I.

Rakkab is responsible for the internationally wrongful acts described in sub-

paragraphs (b)-(d),
infra
, because DORTA’s actions are attributable to Rakkab
, or inthe alternative, Rakkab is responsible for its own failure to prevent
DORTA fromcommitting those wrongful acts;Laws:
Local legislation and government-enforced monopoly on the sale of
prescriptionmedication within Rakkab and the Rakkabi governme
nt subsidizes DORTA’s research and
development activities inside and outside Rakkab.
Party it favored:
AUROK
Why? How?:
Rakkab, being the main regulator of DORTA and having sovereignty over
thepresence of DORTA in its territory should be responsible for its own failure to
prevent DORTAfrom committing wrongful acts against Aurok. It is not unknown to
this Court that DORTAevolved from a government funded research group and as of
the present date, the Rakkabi
government holds approximately 12% of DORTA’s
stock. Rakkab is liability in the wrongfulacts committed by DORTA is undeniable
given the fact that Rakkab is also a shareholder ofDORTA.
II.
The harvesting of the Yak in Rakkab violates Rakkab’s
international obligationsrelating to the protection of endangered species and
the environment, includingthose under relevant conventions, and Rakkab is
obligated to end Yak harvestingon its territory;Laws:
Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) Article
III, paragraph 4 b), and c) states that:4. Parties that are Range States of a migratory
species listed in Appendix I shall endeavour:b) to prevent, remove, compensate for
or minimize, as appropriate, the adverse effectsof activities or obstacles that
seriously impede or prevent the migration of the species;andc) to the extent feasible
and appropriate, to prevent, reduce or control factors that areendangering or are
likely to further endanger the species, including strictly controllingthe introduction
of, or controlling or eliminating, already introduced exotic species.
Party it favored:
AUROK
Why? How?:
Rakkab state has the responsibility to adhere to the stipulations of theConvention of
the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. The enlistment ofKayleff Yak
in the Appendix I of the CMS recognizes the fact that the population of KayleffYak
has been decreasing to the point of being endangered.

Laws:
 Sec 5, Article III of the Convention on Migratory Species enumerated 4 exceptions
tothe prohibition of taking animals included in the appendix of the said
convention.a) the taking is for scientific purposes;b) the taking is for the purpose of
enhancing the propagation or survival of the affectedspecies;c) the taking is to
accommodate the needs of traditional subsistence users of suchspecies; ord)
extraordinary circumstances so require;
provided that such exceptions are precise as to content and limited in space
and time.Such taking should not operate to the disadvantage of the species.

Party it favored:
RAKKAB
Why? How?:For Scientific Purposes
The selling of the drug Gallvectra is the primary function of the taking of the
Yak. However, itdoes not limit the capability of the manufacturer of the drug. Since it
is proven that thegallblader of the Yak, as one part of its entire body, was able
to treat insulin-resistance relateddisease, it might be also susceptible to any
possible invention of any drug remedy in treatingdiseases as to the other parts
of the Yak.
Enhancement of Survival
The taking is to observe and check the health and population of the Yak. Rakkab is
cognizantthat the Yak is not in danger, if so, it will be a disadvantage if it does not
take any precautionto sustain the Yak that is the only species needed to create the
drug Gallvectra. So, the takingof the Yak does not only for the creation of the drug,
but also to look into how to sustain andincrease the population of the Yak.
Traditional Subsistence
The taking of the Yak is also to accommodate the needs of traditional subsistence
users ofsuch species. Since Rakkab is taking action to sustain the population of the
Yak in enhancingit survival rate, it might help Aurok to continuously proceed to its
custom, mores and ritual ofobserving the Yak cultural and religious rights and
tradition.
Extraordinary Circumstances
The taking of the Yak is if extraordinary circumstances requires it. It is only an
exception,according to the last paragraph of the Article, if it is not in disadvantage of
the Yak.

