FIRST COUNT: “The Customs and River Bridges Act and the Expanded Anti-Euphoria Act are illegal

for
being contrary to Resthels international obligations under the 1941 Pelligrino Concordat and other
treaties and conventions between the Parties”

1. What are the possible sources of violation?

a. Concordat
b. First interpretation of “other treaties and conventions between the Parties” – bilateral
agreements only, i.e. the Concordat and all written agreements subsequent and arising
therefrom
i. Note A1(2) of Concordat re written traffic
c. Second interpretation – may include multilateral treaties, check proper construction in
international law
2. Assuming the sources of violation are identified, is Resthel bound thereby?
a. Was the treaty ratified?
i. How may Resthel ratify?
ii. What could the Prince’s powers be?
1. “Withheld principal assent,” valid? Effects?
iii. Agents who signed the treaty on behalf of prince, authorized? Did they bind
Resthel?
b. Assuming no ratification, is Resthel estopped? Did it nevertheless acquire obligations?
i. Were its acts subsequent to the Concordant incompatible with its ultimate claim
of not being bound thereto?
3. Assuming it is bound, are the provisions enforceable against Resthel?
a. Which provisions in the Concordat and other subsequent agreements, if any, constitute
as legal obligations that Resthel must comply with?
b. Which enforceable provisions, if there be any, could possibly relate to EAEA and CURB
Act?
i. Are there violations?
ii. Related information/provisions
1. CURB:
a. Free movement – Par. 28 vis-à-vis A6(1); A22
b. Religion – Par. 28 vis-à-vis A21; A22
2. EAEA:
a. Import/export quota limits – Par. 27 vis-à-vis A1(2) (“may be
AGREED upon,” remember that Resthel enacted these laws
without consultation); A6; A7; A17
4. Assuming the second interpretation referred to in the first question is plausible, what
multilateral treaties could Resthel have violated?

NOTES:

 Re 1st q: we want to restrict the first count to mean only the first interpretation. Argue towards
the first interpretation.
 Re 2nd q: argue that resthel never ratified. Cite legal bases. Check functions of a prince in
Lichtenstein and Monaco governments (actual principalities).
 Re 2nd q: argue that resthel is not estopped either. Identify acts in the compromis which may be
interpreted to be consistent with the Concordat, but use Resthel’s argument in par. 32 (i.e.
Resthel was just being a good neighbor state)
 Re 3rd q: which provisions in the Concordat are a “hard law” or a “soft law,” that is, even
assuming Resthel is bound or estopped, any provisions relevant to EAEA and CURB are not
legally demandable obligations but more like promises or aspirations between the two states
 Re 4th q: we want to argue that the first count should only be concerned with and limited to the
Concordat and related communique subsequent thereto. But just to be certain, identify possible
violations anyway using par. 42