Reference

Team R001 - Summary of Pleadings:

The Government of Recho breached no international customary law in relation to the spread of the
malignant influenza more so, the employment contract was in accordance to the labor standards provided
by international law, and that it did not violate the employment contract nor discriminate her in any form.

Specifically, the following were the reasons for the foregoing conclusion (based on its Pleading):

Team R001 Team A002

No breach of treaty obligations
 No injury to Ms. Shunzette’s life and her 5-year old daughter’s right to enjoy the highest standard of
protection
1. The Respondent-Recho admitted in Page 1 of 1. We disagree.
its Pleading that it has an obligation to inform or
warn its residents about the disease in
Megoose. It also recognized that Recho has a
higher risk of being affected by the influenza
since it borders Megoose. However, it found the
foregoing no longer necessary since Megoose
has already issued a movement ban on its
inhabitants within the 30-km. radius, the area
which is most severely affected.
Recho concluded that its act of not issuing any
instruction regarding such outbreak constitutes
no violation in its obligation over inhabitants.
Further, Recho noted that it was 50-km away
from Megoose while, Ms. Shunzette’s
workplace is 60-km. away from the said radius.
Thus, Ms. Shunzette’s act of leaving Recho is
unreasonable, since the distance of her
residence and work was not covered within the
30-km. from the mostly-affected area.
Recho concluded that Ms. Shunzette and her
5-year old child’s right to enjoy the highest
standard of protection were not injured.
In our pleading, particularly Subsection 3 of
Customary International Law, we noted that
based on the World Health Organization1,
despite the emergence of vaccinations and risk
preparedness, an influenza pandemic which
outbreaks remain unpredictable, still needs
global surveillance and response because it
is communicable even beyond geographical
borders and evidently results to higher number
of deaths (Emphasis supplied).
Consequently, it is imperative for Recho to
respond to the threat of influenza. As a matter
of fact, under ICPRAMW, migrant workers and
their families have the right to receive any
medical care that is urgently required for the
preservation of their life or avoidance of
irreparable harm to their health. 2 For failure to
do so, Recho is in effect depriving its
inhabitants including Ms. Shunzette and her
daughter of their right to health and well-being.
As such, it is no longer feasible for Ms.
Shunzette to stay in such State without
necessarily impairing her health and security.

Moreover, the 30-km movement ban was only

Note: the above argument has no basis…
placed on the area from which the influenza is
mostly serious. Note that such act was done
due to the lack of vaccines, hence it does not
mean that the areas beyond it shall not pose
risks to its neighboring state, considering the
nature of such disease, that is, it is inherently
contagious.

1
World Health Organization - Pandemic Influenza: An Evolving Challenge retrieved at
https://www.who.int/influenza/pandemic-influenza-an-evolving-challenge/en/ last March 5, 2019
2
Article 28, ICPRAMW
2. In Page 2 of its Pleading, Recho claimed that it 2. We disagree.
did not stop them from leaving by virtue of
equality of treatment over all its inhabitants. In our pleading, particularly Subsection 1 of
Treaty and Convention, we noted that both
Armis and Recho are signatories of ICCPR. As
such, both must recognize and guarantee the
rights enshrined therein such as the freedom to
leave any country under Article 12 (2) of the
same convention.

In the case submitted by Mr. Farag El Dernawi

before the Human Rights Committee, it ruled
that an interference with the right of freedom
must first be justified by the permissible
limitations set out in the foregoing provision,
and that for failure of the State of Libya to
advance the same, there has been a clear
violation of Article 12 of the ICCPR.

In this case, no evidence, be it a lawful order

from the Court or a travel ban issued by the
President, was adduced to prove any restriction
on this right of Ms. Shunzette. Hence, it follows
that she can lawfully exercise this right to
movement.

However, when Recho subsequently upheld

the validity of her dismissal, it appears that it is
in effect punishing her for exercising such right
to which she is rightfully entitled.

No breach of customary international law

 No violation of employees’ right to work under safe conditions
3. Respondent claimed under Article 12 of 3. We disagree.
International Wrongful Act, there is a breach of
an international obligation by a state when an As quoted in the pleading of respondent, “an
act of that state is not in conformity with what is international wrongful act occurs when it does not
required of it by that obligation, regardless of its conform to an international obligation regardless
origin or character. An act of a state does not of its origin or character” (Emphasis supplied.).
constitute a breach of an international
obligation unless it is bound by an obligation in In the case of New Zealand and France concerning
question at the time the act occurs. the interpretation and application of their
agreement on Rainbow Warrior Affair, the Court
It averred that it has yet no obligation to conduct ruled that any violation by a State of any obligation,
any immediate action for the protection of its of whatever origin, be it arising from either
inhabitants because it is far from the area customary international law, treaty, or general
where the influenza is most serious. Hence, its principles of international law, shall give rise to
non-action is justified since the danger to its State responsibility, and consequently to the duty
state will be reduced by the immediate of reparation.
restriction placed by Megoose over its
inhabitants. As stated in our pleading, the UDHR, a customary
law, mandates that every person is entitled to the
right to a standard of living adequate to health and
well-being of himself and his family (page 19). As a
matter of fact, these rights are likewise enshrined

