Upload
samanthatirthdas2758
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Respondent 1 Speech
1/4
RESPONDENT 1 SPEECH
Good day your Excellencies. I am Samantha Tirthdas, agent for the respondent the Republic of
Redox. We come before this honorable court today with two submissions.
Foremost, that Redox has NOT violated international law on transboundary harm.
And Secondly, that the proposed controlled burn is within the sovereign right of Redox to
utilize its own resources.
I will be discussing the first submission for 16 minutes and my co-agent Railla Puno will be
discussing the second submission for 14 minutes.
If the court no longer has any preliminary observations, I shall proceed, may it please the court.
In support of our first submission,
I would like to discuss my first main argument, that
Redox is NOT bound by the HRA and has on good faith NOT defeated the object and
purpose of the HRA.
Simple signature, absent the ratification of Redox is NOT consent to be bound by the HRA.
None of the situations under Article 12 of the Vienna Convention Law of Treaties in which
signature is tantamount to consent to be bound to a treaty is present in the case at bar. The HRA
does not expressly provide that mere signature binds a state as a party, NOR can it be established
that the negotiating states in the Heinz region agreed to give mere signature such binding effect.
There is likewise no showing that Redox expressed during negotiations any intent to be bound by
mere signature.
Thus the obligation of Redox as a signatory to the HRA is limited to an obligation NOT to defeat
the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force as stated in Article 18 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Redox has in good faith complied with its obligation NOT to defeat the object and purpose of the
HRA. What distinguishes a signatory from a party to a treaty is precisely the extent of its legal
obligations a party to a treaty is legally bound to comply with the treatys obligations andprovisions while a signatory is NOT legally bound by a treaties specific provisions. The
obligation imposed by Article 18 is NOT an affirmative duty to execute treaty provisions but
rather a passive duty to refrain from acts which would subsequently impair the carrying out of
the HRA.
7/28/2019 Respondent 1 Speech
2/4
As supported by the Official Records of the UN Convention on the Law of Treaties, the
threshold to be met in defeating the object and purpose of a treaty is when acts make the
subsequent performance of treaty rendered meaningless or inoperative. None of the acts imputed
to Redox have impaired the carrying out of the HRA provisions by the treaty parties. As
supported by paragraph 10 of the record, all the parties to the HRA have been able to rigorously
enforce and comply with the provisions of the HRA. Similarly should Redox subsequently ratify
the HRA, none of the acts imputed to it will prevent Redox from subsequently performing the
treaty obligations of the HRA thus it does NOT render the HRA meaningless or inoperative.
The assertion of Abelii that the obligation imposed by Article 18 requires Redox to take
affirmative action in the prevention of transboundary haze would render ratification superfluous
by completely dispensing with the need for ratification. The institution of ratification grants
states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level
and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty as most Federal
governments such as Redox require ratification as a check-and-balance mechanism to ensure that
its state representatives to treaty negotiations do NOT exceed the extent of their authority. Thus
it can be said that when a treaty such as the HRA requires ratification it recognizes that
ratification is of fundamental importance to the treaty making process.
Now moving on to my second main argument, that
The provisions of the HRA do NOT form regional customary norm and as such are not
binding upon Redox
This honorable court has been constant in ruling that a customary rule must contain both of the
two essential elements namely State Practice and Opinio Juris. This honorable court stated inparagraph 74 of the North Sea Continental Shelf Case that practice must be both extensive and
uniform in order to constitute state practice. The HRA does NOT specifically prescribe specific
and uniform measures and only obligates parties to develop their own legislative and
administrative measures to prevent and monitor transboundary haze.
Even if we were to consider the practices of the other states in Heinz Region as state practice, the
element of opinion juris is sorely lacking.
In establishing regional customary norms, the standard of proof is higher than in cases where
only a general rule is alleged. ALL the states within the region MUST have consented to the rule;
positive acceptance of all the parties to the rule is indispensible. Redox has never made such a
positive acceptance.
In the Asylum case between Columbia and Peru, Columbia was asserting that the 1911 Bolivian
agreement and the 1928 Havana Convention had formed a regional customary norm in Latin
America. There the court held that Columbia failed to prove that uniform usage was practiced by
7/28/2019 Respondent 1 Speech
3/4
states and that such usage is an expression of a duty incumbent on the states DISTINCT from
obligations to the treaty.
Similarly Abelii has likewise failed to show that the actions of the states in the Heinz region was
out of sense of duty DISTINCT from the treaty obligations of the HRA. As reflected in
paragraph 10 of the record, the states in the Heinz region on enacted the provisions of the HRAAFTER they ratified the HRA and the treaty entered into force. This clearly illustrates that the
states acted NOT because of a sense of obligation to a customary norm but rather they were
acting merely in compliance with their treaty obligations as state parties to the HRA.
Moving on to my third main argument, that
Redox did not violate the customary rule on the prevention of transboundary harm by
complying with the requisite standard of due diligence.
One of the conditions which must exist for damage to constitute significant transboundary harm
is the physical relationship between the imputed activity and the damage. The alleged damage to
GDP via tourism does not satisfy this condition. When the ILC embarked on the topic of
International Liability for Injurious Consequences Arising from Acts NOT prohibited by
international law, the ILC along with the approval of the General Assembly decided NOT to
include economic and financial activities specifically excluding activities which may cause
although may cause damage across a border are NOT of a physical character. Thus although a
reduction in GDP may be tangible, it is not physical in form and does NOT fall under the
obligation to prevent transboundary harm.
BUT even assuming arguendo that GDP loss may fall under the obligation to prevent
transboudary harm, Redox did NOT breach this obligation as it has complied with the requisites
standards of due diligence. As established by paragraph 101 of this courts decision in the Pulp
Mills Case, in compliance with the customary rule of prevention of transboundary harm, the
standard of care required is that of due diligence. In order to meet this standard, Redox must
have done what another similarly situated government would do in that situation. Due diligence
leaves room for states to determine which measures are necessary, appropriate, feasible, and
available within their capacities to achieve the given objective because the observation of this
obligation can differ from well-developed and developing states. As supported by paragraph 3 of
the record, Redox is a developing country with a population of approximately 20 million people,
as such it could not have been expected to have the resources to employ sophisticated andexpensive mechanisms to completely guarantee that harm would be completely prevented even if
we were to assume that the absolute prevention of harm is even possible. Redox had done
everything within its capacities to meet the standard of due diligence. As supported by the
Clarifications to the Record at Question 6, each province in Redox has had provincial laws
prohibiting ANY type of outdoor burning without a permit since the late 1980s. And as
supported by the record at paragraph 14, Redox has investigated, prosecuted, and penalized the
7/28/2019 Respondent 1 Speech
4/4
arsonists who caused the second fire. Moreover as supported by the record at paragraph 23, there
are mechanisms for the regulation of government-permitted controlled burns which require
Environmental Impact Assessments to assure that no transboundary haze will result from the
controlled burn.
In sum your excellencies, Redox has not violated international law on transboundary harmbecause Redox has complied with its obligation NOT to defeat the object & purpose of the HRA
and more importantly because Redox has complied with its obligation of prevention of
transbounadary harm by its exercise of the requisite due diligence required by international
customary law.
We therefore pray for this honorable court NOT to punish Redox for an imputed wrong that it
clearly did NOT commit.