[ICJ] First Choice Intl v. French Sales Incorporated

[Odinson]

Both of the lead counselors for each side would be informed, in writing, that the Justice for Madagascar has been chosen to act in place of the Spanish Justice, who is ill. Any further information needed could be inquired at the office of the Chief Justice. However, the justices were still in deliberation.
@Moe
@Connor

 

[Moe]

Ambassador and Counselor DuPont leave their business cards at the front desk and ask one of the secretaries to have Swedish Ambassador call him after the trial. He'd like to meet for a drink. The two cousins depart the office with Counselor DuPont looking up at one the CCTV cameras and winks.

 

[Odinson]

The head legal counsel for France and for First Choice International would be informed that the deliberation of the Judicial Board has ended and that the Chief Justice is going to call the court back into session in thirty minutes. They were told to report to the court room as soon as possible to hear the verdict, as well as sentencing if there would be any. The Chief Justice ordered that this would remain a closed-case, meaning that only the Plaintiff and their counsel, and the Defense and their Counsel could be in the court room besides the justices, the bailiff, and the court reporter.

Chief Justice Olhouser would join his colleagues back inside the chamber. The court reporter began taking minutes again, and they now waited for the Plaintiff and Defense to arrive.
@Connor
@Moe

 

[Connor]

Einar returns to the courtroom and awaits the French.

 

[Moe]

Counselor DuPont would quickly return upon hearing the news.

@Odinson
@Connor

 

[Odinson]

Once the Defense and Plaintiff returned to the chamber and took their seats, Chief Justice Olhouser banged his gavel. He put on his reading glasses and began to speak.
"The Plaintiff has brought forth ten alleged offenses. I will be announcing the verdict of this court... I ask that the Defense please rise..." he waited a moment before proceeding.

"1. On the count of violating the Swedish 'Patents Act of 1967', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues. This will be explained in the 'Majority Opinion', as will all of the other verdicts.
2. On the count of violating the Swedish 'Act on Names and Pictures in Advertisement of 1978', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
3. On the count of violating Chapter 5 of The Swedish Penal Code, the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
4. On the count of violating the French 'Law on Freedom of The Press', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
5. On the count of violating French Article L.615-1 'Intellectual Property Code', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
6. On the count of violating French Article L.615-14 'Intellectual Property Code', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
7. On the count of violating French Article L.642-4 'Consumer Code', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
8. On the count of violating French Article 434-5 'Penal Code', the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues.
9. On the count of violating Article 8 of 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', the International Court of Justice finds the defendant guilty. This includes five separate instances, which exclusively includes the instances of French law listed above.
10. On the count of violating Article 10 of 'The Universal Declaration of Human Rights', the International Court of Justice finds the defendant guilty. This includes five separate instances. This includes five separate instances, which exclusively includes the instances of French law listed above."

Olhouser took off his reading glasses and looked at the defense. "Thank you, you may be seated now... The defense has been found guilty of violating Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For each of these ten instances of violating the articles, this court fines the defense $100,000,000. The court also fines the defense an additional $600,000,000 to repay legal fees. In total, this court fines the defense $1,600,000,000, which will be awarding to the plaintiff. We also order that the defendant cease and desist their trade of the defendant's products. The Majority Opinion, written by me, will be made public as soon as possible."

Olhouser continued, "I hereby conclude this session of the International Court of Justice."
He slammed his gavel, got up, and went to his office to smoke a cigar and hopefully take a nap.
@Connor
@Moe
@John
@Nathan
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Einar, utterly baffled by the decision of the court however happy with $1.6bil for her efforts, knowing that the defence now have no option but to pay the amount in full - allowing First Choice International a return of their profits and their organisational integrity. She stands as the Chief Justice leaves, bowing to the bench of Justices as a sign of respect before collating her paperwork and evidence into a leather bag - Einar immediately grabs her mobile phone and rings the Press Office for Strömberg International Legal Consultants...

"It's Einar, I'm just walking through the court now, we won the case to the tune of $1.6 billion, get the media desk on this as quickly as you can. I'm about to make a brief statement outside before I return to the office. I'll see you soon." She hangs up, using her pitch black mobile screen to fix her hair and apply a fresh coat of lipstick as she walks to the front of the court house where inevitably, considering this is the first international case of it's kind, there is an array of media outlets swinging microphones into her face.

