585A

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE,
THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
THE 2014 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION
CASE CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MALACHI GAP
STATE OF AMALEA
(APPLICANT)
V.
REPUBLIC OF RITANIA
(RESPONDENT)
MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT
SUBMITTED TO – MISS ALISHA VERMA
SUBMITTED BY – L/80
DATED – 18/05/2018
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF AMALEA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - - - - IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - - XVII
QUESTIONS PRESENTED - - - - - - - - XVIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - - - XIX
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS - - - - - - - - XXIV
PLEADINGS - - - - - - - - - - 1
I. RITANIA’S ACTS AND OMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
EXCELSIOR ISLAND VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND AMALEA IS THEREFORE ENTITLED
TO SEEK COMPENSATION FROM RITANIA FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES CAUSED BY THE LANDSLIDE.
1
A. Ritania has breached international obligations - - - - 1
1. Ritania has violated obligations under the Malachi Gap Treaty - 1
2. Ritania has breached general principles of international law - - 4
a. Precautionary principle is violated - - - - - 5
b. Ritania has failed in its duty to cooperate - - - - 7
c. Ritania has failed to undertake holistic EIA - - - - 9
B. Amalea is entitled to seek compensation from Ritania for economic losses caused by
the landslide - - - - - - - - - 11
I
II. AMALEA HAS EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE WRECK OF THE CARGAST AND ALL
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM IT, AND RITANIA’S DEPLOYMENT OF PATROL VESSELS TO THE
SITE OF THE CARGAST VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. - - - - 14
A. Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all artifacts
recovered from it in terms of flag State jurisdiction - - - 14
B. Ritania’s deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast violated

international law - - - - - - - - 17
1. Deployment of patrol vessels is in violation of obligation under the Malachi Gap

Treaty - - - - - - - - - 17
2. Deployment of patrol vessels is contrary to the principles enunciated in the

UNCLOS - - - - - - - - - 18
III. AMALEAN NAVY’S PURSUIT OF OSCAR DE LUZ INTO RITANIA’S EEZ, AND HIS
SUBSEQUENT ARREST, WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. - 21
A. Amalean Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into the Ritanian EEZ was in compliance
with the requirements of the Right of Hot Pursuit under International Law 23
1. Icarus had good reason to believe that the foreign vessel, Daedalus, had violated
domestic laws or regulations - - - - - - 23
2. The hot pursuit commenced in Amalea’s contiguous zone - - 25

3. The hot pursuit commenced only after auditory signal to stop had been given at a
distance which enabled it to be seen or heard - - - - 25
4. Icarus is an Amalean Navy Fast Response Cutter which has the right to undertake
hot pursuit - - - - - - - - 27
B. The Amalean Navy’s arrest of Oscar De Luz was in compliance with international
law - - - - - - - - - - 28
II
IV. AMALEA HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY AND CONVICT OSCAR DE LUZ FOR CRIMINAL
ACTIONS RELATED TO ROSEHILL INCIDENT, AND HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RETURN HIM TO
RITANIA. - - - - - - - - - - 30
A. Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for piratical acts and has no
obligation to return him to Ritania - - - - - - 30
1. Daedalus can be termed as a pirate ship- - - - - 30
2. Piracy entails universal jurisdiction - - - - - 32
B. Passive Personality Principle and Effects Doctrine entail Amalea’s jurisdiction to try
and convict Luz - - - - - - - - 34
1. Passive Personality Principle confers jurisdiction upon Amalea - 34
2. Effects Doctrine entails Amalea’s jurisdiction - - - - 36
PRAYER FOR RELIEF - - - - - - - - -

38
III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TREATIES & Conventions
Bibliographical Information Page No.
2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage,

Nov. 2, 2001 available at
14, 15, 16
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-
heritage/2001-convention/official-text/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2014)
Geneva Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 11 (entered 21, 23, 27,
into force Sept. 30, 1962) 30-33
7, 15-19, 21-
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 23, 25-28,
30-33
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 3, 7, 21
United Nations Resolutions and Other Documents
Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea, Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n, 8 th Sess.,
Arp. 23-June 4, 1956, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/104; GAOR, 11th Sess., Supp. No. 9 22, 32
(A/3159) (1956)
Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N.
7
Doc. A/RES/29/3281 (Dec. 12, 1974)
IV
Co-operation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared

by two or more States, G.A. Res. 3129 (XXVIII), U.N. Doc. A/9402 (Dec. 13, 7, 8
1973)
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,

6
Stockholm, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1973)
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Rep.

of the Int’l Law Comm’n, 53rd Sess., Apr. 23-June 1, July 2-Aug. 10, 2001, U.N. 3, 4, 9, 11, 12
Doc. A/56/10; GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (2001)
U.N.G.A., 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Annex I,

5, 6
U.N.Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (June 13-14, 1992)
UNEP Draft Principles of Conduct on Shared Natural Resources, U.N. Doc.

7
A/34/557 and Corr.1 (1978)
International Cases and Arbitral Decisions
Acquisition of Polish nationality (Germany v. Poland), 1 R.I.A.A. 401 (July 10,

11
1924)
Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 7

10
(Sept. 15) (Observations of Lord Finlay)
Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway (Belgium v.

5
Netherlands), 27 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arbitral Awards 35 (May 24, 2005)
Armstrong Cork Company Case—Decision No. 18, 14 R.I.A.A. 159 (Italian- 4
V
U.S. Conciliation Commission, 1953)
Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3, 63 (Feb. 14) (joint separate
35
opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal)
Corfu Channel, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) 4, 6, 10
Dickson Car Wheel Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A. 669
4
(1931)
Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, Advisory Opinion, 1925 P.C.I.J.

10
(ser. B) No. 10 (Feb. 21)
Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July

4
26)
Factory at Chorzów(Claim for Indemnity), Judgment, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No.

4, 12
17 (Sept. 13)
Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 8) 7, 8
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Second Phase), 1930 P.C.I.J.
10
(ser. A) No. 24 (Dec. 6)
Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, Judgment, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser.
10
A/B) No. 46 (June 7)
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7

4, 5, 12
(Sept. 25)
Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”, Advisory Opinion, 1930 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No.

10
17 (July 31)
VI
International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A.

4
691 (1931)
Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase), Advisory Opinion, 1950 I.C.J.

4
221 (July 18)
Island of Palmas (U.S. v. The Netherlands), 2 R.I.A.A. 829 (Perm. Ct. Arb.,
6
1928)
Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No.
10
15 (Mar. 3)
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J.
5, 6
226 (July 8)
M/V Saiga (No. 2) (St. Vincent v. Guinea), Case No. 2, Judgment of July 1,
1999, available at
22, 23, 26
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_2/merits/Judgment
.01.07.99.E.pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2014)
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.

2, 4
Unites States of America), Merits, Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27)
MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdon), Case No. 10, Provisional Measures
Dec. 3, 2001, available at
11
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01
.E.pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2014)
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgment, 1969 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 20) 2, 8, 9
Peru (Italy v. Peru), 15 R.I.A.A. 389 (1901) 4
VII
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74 (June 14,
1, 4
1938)
Railway Traffic Between Lithuania and Poland, 1931 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 42
9
(Oct. 15)
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory
4
Opinion, 1949 I.C.J. 174 (Apr. 11)
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No.10 (Sept. 7) 22, 33, 37
S.S. Wimbledon, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1 (Aug. 17) 4, 10
Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
33
Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), 2008 I.C.J. 12 (May 23)
Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (Mar. 11, 1941) 6
Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in

10
the Danzig Territory, Advisory Opinion, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 44 (Feb. 4)
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), Judgment,
10
1980 I.C.J. 3 (May 24)
Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 4

11
(July 29, 1988)
MUNICIPAL CASES
VIII
Attorney-General v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 5 (1961) 36
Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571 (6th Cir. 1985) 35
Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3d 634 (4 th
16
Cir., July 21, 2000)
The Newton Bay case, 36 F.2d 729 (2nd Cir. 1929) 26
Tribunal of Sciacca, I Foro Italiano 1317 (Jan. 9, 1963) 14
U.S. v. Yunis (No. 2), 82 ILR 343 35
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) 36
United States v. F/V Taiyo Maru No. 28, 395 F.Supp. 413 (June 18, 1975) 26
United States v. Steinmtez, 763 F. Supp. 1293 (1991) 16
Treatises and Other Books
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE (2nd ed. 1912) 6
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE (Ronald F. Roxburgh ed., 3rd

29
ed. 2005)
1 OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds., 9th
17, 21, 24
ed. 1955)
IX
1 YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, Summary records, 8th

26
Sess., Apr. 23-July 4, 1956 (U.N. Publications 1956)
2 D. P. O'CONNELL, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA (OUP, 1982-1984) 22, 24
2 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA 1982: A

COMMENTARY (Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia ed., 22, 28
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013)
ANASTASIA STRATI, THE PROTECTION OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL

HERITAGE: AN EMERGING OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTEMPORARY LAW OF THE SEA 15
(Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1995)
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. 1990) 31
DONALD K. ANTON & DINAH L. SHELTON, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND

6
HUMAN RIGHTS (Cambridge University Press 2011)
DONALD ROBERT ROTHWELL & TIMOTHY DAVID STEPHENS, THE

19
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA (2010)
EARTH HABITAT: ECO-INJUSTICE AND THE CHURCH'S RESPONSE (Dieter T. Hessel

6
& Larry L. Rasmussen eds., Fortress Press 2001)
FRANCISCO O. VICUNA, THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, REGIME AND LEGAL

18
NATURE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW (1989).
GILLION DOREEN TRIGGS, INTERNATIONAL LAW: CONTEMPORARY PRINCIPLES

36
AND PRACTICES (2006)
X
IAN BROWNLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES (OUP
19, 22
1963)
ILIAS BANTEKAS & SUSAN NASH, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (3rd ed. 2007)
26
2001
M. S. MCDOUGAL & W. T. BURKE, PUBLIC ORDER OF THE OCEANS (1987) 23, 26
MALCOLM N. SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2008) 34, 35
22, 23, 24,

N. POULANTZAS, THE RIGHT OF HOT PURSUIT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1969)
26
NICHOLAS M. POULANTZAS, THE RIGHT OF HOT PURSUIT IN INTERNATIONAL

22, 24
LAW (2nd ed. 2002) 1969
PHILIPPE SANDS & JACQUELINE PEEL, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

6
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (3rd ed. 2012)
R. DUPUY & D. VIGNES, A HANDBOOK ON THE NEW LAW OF THE SEA (1991) 22
R. R. CHURCHILL & A. V. LOWE, THE LAW OF THE SEA (1983) 28
R.R. CHURCHILL & A.V. LOWE, THE LAW OF THE SEA (3rd ed. 1999) 22, 28
ROBIN GEISS AND ANNA PETRIG, PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AT SEA: THE
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTER-PIRACY OPERATIONS IN SOMALIA AND THE 32
GULF OF ADEN (OUP 2011)
RUTH MACKENZIE ET AL., AN EXPLANATORY GUIDE TO CARTAGENA PROTOCOL

6
ON BIOSAFETY (IUCN Environmental Law Centre 2003)
XI
STARKE’S INTERNATIONAL LAW (I. A. Shearer ed., 11th ed., OUP 1994) 33, 34, 37
THE HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF MILITARY OPERATIONS (Terry

28
D. Gill & Dieter Fleck eds., OUP 2010)
WILLIAM E. HALL, A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW (J.B. Atlay ed., 6th ed.
23
1909) 1880
Articles and Essays
Anne Bardin, Coastal State’s Jurisdiction Over Foreign Vessels, 14 PACE INT’L
29
L. REV. 27 (2002)
Craig H. Allen, The Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A Functional Interpretation

22, 23, 24,
Adaptable to Emerging Maritime Law Enforcement Technologies and Practices,
26
20 OCEAN DEV. & INT’L. L. 309 (1989)
Crockett, Toward a Revision of the International Law of Piracy, 26 DEPAUL L.

