HI5015 Legal Aspects of International Business and Enterprise

Trimester 1 2026 – Group Assignment: International Dispute Analysis and Oral Argument

Weight: 30% of final grade
Marks: 30
Due: Week 10 (written submission) and Weeks 11–12 (scheduled oral presentations)

1. Purpose and Learning Outcomes

This assessment requires you to examine a real international business or trade dispute, construct a legally sound argument for one party, and present your analysis to a panel. It targets the following unit learning outcomes: (a) evaluate how domestic and international legal frameworks shape cross‑border business activity; (b) apply principles of public and private international law to concrete disputes; (c) formulate persuasive legal arguments grounded in treaty provisions, customary law, and judicial precedent; and (d) collaborate effectively to deliver professional written and oral legal analysis.

2. Group Formation and Case Selection

Form a group of three to five students. No exceptions. Select one case from the list below. Each group must represent a specific party to the dispute; you may not argue both sides. Email your lecturer the names and student IDs of all group members and your chosen case by end of Week 3. Lecturer approval is mandatory before you begin substantive work. Groups that proceed without approval will receive a zero.

Available Cases

1. Philippines v. China – South China Sea Arbitration (PCA Case No. 2013-19)
2. Chatting v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/1)
3. United States v. Blondek, Tull, Castle, and Lowry (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecution)
4. Arab Republic of Egypt v. Southern Pacific Properties, Ltd. et al. (ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3)
5. Metro Industries v. Sammi Corp. (contract and antitrust dispute)
6. Starbucks and Ethiopia Coffee Trademark Issues (IP and geographical indications dispute)

3. Task Components

You must complete two linked components:

• Written Group Submission (2,000 words ±10%, excluding references and appendices). This document is a combined case brief and legal argument. It sets out the material facts, identifies the legal instruments and jurisdictional basis, analyses the key legal questions, and advances the position of your chosen party. The argument must engage with counter‑arguments and rely on primary sources—treaties, statutes, case law—and quality secondary commentary.
• Oral Presentation (8–10 minutes per group). All members must speak. The presentation should summarise the core legal issues, argue the chosen party’s case, and respond to questions from the panel. Visual aids (slides) are permitted but must not substitute for substantive oral delivery.

4. Submission Requirements

Submit the written component as a single Word or PDF file via the unit’s LMS portal by 11:59 PM on the Friday of Week 10. Include a signed group contribution statement as an appendix. Late submissions incur a penalty of 5% of the available marks per calendar day. The oral presentation schedule will be published in Week 10; all members must attend the assigned session in person or via an approved synchronous video link.

5. Marking Criteria and Rubric

The group assignment is assessed against four criteria. The same mark applies to all group members unless the contribution statement and lecturer observation indicate uneven effort, in which case individual adjustments may be made.

6. Sample Answer: Philippines’ Jurisdictional Argument in the South China Sea Arbitration

The Philippines anchored its memorial on the compulsory dispute settlement provisions of Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It argued that China’s so‑called nine‑dash line claim lacked legal basis under the Convention because historic rights, however labelled, cannot supplant the maritime zones codified in UNCLOS once a state becomes a party. The Tribunal’s 2016 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility accepted that the dispute concerned the interpretation and application of the Convention, not territorial sovereignty over land features, and therefore fell within its competence. This reasoning, examined closely in “The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese Perspective” (Zhang, 2018), reveals that the Philippines succeeded by framing China’s conduct as a violation of specific UNCLOS obligations—freedom of navigation, protection of the marine environment, and respect for exclusive economic zone rights—rather than mounting a frontal challenge to sovereignty. Zhang notes that the Tribunal carefully distinguished between sovereignty disputes, which fall outside UNCLOS jurisdiction, and disputes about maritime entitlements, which are justiciable under Part XV. Consequently, the Award became a landmark articulation of the relationship between historic claims and the conventional law of the sea.

