CLARIFICATIONS- 3RD IMCC 2021

1. In Para 7 of the factsheet, “Digital rights NGOs have called “Hello!” a database where the
government can collect information and monitor content of users.” Whether, there is any
typographical error in this sentence or not?
Answer: Yes. Please read last sentence of paragraph 7 as follows: “Digital rights NGOs
have called All Good a database where the government can collect information and
monitor content of users.”
2. Whether, both the parties are WTO member? If yes, in which year they got the membership
of WTO?
Answer: Yes, they are WTO members. No responses needed for the question relating
to the year of the WTO membership.
3. How were the relations between Complainant and Respondent (before and after the coup
d'etat)?
Answer: No response needed.
4. In paragraph 13, "North Amrubia violated national treatment obligations under Article XVI
(1) of the GATS" and "National treatment obligations under Article XVI (1) of the GATS"
use national treatment under Article XVI as a contention. However, Article XVI of the GATS
deals with 'Market Access' and Article XVII (not XVI) deals with ""National Treatment'. Is
there a mistake or typo in contending Article XVI(1)?
Answer: Paragraph 13 should be re-read as:
“13. Hello! petitioned government official in Amagadia to raise a trade dispute at the
WTO. Subsequently, a dispute was raised at the panel stage of the WTO after
consultations between Amagadia and North Amrubia failed. More specifically,
Amagadia claims that:
• The applicable law for the dispute is WTO law
• North Amrubia violated market access obligations under Article XVI (1) of
the GATS relating to CPC 7523 under the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (“GATS”).
• North Amrubia cannot seek protection of its essential security interests under
Article XIV bis of GATS
In response, North Amrubia claims that:
 • The applicable law for the dispute is the BIT, which stands terminated
• Market access obligations under Article XVI (1) of the GATS relating to CPC
844 had not been violated
• In any event, North Amrubia can seek protection of its essential security
interests under Article XIV bis of GATS”
5. Do we have to restrict our arguments to the contentions in paragraph 13 or can we argue
beyond them?
Answer: Kindly restrict arguments to the factsheet.
6. Kindly clarify the term 'WTO Law' in the first claim on behalf of Amagadia.
Answer: No response needed.
7. In the facts it has been mentioned that obligation under CPC 844 and CPC 7523 has been
violated by the said parties, but the CPC obligations are specific to each and every nation. So,
do we have to take obligations of each party as pari materia to some real country?
Answer: Please limit obligations to the annexures to the moot problem only.
8. What was the position of the citizens of North Amrubia towards the extension of the
democratically elected leader’s terms?
Answer: No response needed.
9. Was there any proof that the alleged terrorist activity was actually planned on a social media
platform, as insinuated by the military leader of North Amrubia?
Answer: No response needed.
10. Is North Amrubia officially counted as a developing country by the WTO?
Answer: No response needed.
11. Did Hello! Disrupt the market of any social media platforms which already existed in north
Amrubia?
Answer: No response needed.
12. With respect to this moot, does only gatts apply or do the other agreements and treaties of
WTO apply
Answer: No response needed.
13. If only gats applies, does any subordinate piece that derives its authority from gats, stand valid
and enforceable in the competition?
Answer: No response needed.
14. Whether BIT contained a termination clause allowing a party to terminate it before its
expiration? If not, was there a provision allowing private investors (Hello!) to bring cases
against host nations in case their regulatory measures are in contravention of the BIT? Also,
does it contain any defenses available to the party which committed the breach?
Answer: No response needed.
15. Was there a preferred dispute resolution arrangement in case of a breach or termination of
BIT? (Preferably a copy of BIT 2007 signed between Amagadia and North Amrubia)?
Answer: No response needed.
16. Under the Law on Intermediary Liability, can North Amrubia only impose a fine on ‘Hello!’
or can it ban as well?
Answer: No response needed.
17. With respect to the footnote on page 5 of the moot proposition, what does "point of
jurisdiction" exactly mean?
Answer: No response needed.
18. Whether differential treatment should be related to the policy matter or the differential
treatment in the implementation of the policy would still be called differential treatment as per
BIT 2007? (Ref. North Amrubia is not asking for user database from ‘All Good’ or any other
Social Media Platform, but it is asking ‘Hello!’ to divulge the user info in the database of
‘Hello!’)
Answer: No response needed.
19. Need evidence related to ‘Hello!’ threatening national security and teeming with seditious
activities.
Answer: No response needed.
20. Is the Law on Intermediary Liability violative of the right to privacy of citizens of North
Amrubia?
Answer: No response needed.
21. What is Amrubia’s take on ‘Hello!’ protecting the privacy of its users (primary customers in a
way)? Moreover, can ‘Hello!’ be compelled to give away the data in its possession because this
very data is deemed to be a property of ‘Hello!’. Can ‘Hello!’ be forced to part with its
intangible property by putting it in fear of loss of business, sanctions, fine, etc.?
Answer: No response needed.
22. What is the UNGA and UNSC’s take on governance through undemocratic means and stifling
of freedom of North Amrubia’s citizens who wanted a democratically elected government
reinstated?
Answer: No response needed.
23. Under BIT, article 2 - what are the covered investments?
Answer: Kindly consider Hello! to be a covered investment.
24. An excerpt from paragraph [2] reads “once a profile is created, the user can upload
photos, post any information such as opinions or important events, and add other people to
increase their social network profile”. To be clear, does that mean that an individual may only
access the content of other Hello! users once he/she has created his/her own account.
Answer: No response needed.
25. 'Commenced operations in the country' in Paragraph 3 - what kind of operations are they
referring to? Were Hello!’s stationed in North Amrubia:
a. servers,
b. staff, and/or
c. office premises;

