Case 2

Case 2-1 Sandline International Inc. V. Papua New Guinea Background: There was a military struggle happened in Papua New Guinea. In order to suppress this military insurrection, Papua New Guinea tried to buy necessary military equipment. Facts: Sandline International Inc. was a military and security service company. In January 1997, the deputy Prime Minster of Papua New Guinea signed a contract with Sandline International Inc. to supply military services and equipment’s for them. This contract costed $36 million and Papua New Guinea initially paid 50% and the remained of the fee would be paid once the operations commence. Issues: In March, 1997. The contracted was disrupted by the severe military mutiny. PNG refused to pay the left amount of money and pleaded that under the law No.200 of the PNG Constitution, the agreement with Sandline was not illegal and unlawful both in its formation and performance. The practice of states has conclusively established their international responsibly for state organs. Rules: The international responsibility of the state when unauthorized or ultra vires acts of officials have been performed by state agents under cover of their official character. If such unauthorized or ultra vires acts could not be ascribed to the state, all state responsibility would be rendered illusory. According to Doctrine of Imputability, “acts outside their scope of authority if the state provided the means or facilities to accomplish the act. Analysis: PNG is an independent state and purported to contract in that capacity. An agreement between a private party and a state is an international, not a domestic, contract. This tribunal is an international, not a domestic, arbitral tribunal and is bound to apply the rules of international law. PNG has practically accomplish the agreement. Conclusion: The tribunal rejects the defense of illegality or unlawfulness raised by PNG. PNG is liable for its failure to perform the terms of the contract.

Case 2-2 Flatow v. The Islamic Republic of Iran Fact: On April 1995, decedent Alisa Michelle Flatow was a passenger on the bus travelling from Ashkelon, Israel to A Mediterranean resort in the Gush Katif community. At about 12:05 pm local time, a suicide bomber drove into the bus causing an explosion that destroyed the bus and resulted in the death of Alisa Michelle. The Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing. Islamic Republic of Iran sponsors the Shaqaqi faction’s terrorist activities within the meaning of the United States Code title 28, (1605(a) (7) and (1605 note by providing it with all of its funding. Issue: is The Islamic republic of Iran liable for Alisa Michelle Flatow’s death? Rule: Pursuanting to 28 U.S.C $1608(e) Analysis: The U.S Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 creates subject-matter jurisdiction and a federal cause of action for acts of state-sponsored terrorism. (1) Death due to extrajudicial killing (2) Carried out by an actor receiving resource or support from a foreign state (3) The resources or support are provided by an official acting within his or her scope of employment (4) The state was designated as a sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. government. (5) The plaintiff offered the defendant state the opportunity to arbitrate if the death occurred within the defendant state’s territory. (6) The plaintiff or victim was a U.S citizen at the time of the death (7) Similar conduct by U.S officials would be actionable Conclusion； The defendant, the Islamic republic of Iran, the irannian ministry of information and security, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi-rafsanjani and former Minister Ali Fallahlah-khuzestani , are jointly and severally liable for all damages awarded by this court to plaintiff.

Case 2-3 Acsyngo v. Compagnie De Saint-Gobain(France) S.A. Fact: France had nationalized the stock in the French conglomerate Campagnie de Saint-Gobain in 1982. CSG, in turn, owned slightly more than half of the stock of Glaceries de Saint-Roch(GSR), a Belgian company. The shareholders of CSG who had had their share nationalized formed a syndicate ACSYNGO, and ACSYNGO then brought suit in Belgium to claim that it(rather than CSG) should be made the owner of the half interest in GSR. ACSYNOGO argued that to do otherwise was to wrongfully give extraterritorial effect to a Frenche nationalization decree. Issue: （1） Was the national decree expropriatory or discriminatory? （2） Is a foreign nationalization decree illegal if it has extraterritorial effects? （3） Does this nationalization decree violate the public policy of Belgium? Rule: (1) A nationalization decree is not expropriatory if it provides for fair and adequate compensation. It is not discriminatory if it differentiates between different economic sectors. (2) Beigium doesn not recognize the theory of Spaltgesellschaft (that a splinter company would automatically come into existence when one state nationalizes a company with assets in another state. (3) The appropriation of foreign assets of a private person is lawful if it does not violate the public policy of the state where the assets are located. Analysis: (1) Fair market price was paid. The only discrimination was between economic sectors. (2) A shareholder who receives adequate compensation would be acting in bad faith to invoke the theory of Spaltgesellschaft. (3) It would violate Beligian public policy to separate GSR from the CSG group, as this would decrease its value to the harm of its Belgian shareholders. Conclusion: ACSYNGO’s claim is rejected.

Case 2-4 Chattin v. United Mexican States Fact: The United States of America citizen B.E Chattin was arrested on July 9, 1910 on a charge of embezzlement and was sentenced to two years imprisonment; but was released from the jail at Mazatlan in May or June 1911. After he returned to the United States, it is alleged that the arrest, the trial, and the sentence were illegal, that the treatment in jail was inhuman. Issue: Whether Mexico should pay the amount of $50 000 Rule: Denial of Justice is said to exist “when there is a denial, unwarranted delay or obstruction of access to courts, gross deficiency in the administration of judicial or remedial process, failure to provide those guarantee which are generally considered indispensable to the proper administration of justice or a manifested unjust judgment. Analysis: There was evidence that Chattin had not been informed of the charges brought against him or allowed to face his accusers. There was evidence that the hearing to him was only a formality that lasted only five minutes. This constituted treatment amounting to outrage, to bad faith, to willful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action that is recognizable by every unbiased man. Conclusion: