Clarification Requests 2023

Teams who have received their Team Alias may submit requests for clarification of the case, e.g. of factual ambiguities, if the States have ratified a particular convention, etc. The case committee will be reluctant to respond to requests that ask for a legal conclusion. There are two (2) rounds of clarifications, Round 1 in June and Round 2 in August (please observe the deadlines on the schedule). In each round, each team may submit up to five (5) requests. Each request may contain one (1) question only. Please review below the requests submitted by all teams to avoid duplicate questions (and conserve your team's five requests).

Round 20231

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 2 Test 2
Challeneged measures

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 8 evidence for export license
On page 5, paragraph 21, the claimant stated that it had “obtained the licenses for the export of several components as required by the Dual-Use Regulation”, while on page 33, paragraph 6, the respondent pointed out that the claimant “did not comply with the authorization requirement of the Dual-Use Regulation.” The claimant didn’t submit any evidence related to these licenses. Can the Claimant's licenses for the export as required by the Dual-Use Regulation or any supporting evidence be provided?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 14 Effective time of Santions Law
When was the “Santions Law” enacted and came into force ?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 21 Sanctions Law Decree
Did Claimant request the authorization provided in Article 3.4 of the Sanctions Law Decree 134/2022 and did Respondent grant it?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 22 War
Did the war continue after 25 December 2022?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 23 The Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict
Is Martineek geographically near to the Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 29 Nature of Committee on International Trade
What is the status of the Committee on International Trade? Is it a State organ?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 35 MK Robotics assets frozen by the Law Decree 134/2022
Were the remaining 30 % of the MK Robotics assets that were not subject to Sale and Purchase agreement between MK Robotics and Mimic Tech dated December 24 2022 also frozen by the Law Decree 134/2022? Moreover, how long would such a measure last? Would it last only for a specified time until the security issues are resolved, or would it be permanent?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 39 Bail Organa
Bail Organa - who is he? What is his role in the government? What are the competences of Committee on International Trade? What are the competences of its Head?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 57 “challenged measures” or "challenged measure"
On page 65, 7.3 ii) and page 79, paragraph 4.c, is the description "challenged measures" accurate only referring to the act of issuing the Sanctions Law?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 64 Applicability of GATT
Are either Martineek or Albion signatories of the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 73 Mr. Organa's competences
What exactly was Mr. Organa's position in Martineek's national law in terms of his competences?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 76 Supplement to Req. No. 57: the meaning of "the Sanctions Law"
What does Claimant mean by "the Sanctions Law" in the Request for Relief? That term is used without any clear definition in the Request for Arbitration as well as other part of the Problem.

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 81 Challenge of sanctions
Does national law provide for the possibility of challenging the imposed sanctions?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 82 "Albion First" and Claimant
In 2020, when DeLorean Technologies LLC acquired a 100% share of MK Robotics, did the company receive financial support from Albion as Mr. Lionel Tusk mentions in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 83 Asset freeze
What specific limitations does freeze of Claimant’s share imply? Can Claimant exercise its voting rights or pay dividends?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 101 Catch All Control
Does the catch-all controls regulation impose an obligation on an exporter to gain additional licenses or perform additional screening, or is the duty on the state to check goods under catch-all control with more scrutiny?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 109 Scope of Issue 3
For Issue 3, the question is framed as “Whether the challenged measures violate Article 5 of the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Republic of Martineek and the Federation of Albion”. In the course of our arguments on Issue 3, can we make reference to other Articles of the BIT? (eg Article 4, 6, 8, 9)

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 112 assets frozen according to Sanctions Law
All of Claimant’s assets have been frozen according to Sanctions Law, does that mean MK Robotics was also frozen? Since Claimant held 100% share of MK Robotics.

