Date

Olmizab Event

2006

The Grand Nationalist Party won Olmizabs national elections.

2007

In an attempt to ensure employment of the people of Olmizab,

Olmizab's government enacted a law banning foreign workers
from working in the country.

Wacopia Event

Wacopian hikers accidentally discovered the gold deposits in

the hills of the Delembe Coast in the southern part of the
country, near its boundary with Olmizab.

2011

Olmizab sent a diplomatic note to the Wacopia reflecting its

worry on the effect of increased mercury content on the
August 1, 2013 Yakhouba Sea, asking assurance that the fishing industry of
Olmizab will not be compromised and urging the Wacopia to
impose stricter measures on the small-scale mines in the area.

Wacopia sent a diplomatic note in response, acknowledging

receipt of the diplomatic note dated 1 August 2014 and stating
that it is committed to implementing its mining regulations to
ensure that the activities are being carried out with no serious
effect to the environment and that the WBM periodically
conducts monitoring activities of mercury levels in the waters
along the Delembe Coast, and it has so far found that the
changes are negligible and that there is no cause for alarm.

August 3, 2013

October 16,
2014

Olmizab sent another diplomatic note to Wacopia stating that it

has noted inaction on the part of Wacopia to address the
worrisome mercury levels in the fish of the Yakhouba Sea and
urging the latter to find means to better manage mercury waste
disposal of the small-scale mines on the Delembe Coast.
Olmizab also mentioned Wacopia's obligations under Article 4
(2) of the Basel Convention, Article 7 (2) of Minamata
Convention and Article 192 and 194 (2) of UNCLOS.

October 21,
2014

The ODFO conducted another monitoring on the mercury levels

in the fish of the Yakhouba Sea and found that the mercury
levels of some of the fish increased by ten times the mean
January 2, 2015
levels for their species- fish species with a mean mercury level
of 0.25 ppm had levels as high as 2.5ppm, or five times the
maximum amount considered safe for consumption.

Wacopia, in response, pointed out that small-scale mining is

not the only known source of mercury in the environment; it
may also come from waste from industrial plants and coal-fired
power plants, both of which the developed nation of Olmizab
has in abundance. Wacopia also stated that it has substantially
complied with the Basel Convention requirements when it
enacted laws to mitigate waste mercury from being released to
the environment. Wacopia further asserted that it has not yet
ratified the Minamata Convention, and even so, the Minamata
Convention has not yet been put into force since there are less
than 50 states which have ratified it. It further defended its
stand by stating that it could not risk their own ecotourism
industry and that small-scale mining has become an important
source of livelihood for the people of Wacopia not by design,
but because of Olmizabs decision to ban foreign workers from
its country, hence, previously unemployed labourers cannot be
faulted if they resort to whatever means needed to feed
themselves and their families.

Wacopia sent a diplomatic note to Olmizab regarding the

latters plans to conduct ocean urea fertilization expressing
concern about the potential effects of Olmizabs ocean
fertilization project on the finless porpoises and other
cetaceans in the Yakhouba Sea and urges Olmizab to act in
accordance with the precautionary principle and conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prior to undertaking
this potentially dangerous project, as it is an activity under
Article 14 of the CBD and that if it continues with the project, it
would be in violation of Article 3.1, Article 3.3, Article 4,
Resolution LC-LP.1(2008), Resolution LC-LP.2(2010),
Resolution LP.4(8), and other provisions of the London
Protocol. It also asserted that Olmizab has not quantified
commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, and this project appears
to be a ploy to reach that target under the cost of great
environmental harm and further recommending that Olmizab
reconsider its plans.

January 7, 2015

January 11,
2015

March 6, 2015
April 6, 2015

Olmizab responded with another diplomatic note averring that

under the doctrine of necessity, it has the right to conduct all
legal means to ensure that its (fishing) industry would be
protected from harm which started because of Wacopias
negligence. Wacopia is precluded from raising an objection
because of the Unclean Hands Doctrine. As far as conducting
this project for reason of generating potential carbon offsets,
Olmizab pointed out that it has the best interests of the
environment in mind, and it has no qualms conducting projects
which can mitigate global climate change.

