memorial for respondent -...
TRANSCRIPT
10th LAWASIA International Moot 2015 A1506-R
At Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration
MEMORIAL
FOR
RESPONDENT
Claimant Respondent
The Nepalese Government Australian National Museum
Malaysian National Museum
John Thomas Smith
I. Table of Contents
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 2
II. ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 3
III. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................. 4
IV. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................. 6
V. QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................................................................................................................. 7
VI. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 8
VII. SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ...................................................................................................................... 10
VIII. PLEADINGS OF RESPONDENT ............................................................................................................... 12
PART ONE: ARGUMENT OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES ................................................... 12
1.1Applicable Law .................................................................................................................................................................. 12
PART TWO: ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ..................................................... 15
2.1 Legitimacy of Gift ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 Legitimacy of Export ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Legitimacy of Import ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
2.4 Issues of Return of the Object: .................................................................................................................................... 19
PART THREE: ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 22
3.1 Should the statue be located outside Nepal? ........................................................................................................... 22
3.2 Can the tribunal consider the public laws of concerning states? ..................................................................... 24
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................................. 27
3
II. Abbreviations
Abbreviation Official name / Formal name 1st. CLF. Clarifications To The Moot Problem
1st.Respondent John Thomas Smith, Jr
2nd. CLF. Further Clarifications To The Moot Problem
2nd.Respondent The Australian National Museum
3rd. CLF. Third Round of Clarifications To The Moot Problem
3rd.Respondent The Malaysia National Museum
Art. Article
Dr. Smith Dr. John Thomas Smith, Jr.
KLRCA Kuala Lumpur Regional Center for Arbitration
No. Number
P. Page
PMCH Act Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act, 1986 (Australia)
Para. / ¶ Paragraph/ paragraphs
The AMP Act Ancient Monument Preservation Act, 2013 (1956) (Nepal)
The Dean The Dean of the Department of Sociology/ Anthropology at Tribhuvan University
The Muluki The Muluki (General Code)(Nepal)
The Rules The i-ARBITRATION RULES
UNCITRAL UNCITRAL Model Law on the International Commercial Arbitration of 1985
UNECSO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNESCO Convention
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
4
III. Index of Authorities 1. RULES AND LAWS
Statutes, Regulations, Treaties and Rules
The Ancient Monument Preservation Act, 2013 of Nepal
The Arbitration Act of Malaysia, 2005
The Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970
The Muluki Ain
The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act, 1986
The Transit Procedure of Nepal
The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties
The i-ARBITRATION RULES
2. SCHORALY WORKS
Book / Article
Feldman, D. (2014). Error of law and flawed administrative acts. The Cambridge Law
Journal, 73(02), 275-314.
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a
conceptual analysis. Land economics, 249-262.
5
The Ministry of Justice of Japan. (2013). The current situation of civil law and future trend of
legislation in Nepal (NEPA-RU NI OKERU GENKOU MINJIHOU NO GENJOU TO KONGO
NO RIPPOUDOUKOU). Retrieved from http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000111943.pdf
Tilbury, M. J., Davis, G., & Opeskin, B. R. (2002). Conflict of Laws in Australia. Oxford
University Press, USA.
2. INDEX OF CASES
Cases Country and Court
Haque v Haque (No. 2) (1965) 114 CLR
98.136
Center for Law and Religion in USA
British Petroleum v. Libya (Merits)
(1979) 53 ILR 297
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform
(ILR) in U.S
Sapphire International Petroleum v.
NIOC
International Law Report, International
& Comparative Law Quarterly 1011
6
IV. Statement of Jurisdiction
The Claimant and the Respondent have agreed to bring a dispute to the KLRCA, and
also agreed to the use of the Rules that exclude Shariah principles. There is no dispute
as to jurisdiction.
With regard to the Application of the Rules, the Claimant and the Respondent have
agreed to the use of the Rules as evidenced by a written arbitration agreement.
According to the Rules, where parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate their disputes
in accordance with the Rules, such disputes shall be settled or resolved in the
aforesaid manner. [The Rule 1.1-i-a¶] According to Part II of the Rules, Art.1
provides that disputes in respect of a defined legal relationship whether contractual or
not, shall be governed by the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. [The UNCITRAL
Arbitration Rules, Part II, Art.1.1]. In this case, the dispute between the parties is
about the ownership of the statue and the arbitration agreement was concluded after
15 August 2010 [The 3rd.CLF.H-3] Thus, the scope of arbitration is covered and the
Rules are applicable.
7
V. Questions Presented
1. What laws or legal principles establish:
(a) Nepal’s right to demand the return of the statue and/ or (b) the National
Museum’s right to retain it:
i) Australian law;
ii) Nepalese law; or
iii) International law and/or (UN) Conventions.
2. If there is a conflict between them, which law and/or Convention should be
applied to this dispute.
3. Would the “final outcome” of this dispute be affected by the determination as to
which law should be applied?
4. What is the effect on this dispute of the failure to comply with Nepalese law?
VI. Statement of Facts
The parties:
1. The parties to this dispute are the Nepalese Government, as Claimant, which is the
original holder of the statue, and The Australian National Museum, The
Malaysian National Museum, and Dr. Smith, as Respondent.
The facts:
2. Dr. Smith was invited by the Dean of the Central Department of Sociology/
Anthropology at Tribhuvan University in Nepal to lecture at the University. There
was no contract written or oral merely an invitation and an acceptance between Dr.
Smith and the Dean.
3. After his lectures, he was presented with a stone statue of Lord Vishnu seated
between goddesses Lakshmi and Garuda by the Dean of the university. Then he
returned to Australia with the statue, and donated it to the Australian Museum,
Sydney without any requirements in March 2014.
4. The statue was discovered in 2010 in Nepal and initially on display at the Chhauni
Museum. Then it was moved to the National University campus in Kathmandu in
2010. Before the statue was given to Dr. Smith, it was located in the lobby of the
building housing Central Department of Sociology /Anthropology of Tribhuvan
University. It is not disputed that the statue is at least 300 years old and its market
value is well over 100,000 dollars.
5. The Australian National Museum had an “expert’’ to examine the authenticity of
the statue before deciding to put it on display. The statue was displayed at the
9
Australian National Museum from April to July 2014.
6. The Australian National Museum has loaned the statue to the Malaysian National
Museum since July 2014. The duration of the loan is 2 years and is renewable by
the agreement of both parties.
7. The statue is currently located in the Malaysian National Museum.
The problem occurred between the parties:
8. The Nepalese Government demanded that the statue be immediately returned to
Nepal asserting that it was stolen. But both the Australian Museum and Malaysian
National Museum have refused to return the statue, asserting that it wasn’t stolen,
but was a gift from Tribhuvan University to Dr. Smith who then donated it to the
Australian Museum. Dr. Smith emphasizes that he did not steal the statute since
he received no other compensation for his service. He adds that he received no
economic benefit from the statue as he gave it to the Australian Nation Museum
and received no compensation for the gift.
10
VII. Summary of Pleadings
1. The Respondent argues that the gift between the Dean and Dr. Smith is valid, so
it can be said that Dr. Smith has the ownership of the statue. Therefore, the
Respondent does not have to return the statue to the Nepalese Government.
2. In this case, the statue is over 300 years old. This means that the statue could be
registered as a protected cultural object (the AMP Act 2 (b), 13 (2)). However in
the reality, and according to official records, the statue was not registered i.e. the
statue fails requirement No.2 and No.3. Thus, the Nepalese Government could
not prohibit the exportation of the statue, and Dr. Smith may be considered to
have legally exported the statue.
3. As mentioned previously, the gift from the Dean to Mr. Smith is valid. Therefore,
the property right of the statue was transferred from the Claimant to the
Respondent. Furthermore, this would result in the exportation from Nepal to
Australia as valid and legal. Thus the Claimant doesn’t have ownership of the
statue. In conclusion, according to the rules, the Claimant doesn’t have the
property right. Thus the Claimant cannot request for the return of the statue from
the Respondent.
