View
119
Download
5
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
TEAM: 1148A
THE CASE CONCERNING OIL POLLUTION IN THE MARINE
ENVIRONMENT
IN
THEINTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICELA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE
JUSTICE
The Peace Palace, The Hague
Netherlands
The Federal States of Albacares
Applica
nt v.
The Republic of Repelmuto
Respondent
ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
T A B L E O F C O N T E N
T S
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - - - - - - i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - - - - v
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - -xii
STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - - -xiii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED - - - - - - - - xv
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS - - - - - - - -xvi
PLEADINGS - - - - - - - - - - 1
I. THE ACTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO ARE IN CLEAR VIOLATION
OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THEREBY ENTAILING PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY 1
A. Direct consequences of the failure to regulate the activities within their 1 jurisdiction are attributable to the Republic of Repelmuto……………………………………………………………………….
A.1. The conducts of the various State organs are directly attributable to 1Repelmuto…………………………………………………………………………...
A.1.1. The acts of REPO are attributable to Repelmuto as it 2constitutes an organ of the State…………………………………………….A.1.2. That the acts of MEA are attributable to the State……………….. 2
A.1.2.1. That the MEA officials constitute “State Organ”…………... 2A.1.2.2. State cannot absolve liability alleging abuse or excess of 3authority by the MEA officials…………………………………………..
A.1.3. The acts of the Courts of Repelmuto can be attributed to 3Repelmuto………………………………………………………………………
A.2. The actions of Fahy Oil can be attributed to Repelmuto………………. 4A.2.1 In the alternative, Fahy oil Corporation exercises Governmental 5Authority……………………………………………………………………….
B. The State of Repelmuto entails objective responsibility under International 5Law for breach of its customary and conventional obligations to prevent transboundary harm……………………………………………………………………
B.1. Repelmuto Has Failed to observe „due diligence‟………………………. 7B.2. Precautionary principle cannot justify the reckless attitude of 8Repelmuto…………………………………………………………………………..B.3. That the state of Repelmuto has violated its conventional obligations.. 9
B.3.1. That the non-ratification of the UNCLOS does not absolve 9Repelmuto‟s liability under the Convention……………………………….
B.3.1.1 Repelmuto cannot assert its rights under the UNCLOS 10unless it also acknowledges its obligations thereunder……………….
B.3.2.The State of Repelmuto has violated the provisions of CBD…….. 11
a
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
B.3.3. The State of Repelmuto has violated the provisions of MARPOL 11as it applies to offshore oil platforms……………………………………….
II. REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO ALBACARES FOR THE
TRANSBOUNDARY HARM CAUSED 13
A. Federal states of Albacares is entitled to compensation owing to the 14damage caused………………………………………………………………………….B. That the Statements by the President and Foreign Minister amounts to 15estoppel by representation……………………………………………………………..
PRAYER AND CONCLUSION - - - - - - - - -18
b
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
1. &: And
2. ¶: Paragraph
3. AJIL: American Journal Of International Law
4. Am. J. Int‟l Law:American Journal of International Law
5. Am. U. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y: American University Journal of International Law and
Policy
6. Art.: Article
7. ASEAN: Association of South East Asian Nations
8. Brit. Y.B. Int‟l L.: British Year Book of International Law
9. CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
10. Colum J. Envtl. L.: Columbia Journal of Environmental Law
11. Colum. L. Rev.: Columbia Law Review
12. Comm.: Commission
13. Dec.: December
14. Doc.: Document
15. E.T.S.: European Treaty Series
16. EC: European Council
17. ECE: Economic Commission for Europe
18. Ed.: Edition
19. Eds.: Editors
20. EEC: European Economic Council
21. EEZ : Exclusive Economic Zone
22. EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
i
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
23. Eur. J. Int‟l L.: European Journal of International Law
24. G.A. Res.: General Assembly Resolution
25. G.A.: General Assembly
26. GAOR: General Assembly Official Records
27. Ger. Y.B. Int‟l L.: German Year Book of International Law
28. Harv. L. Rev: Harvard Law Review
29. Hon‟ble: Honourable
30. I.L.M: International Legal Materials
31. I.L.R.: International Legal Reporter
32. ICJ: International Court of Justice
33. ILC: International Law Commission
34. ILM: International Legal Materials
35. Inc.: Incorporated
36. Int‟l: International
37. Int'l & Comp. L.Q.: International and Comparative Law Quarterly
38. IUCN: The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
39. J. Transnat‟l L. & Pol‟y: Journal of Transnational Law and Policy
40. J.: Journal
41. J.: Judge
42. L.N.T.S.: L ea g ue of N a t i ons T rea t y S e ri e s
43. LIAMCO: Libyan American Oil Company
44. Ltd.: Limited
45. MARPOL: International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from ships, 1973 as
modified by the protocol relating thereto of 1978.
46. MEA : Mineral Extraction Agency
ii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
47. Neth.: Netherlands
48. No.: Number
49. OECD: Organization for Economic and Social Development
50. p.: Page
51. P.C.I.J.: The Permanent Court of International Justice
52. Pace Envtl. L. Rev.: Pace Environmental Law Review
53. para: Paragraph
54. pp.: Pages
55. Pub.: Publication
56. Pvt.: Private
57. R.Int‟l. Arb. Awards: Revue International Arbitration awards
58. Rep.: Report
59. REPO : Repelmuto Environmental Protection Organization
60. Res.: Resolution
61. Rio Declaration : United Nations Conference on Environment and Development at
Rio De Janeiro
62. s. : Section
63. Sess.: Session
64. Ss.: Sections
65. Stockholm declaration : United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at
Stockholm.
66. Supp.: Supplement
67. U.K.: United Kingdom
68. U.N. Doc.: United Nations Document
69. U.N.Doc.: United Nations Document
iii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
70. U.N.GAOR.: United Nations General Assembly Official Records
71. U.N.T.S.: United Nations Treaty Series
72. U.N.T.S: United Nations Treaty Series
73. U.S.: United States
74. UN GAOR Supp.: United Nations General Assembly Official Record
75. UN: United Nations
76. UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
77. UNECE: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
78. UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
79. v.: Versus
80. VCLT: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
81. VCSST: Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties
82. Vol.: Volume
83. WCN: World Charter for Nature
84. WSSD: World Summit on Sustainable Development
85. Y.B. Int‟l L.C.: Year Book of International Law Commission
86. Y.B.: Year Book
87. Yale L.J.: Yale Law Journal
iv
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T
I E S
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
1. Basel Convention on the control of Trans-boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal, Mar. 22, 1989, 1673 U.N.T.S 126; G.A. Res. 1974/3281 (XXIX);
G.A. Res. 34/186 (1979) - - - - - - - - 6
2. Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Jan. 29,
2000, 39 I.L.M 1027 - - - - - - - - - 8
3. Charter of Economic Rights G.A. Res. 3281, 29 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 31) 50,
U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974) - - - - - - - - 5
4. Climate Change Convention, 9 May 1992, 31 I.L.M. 849; Art 1(15) - -13
5. Communication on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000)1 - - - 8
6. Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302
U.N.T.S 217 - - - - - - - - - - 6
7. Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution, Nov. 13, 1979, ,1302
U.N.T.S 217 - - - - - - - - - -13
8. Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other
Matter (London), 11 I.L.M. (1972) - - - - - - - 6
9. Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Watercourses and
International Lakes, ILM 1312 (1992) - - - - - -13
10. Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources, 2 June 1988, 27 I.L.M.