She clears her throat discreetly before making a very quick statement:
"We fought this case as well as we could given the circumstances... Strömberg International Legal Consultants have represented First Choice International in their corporate interests and French Military Sales Incorporated, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of France, denied us the right to a fair trial. The court ruled in our favour and the defence have been fined for their blatant overt violations of international law, for which we have received the appropriate compensation as decided by the bench. This is undoubtedly a landmark case in which Strömberg International Legal Consultants have proven their worth in the juridical system - I can promise you that our consultancy is going no where and we will continue to work with First Choice International and other clients, partners and governments to ensure destructive breaches of the law we all live by are not swept under the carpet. Thank you"

Answering no questions, simply entering her car and driving back to the Dutch Regional Office for Strömberg International Legal Consultants.

 

[Odinson]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MAJORITY OPINION
Strömberg v French Sales Incorporated

Context​

This is the Majority Opinion of the three justices who served on the Economics, Trade, and Finance Judicial Board for the International Court of Justice in the case of Strömberg v French Sales Incorporated. The purpose of the Majority Opinion is to offer context for judgments that were made in this case and to remain as transparent as possible. The Majority Opinion does not have to be written, but when it is, it is always submitted to Defense and Plaintiff in both physical form and digitally. This Majority Opinion is written by the Chief Justice in order to represent the legal opinion of himself, and the other two justices in this case. Because the vote was unanimous, there will be no Minority Opinion.

Case Summary​

This case of Strömberg v French Sales Incorporated chiefly concerned the international corporation, First Choice International (AKA FCI, Plaintiff). The case was presided over by Chief Justice Rolfe Olhouser, Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Soraya Sáenz (became ill and had to be replaced at the end of the trial), and Justice Jean Ernaivo (who replaced Justice Sáenz). The Plaintiff elected to have counsel from Strömberg International, a Swedish legal consulting company, represent them. The Defense, which is owned entirely by the Republic of France, had its defense provided for by the French State. This case was brought forth by the Plaintiff after the Defense sold a number of products on the open market which Plaintiff has the exclusive right to trade internationally. The International Court of Justice allowed a preliminary hearing where both sides agreed to allow a Judicial Board consisting of two justices and the Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice to try the case.

The Plaintiff declared 10 alleged violations of various articles of Swedish, French, or international law:
1. Patents Act of 1967 (Sweden);
2. Act on Names and Pictures in Advertising 1978 (Sweden);
3. Defamation - Law on Freedom of The Press (France);
4. Defamation - Law on Freedom of The Press (France);
5. Article L.615-1 Intellectual Property Code (France);
6. Article L615-14 Intellectual Property Code (France);
7. Article L.642-4 Consumer Code (France);
8. Article 434-5 Penal Code (France);
9. Article 8 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (International);
10. Article 10 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (International).

Of these 10 alleged offences, the final verdict of the court was as follows: the first 8 alleged offenses were found to be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, but the Defense was found guilty of the 2 counts of violating international law (counts: #9 and #10). On top of this, the 5 counts involving French law were treated as instances of violation for both count 9 and count 10. In layman's terms, the Defense was found guilty of violating the Plaintiff's Human Rights 10 times.

Immediately after issuing the verdict, the court issued a fine of $1,600,000,000.00 to the French Republic. It was stated that the fine would be given to the Plaintiff - $1,000,000,000 of the fine was for violating the Plaintiff's Human Rights and the other $600,000,000 was awarded for legal fees.

Elaborations & Addressing Potential Discord​

1. Why the court ruled this case to be within its jurisdiction.
The International Court of Justice presently exists, primarily, to work out international disputes between sovereign nations. However, the court does have some jurisdiction over other organizations, entities, and individual persons depending on certain circumstances. This was interpreted directly from the Charter of The Global Assembly and the Statute of The Court.

Article 21.1 of the Charter states: "The Court has jurisdiction over legal disputes, so has the power to decide whether there is a dispute and, if so, whether the dispute is a legal one."
The court did decide that this was a dispute and that it was a legal one. The dispute is specifically based off of past agreements where the Plaintiff (First Choice International) acquired certain companies/production-rights/trade-rights. These products/companies were originally French in origin but were legally purchased and transferred to the control of the Defense. Trouble arose between the Plaintiff and the Defense when the French state-owned corporation, French Sales Incorporated, sold some of these products to the Syrian government/military.

Article 21.1.A of the Charter states: "However, if the court determines that there is a genuine dispute, it should decline to hear the matter if the party involves a non-Member State."
Article Chapter 21.1.B of the Charter states: "The International Court can decide to hear cases involving a member of the Global Assembly and a nation that is officially attempting to obtain Membership."
At some point, we did consider throwing out the case because the Defense is not a member of the Global Assembly and not a sovereign nation attempting to join the General Assembly. However, we did note that while First Choice International is not a Member State of the Global Assembly, it is also not a "non-Member State", because FCI is not a state. Therefor, we judged that we were not obligated to dismiss the case pursuant to 21.1.A.

