Smit, “International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”, (1962) 9 UCLA L. REV.

44, 53

4

Jacqueline D. Golub, “The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act Of 1993: The

United States' Attempt To Get Our Children Back” (1999) 24 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 797

20

Jan Komárek, “European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: In Search of

the Limits of “Contrapuntal Principles” (2007) 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9

18

Janet Walker, “Foreign Public Law And The Colour Of Comity: What's The Difference

Between Friends?” (2003) 38 Can. Bus. L.J. 36

19

Joseph T. Latronica, American Jurisprudence Treaties 2d. ed. 74 Am. Jur. 2

L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002), 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 4, 18

“Major „Minor‟ Progress Under The Third Pillar: EU Institution Building In The Sharing Of

Criminal Record Information” (2008) 8 Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 111.

18

N. Jansen Calamita, “Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International

Parallel Proceedings”, (2006) 27 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 601

3

“Note, Power to Stay Federal Proceedings Pending Termination of Concurrent State

Litigation”, (1950) 59 Yale L.J. 978, 983

3

Peter Pfund, “The Hague Conference Celebrates Its 100th Anniversary” (1993) 28 Tex. Int'l

L.J. 531

14

“Rebus Revisited: Changed Circumstances in Treaty Law” (2005) 43 Colum. J. Transnat'l L.

459

9

Richard D. Kearney and Robert E. Dalton, “The Treaty on Treaties” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int‟l

Law 495

1

Rosenne, “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law

Commission‟s Draft Articles: A Comparison,” (1966) 5 Col. J. Transnat‟l Law 205, 221.

1

Sonia Bychkov Green, “Interstate Intercourse: How Modern Assisted Reproductive

Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law” (2009) 24 Wis. J.L.

Gender & Soc'y 25.

6

Symeon C. Symeonides, “Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007: Twenty-First

Annual Survey”, (2007) 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 301

6

Ved P. Nanda, “Bases for Refusing International Extradition Requests: Capital Punishment

and Torture” (2000) 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1369.

19

Willis Reese, “The Hague Conference on Private International Law” (1985) 19 Int'l Law

881

14


X D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

MISCELLANEOUS

Alabama Claims arbitration, J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations (New York: 1898) vol.

1

8

Child Support Act 1991 (U.K.), 1991 c. 48 14

Conference organized by CLT Scotland, Resolving The Problems Of Jurisdiction In Family

Law, Brussels II And Points West, Janys M. Scott, Advocate, (Scotland, 26 October 2005).

12

Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings, 10 December 2001, 14867/1/01

REV I COPEN 79 CATS 50

18

Council Framework Decision on Taking Account of Convictions in the Member States of

the European Union in the Course of New Criminal Proceedings COM(2005/0018 (CNS), 2

July 2007.

18

Domicile Acts 1982 (Cth.). (Australia) 14

Domicile Act 1976 (N.Z.), 1976/0017 (New Zealand) 14

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K.) 1973 c.45 14

Explanatory report on the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child

abduction, 1980 by Eliza Perez-Vera (Madrid, April 1981)

16

Family Law Act 1986 (U.K.), 1986 c. 55 14

ILC Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties, 1966, Yrbk. ILC vol. 2 1

ILC Report on aut dedere aut judicare, Amnesty International Publications, (2009) 19

Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3, 11

Indian Draft Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill & Rules, (2008) 10

International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (1993) 18 U.S.C. 1204 20

Letter from Elihu Root, Secretary of State, to Victor H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce

and Labor (Mar. 16, 1906), in 288 Domestic Letters Of The Department Of State, cited in

Green H. Hackworth, Digest Of International Law (1942)

4

Louisiana Civil Code (1986) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:124-125 10

Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10

(A/59/10)

19

The Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties (1935) 29 Am. J. Int‟l Law Supp. 653 8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XI D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Applicant, the Republic of Bolita, on one side, and the Respondent, the Republic of

Garundi on the other, have submitted by Special Agreement their differences, pursuant to

Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Therefore, both

parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Statute of the

Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XII D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Economic Union Treaty: Bolita and Garundi two developing countries formed an

economic union in 1978 which provided for respect and comity for each other‟s laws and

recognition and enforcement of orders of each other‟s courts. International law is recognized

by the Constitutions of both nations as one of the sources of law in the interpretation of

domestic laws.

Citizenship Rules of Bolita and Garundi: Under Bolitian Laws, a child is a citizen of

Bolita if he is born in Bolita or he is born outside of Bolita but to Bolitian citizens. Children

born outside of Bolita to couples where only one parent is Bolitian are not entitled to

citizenship unless the Bolitian parent is resident in Bolita at the time of delivery. Garundian

Laws state that a child born in Garundi is a citizen of Garundi if its mother is a citizen of

Garundi. Children born outside of Garundi are citizens of Garundi if their parents are

Garundian citizens.

The Surrogacy Contract: Jane Rathna, a Garundian citizen travelled to Bolita in 1992 and

decided to work there. She married John Botisa in 1992 and had a daughter, Emily.

Complications led Jane to undergo a hysterectomy rendering her unfit to bear any more

children. In 2003, John and Jane froze their sperm and eggs, hoping to have future children

by means of in vitro fertilization. In 2006, John and Jane trusted Janet Rathna (Jane‟s sister -

a Garundian citizen) to carry the baby to term. As per their surrogacy contract, Janet was to

deliver the child in Bolita – for the child to clearly be a citizen of Bolita, but, in her final

trimester, Janet decided to fly back to Garundi due to family reasons for a few days. Soon

after, she developed complications, went into labour and delivered a baby boy – Robert, in

Garundi. Jane and Emily immediately travelled to Garundi to bring Robert back to Bolita.

STATEMENT OF FACTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XIII D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

Breach of the Surrogacy Contract: The concept of was surrogacy was unknown in

Garundi. Janet came under tremendous local political and religious pressure not to hand over

the child to Jane. John flew into Garundi to take Emily back to Bolita. Despite strong protests

John had to fly back to Bolita without Emily, as Jane insisted that Emily remain in Garundi

until the matter was resolved. Meanwhile, Janet filed with the Registrar of Births in Garundi

as the mother of the child, naming the child Robert Rathna and declaring the father to be

“unknown”. Her refusal to hand over Robert to Jane resulted in friction between the sisters as

well as in Jane and John‟s relationship.

Conflicting Orders of the Courts of Bolita and Garundi: John filed for the specific

performance of the Surrogacy contract with Janet in Bolita. The court pronounced an ex parte

interim order declaring itself to have jurisdiction as per the surrogacy contract and ordering

Janet to appear before the court within 30 days with Robert for the matter to be resolved as

per the terms of the contract. John also initiated legal proceedings before the courts in

Garundi for an order to compel Janet to appear before the courts in Bolita. Janet filed

objections between the courts in Garundi stating that she should not be compelled to travel to

Bolita as the child was a citizen of Garundi. Janet also filed objections before the courts in

Bolita, stating that they had no jurisdiction over the child. John in the meantime filed a claim

before the courts in Bolita requesting that Jane be compelled to hand over custody of Emily

to him. Jane entered objections before the Bolitian courts. Jane then filed for custody of

Emily with the Garundian courts.

