Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

38
TEAM CODE : “O” IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE PEACE PALACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS YEAR 2009 THE CASE CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DISASTER AT MONRON FACTORY ND OTHER RELATED MATTERS THE REPUBLIC OF ANGHORE (APPLICANT) V. THE REPUBLICS OF RATANKA AND CARISTHAN (RESPONDENTS) ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE RESPONDENTS THE 2009 D. M. HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE I  NTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 

description

it is the best memorial on part of the respondent in d m harish memorial moot competition.

Transcript of Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    1/38

    TEAM CODE: O

    IN THE

    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEAT THE PEACE PALACE,THE HAGUE,THE NETHERLANDS

    YEAR 2009

    THE CASE CONCERNING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DISASTER AT MONRON FACTORY ND

    OTHER RELATED MATTERS

    THE REPUBLIC OF ANGHORE (APPLICANT)

    V.

    THE REPUBLICS OF RATANKA AND CARISTHAN

    (RESPONDENTS)

    ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICEWRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE RESPONDENTS

    THE 2009D.M.HARISH MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL MOOTCOURT COMPETITION

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    2/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------------

    INDEX

    INDEXOFAUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ I

    STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION ................................................................................ VIII

    SYNOPSISOFFACTS ..................................................................................................... IX

    SUMMARYOFARGUMENTS .....................................................................................XIII

    BODYOFARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 1

    I.]THAT RATANKA AND CARISTHAN BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE

    ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, AND HENCE, CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY ANY

    COMPENSATION.................................................................................................................. 1

    A.] That Ratanka realizes the importance of protection of environment and has

    complied with all its international obligations. ............................................................... 1

    B.]That The environmental disaster was a result of unseasonal rains and flash floods,

    i.e. force majeure, for which Ratanka cannot be made liable. ........................................ 2

    C.]That Anghores own responsibility in causing the climatic changes in the region,

    which resulted in the present environmental disaster, undermines any claim it seeks to

    establish against Ratanka. ............................................................................................... 3

    D.]That Caristhan has no direct or indirect role in the damage caused and cannot be

    held internationally liable for the same. .......................................................................... 4

    II.THAT RATANKA AND CARISTHAN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VIOLATION OF

    ANGHORES TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY........................................................................ 6

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    3/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------------

    A.] That Caristhan Is Not Responsible For Violation Of Anghores Territorial-

    Sovereignty As There Was The Situation Of Necessity ................................................. 6

    B.] That the Use Of Military Bases By Caristhn In Rantankan Territory Does Not Cast

    Any Responsibility On Ratanka .................................................................................... 12

    III. THAT THE ANESIANS ARE NOT RATANKAIANS BUT REFUGEES AND NEED TO BE

    PROTECTED BY ANGHORE................................................................................................ 13

    A.]That the Anesians are not Ratankaians ................................................................... 13

    B.] That the Anesians are Refugees and therefore, they are entitled to refugee

    protection in Anghore. ................................................................................................... 15

    C.]That under Human Rights Norms, Anghore is obligated to provide protection to

    Ansieans ........................................................................................................................ 17

    D.] In Arguendo, even if Anseains are Ratankaians then also Anghore cannot expel

    them from its Territory .................................................................................................. 18

    E.] That Ratanka and Caristhan are under no obligation to pay compensation to

    Anghore for the cost incurred by it on the welfare of Anseians. .................................. 18

    IV. THAT CARISTHAN HAS NOT VIOLATED ITS COMITY OBLIGATIONS UNDER

    INTERNATIONAL LAW...................................................................................................... 19

    A.]Comity is not a rule of law ...................................................................................... 19

    B.] In Arguendo, even if comity is a rule of law, then also Caristhan has not violated its

    comity obligations ......................................................................................................... 20

    CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................XV

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    4/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- i

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    I. UN DOCUMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS

    Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally

    Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-Third Session,

    U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 81, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) ........... 2, 8, 11

    Conclusion No. 22 (XXXII), 1981 ................................................................................... 15

    Declaration of the Right to Development (G.A.Res. 41/128) (Dec.4, 1986) ..................... 1

    Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources Pe1803 (XVII) (Dec.14,

    1962)................................................................................................................................ 1

    Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of

    the International Law Commission, Fifty-Third Session, U.N. G.A.O.R., 56th Sess.,

    Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001).................................................................. 5, 11

    General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966 ................................. 17

    Letters from U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster to British Minister Mr. Fox, 29

    BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 1129(1840-41). ................................................... 6

    R. Ago, The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International

    Responsibility, Eighth Report on State Responsibility, Addendum (1980), ILC, 32nd

    sess., UN Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5, 8 ............................................................................. 8

    Report of the ILC (1980), UN Doc. A/35/10 .................................................................. 6, 7

    Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 151/5/Rev.