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 123 The legal basis of the frozen asset action
P86, para 40, "According to the Law, Claimant's assets were to be subject to freezing." What's the legal basis for the freezing assets action and whether other targeted entities' assets are frozen based on this law?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 124 The full text of the Sanction Law
Can you please provide the original text of the sanction law, particularly regarding whether the law itself establishes procedural requirements for the sanctioning of specific entities? For example, does it require prior investigation, the right of pre-sanction entities to appeal, disclosure of the basis and evidence for the sanctions, and so on?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 125 Official documents about the threat from high-tech investments
Are there any official documents can be known by the Claimant concerning about the detailed description of the threat from high-tech investments be provided by the Respondent and if there are, can we see these documents?

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 127 Elaboration of Facts
Did the use of Beetle vehicle in the Karmalian Wadahi region impacted the peace of Martineek

Challenged Measures/Req. No: 135 Effect of Sanctions
Are the remaining 30% are all completely frozen or are only part of the 30% of the remaining assets (which are for military use) frozen?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 4 Can we change the valuation date proposed in the request?
Are participants allowed to amend the parties’ prayer of relief substantively? For instance, we found that the Claimant’s claim for damage is quite hard to support by the Tribunal because it is a little bit unreasonable and is very different from traditional methods of calculating damage for unlawful expropriation.

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 9 Exact date of selling assets
On Page 33, paragraph 26, it is stated that the claimant sold “its assets on 25 December 2023”. Since the claimant is supposed to sell its assets in 2022, is this a MISTAKE?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 33 Precise date of impact to market
Line 127 shows that “Starting in December 2022, the reports of possible sanctions became frequent and vastly impacted the market.” What is the exact day of “Starting in December 2022” refer to?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 37 Valuation of MK Robotics
The Claimant´s Exhibit C11 shows that MK Robotics was valued at 91.000.000 USD as of 20 November 2022. What is the nature of this valuation? Was it done by some renowned company or is it simply a value reported by MK Robotic?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 40 Date of the Sale of the Asset
We found a difference in the date of the purchase of the assets. In the statement of uncontested fact, the date of the asset sold was 25 December, but in exhibit C-10 stated the date was 24 December. Our question is, when was the actual date of the purchase agreement?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 62 Respondent's request for arbitration is not clear
On page 34, paragraph 30,iii), what's the intention of Respondent's wording "with regards to the assests that were not sold by Claimant, Claimant still remains their sole owner, therefore no damages should be awarded" in its Order iii.

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 78 Other damages
Is Claimant claiming any damages related to the freezing of the asset other than the difference in price between the sale and the market value of MK Robotics?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 99 Distinction between valuation claims for sold and unsold assets
With respect to the fourth issue, is it restricted to the date of valuation for the assets prematurely sold by MK Robotics prior to the Sanctions law or is the date of valuation also being contested and argued by both parties for the unsold assets frozen under the Sanctions law?

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 114 MK Robotics’ value of 14 November 2022
Is there any change of MK Robotics’ value between the period from 20 November 2022 to Mr. Organa’s Twitter? especially the value of 14 November 2022, one day before Mr. Organa’s Twitter statement

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 132 Date of Sale and Valuation
Respondent is proposing that the compensation should be paid as per the value at the time of the sale of assets i.e., 25 Dec 2022 however, the sale agreement mentions 24 Dec 2022 as the date of sale. Which date has to he taken into consideration.

Date of Valuation/Req. No: 134 Determining the valuation method
Claimant and Respondent are arguing about both valuation date and valuation method in their request for arbitration and response for request. However, the procedural order only addresses the valuation date. Is it necessary for us to determine the appropriate method for asset valuation?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 1 Test 1
Seeing if Jurisdiction Request Works