32
REV. 80 (1976)
Danielle Ireland-Piper, Prosecutions for Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and

34, 36
the Abuse of Rights Doctrine, 9(4) UTRECHT L. REV. 74 (Sept. 2013)
Fidell, Enforcement of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976:

24
The Policemen’s Lot, 52 WASH. L. REV. 513 (1977)
Gilmore, Hot Pursuit: The Case of R. v. Mills and Others, 44 INT’L & COMP. L.
26
Q. 949 (1995)
XII
K. C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law, 66 TEX. L. REV.

33
785 (1988)
Liu Lina, Ownership of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Area, 1 CREIGHTON

15
INT’L & COMP. L. J. 60 (2011)
M. Cherif Bassiouni, The History of Universal Jurisdiction and Its Place in

International Law, in UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: NATIONAL COURTS AND THE
36
PROSECUTION OF SERIOUS CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 39, 47 (Stephen
Macedo, ed., University of Pennsylvania 2006)
M. Lehto, Restrictions on Military Activities in the Baltic Sea – A Basis for a

18
Regional Regime?, 2 FINNISH YB INT’L. L. 38 (1991)
Maj. Gen. Peng Guangqian, People’s Liberation Army (Ret.), China’s Maritime
Rights and Interests, in MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN THE EEZ, A U.S.-CHINA
19
DIALOGUE ON SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MARITIME
COMMONS 15 (Peter Dutton ed., Dec. 2010)
R. O’Keefe, Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept, 2 J. INT’L

36
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 735 (2004)
Rachel Baird, Arrests in a Cold Climate (Part 2) - Shaping Hot Pursuit through
State Practice, 13 ANTARCTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEAN LAW AND POLICY 21, 26
OCCASSIONAL PAPERS 1 (2009), available at <eprints.usq.edu.au/5604/>
Randall Walker, International Law of the Sea: Applying the Doctrine of Hot
21, 26
Pursuit in the 21st Century, 17 AUCKLAND U. L. REV. 194 (2011)
Robert C. Reuland, The Customary Right of Hot Pursuit Onto the High Seas: 22, 24, 26-28
Annotations to Article 111 of the Law of the Sea Convention, 33 VA. J. INT’L. L.
XIII
557 (1993)
Romano Sadurska, Threats of force, 82 AM .J. INT’L. L. 239 (1988) 19
Tasikas, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and the Doctrine of Hot Pursuit, 29 TULANE
23, 26
MARITIME LAW JOURNAL 59 (2004)
Tullio Scovazzi, The Application of “Salvage and other Rules of Admiralty” to

the Underwater Cultural Heritage: Some Relevant Cases, in THE PROTECTION
OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE - BEFORE AND AFTER THE 2001 14, 16
UNESCO CONVENTION 19 (Roberta Garabello & Tullio Scovazzi eds., Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers 2003)
Miscellaneous
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence (last visited Dec.

31
18, 2013)
Helsinki Rules on the Uses of Waters of International Rivers, in Report of the

7
52nd Conf. of the International Law Association, Aug. 14-20, 1966, (1967)
International Maritime Organization [IMO], Circular letter concerning

information and guidance on elements of international law relating to piracy, 32
Circular letter No. 3180 (May 17, 2011)
Joe Baggett and Pete Pedrozo, briefing for Center for Naval Analysis Excessive 19
Chinese Maritime Claims Workshop, August 7, 2013, slide entitled “What are
other nations’ views?” (slide 30 of 47). The slide also notes that there have been
“isolated diplomatic protests from Pakistan, India, and Brazil over military
XIV
surveys” conducted in their EEZs
Montreal Resolution on Pollution of the Waters in an International Drainage

Basin, in Report of the 60th Conf. of the International Law Association, Aug. 7
1982 (1983)
Recommendation of the Council for the Implementation of a Regime of Equal

Right of Access and Non-Discrimination in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution, 7
OECD, C(78)28/FINAL (May 17, 1977)
Recommendation of the Council on Principles concerning Transfrontier

7
Pollution, OECD, C(74)224 (Nov. 14, 1974)
UNCLOS, Overview and full text available at

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_conv 18
ention.htm (last visited Jan. 3, 2014)
UNCLOS: Declarations and Statements, available at