Criminal Proceedings: John‟s lawyers initiated criminal proceedings against Jane and Janet

in the Bolitian courts for kidnapping and stealing genetic material respectively. The Bolitian

courts issued arrest warrants to ensure attendance and appearance of Jane and Janet. Bolitian

authorities were considering requesting Garundi to hand over Jane and Janet to face trial

under the economic union treaty.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XIV D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1 WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND

WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO

DETERMINE ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE?

2 WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION AND

WHETHER THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE APPLICABLE LAW TO

DETERMINE EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE?

3 WHETHER THE RESPONDENT STATE HAS AN INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATION TO HAND OVER JANE AND JANET?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XV D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS



ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE

1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY

1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH

OTHER‟S COURTS

1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMITY FOR EACH OTHER‟S LAWS

1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY CONTRACT

1.2.1 THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW

1.2.2 THE TRANSACTION HAS ITS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT

STATE‟S LAW

1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL

TREATY LAW


OBLIGATIONS

1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION AND

APPLICABLE LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE



EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

XVI D. M. HARISH MEMORIALGOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING EMILY‟S CUSTODY

DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY

2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY, DOMICILE AND

HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER OF HER CUSTODY


HAND OVER JANE AND JANET

3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARREST WARRANT

ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE

3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRE THAT THE

RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET


FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL

BODY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE

1 D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

BODY OF ARGUMENTS



ROBERT’S CUSTODY ISSUE

1.1 THE RESPONDENT STATE IS DUTY-BOUND TO COMPLY WITH HER

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE E U TREATY

It is humbly submitted that E U treaty is applicable to the present issue. A treaty in force is

binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.1 The devotion of

states to this principle of pacta sunt servanda is underscored by the travaux préparatoires of

the VCLT.2 These rules are regarded by international courts as customary international law.

3

Further, a treaty must also be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary

meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and

purpose.4 However, the object and purpose of a treaty cannot be used to alter the clear

meaning of terms in the treaty.5 Emphasis lies on the actual text

6 and the words of the

1 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (May 23, 1969) U.N. Doc. A./CONF. 39/27 (1971), reprinted in 63

AM. J. INT'L L. 875, 876 (1969) Art. 26 [Vienna Conv.]; the ILC Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties,

1966, Yrbk. ILC vol. 2 at 210-11, Art 23; International Law Commission’s Draft Declaration on Rights and

Duties of States, G.A.Res. 375 (IV) of 6 December 1949 Art 13; McNair, Law of Treaties, ch 30; Case

Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants (Netherlands

v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 (Declaration of Judge Kojevnikov). 2 Richard D. Kearney and Robert E. Dalton, “The Treaty on Treaties” (1970) 64 Am. J. Int‟l Law 495 at 516. 3 Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 16. 4 Vienna Conv. Art 31; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), [2007] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 160 ff.; Sovereignty over

Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), [2002] I.C.J. Rep. at 625, 645–6; Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. at 1045; Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad),

[1994] I.C.J. Rep. at 6, 21–2; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain

(Qatar v. Bahrain), [1995] I.C.J. Rep. at 6, 18; R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International

Law 9th ed. (London: 1992) vol. 1at 1271. 5 Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 198; Reino de

Espana v. American Bureau of Shipping, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 455, 459–60, 2008 A.M.C. 83 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).



agreement.7 If the words express the meaning of the contracting nations plainly, distinctly,

and perfectly, there ought to be no other means of interpretation.8 Interpretation with extreme

deference to the sovereignty of states, the presumption being in favour of assuming that a

state intends to be bound by the least of any obligation which could be read from a provision

of doubtful content or ambiguous expression, is inconsistent with the principle of

effectiveness.9 Generally, a treaty should be liberally construed consistent with its intent.

10

The word „context‟ is held to include the preamble and annexes of the treaty as well as any

agreement or instrument made by the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty.11

Present-day state of scientific knowledge can be taken into account while interpreting a

treaty.12

In the context of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights,

1955 recourse to the rules concerning the use of force is justified13

under the provision

whereby any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties

shall be taken into account in interpreting a treaty.14

Thus, E U treaty is applicable to a

dispute resultant from a surrogacy contract.

6 Rosenne, “Interpretation of Treaties in the Restatement and the International Law Commission‟s Draft Articles: A Comparison,” (1966) 5 Col. J. Transnat‟l Law 205, 221. 7 Gerald Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice (Cambridge: Grotius, 1986)

at 204–7. 8 Georg Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 6th ed. (Oxon: Professional Books Limited, 1976) at

134; Joseph T. Latronica, American Jurisprudence Treaties 2d. ed. 74 Am. Jur. § 24. 9 Lauterpacht, “Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties”

(1949) 26 BYIL 48; McNair, Law of Treaties at 345–50; Jesse Lewis (U.S.) v. Gr. Br. (David J. Adams case),

(1921) 6 RIAA 85; 1 AD, p. 331. 10 U.S. v. Stuart, 1989-1 C.B. 312, 489 U.S. 353, 368, 109 S. Ct. 1183, 89-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P 9185, 63

A.F.T.R.2d 89-681 (1989). 11 Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America), [1952]

I.C.J. Rep. at 176, 196; the Beagle Channel case, [1977] HMSO at 12; 52 ILR 93; Young Loan Arbitration (Belg. v. FRG), [1980] 59 ILR 495 at 530. 12 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), [1999] I.C.J. Rep. at 1045, 1060. 13 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), [2003] I.C.J. Rep. at 161, 182; Iran v.

USA, Case No. A/18, 5 Iran–US CTR at 251; Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), European Court of

Human Rights, Series A, No. 310 at 25; 103 ILR 6. 14 Vienna conv. Art 31(3) c.



1.1.1 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF EACH

OTHER’S COURTS

In effect an order of Applicant state‟s courts creates estoppel or res judicata between the

same parties15

without any provisos.16

When substantial rights are at stake, the court will be

wary to fill-in an omission.17

Moreover, public interest requires that there be an end of

litigation.18

Effective application of this provision of the E U Treaty requires that parallel proceedings

should not be conducted. Parallel proceedings carry the risk of inconsistent decisions in

different courts on the same issues between the same parties.19

A stay of litigation minimizes

the risk of inconsistent judgments with respect to related claims20

and enables the recognition

and enforcement of orders of each other‟s courts. 21

Additionally, “comity demands that such

a situation should not be permitted to occur …It is a recipe for confusion and injustice.”22

Additionally where a party having opportunity fails to challenge the jurisdiction of the

foreign Court and allows it to be decided ex parte the presumption23

can be taken that the

15 Cf Judgment of a foreign Court creates estoppel or res judicata between the same parties, provided such

Judgment is not subject to attack under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 13 – Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Manniben, AIR 2002 KAR 356; Deva Prasad Reddy v.

Kamini Reddy, AIR 1985 GUJ 187. 16 Compromis ¶ 1. 17 Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936). 18 Bailey v. South Carolina Inc. Co., (1813) 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread. Const.) 381, 415 (opinion of Smith, J.); Coulborn

v. Joseph, (1943) 195 Ga. 723, 25 S.E.2d 576; Kane v. Central Am. Mining & Oil, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1964) 235 F.

