Team Code:

PB 01

BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

13TH PRO BONO ENVIRO INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

THE CASE CONCERNING

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAILED LAUNCH OF VK14

AVALON
(APPLICANT)
AND
RIVERDALE
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 8
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 13
I. That the ITLOS under UNCLOS shall have jurisdiction over the present dispute. ................ 13
A. Mutual consent of the parties:............................................................................................................ 13
B. That the ITLOS has jurisdiction Rationae Materiae over the current dispute:.................................... 13
C. The Rule of Lex Specialis: .................................................................................................................... 16

II. The Applicant is not liable for the environmental damage. ............................................... 17
A. The Applicant is not responsible for the crash of VK14 ...................................................................... 17
B. The Applicant is not liable for the payload or the shipment of the spacecraft. .................................. 18

III. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental and economic damage must make
reparations ............................................................................................................................ 21
A. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental damage. ............................................................ 21
B. Respondent is liable for causing the environmental damage. ............................................................ 22
C. Respondent is liable to make reparations........................................................................................... 22

IV. The Respondent has violated the relevant provisions of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, and the principles of customary international law therein:....................................... 23
A. Provisions of the CBD and principles of customary international law enshrined therein, violated by
the Respondent: .......................................................................................................................................... 24
B. The activity must have been within the jurisdiction or control of the Respondent: .......................... 26
C. The right of the applicant to bring a claim for the damage to the international commons herein the
Sonumalia Sea: ............................................................................................................................................. 27

PRAYER .......................................................................................................................... 29
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

1. Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79

2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
3. Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, January 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331
4. Boundary Treaty between the Netherlands and Prussia, signed at Aix-la-Chapelle, 26
June 1816
5. Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses,
1997
6. Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses, 1992
7. Protocol on water and health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses, 17th June 1999, in London
8. Partial Test Ban Treaty, (PTBT), A/RES/50/245
9. The Bangkok Treaty (Southeast Asia)
10. Pelindaba Treaty (Africa)
11. Semipalatinsk Treaty (Central Asia)
12. Antarctic Treaty, Dec. 1, 1959, 402 UNTS 71.
13. Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
14. Protocol no. 3 to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Rarotonga Treaty) Apr.
14, 1997, 1971 UNTS 482

INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

1. Statute of The International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 993
2. International Law Commission Report, Utton, R.91996
3. United Nations General Assembly, Cooperation between States in the field of
environment
4. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme,
57th Session of the Commission on Human Rights in 2001
5. United Nations Environment Programme, Environmental Law: Guidelines and
Principles, No. 2, Shared Natural Resources (Nairobi, 1978
6. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de
Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992
 7. Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, art. 2, 2001, ILC 53rd
SESSION 2001
8. Yearbook of ILC 1949
9. Charter of the United Nations, October 24, 1945
10. 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Declaration of Principles
(Stockholm), UN Doc. A/CONF/48/14/REV.1
11. International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International law: Difficulties arising
from the diversification and expansion of International law, Report of the Study Group
of the International Law Commission-finalized by Martti koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L682
12. Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the ILC on second reading at its Fifty-
Third Session in 2001 (A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1 of July 26, 2001), with commentaries
13. Fragmentation of International law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and
expansion of International law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law
Commission-finalized by Martti koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L682
14. Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur ,First report on prevention of
transboundary damage from hazardous activities, International liability for injurious
consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (prevention of
transboundary damage from hazardous activities) [agenda item 3] document
a/cn.4/487.
15. Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 25
(A/44/25), annex I, decision 15/27 of 25 May 1989
16. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, UN Doc.
A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1, Report of the UNCED Vol.1 (New York).
17. Yearbook of the ILC (1976), vol. II (Part Two)
18. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission-finalized by Martti
koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International law: Difficulties arising from the
diversification and expansion of International law, A/CN.4/L682
19. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2006, Vol II, Part Two, Conclusions
of the Work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties
arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law

JUDICIAL DECISIONS
 1. North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (Great Britain v. USA), 11 R.I.A.A. 188
(Sept. 7, 1910)
2. Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 1957) 12 R.I.A.A 281; 24 I.L.R 101
3. Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), (2001) 126 ILR 310 (Dec. 13)
4. Alabama Claims of the United States of America against Great Britain, (1871) 29
R.I.A.A. (May 8)
5. Trail Smelter Case (USA v. Canada), Arbitral tribunal , 3 U.N . REP. International
Arbitration Awards 1905 (1941)
6. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1970, p. 3.
7. Beagle Channel Arbitration (Argentina v. Chile) ILR vol. 52 (1979) p. 141 [39]
8. Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) (Judgement
of 20 April 2010) [2010] ICJ Rep. 12
9. Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom) (Jurisdiction
and Merits) Award, 18 March 2015, para. 349
10. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports
1996, p. 242
11. M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) ((Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS
Reports 1999, p. 10 at p. 63
12. Mavromattis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom) (Preliminary
Objections), [1924] P.C.I.J. Reports Series A, No. 2, 11.
13. Southem Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Iapan), Provisional
Measures, Order of 27 August 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p.280

BOOKS

1. Benedicte Sage-Fuller, The Precautionary Principle in Marine Environmental Law, 169

(2013)
2. Jin-Hyun Paik, ITLOS At Twenty: Reflections on its Contribution to Dispute
Settlement and the Law of the Sea in Myron H Nordquist, John Norton Moore, Ronan
Long(Ed.), Legal Order in the World’s Oceans, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
3. Rudriger Wolfrum & Nele Martz, JA Frowein and Rudriger Wolfrum(eds), The
Interplay of the UNCLOS and the Convention on Biological Diversity), Max Planck
Yearbook of United Nations Law, 445-480
 4. Silvia Borelli, The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex specialis and the
Relationship between International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed
Conflict in Laura Pineschi (ed.) General Principles of Law: The Role of the Judiciary
(Springer, 2015).
5. Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, 4 (2003)