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.ht 20
m (last visited Dec. 30, 2013)
XV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The State of Amalea (‘Amalea’) and the Republic of Ritania (‘Ritania’) have agreed to submit
this dispute ‘concerning certain activities within the Malachi Gap’ to the International Court of
Justice pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 1 of the Statute of this Court and by virtue of a Special
Agreement (Compromis) signed in The Hague, The Netherlands, on September 17, 2013 and
jointly notified to the Court on the same date. In accordance with Article 36, paragraph 1 of the
Statute, the Court has jurisdiction to decide all matters referred to it for decision. Both parties
shall accept the Court’s decision as final and binding and execute it in good faith.
XVI
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether Ritania’s acts and omissions with respect to the development of Excelsior Island
violated international law, and Amalea is therefore entitled to seek compensation from
Ritania for economic losses caused by the landslide.
II. Whether Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all artifacts
recovered from it, and Ritania’s deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast
violated international law.
III. Whether The Amalean Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into Ritania’s EEZ, and his
subsequent arrest, were in compliance with international law.
IV. Whether Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for criminal actions related to the
Rosehill incident, and has no obligation to return him to Ritania.
XVII
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Amalea is a developing, newly industrialized island state, and the Republic of Ritania is a
developed, industrialized peninsular state, which are separated by the Strait of Malachi.
The Strait of Malachi itself contains abundant fish and shellfish stocks. Fish accounts for roughly
40% of the protein content of the Amalean diet. Amalea’s fishing industry supplies the domestic
market and is also responsible for exports generating more than 5% of the country’s USD 45
billion GDP. The industry directly employs over 250,000 people. Amalea was among the first
nations in the world to develop and implement sustainable fishing practices. The Amalean
Ministry of Trade has reported that domestic and foreign sales of the fish generated some USD
160 million annually by the year 2000.
Between 1988 and 1992, Amalea and Ritania engaged in extensive negotiations about the
demarcation of their EEZ claims in the Strait of Malachi, resulting in a treaty dated 30 March
1992. The Malachi Gap Treaty allowed Amalea to protect vital fisheries resources within the
Strait of Malachi while allowing Ritania to develop subsea resources such as the Erebus gas
field.
DISPUTES WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT OF EXCELSIOR ISLAND
In 1988, a Ritanian exploration vessel discovered the Erebus gas field, a massive natural gas
deposit located in deep waters within the Strait of Malachi. In late 2006, plans contemplating the
construction of Excelsior Island were proposed by Excelsior Island Gas & Power Limited
(EIGP) for production of liquefied natural gas from Erebus Gas field.
XVIII
At the outset, the Amalean Foreign Minister had made clear that “such a large-scale project
cannot be undertaken except with the consent of both Amalea and Ritania, in accordance with the
letter and spirit of the Malachi Gap Treaty.” However, the Ritanian Ambassador refused the
above proposal under the ground of being situated in the uncontested EEZ.
As part of the Ritanian licensing process, EIGP was required to conduct an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) for the Excelsior Island project. The same is reviewed by Ritania’s Department
of Resource Management. EIGP submitted an EIA which did not address the potential impacts of
the dredging program on the waters of the Malachi Gap, or on fish species living there. Amalea
expressed particular concern regarding the fate of the Dorian wrasse, given the proximity of its
only known breeding ground to the proposed dredging in the Sirius Plateau.
Shortly after EIGP filed its EIA, the Amalean Environmental Protection Agency published a
report prepared by the International League for Sustainable Aquaculture (ILSA). It suggested
that because of the presence of gas hydrates at the foot of the Sirius Plateau, an underwater
landslide could threaten particularly grave damage. The Report was forwarded to the Ritanian
Ambassador who responded that neither she nor her superiors were authorized to interfere with
the independent regulatory role of the Ritanian Department of Resource Management.
After three months of dredging without incident, sonar buoys detected a significant underwater
landslide. By all accounts, the landslide was the direct result of the dredging, which had caused
an over-steepening of the slope in a geologically weak part of the Sirius Plateau. The landslide
had an immediate and significant negative impact on the known Dorian wrasse population.
The total catch of Dorian wrasse reported by Amalean fishing companies to the Ministry of
Fisheries by the end of 2010 and 2011 had fallen to 25% and 15%, respectively, of the levels
XIX
reported in 2000. By February 2012, ILSA declared the Dorian wrasse to be an endangered
species, and recommended that commercial fishing be suspended indefinitely until its population
was regenerated. At the same time, ILSA noted that there was doubt among experts in the field
whether the number of Dorian wrasse in the Sirius Plateau would return to pre-landslide levels
before the end of the century.
In February 2013, Amalea’s Ministry of Fisheries published a report concluding that projected
commercial exploitation of the Dorian wrasse would have amounted to no less than USD 250
million annually over the next five years.
DISPUTES WITH REGARD TO OWNERSHIP OF THE WRECK OF CARGAST AND ARTIFACTS
In 1510, when the Cargast, an Amalean schooner, went down along with her treasure, Verdigris
held a letter of marque from the King of Amalea, who granted the ship to him for use to bring
glory to the Kingdom of Amalea. The cargo that went down with the Cargast, contained the
Coronet, vast array of precious stones, gold and other coinage, and bejeweled artifacts obtained
during the trading mission. In January 2010, a Ritanian oil and gas exploration vessel discovered
the wreck of the schooner Cargast.
In January 2011, the Amalean Cultural Affairs Ministry announced that it had acquired five
objects recovered in an exploratory dive to the wreck by Milo Bellezza, a well-known deep sea
treasure hunter of Swiss nationality. These included an item that appeared to be the Sacred
Helian Coronet. Detailed information provided by Bellezza following his exploratory dive had
persuaded Amalea that the hull structure of the Cargast was at risk of catastrophic collapse.
Amalea, therefore, contracted with Bellezza to explore the wreck and recover items therefrom.
XX
Amalea’s Cultural Affairs Ministry assured that the wreck and all other items, including the
Coronet, were recovered in good faith. In June 2011, the Ministry granted Milo Bellezza, “acting
as agent for and on behalf of the Republic of Amalea,” the status of “salvor of the wreck of the
Cargast.” Subsequently, Ritania’s Navy began to patrol the area of the wreck.
THE ROSEHILL INCIDENT
On 13 February 2011, the Rosehill, an Amalean-registered cruise ship carrying 556 passengers,
70% of whom were Amaleans, and 215 crew members of various nationalities, departed from
Amalea and headed towards Ritania.
As the Rosehill approached Excelsior Island, Daedalus, a stolen Ritanian-flagged yacht under the
control of Oscar de Luz, a Ritanian citizen, was speeding towards the Island. On seeing that his
ship was on a collision course, the captain of the Rosehill was forced to veer toward the Island
and to accelerate in order to avoid collision. The ship struck the Island with significant force.
The explosions tore large holes in the hull of the Rosehill and caused fires that spread through
parts of the ship, which began to sink. 127 passengers and crew of the Rosehill had died from the
explosions, burns, smoke inhalation, or drowning and 150 others were injured. 89 of the dead
were Amalean nationals.
As the Daedalus drew within about 23 nautical miles of Amalea’s coastline, it was picked up on
radar by the Icarus, an Amalean Navy Fast Response Cutter, under the command of Captain
Walter Haddock. Captain Haddock, who had followed the ACPS alerts, set out at full speed to
intercept the Daedalus. When the Icarus was within visual range, Captain Haddock issued an
XXI
order over several different radio frequencies commonly used by vessels in the Strait of Malachi,
ordering the Daedalus to stop.
Instead, Luz turned the Daedalus and sped towards Ritania. Haddock pursued the Daedalus,
crossing into Ritania’s uncontested EEZ. Captain Haddock’s crew captured Luz in the dinghy
after collision, where they declared him under arrest. Amalea declined to repatriate Luz and
instead, put him on trial. Luz was convicted of nearly all of the charges against him.
XXII
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I. The acts and omissions of Ritania violate clause (c) and (d) of Article 12 of the Malachi
Gap Treaty. The failure to comply with its treaty obligations constitutes an internationally
wrongful act of Ritania which entails its international responsibility.
Even though, the development of Excelsior Island had been in the uncontested EEZ of
Ritania, technical activities conducted for building the same have caused transboundary harm, in
terms of the population of Dorian Wrasse. It is not enough for Ritania to unilaterally determine
what it thinks the environmental impact of its projects may be. It is bound by its undertakings in
UNCLOS to contemplate the likely effect that its activities may have on other States.
The approval of EIA, which did not address the potential impacts of dredging program on
the waters of the Malachi Gap or on fish species living there, by Ritania, was not in conformity
with international law. Ritania’s conduct is a combination of an action and an omission which is
the basis for responsibility.
The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury, which
includes any material damage, caused by the internationally wrongful act.
II. The wreck of the Cargast and its cargo constitute underwater cultural heritage under
Article 1(a)(ii) of UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage,
2001. A ship flying the state flag is to be considered as a part of that state territory. The flag state
has the authority and sole applicable jurisdiction over the vessels under its flag. The Law of
Finds, which should apply to abandoned shipwrecks, states that warships and state-owned
XXIII
vessels in the Area should be returned to their identifiable state. Amalea owned the Cargast and
cargo on board when it sank in 1510. Thus, under no circumstance can the Cargast be termed as
a piratical vessel.
Amalea was and still is the true and bonafide owner of the Cargast and the title and
ownership in the said vessel and cargo has never been abandoned, relinquished or transferred by
Amalea.
Patrolling the area of the wreck outside its territory by the Ritanian Navy constitutes
exercise of sovereign rights resulting in inconsistency of obligations under the Treaty. The act of
deploying naval vessels, not undertaken in good faith, hindered Amalea from exploring and
salvaging the wreck of the Cargast.
III. Being a signatory to UNCLOS, Amalea has not acted in contravention to it and rather,
has adhered to the requirements of it, being in compliance with international law. The Icarus had
good reason to believe that the Daedalus, in command of Oscar de Luz, had violated domestic
laws or regulations when it tried to avoid any boarding and inspection. The pursuit was carried
out by a warship of Amalea and was commenced in the contiguous as is required after a signal to
stop was given to the Daedalus. Therefore, it fulfilled the essential conditions required in order
to undertake a valid hot pursuit of a non-national vessel under Article 111 of UNCLOS. In
arguendo, right of hot pursuit is a part of customary international law. By exercising its right of
hot pursuit, Amalea maintained the enforcement credibility necessary to deter violations of
internal and international law.
IV. The actions and conduct of Oscar de Luz can be categorized as acts of piracy under
international law. The actions of Oscar de Luz were violent in nature. Suppression of piracy is
XXIV
the right of every State for which it enjoys universal jurisdiction. Any state may seize a pirate
ship, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize
the property on board. Pirates are considered as enemies of all people and are punishable by
every state because of the threatening acts they commit. Luz, by virtue of being a pirate, lost
protection of his home state and national character and Daedalus, being a pirate ship, lost the
privilege of flying under the Ritanian flag. In arguendo, Amalea has jurisdiction to try and
convict Luz on the basis of operation of Passive Personality Principle and also pursuant to the
Effects Doctrine.
XXV
PLEADINGS
I. RITANIA’S ACTS AND OMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
EXCELSIOR ISLAND VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND AMALEA IS THEREFORE
ENTITLED TO SEEK COMPENSATION FROM RITANIA FOR ECONOMIC LOSSES
CAUSED BY THE LANDSLIDE.
The construction of Excelsior Island, resisted throughout by Amalea, was hastily and
incompetently executed and culminated in the massive underwater landslide in December, 2009.
The dredging has caused a significant damage to the marine species, especially the Dorian
wrasse population, in the Sirius Plateau region.1
A. Ritania has breached international obligations
States are responsible to other States for their internationally wrongful acts. A State
commits internationally wrongful act when conduct consisting of an act or omission (a) is
attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international
obligation owed by that State to the injured State or the international community.2
1. Breach of Bilateral Treaty Obligation by Ritania
Obligations may arise for a State by a treaty and by a rule of customary international law
or by a treaty and a unilateral act.3
1
Compromis, ¶ 29.
2
Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 74, at 28 (June 14, 1938)
[hereinafter Phosphates in Morocco].
1
A Treaty4 entered into by the parties5 allowed Amalea to protect vital fisheries resources
within the Strait of Malachi while allowing Ritania to develop subsea resources such as the
Erebus gas field.6 The Treaty also states that “neither Party shall exercise its rights hereunder in a
manner which unduly inhibits the exercise of the rights of the other Party….”7
Ritania, while exercising its right to explore the gas field, caused significant underwater
landslide which was a direct result of the dredging that had resulted in over-steepening of the
slope in a geologically weak part of the Sirius Plateau.8 Extremely high water turbidity levels
persisted for several weeks that caused a dissociation of gas hydrates at the foot of the Sirius
Plateau, resulting in a higher concentration of several dissolved gases, including carbon dioxide
and methane, throughout the Sirius Plateau9, adversely affecting Dorian Wrasse’s breeding
ground, thereby, infringing Amalea’s fishing rights.
Furthermore, same treaty states “the Parties shall cooperate with each other in relation to
the exercise of their respective rights giving due regard to each Party’s unique interests in the
3
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. Unites States of
America), Merits, Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14, ¶ 177 (June 27) [hereinafter Nicaragua]; See also
North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, Judgment, 1969 I.C.J. 3, at 38–39, ¶ 63 (Feb. 20) [hereinafter
North Sea Continental Shelf].
4
Compromis, Appendix B ‘Malachi Gap Treaty’ (March 30, 1992).
5
Compromis, ¶ 15.
6
Malachi Gap Treaty, art. 12(a) and (b).
7
Id. art. 12(c).
8
Compromis, ¶ 28.
9
Id.
2
Malachi Gap, including, but not limited to, in the case of Amalea the protection of fisheries, and
in the case of Ritania its desire to develop resources lying beneath the water.”10
The acts and omissions by Ritania that violate clause (d) of Article 12 of the Treaty are:
firstly, refusal for taking Amalea’s consent at the time of approving the development of Island,
secondly, approving the EIA without addressing the potential impacts of the dredging activity on
fishing resources11 and thirdly, overlooking the ILSA report on the effects of dredging under the
pretext of national legislation.
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. 12
A State cannot, by pleading that its conduct conforms to the provisions of its internal law, escape
the characterization of that conduct as wrongful by international law. 13 The Court14 had stated in
its advisory opinions on Reparation for Injuries, 15 and on the Interpretation of Peace Treaties
(Second Phase),16 that “refusal to fulfill a treaty obligation involves international responsibility”.
10
Malachi Gap Treaty, art. 12(d).
11
Compromis, ¶ 23.
12
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Rep. of the Int’l
Law Comm’n, 53rd Sess., Apr. 23-June 1, July 2-Aug. 10, 2001, art. 12, U.N. Doc. A/56/10;
GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (2001) [hereinafter ASR].
13
Id. art. 3; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 27, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331
[hereinafter VCLT].
14
International Court of Justice, est. under the U.N. Charter, October 24, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
15
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949
I.C.J. 174, 184 (Apr. 11).
16
Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase), Advisory Opinion, 1950 I.C.J. 221 (July 18).
3
The failure to comply with its treaty obligations 17 constitutes an internationally wrongful
act of Ritania which entails its international responsibility.18
2. Ritania has breached general principles of international law
The principle of Sustainable Development, which forms the basis of all environmental
law, must be considered as an erga omnes obligation.19 Principle 3 of Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development of 199220 states that “the right to development must be fulfilled
so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future
generations”. Principle 4 of the declaration adds that: “in order to achieve sustainable
development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development
17
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7, ¶ 57 (Sept. 25)
[hereinafter Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project].
18
ASR, art. 1; Phosphates in Morocco, 28. See also S.S. Wimbledon, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1,
at 30 (Aug. 17) [hereinafter S.S. Wimbledon]; Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), Judgment, 1927
P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9, at 21 (July 26); Factory at Chorzów(Claim for Indemnity), Judgment,
1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17, at 29 (Sept. 13); Corfu Channel, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4, at 23
(Apr. 9) [hereinafter Corfu Channel]; Nicaragua, ¶¶ 283 and 292; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
Project, ¶ 47. Seven of these awards rendered in 1901 reiterated that “a universally recognized
principle of international law states that the State is responsible for the violations of the law of
nations committed by its agents”, Italian Subjects living in Peru (Italy v. Peru), 15 R.I.A.A. 389,
pp. 399 (Chiessa claim), 401 (Sessarego claim), 404 (Sanguinetti claim), 407 (Vercelli claim),
408 (Queirolo claim), 409 (Roggero claim), & 411 (Miglia claim). Dickson Car Wheel Company
(U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A. 669, 678 (1931); International Fisheries Company
(U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A. 691, 701 (1931). According to the Italian-United
States Conciliation Commission, no State may “escape the responsibility arising out of the
exercise of an illicit action from the viewpoint of the general principles of international law”,
Armstrong Cork Company Case—Decision No. 18, 14 R.I.A.A. 159, 163 (Italian-U.S.
Conciliation Commission, 1953).
19
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project.
20
U.N.G.A., 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Annex I, U.N.Doc.
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (June 13-14, 1992) [hereinafter Rio Declaration].
4
process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”.21 These principles have been reiterated in
several judicial decisions.22
In the instant case, the act of dredging resulted in significant depletion in the population
of Dorian wrasse that shall not replenish before the end of the century. 23 This evidences Ritania’s
contribution towards disruption of balance between economic development and protection of
environment.
a. Precautionary Principle is violated
“In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the
precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes
of environmental degradation.”24 The reason for this emphasis on prevention is that damage to
the environment often cannot be repaired,25 even if the causal link between the polluter and the
damage may be established and evaluated. Even if the damage is reparable, the costs of
rehabilitation can be prohibitive. Moreover, damage can have unpredictable and far- reaching
effects.26
21
Id.
22
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project; See also Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”)
Railway (Belgium v. Netherlands), 27 U.N. Rep. Int’l Arbitral Awards 35, ¶ 59 (May 24,
2005); Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, ¶
29 (July 8) [hereinafter Nuclear Weapons].
23
Compromis, ¶ 30.
24
On May 16, 1990, Environment Ministers of the 34 member States of the UN Economic
Commission for Europe and the representative of the EC, adopted The Bergen Declaration on
Sustainable Development.
25
Rio Declaration, Principle 15.
5
States have, in accordance with the UN Charter and the principles of international law,
“the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause
damage to the environment of other States . . .” 27 A State, in spite of its territorial supremacy, is
not allowed to alter the natural conditions of its own territory to the disadvantage of the natural
conditions of the territory of a neighbouring state28 control which is now a part of the corpus of
international law relating to the environment.29
Although the Stockholm Declaration is a non-binding text, this principle is rooted in
decisions of international tribunals30 as a part of customary international law. 31 Even though, the
development of Excelsior Island had been in the uncontested Exclusive Economic Zone
[hereinafter “EEZ”] of Ritania, technical activities conducted for building the same have caused
harm beyond its territory, in terms of the population of Dorian Wrasse.
b. Ritania has failed in its duty to cooperate
26
EARTH HABITAT: ECO-INJUSTICE AND THE CHURCH'S RESPONSE 115 (Dieter T. Hessel & Larry
L. Rasmussen eds., Fortress Press 2001). See also DONALD K. ANTON & DINAH L. SHELTON,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS 81 (Cambridge University Press 2011);
RUTH MACKENZIE ET AL., AN EXPLANATORY GUIDE TO CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY
12 (IUCN Environmental Law Centre 2003).
27
Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm,
Principle 21, UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1973).
28
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE 182, §127 (2nd ed. 1912).
Nuclear Weapons, ¶ 29; Island of Palmas (U.S. v. The Netherlands), 2 R.I.A.A. 829 (Perm. Ct.
29
Arb., 1928).
30
Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905, 1965 (Mar. 11, 1941); Corfu Channel.
31
PHILIPPE SANDS & JACQUELINE PEEL, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
42 (3rd ed. 2012).
6
This, perhaps, had bestowed upon Ritania with an important obligation, that of
consultation with and warning to the neighbour whose waters, coastline and fishery resources
may be adversely affected.32 It is not enough for the Actor State unilaterally and privately to
determine what it thinks the environmental impact of its proposals may be. It is bound by its
undertakings in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 33 to contemplate the likely
effect that its activities may have on other States and on the marine environment generally, and to
ascertain that effect and take it into account.
Fisheries Jurisdiction34 case, which applies mutatis mutandis the present dispute: “Both
Parties have the obligation to keep under review the fishery resources in the disputed waters and
to examine together, in the light of scientific and other available information, the measures
required for the conservation and development, and equitable exploitation, of those resources,
taking into account any international agreement in force between them.”35
32
UNEP Draft Principles of Conduct on Shared Natural Resources, U.N. Doc. A/34/557 and
Corr.1 (1978); Co-operation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared
by two or more States, G.A. Res. 3129 (XXVIII), U.N. Doc. A/9402 (Dec. 13, 1973); Charter of
Economic Rights and Duties of States, G.A. Res. 3281 (XXIX), U.N. Doc. A/RES/29/3281 (Dec.
12, 1974); Recommendation of the Council on Principles concerning Transfrontier Pollution,
OECD, C(74)224 (Nov. 14, 1974); Recommendation of the Council for the Implementation of a
Regime of Equal Right of Access and Non-Discrimination in Relation to Transfrontier Pollution,
OECD, C(78)28/FINAL (May 17, 1977); Helsinki Rules on the Uses of Waters of International
Rivers, in Report of the 52nd Conf. of the International Law Association, Aug. 14-20, 1966, at
486 (1967); Montreal Resolution on Pollution of the Waters in an International Drainage Basin,
in Report of the 60th Conf. of the International Law Association, Aug. 1982, at 13 (1983).
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 [hereinafter
33
UNCLOS].
34
Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 8). [hereinafter
Fisheries Jurisdiction].
35
Id. ¶ 72.
7
States to establish ‘adequate international standards for the conservation and harmonious
exploration of natural resources common to two or more States.36
One of the most evident tools of cooperation is the duty to negotiate when difficulty
appears in the management of a shared resource or in the implementation of common project.
The general obligation of States to settle their disputes by negotiation has also been recognized
by the Court.37
At the outset, the Amalean Foreign Minister had made clear that “such a large-scale
project cannot be undertaken except with the consent of both Amalea and Ritania, in accordance
with the letter and spirit of the Malachi Gap Treaty.” 38 However, the Ritanian Ambassador
refused the above proposal under the pretext of territoriality.
In the Fisheries Jurisdiction case the Court stressed that negotiation must be conducted
on the basis that each party must in good faith pay reasonable regard to the legal rights of the
other and an equitable apportionment of the resources must be brought about.39
c. Ritania has failed to undertake holistic EIA
Co-operation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared by two or
36
more States, G.A. Res. 3129 (XXVIII), U.N. Doc. A/9402 (Dec. 13, 1973).
37
North Sea Continental Shelf, ¶ 87.
38
Compromis, ¶ 21.
39
Fisheries Jurisdiction.
8
Subsequently, the approval of EIA, which did not address the potential impacts of
dredging program on the waters of the Malachi Gap or on fish species living there 40, by Ritania,
was not in conformity with international law. Such a dredging activity should not have been
allowed without conducting a full EIA specifically covering its direct impacts. It establishes that
the pretence of negotiating while at the same time the object of the negotiations is destroyed by
unilateral actions show a lack of good faith.41
Shortly after EIGP filed its EIA, the Amalean Environmental Protection Agency
published a report prepared by the International League for Sustainable Aquaculture (ILSA),
which concluded that any major dredging activity in the Malachi Gap is likely interfere with
ongoing research and conservation efforts, and could potentially prove catastrophic for native
species and ecosystems. It also suggested that because of the presence of gas hydrates at the foot
of the Sirius Plateau, an underwater landslide could threaten particularly grave damage.
However, the same was not heeded to under the garb of national legislation.42
A State cannot, by pleading that its conduct conforms to the provisions of its internal law,
escape the characterization of that conduct as wrongful by international law. 43 Conversely, a State
cannot adduce as against another State its own Constitution with a view to evading obligations
incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in force. 44
40
Compromis, ¶ 23.
41
Railway Traffic Between Lithuania and Poland, 1931 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 42, at 116 (Oct.
15); see North Sea Continental Shelf, 47 -48.
42
Compromis, ¶ 22.
43
ASR, art. 3.
44
Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in the Danzig
Territory, Advisory Opinion, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 44, at 4 (Feb. 4) [hereinafter Treatment
9
That conformity with the provisions of internal law in no way precludes conduct being
characterized as internationally wrongful is equally well settled.45
Insofar as Ritania did not take any positive steps to assess the same, inspite of knowing
the potential adverse effects of the dredging activity and take appropriate steps,46 constitutes
inaction on their part. In the Corfu Channel case, ICJ held that it was a sufficient basis for
Albanian responsibility that it knew, or must have known, of the presence of the mines in its
territorial waters and did nothing to warn third States of their presence. 47 In the United States
Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran48 case, the Court concluded that the responsibility of
the Islamic Republic of Iran was entailed by the “inaction” of its authorities which “failed to take
appropriate steps”, in circumstances where such steps were evidently called for.49
of Polish Nationals].
45
S.S. Wimbledon, 29-30; Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”, Advisory Opinion, 1930 P.C.I.J. (ser.
B) No. 17, at 32 (July 31); Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Second Phase),
1930 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 24, at 12 (Dec. 6); Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,
Judgment, 1932 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 46, at 167 (June 7); Treatment of Polish Nationals, 24;
Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, Advisory Opinion, 1925 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 10, at
20 (Feb. 21); Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No.
15, at 26-27 (Mar. 3). See also Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J.
(ser. B) No. 7, at 26 (Observations of Lord Finlay).
46
Compromis, ¶ 23 & 25.
47
Corfu Channel, 22–23.
48
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran),
Judgment, 1980 I.C.J. 3 (May 24).
49
Id. ¶¶ 63 & 67. See also Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C)
No. 4, ¶ 170 (July 29, 1988): “under international law a State is responsible for the acts of its
agents undertaken in their official capacity and for their omissions”; The Acquisition of Polish
nationality (Germany v. Poland), 1 R.I.A.A. 401, 425 (July 10, 1924).
10
Thus, in the instant case, Ritania’s conduct is a combination of an action and an omission
which is the basis for responsibility. The duty to cooperate is a fundamental principle in the
prevention of pollution of the marine environment under general international law.50
B. Amalea is entitled to seek compensation from Ritania for economic losses caused by
the landslide
In February 2013, Amalea’s Ministry of Fisheries published a report concluding that
projected commercial exploitation of the Dorian wrasse would have amounted to no less than
USD 250 million annually over the next five years. Being unable to fish the Dorian wrasse for
the foreseeable future, Amalea demanded reparations from Ritania for the loss of this revenue.51
The international responsibility of a State which is entailed by an internationally
wrongful act involves legal consequences.52
The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury,
includes any damage, whether material or moral, caused by the internationally wrongful act.53
The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act—a principle which
seems to be established by international practice and in particular by the decisions of arbitral
tribunals—is that reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal
50
MOX Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdon), Case No. 10, Provisional Measures Dec. 3, 2001,
available at
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_10/Order.03.12.01.E.pdf (last
visited Jan. 3, 2014), ¶ 82.
51
Compromis, ¶ 50.
52
ASR, art. 28.
53
ASR, art. 31.
11
act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not
been committed. Restitution in kind, or, if this is not possible, payment of a sum corresponding
to the value which a restitution in kind would bear; the award, if need be, of damages for loss
sustained which would not be covered by restitution in kind or payment in place of it—such are
the principles which should serve to determine the amount of compensation due for an act
contrary to international law.54
The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation to
compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by
restitution. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of
profits insofar as it is established.55
The total catch of Dorian wrasse reported by Amalean fishing companies to the Ministry
of Fisheries by the end of 2010 and 2011 had fallen to 25% and 15%, respectively, of the levels
reported in 2000. By February 2012, ILSA declared the Dorian wrasse to be an endangered
species, and recommended that commercial fishing be suspended indefinitely until its population
was regenerated. At the same time, ILSA noted that there was doubt among experts in the field
whether the number of Dorian wrasse in the Sirius Plateau would return to pre-landslide levels
before the end of the century.56
54
Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity), 47.
55
ASR, art. 36; Gabčíkovo -Nagymaros Project, ¶ 152. See also Factory at Chorzów (Claim for
Indemnity), 27, declaring that “[i]t is a principle of international law that the reparation of a
wrong may consist in an indemnity”; Lusitania Cases, 7 R.I.A.A. 32, 39 (1923).
56
Compromis, ¶ 30.
12
Since the fishing industry supports the domestic market and the exports generating more
than 5% of the country’s USD 45 billion GDP and directly employs over 250,000 people.
Therefore, being a developing trading nation, Amalea has an obvious and direct interest in
protection of the marine environment of Malachi Gap.
The reference point for valuation purposes is the loss suffered by the claimant whose
property rights have been infringed. This loss is usually assessed by reference to specific heads
of damage relating to (i) compensation for capital value; (ii) compensation for loss of profits; and
(iii) incidental expenses. Thus, in consonance, Amalea claims no less than USD 250 million
annually over the next five years.
13
II. AMALEA HAS EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE WRECK OF THE CARGAST AND ALL
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM IT, AND RITANIA’S DEPLOYMENT OF PATROL
VESSELS TO THE SITE OF THE CARGAST VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW.
A. Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all artifacts
recovered from it in terms of flag State jurisdiction
Cargast, an Amalean schooner, under the command of Baldric Verdigris, was the most
formidable vessel bearing His Majesty’s escutcheon. In 1510, when the Cargast went down
along with her treasure, Verdigris held a letter of marque from the King of Amalea, who granted
the ship to him for use to bring glory to the Kingdom of Amalea. 57 Thus, the wreck of the
Cargast and its cargo constitute underwater cultural heritage.58
A ship flying the state flag is to be considered as a part of that state territory. 59 The flag
state has the authority and sole applicable jurisdiction over the vessels under its flag. It is not the
case that sunken vessels lose the legal basis to claim the exclusive jurisdiction by their flag state,
57
Compromis, ¶ 32.
58
2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heriatage, art. 1(a)(ii),
Nov. 2, 2001 available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-
heritage/2001-convention/official-text/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2014) [hereinafter UCH].
“Underwater cultural heritage” means all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical
or archaeological character which have been partially or totally under water, periodically or
continuously, for at least 100 years such as vessels, aircraft, other vehicles or any part thereof,
their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context.
59
Tribunal of Sciacca, I Foro Italiano 1317 (Jan. 9, 1963); Tullio Scovazzi, The Application of
“Salvage and other Rules of Admiralty” to the Underwater Cultural Heritage: Some Relevant
Cases, in THE PROTECTION OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE - BEFORE AND AFTER
THE 2001 UNESCO CONVENTION 19, 21 (Roberta Garabello & Tullio Scovazzi eds., Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers 2003) [hereinafter Scovazzi].
14
because sunken vessels cannot qualify as a “ship” due to their inability to navigate when lying on
the bottom of the seabed.60 Instead it stands on their absolute status to own identifiable public
property of States, which complies with the general principle of “Lex specialis derogat legi
generali.”61
The legal reason is that the Law of Finds, which should apply to abandoned shipwrecks,
states that warships and state-owned vessels in the Area should be returned to their identifiable
state. It is difficult to prove warships and other state-owned vessels are abandoned, so that the
identifiable UCH undoubtedly belongs to its identifiable states with respect of the sovereignty
principle, wherever the location. The warships and state-owned vessels can be considered as a
patrimonial right of identifiable state or country of origin, and present significant value to their
states. Consistent with State practice and international law, including the UNCLOS, nothing in
this Convention shall be interpreted as modifying the rules of international law and State practice
pertaining to sovereign immunities, nor any State’s rights with respect to its State vessels and
aircraft.62
International custom, codified in the UNCLOS states “warships and state-owned or
operated vessels, used only on government non-commercial service, enjoy complete immunity
from the jurisdiction of any state other than the flag state on the high seas.”63
60
See ANASTASIA STRATI, THE PROTECTION OF THE UNDERWATER CULTURAL HERITAGE: AN
EMERGING OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTEMPORARY LAW OF THE SEA 237 (Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers 1995).
Liu Lina, Ownership of Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Area, 1 CREIGHTON INT’L &
61
COMP. L. J. 60, 75 (2011).