Article 21.3 of the Charter states: "The Court is there to protect existing and current legal rights, to secure compliance with existing and current legal obligations, to afford concrete reparations if a wrong has been committed, and to legally uphold all binding resolutions passed by the Global Assembly."
The court considered that because the root of this issue was a dispute over the legal agreement between the Plaintiff, the Defense, and corporations associated with the Defense, it would be able to adjudicate the case in at least some capacity to retrieve some kind of reparations for the Defense is there would be a guilty verdict. The court decided it did have jurisdiction over the case to uphold "existing and current legal obligations" between the Plaintiff and the Defense (and corporations associated with the Defense). At the same time, the court also felt that it would not be able to hold up individual national laws involving contract law because of the international jurisdiction of the court. What tipped the balance was that, because the Plaintiff was (allegedly, at the time) not able to have a trial in France, the court felt that there was a potential for the violation of Human Rights (counts #9 and #10).


2. Why this case wasn't considered between two Member States.
Article 9.1 of the Statute of The Court states: "Cases are brought before the Court, as the case may be, through the form of an official referral to the Court. The subject of the dispute and the parties indicated."
We recognize that the Plaintiff's counsel made significant efforts to have this case recognized as one between Member States. For example, the Swedish Ambassador to the Global Assembly is the one that referred the case. However we found that, in reality, the case was between First Choice International and the French government, albeit through a state-owned subsidiary.

What stood to be problematic if this case was formally treated as one between the Kingdom of Sweden and the French Republic was that Swedish law could potentially be applicable in some way, or that damages/punishment could be sought for violations of Swedish law if these things were somehow found to be within the courts jurisdiction. The issue at hand was that First Choice International is not a Swedish company. Its headquarters are in The Netherlands, and therefor it would have been appropriate for The Netherlands to refer the case.

If it would have set a precedent, future cases could have been more radical and taken even further liberties. A fictional example could be a southeast Asian country referring a case involving a European company it has no relation to, and the counsel demanding reparations for violations of the Asian country's law when the European company does not even operate there. We believe this was the right decision to make in order to hold up the integrity of the court and the Statute of The Court.


3. The court's verdict on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and elaboration.
When the verdict was given, it was read for these counts that "the International Court of Justice finds that we are unable to enter a verdict of innocent or guilty due to jurisdictional issues." As stated above, because this was not treated as a case involving the Kingdom of Sweden, and thus Swedish law, counts #1, #2, and #3 were essentially thrown out, on top of not being within the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

Article 21.2 of the Charter states: "The International Court of Justice is the highest court under the jurisdiction of the Organization. Rulings on international law are legally binding."
Counts #4, #5, #6, #7, and #8 did have to do with French law, however the court found that it does not have the ability to enforce the domestic national law of a country within the context of this case. Specifically, the court's rulings aren't presently interpreted to be binding if they are on national law. This is specifically relevant to this case, where there are many alleged violations of French law. While the ICJ cannot enforce French law, citizens and entities in France do have a right to a trial, as described in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Luckily for the Plaintiff, their counsel was smart enough to include violations of their Human Rights as two of the counts (#9 and #10).


4. The court's verdict on counts 9 and 10 and elaboration.
When the verdict was given, it was read: "On the count of violating Article 8 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice finds the defendant guilty. This includes five separate instances, which exclusively includes the instances of French law listed above... On the count of violating Article 10 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice finds the defendant guilty. This includes five separate instances, which exclusively includes the instances of French law listed above."

Article 8 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."
Article 10 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

This is a small piece of evidence provided by the Defense, which was written by French Brig. General Gregory LeMond to Ms. Åkesson, the Plaintiff's counselor before the trial took place:
"Mr. [sic] Åkesson, I believe it is time to live in reality. You have no case. And we can prove Stromberg itself has committed illegal acts in reckless pursuit of this ill-conceived lawsuit. Even if it went to a court of law, which it will not, this case would discarded faster than an IKEA instruction manual."

It also stands to reason that when the Defense tried to defend itself against the accusations of Human Rights abuse, this was one of the retorts by the Defense's counselor: "Again no evidence was produced by the complainant that we violated as these rights do not exist. As the Court surely knows, no resolutions on Human Rights or anything else have been passed up to this point in history. They simply do not exist. FMSI cannot be charged violating a right that does not exist."