JOURNAL ARTICLES

1. Alan Boyle, 2007, ‘The Environmental Jurispudence of the International Tribunal of

the Law of the Sea’, The International Journal Of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol 222,
No. 3, 369, 373
2. Glowka, L, et al., (1994), A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, IUCN
Gland and Cambridge. xii + 161pp
3. James Harrison (2017) Defining Disputes and Characterizing Claims: Subject- Matter
Jurisdiction in Law of the Sea Convention Litigation, Ocean Development &
International Law, 48:3-4
4. Jillaine Seymour, (2006) "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Great
Mistake? (The Earl Snyder Lecture in International Law)," Indiana Journal of Global
Legal Studies: Vol. 13: Issue 1, Article 1 1, 4
5. MOM Ravin United Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow Germany, March-
December 2005, ITLOS and Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea

OTHER SOURCES

1. CBD in a Nutshell ,Global Youth Biodiversity Network, 2016

2. Prof. Sergio Marchisio, National jurisdiction for regulating space activities of

governmental and non-governmental entities, Activities of States in Outer Space in
Light of New Developments: Meeting International Responsibilities and Establishing
National Legal and Policy Framework, UNITED NATIONS/THAILAND
WORKSHOP ON SPACE LAW
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Governments of the State of Avalon and Riverdale submit this dispute for its final
resolution before the International Court of Justice pursuant to a Special Agreement
(Compromis). This Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under Article 36(1) read with
Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1950.

The State of Avalon reserves its right to contest jurisdiction before the Hon’ble Court.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Avalon is a democratic country which has been steadily making progress despite having
faced severe socio-economic distress. It has a cutting edge space program which is highly
cost effective and successful, Avalon Space Program (hereinafter referred to as ASP).
ASP attracts clientele on a global scale, and is headed by Dr. Aishwarya, a highly
qualified and experienced scientist.
2. Riverdale is one of the most developed countries in the world, and has both military and
economic strength. Despite being one of the most progressive countries, Riverdale is one
of the largest consumers of single use plastic, and is also a highly carbon dependent
economy, producing a highly toxic substance known as Chemical IRIS, as a waste
discharge from its industries, both of which it has faced difficulty in disposing off. Both
Avalon and Riverdale maintain trade relations and also friendly relations with each other.
Project Vijaykrishnan and the Bilateral Treaty of 2018 between the State parties
3. Initially, Riverdale used to dispose off its plastic by exporting it to other countries to be
recycled. However, there were innumerable reports exposing poor recycling practices of
the importing countries, as well as public opinion against Riverdale for exporting the
plastic without any regard for the overall impact of such import many of such importing
countries had rescinded their waste importing agreements with Riverdale.
4. As a consequence, a number of plastic recycling units came up in a very haphazard
fashion, which allegedly overlooked environmental regulations also to attain quick
disposal of plastic waste, which included, but was not restricted to compression and
stowing away of the plastic waste.
5. In light of the above problems, Riverdale released a statement through their President that
they would be interested in collaborating with Avalon through ASP, which culminated
into Project Vijaykrishnan, which aimed at solving Riverdale’s waste disposal issue.
6. That Project Vijaykrishnan, resulting from the Bilateral Treaty 2018 signed between
Riverdale and Avalon, was aimed to make use of Avalon’s space program to dispose of
the plastic waste plaguing Riverdale. The project involved space launches of the satellites
and payloads from different nations, including Riverdale, into High Earth Orbit, by
Avalon.
7. That one such payload named VK 14 containing waste from only Riverdale, containing,
as per the stated contents, the plastic waste from Riverdale that was incapable of being
downcycled or recycled, was scheduled to launch on 5th May 2019.
8. Pro bono Enviro, an independent think tank working on marine and coastal concerns,
based in the coastal state of Agnesia, published a report that stated that the payloads sent
from Riverdale on VK14 contained not only plastic waste, but also Chemical IRIS. The
Official Spokesperson of Riverdale, Ms. Harini, dismissed the report as politically
motivated and anti-development, and stated that an inspection of the payload at this point
in time, by Avalon, would not be prudent and would adversely affect the amicable
relations between the countries.
9. During the scheduled launch of VK14, technical glitches were noticed within seconds of
the launch which led to the engine of the launch vehicle to shut down prematurely. The
launch vehicle was subsequently manoeuvred by Avalon to fall into the high seas of
Sonumalia, instead of crashing onto land. Consequent to the crash, the waters of the
Sonumalia sea started turning slimy and lead to the death of the Sameena, an endangered
species of fish, on a large scale.
10. That Pro Bono Enviro submitted an unsponsored study to the Secretary General of the
United Nations, which was consequently endorsed by him, stating that VK14 has caused
massive and widespread damage, not only to the marine environment, sub soil, sea bed
of the high sea area, but also to the Sameena fish. Pro bono Enviro published its second
report stating that the death of the fish was sue to the release of Chemical IRIS from
Arjun 7, one of the payloads on VK14, thereby stating that Riverdale had sent Chemical
IRIS in its payload , apart from plastic waste.
11. Riverdale stated that Avalon was responsible for the failure of the launch of VK14, and
subsequently, the damage that ensued, and Avalon pressed the contents of the Second
Report of Pro Bono Enviro. Avalon contended that as both parties have declared that the
ITLOS will decide matters governed by UNCLOS, ITLOS shall have jurisdiction.
12. Riverdale chose to invoke the jurisdiction of the ICJ, on the basis of the Bilateral Treaty
of 2018. That Avalon agreed to appear before the World Court, but reserved the right to
object to its jurisdiction.
13. Both the nations submitted the dispute by way of encouragement by some major
powers of the world to the ICJ.
 ISSUES RAISED

I. That the ITLOS under UNCLOS shall have jurisdiction over the present dispute.

II. The Applicant is not liable for the environmental damage.

III. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental and economic damage must make
reparations.