Supp. 559; DeYoung v. DeYoung, (1946) 27 Cal. 2d 521, 165 P.2d 457; Neporany v. Kir, (1st Dep't 1958) 5

App. Div. 2d 438, 173 N.Y.S.2d 146; In re Rutherford's Estate, 182 Misc. 1019, 46 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sur. Ct.

1944); Bates v. Bates, (1930) 53 Nev. 77, 292 P. 298; May v. Roberts, (1930) 133 Ore. 643, 286 P. 546. 19 N. Jansen Calamita, “Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel

Proceedings”, (2006) 27 U. Pa. J. Int'l Econ. L. 601 at 611. 20 Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Welgrow Int'l Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 954 F. Supp. 101, 104. 21

Compromis ¶ 1. 22 The Abidin Daver, [1984] 1 A.C. at 412; Showlag v. Mansour, [1995] 1 A.C. 431 (P.C. 1994) (appeal taken

from Jersey) (U.K.); Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya), (N.D. Tex. 1980) 492 F. Supp. 885; B.P. Exploration

Co. (Libya) v. Hunt, [1983] 2 A.C. 352 (H.L. 1981) (appeal taken from Eng.); See also “Note, Power to Stay

Federal Proceedings Pending Termination of Concurrent State Litigation”, (1950) 59 Yale L.J. 978, 983. 23 Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 sec 14.



Court had the jurisdiction to try the case.24

In the instant case the Applicant State‟s courts

have issued an ex parte interim order.25

It is humbly submitted that compliance with the E U

treaty requires enforcement of this order and a stay of the parallel proceedings in the

Respondent State.

1.1.2 THE E U TREATY REQUIRES RESPECT AND COMITY FOR EACH OTHER’S LAWS

The word comity presupposes friendship and the prevalence of equity and justice”.26

Many

scholars and courts have variedly characterized „comity‟ as a rule of public international

law,27

a moral obligation,28

expediency,29

courtesy30

or reciprocity.31

Thus, the word

“comity” has had numerous interpretations but the basic principle underlining its existence is

international cooperation.32

Moreover, in the application of choice of law rules even in the

absence of treaty, “they [States] are not, in principle, free to disregard foreign law

altogether.”33

When there is no written law upon the subject, the duty still rests upon the judicial tribunals

of ascertaining and declaring what the law is.34

The Applicant State‟s courts have provided

for specific enforcement of surrogacy contracts.35

Whereas the Respondent State has no laws

24 Dr. Padmini Mishra v. Dr. R. C. Mishra, AIR 1991 Ori 263. 25 Compromis ¶ 7. 26 Russian Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N. Y. 255. as quoted in “Comity” 12 Va. L. Rev. 353 at 359, 1925-19262. 27 Letter from Elihu Root, Secretary of State, to Victor H. Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and Labor (Mar. 16,

1906), in 288 Domestic Letters Of The Department Of State, cited in Green H. Hackworth, Digest Of

International Law (1942) at 460. 28 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) at 28;

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Conflict of Laws (1834) § 33; Arthur A. Alexander, “Foreign Judgments –

Enforcements of –Under the Comity of Nations”, (1928-1929) 17 Geo. L. J. 221. 29 Somportex, Ltd. v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corp, (3d Cir. 1971) 453 F.2d 435, 440. 30 Rancis Wharton, A Treatise On The Conflict Of Laws 2d ed. (1881) at 5. 31 Hans Smit, “International Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”, (1962) 9 UCLA L. REV. 44, 53. 32 L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002), 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 at 504; Lawrence Collins, “Comity in Modern Private International Law” in James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International

Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 33 Elihu Lauterpacht ed., Hersch Lauterpacht International Law Collected Papers, (Cambridge: 1970) vol. 1 at

38. 34 Hilton v. Guyot, (1895)159 U.S. 113, 164 at 163. 35 Compromis ¶ 4.



on this issue.36

In this light it is humbly submitted that Applicant State‟s laws regarding

surrogacy should be complied with by the Respondent State.

1.2 THE APPLICANT STATE‟S LAW IS THE PROPER LAW FOR THE SURROGACY

CONTRACT

The essential validity of a contract is governed by its proper law.37

The proper law is the

system of law by which the parties intended the contract to be governed, or, where their

intention is neither expressed nor to be inferred from the circumstances, the system of law

with which the transaction has its closest and most real connection.38

Further, the doctrine of

forum non conveniens39

provides jurisdiction on considerations of convenience, fairness, and

judicial economy.40

1.2.1 THE PARTIES INTENDED THAT THE APPLICANT STATE’S LAW BE THE PROPER LAW

The intention of the parties will be conclusive41

and this is consistent with policy.42

Principles

of contract laws will govern surrogacy contracts.43

Proceedings instituted in breach of such

36 Compromis ¶ 6,8. 37 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Shand, (1865) 3 Moo PCC NS 272, 6 New Rep 387 (Privy

Council); Lloyd v. Guibert, (1865) LR 1 QB 115, 6 B & S 100 (Exchequer Chamber); Robert v. International

Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] AC 500, [1937] ALL ER 164 (House of Lords); Coast Lines Ltd. v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, [1972] 1 ALL ER 451; Amin Rasheed Shipping

Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1983] 2 ALL ER 884, [1983] 3 WLR 241 (House of Lords); The EEC

Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Art. 8. 38 Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France, (1929) P.C.I.J., Ser. A, no. 20;

Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands Co., (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 (C.A.); Compagnie Tunisienne

de Navigation S.A. v. Compagnie d’ Armement Maritime S.A., [1971] A.C. 572; Amin Rasheed Shipping

Corporation v. Kuwait Insurance Co, [1984] A.C. 50; Falconbridge, Conflict of Laws, 5th ed., at 383-85. 39 Gilbert v. Gulf Oil Co, (1947) 330 U.S. at 507; Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd. (1932) 285

U.S. 413, 422; Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 253 (1981); American Dredging Co. v. Miller, (1994)

510 U.S. 443, 449 n. 2. 40 La Société du Gaz de Paris v. Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Français”, [1925] 23 Lloyd's

List. Rep. 209, 213 (Sess.); Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. v. Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd.,(3d Cir.2006) 436 F.3d 349. 41

Compromis ¶ 7; Robert v. International Trustee for the Protection of Bondholders AG, [1937] AC 500, [1937]

ALL ER 164 (House of Lords); Barcelo v. Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australia Ltd., (1932) 48 C.L.R. 391; British

Controlled Oilfields v. Stagg, [1921] 1 Lloyd‟s Rep. 613; Tzortzis v. Monark Line, A/B [1968] 1 W.L.R. 406,

411 (C.A.); Lord Wright, Legal Essays and Addresses, at 164; The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to

Contractual Obligations, Art. 3; In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No.