Answer: All of the above.

26. An excerpt from paragraph [6] reads “Peaceful civil disobedience commenced within a
week of the coup d'etat with Hello! being the primary platform for coordinating
such protests”. To be clear, how widespread were these instances of “peaceful civil
disobedience” and “protests”? Further:
a. Did these events threaten the provision of essential services?
b. To what extent was North Amrubia’s law enforcement able to control these events?
Answer: No response needed.
27. An excerpt from paragraph [10] reads “More specifically, the CEO stated that “Hello! can
provide a database of readily available and sensitive information that can be used by the
government of North Amrubia to centralize power using tools such as the Law on Intermediary
Liability”. To be clear, other than “the identity of [Hello’s] users” (at paragraph [10]) what
other information is included under the term “readily available and sensitive information”.
Answer: No response needed.
28. An excerpt from paragraph [11] reads “According to the government, Hello! had become a
platform where anti-nationals incited hateful comments that negatively affecting the
sovereignty and integrity of North Amrubia”. Many of these comments were also referred to
as “seditious”. To be clear, were these “hateful” or “seditious” comments directed towards
North Amrubia’s military government or the North Amrubia state in general?
Answer: No response needed.
29. It seems as though ‘national treatment obligations’ are governed by XVII of the GATS, not
XVI. Would like to check if there is a typographical error with regard to the provision involved
in Page 5, Paragraph 13.
Answer: See response to Question 4.
30. Please produce the Investment/ investor clause of the BIT?
Answer: Not required.
31. Please provide information as to what sorts of investment has the Hello! made in North
Amrubia
Answer: See response to Question 25.
32. Is there an essential security interests clause in the BIT?
Answer: No.
33. Is there any umbrella clause in the BIT?
Answer: No response needed.
34. Were both the countries signatories of the Vienna Convention?
Answer: No response needed.
35. Does ICSID have a role to play in the BIT?
Answer: No response needed.
36. Whether there is an arbitration clause mentioned in the BIT?
Answer: Yes.
37. In Para 7, Digital rights NGOs have called Hello! a database where the government can collect
information and monitor content of users. Is Hello! a typo?
Answer: Yes. This line should be read as: “Digital rights NGOs have called All Good
a database where the government can collect information and monitor content of
users”.
38. Is there any other agreement between respective parties which provides for arbitration
between them?
 Answer: See response to Question 36.
39. Are both North Amrubia and Amagadia recognized by the Havana Charter?
Answer: No response needed.
40. Are both North Amrubia and Amagadia a part of the international law commission and bound
by it?
Answer: No response needed.
41. The Annex- 1 and 2 are not clear and confusing. Kindly elaborate what they want to convey.
Answer: The Annexures indicate the commitments that North Amrubia has
undertaken under the GATS.
42. Do UN members and Amagadia recognize the recently established Government in North
Amrubia?
Answer: Yes.
43. Has there been any substantial evidence of ground violence vitiated directly by "Hello!" apart
from the claims of the President in para 6 of the proposition?
Answer: Present arguments limited to the facts of the dispute.
44. Standard BIT of which country is applicable in this case? (For example: The model 2016 BIT
of India)
Answer: No response needed.
45. What law is applicable for Dispute Resolution? WTO law or some other law?
Answer: No response needed.
46. Whether “Hello!” had a commercial office in North Amrubia?
Answer: See response to Question 25.
47. Are the countries party to the ICSID Convention?
Answer: No response needed.
48. In annexure 2, above the date should we consider ATS as GATS?
Answer: Yes.
49. In the rule book, the page limit is given as 40. Should we include the front page, table of
contents, authorities etc in that 40 or Do we start page number 1 from Summary of Facts?
Answer: The submission, including the front page, table of contents, etc., should be
limited to 40 pages.
50. Did "Hello!" have a messenger or email service where one-to-one or group conversation could
take place?
 Answer: Kindly limit yourself to the facts available.
51. Can we add more issues or we have to strictly adhere to the 3 issues that have been already
given in the moot proposition?
Answer: Kindly limit arguments to the three issues.