IV. The Respondent has violated the relevant provisions of the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the principles of customary international law.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. That the ITLOS under UNCLOS shall have jurisdiction over the present
dispute.
The Applicant seeks to establish the jurisdiction of the ITLOS on the basis of the following
grounds, which include, firstly, the factum of mutual consent of the parties in selection of the
ITLOS as a forum for disputes related to the UNCLOS, by virtue of their declaration regarding
the same. This condition, for its consideration, required the fulfilment of another condition,
being the applicability of the UNCLOS to the dispute. The Applicant further seeks to establish
that the dispute arises under the UNCLOS, and therefore, by virtue of aforementioned
declaration made by the parties, it is the ITLOS that shall have jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Applicant finally invokes the rule of lex specialis as a rationale to consider the jurisdiction
of the ITLOS over the dispute, instead of the ICJ.
II. The Applicant is not liable for the environmental damage.
The crash of VK14 was not the fault of the Applicant as there was no negligence nor deliberate
damage caused to the spacecraft. The damage was caused due to the leak of Chemical IRIS
from the Respondent’s payload which is the sovereign responsibility of the Respondent. Any
damage caused thereof, is therefore the responsibility of the Respondent.

III. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental and economic damage must
make reparations
Respondent is Liable to pay compensation for the environmental harm caused due the leak of
the chemicals which lead to the pollution of the high seas and loss of lime of the Sameena Fish.
The principles of international law including the precautionary principle, the principle of
preventing transboundary harm all concur with these findings.

IV. The Respondent has violated the relevant provisions of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and the principles of customary international law therein
The Applicant seeks to establish the responsibility of the Respondent its acts that have resulted
in the violation of the relevant provisions of the CBD, and also the principles of customary
international law enshrined therein. To achieve the same, the Respondent initially presents the
relevant provisions that fasten an obligation on the Respondent in context of the present
dispute. Further, the Applicant seeks to establish that the Respondent had jurisdiction over its
activities ,i.e, over Arjun 7 that caused marine pollution subsequent to the crash. The factum
of jurisdiction fastens obligations mentioned above. The Applicant finally establishes its own
legal right to seek redress by application of the doctrine of obligations erga omnes.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. That the ITLOS under UNCLOS shall have jurisdiction over the present dispute.
1. The Applicant seeks to establish before this Hon’ble Court that the ITLOS has jurisdiction over
the particular dispute, under the relevant provisions of the UNCLOS.

A. Mutual consent of the parties:

2. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, provides for certain dispute resolution
method. Since no reservations to the Convention1 are allowed, the parties are required to accept
dispute settlement in accordance with Part XV that gives states the right to settle any dispute
between them by peaceful means of their own choosing.2
3. The UNCLOS, with regard to matters of dispute settlement, states that3 “…. When signing,
ratifying or acceding to this Convention or at any time thereafter, a State shall be free to
choose, by means of a written declaration, one or more of the following means for the
settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention (a) the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in accordance with Annex
VI……………. for one or more of the categories of disputes specified therein.”
4. A declaration indicating their preferred choice of compulsory procedure can be made by States
parties at any time and revoked or modified on three months' notice.4It is humbly submitted
that both the State Parties had previously declared ITLOS to have exclusive jurisdiction over
matters related to the UNCLOS, thereby selecting ITLOS as the forum for adjudication for
matters related to the UNCLOS, in place of any of the other dispute resolution mechanisms
provided for under the UNCLOS. Additionally, the Respondent has not sought to revoke or
modify this declaration under the relevant provisions of the UNCLOS, and as such, the
declaration to submit disputes related to the UNCLOS, to the ITLOS, remains in force.

B. That the ITLOS has jurisdiction Rationae Materiae over the current dispute:

1
United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.[hereinafter UNCLOS] Art
309
2
Jillaine Seymour, (2006) "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: A Great Mistake? (The Earl Snyder
Lecture in International Law)," Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies: Vol. 13: Issue 1, Article 1 1, 4
3
UNCLOS, Art 287
4
UNCLOS, Art 287(6)
5. The ability to bring a claim under the LOSC is not unconditional and jurisdiction is limited to
ratione temporis, ratione loci, ratione personae, and ratione materiae.5 For the purposes of the
present dispute, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has to be established rationae materiae, which
further entails:

a. Existence of a legal dispute

6. The first question that arises for any court or tribunal acting pursuant to Part XV of the LOSC
is whether there is a dispute between the two parties to the litigation that can trigger the process
of dispute settlement. 6A dispute has been defined by the Permanent Court of International
Justice7 as “a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests
between two persons.” The dispute between the parties related to the interpretation of relevant
provisions of the UNCLOS relating to marine pollution, and conservation of marine
environment, and the liability of the states for the same. The dispute also involves an
adjudication on facts as to which act of either of the State parties for the pollution caused in
the Sonumalia sea. It is clear that as a preliminary matter, the applicant in LOSC litigation must
first of all proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views” regarding the settlement of a dispute
prior to the commencement of litigation which suggests that some form of notification of a
dispute is necessary.8 The State parties exchanged diplomatic notes that signified their
divergence of their views on similar subject matter, and thus fulfils the requirement of
notification.
b. Subject matter of legal dispute:
7. It is not sufficient that there is merely a legal or factual dispute between the parties—there must
also be a dispute within the agreed limits of jurisdiction.9 Under Part XV of the UNCLOS, the
Tribunal has jurisdiction over certain types of legal disputes between states parties concerning
the interpretation and application of law of the sea convention or international agreement
related to the purpose of the Convention.10 To further determine the subject matter of
jurisdiction, it is necessary to establish a link between the facts advanced by the Parties and the

5
James Harrison (2017) Defining Disputes and Characterizing Claims: Subject- Matter Jurisdiction in Law of the
Sea Convention Litigation, Ocean Development & International Law, 48:3-4, 269
6
Ibid
7
Mavromattis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections), [1924] P.C.I.J.
Reports Series A, No. 2, 11.
8
Harrison, Supra Note 5, p 271
9
Ibid
10
MOM Ravin United Nations-The Nippon Foundation Fellow Germany, March-December 2005, ITLOS and
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
 provisions of the Convention referred to by them and to show that such provisions can sustain
the claim or claims submitted11.
8. On the basis of early jurisprudence, one author has concluded that “if an applicant state can
make out a plausible case that a dispute involves the interpretation and application of [LOSC],
the court or tribunal concerned will have jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the dispute
may also relate to the interpretation and application of another treaty.”12 Where a dispute
concerns the interpretation or application of the Convention, the jurisdiction of a court or
tribunal pursuant to Article 288(1) extends to making such findings of fact or ancillary
determinations of law as are necessary to resolve the dispute presented to it.13 The dispute in
the present case regards the marine pollution and damage to the marine biodiversity caused by
Arjun 7, and the same attracts the application of various provisions of the UNCLOS, which
provides for the duty to protect marine environment from pollution and transfer of damage.
Part XII of the Convention deals exhaustively with the matter of conservation of the marine
environment, and is regarded as one of the most comprehensive environmental treaties in this
regard.14

i. Protection of marine environment:

