22nd John H.
Jackson Moot Court Competition
Corrections & Answers to Clarification Questions
Note for teams
Questions are presented as received from teams. The case authors have carefully considered all
the questions and divided them into three categories: (i) questions about facts for which
clarifications have been provided; (ii) questions concerning legal issues and substantive
arguments, which are for the teams to develop themselves and for which no clarifications have
been provided; and (iii) questions that are irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in this
case. Duplicate questions on the same/similar issues received from several teams have only been
addressed once.
Teams are reminded that their arguments shall be limited to the specific legal claims and
defences raised in the case and based on the facts provided therein and in the clarifications
below.
Table of contents:
Typo correction 2
Part I. Questions about facts for which clarifications have been provided 3
Part. II. Questions concerning legal issues and substantive arguments, which are for the teams to
develop themselves and for which no clarifications have been provided 21
Part. III. Questions that are irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case 26
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 2
Typo correction
The first sentence of para. 8 of the Case should read: “Korsania is an upper-middle income
country with a population of 50 million people and a GNI per capita of USD 13,100”. Please
note that this change does not affect any legal claims or arguments teams are expected to
develop.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 3
Part I. Questions about facts for which clarifications have been provided
1. Is Artania the only LDCs or SIDS in the Intermarium region, and if not, are the other
LDCs and SIDS granted the exemption of carbon charge pursuant to Art. 5 of Section
10?
Artania is the only LDC in the Intermarium region. Pursuant to Article 5, any
LDC or SIDS is exempted from Section 10 of the NZF Act.
2. Which criteria was employed in disregarding Artania as a SIDS or LDCs in regard to
section 10, article 5 of the Net Zero Future act. How is trade encouraged to Artania’s
imports as an SIDS.
As stated in Article 5 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, “[t]he provisions of this
section shall not apply to covered products originating in
least-developed-countries (LDCs) and Small Island and Developing States
(SIDS), as recognised by the United Nations, considering their special status
under the Paris Agreement”.
Also note that it is widely acknowledged that LDCs/SIDS bear the least historical
and current responsibility for climate change (presently accounting for only 7 per
cent of global GHG emissions according to the UN Development Programme)
and have the least capacity to adapt to new climate conditions, thus being the
most vulnerable countries to the adverse effects of climate change. Indeed, over
the past half-century, more than two-thirds of deaths worldwide caused by
climate-related disasters occurred in LDCs/SIDS. Former UN Special
Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Prof Philip Alston, has
warned “[w]e risk a “climate apartheid” scenario where the wealthy pay to escape
overheating, hunger, and conflict while the rest of the world is left to suffer”.
3. Is the carbon charge, exemption for products from LDC and SIDS, and deduction of
carbon prices in the country of origin all part of the same measure as mentioned in
paragraph 24 of the Case?
Yes, both provisions (Articles 4 and 5) are part of the NZF Act.
4. Has any authority in Rutenia offered any rationale as to why Burlandia, a developing
country, did not receive an exemption under Article 5 of the Net Zero Future Act?
See Article 5 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, which reads: “[t]he provisions of this
section shall not apply to covered products originating in
least-developed-countries (LDCs) and Small Island and Developing States
(SIDS), as recognised by the United Nations, considering their special status under
the Paris Agreement”.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 4
5. Which methodology will be applied to determine whether a country is
developed/developing/LDC?
a. By virtue of it being an OECD-member, UN designation or the principle of
self-election?
For the purpose of Rutenia’s NZF Act, see Article 5 of Section 10.
6. Is there any difference in composition, quality and performance between the glass
produced in Rutenia, Burlandia, Korsania and Artania?
No, there is no difference in physical composition, quality, and performance of
flat glass produced in these four countries.
7. Are there any differences between the flat glasses from Rutenia, Burlandia, Korsania and
Artania, based on their appearance/physical characteristics, end uses, or consumers’
preferences?
As indicated in response to Question 6, there is no difference between flat glass
from these countries based on their physical properties/qualities. With regard to
end-uses and consumer preferences, teams are expected to develop arguments
based on the facts provided in the Case.
8. What is the price difference between flat glass produced in Artania and flat glass
produced in Guta?
See para. 4 of the Case and Clarification Question 9.
9. What was the respective sale price of flat glass from Rutenia, Burlandia, Korsania, and
Artania in the Rutenian market in 2021 and 2022?
Sales prices of flat in the Rutenian market, in thousand USD per tonne
Country 2021 2022
Rutenia 600 620
Burlandia 530 500
Korsania 570 585
Artania 480 490
10. What are the Harmonized System (HS) Codes and Rutenia’s domestic tariff classification
codes of the flat glass from Rutenia, Burlandia, Artania, and Korsania?
All four countries classify flat glass under HS Heading 7005: “Float glass and
surface ground or polished glass, in sheets, whether or not having an absorbent,
reflecting or non-reflecting layer, but not otherwise worked”.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 5
11. Is the glass from Burlandia, Rutenia, Artania and Korsania used for the same products
manufactured by DIM?
Yes. See para. 4 of the Case.
12. What exactly does footnote 3 mean? Does it bar us from using scientific evidence
completely, even under GATT XX? For example, can you use other scientific evidence,
such as IPCC reports for claims?