    (1992) .............................................................................................................................. 1

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    5/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- ii

    See Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, by Mr. Roberto Ago, U.N.

    Doc. A/CN.4/318/ADD.5-7, reprinted in 1980 Y.B. INT'L L. COMM'N vol. II, pt. 1,

    13, 16, para. 7, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1980/Add.l (Part 1) ..................................... 8

    Standing Committee, Progress Report on Informal Consultations on the Provision of

    International Protection to All Who Need It, UN Doc. EC/47/SC/CRP.27, 30 May

    1997 at Section II, Paras. 4-5 ........................................................................................ 15

    Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc. /CONF.48/14/Rev.1

    (1973) .............................................................................................................................. 1

    The 1966 Bangkok principles Concerning Treatment of Refugees .................................. 16

    The 1984 Cartenga Declaration on Refugees ................................................................... 16

    UN Secretary General, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Application,

    UN Doc. E/CN.17/1997/8 ............................................................................................... 1

    United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, ............ 1

    United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 1-16, 1972........................ 1

    Yearbook of the ILC, 1961, vol. II ...................................................................................... 2

    II. JUDICIAL DECISIONSAdvisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J.

    65......................................................................................................................................... 6

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

    Diversion of the Waters from the Meuse case, recognizing equity as a part of

    international law: (1937) PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 70, 76-7..3

    Gabkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7 ................................ 6, 7, 8, 9

    Greenland v. Chaplin, (1850) 5 Ex. 243 ........................................................................... 19

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    6/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- iii

    Judge v. Canada, Communication No. 829/1998, Views 20 Oct. 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/

    C/78/D/829/1998 ........................................................................................................... 17

    Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 488-489 ....................................... 19

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), 1986

    I.C.J. 14 ........................................................................................................................... 6

    Ng v. Canada, Communication No. 469/1991, Views 7 Jan. 1994, UN Doc.

    CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991................................................................................................ 17

    North Se Continental Shelf Case, (1982) ICJ Reports 18 ................................................... 3

    Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 241, 242, U 29 ...................................... 8

    Pacific Fur Seals Arbitration, (1893) in J. B. MOORE, HISTORY AND DIGEST OF THE

    INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN APARTYI,

    826 (Washington, DC, 1898) .......................................................................................... 6

    Phosphates in Morocco, Preliminary Objections, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74 ........ 5

    Rigby v. Hewitt, (1850) 5 Ex. 240 .................................................................................... 19

    III. BOOKS AND TREATISESA. Cassese (Ed.), The Current Regulation Of The Use Of Force 247, 250-51 (1986) ..... 10

    A.MCNAIR,THE LAW OF TREATIES 508,516-18 (1961);..13

    A.VAMVOUKOS,TERMINATION OF TREATIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW266-67, 276, 302-03

    (1985). ...13

    ALINE CHALUFOUR, LE STATUT JURISDIQUE DES FORCE ALLIES PENDANT LA GUERRE

    1927 (1914-1918) .......................................................................................................... 13

    G.S.GOODWIN-GILL AND S.TALMON,THE REALITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW;ESSAYS IN

    HONOUR OF IAN BROWNLIE 401 (Oxford University Press, 1999) ................................. 6

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    7/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- iv

    G.S.GOODWIN-GILL,THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 166-167 (2nd ed., 1996) 16

    G.SCHWARZENBERGER,AMANUAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 21 (6th

    ed., 1976) ........... 13

    GUNNEL STENBERG,NORT-EXPULSION ANDNON-REFOULEMENT, 288 (1989) ................ 16

    HALL,INTERNATIONAL LAW7th

    Edition, Sec. 56 .............................................................. 13

    I.BROWNLIE,PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 614-15 (3rd

    ed., 1979) ........ 13

    J. MAKARCZYK, (ED.), ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF JUDGE MANFRED LACHS 250 (Martinus

    Nij-hoff, 1984). ............................................................................................................... 7

    J. B. MOORE, HISTORY AND DIGEST OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS TO WHICH

    THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN APARTYI, 826 (Washington, DC, 1898) ..................... 6

    JAMES CRAWFORD, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION'S ARTICLES ON STATE