62
UCH, art. 2(8).
63
UNCLOS, art. 96.
15
Moreover, no State Party shall undertake or authorize activities directed at State vessels
and aircraft in the Area without the consent of the flag State. 64 Under current customary
international law, the principle of “freedom of the high seas” provides that the high seas are open
to all States. The principle of freedom of the high seas may therefore apply to all ocean
activities, even research or excavating UCH in the Area, which is not specifically mentioned in
the UNCLOS65. At the same time, the flag State has jurisdiction to regulate its nationals or ships
as part of its territories when operating on the high sea, even when salvaging UCH, because the
ship flies that State’s flag.
Without facts to contradict the clear evidence that Amalea owned the Cargast and cargo
on board and that Captain Baldric Verdigris, although obviously given considerable autonomy on
the high seas, was understood by Ritania and Amalea to be an agent of Amalea, there is no
material question of fact as to whether Amalea owned the Cargast and cargo on board when it
sank in 1510. Thus, under no circumstance can the Cargast be termed as a piratical vessel.66
Amalea was and still is the true and bonafide owner of the Cargast and the title and
ownership in the said vessel and cargo has never been abandoned, relinquished or transferred by
Amalea.67 A ship or aircraft may retain its nationality although it has become a pirate ship or
64
UCH, art. 12(7).
65
See UNCLOS, arts. 87–88.
66
United States v. Steinmtez, 763 F. Supp. 1293 (1991).
67
Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, 221 F.3d 634, 640 (4 th Cir., July
21, 2000); Scovazzi, 57.
16
aircraft. The retention or loss of nationality is determined by the law of the State from which
such nationality was derived.68
B. Ritania’s deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast violated
international law
1. Deployment of patrol vessels is in violation of obligation under the Malachi Gap
Treaty
International treaties are agreements, of a contractual character, between States, or
organizations of States, creating legal rights and obligations between the parties. 69 Both parties
had ratified the Malachi Gap Treaty in January 1993. 70 The effect of ratifying in each case is the
international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be
bound by a treaty.71
The treaty states that neither Party shall exercise its rights hereunder in a manner which
unduly inhibits the exercise of the rights of the other Party and nothing in this Treaty shall be
interpreted to render the Malachi Gap or any portion thereof the sovereign territory of either
Party.72 Military functions would constitute sovereign function of a state. Patrolling the area of
68
UNCLOS, art. 104.
69
1 OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 1199 (Robert Jennings & Arthur Watts eds., 9 th ed. 1955)
[hereinafter OPPENHEIM].
70
Compromis, ¶ 16.
71
VCLT, art. 1(b).
72
Malachi Gap Treaty, art. 12(c).
17
the wreck outside the sovereign territory by the Ritanian Navy73 is inconsistent with its
obligations under the Treaty.
Moreover, neither the Treaty nor any of its travaux préparatoires makes any specific
reference to military activity in the area.74 Had it been the intention of the Parties to allow
exercise of military rights in the area, a specific reference to that effect would have been made,
especially when the treaty apportioned the rights of the parties.
2. Deployment of patrol vessels is contrary to the principles enunciated in UNCLOS
UNCLOS is a comprehensive treaty that creates a legal regime governing the peaceful
use of the ocean and its resources. 75 The Convention does not explicitly regulate military
activities in the EEZ or the high seas, though Article 88 requires that ‘the high seas shall be
reserved for peaceful purposes’.76
States have legal right to limit freedom of navigation in their EEZ on security grounds. 77
When a vessel navigates in the exclusive economic zone of a coastal state, its actions should be
“harmless,” undertaken in “good faith” and with “no abuse of rights.” 78 In its regulation of the
73
Compromis, ¶ 40.
74
Compromis, ¶ 16.
75
UNCLOS, Overview and full text available at
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm (last
visited Jan. 3, 2014).
76
M Lehto, Restrictions on Military Activities in the Baltic Sea – A Basis for a Regional
Regime?, 2 FINNISH YB INT’L. L. 38, 45 (1991); See also UNCLOS, art. 88.
77
See FRANCISCO O. VICUNA, THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE, REGIME AND LEGAL NATURE
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 151 (1989).
18
EEZ, the coastal state is obliged to give ‘due regard’ to the rights and duties of other states and
must act in a ‘manner compatible’ with the Convention.79
In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention, States Parties
shall refrain from any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the principles of
international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. 80 Threat of force means an
express or implied promise by a Government of a resort to force conditional on non-acceptance
of certain demands of that Government.81 The act of deploying naval vessels, not undertaken in
good faith, was to reduce the choices otherwise available to Amalea 82 in terms of exploring the
wreck of the Cargast.
Furthermore, 18 countries seek to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs, and
that three of these countries—China, North Korea, and Peru—have directly interfered with
foreign military activities in their EEZs.83 For instance, Brazil, Bangladesh, Cape Verde,
78
Maj. Gen. Peng Guangqian, People’s Liberation Army (Ret.), China’s Maritime Rights and
Interests, in MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN THE EEZ, A U.S.-CHINA DIALOGUE ON SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE MARITIME COMMONS 15, 21 (Peter Dutton ed., Dec. 2010).
79
UNCLOS, art. 56; DONALD ROBERT ROTHWELL & TIMOTHY DAVID STEPHENS, THE
INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA 428 (2010).
80
UNCLOS, art. 301. See also U.N. Charter, art. 2(4).
81
IAN BROWNLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES 364 (OUP 1963)
[hereinafter BROWNLIE].
82
Romano Sadurska, Threats of force, 82 AM .J. INT’L. L. 239, 242 (1988).
83
Joe Baggett and Pete Pedrozo, briefing for Center for Naval Analysis Excessive Chinese
Maritime Claims Workshop, August 7, 2013, slide entitled “What are other nations’ views?”
(slide 30 of 47). The slide also notes that there have been “isolated diplomatic protests from
Pakistan, India, and Brazil over military surveys” conducted in their EEZs.
19
Malaysia, India, and Pakistan have all expressed concern over the ability of foreign military
vessels to engage in certain activities within the EEZ.84
Ritania has gone beyond the lamentable creeping jurisdiction exercised by some states
under the guise of protecting underwater cultural heritage, to full blown unlawful assertion of
power beyond its own territory.
84
See generally UNCLOS: Declarations and Statements, available at
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm (last visited
Dec. 30, 2013).
20
III. AMALEAN NAVY’S PURSUIT OF OSCAR DE LUZ INTO RITANIA’S EEZ, AND HIS
SUBSEQUENT ARREST, WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1958 85 has been signed and ratified by
both Amalea as well as Ritania. UNCLOS is a reflection of the 1958 convention incorporating
several provisions which are principally similar. 86 It includes the developments since 1958 that
have accentuated the need for a new and generally acceptable convention on the law of the sea.87
Moreover, the legal effects of signing UNCLOS, are that Amalea agrees to the terms of
the convention in principle and not to act contrary to it. 88 Amalea’s act of issuing a proclamation
dated 13 June, 1984 extending the contiguous zone to 24 nautical miles from the earlier 12 mile
contiguous zone89 was in conformity with UNCLOS. Neither Amalea’s conduct is contrary to
UNCLOS nor any rights have been claimed under it.
85
Geneva Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, 450 U.N.T.S. 11 (entered into force Sept.
30, 1962) [hereinafter HSC].
86
OPPENHEIM, 725.
87
UNCLOS, preamble.
88
VCLT, art. 18.
89
Clarification, No. 3.
21
In arguendo, right of hot pursuit90 is also a part of customary international law. The right
of hot pursuit is not contested in international law.91
There is an uncontested rule under International Law as enunciated by the Permanent
Court of International Justice in the Lotus92 case that “vessels on the high seas are subject to no
authority except that of the state whose flag they fly” 93, but there exists an exception to that well
established rule in the right of hot pursuit94, allowing a State to extend its jurisdiction beyond its
territorial waters in order to effectively enforce its laws and regulations against non-national
ships that are trying to escape to the high seas.95
90
Randall Walker, International Law of the Sea: Applying the Doctrine of Hot Pursuit in the 21st
Century, 17 AUCKLAND U. L. REV. 194, at 195 and 197 (2011) [hereinafter Walker]; See also
Rachel Baird, Arrests in a Cold Climate (Part 2) - Shaping Hot Pursuit through State Practice,
13 ANTARCTIC AND SOUTHERN OCEAN LAW AND POLICY OCCASSIONAL PAPERS 1, 4 (2009),
available at <eprints.usq.edu.au/5604/> (last visited Jan. 4, 2014) [hereinafter Baird]; NICHOLAS
M POULANTZAS, THE RIGHT OF HOT PURSUIT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 39-40 (2nd ed. 2002) 1969
[hereinafter POULANTZAS, 2002]; 2 D. P. O'CONNELL, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA
1076 (OUP, 1982-1984) [hereinafter O’CONNELL]; Robert C. Reuland, The Customary Right of
Hot Pursuit Onto the High Seas: Annotations to Article 111 of the Law of the Sea Convention, 33
VA. J. INT’L. L. 557, 561 (1993) [hereinafter Reuland]; BROWNLIE, 302.
91
2 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA 1982: A COMMENTARY ¶ 111.2
(Center for Oceans Law and Policy, University of Virginia ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
2013) [hereinafter UNCLOS: Commentary]; Articles Concerning the Law of the Sea, Rep. of the
Int’l Law Comm’n, 8th Sess., Arp. 23-June 4, 1956, art. 47, Commentary ¶ 1, U.N. Doc.
A/CN.4/104; GAOR, 11th Sess., Supp. No. 9 (A/3159) (1956) [hereinafter ALS].
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No.10, 25 (Sept. 7) [hereinafter
92
Lotus].
93
UNCLOS, art. 92; R.R. CHURCHILL & A.V. LOWE, THE LAW OF THE SEA 203 (3rd ed. 1999)
[hereinafter CHURCHILL & LOWE]; R. DUPUY & D. VIGNES, A HANDBOOK ON THE NEW LAW OF
THE SEA 406 (1991).
94
UNCLOS, art. 111.
95
Id.; M/V Saiga (No. 2) (St. Vincent v. Guinea), Case No. 2, Judgment of July 1, 1999, available
at
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_2/merits/Judgment.01.07.99.E.pdf
(last visited Jan. 3, 2014), ¶ 139 [hereinafter M/V Saiga]; N. POULANTZAS, THE RIGHT OF HOT
22
A. Amalean Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into the Ritanian EEZ was in compliance
with the requirements of the Right of Hot Pursuit under International Law
Amalean Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into the Ritanian EEZ was in compliance with
the requirements of the Right of Hot Pursuit 96 under International Law. Hot pursuit is necessary
in order to enable the territorial jurisdiction to be efficiently exercised.” 97 The essential
conditions to be fulfilled in order to undertake a valid hot pursuit of a non-national vessel 98 have
been adhered to by Amalea.
1. Icarus had good reason to believe that the foreign vessel, Daedalus, had violated
domestic laws or regulations
Under both the HSC and UNCLOS, hot pursuit is authorized when the coastal state has
“good reason to believe” that the foreign vessel violated a law or regulation that the coastal state
is competent to prescribe for waters where the violation occurred. 99 Neither convention purports
PURSUIT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 39 (1969) [hereinafter POULANTZAS, 1969]; Reuland, 559;