III. The harvesting of the Yak in

Rakkab violates the cultural and religious rights of thepeople of Aurok, and
Rakkab must prohibit such hunting forthwith; andLaws:
Convention on Biological Diversity. Article 10 (c) of the Convention on
Biological Diversity states that Each contracting party shall,as far as possible and as
appropriate, and predominantly foe the purpose of complementingin situ measures:
(c) Protect and encourage customary use of biological resources inaccordance with
traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation orsustainable
use requirements.
Party it favored:
AUROK
Why? How?:
In the advent of mass production of Galvectra
, Rakkab’s disregard of the of the
cultural and traditional use of the lustuk enzyme of the Kayleff Yak is an evident
violation ofthe stipulation of the CBD agreement.
Laws:
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention
1989 Art. 2 (b) promoting the full realization
of the social, economic and cultural rights of thesepeoples with respect for
their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and
theirinstitutions Art. 5 (a) the social, cultural, religious and spiritual values and
practices of these peoples shallbe recognized and protected, and due account shall
be taken of the nature of the problemswhich face them both as groups and as
individuals
Party it favored:
AUROK
Why? How?:
The Aurok has the right to observe their Pivzao traditions in using the Kayleff
Yak’s gallbladder in making their traditional dish Tirhinga Nos Lustuk. They should
not be
deprived of their right to exercise their long time tradition by taking away most of
the migrating
Kayleff Yak by the Rakkab’s
production of Galvectra.
IV. Rakkab must pay Aurok, as
parens patriae
for the Aurokan people, a portion (to bedetermined in subsequent
proceedings) of the profits realized from sales of the drugGallvectra, because
the appropriation and exploitation of traditional knowledgebelonging to the
Aurokan people without compensation is inconsistent withinternational
law.Laws:
2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and
EquitableSharing of the Benefits Arising from Their Utilization Article 7 Nagoya
Protocol states that:In accordance with domestic law, each Party shall take
measures, as appropriate, with theaim of ensuring that traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources that is held byindigenous and local communities
is accessed with the prior and informed consent or approvaland involvement of
these indigenous and local communities, and that mutually agreed termshave
been established.
and Article 5 (1) of:1. In accordance with Article 15, paragraphs 3 and 7 of the
Convention, benefits arising fromthe utilization of genetic resources as well
as subsequent applications and commercializationshall be shared in a fair and
equitable way with the Party providing such resources that is thecountry of origin of
such resources or a Party that has acquired the genetic resources inaccordance with
the Convention. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms.
Party it favored:
AUROK
Why? How?:
The basis of the patent issued to DORTA for GALVECTRA was the study doneby Dr.
Bello
for the medical benefits of the lustuk enzyme from the yak’s gallbladder. He didhis
research and studies on the Aurokan’s way of life, the use of traditional medicine
andcultural practices, especially in the use of the yak’s enzyme and its health benefi
ts. A group of
leading biologists have the opinion that “Gallvectra, indeed, appears to have been
inspired by
the traditional beliefs of Aurokans in the health-
protecting properties of the Yak gallbladders.”
For this substantial reasons, it is just but right for the Aurokan people to receive
their shareand profit from the sale of Galvectra.
Laws:
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharingof Benefits arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological
Diversity Art. 1 ObjectiveThe objective of this Protocol is the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising from theutilization of genetic resources, including by
appropriate access to genetic resources and byappropriate transfer of relevant
technologies, taking into account all rights over thoseresources and to technologies,
and by appropriate funding, thereby contributing to theconservation of biological
diversity and sustainable use of its components.
Party it favored:
RAKKAB
Why? How?:

Laws:
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable
Sharingof Benefits arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological
Diversity Art. 5 Fair and Equitable Benefit Sharing4. Benefits may include monetary
and non-monetary benefits, including but not limited to thoselisted in the Annex.
Party it favored:
RAKKAB
Why? How?:
Over the first three decades of its existence, the Department of Research,
Technology
& Application applied for and was granted numerous patents and government appr
ovals tomarketits inventions, especially in the health-
care sector. In February 1996, Rakkab’s Parliament
adopted legislation to privatize the Department. The newly private company,
DORTA M/S
(“DORTA”) was incorporated in Rakkab on 6 April 1996, and public trading of its
shares began
on the New York Stock Exchange a month later. According to the legislative act
privatizing theDepartment
–

and according to DORTA’s private charte

r
–
the government of Rakkab mustalways own no less than 9.9 percent and no more
than 19.9 percent of the shares of DORTA. As
of the present date, Rakkab holds approximately 12% of DORTA’s stock.
Issue:Is DORTA a public or private company? Applicable Law:Presidential
Proclamation No. 50 as amended by RA Nos. 7181, 7661, 7886, and 8758 -
PROCLAIMING AND LAUNCHING A PROGRAM FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS
DISPOSITION AND PRIVATIZATION OF CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS A
ND/OR THE ASSETS THEREOF, AND CREATING THE COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATI
ON AND THE ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUSTWhom It Favors and Why:Respondent
–