9. Art 19215 of the Convention lays down the general obligation of the States to protect and
preserve the marine environment. The Tribunal16 has regarded the conservation of living
sources of the sea as an element in the protection and the preservation of marine environment.17

ii. Prevention of pollution of marine environment:

10. The embodiment of this principle occurs under Art 194 of the UNCLOS which states that States
shall take measures to ensure that activities under their jurisdiction or control do not cause
damage by pollution to other States or areas beyond their sovereignty.

11
M/V “Saiga” (No. 2) ((Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment, ITLOS Reports 1999, p. 10 at
p. 63
12
Harrison, Supra Note 5, p 275
13
Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom) (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award, 18
March 2015, para. 349, available on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at www.pca-cpa.org.
14
Jin-Hyun Paik, ITLOS At Twenty: Reflections on its Contribution to Dispute Settlement and the Law of the
Sea in Myron H Nordquist, John Norton Moore, Ronan Long(Ed.), Legal Order in the World’s Oceans, UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea
15
UNCLOS, Art 192
16
Southem Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Iapan), Provisional Measures, Order of 27 August
1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, p.280, [70]
17
Alan Boyle, 2007, ‘The Environmental Jurispudence of the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea’, The
International Journal Of Marine and Coastal Law, Vol 222, No. 3, 369, 373
 C. The Rule of Lex Specialis:

11. The principle commonly expressed in the maxim lex specialis derogat legi generali is a general
principle of legal reasoning, which entails that, when two rules regulating the same subject-
matter conflict, priority is to be given to that which is more specific. 18
a. Lex specialis as customary international law:
12. The principle embodied in lex specialis, is a widely accepted maxim of legal interpretation and
19
technique for the resolution of normative conflicts. It has also been universally accepted
through international case law.20
b. UNCLOS as lex specialis over the statute of the ICJ
13. There are two ways in which law takes account of the relationship of a particular rule to general
rule (often termed a principle or a standard). A particular rule may be considered an application
of the general rule in a given circumstance, that is, it may give instructions on what a general
rule requires in the case at hand, or, a particular rule may be conceived as an exception to the
general rule. 21A rule may be general or special in regard to its subject-matter or in regard to
the number of actors whose behaviour is regulated by it.22Generally, ICJ has jurisdiction over
all international matters, including the breach of treaty obligations, set out herein between the
parties under the Bilateral Treaty of 2018. However, the subject matter of the dispute, as has
been enunciated hereinbefore, is specifically damage to the environment. The special law
dealing with the same is the UNCLOS, and by use of the lex specialis rule, will prevail over
the principles enunciated under the Bilateral Treaty, and the Statute of the International Court
of Justice.
c. Special (self-contained) regimes as lex specialis:
14. A group of rules and principles concerned with a particular subject matter may form a special
regime (“self-contained regime”) and be applicable as lex specialis.23 Such special regimes

18
Silvia Borelli, The (Mis)-Use of General Principles of Law: Lex specialis and the Relationship between
International Human Rights Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict in Laura Pineschi (ed.) General Principles of
Law: The Role of the Judiciary (Springer, 2015).
19
International Law Commission, Fragmentation of International law: Difficulties arising from the
diversification and expansion of International law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law
Commission-finalized by Martti koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L682
20
Ibid, See also Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2 (1924) p. 31., Beagle Channel
Arbitration (Argentina v. Chile) ILR vol. 52 (1979) p. 141 [39]
21
Ibid
22
Ibid
23
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2006, Vol II, Part Two, Conclusions of the Work of the Study
Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of
International Law
 often have their own institutions to administer the relevant rules.24 The UNCLOS fulfils both
the requirements of a self-contained regime, and may be treated as lex specialis in that regard.
The Applicant humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court all the hereinabove mentioned
principles to adjudge that the ITLOS shall have jurisdiction over the present dispute.

II. The Applicant is not liable for the environmental damage.

15. The damage caused in the Sonumalia Sea is due to the payload which is the sovereign property
of the respondent and does not shed any responsibility or liability on the applicant.

A. The Applicant is not responsible for the crash of VK14

16. The crash of VK14 containing the payload of the respondent state is not the fault of the applicant.
This does not cast any responsibility on the applicant as there was no negligent (a.) or any deliberate
or intentional damage (b.) to the spacecraft.
a. No negligence on part of applicant.
17. There was no damage done to the spacecraft due to negligence by Avalon Space Program. The ASP
has an impeccable record in launch success. 25
18. The ASP is an extremely advanced space program with an impeccable record. A single instance of
malfunction cannot attribute negligence. Applicant carried out the launch with the highest level of
care, taking every precaution
19. The respondent has failed to proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was any breach or lack of due
diligence by the Applicant The launch of a space vehicle is an elaborate task and can led to certain
unforeseen and unmitigable instances. These events cannot be said to attribute negligence of the
launching State.
b. No deliberate or intentional damage was cause to the spacecraft
20. The Applicant has no cause to intentionally sabotage the launch. It has had as much invested in the
launch as the respondent if not more. The ASP is the epitome of the advancement and progress of the
space. The crash has led to a severe impact on its reputation.
21. In fact, the crash also caused damage and harm more so to the Applicant state as opposed to the
Respondent.
22. Subsequently, any claim that the Applicant is responsible for the crash is mala fide and without any
basis. In the light of the above facts, it is clear that the crash of the VK14 launch vehicle was not due

24
Ibid
25
Compromise, Para 2
 to any fault of the Applicant and thus, any harm resulting thereof cannot be attributed to the Applicant
state.