    RESPONSIBILITY:INTRODUCTION,TEXT AND COMMENTARY 183 (2002)........................ 7

    L.B.SOHN AND T.BUERGENTHAL (EDS.),THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ACROSS BORDERS

    2 (1992) ......................................................................................................................... 18

    LAWRENCE,PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW107 (6th

    ed.) ....................................... 13

    MALCOLMN.SHAW,INTERNATIONAL LAW 1031(5th ed., 2003) ....................................... 6

    M.VILLIGER,CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIESat 213-14 (1985) ......... 13

    OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW1155 (Sir Robert Jennings & Sir Arthur Watts eds.,

    9th

    ed. 2003). .................................................................................................................. 12

    PATRICIA BIRNIE &ALAN BOYLE,INTERNATIONAL LAW &THE ENVIRONMENT101 ........ 4

    R.PLENDER,INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW(1998) .................................................... 18

    SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD GOVERNANCE322, 333-34 (Konrad Ginther et

    al. eds., 1995 .................................................................................................................... 4

    VAN PANHUYS,THE ROLE OFNATIONALITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW(1959) .................. 18

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    8/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- v

    WESTLAKE,INTERNATIONAL LAW265 (edition 1919) ...................................................... 13

    WHEATON ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW95 & 99 ................................................. 13

    YORAM DINSTEIN,WAR,AGGRESSION,AND SELF-DEFENCE 184 ....................................... 6

    IV. ARTICLE AND JOURNALSCaroline Foster, Necessity and Precaution in International Law: Responding to Oblique

    Forms of Urgency, 23NZULR 265(2008),266. .................................................................. 7

    Adrian A. Barham, The Establishment And Conduct Of Extra-Territorial Military Bases In

    Peacetime-Some International Law Considerations, 31 B. L. J. 7 (1999), 15 .............. 13

    Andreas Laursen, The Use of Force and (the State of) Necessity, 37 VAND. J.

    TRANSNATL L. 485 2004, 491 ........................................................................................ 6

    Bathurst, Jurisdiction over friendly armed forces, the American Law, 23 B. Y. B. I. L.,

    339. ................................................................................................................................ 13

    Daniel Dobos, The Necessity Of Precaution: The Future Of Ecological Necessity And

    The precautionary Principle, 13 FORDHAM ENVTL.L.J. 375 (2002), 381 ...................... 9

    Ian Brownlie & C.J. Apperley,Kosovo Crisis Inquiry: Memorandum on the International

    Law Aspects, 49 INT'L &COMP.L.Q. 878 (2000), 903.................................................. 11

    John H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact

    Assessment, 31 A.JI.L. 291, 293 ..................................................................................... 1

    Justice Jitendra N. Bhatt, Dynamics and Dimensions of Doctrine of Desuetude, (2004) 4

    SCC (Jour) 21 ................................................................................................................ 13

    King,Further Developments concerning jurisdiction over friendly armed forces, 40 AJIL

    257; Schwelb ................................................................................................................. 13

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    9/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- vi

    King,Jurisdiction over friendly armed forces, 36 AJIL, 539 ........................................... 13

    O. Schacter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force,82MICH.L.R. 1620 (1984), 1631.

    ....................................................................................................................................... 10

    Ole Spiermann, Humanitarian Intervention as a Necessity and the Threat or Use of Jus

    Cogens, 71 NORDIC JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW523 (2002), 525 ..................... 11

    Oscar Schachter, The Emergence of International Environmental Law, 44 J. INTL AFF.

    457 (1991), 462- 63 ......................................................................................................... 1

    R. Boed, State of Necessity as Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct, 3

    YALE HUM.RTS &DEVELOPMENT L.J. 15 & 26 (2000) ............................................. 3, 7

    R. Falk, The United States and the Doctrine of Nonintervention in the Internal Affairs of

    Independent States, 5HOW.L.J.163 (1959), 167. ........................................................ 11

    Tom Clark,Rights Based Refuge, the Potential of the 1951 Convention and the Need for

    Authoritative Interpretation, 16 INTL J.REFUGEE L. 584 (2004), 589. .................. 15, 17

    William C.G. Burns, Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Damages in

    International Fora: The Law of the Sea Convention.

    http://policy.miis.edu/programs/BurnsFT.pdf .................... 2

    V. MISCELLANEOUS DOCUMENTSUnited Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change ............................................... 2

    Letters from U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster to British Minister Mr. Fox, 29

    BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 1129(1840-41). .................................................. 6

    GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE STATUS OF refugee, 1951 .................................................. 16

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/index.htm, ... 17

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    10/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- vii

    The Organization of African States Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of

    Refugees Problems in Africa 1969 (OAU Convention)................................................ 16

    United Nations Charter, as amended June 26, 1945, 892 U.N.T.S.