4. The Respondent has opinio juris sive necessitates that it is an international public
order that an artifact which is deeply related to history of human beings shall be
managed strictly and be displayed to more and more people. Therefore, in
comparison with this public order, the Respondent does not consider it is good to
repatriate the statue.
11
5. The Respondents argue that Dr. Smith lawfully got the statue and the ownership
of the statue is with the Australian National Museum. The Claimant, however,
insists that Dr. Smith illegally got, exported, imported the statue and the owner of
the statue is still Chhauni Museum of Nepal. Therefore, the Respondents explain
their legal position as to whether the public laws can apply to this case. In short,
the Respondents are negative about this.
12
VIII. Pleadings of Respondent
PART ONE: ARGUMENT OF PROCEDURAL ISSUES
1.1Applicable Law
6. With regard to the applicable law of arbitration, the Claimant and the
Respondents have agreed to use the Rules to govern the arbitration, thus the
applicable law is determined by the Rules.
7. Art. 35 of the Rules entitles the arbitral tribunal to decide the applicable laws if
the parties failed to choose the applicable law. [the Rules, part II Section IV,
Art.35,1] In this case, the Parties have failed to designate the applicable laws,
therefore, the applicable laws have to be determined.
8. Traditionally, when arbitrators have had to determine the law of the contract,
they have applied conflicts of laws rules to determine which substantive law is
most appropriate. An alternative approach is for the arbitral tribunal to choose
the applicable law or conflict of laws rules without reference to private
international law. The rationale for this is that an arbitral tribunal is not like a
judge. It does not have a lex fori, the arbitral tribunal is a creature of contract. It
is therefore a legal fabrication to require it to make a choice of applicable law by
reference to a national law. (See British Petroleum v. Libya (Merits)[1979] 53
ILR 297) The genesis of this approach can be seen in the case of Sapphire
International Petroleum v. NIOC.
13
9. From the Respondents’ position, in the current case, the parties failed to choose
an applicable law and the conflict of laws rules. The conflict of laws rules are
developed in Australia. Moreover Australia is the place most closely connected
to the disputes. Although based on the facts of the dispute, Nepal is also assumed
to be the place most closely connected, considering that there are no developed
conflict of laws rules in Nepal, applying the conflict of laws rules of Australia
would lead to an explicit law easily and promptly. For resolving the dispute
effectively, choosing a relevant developed conflict of laws rules is the best
choice.
10. Under the conflict of laws rules of Australia, to decide the applicable law of
transfer of property, firstly, it is necessary classify to the thing as movable or
immovable. Under the Australian law, “Land (including fixture) is immovable
property. Other tangible property is regarded as movable, but maybe immovable
when intimately associated with land. The statue is not land and not associated
with land, therefore the statue is movable property. Secondly, determining the
location of property, “ A chattel is located in the place where it is at any given
moment in time.”(See Haque v Haque (No. 2) (1965) 114 CLR 98) In this case,
when Dr. Smith obtained the statue from the Dean, the statue was located in
Nepal. When Dr. Smith donated the statue to the Australian National Museum,
the statue was located in Australia. When the Malaysian National Museum
loaned it from the Australian National Museum, the location was in Australia.
Therefore, when dealing with the ownership of the statue between Dr. Smith and
14
the Dean, Nepalese law would be applicable, when dealing with the ownership
of the statue between Dr. Smith and the Australian National Museum and
between the Australian National Museum and the Malaysia National Museum,
Australian law would be applicable.
11. In conclusion, the applicable laws in this case would be Nepalese law and
Australian law. Lastly, because the seat of Arbitration is located in Malaysia, the
procedural law is to be Malaysian law.
PART TWO: ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
2.1 Legitimacy of Gift
12. The gift between the Dean and Dr. Smith is valid, so it can be said that Dr. Smith
has ownership of the statue. Therefore, the Respondent does not have to return
the statue to the Government of Nepal.
13. According to The Muluki chapter 19 “On Donation and Gift”, it states “A person
may provide a property in which the person has right to another person, as a
donation or gift. A person shall not donate or gift any property, other than a
property which he or she can deal with at his or her own will, without obtaining a
deed of consent executed or witnessed by the coparceners and those who have
right in such a property.”