B. The Applicant is not liable for the payload or the shipment of the spacecraft.

23. The payloads of the shipment are the sovereign property of the Respondent.26 The satellite, including
the payload and their content remain the sovereign property of the respond as per the bilateral treaty
between the parties.
a. The payload is not the property of the applicant.
24. As per Article II of Convention on the International Liability for Damage27 caused by Space Objects,
a State is liable only for the damage caused by its space object. Art. 3(1) of the Bilateral Treaty
between the parties explicitly state that the payload shall remain the sovereign property of the
Respondent.
25. The application of sovereignty is also embedded in the United Nations Convention on Law of the
Sea.28 The ship is recognized as the sovereign land of the State who’s flag it bears.
26. Ships of a sovereign are considered to be part of the sovereign’s territory while they are on the high
seas. As such admiralty jurisdiction as it relates to criminal law is really a species of territorially
based jurisdiction.29
b. Respondent violated the Bilateral Treaty.

27. States are obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty, agreed
between them.30 A treaty is to be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to
the terms of the treaty.31 The object and purpose of the treaty needs to be interpreted as per Article 31
of the same convention, as in those articles, the "object and purpose" refers to the reasons for which
the States concluded the treaty and to a general result, which they want to achieve through it.32
28. Moreover, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in
good faith.(Pacta Sunt Servanda)33 The fundamental principle of treaty law is the proposition that
treaties are binding upon the parties34 and must be performed under good faith.35 Therefore, there lies

26
compromis
27
Convention
28
United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Seas, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 27 1 (c)
29
United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933)
30
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, January 27, 1980, Art. 18, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 [hereinafter VCLT].
31
German External Debts Arbitration (Swiss Confederation v. Federal Republic of Germany), 19 I.L.M 1980,
1357, 1377; La Grande Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. U.S), 2001 I.C.J. 466 (June27)
32
VCLT, Art. 31
33
VCLT, Art. 26
34
Andrew D. Mitchell, Good Faith in WTO Dispute Settlement, 7(2) Melb. J. Int'l. L. 339 (2006)
35
The Nuclear Test case (Australia v. France), 1974 I.C.J. 253, 268 (December 20); Military and Paramilitary
Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. U.S.A) (Merits), 1986 I.C.J. 14, 418 (June 27); Legality
of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Case (Advisory Opinion), 1996 I.C.J. 64 (July 8)
 a duty on both the Applicant State and the Respondent State to not only act in corollary with the object
and purpose of the treaty but to also, perform their obligations under good faith.
29. The obligation of a State to act under good faith has been stressed by this Court on several occasions.36
Thus, it is the duty of both the Respondent State and the Applicant State to act in a bona fide in relation
to the provisions provided under the treaty.
30. The Doctrine of State Practice has been recognized as essential principle under Customary
International Law. The Treaty between Netherlands and Prussia37, Treaty between Belgium and
Holland38, Treaty between Sweden and Norway39 and Treaty between France and Italy40 define State
Practice. Furthermore, the bilateral treaty has been signed and ratified by both the Respondent State
and The Applicant State and hence, is a binding source on law on both parties in accordance with
Article 38 (1) (a) of the this hon’ble courts statute.41 However, The Respondent State failed to perform
their obligations as per the Art. 6 of the Bilateral Treaty. Thus, violated international law obligations.
31. The Respondent State was under an obligation to disclose the detailed contents and purposes of every
satellite and payload to be launched by ASP.42
32. The Respondent failed to correctly disclose the contents of the satellite. Riverdale stated that the
payload contained plastic waste that could not be recycled or downcycled. However, a report by Pro
Bono Enviro also stated that the payload contained the Chemical IRIS.
33. In the light of the good diplomatic relations between the states and the bona fide belief that Respondent
will not breach the Treaty, applicant paid no heed to these rumours. However, the fact that the later
spill from the payload of the Respondent contained traces of corrosive chemicals and caused
environmental degradation show that the Respondent breached its duty under the Bilateral Treaty to
inform the applicant about the contents. This shows a clear mala fide intention on part of the
Respondent.
34. States are under the obligation to take into consideration various interests of other parties involved, to
seek to give them every satisfaction compatible with the pursuit of its own interests and to show that
in this regard it is genuinely concerned to reconcile the interest of other riparian states with its own.43
35. In the present case, the Respondent State failed to take the Applicant State into confidence. It acted
on its self-interest and completely disregarded the nature and consequences of the harm that it was
going to cause to the Applicant State. Hence, Riverdale has violated the Treaty.

36
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco case (France v. U.S.A), 1952 I.C.J. 212 (Aug.
27); North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (Great Britain v. U.S.A), 11 R.I.A.A. 188 (Sept. 7, 1910); C. Jenks,
The Common Law of Mankind 94 (1958); F.A. Mann, Studies in International Law 59 (1973)
37
Boundary Treaty between the Netherlands and Prussia, signed at Aix-la-Chapelle, 26 June 1816
38
Treaty between Belgim and Holland, 1843
39
Karlstad, Treaty of 1905
40
Treaty of London, 1915, Art. 1
41
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38(1) , June 26, 1945, 33 U.N.T.S. 993
42
Annexure
43
Lake Lanoux Arbitration( France v Spain)(1957) 12 R.I.A.A 281; 24 I.L.R 101)
 c. Respondent has also violated principles of international law