A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448; Johnson v. Calvert, (Cal. 1993) 851 P.2d 776 at 783; McDonald v. McDonald,



intention shall be stayed.44

Moreover, Bolitian choice of law is not an attempt to evade

Garundian law,45

as Garundian law neither addresses nor prohibits gestational surrogacy

agreements.46

Consequentially, the surrogacy contract is legally enforceable and does not

violate the public policy of the Respondent State.47

Moreover, even if the Respondent State‟s

public policy is violated; her laws are not applicable in absence of any substantial relationship

with the transaction.48

1.2.2 THE TRANSACTION HAS ITS CLOSEST AND MOST REAL CONNECTION WITH THE

APPLICANT STATE’S LAW

Contracts are governed by the law of the country with which it is most closely connected.49

In

this inquiry the place of contracting, the place of performance, the places of residence of the

parties, and the nature and subject matter of the contract are taken into consideration.50

The

lex loci contractus51

gains additional favour when a contract is made between parties present

(N.Y. App. Div. 1994) 608 N.Y.S.2d 477; In re Marriage of Buzzanca, (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d

280, 282. 42 In re C.K.G., (Tenn. 2005) 173 S.W.3d 714; Speranza v. Repro Lab Inc., (1st Dept. 2009) 62 A.D.3d 49, 52-

55, 875 N.Y.S.2d 449. 43 Davis v. Davis, (Tenn. 1992) 842 S.W.2d 588, 597-98; Kass v. Kass, (App. Div. 1998) 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696

N.E.2d 174; Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320; Lamaritata v. Lucas, (Fla. Ct. App. 2002) 823

So.2d 316; Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 146 Wn. 2d 514, 48 P.3d 261. 44 The Eleftheria, [1970] P 94, [1969] 2 ALL ER 4 (Admiralty Division). 45 In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448

at 3. 46 Ibid; Compromis ¶ 6, 8; See also Symeon C. Symeonides, “Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2007:

Twenty-First Annual Survey”, (2007) 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 243, 301. 47 In re Paternity & Custody of Baby Boy A., (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) No. A07-452, 2007 WL 4304448

at 5-6, 8. 48 Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320 at 326; Sonia Bychkov Green, “Interstate Intercourse: How

Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law” (2009) 24

Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc'y 25. 49 The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Art. 4; In The Interest of K.M.H.,

(2007) 169 P.3d at 1030; Hodas v. Morin, (Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320; In re Doe, (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2005) 793

N.Y.S.2d 878. 50

Re United Railways of Havana v. Warehouses Ltd., [1960] Ch, 52, 91 (C.A.); Weckstrom v. Hyson, [1966]

V.R. 277; Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 736, 100 L. Ed. 2d 743, 108 S. Ct. 2117 (1988). 51 ARY Jewelers v. Krigel, 277 Kan. 464, 481, 85 P.3d 1151 (2004); Wilkinson v. Shoney's, Inc., 269 Kan. 194,

209-10, 4 P.3d 1149 (2000); Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan. App. 2d 890, Syl. P4, 159 P.3d

1042 (2007); Layne Christiansen Co. v. Zurich Canada, 30 Kan. App. 2d 128, 141-42, 38 P.3d 757 (2002); In re

M.K.H., 169 P.3d at 1031-32.



in the same country.52

In case of surrogacy contracts place of insemination53

also determines

the substantial relationship. Courts have often leaned towards lex fori, or law of the forum

absent a clear showing that another state's law should apply.54

Further, the maxim ut res

magis valeat quam pereat presumes that parties to a contract did not intend to be governed by

a law by which their agreement would be invalid.55

It is humbly submitted that significant contacts and a significant aggregation of contacts with

Applicant State make application of Applicant State‟s law appropriate and just, since neither

party would have been justified in expecting the Respondent State‟s law to have a controlling

interest as to any dispute between them.

1.3 THE RESPONDENT STATE CANNOT EVADE HER OBLIGATIONS UNDER

INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW

The proper law of the contract, and not the law of the place of performance, determines the

excuses for non-performance56

and the substance of the obligation.57

In the instant case the

proper law and the intended place of performance both are the Applicant State and public

policy is not an excuse for non-enforcement under the Applicant State‟s laws.

52 Sayers v. International Drilling Co., [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1176, 1187 (C.A.). 53 In Re Marriage of Adams, 133 Ill. 2d 437, 447, 551 N.E.2d 635, 141 Ill. Dec. 448 (1990); Hodas v. Morin,

(Mass. 2004) 814 N.E.2d 320. 54 Dragon, 277 Kan. at 790; Systems Design v. Kansas City P.O. Employees Cred. Union, 14 Kan. App. 2d 266,

269, 788 P.2d 878 (1990); Brown v. Gadson, (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) 654 S.E.2d 179; Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-

Jenkins, (Vt. 2006) 912 A.2d 951, 965-68. 55 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v. Shand (1865) 3 Moo. P. C. (N.S.) 272; N. V. Handel Maatschappij J. Smits v. English Expoertes (Londaon) Ltd., [1955] 2 Lloyd‟s Rep. 317 (C.A.); Coast Lines Ltd.

v. Hudig & Veder Chartering NV, [1972] 2 QB 34, 44, 48 (C.A.). 56 Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, (1884) 12 QBD 589 (Court of Appeal); J. H. C. Morris and P. M. North, eds.,

Cases and Materials on Private International Law, (London: Butterworths, 1984) at 453. 57 Bonython v Commonwealth of Australia, [1951] AC 201 (Privy Council); Re Helbert Wagg & Co Ltd’s

Claim, [1956] Ch 323, [1956] 1 ALL ER 129 (Chancery Division).




OBLIGATIONS

States are obliged to not invoke the provisions of their internal law as justification for their

failure to perform a treaty obligation.58

This is a long-standing principle of customary

international law.59

The stipulations of a treaty are binding upon the parties, notwithstanding

the public character of their affected national legislations.60

The basic principle of pacta sunt

servanda makes it impossible for States to be released from their obligations according to a

treaty which they have unilaterally entered into.61

Further the content of public policy is

variable and reliance it on goes against good faith obligation for observance of treaties.62

As per the common law attitude there is no room for the application of public policy.63

Courts

will not allow a contracting party to refuse performance on the ground that by performing he

would be infringing the law of the country in which he resides or of which he is a national.64

A case of serious injustice must be involved.65

To justify its refusal to enforce a foreign

judgment, a U.S. court must find that the judgment not only affirmatively acts on matters as

to which local law is silent, but also contravenes a crucial stated public policy affecting a

58 Vienna Conv. Art 27; Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising

from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America) [1992] I.C.J. Rep.

at 3, 32; Greco-Bulgarian Communities, (1930) PCIJ Series B, No. 17, at 32; Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Merits), (1926) PCIJ Series A, No. 7, at 19; Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate

under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement case, [1988] I.C.J. Rep. at 12, 34–5; Alabama

Claims arbitration (UK v US), J. B. Moore, International Arbitrations (New York: 1898) vol. 1 at 495. 59 The Harvard Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties (1935) 29 Am. J. Int‟l Law Supp. 653, at 662, art 23,

“Excuses for failure to perform”; Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech

in the Danzig Territory (1932) PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 44, at 21, 24. 60 Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig Territory, (1932)

Series A/B, No. 44, at 24; Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, (1932) Series A/B, No. 46, at