14. “Donation is defined as transferring properties from the owner of the property
to the other person or an organization for the sake of religious, social or public
profit or profit of community. Donation is prohibited in the case of inheritance.
On the other hand, gift is defined as the transferring of property from the owner
to other people based on the love of families, the expectance of reward or
celebration. People are allowed to gift properties even in the case of inheritance.”
According to this definition, this case can be considered as a “gift”.
15. According to The Muluki, the requirements of a gift are “A person has right”,
“provide such property” and “with his or her own will”.
16. According to the 1st. CLF. PART2-B The Statue, it is assumed that the Dean’s
general responsibilities would extend to the care and protection of the statue. The
16
Tribhuvan University is a national university, so the university is considered one
of the organizations under the Nepalese Government. Therefore, it can be said
that, as long as the Nepalese Government has ownership of the statue, the Dean,
who was left to care and protect the statue, does not have any authority over its
disposal.
17. However, 2nd. CLF. PART2-A The Statue provides that there was an agreement
between the Chhauni Museum and the university. One of the provisions of the
said agreement was that the museum did not loan or give the statue to the
university; it was merely for display. Also, both of them had agreed that the
statue would be returned if the museum wanted it back.
18. Considering the claim, it may be said that the Tribhuvan University has no
authority over the statue. However the Chhauni Museum being also a national
museum, is considered to be part of the Nepalese Government together with the
Tribhuvan University. Hence the claim between the Chhauni Museum and the
Tribhuvan University could be considered as merely an internal transfer within
the same entity because it would result in a merger of the legal personalities
between obligor (the Tribhuvan University) and the obligee (the Chhauni
Museum), both of which are just different sections of the Nepalese Government.
Therefore, it was clear that, from the viewpoint of Dr. Smith, the Dean had the
apparent authority to gift the statue to him and Dr. Smith justifiably relied on it.
19. As mentioned above, the gift between Dr. Smith and the Dean is valid because it
satisfied the requirements under the law of Nepal.
17
20. In conclusion, the gift between the Dean and Dr. Smith was valid:As a result, Dr.
Smith properly acquired the ownership of it. Therefore, the Nepalese
Government has no right to request the return of the statute to the Respondents.
2.2 Legitimacy of Export
21. To ensure the legality, we have to check the Export Regulations of Nepal. Reg.
89 states “The export products of archeological importance and artistic values,
which generally include idols, curios and thanka paintings of more than 100
years old is prohibited.” But, this regulation order is vague, and ordinary people
cannot discern the age of the object concerned and determine if it is legal. Thus,
we have to interpret this regulation, and analyze this case.
22. There is another provision about the exportation of cultural assets of Nepal，i.e.
the AMP Act . Art. 13 states that “An historical, archaeological or artistic object
as prescribed by the Government of Nepal by a Notification published in the
Nepal Gazette shall not be exported from Nepal.” And with regard to objects
which shall be registered, Art. 13 (2) provides that “ If a person or an institution
has… any archaeological object of more than 100 years, the owner of such
collection shall have to register such object in a prescribed office within a
prescribed time as prescribed by His Majesty's Government in a notification
published in the Nepal Gazette.” The same provision is also set out in Art.2 (b).
23. Thus, legally speaking, all objects of more than 100 years old in Nepal shall be
registered in a prescribed office, and all such objects are published in the
18
Nepalese Gazette, and a person or an institution, who wants to export such an
object, can determine if it is legal or not by reading the Nepalese Gazette. It
should be subject to Nepal’s Export Regulations.
24. This interpretation also complies with the UNESCO Convention. The aim of this
convention is “to protect the cultural property existing within its territory against
the dangers of theft, clandestine excavation, and illicit export”. The convention
also defines “cultural property” as “property which on religious or secular
grounds, is specifically designated by each State” i.e. it intends that the
convention prohibits the exportation or importation of objects which are
registered with the Government, not objects which are just over a 100 years old.
Thus, it is absurd that the Government would make an assessment just by
referring the age of an object.