Footnote 3 clearly states: “[t]eams are required not to introduce any additional
scientific evidence or facts, and can rely only on those provided in the case”. It
does not bar teams from using scientific evidence completely, but from
introducing additional scientific evidence or facts that are not provided in the
Case (or answers to clarification questions). Insofar as scientific evidence/facts
(including IPCC reports) are provided in the Case (or answers to clarification
questions), teams may (and should) use them to support their claims. In fact,
when relying on scientific evidence/facts to support their arguments, teams
should be able to specify the relevant paragraphs of the Case (or/and answers to
clarification questions).
13. Whether the percentage of local and imported glass purchased by DIM changed after the
enactment of Net Zero Act, and whether the amount of glass produced by Vetro and
other producers of Burlandia changed?
See Annex IV to the Case.
14. What is the actual tax rate of glass from Burlandia imported in Rutenia or what is the
imported price of glass from Burlandia?
See paras. 19-20 of the Case.
15. Regarding the default values of carbon emissions, based on the 5% worst-performing
installations in Rutenia, what value was established for the given year?
Default values are determined pursuant to Article 3.2 of Section 10 of the NZF
Act and Annex III. Hence, these are not fixed, but will likely vary from year to
year. In 2022, the average emission intensity of the 5% worst performing
installations for flat glass in Rutenia was 0.68 tonne of CO2 per tonne of flat glass.
While there are no projected values for 2023 and beyond, teams may develop
arguments on this point based on the facts of the Case.
16. Does Burlandia’s flat glass get the duty rate based on the independent assessor or will it
be on the basis of default values as per the worst 5% performing installations?
Yes, the default values provided for in Article 3.2 of Section 10 of the NFA have
been applied to Burlandian flat glass since the entry into force of the Act. As
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 6
indicated in para. 6 of the Case, at this stage of its development, “Burlandia faces
technical and administrative capacity constraints to monitor and verify carbon
emissions released during the production process of goods throughout the
country”.
17. What are the criteria of Rutenia to determine which companies fall within the 5% of the
“worst performing installations”? In accordance with Article 3.2 of the Net Zero Future
Act.
This will be determined pursuant to Article 3.1 and Annex III of Section 10 of the
NZF Act, which applies to all domestic manufacturers of the relevant products in
Rutenia.
18. Do any of the 5% worst performing flat glass production installations within Rutenia
presently belong to DIM?
No. DIM does not produce flat glass in Rutenia, it is Guta that does. See
paragraph 4 of the Case.
19. With respect to “Default values shall be based on the average emission intensity of the
5% worst performing installations”. Does worst performing in this context refer to
carbon efficiency?
It refers to carbon-emission intensity and default values are determined as per
Article 3.2 of Section 10 of the NZF Act.
20. Pursuant to the case paragraph 18, in the event that no reliable data is available, default
values shall be used. Would you mind clarifying this method of calculation?
The method for calculating default values is described in Article 3.2 of Section 10
of the NZF Act.
21. Do both Guta and the 5% of worst performing installations of flat glass production in
Rutenia receive the renewable energy subsidy to decarbonize their production?
Yes, Guta has received renewable energy subsidies from the Rutenian
government to decarbonise its production process.
It is not possible to answer this question for the “5% worst performing
installations” for flat glass production in Rutenia, as these are not fixed but may
involve different manufacturers from year to year.
22. How much is Vetro’s verified and exact total amount of carbon emission embedded in its
covered products, in reference to Article 3.1(ii) of Section 10?
As clearly indicated in para. 6 of the Case, Burlandia does “not have the
administrative and technical capacity to monitor and verify carbon emissions
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 7
released during the production processes of goods throughout the country”. The
only available information about the carbon-intensity of Vetro’s flat glass
production are the independent studies referred to in para. 7 of the Case.
23. Para. 5 says Burlandia is a lower-middle-income country, then para. 6 says “developing
country status”. Which description should be used to categorise Burlandia?
“Lower-middle-income country” in paragraph 5 of the Case refers to World Bank
country classification by income level 2023-24. “Developing country” in
paragraph 6 of the Case refers to Burlandia’s status under the UNFCCC/Paris
Agreement. Burlandia has also designated itself as a “developing country” in
WTO. There is no incompatibility between these terms.
24. Is Korsania considered a developed, developing, or least developed country (LDC)?
Korsania is an “upper-middle income country” according to the World Bank
country classification by income level 2023-24 (paragraph 8 of the Case). It is a
non-Annex I country under the UNFCCC/Paris Agreement, and designated itself
as a “developing country” in the WTO. There is no incompatibility between these
terms.
25. We may assume that an upper-income country (Rutenia) is a developed country, yet
Burlandia and Korsania are designated as developing countries?
Rutenia is a “high income” country according to the World Bank country
classification by income level 2023-24 (paragraph 2 of the Case). It has a
“developed country” status under the UNFCCC/Paris Agreement (paragraph 3
of the case). It has also designated itself as a “developed country” in the WTO.
These terms are not incompatible.
26. Is there available data on the proportion of Rutenians living near the coastlines?
Around 20% of Rutenia’s population lives near the coastlines.
27. Are Korsania and Burlandia land-locked countries, or do they have a coastal line within
their territories?
Korsania and Burlandia have a coastal line.
28. Are any of the protagonist countries - Rutenia, Burlandia, Korsenia, and Artania -
neighboring (adjacent) countries? If so, which of them?