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 7 Can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?
We noted that both Respondent's relief and PO2 use Article 9 of BIT as the legal basis. We want to know, in addition to Article 9, can we use Article 1 of BIT as the main legal basis?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 15 Time of request for arbitration
When was the Claimant submits its request for arbitration?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 19 Legality
Is there a sanction for non-compliance of the authorization requirement of Article 28, Law Decree 53/2007?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 20 Legality
Did Respondent grant the authorisations requested by Claimant for its Dual-Use products, in compliance with Ordinance 66/2022, modernising Law 53/2007?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 26 Modernising of Law Decree 53/2007
Which were the changes in Law Decree 53/2007 provided by the introduction of Ordinance 66/2022 in Respondent’s legal framework?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 27 Press release specification
Is any other document forged by Dr. Farnsworth aside from the governmental authorization to sell shares relevant to the case?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 42 Gender of the Resigning Counsel
What is the gender of the Respondent’s Counsel whose resigning?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 48 Request on further information about the notification of Martineek
Did Martineek notify CLAIMANT about the results of its internal investigation, i.e. the investigation against Dr. Farnsworth’s forgery? When was the investigation results published and publicly available?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 58 the nature of the so-called "licenses"
Claimant mentioned "licenses" in Request for Arbitration para.21. We wonder what are these licenses for?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 71 Voidable transaction
Is the transaction between the MK Robotics and Delorean Technologies null and void or voidable under Martineek law (specially the Dual-Use Regulation)?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 72 Authorization of the purchase agreement
Was the purchase agreement between MK Robotics and Mimic Tech LLC authorized as required in Article 28 of the Dual-Use Regulation?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 80 Documents submitted under Screening Law
What documents did the Claimant provide to Respondent’s state authorities in order to comply with the Screening Law?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 94 Company Due Process
What were the steps used by the company on the due diligence process? Were there any specific research made (i) on the validity of the public investment documents; and (ii) on the profile of Dr. Farnsworth?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 107 Scope of issue 2
Issue 2 is framed as “whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this dispute in light of Article 9” of the BIT. Can our arguments on jurisdiction also rely on other Articles on the BIT (especially but not limited to Art 12, which is the arbitration clause)?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 117 due diligence
Paragraph 17 page 83, it states that "Claimant's in-house counsil reviewed the reports presented and did not identify any major red flags", what does "review" mean? Is there a possibility to know the specific procedures of how the counsil reviews the report? For instance, did they compare the information provided by Dr. Farnsworth with the information on the internet or they just simply looked at the report?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 122 Article 9 Protection
What is the protection accorded by Article 9.

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 129 Elaboration of Facts
The case states that the when the claimant’s in house counsel went through the documents submitted by Dr. Farnsworth, they did not find any “major” red flags. Were there any “minor” red flags that they found?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 130 Compliance with requirements under Screening Law
Line 105 states that "Following the adoption of the Screening Law and Claimant's provision of all relevant information about its investment, the authorities of Martineek did not show any concern related to Claimant’s investment.". According to the Screening Law, was Claimant obliged to provide the information about the authorisation of the acquisition of MK Robotics to the Martineek authority?

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 131 Laws and regulations in force in the host state
Which law or regulation in force in the host state provides that investors shall conduct due diligence before making an investment in Martineek?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 6 an problem about the clause number of Article 4
In Article 4 of the BIT, there are two provisions, namely 4.1 and 4.6, instead of 4.1 and 4.2. We wonder whether it is a typo or actually what it is.

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 11 BIT article 1
On Page 88, it is provided that “claims to money” does not include “ (iii) any order, judgment, or arbitral award related to sub-paragraph (k) or (l)”. However, sub-paragraph (k) or (l) isn’t provided in the article 1. Are these paragraphs related to the case?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 17 General Principles of Treatment under the BIT
Whether the general principles of treatment mentioned in Article 5 are in reference to Article 4 or Article 3 of the BIT?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 44 Capacity of GAR to Conduct Investigation
What is the position/capacity of Global Armament Review (GAR) to conduct the investigation regarding dual-use components manufactured in the FTPG region?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 45 Document of Law 1609
Is it possible to attach the full version of Law 1609 to the exhibit?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 85 General Principles of Treatment in Article 5
Article 5(1) of the BIT contains a reference to "the general principles of treatment provided for in Article 4". We wonder whether it is a typo or actually what is it?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 97 UN Charter
Are both Albion and Martineek parties to the United Nations Charter?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 100 VCLT
Are both Albion and Martineek parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 103 WTO TFA
Are both Albion and Martineek parties to the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 105 Geneva Conventions
Are both Albion and Martineek parties to the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 106 CCW
Are both Albion and Martineek parties to the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons??

