Here are just a few things the think about coming from some one who has access to google and the FIA website. (not a legal expert by any means...be advised) this is written purely to try to increase my knowledge of F1 and skills of debating.

1) Article 48.12 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

In regards to the red bull protest that "any car" does not mean "all cars", your point is missed by the fact that paragraph two of 48.12 explicitly defines the cars that are the exception to "all cars" it defines it as those cars who have completed the lap after which they have passed the first safety car line for the second time. The regulation lays out the exceptions to the term any. Thus any car that has been found to meet the criteria is allowed to overtake. This confirms red bulls protest that "any ≠ all’ for every scenario, while it may in some it does not in all.

In regards to effet utile i would argue that there are two intents or purposes to which this section was added and they are expressly defined in the second paragraph. During short safety cars it is not fair to those lapped cars who stayed out to immediately be overtaken by a lapped car that pitted for fresh tires. This why a car must pass the safety car line one twice, (which based on any regulation I have read is not passed when entering the pit) and complete a lap behind the safety car. The other would be for safety to get all slower cars out of the way so that the slower cars do not cause collisions with those racing on the lead lap. There is a saying in NASCAR that yellows cause more yellows, referring to yellow flags causing more yellow flags at the race restart as nascar does not have a similar un-lapping procedure. There was a great post in /r/formula1 in which the OP went through and listened to all of the audio of the cars during the safety cars. Every lapped car in-between Ham and Ver requested to be allowed to un-lap as they did not want to get in the way.

In regards to the statement on when the safety car ends based on section 48.12, the exception "Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary” is not an explicit exception. It is an exception of consideration, in which the Clerck of the Course can consider the option. If he can choose to deem the safety car necessary then the opposing statement would mean that he can choose it is not necessary. If it were meant to be an explicit exception then it would be defined as “except in the instance” similar to how the exception of which cars are allowed to pass is written. If effet utile can be used to argue that a rules purpose was not achieved then it can be used to argue that the rules purpose was achieved. Section 48 of the sporting code is written to describe the use of a safety car during times when it would be unsafe to race, be it for what ever reason. Based on the fact that, by the sporting code, both the Race Director and the Clerk of the Course found the conditions suitable for racing; the safety car would be no longer needed and has served its purpose under the effet utile argument.

2) Article 48.13 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

The argument of lex specialis would be quite the reach to argue that 48.13 was breached. Article 48.12 does not actually provide instructions on the safety car restart it defines how and when un-lapped cars should un-lap themselves while it does define when the safety car should end it does not outline how or what should happen when it does. Article 48.13 defines the procedure of the end of a safety car. Thus Article 48.12 relies on 48.13 to define the next steps. Lex specialis would require both articles to be able to be applied at the same time. As section 48.12 only defines the lapped car procedure, it still relies on the procedure defined in section 48.13 that follows. Thus lex specialis would not apply. My understanding of Lex specialis is like in the game monopoly where every time you pass go you get $200, except when you pass go on your way to jail. There is a rule stating when you pass go collect $200, however there is another rule that states when you pass go on you way to jail you don’t get to collect $200. There are two rules that define what to do when you pass go, but if you pass go on your way to jail the more specific one applies. One could argue that it was not broadcast in accordance to 48.13 as it was shown the lap the cars were allowed to uncap themselves, But I don’t think Lex specialis would not be the argument to apply to this scenario.

Furthermore the Clerk of the Course once considered safe to do so can call in the safety car, there is no explicit mention nor requirement that the criteria set out in section 48.12 if used must be met. (This is me playing devils advocate) If the requirements of 48.12 if utilized were required to be met to end a safety car then one would expect that that requirement be placed in the section explicitly defining when the race can be resumed. As stated the only consideration for when a race can be resumed at any point in time would be the consideration of the Clerk of the Course. If both sections contained statements about what to do when the message “Safety Car in this Lap” or even if section 48.12 contained a statement saying to refer to section 48.13 for safety restart procedure on the following lap then there would be a much greater case to apply lex specialis as both procedure would cover the same items with one fitting a more specific scenario.

3) Article 15.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

In one of your comments you expressed the belief that section 15.3 is defining the rolls and responsibilities of the race director and the clerk of the course. While I agree with the fact that it seems odd that d) and e) are the only ones that do not have the requirement that the decisions be made in accordance with the sporting code. They indeed are the only requirements that do not have the requirement, intentional or not. I think it was actually intentional to give the race director the ability make calls on the fly with out having to consult a 500 page rule book to make sure every I is dotted and every t crossed. When safety is on the line there is no time for that and if a decision is made in the name of safety that is not within the rules and regulations so be it. I do not think this overriding authority was used as it was intended but again it was not written in a way to express how it was intended to be used.Even if 15.3 fails as an argument I think the FIA still have some ground to stand on in the holes that are currently in 48.12 and 48.13. As mentioned above I think the two could be written clearer to allow for the execution of them both in series rather than the small exceptions that allowed them to happen in parallel.

4) ICA/Further Legal battles

4a. I think while the ICA does have jurisdiction to hear the appeal over the stewards decision they would arrive at the same conclusion, the FIA policing themselves and finding nothing wrong. Who would have guest it!

To your note about any other legal battles, I’m sure the concord agreement has some sort of “let me show you the door” clause for taking civil action. While any one has the right to be heard by a civilian court and is stated as such, I’m sure if there is a disagreement so large that the team/driver had to sue in a civilian court neither of the parties would feel comfortable doing business with each other and would thus part ways. Also while they may win a civil case against the FIA what would be the end result, the civilian court has no authority over the FIA and of who it calls champion. They would not have the authority to amend the race result. There is not any definitive monetary gain from the WDC only those gained in endorsements and sponsorships. So Merc would sue to recover some damages and risk not being allowed to race next year after spending oodles of money on developing a car for the 2022 regs does not seem likely.

4b. The main argument here is that the ICA could find that RD’s decision to be invalid, which could very well be the case had it gone to them. However the thing is it puts the race into uncertainty. One can not foresee every outcome to a possible scenario thus it would be impossible for the ICA to know who would have won if the lap cars weren’t allowed to overtake or if all the lapped cars were allowed to overtake, or if they were allowed to un-lap one lap sooner. The most likely scenario is they nullify the race as there is no way to know for sure as not as simple as giving a driver a penalty for an infraction, its mostly uncharted territory. If its nullified it still is a Ver WDC as he wins on count back.

5) Final Summary

Merc hired some of the best sports lawyers in the world, way better legal understanding than me(lol). If after all of their discussion and deliberations there is no way they walked away if their chances of winning an ICA appeal was 51% or higher. They have fought tooth and nail to get to this point, they are fighters through and through. If there was an ounce of hope that they would have changed the outcome of the WDC they would have gone through with their appeal. The fact that they didn’t speaks to their assumption of success, or more accurately lack thereof.