As indicated in paragraph 9 of the Case, Artania is a “small island” and does not
have a common border with any of the other countries. The same is true for
Rutenia (see paragraph 2 of the Case). Korsania and Burlandia are adjacent
neighbouring countries.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 8
29. Both Artania and Rutenia were mentioned to be affected by climate change and other
climate-related disasters. What are the effects of climate change on Burlandia and
Korsania, if any?
See paras 12-15 of the Case and Annex I.
30. Is there available data on the number of Artanians that migrated to other countries
(besides Rutenia) due to the effects of climate change?
Most of Artanian citizens (90%) who emigrated after Artania was hit by extreme
climate-related weather events emigrated to Rutenia (para 10 of the Case).
31. Have climate-induced migrants ever caused armed conflicts, escalated tensions, crises or
instability within or around Rutenia/Artania, or ruined bilateral relations of Rutenia with
Artania or others?
See paragraph 13 of the Case. There have been some reported instances of social
tensions between climate-induced Artanian migrants and Rutenians. research on climate-induced
migrants & conflicts
32. Has any official authority in Rutenia declared a state of emergency regarding the sea level
rise?
See paragraphs 11-16 of the Case.
33. Have all 4 States ratified the Montreal Protocol? Has Artania taken any other
environmental conservation measures?
Yes, all four countries have ratified the Montreal Protocol. Artania has not taken
any other climate change mitigation measures for the reasons specified in
paragraph 9 of the Case.
34. Does Note 2 (Annex II) apply to Rutenia’s entire Schedule of Concessions, or does it
apply only to Chapter 70 (glass and glassware)?
The excerpt from Rutenia’s Schedule of Concessions provided in Annex II
concerns glass and glassware (Chapter 70).
35. What is Rutenia’s bound rate for “other duties and charges” for glass and glassware
under its WTO Schedule of Concessions?
See Annex II of the Case.
36. Rutenia’s schedules of concessions entry under “implement to/from” reads “2000”.
Does that indicate “2000-2000”, meaning the implementation period begins and ends in
the year 2000?
Column 5 in Rutenia’s Schedule of Concessions should be read jointly with Note
1.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 9
37. What implications arise from Rutenia’s duty base rate being Bound and ad valorem in its
WTO Schedule of Concessions? Should the taxes outlined in the Net Zero Future Act be
regarded as ad valorem?
Please note that, according to para. 19 of the Case, Burlandia does not contest the
legal opinion of Rutenian Parliamentary Legal Service that the application of the
carbon charge does not result in Rutenia’s exceeding the bound rate for “other
duties and charges” for glass and glassware under its WTO Schedule of
Concessions.
38. Does para. 19 entail teams should not argue whether Rutenia has exceeded its Art. II
concessions, i.e., focus is solely on if the measure falls under Art. II or III GATT. not if it
violates Art. II?
Yes, the parties agree that the carbon charge is not in excess of the bound rate for
“other duties and charges” in Rutenia’s Schedule of Concessions, if Article II of
the GATT 1994 is applicable.
39. How are we to calculate the exceeds of the bound duty rate without the average price of
flat glass to calculate the tax deductible from there in?
The question is unclear. However, please note that according to para. 19 of the
Case, Burlandia does not contest the legal opinion of Rutenian Parliamentary
Legal Service that the application of the carbon charge does not result in
Rutenia’s exceeding the bound rate for “other duties and charges” for glass and
glassware under its WTO Schedule of Concessions.
40. Why in Rutenia Schedule of Concession is it said that the reduction will be annual, while
the Net Zero Future Act is implementing an immediate increase in taxes? What is the
link between the documents?
Note 1 of Rutenia’s Schedule of Concessions in Annex II refers to “tariff
reductions will be implemented through equal annual reduction”. The NZF Act
imposes a “carbon charge”.
41. What is the significance of the carbon charge measure for Rutenia’s efforts to address
climate change and reduce carbon emissions, and mitigation goals?
Prior to the adoption of the measure, the Government of Rutenia conducted an
impact assessment, according to which the introduction of the carbon charge
under the NZF Act is expected to reduce the level of CO2 emissions in the
covered sectors in Rutenia by 8% by 2030. The level of CO2 emissions in the
covered sectors in the other countries of the Intermarium region is expected to
drop by 3% by 2030.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 10
42. In Annex IV, are the projections for 2023 made before or after the enactment of the
Rutenia Net Zero Future Act?
These were in the impact assessment conducted by the Government of Rutenia
(see Question 41) before the adoption of the Act by the Parliament of Rutenia on 1
July 2022.
43. What consultations and transparency measures have Rutenia adopted?
See para. 15 of the Case. During the high-level regional dialogue, Rutenia
presented the final draft of the NZF Act and encouraged other countries in the
Intermarium region to adopt similar measures. Other countries had an
opportunity to ask questions about the expected operation of the NZF Act.
44. Did Rutenia undertake previous and less restrictive measures against the countries of the
Intermarium region to help reduce carbon emissions before it implemented The Net
Zero Future Act?
See paras 3 and 15 of the Case.
45. Since when Korsania’s measures combatting climate change were introduced and what is
their result, how embedded emissions level changed?
