1- Bates cannot be held personally responsible for any damage that may have been done by the launching state. The Space Liability Convention imposes responsibility only on states.

1/2- Space Liability Convention, Art. 2

1- Barkistan should not bear full responsibility. It should shared with the other launching state, the United States.

1/2- Space Liability Convention, Art. 1 or 5

1- Barkistan is not responsible for the damage to the Turpitz satellite, since the damage was not its fault given the facts here.

1/2- Space Liability Convention, Art. 3

1-Barkistan is not responsible for the damage to Turpitz territory, because the accident was the result of actions taken by Turpitz with the intent to cause damage.

1/2- Space Liability Convention, Art. 6

1- The cleanup costs claimed by Turpitz are not “damage” within the meaning of the Space Liability Convention.

1/2- Soviet position in Cosmos 454

1- Bummer and the entire rescue force should have absolute immunity as a visiting military force entering Turpitz territory in distress, as a result of the snowstorm and engine failure.

1/2- Schooner Exchange

1- Bummer was acting within the line of duty when he attempted to secure area.

1/2- Wilson v. Girard

1- Even if Turpitz originally had primary jurisdiction, this was waived by the local sheriff (whether or not he even had the legal power in Turpitz to do this.)

1/2- Whitley v. Aitchison


2)

1- Amb. Tim is not immune from a civil claim, because you can argue that her hosting of the party is a private “commercial” activity.

1/2- Vienna Conv., Art. 31

1- Amb. Tim waived her immunity here by bringing a claim in U.S. courts. This “counterclaim” is clearly directly related to her claim.

1/2- Abdulaziz or Vienna Conv., Art. 32

1- Tuttle is not immune from U.S. jurisdiction. As a consular official, he is immune only when he is acting in his official capacity, which he was not when he was throwing the party. (He is just a budget officer.)

1/2- Re Rissman

1- TUM is not immune, because it is engaged in a “commercial activity.” The nature of activity, selling uranium, is private, even if the purpose behind doing so is not.

1/2- Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Sect. 1603

1- TUM’s commercial activity clearly has a nexus to the U.S. Can either consider the activity itself taking place in US (promoting effort), the “act” taking place in US territory, or that there is a direct effect of the act in the US.

1/2- Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Sect. 1605 (a)(2)

1- The incident took place in US territory, since the Embassy is not part of Turpitz’s territory, but is a place (normally inviolable) on U.S. soil.

1/2- Radwan v. Radwan

1- U.S. courts will not take into account the broader “context” of the state’s action under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The nature of the activity remains the key.

1/2- Argentina v. Weltover

1- Regardless of the commercial nature of what happened, there is a non-commercial tort taking place in US territory and none of exceptions apply (not “discretionary,” etc.)

1/2- Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act , Sect. 1605 (a)(5)

1- The U.S. Court will be able to execute claims against TUM’s assets since they have $10 million in a New York bank which are clearly to be used for commercial (private) purposes.

1/2- LETCO v. Liberia (unllke) or Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Sect. 1610


3)

1- Barki Bay can be considered Barkistan’s internal waters because the opening of the bay is less than 24 miles and one can draw a “closing line” at its mouth. This will form the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured.

1/2- Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 10

1- Point Y can thus be considered in Barkistan’s territorial sea. Since this was a serious and wilfull act of pollution, the captain can be jailed.

1/2- Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 230

1- There is no right of innocent passage in internal waters; therefore Barkistan can impose whatever construction standards it wants.

1/2- Law of the Sea Convention, Art. 17 or 21

1- Crimona failed to provide information to and consult with Barkistan about the plans for use of river. The plans were deliberately kept secret.

1- Crimona made no effort to take into account the interests of Barkistan, the downstream state. They rejected a proposed filtration system which would have helped prevent pollution.

1/2- Lake Lanoux

1- Crimona gave no warning of the danger posed by wastes generated on their territory.

1/2- Corfu Channel

1- Serious damage was done by the plant in the loss of life, and perhaps in the effect on hotels and fish.

1- There is clear and convincing evidence that the plant is responsible, at least for the loss of life, since these chemical-related illnesses had never been seen before the plant began operations and because the chemicals in the fish are identical to those produced by the plant.

1- Barkistan wants compensation, at least for the damages of a quantifiable nature, such as the losses the hotels have suffered.

1- In addition, Crimona must make changes in the plant’s operations to keep the pollution below some threshold of serious effect and must monitor those operations to ensure that no further “damage” is done..

1/2- Trail Smelter

1- Barkistan also claims the right to bring an “actio popularis” claim on behalf of the international community’s interest in the haddock stocks on the high seas.

1/2- Australian argument in Nuclear Tests case


4)

1- The court does not have to rely on the State Department’s view here, since it has the right to determine for itself whether to apply the act of state doctrine

1/2- Citibank v. Banco Naccional- 5 judges say Bernstein exception does not apply

1- The international law rules here are vague and thus may not be used as the basis for ruling illegal the act of a foreign sovereign within its own territory. Certainly there is no clear international law that puts limits on the religious rules a state may impose on its territory.

1/2- Sabbatino case

1- Although there is indeed a treaty here, the language is not at all clear in terms of what “appropriate compensation” means and thus it is hard to argue the “treaty law” exception found in the case below.

1/2- Kalamazoo Spice

1- The Second Hickenlooper Amendment does not apply since the rights possessed by the tourists (to take a Christian cruise and attend the festival) were intangible, not the tangible “property rights” required there.

1/2- Hunt v. Coastal State Gas

1- This act deserves to be considered a “public act” since its purpose (trying to promote an Islamic state) is clearly a public one.

1/2- IAM v. OPEC

1-Even the act of an unrecognized government can be considered an act of state, and the State Dept. acknowledges that BIPA has effective control of the state.

1/2- Luthor v. Sagor