167. 61 Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants

(Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 at 140 (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cordova). 62 Case Concerning The Application Of The Convention Of 1902 Governing The Guardianship Of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden), [1958] I.C.J. Rep. 55 at 120-31 (Separate Opinion of Sir Percy Spender). 63 Nike Informatic Systems Ltd. v. Avac Systems, (1979) 105 D.L.R. 3 rd 455; Greenshields Inc. v. Johnston,

(1981) 119 D.L.R. (3rd) 714; Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842. 64 Royal Trustco Ltd. v. Campeau Corp. (1981) 118 D.L.R. (3rd) 207; Regazzoni v. K. C. Sethai Ltd., [1956] 2

Q.B. 490,514, 523 (C.A.). 65 Hilton v. Guyot, (1895) 159 U.S. 113.



fundamental interest of the forum.66

The narrowness of the public policy exception to

enforcement reflects an axiom fundamental to the goals of comity and res judicata that

underlies the doctrine of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.67

In addition the

public policies prevalent in the Respondent State were not so closely linked to the object and

purpose of the E U treaty that they constituted an essential basis for her consent and they do

not radically alter the extent of the obligations to be performed.68

It is humbly submitted that the Respondent State‟s constitution recognises International Law

as a source of law for interpretation of domestic laws.69

The ICCPR, ICESCR to which both

States are parties and various other international instruments favour enforcement of surrogacy

contracts.70

Consequently, as the Respondent State‟s law is silent on the issue a presumption

lies in the favour of surrogacy contracts being enforceable in the Respondent State.

1.4 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ENDOW JURISDICTION

AND APPLICABLE LAW TO THE APPLICANT STATE

It is humbly submitted that it is a general principle of International Law that either

nationality71

or domicile72

determine jurisdiction and applicable law. In the instant case

66 Compania Mexicana Rediodifusora Franteriza v. Spann, (N.D. Tex. 1941) 41 F.Supp 907, 908-09, aff'd (5th

Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 609. 67 Ackerman v. Levine, (2d Cir. 1986) 788 F.2d 830, 842. 68 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), [1997] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 104; Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v.

Ice.), [1973] I.C.J. Rep. ¶ 40, 43; “Rebus Revisited: Changed Circumstances in Treaty Law” (2005) 43 Colum.

J. Transnat'l L. 459. 69 Compromis ¶ 2. 70 Right to Family, Privacy and Fundamental Freedoms as recognized by Charter of the United Nations, Art. 55;

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 12; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights Art. 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Right Art. 17; American Convention on Human

Rights Arts 11 and 17; European Convention on Human Rights Art. 8; African Charter on Human and Peoples'

Rights Art. 18; Right to procreational autonomy and privacy in Eisenstadt v. Baird, (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 453; Doe v. Attorney Gen., (Mich. Ct. App. 1992) 487 N.W.2d 484 at 486; Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588. 71 Hope v. Hope, (1854) a DeG.M. & G. 328; Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 Ch.D. 324 (C.A.); Harben v. Harben,

[1957] 1 W.L.R. 261; Re P (GE) (an infant), [1965] 3 ALL ER 977; McM. V. C. (No. 2), [1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R.

27; See Below § 2.2.1. 72 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, 6th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) at 647; See

Below § 2.2.2.



Robert‟s nationality and domicile both are the Applicant State. Consequently the Applicant

State has jurisdiction and her law is the applicable law.

Pursuant to the Applicant State‟s citizenship rules Robert is her citizen.73

He is also

domiciled in the Applicant State. Domicile does not depend on the place where the child is

born, nor the place where his mother, father or he reside, but on the domicile of his father in

case of a legitimate child.74

In fact if parents change their domicile between time of

conception and of birth it is arguable that the law of the father‟s domicile at the former time

deserves consideration.75

Child conceived using artificial reproductive techniques is not

illegitimate and consent establishes paternity.76

The embryos were created during John and

Jane‟s marriage confirming Robert‟s legitimacy77

and their legal status as natural parents.78

Moreover, it is sensible if a new born takes the habitual residence of his parents.79

Unborn

children possess legal rights.80

Personhood of a foetus has been affirmed in certain

instances.81

It would be absurd to recognize the viable foetus as a person for purposes of

73 Compromis ¶ 3. 74 Peal v Peal (1930) 46 T.L.R. 645; Grant v Grant, (1931) S.C. 238; Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc; P.M. North

and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis Butterworths: New

Delhi, 1999) at 135; Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th ed. (London: Stevens & Limited, 1987) at 126. 75 Taintor (1940) 18 Can BR 589, 596, 597; P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private

International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 896. 76 Anonymous v. Anonymous, (1964) 41 Misc. 2d 886, 246 N.Y.S.2d 835; People v. Sorensen, (1968) 68 Cal. 2d

280, 66 Cal. Rptr. 7, 437 P.2d 495; Strnad v. Strnad, (Sup. Ct. 1948) 190 Misc. 786, 78 N.Y.S.2d 390. 77 In the Interest of O.G.M., A Child, (Tex. Civ. App., 1st Dist., 1999) 988 S.W. 2d 473; Indian Draft Assisted

Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill & Rules, (2008) ch. VII(34)(1)-(5). 78 Belsito v. Clark (1994), 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E.2d 760; Owens v. Bell (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 46, 48, 6

OBR 65, 67-68, 451 N.E.2d, 241, 243. 79 P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis

Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 169. 80 Commonwealth v. Morris, (Ky. 2004) 142 S.W.3d 656; Kelly v. Gregory, (N.Y. 1953) 125 N.Y.S.2d 696, 698. Hornbuckle v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., (Ga. 1956) 93 S.E.2d 727; Bennett v. Hymers, (N.H. 1958) 147 A.2d

108; Smith v. Brennan, (N.J. 1960)157 A.2d 497; Louisiana Civil Code (1986) La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 9:124-125;

Donna M. Sheinbach, “Examining Disputes Over Ownership Rights To Frozen Embryos” (1999) 48 Cath. U.L.

Rev. 989. 81 Commonwealth v. Cass, (Mass. 1984) 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1330; Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777;

Re Salaman [1908] 1 Ch 4; Re Callaghan [1948] NZLR 846.



homicide laws and wrongful death statutes but not for purposes of statutes proscribing child

abuse.82

The „best interests of the child‟ standard has also been extended to pre-embryos.83

It is humbly submitted that child protection laws that protect Emily and accord the Applicant

State with jurisdiction and applicable law for her custody dispute should also extend to her

brother Robert.



EMILY’S CUSTODY ISSUE

2.1 PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESPONDENT STATE REGARDING

EMILY‟S CUSTODY DISPUTE VIOLATE THE E U TREATY

It is humbly submitted that international judicial comity84

requires stay of a parallel suit under

the doctrine of lis alibi pendens.85

A treaty must be given effective interpretation to realize its

object and purpose.86

A court may stay its proceeding when “related” proceedings are pending in another

contracting state and the court in that State was first seised of the matter and may decline

jurisdiction if the court first seised could consolidate both proceedings and try them

together.87

“Related” proceedings are those so closely connected that it is expedient to hear

82 Whitner v. State (S.C. 1997) 492 S.E.2d 777 at 780. 83 Litowitz v. Litowitz, (Wash. 2002) 48 P.3d 261. 84 See Above § 1.1.2. 85 Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. Granger, (7th Cir. 1987) 833 F.2d 680, 685; The Bremen v. Zapata Off-

Shore Co., (1972) 407 U.S. 1, 9; Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Breard: Court to Court” (1998) 92 A.J.I.L. 708; The

Indian Code of Civil Procedure (1908) at Sec. 10. 86

See Above § 1.1. and 1.1.1. 87 Compromis ¶ 9; EC, Convention of 10th June 2009 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of

Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5 at 13 Art. 28; EC, Council Regulation (EC)

44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In Civil

And Commercial Matters, [2000] O.J. L 12 Art. 28; EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on Jurisdiction and

the Enforcement of Judgments In Civil And Commercial Matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC Art. 22(1)(2).



and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from

separate proceedings.88

In the instant case the matter of Emily‟s custody is so intrinsically

connected to the matter of Robert‟s custody of that both the related proceedings should be

heard and determined by the court first seised of the matter.