It is the basis of the privatization of DORTA, thus disproving Aurok’s claims that
the company is a public one.Fact 2:On 11 November 2004, DORTA filed a patent
application with the Rakkabi IntellectualProperty Ministry for the medication
derived from the Lustuk Enzyme, which it named
“Gallvectra,” to treat insulin resistance
-related diseases. The application listed Dr. Bello as theinventor. According to
Rakkabi law, patent applications are published in the Official Journaland
on the Ministry’s website and are open to public comment for a period of 18 months
before a
final decision is made. Once issued, the term of a patent is 20 years from the date of
first filing.Issue:Is Gallvectra properly patented? Applicable Law(s): Paris
Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property Article 4A(1) - Any person who
has duly filed an application for a patent, or for the registrationof a utility model, or
of an industrial design, or of a trademark, in one of the countries of theUnion, or his
successor in title, shall enjoy, for the purpose of filing in the other countries, aright
of priority during the periods hereinafter fixed. Article 4A(2) -
Any filing that is equivalent to a regular national filing under the domesticlegislatio
n of any country of the Union or under bilateral or multilateral treaties
concludedbetween countries of the Union shall be recognized as giving rise to the
right of priority. Article 4ter
–
An inventor shall have the right to be mentioned as such in a patent.Whom It Favors
and Why:

Respondent
–
Proof that Rakkab complied with the rules and regulations on IP registration. Itmay
also be used as
rebuttal evidence against Aurok’s claims of cultural encroachment.
Fact:In response to the CMS decision, and in accordance with applicable law,
on 15 November2017, the Rakkabi Ministry of Agriculture promulgated Regulation
AG/2017-0300, whichprovides: 1. All licenses permitting the hunting of the Kayleff
Yak issued prior to the date ofthis Regulation are hereby terminated and declared
no longer valid, effective immediately; 2.The killing of Yak in the territory of Rakkab
by an individual not in possession of a valid licenseissued by the Ministry of
Agriculture is prohibited; 3. The Ministry shall issue a license for anytaking of Yak it
considers to be consistent with Section 5 of Article III of the CMS and mayimpose
limits on the number of Yak that any license holder may take,
as itdeems appropriate; 4. The Ministry may issue licenses hereunder to private
companies,whose employees
or agents of those companies shall be deemed licensed individualspursuant to this
Regulation, so long as any hunting limit imposed on the license holder isunderstood
to apply to its employees or agents in aggregate; and 5. The Ministry within
itsdiscretion may require that license applicants demonstrate their familiarity with
relevant safetyand environmental rules, may monitor compliance with the
requirements of this Regulationand any license issued hereunder,
and may impose fines on violators of the conditionsattached to any license.Issue:Do
Rakkabi yak hunters comply with international law? Applicable Law:Bulgarian Law
60486 Art. 53. (amend. SG 79/02) (1) The persons, managing the game, shall pay
annualfee for use.(2) The terms, the conditions and the order for determining the
amount of theannual fee for use of the game and for its spending shall be provided
with the regulationfor implementation of the law. Art. 54. (1) The terms, the days,
the methods and the standards of hunting shallbe determined with the regulation
for implementation of the law.(2) (amend. SG 79/02) Depending on the biological
development of the game, thedamages, caused by it, and the epizootic situation, the
Minister of Agriculture and Forestsshall, upon proposal by the chief of the National
Forest Department or of the generaldirector of the National veterinary
–
medical service and after co-ordination with the Ministerof Environment and
Waters, with an order change the terms for hunting, regulate thenumber of the
game reserves, as well as restrict or prohibit the hunting of some kinds ofgame.(3)
(amend. SG 79/02) For regulation of the number of some kinds of game and
atoccurred epizootic situation resources shall be ensured from the state budget.(4)
Hunting with scientific objectives shall be permitted by the chief of the
NationalForest Department during all the year under conditions and by order,
determined in theregulation for implementation of the law.(5) The regulating of the
number of protected and other kinds of wild animals shallbe permitted by the chief
of the National Forest Department after co-ordination with theMinistry of
Environment and Waters.Whom It Favors and Why:

Both Applicant and Respondent

–
for the former, on the ground that the latter implementedthe rules only after being
accused of poaching; for the la
tter, on the ground that the hunters’
activities are in accordance with
lawSources:http://www.chanrobles.com/presidentialproclamationo50.htm https:/
/lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1999/ra_8758_1999.html

https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514

http://faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/bul60486