Craig H. Allen, The Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A Functional Interpretation Adaptable to Emerging
Maritime Law Enforcement Technologies and Practices, 20 OCEAN DEV. & INT’L. L. 309, 311
(1989) [hereinafter Allen].
96
UNCLOS, art. 111.
97
WILLIAM E. HALL, A TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW 252 (J.B. Atlay ed., 6th ed. 1909)
1880.
98
UNCLOS, art. 111; M/V Saiga, ¶ 146; POULANTZAS, 1969, 30; Tasikas, Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles and the Doctrine of Hot Pursuit, 29 TULANE MARITIME LAW JOURNAL 59, 71 (2004)
[hereinafter Tasikas].
99
HSC, art. 23; UNCLOS, Article 111(1); Allen, 315. The Coastal State need only have
“reasonable suspicion,” not actual knowledge, that the vessel violated the laws or regulations of
the coastal state. M. S. MCDOUGAL & W. T. BURKE, PUBLIC ORDER OF THE OCEANS 894 (1987)
23
to enumerate specific offences justifying hot pursuit.100 Accordingly, any law that the coastal
state is competent to prescribe may be enforced through hot pursuit.101
The element of good reason to believe lies between mere suspicion and actual knowledge
and needs to be assessed ex ante on a case by case basis.102 The Icarus, an Amalean Navy Fast
Response Cutter, under the command of Captain Walter Haddock103, had good reason to believe
that the Daedalus, in command of Oscar de Luz, was infringing the laws and regulations of
Amalea on basis of the alert issued by the Amalean Coastal Protection Service (ACPS) that
Daedalus, a stolen ship was engaging in human trafficking. Furthermore, this belief was
strengthened when Luz turned the Daedalus away after issuance of orders to stop by Captain
Haddock, when Icarus was in visual range of Daedalus, indicating that the yacht was trying to
avoid boarding and inspection in Amalea’s contiguous zone, which constitutes a part of
Customary International Law.104
Hot pursuit is necessary in some circumstances to effectively enforce laws protecting
coastal state interests. A coastal state that is consistently unable to apprehend and punish vessels
that violate laws protecting its adjacent waters cannot deter future violations. 105 By exercising its
[hereinafter MCDOUGAL & BURKE].