859 - - - - - - - - - - -14
v
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
11. Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from
Activities Dangerous to the Environment, 32 ILM 1228 (1993) - - -14
12. Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June, 16,
1972, 11 I.L.M 1416. - - - - - - - - - 6
13. G.A. Res. 1803, 17 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 17) 17, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962) - 5
14. G.A. Res. 2158, 21 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 29, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966) - 5
15. G.A. Res. 2386, 23 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 18) 24, U.N. Doc. A/7218 (1968) - 5
16. G.A. Res. 2692, 25 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 28) 63, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (1970) - 5
17. G.A. Res. 3016, 27 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 30) 48, U.N. Doc. A/8730 (1972) - 5
18. G.A. Res. 3171, 28 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 30) 52, U.N. Doc. A/9030 (1973) - 5
19. Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, 52 Int‟l L. Ass‟n
477, 484 (1966) - - - - - - - - - 6
20. I.L.C. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,
Report of the 53rd Sess., I.L.C. (2001), G.A.O.R. 56th Sess., Supp. 10 - - 1
21. ILC Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities, with Commentaries, [2001] 2 Y.B Int‟l L Comm‟n 392 - - - 6
22. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J 226
(8th July) - - - - - - - - - - 6
23. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, June 13, 1992, 31 I.L.M 849 - 6
24. Rules on Water Pollution in an International Drainage Basin, 60 I.L.A 158 (1983) -13
25. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL) - - -11
26. U.N Convention on Biological Diversity, Preamble, June 5, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818 - 8
vi
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
27. U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec.10, 1982 - - - - 6
28. UNEP Principles on Conservation and Harmonious Utilisation of Natural Resources
Shared By Two or More States, 17 I.L.M 1094 (1978) - - - - 6
29. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, 22 Mar. 1985, , 26 I.L.M.
1529 (1987) - - - - - - - - - -13
30. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, U.N. Jurid Y.B. 153 - 9
31. World Charter for Nature, UNGA Res. 37/7, 37 U.N. GAOR, Suppl. (No.
51)U.N.Doc. A/37/51 (Oct. 28, 1982) - - - - - - 8
JOURNALS AND ESSAYS
1. Allott, S tate R e spons i bi l i t y a nd the Unm a ki n g o f I nt e rn a t i on a l L aw , 29 Harv.Int'l.L.J.
1 (1988) - - - - - - - - - - 1
2. Bodansky & Crook, I ntr o du c t i on a nd Ov e rvi ew , 96 AJIL 773 (2002) - - 1
3. Combacau & Alland, "P rimar y" and "S econd ar y" Rules in the La w of S tate
R e spons i bi l i t y : C a t e g o r i z ing I nte r n a t i on a l O bl i g a t i on s , 16 Neth.Y.B.Int'l.L. 81 (1985)
- - - - - - - - - - - 1
4. Crawford, Bodeau, & Peel, The I. L.C. 's Draf t Arti cles on State Responsi bil it y:
To wa rd Comp l e t i on of a S ec ond R ea di n g , 94 AJIL 660 (2000) - - - 1
5. Crawford, Peel, & Olleson, The ILC 's Dra ft A rti cles on Responsi bil it y o f S tates for
I nt e rn a t i on a l l y W rong f ul A c ts: Comp l e t i on of t h e S ec ond R ea di ng , 12 Eur.J.Int'l.L.
963 (2001) - - - - - - - - - - 1
6. Crawford, R e vis i ng t h e D ra ft A r t i c les on S tate R e spons i bi l i t y , 10 Eur.J.Int'l.L. 435
(1999) - - - - - - - - - - - 1
vii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
7. Daniel Bodansky, Custom ar y (and Not S o Custom ar y) Inte rnati onal En vironmental
L a w , 3 Ind. J. Global L. Stud. 105, 110 (1995) - - - - - 6
8. I.C. MacGibbon, Estoppel in I nt e rn a t i on a l L aw , 7 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 468 (1958), at
468 - - - - - - - - - - -16
9. K.W. Cuperus and A.E. Boyle, Arti cles on P rivate La w Remedies for Tra nsboundar y
D a m a g e in I n t e rn a t i on a l W a te rc ours e s , I nte r n a t i on a l L a w Asso c i a t i o n , Report of the
67th Conference, Helsinki 407 (1986) - - - - - - 4
10. Kenneth F. McCallion, Int e rn a t i on a l Environm e n tal J u s t i ce : Ri g hts a nd R e medi e s , 26
Hastings Int‟l. & Comp. L. Rev. 427, 429 - 431 (2003) - - - - 7
11. Prue Taylor, An Ecol ogic al Approa ch to Internati onal Law: Res ponding to
Ch a l l e n g e s o f Cl i mate Ch a ng e , 70 (Routledge, 1998) - - - - 6
12. Zhiguo Gao, 'Int ernati o nal P etroleum Ex ploration and Ex ploitation Agreements: a
Compr e h e nsive Enviro n ment a l App ra isa l ' , 240 (1994) 12 Journal of Energy and
Natural Resources Law, 240-53 - - - - - - - 7
INTERNATIONAL CASES AND ARBITRAL AWARDS
1. C a ire (France v. Mexico), Mixed Claims Commission, 5 R.Intl.Arb.Awards 516 - 3
2. C a se Con c e rning the B a r ce lona T ra c t i on, L i g ht a nd P ow e r Compa n y L i m i t e d , (Belg.
v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 6 (Feb. 5) - - - - - - - 6
3. Case conc ernin g the Diff erenc e Relatin g to Imm unit y from Le gal P roc ess of a S pecia l
R a pport e ur of the Com m is s ion on Human Ri g ht s , Adviso r y opin i on , 1999 ICJ 62 - 1
4. Cont i n e ntal S e a S h e lf c a se (Tunisia v. Libya), ICJ Rep 1982 - - -10
5. Corfu Channel C ase, (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J, 21 - - - - - 6
viii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
6. Fac to r y a t Chorzó w , (Ger v. Pol), Jurisdiction, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21
- - - - - - - - - - -15
7. F ishe r ies J u r isd i c t i o n ,(F. R.G v. Iceland), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1974 - -15
8. G a b č ĭkovo - N a g y ma r os P roj ec t c a s e , (Hung. v. Slovk.) 1997 I.C.J 7 (Sept. 25) -15
9. H a nd e lskw e k e rij G. J . B i e r B .V. v. Min e s d e P ot a sse d ' Alsace S .A . , 1976 E.C.R. 1735
(Neth.) - - - - - - - - - - - 6
10. ICJ‟s Advisory opinion rendered on „R e s e r va t i ons to the Conv e nt i o ns on the
P rot ec t i on a nd P unishment of the c rime of G e no c ide on 2 8 th M a y 195 1 ‟, ICJ Reports
1951 - - - - - - - - - - - 9
11. I n the L e g a l S tatus of E a ste r n G ree n l a nd, L e g a l S tatus of E a ste r n G r e e nl a nd (Den. v.
Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53, at 22 (Apr. 5)- - - - -16
12. I nt e rn a t i on a l Com m is s ion on the River Od e r C a s e , (Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Fr,
Ger, U.K, Swe v. Pol) PCIJ, Series A, No. 23 (1959) - - - - 6
13. I sland of P a l m a s A r bi tra t i o n ,(Neth v. US) 2 R. Int‟l. Arb. Awards, 829, 831 (1928)
- - - - - - - - - - - 6
14. L a c L a noux A r bi t r a t i on (Fr v. Spain)24 I.L.R (1957) - - - - 6
15. L a nd a nd Ma r i t i m e B ound a r y B e tw ee n C a m e roon a nd N i g e ri a , (Cameroon v.
Nigeria), ICJ Rep 2002 - - - - - - - -10
16. L i g hthous e s Arbit r a t i on Cas e , (F r. v. G r. ) , I.L.R. 23 (1956) - - - - 7
17. Ma r i t i m e D e l i m i tation a nd T e r r i t o r i a l Qu e st i on B e tw e e n Q a tar a nd B e h r a in (Qatar v.