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 108 Definition of Investor
Under the definition of “Investor” provided in Article 1 of the BIT, is the phrase “and that is making or has made an investment in the territory of the other Contracting Party in accordance with law of the latter” meant to apply to all (i), (ii) and (iii) or only to (iii)?

Miscellaneous/Req. No: 120 Timeline
What are the previous arrangements from Procedural Order No. 1 that remain in force?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 3 Factual Clarifications for Claimant
Based on the Claimant’s Exhibit C8, The Head of Committee on International Trade was Bail Organa whereas the CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 it was Bill Ortega. Who is the correct name?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 5 Did the host state provide the investors with any relief or compensation?
We wonder whether the host state provided the investors with any relief or compensation, such as an “opportunity to request for internal judicial review on the challenged decree”.

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 12 Parties to international agreement
Is Respondent a party state to any international human rights covenants or mechanisms? Are the two states parties to any WTO agreements, if so, is there any reference to WTO obligations in the BIT?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 13 the identity of "Bill Ortega"
What is the identity of "Bill Ortega" mentioned in CLAIMANT’S EXHIBIT C9 ?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 16 Authorization for sale of assets by MK Robotics
Was MK Robotics given authorization under article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation to sell its assets vide Asset Purchase Agreement among MK Robotics SRL and Mimic Tech LLC dated December 24, 2022 (Exhibit C 10)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 18 Availability of Authorisations in Public Domain
Are authorisations under Article 28 of the Dual Use Regulation (Exhibit R 1) granted by the government of the Republic of Martineek available in the public domain?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 24 Debris origins
Were components from other companies also identified in the debris of the unmanned aerial vehicles?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 34 Involvement of MK Robotics drones in Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict
For what purpose were the MK Robotics drones used in the Wadaihi-Karamanlean conflict?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 36 Form of signatures on official documents in Martineek
In Martineek, is there an established practice as to the form of signatures (digital or hadwritten) on official documents?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 43 Screening Law Regulation
Is it possible to add the details of the Screening Law regulation?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 46 Parties of other related treaties and international organization
Are Martineek and Albion party to other international treaties and/or organizations? (i.e: oecd, gatt, wto, cedaw, etc)