Olmizab legislature passed a law approving and fully funding

the planned bioremediation and sea fertilization project.
Bioremediation and sea fertilization project commenced.

August 28, 2015

Twelve dead finless porpoises were found off the coast of

Olmizab.

Researchers from Wacopia conducted necropsies, but were

able to conduct an analysis on only two porpoises. The first
porpoise had a mercury level of 32.6 ppm, while the second
porpoise had a mercury level of 8.5 ppm.

Olmizab sent a diplomatic note to the Wacopia condemning the

continued negligence and lack of political will of Wacopia in
controlling the dumping of mercury waste by its small-scale
mines to the Yakhouba Sea. Wacopia has failed to abide by its
treaty obligations under the Basel Convention, Minamata
September 8, Convention, and UNCLOS. "It is clear that mercury poisoning
2015
was the cause of the death of the finless porpoises- mercury
poisoning brought to the previously pristine Yakhouba Sea by
the reckless indifference of Wacopias small-scale mines. If this
continues unabated, all marine life in the Yakhouba Seacetaceans, fishes and other creatures- face a dark and gloomy
future."

September 15,
2015

Wacopia responded with a diplomatic note maintaining that it

takes its international legal obligations very seriously. We have
not breached any obligation imposed by Basel, Minamata or
UNCLOS and that it rejects the notion that the mercury
poisoning from our small-scall mines caused the death of the
porpoises; that large sea mammals such as porpoises tend to
accumulate more heavy metals such as mercury and thus have
higher levels on their body and porpoises are migratory
species, thus, the mercury may have come from other parts of
the ocean, maybe even Olmizab and that the ocean urea
fertilization project could have caused such consequences.

Effect

This caused unemployment to rise in Wacopia, and its poverty

index worsened.

Word quickly spread, and a gold rush ensued in the area,

fuelled by poor, hungry and desperate Wacopian labourers
looking for a chance to strike it rich. The coastline all of a
sudden became littered with smallscale mines.

ODFO and other relevant departments of the Olmizab

government proposed an ocean urea fertilization project that
would stimulate the growth of phytoplankton blooms in the
Yakhouba Sea for bioremediation, which would mitigate the
impact of the increased mercury content in the sea. Also, the
project was also seen as a possible means for Olmizab to
generate potential carbon offsets that it might use to meet
emission reduction targets following its inability to match its
Kyoto Protocol commitment, and also to stimulate fish
production. After a short deliberation, Olmizab announced its
intention to carry out the project.

Law/Treaty

Provision/s

U.N. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)

Effect on Olmizab

BINDING on both States since they are members of the

ARTICLE 1: Responsibility of a State for its internationally wrongful acts

States are accountable for a breach of there interna

Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.

There must be the existence of an international oblig

accountable for such act/omission.

ARTICLE 2: Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State

There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:
(a) is attributable to the State under international law; and
(b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
ARTICLE 12: Existence of a breach of an international obligation
There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in
conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.

Article 13: International obligation in force for a State

An act of a State does not constitute a breach of an international obligation unless the State is bound
by the obligation in question at the time the act occurs.

ARTICLE 14: Extension in time of the breach of an international obligation

1. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State not having a continuing character
occurs at the moment when the act is performed, even if its effects continue.
2. The breach of an international obligation by an act of a State having a continuing character extends
over the entire period during which the act continues and remains not in conformity with the
international obligation.
3. The breach of an international obligation requiring a State to prevent a given event occurs when the
event occurs and extends over the entire period during which the event continues and remains not in
conformity with that obligation.

ARTICLE 15: Breach consisting of a composite act

1. The breach of an international obligation by a State through a series of actions or omissions
defined in aggregate as wrongful occurs when the action or omission occurs which, taken with the
other actions or omissions, is sufficient to constitute the wrongful act.
2. In such a case, the breach extends over the entire period starting with the first of the actions or
omissions of the series and lasts for as long as these actions or omissions are repeated and remain
not in conformity with the international obligation.