Bahrain), ICJ Reports 2001 - - - - - - - -10
ix
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
18. Mil i ta r y a nd P a r a m i l i ta r y A c t i vi t ies in a nd a g a i nst Ni ca ra g ua (Nicaragua v. United
States), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986 - - - - - - -15
19. No r th S e a Cont i n e ntal S h e lf C a s e , (Federal Republic of Ger v. Neth) ICJ Rep 1969
- - - - - - - - - - -10
20. Nu c le a r T e sts C a se (Australia & New Zealand v. France), 1974 I.C.J. 253 - -16
21. R a inbow W a r r ior Case (Newzland v. France) Reports of International Arbitral Award,
Vol. XX pp.215-284 - - - - - - - - - 2
22. R o y a l Hol l a nd L l o y d v. United S t a tes , 73 Ct. Cl. 722 (1931) - - - 3
23. S a lvador Com m e r c ial Compa n y c a s e , (U.S. v. Republic of Salvador), In U.S.
Department of States, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relation of the United States,
(1903) - - - - - - - - - - -11
24. S p a nish Z one o f Mo r o cc o C l a i m s , Translation; French text, RIAA ii. 615 at 641 -10
25. The ca se of south p ac if i c re g ional p r otoco l , Chester Brown, (1998) 17 AMPLJ 109
- - - - - - - - - - -13
26. The T e mp l e of P r ea h Vi h a r (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6 - - -15
27. T ra il S melter A r bi t r a t i o n , (U.S. v. Can.), 35 Am. J. Int'l L. 684 (1941) - - 6
28. United S tat e s Diplo m a t i c a nd Consul a r S ta f f in T e h ra n (U.S. v. Iran) 1980 ICJ Rep.3
- - - - - - - - - - - 2
29. Youm a ns c laim (United States Mexico Claims Tribunal) UNRIAA, vol. IV, 110
(1916), 116 - - - - - - - - - - 2
TEXTS
1. David Freestone and Ellen Hey, The P recauti onar y P rincipl e and Internat ional Law:
The Chall en ge of Impl e mentati on, (Kluwer Law Int‟l ,1st ed. 1996)- - - 8
x
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
I N D E X OF A U T H O R I T I E S
2. James Crawford, I.L.C. Draft Arti cles on S tate Responsi bil it y: Introducti o n, Tex t, and
C om m e nta r ies , (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002) - - - - 1
3. James K Sebenius, N e g ot i a t i ng the law of the S e a (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press. 1984), 93, quoted in Charlotte Ku and Paul F. Diehl (eds), I n t e rnat i on a l L a w:
Classic a nd Contempo ra r y R ea di n g s , (Viva Books Private Ltd., 2nd ed., 2004) -10
4. Malcolm N Shaw, I nte r n a t i on a l L a w , (Cambridge University Press 5th ed., 2003) -
- - - - - - - - - - - 6
5. Patricia Birnie and Alan Boyle, I nte r n a t i on a l L a w a nd the Env i ronm e nt (Oxford
University Press, 2nd ed., 2004) - - - - - - - 6
6. Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle, Catherine Redgewell, I n t e rn a t i on a l L a w a nd the
Environm e nt, (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2009) - - - -14
7. Peter Bautista Payoyo (ed), O c e a n Gov e r n a n c e : S ustain a ble D e v e lop m e nt of S ea s ,
(United Nations University Press, 1994) - - - - - -10
8. Starke, I nte r n a t i on a l L a w , (Oxford University Press, 6 ed., 1996) - - - 9
9. Stephen C. McCaffrey, P rivat e Remedies for T ransf rontier E nvironmental
Disturbances (IUCN and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland, 1975) - - 3
xi
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
THE APPLICANT AND THE RESPONDENT HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DISPUTE
TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY SPECIAL AGREEMENT FOR
RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40(1) OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT. IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARTICLE
36(1) OF THE ICJ STATUTE, EACH PARTY WILL ACCEPT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AS FINAL
AND BINDING.
xii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S
S T A T E M E N T O F F A C
T S
Coastal States, Federal States of Albacares and Republic of Repelmuto share a Common
Territorial boundary bordering Gulf of Sedna. Albacares is a developing Country known for
coral reefs and beaches, with majority of its people living along the coast. Its economy
depends heavily on tourism, agriculture and fishing. Repelmuto is an industrialized country
with second highest gross domestic product in the world and in its efforts to become energy
independent authorized increased oil exploration within its EEZ, which it asserts under
customary international law. Both are parties to ICJ, VCLT, MARPOL, CBD, and have
attended Stockholm, Rio and sustainable development conferences. Albacares is a party to
UNCLOS; Repelmuto has signed but not ratified it. RECORD ¶¶1-10
As oil rigs employs several methods to trigger the safety valve in case of an emergency,
MEA mandated to have „hardwired controller‟ and „dead man‟ switches and did not
require acoustical triggers. MEA officials failed to conduct rigorous inspections and also
frequently accepted gifts from oil industry representatives, including drinks, meals, and trips
to sporting events. One such example includes MEA regulators who attended a World
Cup football match as guests of Fahy Oil, a corporation incorporated under the laws of
Repelmuto. In
2008 National election, Conservation Party won and its leader Elle Kempii was elected the
president. RECORD ¶¶11-15
On 2 February 2009, an offshore oil rig, Blue Ocean, owned by Fahy Oil, exploded and sank.
Fahy Oil employees were unable to activate the hardwired controller; „dead man‟ switch
was inoperative due to dead battery. It did not have an acoustical trigger. As a result of
the
explosion, oil began to flow at the rate of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels per day. A later
xiii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
S T A T E M E N T O F F A C T S
investigation by Repelmuto Congress found that that Fahy Oil had ignored warnings
indicating faulty safety systems leading up to the explosion. RECORD ¶¶16
REPO authorized the widespread use ChemEx-5000 at the source of the leak in an attempt to
prevent oil from reaching the surface and shoreline. Repelmuto continued to employ the
dispersant inspite of the warnings from Albacares as to its significant negative impacts on
marine environment. President assured more than once, that Albacarean individuals would be
compensated, including for the adverse effects caused by ChemEx-5000. Fahy Oil released
approximately 7,600 kiloliters of ChemEx-5000 which was later found to kill up to 35% of
organisms living 500 feet below the surface where the dispersant was used. On 4 July 2009,
Fahy Oil succeeded in drilling a relief well that halted the flow of oil. The spill had
devastating economic and environmental effects in Albacares. The tourism industry
collapsed, coral reefs died and countries imposed ban on fish harvested from the Gulf.
RECORD ¶¶17-30
Repelmuto attempts to absolve its liability by conceding the damage caused, but attributing to
previous Government‟s lack of oversight and denies its obligations to compensate Albacares
under customary and conventional laws. Courts of Repelmuto approved the bankruptcy plan
of Fahy, which led to its liquidation. Negotiations between Repelmuto and Albacares failed;
hence an agreement was signed to submit the present matter before ICJ. RECORD ¶¶31-38
xiv
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
Q U E S T I O N S P R E S E N T E D
Q U E S T I O N S P R E S E N
T E D
I. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO ARE IN CLEAR
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THEREBY ENTAILING PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY?
A. WHETHER DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILURE TO REGULATE THE
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION ARE ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO?
B. WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO ENTAILS OBJECTIVE
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR BREACH OF ITS
CUSTOMARY AND CONVENTIONAL OBLIGATIONS TO PREVENT
TRANSBOUNDARY HARM?
II. WHETHER REUBLIC OF REPELMUTO IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO
ALBACARES FOR THE TRANSBOUNDARY HARM CAUSED?
A. WHETHER FEDERAL STATES OF ALBACARES IS ENTITLED TO
COMPENSATION OWING TO THE DAMAGE CAUSED?
B. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT AND FOREIGN
MINISTER AMOUNTS TO ESTOPPEL BY REPRESENTATION?
xv
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
S U M M A R Y O F P L E A D I N G S
S U M M A R Y O F P L E A D I
N G S
I. THE ACTIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO ARE IN CLEAR
VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW THEREBY ENTAILING PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY
The Republic of Repelmuto failed to regulate the activities within its jurisdiction thereby
entailing primary responsibility for the transboundary harm caused both in respect of oil spill
and ChemEX-5000 administration. In accordance with the principles of International law, the
conduct of various state organs could be attributable to the State of Repelmuto, thereby
making Repelmuto directly liable for the acts and omissions of REPO (environmental agency
of the State), MEA (State Organ) and Fahy Oil Corporation (de facto organ). Even the actions
of the Court are attributable to Repelmuto as no distinction need to be made with the
legislative, executive and the judicial organs.
The State is also made liable for the breach of its customary obligations to prevent
transboundary harm. It has failed to comply with the principle of good neighbourliness, and
the very standard basis for environmental protection requiring due diligence. Owing to the
reckless attitude in maintaining the bare minimum security systems they had, a direct and
proximate relationship between the inaction and the harm could be perceived which
facilitated the harm to cross the boundaries. Moreover precautionary principle embodied
under Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration cannot be invoked as a justification for the
imprudent application ChemEx-5000, since Repelmuto continued to administer the same
inspite of warnings from Albacares as to its significant negative impacts. Republic of
Repelmuto also stands in contravention of its conventional obligations laid down under CBD
and MARPOL. They are also liable under the provisions of UNCLOS as they have already
xvi
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
S U M M A R Y O F P L E A D I N G S
signed the convention which points to an eventual attitude of complying with the same,
moreover, when they assert a right for EEZ they cannot evade the obligations laid thereunder.
II. REPUBLIC OF REPELMUTO IS LIABLE FOR REPARATION TO ALBACARES
FOR THE TRANSBOUNDARY HARM CAUSED
Grave and substantial damage has been caused to Albacares due to the lack of reasonable
diligence and arbitrary actions of Repelmuto. Therefore in compliance with the polluter pays
principle, Albacares in entitled to the right to claim compensation. Furthermore, the President
is estopped from denying the assured compensation and succession in Government
doesn‟t
affect the rights and obligations arising therein.
xvii
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
P L E A D I N G S
I. THE ACTIONS OF THE REPUBL IC OF REPELMUTO ARE IN CLE AR
VIOL ATIO N OF INTERNATIO NAL LAW THE REB Y ENTAILING PRIMA RY
RES PONS IB IL IT Y
An internationally wrongful act is committed by a State only when a conduct consisting of an
action or omission is attributable to that State under international law;1 and that conduct
constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that State.2 The Applicant seeks to
establish in the below mentioned manner that the Republic of Repelmuto stands in clear
contravention of the international obligations casted upon it.
A. DIRECT CONSE QUENCES OF THE FAIL URE TO REGULATE THE
ACTIVITIE S WIT HIN THE IR JURIS DICTION ARE ATT RIBUTABL E TO
THE REPUBL IC OF R EPELMUTO
A.1. Th e condu cts of th e variou s S tate organ s are d irectly a ttribut ab le to
Rep el mu to
According to well-established customary rules of international law, the conduct of any organ
of a State must be regarded as an act of that State.3 That the State is responsible for the
1 Art. 2, I.L.C. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the 53rd Sess., I.L.C. (2001), G.A.O.R. 56th Sess., Supp. 10. [Hereinafter I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility]; Bodansky & Crook, I n tr od u c t i o n a n d O v e r v i e w , 96 AJIL 773 (2002); Crawford, R e v i s i n g t h e D r a f t A r ticles o n State R e s po ns i b i l i t y , 10 Eur.J.Int'l.L. 435 (1999); Allott, St a te R es pon s i b ili t y a n d t h e U nm a k i n g o f I n te r n ati o n al L a w , 29 Harv.Int'l.L.J. 1 (1988); Combacau & Alland, " Pr i m a r y " a n d " Sec o n d a r y " R u l es i n t h e L a w o f St a te R es po n s i b ili t y : Cat e g or izi n g I n te r n a t i o n al O b l i g ati on s , 16 Neth.Y.B.Int'l.L. 81 (1985).
2 Art. 2, Art. 12 and Art. 13, I.L.C Draft Articles, s u pr a note 1; Crawford, Bodeau, & Peel, T h e I . L . C . 's D r a f t A r ticl e s o n St a te R es pon s i b i l i t y : To w a r d C o m p leti o n o f a Sec o n d R e ad i n g , 94 AJIL 660 (2000); Crawford, Peel, & Olleson, T h e I L C ' s D r a f t A r ticles o n R e s po ns i b ili t y o f States f o r I n te r n a ti o n al l y Wro n gf u l A c t s : C o m p leti o n o f t h e Sec o n d R e a d i n g , 12 Eur.J.Int'l.L. 963 (2001).
3C ase c o n c er n i n g t h e D i f f e r e n ce R elat i n g to I mm u n it y f ro m L e g al P ro c e s s o f a S p e c ial R a ppor te u r o f t h e C o mm i s s i o n o n H u m a n R i g h ts , A d v i s o r y op i n i o n , 1999 ICJ 62 at 87(para.62); Art. 4(1), I.L.C. Draft Articles, su pr a note 1; Art.4 Para 6, James Crawford, I.L.C. D r a f t A r ticl e s o n State R es pon s i b il it y : I n tr od u cti o n , T e x t,
1
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
conduct of its own organs, acting in that capacity, has long been recognized in international
judicial decisions.4
A.1.1 The acts of REPO are attributable to Repelmuto as it constitutes an
organ of the State
The ILC Articles on State Responsibility define a state organ as "any person or entity which
has that status in accordance with the internal law of the state."5 It includes an organ of
any territorial governmental entity within the State on the same basis as the central
governmental organs of that State.6 REPO, the Repelmuto‟s environmental agency, is thus,
a state organ within the norms of established International law.
A.1.2. That the acts of MEA are attributable to the State
As submitted above, the acts of MEA in (a) granting licenses without complying with the
procedures established by international law, (b) failing to regulate activities of Fahy Oil, and
(c) failing to act with due diligence, are attributable to the State, since:
A.1.2.1. T hat t he MEA off icials const it ute „ Stat e Organ‟
The reference to a State organ covers all the individual or collective entities which make up
the organization of the State and act on its behalf. Also in principle, the State‟s responsibility
is engaged by conduct incompatible with its international obligations, irrespective of the level
a n d C o mm e n ta r ies , (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed. 2002) [Hereinafter commentaries on I.L.C DraftArticles on State Responsibility].
4 R a i n b o w W a rr i o r C ase (Newzland v. France) Reports of International Arbitral Award, Vol. XX, pp.215-284; Youmans cliam (United States Mexico Claims Tribunal) UNRIAA, vol. IV, p. 110 (1916), at p. 116; U n ited States Di p l o m atic a n d C o n s u la r Staff in T e h r an (U.S. v. Iran) 1980 ICJ Rep.3.
5 Art. 4(2), ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s u pr a note 1.
6 Articles 4(1), I.L.C. Draft Articles on State Responsibility, su pr a note 1; Also see Art 4 para 1, Commentaries on I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s u pr a note 3.