Historic Rights Do Not Survive Accession to UNCLOS

A close reading of the Award on the Merits confirms that the Tribunal treated UNCLOS as a comprehensive, self‑contained regime that leaves no room for parallel systems of historic rights once a state ratifies it. The decision declares that any historic rights China may have held were extinguished when it became a party to UNCLOS in 1996; the Convention’s precise maritime zones displaced earlier, vaguer entitlements. As Villiger (2019, p. 462) explains, the Tribunal drew a sharp line between pre‑accession conduct and post‑accession obligations, reasoning that permitting historic rights to override the Convention would undermine the uniformity essential to a global ocean governance framework. Villiger cautions, however, that the Award’s reasoning on extinction of historic rights is not universally accepted; several commentators argue that the law of historic waters exists alongside treaty law and requires a separate renunciation. This scholarly debate illustrates a core tension in international law—the interplay of general customary norms and specific treaty regimes—that students analysing the case must confront when crafting a balanced legal argument.

Enforcement Prospects When a State Refuses to Participate

China’s non‑appearance and subsequent rejection of the Award raise the practical question of how a victorious party can enforce an arbitral decision under UNCLOS. The Convention provides that awards are final and binding on the parties, yet it contains no direct enforcement mechanism akin to a domestic sheriff. A state seeking compliance must rely on diplomatic pressure, reputational costs, and, where applicable, recourse to the UN Security Council if a party’s refusal threatens international peace. Some scholars point to the possibility of bringing an enforcement action in a domestic court where assets of the non‑complying state are located, though sovereign immunity doctrines severely limit this avenue. The Philippines, for its part, has largely opted for quiet diplomacy and confidence‑building measures rather than aggressive legal pursuit, a strategy that reflects the reality that international law often operates through political channels as much as through judicial ones. Students addressing this aspect of the brief should evaluate whether the absence of coercive enforcement fatally weakens the UNCLOS dispute settlement system or merely reflects the consensual nature of international adjudication.

References

• Zhang, X. (2018). The South China Sea Arbitration: A Chinese Perspective. Chinese Journal of International Law, 17(2), 267–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmy005
• Villiger, M. E. (2019). The Philippines v. China Arbitration: A Critical Appraisal. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 34(3), 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-23431092
• Wood, M. (2020). The South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China). Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-mpeipro/e2838.013.2838/law-mpeipro-e2838
• Klein, N. (2016). The South China Sea Arbitration and the ‘Historic Rights’ Challenge. AJIL Unbound, 110, 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398772300001762
• Yee, S. (2019). The Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards: The Case of the South China Sea. Chinese Journal of International Law, 18(4), 773–798. https://doi.org/10.1093/chinesejil/jmz034
• Compose a 2,000‑word group legal analysis and deliver an 8‑10‑minute oral argument on a prescribed international business dispute. Select a case, research the relevant treaties, and construct a party‑specific legal argument.
• Write a 7‑page group submission and present a 10‑minute oral argument that applies international legal frameworks to a real cross‑border dispute. Approved cases include the South China Sea Arbitration, Chatting v. Mexico, and Starbucks‑Ethiopia trademark issues.
• Group assessment: research an international case, draft a written legal brief, and present your party’s arguments orally. 30% weighting.

Week 4 Discussion Post: Jurisdiction in Transnational Business Disputes

Initial post (300–400 words) due Thursday 11:59 PM; two responses (150–200 words each) due Sunday 11:59 PM.

Many international business contracts specify a forum for resolving disputes, yet courts still wrestle with whether to assert jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. Using the principles from Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 or the U.S. “minimum contacts” test from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), analyse a recent transnational commercial case where the defendant challenged the court’s jurisdiction. In your initial post, identify the case, outline the jurisdictional test applied, and evaluate whether the outcome aligns with the need for predictability in international business. Your responses should compare the jurisdictional approach in your peers’ chosen case with a different legal system’s doctrine, noting any practical consequences for enterprise risk planning.

The post HI5015 Preparing a Persuasive Legal Argument for an International Dispute appeared first on EssayBishops.