36. A wrongful act is one that deviates from the objective of international law. Immutability from the
viewpoint of International law is nothing more than the consequence of the causal link between an act
against international law and the activity of the state from which the act comes. However, The
Respondent State was in violation with respect to its duty of due diligence and causing significant
harm(i.) and The Respondent State’s duty of cooperation (ii.)
a. Significant harm and due diligence
37. Notion of no significant harm prevails as a near absolute when a use causes significant harm to health
and safety.44
38. The Respondent State has disregarded the principle of significant harm time and again. Acting in self-
interest only, the Respondent State proceeded with the use of Chemical IRIS which is inherently
harmful to the environment. Further, it added the said chemical to the payload due to be launched
without the knowledge or prior consent of the Applicant. This is breach of duty and failure to uphold
principles of due diligence.
39. The Respondent State has been completely negligent towards the Applicant State. Chemical IRIS
poisoning caused by the Respondent State’s payload caused the environmental degradation of the
Sonumalian waters and even led to the mass death of the revered Sameena fish of the SOEL tribes.45

ii. Cooperation and due diligence

40. The emergence of a general duty to cooperate, through treaties and State practices, has been observed,
which lead to the recognition of cooperation as a general principle of international law, along with the
principles of equitable and reasonable utilisation, the obligation not to cause significant harm, and
others. The importance of cooperation among neighbour states has been stated in many conventions.46
41. Cooperation in good faith47 is part of general international law. Following the principle of cooperation
it was required that the Respondent State would notify The Applicant State about the contents of the
payload. Completely disregarding responsibilities established by International law, the Respondent
State, without cooperating, failed to do so.
42. In the MOX Plant case48 The Tribunal in its order stated that the duty to cooperate is a fundamental
principle in the prevention of pollution of marine environment under conventions and generally,
international law.

44
International Law Commission report, ref. 46, p.242. Utton, R.91996
45
Compromis, Annexure 1
46
Convention on the Protection and use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, 1992
47
Convention on the Law of Non-navigational uses of International Watercourses; Fisheries Jurisdiction
(Germany v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J. 175 (July 25)
48
Mox Plant Case (Ireland v. U.K), (2001) 126 ILR 310 (December 13)
43. This cooperation includes sharing natural resources. This legal doctrine even obliges one state to
prevent appreciable harm to its neighbour49 by exercising due diligence.50
44. The test of due diligence51 is in fact the standard that is accepted generally as the most appropriate
one.52

III. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental and economic damage must
make reparations

45. “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 State.”53 By
doing so, Respondent has violated international law obligations as Respondent [A] caused irreversible
damage to Sonumalia Sea; [B] must make reparations to The Applicant State.

A. Respondent has caused irreversible environmental damage.

46. Watercourse States shall, individually and, where appropriate, jointly, protect and preserve the
ecosystems of international watercourses. “Pollution” of an international watercourse” means any
detrimental alteration in the composition or quality of the waters of an international watercourse which
results directly or indirectly from human conduct.
47. The acts by the Respondent State signify negligence and ignorance of the established principles of
international law.
48. “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas”, as Oppenheim stated54 is one of those general principles of
law which the Court is bound to apply by virtue of article 38 of its Statute.55 States while managing
international relations shall refrain from and prevent acts or omissions within its territory that cause
significant harm to another state. The presence of Chemical IRIS caused severe ecological damage to
the sea, seabed, coastal regions and to the biodiversity of the region. These deliberate and ignorant
acts caused great suffering to its neighbour. Human rights cannot be secured in a degraded and
polluted environment. The fundamental right to life is threatened by factors which include exposure
to toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes and contaminated drinking water.

49
Patricia Birnnie, Alan Boyle, et al, international law and environment 549 (3rd ed.) 2009
50
Xue Hanquin , Transboundary Damage in International Law, 169 (2003)
51
Alabama claims of the United States of America against Great Britain (1871) 29 R.I.A.A 129 (May 8)
52
ILC, Commentary on the Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities,
2001, Report of the ILC on its 53rd Session, A/56/10, p. 392.; Birnie and Boyle, International Law and the
Environment, pp. 112)
53
Oppenheim on International Law (1912: 243–44) Chapter Eight p.220
54
L.Oppenheim, International Law: A Treatise, 8th Ed
55
Trail Smelter case (US v. Canada) Arbitral Tribunal , 3 U.N . REP. International Arbitration Awards
1905(1941); I.C.J., Advisory Opinion on Legality of the Threat or use of Nuclear Weapons July 8, 1966
49. In the present case, chemical poisoning has had a major impact on environmental life. These emissions
lead to environmental contamination and human exposures. Chemical IRIS has proved to be fatal.
These chemicals are also a major threat to food supply. Contaminated fish can bring serious economic
problem to communities and regions dependent on fisheries for their economic survival.56

B. Respondent is liable for causing the environmental damage.

50. A wrongful act is attributable to the State,57 consisting of an action or omission under international
law and which constitutes a breach of an international obligation.58
51. The respondent knew the contents of the payload. As per article 6 of the bilateral treaty between the
parties, it was required to disclose any and all such contents to the payload in light of security and
bona fide intentions. However, the respondent failed to inform the applicant about the presence of
chemical IRIS. An official spokesperson of the respondent also denied the report of Pro Bono Enviro
which said that the payload contains chemical IRIS.
52. After the crash, the respondent is trying to shed is legal and moral obligations concerning the severe
damage caused to the environment and the biodiversity of the region affected by the crash. This
damage was caused solely due to the sovereign property of the respondent and the presence of the
corrosive element oh whose existence the applicant was not even aware of. Therefore, the respondent
alone is liable to pay and make reparations to make the region whole so as to restore the environment
to its previous condition.
53. In the Reparation for Injuries case, it noted that “[a]s the claim is based on the breach of an
international obligation on the part of the Member held responsible, the Member cannot contend that
this obligation is governed by municipal law”
54. 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. In the same manner, the Respondent State in the present case
knew about the presence of Chemical IRIS in the payload and its harmful effects. The Respondent
State tried to escape liability by failing to inform the applicant about the true content of the payload.