25. In conclusion, the Nepalese Government can prohibit the exportation of cultural
objects when;
1. the objects do not meet the requirement of the Export Regulations of Nepal
or the AMP Act; and
2. the object has been registered as a protected cultural object by the Nepalese
Government; and
3. the registration information is freely available.
26. In this case, the statue is over 300 years old. This means that the statue is
registerable as a protected cultural object (Act 2 (b), 13 (2)). However in
reality, and according to official records, the statue was not registered i.e. the
19
statue fails requirement,No.2 and No.3. Thus, the Nepalese Government could
not prohibit the exportation of the statue, and Dr. Smith may be considered to
have legally exported the statue.
2.3 Legitimacy of Import
27. The Claimant insisted that the importation into Australia was illegal, but the
Respondents do not agreed with this According to Art.14 (3) of the PMCH Act,
the requirement set out therein would not be applicable under the following
conditions:
28. The importation takes place under an agreement between:
(1) the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory, a principal collecting institution or
an exhibition coordinator; and
(2) any other person or body (including a government).
29. In the current case, the statue was given by the Tribhuvan University to Dr.
Smith as a gift, there is no doubt that the agreement existed between the two
parties. Consequently, the Claimant’s position is unreasonable.
2.4 Issues of Return of the Object:
30. Under the legal system of Australia, a clear definition of property rights is
essential before any classification can be made as to the type of rights. Property
rights are defined by the Industry Commission (1998) as rights that govern the
20
use and ownership of a resource. Property rights legally involve a mixture of
rights, obligations and duties.
31. This is sometimes called a “bundle of rights” (Gray 1991). Pollock (1929) refers
to this as “‘a systematic expression of the degrees and forms of control, use, and
enjoyment, that are recognized and protected by law”’. The rights include the
right to possess, the right to manage, the right to receive income from and the
right to be secure from interference from others, as well as the right to transfer to
a chosen successor (Chambers 2001). Duties include the duty to prevent harm
and the liability of having the property expropriated by the government or to pay
debts (Chambers 2001).Schlager and Ostom (1992) and many other scholars
define that ownership as a bundle of rights, including the right to use or access
the asset and the right to exclude others from its use. Thus a person who doesn’t
have such right cannot exclude others from using the asset. Therefore a person
who does not have the property right cannot request for the return of the asset
which he does not own.
32. As mentioned previously, the gift from the Dean to Dr. Smith is valid. Therefore,
the property right of the statue was transferred from the Claimant to the
Respondent. Furthermore, this would result in the exportation from Nepal to
Australia as being valid and legal. Thus the Claimant doesn’t have ownership of
the statue.
21
33. In conclusion, according to the rules, the Claimant doesn’t have property rights.
Thus the Claimant cannot request for the return of the statue from the 3rd.
Respondent.
22
PART THREE: ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT
3.1 Should the statue be located outside Nepal?
34. In international museums, or large and famous exhibition institutions; e.g. the
British Museum (UK), New York's Metropolitan Museum (United States),
Fontainebleau Palace (France), Tokyo National Museum (Japan) and other
world-renowned institutions; various treasures from all over the world are
exhibited. However, almost all the exhibitions were collected lawfully, and the
number of illegal exhibitions, such as objects looted during times of war or
colonization are really small. Moreover, it is helpful to develop world culture
and cultural diversity by the gathering of artifacts in large numbers in one place,
since each artifact is also a part of our world history, and museums which
encompass these artifacts play a huge role in the cultivation and dissemination of
knowledge, liberality, and broad cultural understanding.
35. Some people claim that the ownership of cultural objects should be with the
State where the object was found. The Claimant, however, argues that the
connection between the modern State with constructed borders and the culture,
spirit, and race of the ancient people who produced those antiquities is weak.
Think about the borders of Africa; they were drawn during the era of European
colonialism and most of them are indicated by longitudinal and latitudinal
lines only, there was no consideration about their local culture. Cultural identities
are dynamic, inter-related and overlapping not only beyond the borders but the
23
flow of history. Therefore, no modern nation-states can claim any cultural
property as their own asset.