    119....1

    United Nations Convention on the Law Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1983, 1833

    U.N.T.S. 331, Art.193..1

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S.

    1081

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    11/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------------viii

    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

    The Republics of Ratanka and Caristhan humbly submit to the jurisdiction of the International

    Court of Justice for final resolution in the present dispute between the Republic of Anghore and

    the Republics of Ratanka and Caristhan. The Courts jurisdiction is invoked under Article 36(1)

    read with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1950.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    12/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- ix

    SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

    RATANKA: Ratanka is a mountainous nation from where the Mithali River emerges. Its

    people have traditionally been involved in subsistence farming and animal husbandry.

    They have generally belonged to a single ethnic and religious group, which is one of the

    reasons attributed to the 500years of peace there. In the last 50 years the government has

    built a mixed economy which has improved the life of atleast 30% of the people.

    ANGHORE:Anghore is a country based in the Mithalian Plains, neighbouring Ratanka.

    It is significantly better off than Ratanka with thriving Agricultural and industrial bases

    and a privatized economy. The relations between Ratanka and Anghore have been cordial

    notwithstanding the occasional problems due to differences in economic progress.

    CARISTHAN: Caristhan is a coastal country neighbouring Ratanka. It is prosperous

    with a total population of 14 million and has a similar type of economy as Anghore.

    Historically it has had trade relations with countries world-wide and to safeguard its trade

    it also had a strong military. Ratankians and Caristhanis, although neighbours, are two

    distinct ethnic groups with no linkages to each other.

    CLIMATIC CHANGE:Climatic change has happened in the region affecting Ratanka

    the most. The climatic change has been attributed to global warming coupled with the

    200 years of industrial activity in Anghore and to some degrees in Caristhan. This has

    resulted in the melting of the Ratankian Glacier and shrinking of the Transeian River.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    13/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- x

    Climate change with deforestation has caused many flash floods too. Although, now

    Anghore has championed the cause of environmental protection by changing regulations

    on economic activity and use of eco-friendly technology. All these environmental

    changes had a huge impact on a small minority called the Anseians living in the forests

    for more than 1,200 years. Their citizenship is in doubt, although; there exists a treaty

    signed 200 years ago by Ratanka to exercise sovereignty over the Anseians. In the last

    few years they have come out of the forest but have found it tough to integrate into the

    Ratankian society.

    ECONOMIC AND MILITARY EXPANSION: In 2003, Caristhan as part of its

    aggressive policy of military and trade expansion decided to provide Ratanka a USD 20

    billion aid for setting up chemical, hydro-electricity, and wind energy units. This also

    included the Monron factory, which is the largest chemical unit in the region. Some of

    these units took technical assistance from Caristhan although due to ostensible national

    interest concerns, specifics were not disclosed. Caristhan was also allowed to open a

    military base-supporting 1,00,000 personnel- in Ratanka and also awarded few oil blocks.

    THE DISASTER: In 2007, incessant rainfall with the environmental changes caused a

    humanitarian crisis in Ratanka. But before it could recover it was hit by renewed rains

    which resulted in flash floods which also destroyed the Monron Factory, thereby causing

    an environmental disaster. Although the floods subsided in 24 hours the chemicals

    contaminated the Mithali River and entered the Transeian forest as well as Anghore. It

    was widely believed that contamination of the Mithali River would slip the recession.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    14/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- xi

    REFUGEE INFLUX: Due to the wide spread destruction in Ratanka the Anesians

    moved out of the Transeian forest into Anghore. Although they had set up temporary

    camps for the Anseians, Anghore clarified that Anesians were Ratankians, not refugees

    and Ratanka should take them back. It also wanted compensation from Ratanka and

    Caristhan for the environmental disater as well as the costs that it had incurred on the

    welfare of the Anseians. Ratanka dismissed the demands for compensation, stating it to

    be a natural disaster. It also said that Anesians were not Ratankians. Caristhan in response

    only issued a press briefing saying that it had no role to play.

    MILITARY ACTION: Meanwhile the contaminated Mithali flowing from Anghore was

    on the door step of Caristhan. Caristhan sensing the veracity of such a situation asked

    Anghore to allow its scientists into Anghore so as to conduct a few tests. But Anghore

    demanded that Caristhan first acknowledge responsibility then only it will allow its

    scientists. With time ticking away, Caristhan ordered its military personnel based in

    Ratanka to provide protection to its scientists to conduct tests, although, after three days

    the Caristhani military withdrew from Anghores territory.