Furthermore, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised of proceedings involving the

same cause of action and between the same parties is established any court other than the

court first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.89

Where proceedings

relating to parental responsibility of the same child are brought before courts of different

Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such

time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.90

On establishment of

jurisdiction the courts in the place second seised must decline jurisdiction.91

2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE BEING THE STATE OF EMILY‟S OF NATIONALITY,

DOMICILE AND HABITUAL RESIDENCE HAS JURISDICTION IN THE

MATTER OF HER CUSTODY

88 David McClean, ed., Morris: The Conflict of Laws, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1993) at 98. 89 EC, Convention of 10th June 2009 On Jurisdiction And The Recognition And Enforcement Of Judgments In

Civil And Commercial Matters, [2009] O.J. L 147/5 Art. 27; EC, Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22

December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial

matters, [2000] O.J. L 12 Art. 27; EEC, Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement

of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [1988] 88/592/EEC Art. 21. 90

EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,

[2003] O.J. L 338 [Council Regulation]; Conference organized by CLT Scotland, Resolving The Problems Of

Jurisdiction In Family Law, Brussels II And Points West, Janys M. Scott, Advocate, (Scotland, 26 October

2005). 91 Ibid. Council Regulation, Art. 19.



It is humbly submitted that it is a general principle of International Law that nationality,

domicile or habitual residence determine jurisdiction and applicable law.92

In the instant case

Emily‟s nationality, domicile and habitual residence lie with the Applicant State.93

2.2.1 THE APPLICANT STATE IS THE STATE OF EMILY’S NATIONALITY

Nationality is a criterion for personal law.94

If the authorities of the State of the infant's

nationality consider that the interests of the infant so require they may after having informed

the authorities of the State of his habitual residence take measures according to their own law

for the protection of his person or property.95

Courts always retain jurisdiction over citizens

wherever they may be.96

2.2.2 THE APPLICANT STATE IS THE STATE OF EMILY’S DOMICILE

It is universally recognised that questions affecting the personal status should be governed

constantly by one and the same law, irrespective of where the person may happen to be or

where the facts giving rise to the question may have occurred.97

The custody of a child will

be determined based on the domicile of the child.98

A legitimate child born during the

lifetime of his father has his domicile of origin in the country in which his father was

domiciled at the time of his birth.99

. Domicile does not depend on the place where the child is

92 P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis

Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 134 & 162. 93 Compromis ¶ 3, 4. 94 P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis

Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 159 ; Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et seq ; Hague Conference

on Private International Law, Hague Convention Concerning the Powers of Authorities and the Law Applicable

in Respect of the Protection of Infants, 5 October 1961, UNTS 1969, pp. 145 ff. Art. 3. 95 Ibid. Art.4. 96 Hope v. Hope, (1854) 4 DeGM & G 328; 23 LJCH 682; Re Willoughby, (1885) 30 ChD 324; Robert v.

Sandbach Justices, ex p Smith, [1951] 1 KB 62. 97 Ernst Rabel, The conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study, 2nd ed. (1958-64) vol. 1 at 109; Kahn-Freund (1974) III Hague Recueil 139, 334-335, 391-492. 98 Perry v. Ponder, (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1980) 604 S.W.2d 306; Palsson (1986) IV Hague Recueil 316, 332 et

seq.; P.M. North and J.J.Fawcett eds. Cheshire and North’s Private International Law, 13th ed. (LexisNexis

Butterworths: New Delhi, 1999) at 134. 99 Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th ed. (London: Stevens & Limited,

1987) at 126.



born, nor the place where his mother, father or he reside, but on the domicile of his father in

case of a legitimate child. 100

If both parents are alive but are living apart, the child's domicile

is that of the mother, if the child has his home with her and no home with his father.101

In the

instant case Emily has a home102

with her father.

Furthermore, Jane is domiciled in the Applicant State.103

An existing domicile is presumed to

continue until it is proved that a new domicile has been acquired. 104

A new domicile is not

acquired until there is not only actual residence in some other country but also a fixed

intention of establishing a permanent residence there.105

If a person intends to reside in a

country for a fixed period or for an indefinite time but clearly intends to leave the country at

some time his domicile does not alter.106

The burden of proving a change of domicile is a

very heavy one and rests on the claimant.107

2.2.3 THE APPLICANT STATE IS THE STATE OF EMILY’S HABITUAL RESIDENCE

Habitual residence of the child as a determinant of jurisdiction and applicable law as referred

to in the Hague Conference‟s conventions has been influential in establishing customary

norms that are even applied by states that do not formally accede to them.108

If the parents are

100 D’Etchegoyen v. D’Etchegoyen [1888] 13 PD 132; Peal v Peal [1930] 46 T.L.R. 645; Grant v Grant [1931] S.C. 238; Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 Sc; Lawrence Collins, gen ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws,

11th ed. (London: Stevens & Limited, 1987) at 421 at 126. 101 Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K.) 1973 c.45, s. 4(1), (2) (a); Domicile Acts 1982

(Cth.). s. 9; Domicile Act 1976 (N.Z.), 1976/0017, s. 6; Re P (GE) (An infant) [1965] Ch 568 at 585-586; Re Y

(minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136. 102 Re P (GE) (An infant) [1965] Ch 568 at 585-586; Re Y (minors) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [1985] Fam 136. 103 Compromis ¶ 4, 6. 104 Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319; Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287; Ramsay v

Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588; In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685; Domicile Act 1976

(N.Z.), 1976/0017, New Zealand, s. 11; Domicile Acts 1982 (Cth.). s. 7; P.E. Nygh, Conflict of Laws in

Australia, 6th ed., (1995) at 119-200; Re Jones’ Estate [1921] 192 Iowa 78, 182 NW 227. 105 Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 319. 106

Jopp v Wood [1865] 4 D.J. & S.616; Qureshi v. Qureshi (1972) Fam.173; Attn. Gen. v Rowe [1862] 1 H. &

C.31. 107 Bell v Kennedy [1868] L.R. 1 Sc. & Div.307, 310,319; Winans v Att. Gen. [1904] A.C.287; Ramsay v

Liverpool Royal infirmary [1930] A.C. 588; In the Estate of Fuld (no 3) [1968] P.675, 685. 108 Peter Pfund, “The Hague Conference Celebrates Its 100th Anniversary” (1993) 28 Tex. Int'l L.J. 531; Willis