As clearly indicated in paragraph 8 of the Case, “[i]n September 2022, Korsania
introduced a domestic carbon tax of USD 30 per tonne of CO2 emitted for
carbon-intensive products (aluminium, cement, chemicals, glass, fertilisers, and
iron and steel), and has set up a reliable system for monitoring, reporting and
verifying carbon emissions”. There is no data available yet as to the effect of this
measure on the carbon-intensity of the products concerned, but it is expected to
decrease gradually.
46. What is the result of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding
the duties of States in accordance with international law concerning climate change?
As clearly stated in para 16 of the Case, the advisory opinion proceedings are still
pending before the ICJ.
47. Does Burlandia actually have its own explicit internal carbon charge as outlined in Article
4 of Section 10?
See para. 6 of the Case and Articles 3.1(iii) and 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act.
48. Did the decline in flat glass sales from Burlandia to Rutenia, noted in Annex IV
pre-2022, primarily result from the new provisions in the Net Zero Future Act, or there
were also other causes?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 11
There is no information available about any other factors affecting the sales of flat
glass reported in Annex IV to the Case.
49. In any way is the imposition of Carbon Charge to Artania’s Imported Products
encouraging a regional trade amongst the two Countries if Section 10, article 5 and 4 of
the Net Zero Future Act Considered?
See Annex IV to the Case for the trends in sales of flat glass in Rutenia after the
introduction of the measure.
50. Did Burlandia apply for the carbon charge deduction, and if they did, what kind of
information did they submit?
Please note that, pursuant to Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, it is
“domestic manufacturers and importers” that shall comply with the reporting
requirements and pay the carbon charge (see Question 51). On
domestic/imported flat glass in the Rutenian market, see Annex IV to the Case.
51. Which countries submitted the required declaration on February 1, 2023, as mandated by
Section 10, Article 3.1 of the Net Zero Future Act?
As per Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, it is “domestic manufacturers and
importers” (not countries) of the covered products that must submit the
declaration. On domestic/imported flat glass in the Rutenian market, see Annex
IV to the Case.
52. Does footnote 7 on page 14 of Moot Case (“these monitoring methodologies and
calculation method are not disputed by the parties”) imply parties can agree on the
method but disagree on its application?
Footnote 7 means that the parties do not dispute neither the methodologies nor
their application.
53. Does Rutenia consider Art 3.1(iii) of its Act, referring to “carbon price effectively paid”,
and Art 4, referring to “any explicit carbon price paid”, as referring to the same types of
measures?
“Explicit carbon price” under Article 4 of the Net Zero Act refers to “a carbon
charge (tax, levy or fee), or of emission allowances (or permits) purchased under a
carbon emission trading scheme” under Article 3.1(iii) of the Act. “Effectively
paid” means that such a carbon price was actually paid.
54. Is Burlandia’s energy excise tax on all fossil fuels accepted by Rutenia as a sufficient
carbon charge to qualify for the Carbon Charge Deduction of Article 4 of the Net Zero
Future Act?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 12
See Articles 4 and 3.1(iii) of the Section 10 of the NZF Act and paragraph 19 of the
Case.
55. Has Rutenia’s government provided any justification for excluding Burlandia from their
list of concessions, despite Burlandia’s $15 energy excise tax on all fossil fuels utilized in
manufacturing?
See Article 4 and 3.1(iii) of Section 10 of the NZF Act and Question 54.
56. Is there a deduction of Burlandia’s energy excise tax equivalent to emission-weighted
average of USD 15 per tonne of CO2?
See Article 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act and paragraphs 19-20 of the Case.
57. Has Burlandia’s energy excise tax on all fossil fuels used in the manufacturing and
transportation sectors entered into force?
Yes, in July 2022 (see paragraph 6 of the Case).
58. Could you clarify, whether Burlandia introduced an energy excise tax afterward the
promise of the current government to refrain from introducing explicit carbon pricing
instruments?
As indicated in paragraph 6 of the Case, Burlandia introduced an energy excise
tax on all fossil fuels used in the manufacturing and transportation sectors in July
2022. The electoral promise of not introducing explicit carbon pricing
instruments (see Article 3.1(iii) of Section 10 of the NZF Act) has thus far been
upheld by the Burlandian government.
59. Did Burlandia refrain from introducing explicit carbon pricing instruments as it was
promised after the election?
Correct, Burlandia has no explicit carbon pricing mechanism in place within the
meaning of Articles 3.1(iii) and 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act.
60. Does Vetro pay the $15 charge imposed in Burlandia?
Yes, Vetro pays the energy excise tax since it was introduced in July 2022
(paragraph 6 of the Case).
61. How does Burlandia calculate their energy excise tax on fossil fuels, considering that they
do not have the technical and administrative capacity to calculate CO2 emissions for a
carbon charge?
As per paragraph 6 of the Case, Burlandia’s energy excise tax is levied on “all
fossil fuels used in manufacturing and transportation sectors”, and the rate is set
per physical unit (USD/litre or kilogram) or unit of energy (USD/ gigajoule)
depending on the fuel. It is not explicitly linked to the carbon emissions released
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 13
during the production of goods (unlike carbon charges or taxes). But for
comparative purposes, it is possible to convert energy excise taxes into a
CO2-equivalent basis. In the case of Burlandia, the energy excise tax in the
manufacturing sector was estimated “equivalent to emission-weighted average of
USD 15 per tonne of CO2” (paragraph 6 of the Case) in a recent report by the
IMF.