It is unclear what the Defense was thinking, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does exist, and one of the reasons that International Court of Justice itself exists is to uphold these rights. The Defense utterly failed to retort these claims made by the Plaintiff, and instead made several other statements equally bizarre or simply factually wrong such as this one.

Because the Plaintiff's case was presented clearly and most of the charges made by the Plaintiff either went unchallenged or without a logical challenge, the court felt comfortable in using counts #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 (all having to do with French law) as individual instances of violations of for both Article 8 and Article 10 of the Plaintiff's Human Rights. Thus while the court found the Defense guilty of two counts of Human Rights violations, it also attached these 10 instances (5 for each Article) so that greater restitution could be brought forth.


5. Fines and elaboration.
When the fines were handed out, this was stated: "Thank you, you may be seated now... The defense has been found guilty of violating Articles 8 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For each of these 10 instances of violating the articles, this court fines the defense $100,000,000. The court also fines the defense an additional $600,000,000 to repay legal fees. In total, this court fines the defense $1,600,000,000, which will be awarding to the plaintiff."

Article 21.3C of the Charter states: "The Court is there to protect existing and current legal rights, to secure compliance with existing and current legal obligations, to afford concrete reparations if a wrong has been committed, and to legally uphold all binding resolutions passed by the Global Assembly. Therefore, the powers of prosecution are:
c. A fine. The Court may also establish a decision for the benefit of victims of crime, and of the families."

The outcome of this case was likely surprising to both the Plaintiff and the Defense. The case came to be because of what could essentially be described as a contract dispute, but the outcome was focused more on Human Rights abuse because most of the other charges were outside of jurisdiction. There are many instances, of course, where violations of Human Rights would bring different charges than fines. However, the court kept in mind that this case revolved around a loss of profit for the Plaintiff. Therefor, in pursuant of Article 21.3C, it was decided that the French Republic would be fined, and that the money collected from the fine would be given to the Plaintiff to "benefit" them since they were the "victims of crime." Also, of the $690,000,000 requested in legal fees, $600,000,000 were also granted in the form of a fine to the Defendant.

Observations & Conclusion​

It shouldn't be understated that the Plaintiff did a superb job at outlining and executing its charges, and not conceding any of its stances. The counsel provided a textbook, optimal offense for their client and even included offenses (the Human Rights violations) which were one of many backups in case the other charges did not stick. This obviously paid off. The Defense, meanwhile, was essentially the opposite. At times the Defense showed a lack of respect to the justices present and the court itself, and appeared to sometimes be unaware of expected social norms in a courtroom environment. This case was certainly won by the Plaintiff, and it was certainly lost by the Defense. Now that this case has concluded, and the Majority Opinion has been written, I am going to recommend to the Secretary General that the International Court of Justice is reformed so that cases like this in the future will fall even more into the jurisdiction of the court, so that the court can perhaps handle disputes between non-Member States or other entities, and so that national law may be enforced by the ICJ under certain conditions.

Signed,

Rolfe Olhouser
Chief Justice

​

 

[Odinson]

The Majority Opinion was made available to the public at large. Hard copies were sent to the counsel of the Plaintiff, Defense, and Secretary General as well as digital copies. The original copy was formally archived in the Global Assembly.
@Connor
@Moe
@Hollie
@Dutchy

 

[Connor]

The following statement is made on behalf of the Complainant:

Strömberg International Legal Consultants, as an organisation, expressed their gratitude to the bench present throughout the undoubtedly difficult trial. This case is unprecedented in the global arena, it not only challenged the International Court of Justice, the Charter of the Court and international law but it challenged the way those involved in legal disputes and judicial systems operate.

A case of this kind involves a number of very complicated aspects which are incredibly difficult to make a judgement on with no case law to fall back on. We do consider this a huge success for our legal firm and our client in this case, First Choice International... We as an organisation can only grow from this point in order to provide the best services for our clients in the future, we look forward to working with other partners in various legal capacities from this day forward. Hopefully this judgement sets the standard for the aforementioned difficulties regarding jurisidction and membership within the Global Assembly in order to better accommodate private organisations or individuals from getting the justice they deserve.

It is no secret that we are bitterly disappointed that despite our best efforts to argue the jurisdiction within the courtroom eight of our ten charges were dismissed, in some way, from the courtroom with six points of domestic legislation used as substantive evidence against the latter two points of international law. We hope the advice given to the Secretary General of the Global Assembly will strive to make it very clear to organisations trading internationally and without exclusion are subject to domestic law in every nation they trade within... and where judicial process is not permitted or not appropriate, the International Court of Justice is there as a global unbiased entity.

Thank you."​