2
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
of administration or government at which the conduct occurs; thus making Repelmuto liable
for MEA‟s acts.7
A.1.2.2. Stat e cannot absolve li abil it y all eging abuse or excess of
authorit y by the MEA offi cial s
Where a person acts in an apparently official capacity or under colour of authority, the
actions in question will be attributable to the State.8 This is so even where the organ or entity
in question has overtly committed unlawful acts under the cover of its official status or has
manifestly exceeded its competence.9 State practice and judicial pronouncements support this
proposition.10 In the instant case, Repelmuto cannot absolve liability alleging abuse or excess
of authority by the officials of MEA, as they acted under their official capacity.
A.1.3. The acts of the Courts of Repelmuto can be attributed to Repelmuto
The acts of any organ of the State can be attributed to the State. No distinction is made for
this purpose between legislative, executive or judicial organs.11 The right of equal access to
permits the transboundary applicant to raise questions concerning the permissibility of the
activity, appeal against the decisions of the Court or the administrative authority and seek
measures necessary to prevent damage “to the same extent and on the same terms as a legal
entity of the State in which the activity is being carried on”. Similarly the transboundary
7 Id .
8 Art 7, para 13, Commentaries on I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility, su pr a note 3.
9 Art 7, Commentaries on I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s u pr a note 3.
10 Art 7, para 3, Commentaries on I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility, S u pr a note 3. Also see C ai r e (France v. Mexico), Mixed Claims Commission, 5 R.Intl.Arb.Awards 516 at p. 531. Maal, UNRIAA, vol. X, p.730 (1903) at pp. 732-733; La Masica, UNRIAA, vol. XI, p. 549 (1916), at p. 560; Youmans, UNRIAA, vol. IV, p. 110 (1916), at p. 116; Mallen, UNRIAA, vol. IV (1925), p. 173, at p. 177; Stephens, UNRIAA, vol. IV, p.265 (1927), at pp. 267-268; Way, UNRIAA vol. IV, p. 391 (1925), at pp. 400-01. Royal Holland Lloyd v. United States,73 Ct. Cl. 722 (1931); A.D.P.I.L.C, vol 6, p. 442.
11 Sal v a do r C o mm e r cial C o m p a n y c a s e, (U.S. v. Republic of Salvador), In U.S. Department of States, PapersRelating to the Foreign Relation of the United States, (1903) 859-73.
3
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
victim could seek compensation for damage caused on terms no less favourable than the
terms under which compensation is available in the State of origin.12This principle is also
reflected in Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration and in Principle 23 of the World Charter for
Nature. It is also increasingly recognized in national constitutional law regarding protection
of the environment.13
In the present matter under consideration, the bankruptcy plan of Fahy Oil Corporation
approved by the Repelmuto Courts, without effective notice to Albacarean citizens, led to the
liquidation of the corporation.14 By doing so, the courts of Repelmuto have violated the
principle of equal access and non-discrimination. The action of which is clearly attributable
to the state of Repelmuto.
A.2. Th e actions of Fah y Oi l can b e attribu ted to Rep el mu to
It is an act of a State under international law, if a person or group of persons is acting on the
instructions of, or under the direction or control of that State in carrying out its conduct.15 In
the present matter, Fahy Oil Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Repelmuto acting
under the direction and control of the State of Repelmuto, which makes it a de facto organ of
12 Stephen C. McCaffrey, P r i v ate R e m e d ies f o r T r a ns f ro n tier E nv ir on m e n tal Di s t u rb a n c e s (IUCN and Natural Resources, Morges, Switzerland, 1975), pp. 85-87. The main contribution of the Convention is the creation of a Special Administrative Agency to supervise the transboundary nuisances in each State party for more intensive intergovernmental consultation and cooperation. The Agency is given standing before the courts and administrative bodies of other contracting States. The Convention does not however apply to pending causes. It does not have an express provision for waiver of State immunity. It is also silent on the question of the proper applicable law for the determination of liability and calculation of indemnities, though it is assumed that the proper law for the purposes will be the law of the place where the injury is sustained. In contrast the OECD recommended to its members a more gradual implementation of flexible bilateral or multilateral accords on measures for the facilitation at the procedural level of transnational pollution abatement litigation; Also see Principle 6(3), I.L.C Draft principles on the Allocation of loss in the case of Transboundary harm arising out of hazardous activities, Report of the 58th Sess., Y.B.Int'l.L.C. vol. II, Part Two (2006).
13 K.W. Cuperus and A.E. Boyle, A r ticles o n P r i v ate L a w R e m e d ies f o r T r a ns bo un d a r y D a m a g e i n I n te r n ati o n a l W ate r c o u r s es, I n te r n ati o n al L a w As s o ciati o n , Report of the 67th Conference, Helsinki 407 (1986).
14 Record ¶ 35.
15 Article 8, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s upr a note 1.
4
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
the State. Moreover the „specific operation‟16 of exploration, which is directed and controlled
by Repelmuto forms the “integral part of the operation”17, thereby making the action of Fahy
Oil attributable to Repelmuto.
A.2.1 In the alternative, Fahy oil Corporation exercises
Governmental Authority
The term „entity‟ reflects the wide variety of bodies which, though not organs, may be
empowered by the law of a State to exercise elements of governmental authority i.e.
empowered to exercise functions of a public character normally exercised by State organs
and the conduct of the entity relates to the functions of the governmental authority
concerned.18 Activities relating to optimum utilisation of natural resources viz. oil exploration
fall within the realm of exercise of governmental authority. In the instant case, licence has
been granted to Fahy Oil Corporation for the above mentioned purpose making it an “entity”
which exercises governmental authority.
B. THE REPUBL IC OF REPELM UTO ENTAILS OBJECT IVE
RES PONS IB IL IT Y UNDER INTE RNATIO NAL LAW FOR BREACH OF IT S
CUS TOMARY AN D CONVENTIO NAL OB LIGATIO NS TO PREVENT
TRANSB OUNDARY H ARM
16
Id .
17 Article 8, Commentaries on I.L.C Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s u pr a note 3.
18 G.A. Res. 1803, 17 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 17) 17, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (1962); G.A. Res. 2158, 21 U.N.
GAOR, Supp. (No. 16) 29, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966); G.A. Res. 2386, 23 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 18) 24, U.N. Doc. A/7218 (1968); G.A. Res. 2692, 25 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 28) 63, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (1970); G.A. Res.3016, 27 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 30) 48, U.N. Doc. A/8730 (1972); G.A. Res. 3171, 28 U.N. GAO R, Supp. (No. 30) 52, U.N. Doc. A/9030 (1973)., Charter of Economic Rights G.A. Res. 3281, 29 U.N. GAOR, Supp.(No. 31) 50, U.N. Doc. A/9631 (1974).
5
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
In accordance with the principle of sic utero tuo, ut alienum non laedas or „principle of good
neighbourliness‟ it is a well established custom of international environmental law that no
state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury
to the territory of another or the properties or person therein.19 Every state is thus under an
obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of
other States;20 and to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control respect the
environment of other states or of areas beyond national control. This obligation underpins the
concept of sustainable development and has been sanctified by wide state practice, and is so
recognized in various international instruments;21 and has further been reaffirmed in very
many judicial decisions.22 The duty to prevent transboundary harm has even attained the
status of customary international law relating to environment.23 Hence, it is unequivocally
19 Patricia Birnie and Alan Boyle, I n te r n a t i o n al L a w a n d t h e E nv ir on m e n t 109 (Oxford University Press, 2nd
ed,2004); T r ail S m e l ter A rb itr a ti o n , (U.S. v. Can.), 35 Am. J. Int'l L. 684 (1941) [Hereinafter Trail Smelter Arbitration Case]; I n te r n ati on al C o mm i ss i o n o n t h e R i v er O d er C as e , (Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Fr, Ger, U.K, Swe v. Pol) PCIJ, Series A, No. 23 (1959); I s la n d o f P al m as A rb itr a ti o n ,(Neth v. US) 2 R. Int‟l. Arb. Awards,829, 831 (1928); Malcolm N Shaw, I n te r n a ti o n al L a w 760 (Cambridge University Press 5th ed., 2003) [Hereinafter Shaw].
