RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT CONCERNING THE CASE OF TIGER ENCLOSURE

ARGUMENTS:

I. Respondent exercises the right to PSNR as a mechanism for

Developing Economic growth and Development in Sunway

The implementation of PSNR is essential to the objective of attaining the highest rate of economic
growth of the developing country. 1 This notion derived from the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights ( ICESCR) to which Monash and Sunway are parties, provided in their common
Article 1(2), the right to freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources. Further, the United
Nation General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 2158 [XXI]), concerning PSNR allows developing
countries to determine the utilization of its own natural resources. 2 It considers that exploration
and exploitation of natural resources,3 as well as any act deemed as International co-operation for
the economic growth of developing country in the form of public or private capital investments ,
shall be made to further enhance national economic growth and shall be based upon respect for
sovereignty over respective state natural wealth and resources. 4 Furthermore, ICJ has ruled in
Anglo Iranian Oil Case, that PSNR applies as means to develop economic stability in Iran.5

Any interference by third party which renders as violation of the principle of PSNR is regarded as
“contrary to the spirit and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and hinders the
development of international cooperation and the maintenance of peace”.6 Since all member states
of the UN shall refrain from acts, direct or indirect, designed to impede the exercise of sovereignty
of any state over its natural resources.7 Monash therefore, must respect the sovereignty of Sunway
to avoid the violation of PSNR. Further, the proposed pipeline would not enter the territory of
Monash, which prove the implementation of PSNR not depriving Monash of its sovereignty.

In this present case, Sunway is a developing country with the right to exploit its natural resources
, inter alia oil and gas, with the purpose of extraction and exportation of petroleum through the

1
UNGA Resolution 523 (VI) (12 January 1952)
And UNGA Resolution 2158 [XXI], ¶5.
2
UNGA Preamble Resolution 2158 [XXI]), ¶6.
3
Ibid
4
UNGA Resolution 1803 (XVII) (14 December 1962), ¶6.
5
UK v. Iran(Anglo Iranian Oil), ICJ Case, Preliminary Objection Judgment, 22-07-1952, p.93.
6
UNGA Resolution 1803 (XVII) (14 December 1962), ¶7.
7
UNGA Resolution 626 (VII) (21 December 1952), ¶2.
construction of pipeline.8 Sunway intend to use private capital from Texas Chicken,9 as a way to
exercise international co-operation, in line with the UNGA Resolution. Conclusively, we submit
that Sunway may exercise the right of PSNR to achieve national economic growth by means of
exploitation of its natural resources.

2. Sunway does not violates Nickeledeon Right To Adequate Food

The right to adequate of food as stipulated in s Art. 11 ICESCR, clearly stipulates on the word
“adequate” with respect to Article 31 and 32 of The vienna convention on the law of treaties which
prescribes a good faith interpretation of treaties in accordance with ordinary meaning, and in light
of their intention and purpose. Currently it is arguable to say that Nickeledoen are deprived of its
adequate supply of food.

Furhtermore we submits that Nickelodeon as non nationals of Sunway is restricted by Article

2(3) of the ICESCR that Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national
economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized to
non nationals. Therefore, Sunway as a developing country is not required to the right of food of
the Nickeledeon and therefore does not violate Article 11 of the ICESCR.

3. Respondent Submits That The Proposed Construction of Pipeline Would

Not in Any Eveny Constitute An Internationally Wrongful Act

In order for a state to be held liable of internationally wrongful act, it must fulfill two conditions. 10
First, the act or omission must constitute a breach of an international obligation, or that the act is
"not in conformity with what is required" by the international obligation.11 Second, the act or
omission must be "attributable" to the State.12 In this present case, the construction of pipeline for
extraction and exportation of oil and gas, can be considered as a form of exercise to the right of
PSNR , if it is proven to meet the following requirements, namely: a developing country in attempt
to develop economic development, granted the rights to regulate or determine its utilization of
natural resources, and the exercise of PSNR does not deprive other state of its sovereignty. 13

In this case, Sunway is a developing country which uses PSNR as a mechanism to develop its
national economy by the construction of pipeline to extract and to export oil and gas. Furthermore,
as a developing country, Sunway has the right under PSNR to determine or regulate its own plan

8
Statement Of Facts
9
ibid
10
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), Article 2
11
Ibid, Article 2 (a)
12
Ibid, Article 2 (b)
13
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, ICJ Reports (1980), p. 29 , ¶6.
for economic development, which in this present case, Sunway would exercise PSNR by
complying with Sunway domestic law, when constructing the pipeline.14

Moreover, we submit that the construction of the pipeline would not take place in the sovereign
territory of Monash, but would take place in the lands that are owned by the public authorities of
Sunway, which have classified them as a public park and wildlife area, under the stewardship of
Sunway Parks, an agency of the Sunway government. In this regards, Sunway is legally exploring
and exploitating its natural resources in its own sovereign territory. Sunway, therefore is merely
exercising its right on PSNR. Conclusively, the construction of pipeline would not in any event,
constitute an internationally wrongful act.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF :

For all these reasons and any one of these would be sufficient in itself, Respondent ask the court
to adjudge and declare that respondent freely exercises its sovereignty right over the territory and
natural resources.