Reese, “The Hague Conference on Private International Law: Some Observations” (1985) 19 Int'l Law 881;



living together and the child is living with them it will take the parents habitual residence.109

Habitual residence is the country where the child lived before the marital breakdown.110

The

parent who absconds with the child cannot claim a new habitual residence.111

Both parents

must consent to the change of habitual residence.112

Jurisdiction rests with the courts of the

country from where the child has been wrongfully removed or retained.113

2.2.3.1 Jurisdiction to determine Emily’s custody lies with the Applicant State in view

of Emily’s wrongful removal and retention in the Respondent State

Improper removal is defined as “the failure to return a child across an international frontier at

the end of any temporary stay in a territory other than that where the custody is exercised”114

The retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where - a) it is in breach of rights of

custody attributed to a person either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the

child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time

of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would

have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.115

In case of wrongful removal or

retention of the child, the authorities of the Contracting State in which the child was

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (U.K), 1973 c.45, ss. 5,6; Family Law Act 1986 (U.K.), 1986

c. 55, Parts I and III; Child Support Act 1991 (U.K.), 1991 c. 48, s 44(1); EC, Convention of 1998 on

Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in the Matrimonial Matters ( Brussels II),

[1998] OJ C221/2; Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer (1998) 2 All ER 728 at 737, CA (Comments of Thorpe

LJ); de Winter (1969) III Hague Recueil 357, 419-454; Cavers (1972) 21 Am ULR 475. 109 Re A (Minors) [1996] 1 WLR 25. 110 Cohen v. Cohen, (Sup. Ct. 1993) 602 N.Y.S.2d 994, 998. 111 Friedrich v. Friedrich, (6th Cir. 1993) 983 F.2d 1396, 1401; Cohen v. Cohen, 602 N.Y.S.2d at 994. 112 RE K (Abduction: Consent : Forum Conveniens) [1995] 2 FLR 211, CA; Findlay v Findlay (No 2) [1995]

SLT 492. 113 Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78. 114European Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children, (20 May, 1980) Eur T.S. 105 Art 1(d)(i). 115 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII, Art.3; The Convention On Jurisdiction, Applicable Law,

Recognition, Enforcement And Co-Operation In Respect Of Parental Responsibility And Measures For The

Protection Of Children, 1996 Art 7(2); Inter-American convention on the international return of children, 15th

July 1989 Art 4.



habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention keep116

or retain117

their

jurisdiction and shall have jurisdiction to consider a petition for the child's return.118

Moreover, such jurisdiction can be circumvented if there is specific evidence of grave risk

and mere separation of the child from its parent not sufficient.119

Acquiescence for removal

of the child requires either an act or statement with the requisite formality, such as testimony

in a judicial proceeding; a convincing written renunciation of rights; or a consistent attitude

of acquiescence over a significant period of time.120

It is humbly submitted that the Applicant State is the State of Emily‟s „habitual residence‟

wherefrom she has been wrongful removed and retained. Consequentially, the Applicant

State has jurisdiction and her law is the applicable law to determine Emily‟s custody issue.

2.2.3.2 International Child Abduction by a parent to gain jurisdictional advantage in

matters of custody runs counter to the Best Interests of the Child

The best way to combat illegal child removals is to refuse to grant them legal recognition.121

In all actions concerning children, undertaken by courts of law, the best interests of the child

shall be a primary consideration.122

The widest possible protection and assistance should be

116 EC, Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, [1996] O.J. L 48/3,

Art. 7. 117EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,

[2003] O.J. L 338, p. 1 118 Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children, 15

July 1989, OAS, Treaty Series, No. 70, Art. 6. 119 David S. v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, 574 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Fam. Ct. 1991); Thomson v. Thomson, 119

D.R.4th 253 (Can. 1994); E v E [1998] 2 FLR 980; Rydder v. Rydder, 49 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 1995); Hague

Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII at Art. 20. 120 Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78. 81-82 (D. Mass 1994); Nunez-Escudero v. Tice-Menley, 58 F.3d 374, 377 (8th Cir. 1995); David v. Zamira S., 151 Misc.2d 630, N.Y.S. 429 (Fam. Ct.1991). 121 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII; EC, Explanatory report on the Hague Convention on the

civil aspects of international child abduction, 1980 by Eliza Perez-Vera (Madrid, April 1981) 122 Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.

A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 3.



accorded to the family.123

States shall take all appropriate measures to prevent the abduction

of children for any purpose or in any form.124

States shall ensure that a child shall not be

separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject

to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such

separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.125

The effect of consent to such

resolutions of the General Assembly is an expression of an opino juris.126

Furthermore,

bilateral treaties provide evidence of custom.127

Consequently, such abduction of a child runs

counter to the best interests of the child and many international agreements; it is therefore

violative of the rights of a child as well as customary international law.


HAND OVER JANE AND JANET

3.1 THE E U TREATY OBLIGATES RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE

ARREST WARRANT ISSUED BY THE COURTS OF THE APPLICANT STATE

It is humbly submitted that the E U treaty must be adhered to in good faith in accordance with

the ordinary meaning given to the words used in it.128

The words „laws‟ and „orders‟ have not

123 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49)

at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), Art. 23; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA

res. 2200A (XXI), 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966); 993 UNTS 3; 6 ILM 368

(1967), Art. 10; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR

Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc. A/44/49 (1989), Art. 17; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA res.

217A (III), UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948), Art. 12. 124 Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.

A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 8, 19, 11, 35. 125 Convention on the rights of the child, GA res. 44/25, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc.

A/44/49 (1989); 1577 UNTS 3; 28 ILM 1456 (1989), Art. 9. 126 R. Y. Jennings and A. D. Watts, eds., Oppenheim’s International Law 9th ed. (London: 1992) vol. 1 at 334;

Military and Paramilitary Activities Case, [1986] I.C.J. Rep. at 89-90, 91. 127

Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (1973) at 13; Baxter, 129 Haaue Recueil (1970, I), 75-

91; Sorensen, Les Sources de droit International at 96-8 ; Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatamela), [1955]

I.C.J. Rep at 22; Lagos v Baggianini, [1955] 22 ILR 533 at 536-7; Lauritzen et al v Government of Chile, [1956]

23 ILR 70 at 715-16, 729-30; The State (Duggan) v Tapley, [1951] 18 ILR 109; The Italian National Re-

extradition Case, [1970] 70 ILR 374 at 376-7; North Sea, at 25. 128 Vienna Conv. Art. 31; See Above § 1.1.



been qualified with any adjective.129

Where substantial rights are at stake, the court will be

wary to fill-in an omission.130

The claimant of a meaning other than the ordinary meaning has

the burden of proof.131

Member States of the European Union automatically enforce each other‟s European arrest

warrants.132

It requires each national judicial authority to recognize, “ipso facto, and with a

minimum of formalities,” requests in regard to the surrender of a person made by the issuing

judicial authority of another Member State.133

Member States should regard courts in other

EU countries as “sister courts” and not interfere with, revoke, or review convictions of other

EU countries.134

The offence of kidnapping shall without verification of double criminality

give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant.135

EWAs have been issued even

for petty offenses like the theft of piglets or a cupboard door.136

It is humbly submitted that comity demands international cooperation.137

Comity is a

chameleon word.138

Just as the chameleon's colour changes to match its environment, so too

the varying interpretations of comity establish its requirements depending on the environment

129 Compromis ¶ 1. 130 Valentine v. U.S. ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 17, 57 S. Ct. 100 (1936). 131 Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (Cambridge

University Press: 1996) at 52-60. 132 Case Concerning The Arrest Warrant Of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic Of The Congo v. Belgium)

[2002] I.C.J. Rep. 3 at 181; Council of the European Union, Outcome of Proceedings, 10 December 2001,

14867/1/01 REV I COPEN 79 CATS 50. 133 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the

surrender procedures between Member States. See http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l33167.htm; James B.