20 C or f u Ch a n n el C a s e , (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J, 21; L ac L a n o u x A rb itr a ti o n (Fr v. Spain)24 I.L.R (1957) [Hereinafter Lac Lanoux Arbitration].
21 Art. 3, ILC Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, with Commentaries, [2001] 2 Y.B Int‟l L Comm‟n 392, [Hereinafter I.L.C. Draft Articles on Transboundary harm]; Principle 21, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June, 16, 1972, 11I.L.M 1416; Art. 2, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, June 13, 1992, 31 I.L.M 849 [Hereinafter Rio declaration]; Art. X, Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers, 52 Int‟l L. Ass‟n 477, 484 (1966) [Hereinafter Helsinki Rules]; Art. 194, U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, (Hereinafter UNCLOS), Dec.10, 1982; 1833 U.N.T.S 3, 397; Principle 3, UNEP Principles on Conservation and Harmonious Utilisation of Natural Resources Shared By Two or More States, 17 I.L.M 1094 (1978); Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter (London), 11 I.L.M. (1972), 1294; Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S 217; Basel Convention on the control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, Mar.22, 1989, 1673 U.N.T.S 126; G.A. Res. 1974/3281 (XXIX); G.A. Res. 34/186 (1979).
22 Trail Smelter, su pr a note 19; Lac Lanoux s u pr a note 20; H a n d el s k w e k e r ij G . J . B i e r B .V. v. Mines d e P o tas s e d ' A l s a c e S . A . , 1976 E.C.R. 1735 (Neth.); C ase C o n c ern i n g t h e B a r c e l o n a T r a c ti o n , L i g h t a n d P o w er C o m p a n y L i m ite d , (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 3, 6 (Feb. 5); L e g ali t y o f t h e T h r e a t o r Use o f N u cl e ar W e apo n s , Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J 226 (8th July); Gab čĭ k o v o - Na g y m a ro s P r o j e c t c a s e , (Hung. v. Slovk.) 1997 I.C.J 7 (Sept.25).
23 Prue Taylor, An Ec o l o g ical A ppro a c h to I n te r n a ti o n al L a w : R e s po n d i n g to C h all e n g es o f C l i m ate Ch a n g e, 70 (Routledge, 1998); Daniel Bodansky, C u s t o m a r y ( a n d N o t So C u s t o m a r y ) I n t e r n ati o n al E nv ir on m e n tal L a w , 3
6
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
clear that under customary international law, Repelmuto is under a strict obligation to prevent
transboundary harm.
B.1. Rep elmu to h as Fail ed to ob serve ‘d u e d il igence’
It is the primary duty of the states to try to prevent harmful activities within their States and
as far as the obligation to prevent is concerned there is no doubt that it is conditioned by due
diligence. It is well established that the obligation of a State to prevent transboundary harm is
one of „due diligence‟, or „best effort‟ obligation; which requires all States to have taken
all reasonable or necessary measures to prevent a given event from occurring.24 Due
diligence is the standard basis for environmental protection and is also expounded in
the widely supported ILC Draft Articles.25 In fact, the obligation to observe due diligence
in preventing
pollution is absolute, and for the breach, the states are liable irrespective of any fault.26
Albacares also seeks to submit that, the necessary causal connection is satisfied when the
damage is a foreseeable or a normal consequence of the act or omission in question27 and
hence in the instant case, the damage is a direct and proximate result of the transboundary
impact, fully satisfying the requirement of causation owing to the dead batteries, inability to
operate the blowout preventer, lack of acoustic triggers and imprudent ChemEX-5000
Ind. J. Global L. Stud. 105, 110 (1995); Kenneth F. McCallion, I n te r n ati o n a l E nv ir on m e n tal J us t ice: R i gh t s a n d R e m e d i e s , 26 Hastings Int‟l. & Comp. L. Rev. 427, 429 - 431 (2003).
24 Trail Smelter, s u pr a note 19.
25 I.L.C Draft Articles on Transboundary Harm, s u pr a note 21 at 392.
26 Shaw, s u pr a note 19 at 762.
27 Li ght hou ses Arb itra tio n Case, (Fr. v. Gr.), I.L.R. 23 (1956).
7
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
administration.28 Hence, Repelmuto‟s omission or failure to act with due diligence has
actually facilitated the transboundary harm caused.
B.2. Pre cau tionary p rin cip le cann ot justif y the reck less attitud e of
Rep el mu to
The precautionary principle lays down that where there are threats of serious or irreversible
damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.29The precautionary principle has
been quite controversial because it advocates action despite the lack of scientific certainty as
taking action under such condition could be proven wrong. Moreover, this does not mean that
science ceases to be relevant in judging the existence of risk, or that states are required or
permitted to act on the basis of mere hypothesis or purely theoretical assessments of risk.30
On the contrary, recourse to the precautionary principle presupposes that potentially
dangerous effects deriving from a phenomenon, product or process have been identified, and
that the scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient
certainty.31 Hence it is humbly requested that the reckless attitude of Repelmuto in ChemEX-
5000 administration, in spite of constant warnings about its significant negative effects
should not be permitted to be justified on the ground of the precautionary principle.
28 Record ¶ 16.
29 U.N Convention on Biological Diversity, Preamble, June 5, 1992, 31 I.L.M. 818 [Hereinafter CBD]; Principle11, World Charter for Nature, , UNGA Res. 37/7, 37 U.N. GAOR, Suppl. (No. 51), at 17, U.N.Doc. A/37/51 (Oct. 28, 1982); principle 15, Rio Declaration su pr a note 21; Art. 10, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Jan. 29, 2000, 39 I.L.M 1027; See also David Freestone and Ellen Hey, T h e P r e c a u ti o n a r y P r i n c i p le a n d I n te r n a ti o n al L a w : T h e C h alle n g e o f I m p l e m e n tati o n , 10 (Kluwer Law Int‟l ,1st ed. 1996).
30
Id .
31 EC, Co mmu nica tio n o n t he P r ec autio nar y P r inci p le, COM(2000)1, at
pg.4.
8
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
B.3. Th at th e S tate of Rep elmu to h as violated it s convention al ob li gation s
The acts of Repelmuto in causing transboundary harm, not complying with the international
law requirements of notice and EIA, lack of adequate regulations and enforcement measures,
among others, have contravened the provisions of various Conventions to which they are
party.
B.3.1. That the non-ratification of the UNCLOS does not absolve
Repelmuto’s liability under the Convention
Signature constitutes the first step to participation in the convention and it would express and
proclaim the eventual attitude of the signatory state.32 Thus, upon signature of a treaty by a
State, the international community is entitled to rely on a bona fide belief or expectation that
the provisions of the same will be complied through ratification.