C. Respondent is liable to make reparations.

55. The breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation in an adequate form.
Reparation therefore is the indispensable compliment of a failure to apply a convention and there is

56
Global Mercury Assessment Issued by UNEP Chemicals, Geneva, Switzerland December 2002
57
Dickson Car wheel company (U.S.A v. United Mexican States, UNRIAA, vol. IV (Sales No. 1951.V.1), p.669,
at p.678(1931)
58
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 2, 2001, ILC 53 RD SESSION 2001; Phosphates
in Morocco (Italy v. Fr.), 1938 P.C.I.J(ser.A/B) No. 74(June 14)
 no necessity for this to be stated in the convention itself. The Respondent State was responsible for
protecting and preserving the rich ecosystem.
56. In the Spanish Zone of Morocco59 claims Judge Huber emphasised that: responsibility is the
necessary corollary of a right. All rights of an international character involve international
responsibility. Responsibility results in the duty to make reparation if the obligation in question is
not met. The Respondent State owed a duty of care towards Applicant.
57. The polluter pays principle is strengthened as one of the fundamental principles and obligations that
the Contracting Parties shall apply.60 This has also been enshrined in Principle 16 of Rio Declaration.
58. By non-observance of its obligations, The Respondent State has made itself responsible for the
damage caused and therefore must bear the cost of the same.61
59. In refusing to pay for the environmental damage, respondent is in violation of the polluter pays
principle62 which establishes that a state is required to pay for the damages it causes, 63 even if the
damage results from actions that do not violate customary or conventional international law.64 This
is also been enshrined in principle 16 of the Rio Declaration. The polluter in the present case is the
Respondent state. The ICJ has recognised the legitimacy of the polluter praise principle65 and has
further acknowledged that the obligation to make reparations is a principle of international law.66
Thus, in feeling to pay for the damage respondent is in breach of its customary duties and remains
responsible for the insuring damage. Of breaching state is obligated to make full reparation for the
injury caused by the wrongful act.67 Respondent violated numerous principles of customary
international law in its conduct and should thus be directed to compensate68 for the damage

IV. The Respondent has violated the relevant provisions of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, and the principles of customary international law therein:
60. The CBD is considered to be a framework convention, that entails is a legally binding
international treaty that establishes a set of general guidelines and principles for the
international governance of a particular issue.69

59
Spanish Zone of Morocco claims (Great Britain v Spain) (1924) 2 R.I.A.A. p. 615; 2 AD, p. 157
60
Convention and Protection and use of Transboundary Watercourses1992, Art. 2(5)(b)
61
Rio Declaration, UNCED, June 3-14, 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev. 1, reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992)
[hereinafter Rio Declaration]
62
Sumudu Atapattu, Evolution and the Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law, 96 AM. J.
INT’L L. 1016, 1017 (2002)
63
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Council Recommendation on the Implementation
of the Polluter-Pays Principle, 14 I NT’L LEG. MAT. 238 (1975)
64
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD and the Environment 8 (1986)
65
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 502-03 (July 8), at 503.
66
Chorzów Factory (Ger. v. Pol.), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 13, at 47 (Sept. 13)
67
Id. Art 36
68
Rio Declaration, UNCED, June 3-14, 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev. 1, reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 874 (1992)
[hereinafter Rio Declaration]; David Wirth, Symposium: The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA
Trade Disciplines, 27 0 L.J. 817 (1994)
69
CBD in a Nutshell ,Global Youth Biodiversity Network, 2016, p 57
61. To prove the violation of the relevant provisions of the CBD by the Respondent, it is essential
to inculcate a dual narrative. The same is required as the relevant provisions that have been
breached by the Respondent relate to its obligations to protect biodiversity only with regard to
activities within its jurisdiction or control. Thus, to establish breach of relevant provisions, it
is essential to consider the provisions of the CBD that place a responsibility on the Respondent
with regards to marine biodiversity, and secondly, whether the test of jurisdiction or control
over the harmful activities, is fulfilled by the Respondent. Further, the Applicant also seeks to
establish its right to bring an action against the Respondent, for its violations.

A. Provisions of the CBD and principles of customary international law enshrined

therein, violated by the Respondent:

a. Relevant provisions of the CBD

62. The Convention states, as a part of its principles70, the sovereign right of States to exploit their
own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure
that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of
other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Thus, the principle articulated
in the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 was enshrined in a binding article of an international
agreement for the first time under Article 3 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 71 It
states that States have a right to exploit their resources, but States have to ensure that activities
on their territory or under their control including, for example, on the continental shelf, in the
fishery zone or economic zone, do not damage other States or areas beyond national
jurisdiction, that is, the high seas, the deep sea-bed or outer space.72The ICJ has also recognised
“[t]he existence of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their
jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national
control is now part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.”73
63. Additionally, the Convention, by virtue of Article 4, applies to processes and activities that are
undertaken under a State’s jurisdiction or control, and places a responsibility on states for their
processes or activities irrespective of where the effects of such activities occur.

70
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 (1993), Art 3
71
Glowka, L, et al., (1994), A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity, IUCN Gland and Cambridge. xii
+ 161pp.
72
Ibid
73
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 242, para. 29.
64. The present dispute also falls within the scope of Art.14 because implementation of Project
Vijaykrishnan has caused grave damage to biodiversity. Art.14(d)74 of CBD required Avalon
to initiate action to prevent/minimize danger/damage to biodiversity. Death of sameena fish75,
an endangered species, constitutes a grave damage to biodiversity. Neither had the State take
any steps to prevent the damage, nor has taken any steps to minimize it. Hence, a dispute arises
out of this article.

b. Precautionary principle:
65. The precautionary principle was recommended by the UNEP Governing Council in order to
promote the prevention and elimination of marine pollution in its fifteenth session,76 the 1992
Convention on biological diversity refers to the principle indirectly only in its
preamble77wherein it states that it is the duty of States to converse biodiversity and to prevent
any loss of biodiversity.
66. The most commonly quoted and widely accepted definition of the precautionary principle is
found in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and
Development78 which states that, … “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary
approach shall be applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”79
67. The Precautionary principle, considered as a principle of customary international law, 80 is
enshrined in the CBD under its preamble. International Court of Justice in its 2010 81judgement
held that the practice has ‘in recent years gained so much acceptance among States that it may
now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake an
environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity

74
Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 14(d) states that –“In the case of imminent or grave danger or
damage, originating under its jurisdiction or control, to biological diversity within the area under jurisdiction of
other States or in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, notify immediately the potentially affected States
of such danger or damage, as well as initiate action to prevent or minimize such danger or damage.”
75
Compromis, Para 14
76
Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 25 (A/44/25), annex I,
decision 15/27 of 25 May 1989
77
Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao, Special Rapporteur ,First report on prevention of transboundary damage from
hazardous activities, International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by
international law (prevention of transboundary damage from hazardous activities) [agenda item 3] document
a/cn.4/487 and add.1
78
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1, Report of
the UNCED Vol.1 (New York).
79
Benedicte Sage-Fuller, The Precautionary Principle in Marine Environmental Law, 169 (2013)
80
Ibid
81
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) (Judgement of 20 April 2010) [2010]
ICJ Rep. 12, at para. 204
 may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, in particular, on a shared
resource’. Riverdale has violated its duty to prevent harm to the environment by sending Arjun
7 , a payload specifically designed for the disposal of the explosive Chemical IRIS.

c. Principle of transboundary harm:

68. The principle is effectively echoed in the CBD, through Articles 3 & 4, expounded
hereinabove, and is also a part of customary international law.82 Principle 21 of the Stockholm
Declaration83, while reaffirming the sovereign rights of States to exploit their natural resources,
imposes a general responsibility on States not to cause transboundary harm to the environment
of other States and to the environment in general.84 There must be a physical linkage between
the activity in question and the damage caused by it.85In general international environmental
law, the precautionary principle is closely linked with the principle of prevention of
transboundary harm.86 Riverdale has violated the same due to the payload being full of
Chemical IRIS, which was within the information of the Respondent, and well within its
jurisdiction, which affected the water of the high seas of Sonumalia.87

B. The activity must have been within the jurisdiction or control of the
Respondent:

69. It is evident from the provisions that the processes and activities mentioned in the hereinabove
enunciated provisions refer to those activities that are undertaken under the jurisdiction of the
State.88 It is humbly submitted that the activity that has led to the causation of the pollution of
the waters of the Sonumalia sea, and subsequent harm to biodiversity by death of the
endangered Sameena fish, is the crash of VK-14 that occurred in the high seas, and the
following essential step is to establish Riverdale’s jurisdiction over the aforementioned
activity. “Jurisdiction” means, in international law, the power of a State to exercise its
sovereignty and authority and is based on the principle of effectiveness. Sometimes it simply

82
Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 5 ; Pulp Mills, supra note 13
83
1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Declaration of Principles (Stockholm), UN Doc.
A/CONF/48/14/REV.1.
84
Fuller Supra Note 11
85
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, 4 (2003).
86
Ibid
87
Compromis, Para 16
88
Rudriger Wolfrum & Nele Martz, JA Frowein and Rudriger Wolfrum(eds), The Interplay of the UNCLOS and
the Convention on Biological Diversity), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 445-480
 means territory, but most often it refers to powers exercised by a State over persons, property
or events.89 The jurisdiction need not necessarily, be territorial.90 VK-14, was carrying Arjun
7, and a crash of that payload into the high seas lead to the subsequent pollution. It has already
been established that the State of Riverdale had jurisdiction over the payload, and the same is
also evident from the Bilateral Treaty concluded between both states.

C. The right of the applicant to bring a claim for the damage to the international
commons herein the Sonumalia Sea:

70. The right arises out of the violation of an obligation owed by the Respondent State, and the
consequent right of the Applicant to bring an action for the same.
a. Obligation erga omnes:
71. All States owe a responsibility to the international community at large to protect the marine
environment. Obligation erga omnes is understood to be as obligations of states to the
international community as a whole, regarding rights of which all States can be held to have a
legal interest in their protection.91 The ILC previously included the protection of marine
environment as obligation erga omnes,92 and it still recognises the protection of marine
environment as a matter of collective interest.93 In this regard, Riverdale can still be responsible
for a violation of obligations omnes partes, that is, the violations that arise out of a collective
interest owed to States arising from a multilateral treaty or from customary international law.94
b. Applicant is an injured State
72. The Applicant can be considered as injured State within the definition provided for by the
ILC.95In the same, Avalon fulfils the condition of being an injured State by virtue of it being
specifically affected by an obligation owed by the Respondent to various States including the
injured State,96 as the death of the fish specifically affected the SoEL tribes inhabiting the the

89
Prof. Sergio Marchisio, National jurisdiction for regulating space activities of governmental and non-
governmental entities , Activities of States in Outer Space in Light of New Developments: Meeting International
Responsibilities and Establishing National Legal and Policy Framework, UNITED NATIONS/THAILAND
WORKSHOP ON SPACE LAW
90
Wolfrum & Martz Supra Note 20
91
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3. [33]
92
Commentary on Article 19, Yearbook of the ILC (1976), vol. II (Part Two), p. 95, at pp.
101--102, para. 15
93
Commentary on Article 48 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the ILC on second reading
at its Fifty-Third Session in 2001 (A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1 of July 26, 2001), p 126, para 6
94
Ibid, p 127, para 10
95
Article 42 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the ILC on second reading at its Fifty-
Third Session in 2001 (A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1 of July 26, 2001)
96
Ibid
 East coast of Avalon,97 to whom the Applicant owes an obligation under the CBD.98 With
regard to the same, the Applicant is within its internationally recognised legal rights to invoke
the State responsibility of Riverdale for a breach of its obligation. 99
73. The Applicant most respectfully submits before this Hon’ble Court that the Respondent is
liable for harm to the biodiversity and must make reparations for the same.

97
Compromis, Para 15
98
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 (1993), Art 8
99
Ibid
 PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, The State of Avalon , Applicant respectfully requests the Court to
adjudge and declare that:

I. The jurisdiction of the case concerning the launch of the VK14 lies before ITLOS
II. Riverdale has violated the Treaty Agreement, governing the launch of VK14
III. Riverdale has caused irreversible environment damage and liable to pay pay
compensation for the same
IV. Riverdale is responsible for the loss of life of the sacred Sameena fish and is liable to
take up costs in an attempt to restore the same,

And pass any such order that the Hon’ble Court deems fit.

Respectfully Submitted

Agent for the State of Avalon