36. In addition, it is better to place the statue in the Malaysia National Museum than
the Tribhuvan University. Both the Malaysia National Museum, where the statue
is currently located, and the Australian National Museum, which has the current
lawful ownership of the statue, are well managed and well maintained
institutions. In these institutions, it is unlikely that a representative of either
museum would happen to gift the exhibitions to other persons as per the current
case. Even if such gift or donation should take place, the whole process will be in
accordance with the rules of the Museum. This is evidenced by, the loan between
the Australian National Museum and the Malaysia National Museum which is
based on a written contract and not a verbal promise.
37. The 2nd. Respondent and 3rd. Respondent argues that it is important, and that the
best way to maintain the upkeep of cultural and historical artifacts which can be
considered as our world’s heritage is that international museums should manage
such treasures collectively.
38. The 3rd. Respondent has opinio juris sive necessitatis that it is an international
public order that an artifact which is deeply related to the history of humans shall
be managed strictly and be openly displayed to the public. Therefore, in
comparison with this public order, the Respondent does not consider the
repatriation of the statue as a wise move.
24
3.2 Can the tribunal consider the public laws of concerning states?
39. The Respondent argues that Dr. Smith lawfully obtained the statue, and that the
ownership of the statue is with the National Museum of Australia. The Claimant,
however, insists that Dr. Smith illegally obtained exported the statue; and that
the owner of the statue is still the Chhauni Museum of Nepal. Therefore, the
Respondents would like to explain their legal position on whether public laws
may apply in this current case. In short, the Respondents disagree with the
Claimant.
40. As Dr. David Feldman Rouse Ball, Professor of English Law, University of
Cambridge, states “courts should recognize that people affected by a single
course of administrative decision-making may have different legal interests and
obligations from each other arising from the various relationships between them.
It is inappropriate to try to determine the effect of those interests and obligations
as if the relationships were of the same kind. For example, the difference
between public law and private law is significant, because interests are weighted
differently.” Thus, any public disputes and private disputes shall be settled in
different orders or layers, and the settlement of each dispute shall not positively
or negatively affect the other dispute.
41. Referring to the legal theory above, three of the parties of the current private
dispute are State organizations; i.e. the Nepalese Government, Australian
Government and Malaysian Government. So, it looks like an exception to the
theory.
25
42. Historically, private disputes are mainly determined using private laws even
when they concerns a State, as the room consider public laws is limited. For
example, according to Rudolf B.Schlesinger (1998) p.272-275, the ancient
Roman text of the Emperor Justinian's Corpus Iuris provides that private disputes
centered on private law and public law issues were discussed, where appropriate
within the framework of private law analysis." Some important examples of
ancient Roman public law included rules governing public property such as
roads and waterways, and contracts made by public authorities. The special
nature of these rules was frequently explained in terms of utilitas publica, or
public concern. I.e. in the nature of Corpus Iuris, most disputes are governed by
private law, and only when the disputes are related to the public interest can one
apply public law as utilitas publica, or public concern.
43. In addition, public laws are executed by the executive jurisdiction of each state;
i.e. each sovereignty. When it is an international dispute, and both parties are
states which have their own sovereignty, the court or tribunal cannot apply
public laws directly. If they want to apply such public laws, they can only
consider the laws, which have passed the process designated by international
public law. Otherwise the formation of a conclusion without any consideration
for such sense or order will be a violation to each sovereignty and international
public laws.
44. In the current case, the 2nd. Respondent is the National Museum of Australia,
which is a part of the Australian Government. However, managing such
26
museums is not part of sovereignty; e.g. The Metropolitan Museum of Art
(United States) is a wholly-owned private organization. In short, it is acta jure
gestionis. Moreover, there is no international agreement between the parties
about the enforcement of the Nepalese penal code or Custom law.
45. Therefore, even if the tribunal shall decide that Dr. Smith has violated some
Nepalese public law, the tribunal cannot consider the public law of these
countries.
27
IX. Prayer for Relief
For the reasons stated above, the Respondents respectfully request that the Tribunal
should:
(1) Reject all claims raised by the Claimant.
(2) Declare that the statue could be legally held by the Australian National Museum.