It has also been reiterated in the Vienna Convention that, where a treaty is subject to
ratification, acceptance, or approval, signatory states are under an obligation of good faith to
refrain from acts calculated to defeat the object of the treaty until they have made their
intention clear of not becoming parties.33 Therefore, a state is bound by good faith not to
persist in a posture fundamentally at variance with the treaty until it has definitely disavowed
its intention to proceed to the ratification of the treaty that it has signed.34 Even in the
32 ICJ‟s Advisory opinion rendered on „R ese r v ati on s to t h e C on v e n t i o n s o n t h e P ro tecti o n a n d P u n i sh m e n t
o f t h e c r i m e o f Ge n o ci d e o n 2 8 th M a y 195 1 ‟, ICJ Reports 1951 Pg. 15., „without going into the question of legal effect of signing an international convention, which necessarily varies in individual cases, the Court considers that signature constitutes the first step to participation in this convention.‟
33 Art. 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, U.N. Jurid Y.B. 153.
34 Starke, I nter nat io nal La w, 416 (Oxford University Press, 6 ed., 1996).
9
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
alternative, the provisions of the Convention are generally held to reflect customary
international law.35
B.3.1.1 Repelmuto canno t assert it s right s under the UNCL OS unless it
also acknowl edges it s obligat ions t hereunder
All rights of an international character involve international responsibility.36 Hence, since the
State of Repelmuto has asserted its rights to claim a maritime zone and the right to exploit
and explore natural resources therein, which is essentially a right circumscribed by the
provisions UNCLOS37, it cannot claim to be absolved of the obligations established under the
same.38 Further, though the concept of the EEZ may be deemed to have become part of
customary international law, in view of its almost universal acceptance, the details of rights
and obligations in it can only be invoked within the 1982 Convention.39
Also the acts of committed and authorised by Repelmuto are in palpable contravention of the
provisions of the UNCLOS,40 as it casts an obligation erga omnes upon the States to protect
and preserve the marine environment by employing „best practicable means at their disposal
35 M ar it i m e Del i m ita t i o n a n d T e rr it or ial Q u est i o n B e t w e e n Qat a r a n d B e h r ain (Qatar v. Bahrain), ICJ Reports2001, at 103, para 213; C o n t i n e n t a l Sea S h e l f c a s e (Tunisia v. Libya), ICJ Rep 1982, at 61, para 75; L a n d a n d M ar it i m e Bou n d a r y B e t w e e n C a m e roo n a n d N i g e r i a , (Cameroon v. Nigeria), ICJ Rep 2002, at 442, para 291; N or th Sea C on ti n e n tal S h e l f C as e , (Federal Republic of Ger v. Neth) ICJ Rep 1969, at 49, para 91.
36 Judge Huber, S p a n i s h Z o n e o f M o ro c c o C la i m s , Translation; French text, RIAA ii. 615 at 641
37 See Part V, Arts 55-75 UNCLOS su pr a note 21.
38 Indeed when the US intention not to sign the Convention became known, the President of UNCLOS III, Tommy Koh, insisted that the Convention was an integral package and that “it is not possible for a State to pick what it likes and to disregard what it does not like.”; James K Sebenius, Ne g o tiat i n g t h e l a w o f t h e Sea (Cambridge:Harvard University Press. 1984), 93, quoted in Charlotte Ku and Paul F. Diehl (eds),
I n te r n a ti o n a l L a w : C la s s ic a n d C o n t e m por a r y R e ad i n g s , (Viva Books Private Ltd., 2nd ed., 2004).
39 Peter Bautista Payoyo (ed), Oc e an G o v e r n a n c e : S u s tai n a b le De v el o p m e n t o f Sea s , (United Nations University
Press, 1994).
40 Arts., 192, 193, 194 of the UNCLOS s upr a note 21.
10
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
in accordance with their capabilities‟. Repelmuto was negligent in maintaining the safety
requirements that they had.
B.3.2. The Republic of Repelmuto has violated the provisions of CBD
Repelmuto has blatantly disregarded the recognised principles of sustainable development
and general principles of international law as embodied under the CBD as it makes it
obligatory for the contracting parties to identify and monitor those categories of activities
which have or is likely to have „significant adverse impact‟ on the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity.41
B.3.3. The Republic of Repelmuto has violated the provisions of
MARPOL as it applies to offshore oil platforms
The contention of Repelmuto that MARPOL42 is not applicable to oil platforms is baseless.
Article 2(4) of MARPOL defines ship, "ship" means a vessel of any type whatsoever
operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushion vehicles,
submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms'”. It defines „discharge‟ as, “any
release howsoever caused from a ship and includes any escape, disposal, spilling, leaking,
pumping, emitting and emptying”.43The mere perusal of the definition of “ship” appended to
MARPOL would indicate the fact that oil platforms like Blue Ocean, established by Fahy oil
Corporation as in the instant case would nevertheless form a part of definition “ship”.
Moreover, Blue Ocean exploded and sank on 2nd February 2009,44 resulting in massive oil
41 Art. 7(c), Art.10 of the CBD, su pr a note 29.
42 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of1978 relating thereto (MARPOL).
43 Article 2(3) (a) of MARPOL, S u pr a note 42.
44 Annexure A¶16.
11
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
„spill‟ in the Gulf of Sedna. As Blue Ocean is a „ship‟ and whose activity has resulted in
„discharge‟ within the meaning of MARPOL, it is subject to its applicability.
In addition applicability of MARPOL, to oil platform in the context of oil pollution can be
traced to Regulation 21 of Annexure I45 specifically deals with drilling rigs and other
platforms. It provides that fixed and floating rigs, when engaged in exploration, exploitation,
and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral resources, must comply with the
requirements of Annexure I applicable to ships of 400 tonnes gross tonnage and above other
oil tankers. Consequently, in accordance with Regulation 9, which deals with the control of
discharge of oil, offshore platforms are prohibited from any discharge for oil or oily mixtures
into the sea except when the oil content of the discharge without dilution does not exceed 15
parts per million.46 The exceptions to this requirement are provided in Regulation 11, and
include possible discharges of oil, oily mixture or of substances containing oil in the
following cases: (a) when it is necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of an offshore
installations or saving life at sea. (b) Damage to a ship or its equipment, provided that all
reasonable measures have been taken to prevent or minimize the discharge. No such
exceptions exists in the instant case, hence Blue Ocean cannot take protection under them.
It is imperative to note that the application of MARPOL to oil platform is limited by Article
2(3) (b) which states that the definition of „discharge‟ under MARPOL does not include “(i)
dumping within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter; or (ii) release of harmful substances directly arising
from exploration, exploitation and associated offshore processing of seabed mineral
45 Annexure I, Reg.21, MARPOL 73/78,“special requirements for drilling rigs and other platforms”.
46 See Zhiguo Gao, 'International Petroleum Exploration and Exploitation Agreements: a ComprehensiveEnviron me nta l Appr aisal ', 240 (1994) 12 Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 240-53.
12
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
resources.” The application of MARPOL is thus confined to non-operational discharges, i.e.
those not associated with the exploration, exploitation, and associated offshore processing of
seabed minerals.47 In the instant case, as provided in the Annexure A,48 Blue Ocean has
exploded and sank, and that has consequentially resulted in an oil spill. Such an oil spill was
due to the explosion followed by the subsequent sinking of Blue Ocean, and not due to any
such activity mentioned in Article 2 (3)(b). Hence the so called exception provided under the
above mentioned provision of MARPOL, is not applicable to Blue Ocean. Thus it is humbly
submitted that The Government of the Republic of Repelmuto cannot argue that MARPOL is
inapplicable to oil platforms.
II. REPUBL IC O F RE PELMUTO IS LIABLE FOR REPAR ATIO N TO
ALB CARES FOR THE TRANSB OUNDARY HARM CAUSE D
It has now been firmly established by State practice and treaty provisions that, where the
transboundary harm in question is of serious and substantial consequences49 to the
environment, and has resulted in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human
health, harm living resources and ecosystems, and material property, and impair or interfere
with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment,50 the polluting state is
responsible for the damage caused, and is liable to make reparations to the injured state.
47 T h e c a s e o f s o u th p a c i f ic r e g i o n al pro t o c o l , Chester Brown, (1998) 17 AMPLJ 109.
48 Ib i d .
49 Helsinki Rules s u pr a note 21, Art. XI, Rules on Water Pollution in an International Drainage Basin, 60 I.L.A158 (1983).