 The termination of employment of Ms. Shunzette was upon a valid cause and with due process
4. Respondent claimed that the dismissal of Ms. 4. We disagree.
Shunzette is valid for being absent from work
without the permission required in the
employment contract. It argued that she could
have obtained a consent before executing the
departure.
5. Respondent further claimed that Ms. Shunzette 5. We disagree.
is validly terminated because it was only her
who returned to Armis. Recho noted that all
other researchers who were citizens of Armis
continued their work despite the Armis’
instruction.
in treaties, particularly Article 3 (2) of CRC, and
safety in working conditions under Article 11 (1)(f)
of CEDAW. In addition, under Article 8 (a) and (c)
of the Declaration on Human Rights of Individuals
who are not Nationals of the Country in which they
Live, aliens lawfully residing in the territory of a
State enjoys the rights to safe and healthy working
conditions and to health protection.
Further, the respondent averred that a breach must
occur at a time when the State is bound by the
obligation.
We noted however that the foregoing rights are
customary in nature, thus are binding to all states
sans a treaty. Recho in effect, has a continuous
duty of protecting the foregoing guaranteed rights,
more so in cases of public emergency. However,
by remaining passive, Recho must be deemed as
doing an international wrongful act.
In our pleading, particularly Subsection 3 of
Customary International Law, we noted that her
departure is reasonable, and this fact remains
true notwithstanding the absence of prior
consent from her employer.
The reason is that such absence must be
weighed with flexibility in view of the
circumstances surrounding such departure. It
must be noted that her departure was in
conformity with a directive from her
Government of Armis, which is already
considered as sufficient notice to Recho of the
its urgency of compliance. Clearly, Armis is
empowered to issue such directive in the
exercise of its inherent right of sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all its nationals wherever they
may be.
It was stated in our pleading (page 13) that Ms.
Shunzette must not be situated in the similar
standing as his other co-workers who were all
males and opted to stay in Recho without their
respective families.
The reason is that her departure from such
State is warranted by the occurrence of
influenza outbreak. Such act must not be taken

 The employment contract was in accordance to the International Labor Standard; that the
Government of Recho and Ms. Shunzette’s employer did not violate their employment contract and
did not discriminate her in any form
6. Respondent claimed that the absence of Ms. 6. We disagree.
Shunzette without prior consent from the
employer is a violation of the employment
contract. Moreover, it will put the institution at a to Compromis):
disadvantage, hence invoked the balancing of
interest between the employer and employee.
Recho further claimed that during the execution
of employment contract, there were no vices of
consent present, thus Ms. Shunzette voluntarily
submitted to its stipulations.
It contended that the employment contract was
not violative of the International Labor
Standards, since there is no inhumane labour
or violation of basic workers’ rights that can be
traced therein.
The employer cannot be faulted for doing
nothing since this fact is not established in the
compromis. Nonetheless, respondent noted
that the Institute is in a safe distance from
the influenza.
In fact, the Government of Recho has done
all precaution and safety measures to
ensure the safety of all its inhabitants.
Therefore, it is common for any management to
be positive that the influenza will end, which
eventually happened as shown in the facts.
It is paramount that the actions of employee
were based on her own decision and is not
compelled by any discrimination, and that she
should be accountable for her actions.
3
Article 8, ILO: WFRC, 1981 (No. 156)
against her because being a parent to a 5-year
old daughter, she has a primary responsibility
under Article 16 (1) (d) of CEDAW to act for the
best interest of the latter, that is, to protect the
her child from the possibility of being infected
which Recho failed to perform due to its
inaction.
First, there is a misappreciation of facts (refer
 There is no factual claim of due
existence of precautionary and safety
measures as relied by the respondent in
its pleading
 The factual claim of “safety” cannot be
presumed just from the distance of the
Institute from the mostly affected area in
Megoose (Refer to emphasis supplied).
Second, we disagree that the action of Ms.
Shunzette was based on her own decision.
In our pleading (page 18), we noted that her
absence from work is, aside from lack of due
process, not premeditated, or rather due to
causes that are beyond her control.
These causes were as follows:
 The need to protect the well-being of
her child under the CRC and CEDAW
 The need to comply with the directives
from the Government of Armis in view
of its exercise of sovereignty
 The need to protect her own health and
safety under CEDAW
Moreover, note that under the Workers with
Family Responsibilities Convention (WFRC),
family responsibilities, particularly over her 5-
year old child do not constitute as a valid
ground for termination from employment.3
Third, regarding the employment contract, we
note that a government’s prerogative over its
citizens’ rights is placed in a higher pillar than
 that of contracts signed between the parties.
Nobody should be compelled to work, much
more forced to work in an environment whose
safety is questionable because for one, it is
contrary to one’s right to freely choose his
employment4 and that it amounts to involuntary
servitude.5

In addition, the execution and consensus with

the provisions of employment contract does not
automatically imply that the employee is
thereby waiving or alienating his human rights6,
such as the right to reasonable notice of
termination under Article 7 of ILO No. 158.

4
Article 23 (1), UDHR
5
Article 4, ibid.
6
United Nations System and Human Rights: Guidelines and Information for the Resident
Coordinator System