62. Burlandia’s energy excise tax is focused on CO2 emissions. Should the “energy excise
tax” be characterized as a “carbon charge” as defined within Rutenia and Korsania?
As indicated in paragraph 6 of the Case and clarified in Question 61, Burlandia’s
energy excise tax is levied on amount of fossil fuels used in manufacturing and
transportation sectors, does not directly target the carbon emissions released
during the production of goods (unlike for carbon charges or taxes). See also
Articles 3.1 (iii) and 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act
63. What’s “emission-weighted average”?
If this refers to the “equivalent to emission-weighted average of USD 15 per tonne
of CO2” in paragraph 6 of the Case, it is a term usually used to express energy
excise taxes on a CO2-equivalent basis.
a. What do ultimate consumers think of glass products (GPs) from these countires?
Are prices of GPs same in Rutenia?
Unclear what the generic term of “glass products” refers to here.
b. Have other govts talked about climate emergency?
See paragraphs 12-16 of the Case.
64. What, if any, carbon emission allowances (or permits) are available to be purchased under
a carbon emission trading scheme in Burlandia?
There is no carbon emission trading scheme in Burlandia. See para. 6 of the Case.
65. Does the small flat glass sector in Artania consist of more than one manufacturer?
Artania’s small flat glass manufacturing sector consists of one manufacturer.
66. Which manufacturer does the Artanian flat glass sector export to?
See paragraphs 4 and 9 of the Case.
67. If a product is from Country A, but its producer has paid carbon charge or emission
allowances/permit for it in Country B, can its carbon charges be deducted under Net
Zero Future Act Sec. 10 Art. 4?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 14
Assuming that Country A is the “country of origin” within the meaning of Article
4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, no.
68. What evidence supports statement of Ms. Rada Strong that carbon pricing “has been
widely recognised as the single most effective and fairest way of reducing carbon
emissions”?
Ms. Rada Strong’s statement is based on the findings of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and other economic studies that “[c]arbon pricing is a
powerful and cost-effective tool to mitigate climate change, because it
discourages producers from using carbon-emitting fossil fuels and obliges them
to internalise the social costs of carbon emissions”. In addition, carbon pricing is
in line with the “polluter pays” principle in international environmental law.
69. On what basis was the carbon charge of USD 50 per tonne of CO2 released into the
atmosphere from the production of such goods calculated?
The rate of USD 50 per tonne of CO2 emissions in Article 2 of the NZF Act was
determined on the basis of a number of considerations, including recent reports
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
finding that: “[t]he damage from climate change resulting from a tonne of CO2
emissions can be very conservatively estimated at EUR 30, but is likely to be
higher. Further, this low-end benchmark of EUR 30 is generally considered
insufficient to meet the mitigation objectives of the Paris Agreement. Carbon
prices would need to be at least USD 40-80 per tonne of CO2 emissions by 2020
and USD 50-100 per tonne of CO2 emissions by 2030 in order for emissions to
decrease in line with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement”.
70. Could you clarify, who acts as the originator of the independent studies that estimated
emissions produced by the Vetro in the amount of 0.65 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of flat
glass? Do they constitute reliable data?
The study was produced by Carbon Watch – a globally respected independent
entity tracking carbon emissions. It provides reliable data.
71. Are these independent studies funded or conducted by Burlandia?
No, there were conducted by Carbon Watch.
72. Has any “verifying entity”, in terms of Annex III, verified the independent studies
performed on Vetro’s Carbon emissions embedded in flat glass?
No “verifying entity”, within the meaning of Annex III of the NZF Act, has
verified the independent studies referred to in paragraph 7 of the Case.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 15
73. In which years did Burlandia experience taxation under Article 3.2 of the Net Zero
Future Act due to a lack of data on production-related CO2 emissions?
Burlandia has been subject to default values under Article 3.2 of Section 10 the
NZF Act since the Act entered into force on 1 September 2022.
74. Is the Case exhaustive of the Terms of Reference from Respondent?
The respondent can invoke only the defences explicitly identified in the Case.
75. How many verifying entities, if any, in Burlandia, Korsania, or Artania have been
accredited by the Rutenian national carbon emissions accreditation body?
None in Artania and Burlandia. Korsania’s monitoring and verification system for
carbon emissions (paragraph 8 of the Case) is considered “comparable in
effectiveness” for the purpose of Annex III to the Case.
76. Which standards are used during the transition to demonstrate the effectiveness of
emissions coverage and accuracy under Annex III for third-party systems verifying
emissions outside of Rutenia?
As stated in Annex III, paragraph 3, the third country concerned needs to
demonstrate to Rutenia that its monitoring and verification system is comparable
in effectiveness to the NZF Act in terms of coverage and accuracy of emissions.
Coverage refers to the scope of emissions and products/sectors covered.
Accuracy refers to independent third-party verification by an accredited verifier in
the country concerned. In 2023, this was considered to be the case for Korsania’s
monitoring and verification system.
77. Have Rutenia’s domestic manufacturers of the covered products under The Net Zero
Future Act, been paying the carbon charge as mentioned in article 1 of The Net Zero
Future Act?
Yes, following the entry into force of the Act (para 17 of the Case) and as per the
conditions established therein.
78. What is the difference in the technological advances between the furnaces used in
Rutenia and Burlandia?
Relevant facts provided in paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Case.
79. For the purpose of putting carbon emissions into perspective. What is the global average
of carbon emission per tonne in the flat glass manufacturing industry?
No global average is available, only country data (see paras 4 and 7-9 of the Case).
80. Do the verifying entities in Rutenia use international standards and Protocols for
verifying the submitted data, and if so, which ones?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 16
There are presently no internationally-agreed standards on sectoral monitoring,
reporting and verification systems for carbon emissions.
81. Do the covered products under Article 1 of the Net Zero Act have the highest
embedded carbon emissions of all the industries in Rutenia, or are there industries with
higher emissions but exempt?
As per Article 1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, the current list of covered goods was
drawn on the basis of “the carbon-intensity of the products and the
trade-exposure of the sectors concerned” – and will be periodically reviewed on
this basis.
82. Do the exporting foreign countries have any obligation to maintain records of carbon
emissions, required under Article 3 of the Net Zero Act? What could be the cost to the
industry to record the same?
Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act imposes reporting requirements on
“domestic manufacturers and importers of the covered products”.
The costs of monitoring and reporting carbon emissions are likely to vary from
industry to industry, and across countries, depending on financial, technical and
technological capacity.
83. What carbon charge in USD per tonne does Rutenia apply to imports of flat glass from
KorGlass, the small glass manufacturing company in Artania, and glass manufacturers
other than Vetro in Burlandia?
See Articles 1, 4 and 5 of Section 10 of the NZF Act and paragraphs 19-20 of the
case.
84. Does any of the four countries (Burlandia, Rutenia, Artania, and Korsania) implement
any measure similar to a carbon charge for other greenhouse gases?
No.
85. Should the declaration specified in Article 3 of Section 10 be submitted before or upon
the importation of the covered products?
As per Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, the declaration must be submitted
by “1 February of each year” and the information provided refers to the “previous
calendar year”.
86. What is the first year for which domestic manufacturers and importers of flat glass shall
submit to the competent authority a declaration under Article 3 Section 10 of the Net
Zero Future Act?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 17
Since the NZF Act entered into force in on 1 September 2022 (paragraph 17 of the
Case), the first year for which domestic manufacturers and importers of flat glass
must submit a declaration pursuant to Article 3 is as of 1 February 2023.
87. How, when, and by whom is the carbon charge collected with respect to imported
goods?
Upon importation of the covered products, the importer must declare to the
customs authorities the weight and value of the products, and that the products
are subject to the carbon charge under Section 10 of the NZF Act.
Pursuant to Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act, by 1 February of each year,
domestic manufacturers and importers of the covered products shall submit to
the competent authority (i.e. the National Tax Administration (NTA)) a
declaration with the information indicated in paras. (i)-(iii) of that provision. On
the basis of this information, the NTA calculates the amount of the carbon charge
that must be paid by 1 June. The tax is payable directly to the NTA via its
e-payment system.
Domestic producers and importers of covered products submit their declaration
pursuant to Article 3.1 directly to the NTA. In addition, an importer’s file is
considered complete once the NTA receives the customs declaration from the
National Customs Authority for all imports of the covered products during the
relevant period.
Upon payment of the carbon charge, the NTA issues an attestation of payment to
the importer and notifies the National Customs Authority that the carbon charge
has been duly paid. Further importation of the covered product will not be
authorized until the importer has paid the carbon charge due for the preceding
calendar year.
88. When does the obligation to pay the carbon charge accrue?
See Articles 2 and 3 of Section 10 of the NZF Act and Question 87.
89. Clarify verifying entities’ roles for emissions checks under Net Zero Future Act. Can the
organizers offer clarity on the precise roles, responsibilities, and oversight mechanisms
required for the verifying entities conducting the verification?
As stated in Annex III to the Case, the key responsibility of “verifying entities” is
to verify the accuracy of the embedded carbon emissions in the products covered
by Section 10 of the NZF Act. Implementing Regulation 7/2023 further elaborates
on Annex III as follows:
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 18
Article 1 – Subject Matter
This Regulation lays down provisions for the verification of carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions (“carbon emissions”) declared pursuant to Article 3.1 of Section 10 of the Net
Zero Future Act. Such a verification shall be undertaken by third-party entities
established in Rutenia and duly accredited by the National Accreditation Body of
Rutenia, except as otherwise provided in Annex III of Section 10 of the Net Zero Future
Act.
Article 2 – Specific Obligations of “Verifying Entities”
The verifying entity shall carry out the verification activities required by this Regulation
and issue a “verification report”.
The verifying entity shall assess all relevant supporting documentation made available to
it by the producers of the goods covered by the Net Zero Future Act. This shall include
an annual “emission report” that provides complete, consistent and transparent data on
the monitoring and calculation of embedded carbon emissions pursuant to Annex III of
Section 10 of the Net Zero Future Act.
The verifying entity shall determine whether the producer’s emission report and other
supporting documentation is free of material misstatements and of material
non-conformities regarding the monitoring and calculation of embedded carbon
emissions in accordance with the rules set out in Annex III of Section 10 of the Net Zero
Future Act.
To that end, the verifying entity shall conduct installation visits, except where not
carrying out such visits is duly justified and does not put at risk a reliable estimation of
the embedded carbon emissions.
Article 3 – General Verification Principles
The verifying entity shall plan and perform the verification with an attitude of
professional scepticism, recognising that circumstances may exist that cause the
information in the producer’s supporting documentation to contain material
misstatements and/or material non-conformities.
The verifying entity must carry out verification in the public interest, and be
independent of the producer and the competent authorities responsible for the Net Zero
Future Act.
The total embedded carbon emissions to be declared pursuant to Article 3.1 of Section 10
of the Net Zero Future Act shall be considered as “verified” only if the verification report
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 19
concludes with reasonable assurance that the producer concerned has complied with the
monitoring and calculation requirements set out in Annex III of Section 10 of the Net
Zero Future Act.
Article 4 – Verification Time and Cost
The time and cost of verification will vary depending on the nature, scale and complexity
of the tasks involved, which will be determined by factors such as the installation’s
functioning, level of activity and location.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 20
Part. II. Questions concerning legal issues and substantive arguments,
which are for the teams to develop themselves and for which no
clarifications have been provided
90. Considering the poll results by RutInfo, is it possible to state that consumers in Rutenia
would value products with a sustainable production method over those produced in a
non-sustainable way?
This is not a factual question. It is for the teams to develop substantive arguments
on this point.
91. What is the hierarchical relation between the Paris Agreement and the GATT in case of a
conflict, even non direct, between the two norms?
This is a legal question. It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this
point.
92. The goal of the measure is to decrease the CO2, but how does this affect the economic
reality of Burlandia and Korsania, and how deep are the consequences for the financial
states of the countries?
It is for the teams to develop substantive arguments on this point, based on facts
provided in the Case (see paras 7-8 and Annex IV).
93. Would clean air be considered an exhaustible resource under Article XX(g), of the GATT
1994, or would it fall under another category?
This is a legal question. It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this
point.
94. How does the carbon charge measure impact the glass manufacturing industry in
Rutenia? Are there any specific implications for companies like Guta and KorGlass?
How does the carbon charge measure affect the competitiveness of Rutenia’s glass
manufacturing industry in the global market?
It is for the teams to develop substantive arguments on this point, based on facts
provided in the Case (see Annex IV).
95. What are the potential economic and environmental benefits that Rutenia expects to
achieve through the implementation of the carbon charge measure?
It is for the teams to develop substantive arguments on this point, based on facts
provided in the Case (see para 11).
96. Can we consider the products mentioned in the case as like products? Did Rutenia offer
any kind of benefit for imports?
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 21
This is a legal question. It is for teams to develop arguments on this point.
97. What is the assessment of the economic impact of carbon tax policies in Rutenia?
a. How do these policies affect economy sectors, like industry, agriculture and
energy?
b. Are there estimates of benefits?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on these points, based on the
facts provided in the Case (see para 4 and Annex IV).
98. Which is the link between the procedure of establishing a tax on the default values
described by article 3.2 of Rutenia’s NFZA and the amount of CO2 emitted by the
country that is exporting to Rutenia?
Teams may develop substantive arguments on this point, based on the facts in the
Case.
99. Is it right to tell this court that Rutenia never conducted a calculation of Carbon emitted
on the Imported Goods as per the Net Zero Act section 10, article 3.1(1,2,3),3.2(1,2),
article 4, article 5.
This question is not clear. It is for the teams to develop an appropriate
understanding of the relevant provisions of the NZF Act and the facts of the Case.
100. What is the object and purpose of Net Zero Future Act?
This is a legal question. It for teams to develop arguments on this point, based on
the facts provided in the Case (see Article 1 of Section 10 of the NZF Act).
101. Could we consider the energy excise tax introduced by Burlandia and the domestic
carbon tax introduced by Korsania equivalently as carbon pricing instruments?
Korsania’s domestic carbon tax is an explicit carbon pricing instrument within
the meaning of Article 3.1(iii) of Section 10 of the NZF Act and makes Korsania’s
exports of flat glass to Rutenia to qualify for a carbon charge deduction under
Article 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act.
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on whether Korsania’s carbon tax
and Burlandia’s energy excise tax are “equivalent”.
102. Does environmental-consciousness get reflected in the consumer preferences of the
people in Rutenia?
It for teams to develop arguments on this point, based on the facts provided in
the Case (see paragraphs 4 and 10).
103. Does Rutenia classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant or as a contaminant?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this point.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 22
104. Could the panel provide further specific examples of conservation efforts that
Burlandia has undertaken regarding their rainforest?
Teams are to develop arguments on this point based on the facts already provided
in the Case (paragraphs 5-6 of the Case).
105. In the moot proposition it is mentioned that the Burlandia is the home to a large
tropical rainforest, how much area does the rainforest cover?
Teams are to develop arguments on this point based on the facts already provided
in the Case (paragraphs 5-6 of the Case).
106. How is Burlandia’s energy excise tax different from Rutenia’s carbon charge? If any,
how would its functions conflict with the carbon charge?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this point, based on facts of
the Case and clarifications.
107. Are the exemptions and deductions under Articles 4 and 5 of the Net Zero Future
Carbon Act granted immediately and unconditionally to Artania and Korsania?
This is a legal question. Teams are expected to develop substantive arguments on
this point.
108. DIM purchased 60% of flat glass from foreign suppliers including those located in
Burlandia, Korsania, and Artania. What is the specific percentage of each country?