50 Art. 1 (2) ,31, Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and InternationalLakes, ILM 1312 (1992); Art.1, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Nov. 13, 1979, ,1302U.N.T.S 217; Also see Art 1 (4), UNCLOS s u pr a note 21; Art. 1(2), Vienna Convention for the Protection of theOzone Layer, 22 Mar. 1985, , 26 I.L.M. 1529 (1987); Art. 1(1), Climate Change Convention, 9 May 1992, 31I.L.M. 849; Art 1(15), Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resources, 2 June 1988, 27 I.L.M.
13
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
A. FEDERAL S T ATE S OF ALB ACARE S IS ENTIT LED TO
COMPENSATION O WING TO T HE DAMAGE CAUSE D
Where the responsibility of the state is established, an obligation arises first to discontinue the
wrongful conduct, second to offer guarantees of non repetition, and the third to make full
reparation for the injury caused.51 Draft Article52 on State Responsibility defines full
reparation as „restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination.”
And restitution as „to re-establish the situation which existed before the wrongful act was
committed‟, that is, to establish the status quo ante. The United Nation Compensation
Commission also in a claim relating to environmental damage stated that „primary emphasis
must be placed on restoring the environment to pre invasion conditions, in terms of its overall
ecological functioning, rather than on removal of specific contaminants or restoration of the
environment to a particular physical condition.‟53
The basic principle that a State should ensure payment of prompt and adequate compensation
for hazardous activities could be traced back as early as the Trail Smelter Arbitration case.
Since then numerous treaties, some important decisions, and extensive national law and
practice which have evolved giving considerable weight to claims for compensation in
859; Art. 2 (7) (c), Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Resulting from ActivitiesDangerous to the Environment, 32 ILM 1228 (1993).
51 Arts. 30-31, 35-37, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, s u pr a note 1; Patricia Birnie, Alan Boyle, Catherine Redgewell, I n te r n a t i o n al L a w a n d t h e E n v ir on m e n t, 226 (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2009).
52 Article 34, I.L.C. Draft Articles on State Responsibility su p r a note 1.
53 UNCC F4 Claims 3rd Decision (2003) paras 47-8.; Also see In the case of Iraq‟s unlawful invasion of Kuwait,UNSC Res 687(1991) and UNCC Res 687(1991).UNCC Gov Council, Decision 7, Revised 16 March 1992, para 35.
14
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
respect of trans-frontier pollution and damage. Some commentators even regard this as a
customary law obligation.54
Additionally, in any case of delay in the payment of the compensation, the injured State is
entitled to interest.55 It has also been concurrently surfaced that an international court or
tribunal which has jurisdiction with respect to a claim of State responsibility has, as an aspect
of that jurisdiction, the power to award compensation for damage suffered.56
Hence it is most respectfully submitted owing to the grave and substantial damage caused to
Albacares due to the lack of reasonable diligence and arbitrary actions of Repelmuto and in
compliance with the polluter pays principle,57 Albacares is entitled to the right to claim
compensation and Repelmuto cannot in any case evade the responsibility for the
environmental damage caused.
B. THAT THE STATEMENTS BY THE PRES IDENT AND FOREIGN
MINIS TER AMOUNTS TO ES TOPPEL BY REPRES ENTATION
The underpinning of estoppel in international law is that a state must not be permitted to
benefit by its own inconsistency to the prejudice of another State.58 Such a demand may be
54 Requirement for compensation is also affirmatively held in Chrozow Factory case 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p. 47 and Gab čí k o v o - Na g ym a ro s P ro j e c t c a s e , su pr a note 22.at p. 45.
55 Article 38, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, su p r a note 1, Illinois Central Railroad case, UNRIAA, vol. IV, p. 134 (1926); the Lucas case (1966) I.L.R., vol. 30, p. 220; see also Administrative Decision No. III of the United States-German Mixed Claims Commission, UNRIAA, vol. VII, pp. 66 (1923).
56 Fact or y at C h or z ó w , (Ger v. Pol), Jurisdiction, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 21; Fi sh e r ies J u r i s d icti o n ,(F. R.G v. Iceland), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 175, at pp. 203-205, paras. 71-76; Milita r y a n d P a r a m il i ta r y A ct i v i t ies i n a n d a g a i n s t Nica r a gu a (Nicaragua v. United States), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14, at p. 142.
57 Principle 16 of Rio declaration s u pr a note 21.
58 T h e T e m p le o f P r e a h V i h ar (Cambodia v. Thail.), 1962 I.C.J. 6, at 39-51; The International Court of Justice also examined estoppel in some detail in the Barcelona Traction Light and Power case, B a r c e l o n a T r a c ti o n , L i g h t & P o w er C o . (Belg. v. Spain), 1964 I.C.J. 6, and the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, N or th Sea C o n t i n e n tal S h e l f (F.R.G. v. Den., F.R.G. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3.
15
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
rooted in the continuing need for at least a modicum of stability and for some measure of
predictability in the pattern of State conduct59 and is often grounded on considerations of
good faith.60
An undertaking of this kind, if given publicly, and with intent to be bound, even though not
made within the context of international negotiations, is binding.61 Thus Kempii is stopped
from denying the assured compensation to Albacares. Nevertheless, the party invoking
estoppel must show that the opponent induced the invoking party to act or to refrain from
acting62 and also that that it has suffered some injury or damage in its reliance upon the
representations. It is submitted that both these elements are satisfied in the instant case.
Furthermore, the form of such declaration is not relevant.63 Whether a statement is made
orally or in writing makes no essential difference, for if such statements made in particular
circumstances may create commitments in international law, it does not require that they
should be couched in written form.64 The Hon‟ble Court may also consider that in spite of
59I.C. MacGibbon, Estoppel in International Law, 7 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 468 (1958), at 468.
60
Ib i d .
61 N u cle a r T ests C a s e (Australia & New Zealand V. France), 1974 I.C.J. 253, 457, I n t h e L e g al S tat u s o f Easte r n G r e e n la n d , L e g al Sta t u s o f E a s te r n G r e e n l a n d (Den. v. Nor.), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 53, at 22 (Apr. 5), for example, the P.C.I.J. accepted a claim of Denmark that was nominally based upon estoppel by representation. The court did find that Norway was bound by her prior acts and by the assurances given by her foreign minister. Here the Court considered it beyond all dispute that a reply of this nature given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Government in response to a request by the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power, in regard to a question falling within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister belongs.
62 B a r c e l o n a T r a c ti o n , Li g h t & P o w er C o . (Belg. v. Spain), 1970 I.C.J. 4 (Feb. 5), at 17.
63 T e m p le o f P r e a h Vi h e a r c a s e su pr a note 57, N u cle a r T ests C as e , s u pr a note 61.
64 Principle 5, ILC, Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of States capable of creating
legal obligations 2006 (A/61/10).
16
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P L E A D I N G S
having ample opportunity to retract; Repelmuto deepened its legal commitments by further
statements.65
There is also no case of succession here as in the case of succession of Governments, it is
well established that the new regime takes the place of the former regime in all matters
affecting the international rights and obligations of the State. Therefore this also estopp‟s
Repelmuto from evading its responsibility by conceding damage as the result of the previous
Government‟s lack of oversight.
65 Record ¶ 26.
17
M E M O R A N D U M F O R T H E A P P L I C A N T
P R A Y E R
P R A Y E
R
For the foregoing reasons the Applicant respectfully requests that this Hon‟ble Court:
(A) Declare that the Republic of Repelmuto has failed to properly regulate the activities
within its jurisdiction.
(B) Declare that widespread unwise and imprudent widespread use of chemical dispersants
in response to the oil spill is not in consistent with Principle 15 of Rio Declaration.
(C) To pass an order that the Republic of Repelmuto is liable for reparation to Federal
States of Albacares for the transboundary harm caused.
Place: The Hague S/d
Date: (Agents for the Applicant)
18
Recommended