[ICJ] Message to Rosoboronexport

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

GLOBAL ASSEMBLY​

Igor Sevastyanov (John) Chief Financial Officer Rosoboronexport

PRIVATE​

Dear Sir,

With this message we inform you that a request for an advisory opinion has be filed in writing with the Registrar of the Court of which you are a Party.

The questions that have been submitted are as follows:

1. Contractual Ambiguity: We are seeking to understand how should the term "equipment" in the contract be interpreted, considering its ambiguous nature? Is the Thai interpretation, which excludes non-technical repurposed Gepard-class frigates from the definition of "equipment," legally justifiable?
2. Sovereign Rights vs Contractual Obligations: To what extent can a sovereign state, like Thailand, exercise its legal authority under international law to downgrade military hardware for non-combat purposes, especially in the context of a contract that lacks explicit prohibitions or clarifications on such modifications?
3. Legitimacy of Sanctions: Are Rosoboronexport's actions of imposing sanctions on Thailand for their interpretation and use of the purchased frigates consistent with international law and contractual practices?

As an involved Party in this matter we encourage you to provide the Court with your presentation of facts and context on this matter. You may further provide any legal arguments and analysis which you may consider relevant to this matter.

You have a period of two weeks to submit written statements to the Court concerning the questions. Depending on the information provided the Court may hold written or oral proceedings as it deems necessary for the examination of the question. Should this not be deemed necessary then you shall receive a copy of the advisory opinion upon publication. Please note that advisory opinions of the Court have no binding force, but they shall be treated with great respect by all Parties.

On behalf of the Chief Justice,

Registrar of the Court
International Court of Justice

---

DIGITAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE​

 

[John]

Office of the CEO of Rosoboronexport
Message to the the International Court of Justice
Private & Encrypted

---

To: Registrar of the Court, International Court of Justice Global Assembly
From: Igor Sevastyanov, Chief Financial Officer of Rosoboronexport

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for your correspondence, I will now lay out Rosoboronexport's position on the three points:

1. Contractual Ambiguity: Under the Terms of Service, which are clearly visible on our website, Clause #3 specifically states "Nations and partners who purchase from Rosoboronexport cannot sell, trade/exchange, or donate/give away purchased equipment to third parties without expressed permission by Rosoboronexport." Now, I understand why the Thai Government may have been confused, but there is no place in the Terms of Service that state it is limited to Military Equipment and infact states "Purchased Equipment" covering all equipment sold by Rosoboronexport. The Republic of Thailand then also attempted to transfer the frigates to the Kingdom of Canada anyway, in what we percieve as a clear attempt to insult Rosoboronexport and the Russian people.

2. Sovereign Rights vs Contractual Obligations: Clause #4 states "Nations and partners who purchase from Rosoboronexport cannot upgrade purchased equipment nor use purchased equipment for their own technological engineering without expressed permission by Rosoboronexport." The Thai government tried to get around this by classifying it as a "down-grade", however we disagree and they have made multiple changes to the Gepard-class Frigates we sold them in 1999 that can be classified as upgrades.

3. Legitimacy of Sanctions: Clause #5 of our Terms of Service states "Rosoboronexport holds the right to deny any purchase without given reason." this protects us in making a decision based on what we believe will benefit our company the most. We informed the Republic of Thailand that they will be banned on making purchases to prevent a waste of time and effort on both sides - in the situation they attempt to purchase from us. And on this regard, Rosoboronexport refuses to be bullied by a sovreign nation, we will not give up our rights to conduct business we see fit. We are not a company registered in Thailand, we are registered in Russia. They do not make demands of us, as they have already attempted.

Kindest Regards,
Igor Sevastyanov
Chief Financial Officer
Rosoboronexport

 

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

GLOBAL ASSEMBLY​

Igor Sevastyanov (John) Chief Financial Officer Rosoboronexport

PRIVATE​

REF: ICJ/2003001-A
Advisory Opinion on the matter between Thailand and Rosboronexport

Mr Sevastyanov,

On behalf of the Court, I am writing to you in response to the request for an advisory opinion that was submitted to the Court by the Government of Thailand on June 2003.

The Court has carefully considered the request and the materials that were submitted in support of it.

The Court has concluded that the question posed by the Government of Thailand is admissible and that it falls within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court further finds that the request is of a legal nature and that it is sufficiently important to be made the subject of an advisory opinion.

The Court has also considered the various legal arguments that were presented. After careful consideration, the Court has reached the following conclusions:

Opinion on the question of Contractual Abiguities

The Court is of the opinion that it reaffirms the principle of contra proferentem. However, in this matter, the question as to how to understand ‘equipment’ hereby relates to ‘purchased equipment’ as per the terms of service. Therefore, there is a clear understanding that this relates to the Gepard-class frigates purchased by Thailand from Rosoboronexport.

Furthermore, the Court thus opines, on the matter of of modifications to the equipment, that under Clause #4 of Rosoboronexport’s Term of Service, purchased equipment, in this matter the Gepard-class frigates, cannot be upgraded without express permission. The Court considers upgrading as ‘the act of improving the quality or usefulness of something, or changing it for something newer or of a better standard’. Therefore, in line with the principle of contra proferentem, Thailand would not be permitted to modify the Gepard-class to improve its quality or usefulness. The Court lacks details as to the specific modifications made to the Gepard-class and cannot advise further as to the legal justifiability of any changes made.

The Court encourages the Parties to use this advisory opinion to mediate any dispute between themselves.

Opinion on the question of Sovereign Rights versus Contractual Obligations

The Court is of the opinion that it has advised on the matter of equipment modifications in the previous section. Thus, it is the Court’s position that the question of the balance between sovereign rights and contractual obligations is too complex to be answered within the limited nature of this matter.

Opinion on the question of the Legitimacy of Sanctions

The Court is of the opinion that under the principle of freedom of contract, it is within Rosoboronexport’s right to decide upon the sale of its equipment. Rosoboronexport, as a legal entity within Russia, is subject to Russia’s anti-discrimination laws and that the legitimacy of any ‘sanctions’ against Thailand are subject to the laws of Russia, absent any international laws.


The Court's advisory opinion is annexed to this email.

The Court reiterates that this advisory opinion is non-binding and aims to provide legal guidance on questions of international law. The purpose of this advisory opinion is to promote international law and support the resolution of legal disputes.

On behalf of the Chief Justice,

Silvester Pearce
Registrar of the Court
International Court of Justice

---

DIGITAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE​