Eco Oro v. Republic of Colombia Respondent Moot Script International Investment Law – Moot Court Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. The Republic of Colombia RESPONDENT I) Introduction: 1. Dear Madam Presiding Arbitrator, dear Members of the Arbitral Tribunal, my name is XX and today I joined by my co-counsels XX here on behalf of Respondent, the Republic of Colombia in these ICSID proceedings Claimant, Eco Oro Minerals Corp. 2. Today, we will structure our pleadings as … 1. Summary of Dispute: 3. Let me begin by providing an overview of the facts that have brought us here today. 4. This dispute arises out of environmental protection measures that Respondent adopted in connection with the paramo ecosystem in Santurbán. Claimant is now baselessly alleging that these measures deprived it of its mining rights under a concession contract. The concession contract was entered into between Eco Oro and INGEOMINAS on 8 February 2007 for the exploration and exploitation of a deposit of different precious metals and minerals like gold, silver, zinc, copper and tin. 5. This contract relates to the Angostura gold and silver deposits located in the Soto Norte region of the department of Santander, within the Vetas California gold district in Colombia. II) Preliminary Matters: Jurisdiction 6. We begin by respectfully arguing that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of this case. We submit four reasons why this is so. First …, Second…, Third.. and Finally… 7. Lorem ipsum … II) Colombia has validly denied the benefits of Chapter Eight of the FTA to Eco Oro in accordance with art. 814(2) of the Treaty 8. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because Respondent validly denied the benefits of the FTA to Eco Oro. Respondent submits that art. 814(2) permits State parties to deny the advantages of the Treaty, including access to international arbitration, to companies which are owned or controlled by nationals of third States and have no substantial business in their State of incorporation. 9. Lorem ipsum … II) Eco Oro Is Not A Protected Investor Under The FTA, Because It Assigned Its Claims to Non-Canadian Nationals 10. The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over Eco Oro because the true beneficiary of the claim is a Delware-incorporated US company (Trexs) to whom Eco Oro assigned the benefit of its claim in July 2016. 11. Look at art. 838 of the FTA 12. Lorem ipsum … II) Eco Oro Failed To Comply With Four of the Mandatory Conditions Precedent to Arbitration, Including Failing to Bring Its Claims Within the Limitation Period 13. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because Eco Oro has failed to comply with four mandatory conditions precedent set forth in art. 821 FTA. Failure to comply with the conditions in art. 821 results in nullification of Colombia’s consent to arbitrate. 14. Lorem ipsum … II) Eco Oro’s Claim Falls Outside the Tribunal’s Temporal and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 15. First, Eco Oro’s claims relate to a prohibition on mining in the paramo ...

1. Eco Oro v. Republic of Colombia Respondent Moot Script
International Investment Law – Moot Court
Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. The Republic of Colombia
RESPONDENT
I) Introduction:
1. Dear Madam Presiding Arbitrator, dear Members of the
Arbitral Tribunal, my name is XX and today I joined by my co-
counsels XX here on behalf of Respondent, the Republic of
Colombia in these ICSID proceedings Claimant, Eco Oro
Minerals Corp.
2. Today, we will structure our pleadings as …
1. Summary of Dispute:
3. Let me begin by providing an overview of the facts that have
brought us here today.
4. This dispute arises out of environmental protection measures
that Respondent adopted in connection with the paramo
ecosystem in Santurbán. Claimant is now baselessly alleging
that these measures deprived it of its mining rights under a
concession contract. The concession contract was entered into
between Eco Oro and INGEOMINAS on 8 February 2007 for the
exploration and exploitation of a deposit of different precious
metals and minerals like gold, silver, zinc, copper and tin.
5. This contract relates to the Angostura gold and silver
deposits located in the Soto Norte region of the department of
Santander, within the Vetas California gold district in
Colombia.
II) Preliminary Matters: Jurisdiction
6. We begin by respectfully arguing that the Tribunal lacks
jurisdiction to hear the merits of this case. We submit four
reasons why this is so. First …, Second…, Third.. and Finally…
7. Lorem ipsum …
II) Colombia has validly denied the benefits of Chapter Eight of
the FTA to Eco Oro in accordance with art. 814(2) of the Treaty

2. 8. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because Respondent validly
denied the benefits of the FTA to Eco Oro. Respondent submits
that art. 814(2) permits State parties to deny the advantages of
the Treaty, including access to international arbitration, to
companies which are owned or controlled by nationals of third
States and have no substantial business in their State of
incorporation.
9. Lorem ipsum …
II) Eco Oro Is Not A Protected Investor Under The FTA,
Because It Assigned Its Claims to Non-Canadian Nationals
10. The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over Eco Oro
because the true beneficiary of the claim is a Delware-
incorporated US company (Trexs) to whom Eco Oro assigned
the benefit of its claim in July 2016.
11. Look at art. 838 of the FTA
12. Lorem ipsum …
II) Eco Oro Failed To Comply With Four of the Mandatory
Conditions Precedent to Arbitration, Including Failing to Bring
Its Claims Within the Limitation Period
13. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because Eco Oro has failed
to comply with four mandatory conditions precedent set forth in
art. 821 FTA. Failure to comply with the conditions in art. 821
results in nullification of Colombia’s consent to arbitrate.
14. Lorem ipsum …
II) Eco Oro’s Claim Falls Outside the Tribunal’s Temporal and
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
15. First, Eco Oro’s claims relate to a prohibition on mining in
the paramo areas which has been in force since 2010. This was
before the entry into force of the FTA on 15 August 2011 and
the dispute between the Parties therefore arose before this entry
into force. Eco Oro’s claims therefore fall outside the temporal
scope of the FTA.
16. Second, Eco Oro’s claims fall outside the substantive scope
of the FTA. Respondent argues that art. 2201(3) of the FTA
should be construed as providing that nothing in the FTA is to
be read as restricting the Contracting Parties’ ability to adopt

3. measures “necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or
health” and for “the conservation of living or non-living
exhaustible natural resources”. Therefore, Respondent did not
consent to arbitrate disputes that relate to such measures and
fall outside the scope of the covered measures, under Section A
of the FTA.
17. Eco Oro’s claims fall squarely within the Environmental
Exception of the FTA and therefore outside of the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction. The measures were all necessary for the protection
of human, plant and animal life, namely the paramo ecosystem
and for the conservation of non-living exhaustible natural
resources, namely water.
18. Opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union that
states that environmental exceptions in investme nt instruments
can act as a bar to jurisdiction over claims concerning measures
for the protection of the environment.
III) Substantive Claims
19. If this Tribunal were to find, against our primary
submission, that it does in fact have jurisdiction to hear this
case, we would like to submit the following arguments on the
merits, contesting all of the allegations that Claimant has
brought forward:
III) Colombia Did Not Unlawfully Expropriate Eco Oro’s
InvestmentIII) First, the FTA establishes the primacy of
environmental protection over trade and investment.
20. A good faith reading of the FTA proves that the primacy of
environmental protection over trade and investment is clear.
21. Lorem ipsum … III) Second, Respondent did not
expropriate Eco Oro’s investment
22. The measures complained by Claimant did not have an
effect equivalent to direct expropriation as there was no
deprivation.
23. Lorem ipsum … III) Third, Claimant’s legitimate
expectations were not disappointed
24. The claimant failed to produce facts and legal opinions to

4. generate legitimate expectations for the award of mining rights
in Colombia, even with knowledge about the existence of the
páramo ecosystem.
25. Claimant failed to produce evidence on the measures to
ensure compliance with the regulatory safeguards by the
Colombian government to ensure environmental protection.
26. Claimant did not offer justifiable expectations that would
provide the basis for safeguards to protect the páramo
ecosystem upon the award of mining rights per Article 811.
27. Claimant did not offer legitimate expectations on minimum
standard treatment of foreign investors as stipulated in Article
805 of the Free Trade Agreement.
28. Lorem ipsum …
III) Fourth, Respondent’s measures were not arbitrary,
capricious nor disproportionate
29. The articles of the FTA do not provide for proportionality,
unreliability, non-arbitrariness in the standard treatment of
aliens.
30. Respondent offered strong evidence and opinions on Article
811 of the FTA that make the actions balanced and reliable in
supporting the case and providing equal investment protection.
31. Lorem ipsum … III) Fifth and finally, The regulatory
regime was transparent and predictable
32. As enshrined in Article 811, the regulatory regime is
transparent in providing complete protection and security
toward a justifiable public welfare objective.
33. The delimitation process lacked the minimum requirements,
such as transparency and unpredictability, against the regulatory
measures guiding the protection of public interests among
member states of the FTA.

5. 34. Claimant’s allegations that the regulatory measures seeking
to protect the páramo ecosystem affected Eco Oro’s mining
concession disregard Colombia’s constitutional obligations and
expectations
35. Lorem ipsum
III) Colombia Did Not Violate Art. 805 of the FTA and the
Minimum Standard of Treatment
36. Respondent treated Claimant’s investment in accordance
with the minimum standard of treatment under customary
international law.
37. It is clear from art. 805 (footnote 2) that both FET and FPS
under this provision do not require treatment “in addition to or
beyond” the MST.
38. First, Eco Oro’s claims relate to a prohibition on mining in
the paramo areas which has been in force since 2010. This was
before We now turn to
III) In Any Case, Colombia’s Actions Are Justified Under the
FTA’s Environmental Exception
39. Respondent submits that art. 2201(3) of the FTA should be
construed as providing that nothing in the FTA is to be read as
restricting the Contracting Parties’ ability to adopt measures
“necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health” and
for “the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural
resources”. Therefore, Respondent did not consent to arbitrate
disputes that relate to such measures and fall outside the scope
of the covered measures, under Section A of the FTA.
40. Eco Oro’s claims fall squarely within the Environmental
Exception of the FTA and therefore outside of the Tribunal’s
jurisdiction. The measures were all necessary for the protection
of human, plant and animal life, namely the paramo ecosystem
and for the conservation of non-living exhaustible natural
resources, namely water.
41. Lorem ipsum …
42. As Sourav already elaborated on jurisdictional grounds,
IV) Concluding Remarks and Request For Relief

6. 43. Madam Presiding Arbitrator, Members of this Tribunal, you
are faced today not just with a mere dispute concerning a
mining investment. This is not just about preserving the
Santurbán Páramo. It isn’t even limited to protecting an
environmentally vulnerable wetland with a major influence on
natural water distribution throughout the country.
44. The way you rule on this case will set a precedent for how
the international investment law world and future Tribunals
faced with similar questions view the importance of
environmental protection. How do legitimate police powers in
the service of the environment relate to investment protection?
45. This case turns on a struggle between competing societal
objectives which pull in opposite directions: on the one hand,
you have the protection of the treaty rights of an international
investor; on the other hand, the ability of a community to take
legitimate measures to conserve its environment.
46. J In the age of climate change and significant loss of
biological diversity, it is clear that society finds itself in a state
of transition. The law – including international law – must take
account of that state of transition, which gives rise to numerous
uncertainties. Adjudicators – judges and arbitrators – recognise
the need to proceed with caution at a time of transition and
uncertainty. Indeed, the precautionary principle has been
developed to assist in the taking of decisions in times of
uncertainty, and the Tribunal has correctly determined that the
application of the precautionary principle – treated as being
applicable as a rule of law in accordance with Article 832 of the
FTA – to this case has contributed to the conclusion that there
has been no actionable violation of Article 811 of the FTA. Yet
in respect of Article 805, it seems that precaution has no place
for the Majority.
47. Claimant went into this project with its eyes open, knowing
that it was investing in a parámo which was already subject to
certain protections, and it knew – or should have known – that
over time those protections were likely to become even more
restrictive.

7. 48. Canada on behalf on Claimant has submitted in its briefs,
that “trade and environment policies are mutually supportive”
arguing that “that neither environmental protection nor
investment protection is subservient to the other, they must co-
exist in a mutually beneficial manner.”
We therefore submit the following prayers for relief:
1. First, we request that the Tribunal dismiss Eco Oro’s claims
for lack of jurisdiction.
Even if this Tribunal were to assume jurisdiction, we request:
2. That the Tribunal dismiss Eco Oro’s claims in their entirety
and declare that there is no basis of liability owed by the
Republic of Colombia under the FTA, neither under art. 805 nor
art. 811 of the FTA.
3. That the Tribunal order Eco Oro to pay the Republic of
Colombia all costs associated with these proceedings, including
arbitration costs and all professional fees and disbursements, as
well as the fees of the arbitral tribunal, plus interest.
4. That the Tribunal grant such relief that the Tribunal may
deem just and appropriate.
Table of Contents
I) Introduction:
1
1. Summary of Dispute:
1
II) Preliminary Matters: Jurisdiction
1
II) Colombia has validly denied the benefits of Chapter Eight of
the FTA to Eco Oro in accordance with art. 814(2) of the Treaty
1
II) Eco Oro Is Not A Protected Investor Under The FTA,
Because It Assigned Its Claims to Non-Canadian Nationals
2
II) Eco Oro Failed To Comply With Four of the Mandatory
Conditions Precedent to Arbitration, Including Failing to Bring
Its Claims Within the Limitation Period

8. 2
II) Eco Oro’s Claim Falls Outside the Tribunal’s Temporal and
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
2
III) Substantive Claims
3
III) Colombia Did Not Unlawfully Expropriate Eco Oro’s
Investment
3
III) First, the FTA establishes the primacy of environmental
protection over trade and investment.
3
III) Second, Respondent did not expropriate Eco Oro’s
investment
3
III) Third, Claimant’s legitimate expectations weren’t
disappointed
3
III) Fourth, Respondent’s measures were not arbitrary,
capricious nor disproportionate
3
III) Fifth and finally, The regulatory regime was transparent and
predictable
4
III) Colombia Did Not Violate Art. 805 of the FTA and the
Minimum Standard of Treatment
4
III) In Any Case, Colombia’s Actions Are Justified Under the
FTA’s Environmental Exception
4
IV) Concluding Remarks and Request For Relief
4

9. Assignment Title (make it descriptive so the reader knows what
they are reading)
Student Name
University Name
EVSP411 Environmental Policy, Regulation, and law
Professor Name
Date
University Plagiarism Policy: The University System supports
and promotes academic honesty and personal integrity. Any
form of academic dishonesty has no place in higher
education. The University System does not tolerate dishonest
efforts by its students. Students who are guilty of academic
dishonesty can expect to be penalized. Any student who
knowingly assists another student in dishonest behavior is

10. equally responsible. An additional violation of the standards of
academic honesty within a course may result in dismissal from
the University System.
Running head: BRIEF TITLE OF PAPER 1
4
Repeat Title Here
Begin text under the title and go right into the paper. Indent
paragraphs. Use section titles or numbers to differentiate
between multiple questions; especially on the mid-term and
final assessment. Review APA style on formatting first level
headings (e.g., center bold, title case capitalization – this does
not mean all caps), second level headings (e.g., flush left, bold,
title case capitalization), etc.
There is no minimum or maximum writing requirement.
Directions usually state “thoroughly explain or discuss”. Thi s
equates to roughly 1.5 – 2 pages per assignment. There is no
penalty for writing more than 2 pages. However, assignments
less than 1.5 pages tend to have points deducted for not being
sufficiently detailed, though in part this depends on student
writing style. Also, remember to cite in APA format within the
text as well as the reference page that follows.
BRIEF TITLE OF PAPER 2
Do not change this font. It is to be Times Roman Numeral 12
throughout the paper and including references. .
References
Start the reference list here on a separate page… use APA style
Devine, J. (2014, June 30). Testing the waters 2014: A guide to
water quality at vacation beaches. New York, NY: Natural

11. Resources Defense Council. Retrieved from
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/testing-waters-2014-guide-
water-quality-vacation-beaches
Fiorino, D. J. (2006). The new environmental regulation.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Knotts, J. (1999, Winter). A brief history of drinking water
regulations. On Tap: Drinking Water News For America’s Small
Communities, 8(4), 1. Retrieved from
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/ndwc/pdf/OT/OTw99.pdf
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. (2003, January). An
ounce of pollution prevention is worth over 167 billion* pounds
of cure: A decade of pollution prevention results 1990 - 2000.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC]. (2016). Water:
Water pollution. Retrieved from
https://www.nrdc.org/issues/water-pollution#priority-what-you-
do
Sullivan, T. F. P (Ed). (1995). Environmental law handbook.
Rockville, MD: Government Institutions, Inc.
Surfrider Foundation. (n.d.). Blue Water Task Force. Retrieved
from http://www.surfrider.org/blue-water-task-force%20
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1988, March). Year of the
ocean: Discussion papers. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/nscep
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. (n.d.). Pollution
prevention (P2). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/p2