Jacobs, “Major „Minor‟ Progress Under The Third Pillar: EU Institution Building In The Sharing Of Criminal

Record Information” (2008) 8 Chi.-Kent J. Int'l & Comp. L. 111. 134 Council Framework Decision on Taking Account of Convictions in the Member States of the European

Union in the Course of New Criminal Proceedings COM(2005/0018 (CNS), 2 July 2007. 135 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures

between Member States (2002/584/JHA) Art. 2; Jan Komárek, “European Constitutionalism and the European

Arrest Warrant: In Search of the Limits of “Contrapuntal Principles” (2007) 44 Common Mkt. L. Rev. 9 at 9-10. 136

Catherine Heard, “The New European Extradition System - A Critical Review” (2009) 25 No. 10 Int'l

Enforcement L. Rep. 398. 137Laker Airways v. Sabena, (1984) 731 F.2d 909; See Above § 1.1.2. 138 L. Collins, “Foreign Relations and the Judiciary” (2002) 51 I.C.L.Q. 485 at 504; Lawrence Collins, “Comity

in Modern Private International Law” in James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International

Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).



it operates in.139

In the instant case the Respondent State‟s comity obligations under the E U

treaty compel her to cooperate with the Applicant State and provide assistance in ensuring

Jane‟s and Janet‟s attendance and appearance before Applicant State‟s courts.

3.2 ALTERNATIVELY, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

REQUIRE THAT THE RESPONDENT STATE HAND OVER JANE AND JANET

A State must investigate any allegation that there is a person in her territory who has

committed an offence and, if the circumstances so warrant, ensure the person‟s presence for

the purpose of extradition or prosecution.140

This duty is rooted in the principles of state

responsibility and starts from the assumption that when a crime is committed the injured state

has a right to punish the perpetrators.141

It is universally recognized.142

The principle is that

an alleged offender should not find safe haven in the territory of any State.143

Extradition can

be more advantageous in the sense that the territorial state may have better access to

evidence.144

Kidnapping, abduction and stealing children are extraditable offences.145

International child

abduction is a federal crime punishable with up to three years imprisonment.146

Use of

139 Janet Walker, “Foreign Public Law And The Colour Of Comity: What's The Difference Between Friends?”

(2003) 38 Can. Bus. L.J. 36 at 48. 140 ILC Report on aut dedere aut judicare, Amnesty International Publications, (2009); Marc Henzelin, Le

Principe de l’Universalité en Droit Pénal International: Droit et Obligation pour les États de Poursuivre et

Juger selon le Principe de l’Universalité, (2000); M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut

Judicare: The Duty To Extradite Or Prosecute In International Law (1995) at 22-24; Ian Brownlie, Principles

Of Public International Law 4th ed. (1990) at 315; M. Cherif Bassiouni, Foreword to Treaty Enforcement and

International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Rodrigo Yepes- Enríquez & Lisa Tabassi eds. (2002) at vii. 141 M. Cherif Bassiouni & Edward M. Wise, Aut Dedere Aut Judicare: The Duty To Extradite Or Prosecute In

International Law (1995) at 38-39. 142 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No.10 (A/59/10) ¶ 362. 143

Ved P. Nanda, “Bases for Refusing International Extradition Requests: Capital Punishment and Torture”

(2000) 23 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1369. 144 Alexander Orakhelashvili, The United Nations Convention Against Torture. A Commentary. Commentary on

the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Oxford University Press: 2009) (2009) 20 EJIL 457. 145 Ronald F. Roxburgh, ed. Oppenhiem’s International Law (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., 2005)

vol. 1 at 509.



embryo for any purpose other than that provided for by the embryo provider is punishable

with imprisonment up to three, four or five years.147

It is humbly submitted that Refusal to extradite along with failure to assume responsibility for

trying suspects is an obvious abuse of power.148


FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRAIL

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of

the law.149

However, courts of legal systems that oppose surrogacy contracts will either resort

to their own mandatory rules prohibiting the practice or find it contrary to their public

policy.150

It is humbly submitted that in light of the Respondent State‟s political and religious

scene151

and her failure to arrest or bring criminal charges against Jane and Janet it is required

that the Applicant State conduct these proceedings; as the Respondent State cannot

realistically be expected to conduct these cases diligently.152

146 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (1993) 18 U.S.C. 1204; United States v. Ahmed Amer, 110

F.3d at 873; Jacqueline D. Golub, “The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act Of 1993: The United

States' Attempt To Get Our Children Back--How Is It Working?” (1999) 24 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 797. 147 John and Jane D. v. Regents of the University Of California, (2003) WL 21956362 (C.A.9) (Appellate

Brief); Fischer, “Misappropriation of Human Eggs And Embryos And The Tort Of Conversion: A Relational

View,” 32 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 381, 420-423 (1999); West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 367g. 148 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 6th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) at 314. 149 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 26; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 7;

American Convention On Human Rights, 1969 Art. 8, 24; European Convention on Human Rights Art. 6;

African Charter on Human And Peoples' Rights, 1981 Art. 3. 150

Anastasia Grammaticaki-Alexiou, “Conflict Of Laws, Comparative Law And Civil Law: Artificial

Reproduction Technologies and Conflict of Laws: An Initial Approach”, 60 La. L. Rev. 1113. 151 Compromis ¶ 6. 152 Oral Pleadings of the United States, Question and Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal

Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. U.S.), Prelim. Obj., (Oct. 15, 1997) at 3.59,

3.61 available at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/ilus/iluscr/ilus_icr9719.htm.

PRAYERS MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT STATE

XVII D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2011

PRAYERS

In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities cited the agent for the

Applicant State most humbly and respectfully prays before this Hon‟ble Court, that it may be

pleased to adjudge and declare:

I. The Applicant State‟s courts have jurisdiction and the Applicant State‟s law is the

applicable law to determine Robert‟s custody issue

II. The Applicant State‟s courts have jurisdiction and the Applicant State‟s law is the

applicable law to determine Emily‟s custody issue

III. The Respondent State has an international obligation to hand over Jane and Janet

The Applicant State additionally prays that the Court may grant any provisional relief that it

may deem fit. The Court may also make any such order as it may deem fit in terms of equity,

justice and due conscience.

And for this act of kindness the Applicant State shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

Respectfully submitted,

..….……...…………………………

(Agents for the Applicant State)

Applicant Memorial 2011

Documents

Transcript of Applicant Memorial 2011