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 50 Dr.Farnsworth criminal Record
Is the criminal conduct of Dr. farnsworth from 2018-2020 publicly known or was the conduct recently known from the 2022 investigation?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 51 Discrepancy between 1st and 2nd BIT
Are there any major discrepancies between the first and second BIT Agreement?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 52 The due diligence requirement
Other than having the Claimant’s in-house council review the reports presented by Dr Farnsworth, have the Claimant done anything else to satisfy the due diligence requirement?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 53 Investigation into Dr Farnsworth
When did the investigation into Dr Farnsworth start and why was it started?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 54 Other affected countries
Whether other countries were affected or sanctioned by any of the recent regulatory developments in Martineek (e.g. screening law and dual-use regulation)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 55 Other international treaties
What other international treaties are the two States, Albion and Martineek, signatories to?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 56 The Source of the UAV with a MK Robotics Trademark
Is there any possibility that the UAV with a MK Robotics trademark was provided by DeLorean Technologies LLC, in consideration of the acquisition of 100% shares in Martineek company by DeLorean Technologies LLC, and thus its control of MK Robotics' assets?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 60 Valuation Change of the Drone Branch
Is there any increase/decrease in the valuation of the drone branch which was previously owned by Claimant but later sold to the Mimic Tech LLC, from 24 December 2022 (the date of sale) to the date of award?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 61 Valuation Change of the Frozen Assets
Is there any increase/decrease in the valuation of the frozen assets, from the date of asset-freezing to the date of award?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 63 The existence of influencial rumors before Twitter
Before the Twitter statement on 15 December 2022, is there any rumors about sanctions influencing the market in the society?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 65 FTPG Actions
Pursuant to the meeting of FTPG countries held on 2nd December, 2022, did any other FTPG states take any actions against Albion and/or Albionese companies?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 67 Date of Exhibit C6
What is the correct date of release of the press release enclosed as Exhibit C6?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 77 The Joint Statement by FTPG
What are the concrete contents of the joint statement issued by FTPG States in paragraph 34 of the Uncontested Facts?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 84 2 December 2022 Agreement
What was the agreement between the FTPG States during the meeting on 2 December 2022?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 87 National interests of Martineek
Which relationships does the Republic of Martineek possess with borderline countries (military conflicts, etc.)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 95 Export Controls
How is the export control of dual-use items done?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 96 Identification process
Was there any identification process on MK's products, including its attachments?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 102 Licenses and Approvals
Martineek has stated that the export of electronic components used in the drone attacks and export of MK Beetle is the reason for sanctions under Annex 1. Is the state here claiming that either of these exports were in violation of the export licenses required under amended dual use regulation and catch all controls?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 104 Hoersch-Kessel
Did Hoersch-Kessel change its name (to Blastech) and get funding from Avaikia after the sale agreement with MK Robotics for electronic circuits or did the same happen prior to the sale, with MK Robotics aware that it was selling its products to a company with Avaikian funding and aware that the end users were mining companies in Avaikia?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 110 Mr Organa's powers
What is the scope of Mr Organa’s powers as Head of Committee on International Trade (i.e., whether the Committee exercises executive/legislative powers)?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 111 Facts on number of exhibits and pages of submissions
(at or around line 1920) Claimant's objections to Respondent's Counsel Resignation states that “it will take months for another counsel to get acquainted with the voluminous case file containing more than 3000 pages of legal submissions and more than 800 factual and legal exhibits”. However, the moot problem only contains 20 Exhibits, and based on the prescribed word limits, the written submissions will likely not reach 3000 pages. Can we rely on “3000 pages of legal submissions and more than 800 factual and legal exhibits” as a fact in making our arguments?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 113 Respondent's governmental department
What is the exact governmental department of Respondent that Claimant asked for authorisations from in Line 85?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 115 the corresponding administrative actions of Respondent State
In lines 2125-2130, what is the corresponding actions of Respondent State to Claimant's "due diligence"? Does the Respondent State fully rely on and trust the internal self inspection materials of Claimant without conducting any prior administrative review of the transaction?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 118 Mr Organa Interview
Did Mr Organa's TV interview actually happen

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 121 Data in Annual Report
Is there a typo for line 1127-1130 of the problem, or are the facts within 1127-1130 different from the data in Annex 1?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 10 Compliance with the Narnian Bar Association's Rules
Upon termination of representation, did Dumbledore, Black & Partners (“DBP Law”) comply with Rules 16.1(d) of the Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct? [Rule 16.1 (d): Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee or expense that has not been earned or incurred. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by other law. ]