CIRCUMSTANCES PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS

ARTICLE 22: Countermeasures in respect of an internationally wrongful act
The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation towards
another State is precluded if and to the extent that the act constitutes a countermeasure taken against
the latter State in accordance with chapter II of part three.

ARTICLE 23: Force majeure

1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State
is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an
unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the
circumstances to perform the obligation.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the situation of force majeure is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the
conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) the State has assumed the risk of that situation occurring.

ARTICLE 24: Distress

1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State
is precluded if the author of the act in question has no other reasonable way, in a situation of distress,
of saving the authors life or the lives of other persons entrusted to the authors care.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the situation of distress is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of
the State invoking it; or
(b) the act in question is likely to create a comparable or greater peril.

ARTICLE 25: Necessity

1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not
in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:
(a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril;
and
(b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation
exists, or of the international community as a whole.
2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:
(a) the international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or
(b) the State has contributed to the situation of necessity.

ARTICLE 26: Compliance with peremptory norms

Nothing in this chapter precludes the wrongfulness of any act of a State which is not in conformity with
an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.

ARTICLE 27: Consequences of invoking a circumstance precluding wrongfulness

The invocation of a circumstance precluding wrongfulness in accordance with this chapter is without
prejudice to:
(a) compliance with the obligation in question, if and to the extent that the circumstance precluding
wrongfulness no longer exists;
(b) the question of compensation for any material loss caused by the act in question.

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)

PRINCIPLE 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the
use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle,
bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international
trade and investment.
Statute of the International Court of Justice
ARTICLE 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are
submitted to it, shall apply:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by
the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the
parties agree thereto.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (27 January 1980)

Article 11. MEANS OF EXPRESSING CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY
The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of
instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other
means if so agreed.

Article 12. CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY EXPRESSED BY SIGNATURE

1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative
when:
(a) The treaty provides that signature shall have that effect;
(b) It is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that
effect; or
(c) The intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its
representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1 :
(a) The initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the
negotiating States so agreed;
(b) The signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes
a full signature of the treaty.

Article 13. CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY EXPRESSED BY AN EXCHANGE OF

INSTRUMENTS CONSTITUTING A TREATY
The consent of States to be bound by a treaty constituted by instruments exchanged between them is
expressed by that exchange when:
(a) The instruments provide that their exchange shall have that effect; or
(b) It is otherwise established that those States were agreed that the exchange of instruments shall
have that effect.

Article 14. CONSENT TO BE BOUND BY A TREATY EXPRESSED BY RATIFICATION,

ACCEPTANCE OR APPROVAL
1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when:
(a) The treaty provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification;
(b) It is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that ratifica tion should be
required;
(c) The representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification; or
(d) The intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its
representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
2. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by acceptance or approval under
conditions similar to those which apply to ratification.

Article 18. OBLIGATION NOT TO DEFEAT THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF A TREATY PRIOR TO
ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE
A State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
(a) It has signed the treaty or has exchanged instruments constituting the treaty subject to ratification,
acceptance or approval, until it shall have made its in tention clear not to become a party to the treaty;
or
(b) It has expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty, pending the entry into force of the treaty
and provided that such entry into force is not unduly delayed.

Effect on Wacopia

members of the U.N.

there international obligations.

ernational obligation of the state for it to be held

Violation of Minamata Convention

Violation of Basel Convention
Violation of UNCLOS

 Being a signatory is the formal expression

of intent to be bound and become a party.
The signature does not bear any legal
obligation as such, however, a State is
obliged to refrain from acts which would
defeat the object and purpose of a treaty
once it has signed, even if it has not yet
entered into force.
Objective of the Minamata Convention on
Mercury is to protect the human health and
the environment from anthropogenic
emissions and releases of mercury and
mercury compounds.