100
O’CONNELL, 1079-80; Allen, 315.
101
Allen, 315.
102
Reuland, 569; N. POULANTZAS, 2002, 157.
103
Compromis, ¶ 45.
104
OPPENHEIM, 736.
POULANTZAS, 1969, 348; Fidell, Enforcement of the Fisheries Conservation and Management
105
Act of 1976: The Policemen’s Lot, 52 WASH. L. REV. 513, 544 (1977).
24
right of hot pursuit, Amalea maintained the enforcement credibility necessary to deter violations
of internal and international law.
2. The hot pursuit commenced in Amalea’s contiguous zone
The hot pursuit commenced in the must commence in the internal waters, archipelagic
waters, territorial seas, contiguous zone, EEZ or continental shelf of the coastal state. 106
Amalea had issued a proclamation dated June 13, 1984 extending the contiguous zone to
24 nautical miles from the earlier existing 12 mile contiguous zone as a policy to deter
infringement of their customs, fiscal, immigration, sanitary laws and regulations. 107 This was
done in pursuance of UNCLOS 108.
Daedalus was first picked up on the radar by Icarus when the former was within 23
nautical miles of Amalea’s coastline.109 Subsequently, Icarus commenced its pursuit of
Daedalus110, being in compliance with the provisions of UNCLOS.
3. The hot pursuit commenced only after auditory signal to stop had been given at a
distance which enabled it to be seen or heard
106
UNCLOS, arts. 111(1) and (2).
107
Clarification, No. 3.
108
UNCLOS, art. 33.
109
Compromis, ¶ 45.
110
Compromis, ¶ 46.
25
The pursuit may only be commenced after a visual or auditory signal to stop has been
given at a distance which enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship.111
Article 111(4) of UNCLOS requires that visual or auditory signals are given to the vessel
to be pursued prior to the commencement of the pursuit in order to provide the suspect ship the
opportunity to heave to and await the inspection.112
In the present case, when Icarus was within the visual range of Daedalus, it had issued an
order over several radio frequencies113 ordering Daedalus to stop.114 Disregarding the order to
stop, Daedalus sped due east away from Icarus towards Ritania in an attempt to flee.115
Nevertheless, it has been held that in circumstances where it is obvious that the offending
vessel is aware it is being pursued, the requirement to signal may be foregone. 116 It has also been
noted that what is fundamental is to issue the order to stop and to undertake hot pursuit, not the
specific means by which the right was exercised.117
111
UNCLOS, art. 111(4).
M/V Saiga, ¶ 147; United States v. F/V Taiyo Maru No. 28, 395 F.Supp. 413 (June 18, 1975);
112
POULANTZAS, 1969, 204; Reuland, 584; Tasikas, 75; Gilmore, Hot Pursuit: The Case of R. v.
Mills and Others, 44 INT’L & COMP. L. Q. 949, 956 (1995).
113
ILIAS BANTEKAS & SUSAN NASH, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 193 (3rd ed. 2007) 2001,
stating that radio has been accepted as a valid medium to be used to give signals.
114
Compromis, ¶ 45.
115
Compromis, ¶ 46.
116
Walker, 209; Allen, 319; Reuland, 583-584; The Newton Bay case, 36 F.2d 729 (2nd Cir.
1929).
1 YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, Summary records, 8th Sess., Apr.
117
23-July 4, 1956, at 54 (U.N. Publications 1956); Baird, 10. See also MCDOUGAL & BURKE, 897.
26
4. Icarus is an Amalean Navy Fast Response Cutter which has the right to undertake
hot pursuit
The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by warships.118 The High Seas Convention
of 1958 defines a warship as a ship belonging to the naval forces of a State and bearing the
external marks distinguishing warships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly
commissioned by the government and whose name appears in the Navy List, and manned by a
crew who are under regular naval discipline.119
In the present case the pursuing ship, Icarus, is an Amalean Navy Fast Response Cutter
manned by an authorized crew under the command of Captain Haddock.120 Moreover, it has been
stated that a state need not manifest its connection to warships and military aircraft, for the
connection between such instrumentalities and the state is self-evident.121
The pursuit of Daedalus into the Ritanian EEZ was in compliance with the provisions of
the UNLCOS122, what is barred is undertaking hot pursuit in the territorial waters of any other
118
UNCLOS, art. 111(5); HSC, art. 23(4).
119
UNCLOS, art. 29; HSC, art. 8(2).
120
Compromis, ¶ 45.
121
UNCLOS, art. 111(5); HSC, art. 23(4); Reuland, 562.
UNCLOS, art. 58(2) makes UNCLOS, art. 111 and the right of hot pursuit applicable to the
122
EEZ of other states as well.
27
state123. However, in the present case, the pursuit of Daedalus by Icarus ends in the uncontested
EEZ of Ritania.124 A state is not barred from pursuing a non-national vessel into the exclusive
economic zone or even the contiguous zone of another state. 125 Such zones are deemed high seas
for the purposes of hot pursuit.126
B. The Amalean Navy’s arrest of Oscar De Luz was in compliance with international
law
The Amalean Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into Ritania’s EEZ and his subsequent
arrest were not illegal but were rather in compliance with international law. Amalea has adhered
to Article 111 of UNCLOS while exercising the right of hot pursuit of Daedalus. A natural
corollary to it is the right to arrest.127
In the exclusive economic zone, a coastal State is allowed to take enforcement measures,
“including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings,” to ensure compliance with the
State's laws and regulations adopted with respect to the State’s sovereign rights to the living
resources of that zone.128 Thus, providing additional enforcement jurisdiction to a coastal State.129
123
UNCLOS, art. 111(3).
124
Compromis, ¶ 46 and Appendix A, Map.
125
Reuland, 577; R. R. CHURCHILL & A. V. LOWE, THE LAW OF THE SEA 152 (1983).
126
Reuland, 577.
THE HANDBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW

127
OF MILITARY OPERATIONS (Terry D. Gill &
Dieter Fleck eds., OUP 2010).
128
UNCLOS, art. 73(1).
129
UNCLOS: Commentary, ¶ 111.9(c).
28
It is another Universally recognized rule that warship of every state may seize, and bring
to a port of their own for punishment, any foreign vessel sailing under the flag of such state
without authority.130
In addition, because contiguous zone is a part of EEZ, the coastal state will also have all
the rights and duties, without exception, that pertain to the EEZ. Thus, the coastal state can
board, search, and ultimately bring to port vessels infringing upon its legislations in order to
submit them to justice.131
130
1 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW: A TREATISE 430, §266 (Ronald F. Roxburgh ed., 3rd
ed. 2005).
Anne Bardin, Coastal State’s Jurisdiction Over Foreign Vessels, 14 PACE INT’L L. REV. 27, 40
131
(2002).
29
IV. AMALEA HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY AND CONVICT OSCAR DE LUZ FOR CRIMINAL
ACTIONS RELATED TO ROSEHILL INCIDENT, AND HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RETURN
HIM TO RITANIA.
A. Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for piratical acts and has no
obligation to return him to Ritania
1. Daedalus can be termed as a Pirate Ship
Daedalus, in command of Oscar de Luz, though Ritanian flagged, was a stolen vessel. 132
The persons, onboard the ship, were suspected of engaging in human trafficking and Luz had
also been charged with reckless endangerment, negligent operation of a seagoing vessel, and
other property crimes.133 The actions and conduct of Oscar de Luz can be categorized as acts of
piracy under international law. There are four essential elements to constitute piracy134:
1) An illegal act involving violence, detention, or depredation;
2) Committed for private ends;
3) On the high seas; and
4) Involving at least two ships.
A ship or an aircraft is also considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the
persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred in
132
Compromis, ¶ 42.
133
Compromis, ¶¶ 42 and 46; Clarification, No. 12.
134
UNCLOS, art. 101; HSC, art. 15.
30
the first essential condition above. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to
commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.135
The actions of Oscar de Luz were violent in nature. Violence can be defined as behaviour
involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.136
Daedalus recklessly headed towards Rosehill in a manner that a collision between the
two vessels was imminent.137 Captain Haddock, in command of Rosehill, in order to avoid the
impending collision was forced to veer away towards Excelsior Island and such an effort was
termed as heroic by the later investigations.138 Consequently, 127 people, aboard Rosehill, died
and several others were left injured because it had struck the island with significant force. 139
Following which Daedalus escaped the scene and fled towards Amalea.140
Subsequently, while being pursued by Icarus, Daedalus did not pay any heed to the
orders issued by Icarus. Thereafter, entering Ritanian EEZ, Daedalus turned towards Icarus
resulting in another collision which caused damage to the latter. 141 These illegal acts fulfill the
135
136
Available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/violence (last visited Dec.
18, 2013); See also BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. 1990) where
violence is defined at the use of physical force, usually accompanied by fury, vehemence, or
outrage.
137
Compromis, ¶ 42.
138
Id.
139
Compromis, ¶ 43.
140
Compromis, ¶ 44.
141
Compromis, ¶ 46.
31
first essential requirement of piracy’s definition142, being violent and thus, involving physical
force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone on part of Oscar de Luz.
Second essential requirement, that is, commission of illegal acts “for private ends”
excludes all acts committed for political reasons from the ambit of piracy. 143 “The intention to
rob (animus furandi) is not required. Acts of piracy may be prompted by feelings of hatred or
revenge, and not merely by the desire for gain.”144 Therefore, actions not sanctioned by the state
would qualify as actions “for private ends”.145
With regard to the third essential requirement, UNCLOS makes applicable the provisions
of piracy and other related provisions to EEZ of various coastal states. 146 In the present case, the
fourth condition is prima facie established and is not in dispute.
2. Piracy entails universal jurisdiction
Under international law, suppression of piracy is the right of every State for which it
enjoys universal jurisdiction.147 It is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State which
142
143
ROBIN GEISS
AND ANNA PETRIG, PIRACY AND ARMED ROBBERY AT SEA: THE LEGAL
FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTER-PIRACY OPERATIONS IN SOMALIA AND THE GULF OF ADEN 61 (OUP
2011) [hereinafter Geiss and Petrig]; See also Crockett, Toward a Revision of the International
Law of Piracy, 26 DEPAUL L. REV. 80 (1976) [hereinafter Crockett].
144
International Maritime Organization [IMO], Circular letter concerning information and
guidance on elements of international law relating to piracy, Circular letter No. 3180, at 9 (May
17, 2011) [hereinafter IMO, Circular]. See also ALS, 282.
145
Geiss and Petrig, 61; See also Crockett, 80.
146
UNCLOS, art. 58(2).
UNCLOS, art. 105; HSC, art. 19; See also Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
147
Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), 2008 I.C.J. 12, ¶ 24 (May 23).
32
carried out the seizure of a pirate ship or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates to
decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and can also determine the action to be taken with
regard to the ships, aircraft or property. 148 On the high seas, or in any other place outside the
jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship, or a ship taken by piracy and under
the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.149
Given the nature of the crime of piracy under international law, no jurisdictional link
need exist between the State exercising jurisdiction and the suspected offender, pirate ship,
victim or victim ship. Therefore, since piracy provides an independent basis for jurisdiction
under international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, no other basis of jurisdiction is required. 150
Pirates are considered as enemies of all people and are punishable by every state because of the
threatening acts they commit.151
According to international law, a pirate is always considered as an outlaw, a hostsis
humani generis. The act of piracy makes a pirate lose the protection of his home state and
thereby national character, and his vessel or aircraft, although it may formally have possessed a
claim to sail under a certain flag, losses such claim.152
148
149
Id.
150
IMO, Circular, 7.
151
K. C. Randall, Universal Jurisdiction under International Law, 66 TEX. L. REV. 785, 793-94
(1988).
152
STARKE’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 746 (I. A. Shearer ed., 11 th ed., OUP 1994)[hereinafter
STARKE]; Lotus, 65, at 70 (dissenting opinion of Judge Moore).
33
B. Passive Personality Principle and Effects Doctrine entail Amalea’s jurisdiction to try
and convict Luz
In arguendo, Amalea has jurisdiction to try and convict Luz on the basis of operation of
Passive Personality Principle and also pursuant to the Effects Doctrine.
1. Passive Personality Principle confers jurisdiction upon Amalea
Passive Personality Principle is exercised by a state when its national is a victim of an
extraterritorial conduct of a foreign national and therefore, in consequence of which it exercises
jurisdiction over that perpetrator.153
The justification for exercising the same in national fora has to do with each country’s
interest in protecting the welfare of its nationals abroad, where the locus delicti state either
neglects, refuses, or is unable to initiate prosecution. In this context only passive personality
principle may be deemed as lawful but auxiliary, form of jurisdiction.154
In the present case, Ritanian criminal law does not provide for prosecution of offenses
committed outside the country’s territorial waters and therefore, Luz would never have been
required to answer for all his crimes. 155 This goes to show that the locus delicti state, Ritania,
would not have been competent enough to initiate proceedings against Luz, the perpetrator of
murder of the people aboard Rosehill.
Danielle Ireland-Piper, Prosecutions for Extraterritorial Criminal Conduct and the Abuse of
153
Rights Doctrine, 9(4) UTRECHT L. REV. 74 (Sept. 2013) [hereinafter Piper]; MALCOLM N.
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 664 (6th ed. 2008) [hereinafter SHAW].
154
STARKE, 211.
155
Compromis, ¶ 49.
34
In U.S. v. Yunis (No. 2)156, a Lebanese citizen was prosecuted by the USA for alleged
involvement in hijacking of a Jordanian airliner in international waters. The only connection
between the hijacking and the US was the fact that several American nationals were on that
flight. The court accepted that both, universality principle and the passive personality principle
which provided appropriate basis for jurisdiction in the case. It was stated that though the latter
principle had been one of the most controversial of the jurisdictional principles in international
law but ‘the international community recognizes its legitimacy’157 and it has been accepted by the
US and the international community in recent years in the sphere of terrorism and other
internationally condemned crimes.158 The passive personality principle ‘today meets with
relatively little opposition’.159
In Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky,160 the court referred to universal jurisdiction over crimes of
genocide and crimes against humanity, but relied on the same Israeli law that was based on the
theory of passive personality. The fact that Demjanjuk is charged with committing these acts in
Poland does not deprive Israel of authority to bring him to trial.161
156
82 ILR 343, 344.
157
SHAW, 666; 82 ILR 343, 349.
158
SHAW, 666; 82 ILR 343, 350.
159
The Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium), 2002 I.C.J. 3, 63, ¶ 47 (Feb. 14) (joint separate
opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal); SHAW, 666.
160
776 F.2d 571, 582-83 (6th Cir. 1985).
161
Id. at 582.
35
Nonetheless, examples of state practice indicate the international community is
increasingly willing to accept assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction on the basis of the passive
nationality principle.162
2. Effects Doctrine entails Amalea’s jurisdiction
The effects principle allows states to assert jurisdiction over conduct occurring
extraterritorially if that conduct has an effect on their territory. 163 It is a settled principle that ships
on the high seas are an extension of the flag state’s territoriality. Thereby, the flag state will have
jurisdiction over non-national ships and persons for acts of piracy. Thus, recognizing universal
application of the flag state’s right to defend against pirates and eventually, to pursue them for
preventive and punitive purposes.164
Be that as it may, male captus bene dententus (wrongly captured, properly detained)
permits prosecution of an individual even when that person has come into the custody of the
court through illegal means.165 Thus, even if the arrest and seizure is questionable, Amalea has
valid jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for actions in relation to the Rosehill incident.
Piper, 76; GILLION DOREEN TRIGGS, INTERNATIONAL LAW: CONTEMPORARY PRINCIPLES AND
162
PRACTICES 355-356 (2006).
Piper, 76. See also R. O’Keefe, Universal Jurisdiction: Clarifying the Basic Concept, 2 J.
163
INT’L CRIMINAL JUSTICE 735, 739 (2004).

