INTERNATIONAL LAW FINAL EXAM WITH ALL CORRECT
& 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS|ACTUAL COMPLETE EXAM
|ALREADY GRADED A+
Case: In the Matter of Cross Border Trucking ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: NAFTA Free Trade Arbitral
Panel
Parties: U.S. and Mexico
Facts:
Inefficient shipping between US and Mexico; shippers deal with three trucking firm
40% of 5 million Mexican trucks that entered US in 1999 failed to meet US safety requirements
Mexican safety regulations are much less stringent than US policies
US can inspect less that 1% of Mexican trucks arriving into US
US refuses to open border to Mexico until Mexico adopts regulations as tough as US and Canada
US restricts Mexican investment in US trucking firms
Issues
Whether Mexico is under obligation to impose US safety regulations
Whether US & Mexico have "like circumstances"
Whether US violates the "open-investment" policy by restricting Mexican investment in US firms
Claim
Mexico: under no obligation to enforce US standards
Canada does not use US standards→ forcing Mexico to implement US standards would be unfair
treatment
Law
NAFTA articles 1202 (parties should give equal treatment -in like circumstances- to its own service
providers_and 1203 (no less favorable treatment to different service providers)
Ruling
Mexico prevails→ Mexico is under no obligation to adopt identical US standards
US cannot prohibit Mexican investment into US firms (NAFTA Article 1102 and 1103)
Rationale
The US interpretation of "like-circumstances is too broad → does NOT mean identical
Case: Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal
International Center for the Settlement of Investment disputes
Parties
Metalclad (US Company) vs. Mexican Government
Facts
Metaclad acquired Catering (previously a Mexican company) during its construction in Mexico; told
all necessary permits had been obtained
Construction halted - claimed no permit obtained
State government declared landfill area as ecological and wildlife area→ no more Catering
Metaclad invested $16.5 mill into the project
Issue
Whether Metaclad was given fair and equitable treatment
Whether Mexican regulations lacked transparency
Whether Mexican government expropriated Metalclad without compensation in violation of Article
1105
Claim
, US→ Metaclad was not given fair treatment, Mexican gov lacked transparency towards Metalclad
about the permit being previously denied
Defense
Law
NAFTA Article 1105 (reference to transparency)
Ruling
Metalclad prevails, collecting all construction reimbursement ($16.5 million)
Rationale
Metalclad received NO notice of permit denial and town meeting; Mexican government did not
provide transparency and a predictable framework for Metaclad's business planning/investment
Case: U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: US Supreme Court
Parties: United States vs. Alvarez - Machain
Facts:
Alvarez is Mexican citizen
Alvarez was kidnapped and flown by private plane to TX where he was arrested for
kidnapping/torture/murder of US DEA→ court concluded Alvarez responsible
Mex protested violation in extradition treaty→ court of appeals affirmed
The treaty says nothing about the obligations of the US and Mexico to refrain from forcible
abductions of people
Issues
Whether a criminal defendant abducted to the US from a nation which it has an extradition treaty
thereby acquires a defense to the to the jurisdiction of this country's courts
Whether the treaty should be interpreted so as to include an implied term prohibiting prosecution
where the defendant's presence is obtained by means other than those established by the treaty
Claim
Alvarez claims treaty must be interpreted against customary int law; international abductions are
clearly prohibited
Law
Ruling
Chief Justice Rehnquist: Treaty acts as a prohibition against a violation of a general principle int law→
one government can now exercise its police power in another country
Terrible ruling, anything goes now→ basically we can do anything except things explicitly mentioned
in extradition treaty
Problem→ no justification food disregarding the Rule of Law (US violation of int. law)
Focuses on outcome
What the US did is legal→ jjm of court of appeals overturned
Case: EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: US supreme court
Parties: Aramco/ASC (Delaware corps) (Defendant) vs. EEOC on behalf of Bourselan (plaintiff)
Facts
Aramco principal place of biz in Saudi Arabia, licensed to do business in TX
1979→ Bourselan hired by ASC (subsidiary of ARAMCO) in TX → 1980: transferred to Saudi (at his
request), discharged four years later
Sought relief until Title 7 of Civil Rights act on grounds he was harassed and discharged on account of
race, religion, and origin
Issue
Whether Congress intended for Title 7 to apply to US citizens employed by US companies outside the
US
Claim: EEOC claims it's still a US CO. → Title 7 should apply