Teams are expected to base their arguments on the facts provided in Annex IV of
the Case.
109. What is the bearing of the ICJ advisory jurisdiction in the current proposition?
Substantive argument that teams may develop themselves.
110. Does the flat glass produced under different energy-efficient methods substantially
change the final product?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this point.
111. Why does Rutenia only allow carbon emissions to be verified by third-party entities
established in Rutenia after 31 December 2025?
It is for teams representing Rutenia to develop substantive arguments on this
point.
112. How does Rutenian law define terms like “carbon price”, “carbon charge”, and
“explicit carbon price”?
“Explicit carbon price” under Article 4 of Section 10 of the NZF Act refers to “a
carbon charge (tax, levy or fee), or of emission allowances (or permits) purchased
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 23
under a carbon emission trading scheme” under Article 3.1(iii) of the Act. There
is no further definition of “carbon charge”.
b. Does that law distinguish between products taxed using explicit and implicit
carbon prices?
c. How?
Teams are expected to develop substantive arguments on these points (a)-(b)
themselves, based on the facts provided in the Case.
113. Does Burlandia consider the independent studies referred to in Para 7 as a credible
and accurate account of Vetro’s carbon emissions?
It is for teams representing Burlandia to develop arguments on this point, based
on the facts in the Case and the clarifications.
114. Under Rutenia’s Schedule of Concessions could it be presumed that the phrase “glass
and glassware” is inclusive of flat glass? Could you provide a list of products under the
description?
It is for teams to develop an appropriate reading of the WTO’s Schedule of
Concessions.
115. Does Net Zero Act’s environmental charges comply with Rutenia’s WTO tariff
commitments?
Teams are expected to develop substantive arguments on this point, based on the
facts of the Case.
116. Are the carbon charges imposed on the border or in the market?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on these points, based on the
facts provided in the Case and in clarifications (Question 87).
117. Even if claim 3 is claimed, is the reference to article 3, which is about national
treatment, appropriate given that the status quo is clearly that domestic items are taxed
the same?
It is for teams to develop substantive arguments on this legal claim.
118. While reffering to Annex 4, how has the Imports from Korsania, Artania and
Burlandia possing a threat to Rutenia’s fight against climate change while it is her product
that records the highest sales.
This is not a factual question. It is for the teams to develop substantive arguments
on this point.
119. Please clarify the scope and reach of Rutenian’s carbon charge as it applies to
imports. Does it apply equally to all states.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 24
It is for the teams to develop arguments on this point, based on the facts provided
in the Case (see Articles 1 and 2 of Section 10 of the NZF Act).
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 25
Part. III. Questions that are irrelevant to the legal claims and defences
raised in the Case
120. Did Rutenia notify the WTO so as to put other Members on notice when Rutenia
Net Zero Act came into force?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the case.
121. Concerning the measure taken by Rutenia and the purpose of fulfilling the
commitments under the Paris Agreement, are there other countries applying similar
regulations to accomplish CO2 reduction?
Irrelevant to the claims and defences raised in the Case.
122. Is there an FTA or customs union negotiated between any of the countries in this
case?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
123. Has Rutenia ever suffered any sanctions or rate increases from Burlandia?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
124. Did Rutenia notify the WTO Members about its preferential treatment to
least-developed countries and Small Island and Developing States pursuant to Paragraph
4(a) of the Enabling Clause?
Irrelevant. The Enabling Clause is not raised in the Case.
125. How does the Burliandia’s energy excise tax on all fossil fuels operate (collection and
payment process)?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
126. Have all members ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
127. What were the policies of Rutenia dealing with the climate migrants and how those
policies regarding climate migrants affected the population and the state budget of
Rutenia?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
128. In reference to Rutenia’s Net Zero Act, is it Lawful to subject Korsania’s Exports to
the Carbon Charge without necessarily deducting the tax imposed to the products in
their countries of Origin.
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
Corrections & Answers to
Clarification Questions 26
This question is not clear – see paragraph 20 of the Case.
129. Does Rutenia have a de mininis tax rate for flat glass? If so, what is that rate?
Unclear what is meant by “de minimis tax rate” here.
130. Which plurilateral agreements, if any, annexed to the WTO agreement are Rutenia,
Burlandia, Artania, and Korsania parties to?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
131. Has Artania communicated its exemption from carbon charges to the WTO
members and the secretariat?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
132. Has Korsania communicated its deduction from carbon charges to the WTO
members and the secretariat?
Irrelevant to the legal claims and defences raised in the Case.
133. What is the position of ELSA on the use of international judgments from
international courts on done to persuade the panel on the dispute?
ELSA does not have any formal position on this.
134. In Annex II of Rutenia’s WTO Schedule, tariff reductions were supposed to conclude
by January 1, 2000. However, the projected rates for 2023 exceed this deadline. Can you
explain this discrepancy?
Unclear – Annex II does not refer to “projected rates for 2023”.
135. Need Burlandia’s Energy Excise Tax details on imported flat glass products for
clarity and compliance with GATT Article III:2.
Irrelevant – issue not raised in Article III:2 claim in the Case (the alleged
violation is by Rutenia, not Burlandia).
ELSA International
Email : [email protected]
Tel.: +32 2 646 2626
Web: johnhjacksonmoot.elsa.org