164
M. Cherif Bassiouni, The History of Universal Jurisdiction and Its Place in International Law,
in UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: NATIONAL COURTS AND THE PROSECUTION OF SERIOUS CRIMES
UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 39, 47 (Stephen Macedo, ed., University of Pennsylvania 2006).
Attorney-General v. Eichmann, 36 I.L.R. 5 (1961). See also United States v. Alvarez-Machain,

165
504 U.S. 655 (1992).
36
Far from laying down a general prohibition to the effect that states may not extend the
application of their laws and the jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property or acts outside
their territory, international law leaves them in this respect a wide measure of discretion which is
only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules; as regards other cases, every State remains free
to adopt the principles which it regards as best and most suitable.166
Luz, by virtue of being a pirate, lost protection of his home state and national character
and Daedalus, being a pirate ship, lost the privilege of flying under the Ritanian flag. 167 Thus, it
is humbly submitted that Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for criminal actions
related to the Rosehill incident.
166
Lotus, 19.
167
STARKE, 746; Lotus, 70 (dissenting opinion of Judge Moore).
37
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS STATED, QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED, AMALEA MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ADJUDGE
AND DECLARE THAT:
(a) Ritania’s acts and omissions with respect to the development of Excelsior Island, violate
international law;
(b) Amalea is entitled to compensation for the economic losses caused by the landslide;
(c) Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all artifacts recovered
from it;
(d) Ritania’s deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast violate international law;
(e) Amalea Navy’s pursuit of Oscar de Luz into Ritania’s EEZ, and his subsequent arrest, are
consistent with international law;

(f) Amalea has jurisdiction to try and convict Oscar de Luz for criminal conduct relating to
Rosehill incident ;
(g) Amalea is not obligated to return Oscar de Luz to Ritania.
AND TO PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER, DISCRETION & JUDGMENT AS THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/s/_______________________________
AGENTS FOR THE STATE OF AMALEA
38

585A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

585A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE 2014 PHILIP C. JESSUP INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

CASE CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE MALACHI GAP

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

SUBMITTED TO – MISS ALISHA VERMA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - - XVII

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - - - - - - - - XVIII

STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - - - XIX

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS - - - - - - - - XXIV

I. RITANIA’S ACTS AND OMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF

EXCELSIOR ISLAND VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND AMALEA IS THEREFORE ENTITLED

A. Ritania has breached international obligations - - - - 1

1. Ritania has violated obligations under the Malachi Gap Treaty - 1

2. Ritania has breached general principles of international law - - 4

a. Precautionary principle is violated - - - - - 5

b. Ritania has failed in its duty to cooperate - - - - 7

c. Ritania has failed to undertake holistic EIA - - - - 9

SITE OF THE CARGAST VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW. - - - - 14

B. Ritania’s deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast violated

1. Deployment of patrol vessels is in violation of obligation under the Malachi Gap

2. Deployment of patrol vessels is contrary to the principles enunciated in the

SUBSEQUENT ARREST, WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. - 21

2. The hot pursuit commenced in Amalea’s contiguous zone - - 25

ACTIONS RELATED TO ROSEHILL INCIDENT, AND HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RETURN HIM TO

1. Daedalus can be termed as a pirate ship- - - - - 30

2. Piracy entails universal jurisdiction - - - - - 32

1. Passive Personality Principle confers jurisdiction upon Amalea - 34

2. Effects Doctrine entails Amalea’s jurisdiction - - - - 36

PRAYER FOR RELIEF - - - - - - - - -

TREATIES & Conventions

Bibliographical Information Page No.

2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage,

United Nations Resolutions and Other Documents

Bibliographical Information Page No.

Co-operation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared

Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,

Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Rep.

U.N.G.A., 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Annex I,

UNEP Draft Principles of Conduct on Shared Natural Resources, U.N. Doc.

International Cases and Arbitral Decisions

Bibliographical Information Page No.

Acquisition of Polish nationality (Germany v. Poland), 1 R.I.A.A. 401 (July 10,

Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 7

Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway (Belgium v.

Armstrong Cork Company Case—Decision No. 18, 14 R.I.A.A. 159 (Italian- 4

U.S. Conciliation Commission, 1953)

Corfu Channel, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9) 4, 6, 10

Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, Advisory Opinion, 1925 P.C.I.J.

Factory at Chorzów (Jurisdiction), Judgment, 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9 (July

Factory at Chorzów(Claim for Indemnity), Judgment, 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No.

Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Iceland), Merits, Judgment, 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 8) 7, 8

Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J. 7

Greco-Bulgarian “Communities”, Advisory Opinion, 1930 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No.

International Fisheries Company (U.S.A.) v. United Mexican States, 4 R.I.A.A.

Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase), Advisory Opinion, 1950 I.C.J.

Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.

Peru (Italy v. Peru), 15 R.I.A.A. 389 (1901) 4

S.S. Wimbledon, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1 (Aug. 17) 4, 10

Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (Mar. 11, 1941) 6

Treatment of Polish Nationals and Other Persons of Polish Origin or Speech in

Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 4

Bibliographical Information Page No.