Law: Title 7: US citizen working for US company
& 100% VERIFIED ANSWERS|ACTUAL COMPLETE EXAM
|ALREADY GRADED A+
Case: In the Matter of Cross Border Trucking ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: NAFTA Free Trade Arbitral
Panel
Parties: U.S. and Mexico
Facts:
Inefficient shipping between US and Mexico; shippers deal with three trucking firm
40% of 5 million Mexican trucks that entered US in 1999 failed to meet US safety requirements
Mexican safety regulations are much less stringent than US policies
US can inspect less that 1% of Mexican trucks arriving into US
US refuses to open border to Mexico until Mexico adopts regulations as tough as US and Canada
US restricts Mexican investment in US trucking firms
Issues
Whether Mexico is under obligation to impose US safety regulations
Whether US & Mexico have "like circumstances"
Whether US violates the "open-investment" policy by restricting Mexican investment in US firms
Claim
Mexico: under no obligation to enforce US standards
Canada does not use US standards→ forcing Mexico to implement US standards would be unfair
treatment
Law
NAFTA articles 1202 (parties should give equal treatment -in like circumstances- to its own service
providers_and 1203 (no less favorable treatment to different service providers)
Ruling
Mexico prevails→ Mexico is under no obligation to adopt identical US standards
US cannot prohibit Mexican investment into US firms (NAFTA Article 1102 and 1103)
Rationale
The US interpretation of "like-circumstances is too broad → does NOT mean identical
Case: Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal
International Center for the Settlement of Investment disputes
Parties
Metalclad (US Company) vs. Mexican Government
Facts
Metaclad acquired Catering (previously a Mexican company) during its construction in Mexico; told
all necessary permits had been obtained
Construction halted - claimed no permit obtained
State government declared landfill area as ecological and wildlife area→ no more Catering
Metaclad invested $16.5 mill into the project
Issue
Whether Metaclad was given fair and equitable treatment
Whether Mexican regulations lacked transparency
Whether Mexican government expropriated Metalclad without compensation in violation of Article
1105
Claim
, US→ Metaclad was not given fair treatment, Mexican gov lacked transparency towards Metalclad
about the permit being previously denied
Defense
Law
NAFTA Article 1105 (reference to transparency)
Ruling
Metalclad prevails, collecting all construction reimbursement ($16.5 million)
Rationale
Metalclad received NO notice of permit denial and town meeting; Mexican government did not
provide transparency and a predictable framework for Metaclad's business planning/investment
Case: U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: US Supreme Court
Parties: United States vs. Alvarez - Machain
Facts:
Alvarez is Mexican citizen
Alvarez was kidnapped and flown by private plane to TX where he was arrested for
kidnapping/torture/murder of US DEA→ court concluded Alvarez responsible
Mex protested violation in extradition treaty→ court of appeals affirmed
The treaty says nothing about the obligations of the US and Mexico to refrain from forcible
abductions of people
Issues
Whether a criminal defendant abducted to the US from a nation which it has an extradition treaty
thereby acquires a defense to the to the jurisdiction of this country's courts
Whether the treaty should be interpreted so as to include an implied term prohibiting prosecution
where the defendant's presence is obtained by means other than those established by the treaty
Claim
Alvarez claims treaty must be interpreted against customary int law; international abductions are
clearly prohibited
Law
Ruling
Chief Justice Rehnquist: Treaty acts as a prohibition against a violation of a general principle int law→
one government can now exercise its police power in another country
Terrible ruling, anything goes now→ basically we can do anything except things explicitly mentioned
in extradition treaty
Problem→ no justification food disregarding the Rule of Law (US violation of int. law)
Focuses on outcome
What the US did is legal→ jjm of court of appeals overturned
Case: EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. ✔Correct Answer-Tribunal: US supreme court
Parties: Aramco/ASC (Delaware corps) (Defendant) vs. EEOC on behalf of Bourselan (plaintiff)
Facts
Aramco principal place of biz in Saudi Arabia, licensed to do business in TX
1979→ Bourselan hired by ASC (subsidiary of ARAMCO) in TX → 1980: transferred to Saudi (at his
request), discharged four years later
Sought relief until Title 7 of Civil Rights act on grounds he was harassed and discharged on account of
race, religion, and origin
Issue
Whether Congress intended for Title 7 to apply to US citizens employed by US companies outside the
US
Claim: EEOC claims it's still a US CO. → Title 7 should apply
Law: Title 7: US citizen working for US company