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 25 Resignation in the Memorial Drafts
Who should we represent in the memorials: Respondent or DBP Law? Should we formulate a different document to present counsel’s arguments?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 28 Changes in Gender Law in Martineek
Regarding Law 1609, does the change in Martineekean gender laws correspond to a previously predictable conservative tendency or did it astonish Respondent’s society?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 30 Legal binding of human right to parties
Are Martineek and Albion the parties of any human rights treaty?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 31 Evidence for proceeding delay
The claimant mentions that the current proceedings have already been delayed by Respondent in Claimant’s Objections to Respondent’s Counsel Resignation. Is there any corresponding record to prove it? And how long did this delay the process?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 49 Request on further information about Ms. Alia Azadi
What is the relationship between Ms. Alia Azadi and DBP Law? Is she a member of DBP Law or one of the counsels representing this case?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 59 Reasons of the delay of arbitral proceeding
In Claimant’s Objections to Respondent’s Counsel Resignation, Claimant argues that the current proceeding has been delayed on multiple occasions. Can we acquire the reasons why the proceeding has been delayed by the Respondent? And how many times had the procedure been delayed?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 66 Other resignations
Whether counsel resignations in other proceedings involving Republic of Martineek were challenged/contested by the other party in the respective disputes and/or whether the Panel/Bench/Tribunal had ruled upon the question of counsel resignation in those disputes?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 69 Author of submission
Should teams write submission on the resignation of counsel in the arbitration on behalf of the Respondent or rather DBP Law?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 70 Contractual relationship with counsel
Is there a contract between DBP Law and the Respondent governing the representation of the Respondent in the arbitration and possible withdrawal of the counsel?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 74 Treatment of The Issue of Resignation
Should the teams deal with the issue of Respondent Counsel Resignation in their memorial and skeleton brief and the oral rounds of regional rounds? Considering the time series, that issue can be addressed only in the oral rounds of globals.

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 88 Counsel Resignation in other proceedings
Did other law firms get any approvals from the tribunals/courts for the resignation of the counsels?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 89 Grounds for Counsel Resignation
How exactly is Law 1609 formed?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 90 Responsibility Assignment
Is there an existing contract between DBP and Martineek to clarify the responsibility assignment of lawyer withdrawal?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 92 Rules of Professional Conduct in Martineek
Does Martineek have any sort of Rules of Professional Conduct or a professional association of lawyers/bar association regulating the conduct of counsel in the home state?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 93 The effect of counsel resignation
If DBP were to be granted their resignation, will the issue of jurisdiction and merits be addressed on the same session and only leave the quantum stage to be decided on a later date OR will it immediately take effect on the day of the hearing and the issue of jurisdiction and merits will be addressed on another session? In what context does "for the next stages in the proceeding." in PO2 mean?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 98 Decision of Narnian Bar Council
While the Narnian Bar Council, in its decision on the termination of representation of Martineek, mentions taking into account representation/request by Narnian Law Firms, did they also reach out to Martineek to hear their arguments on the issue?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 116 Regarding the Narnian Bar Association
Would any more information regarding the Kingdom of Narnian be provided? For example, what's the relationship between Martineek and Narnian, and why did Respondnet choose DBP Law (a Narnian law firm) to represent the Republic of Martineek, etc.

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 119 Can we see the contract between the DBP Law and the Respondent?
Whether DumbledoreBlack & Partners (“DBP Law”) and the Respondent had signed a agency contract stipulating what would happen if DBP Law resigned especially with regard to the liquidated damages?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 133 Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct
In Narnian Bar Association’s Rules of Professional Conduct there is a statement (Line 1870) “A lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation”. What law is implied under the term “applicable law”?

Round 20232

Jurisdiction/Req. No: 138 Representative
Can the respondent argue lack of jurisdiction on different basis than art.9 BIT?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 136 Other companies in martineek
Are there any companies in Martineek that did not comply with the Screening Law’s notification and authorization requirements?

Other Factual Matters/Req. No: 137 New regulatory measures
Did the implementation of the Respondent State’s new regulatory measures harm any company’s operations other than the Claimant’s?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 139 Representative
Whether the respondent will represent (plead on behalf of) the counsel?

Respondent Counsel Resignation/Req. No: 140 Is resignation sought from all cases?
Is DBP Law representing the Government in other international proceedings? If so, has DBP Law sought resignation from representing the Government of Martineek only in the instant arbitral proceeding or all other international matters/ cases pending?