    BONE OF CONTENTION:Anghore was upset at this development and clarified that

    environmental damage cannot be a justification for violation of sovereignty. The relations

    between Anghore and Ratanka, and, Anghore and Caristhan started to deteriorate.

    Anghore insisted that Ratanka and Caristhan should bear Joint responsibility for the

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    15/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    ----------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents---------------------------------------- xii

    Economic Disaster. All the parties have decided to accept the Jurisdiction of the

    International court of Justice and argue on the merits of the dispute.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    16/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents-----------------------------------xiii

    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

    I.RATANKA AND CARISTHAN BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR THE

    ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE,AND HENCE,CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY ANY

    COMPENSATION

    A.]THATRATANKA REALIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT AND

    HAS COMPLIED WITH ALL ITS INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS.

    B.]THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER WAS ARESULT OF UNSEASONAL RAINS AND

    FLASH FLOODS,I.E.FORCE MAJEURE,FOR WHICH RATANKA CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE.

    C.]THAT ANGHORES OWN RESPONSIBILITY IN CAUSING THE CLIMATIC CHANGES IN THE

    REGION, WHICH RESULTED IN THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER, UNDERMINES

    ANY CLAIM IT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH AGAINST RATANKA.

    D.]THAT CARISTHAN HASNO DIRECT OR INDIRECT ROLE IN THE DAMAGE CAUSED AND

    CANNOT BE HELD INTERNATIONALLY LIABLE FOR THE SAME.

    D1.] THAT The disaster cannot be spelled out as a consequence of Caristhans aid to

    Ratanka.

    D2.] THAT Imputing liability on Caristhan is inconsistent with the principles of

    international liability.

    II.THAT RATANKA AND CARISTHAN ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEVIOLATION OF

    ANGHORES TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY

    A.]THAT CARISTHAN ISNOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATION OF ANGHORES TERRITORIAL-

    SOVEREIGNTY AS THERE WAS THE SITUATION OFNECESSITY

    A.1] Defence of necessity under customary international law

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    17/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents-----------------------------------xiv

    A.2] Defence of necessity under Conventional International law

    B.]THAT THE USE OF MILITARY BASES BY CARISTHN IN RANTANKAN TERRITORY DOES

    NOT CAST ANY RESPONSIBILITY ON RATANKA

    B.1] That the act of Caristhans Military is not attributable to Ratanka

    III.THAT THE ANESIANS ARE NOT RATANKAIANS BUT REFUGEES AND NEED

    TO BE PROTECTED BY ANGHORE

    A.]THAT THE ANESIANS ARE NOT RATANKAIANS

    B.]THAT THE ANESIANS ARE REFUGEESAND THEREFORE,THEY ARE ENTITLED TO

    REFUGEE PROTECTION IN ANGHORE.

    B.1] That the Anseians are Refugess

    B.2] That the Anseians should be provided protection

    C.] THAT UNDER HUMAN RIGHTS NORMS, ANGHORE IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE

    PROTECTION TO ANSIEANS

    D.]IN ARGUENDO,EVEN IF ANSEAINS ARE RATANKAIANS THEN ALSO ANGHORE CANNOT

    EXPEL THEM FROM ITS TERRITORY

    E.]THAT RATANKA AND CARISTHAN ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PAY COMPENSATION

    TO ANGHORE FOR THE COST INCURRED BY IT ON THE WELFARE OF ANSEIANS.

    IV.THAT CARISTHAN HAS NOT VIOLATED ITS COMITY OBLIGATIONS

    UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

    A.]COMITY IS NOT A RULE OF LAW.

    B.]IN ARGUENDO,EVEN IF COMITY IS A RULE OF LAW,THEN ALSO CARISTHAN HAS NOT

    VIOLATED ITS COMITY OBLIGATIONS

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    18/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 1

    BODY OF ARGUMENTS

    I. That Ratanka and Caristhan bear no responsibility whatsoever for the

    environmental damage, and hence, cannot be held liable to pay any compensation

    A. That Ratanka realizes the importance of protection of environment and has

    complied with all its international obligations.

    A State has, in accordance with principles of international law, the sovereign right

    to exploit their own resources according to their own environmental and developmental

    policies.1

    Concurrently a State has a responsibility to avoid contribution to transboundary

    harm.2 This responsibility is often considered customary international law, but is very

    broad in its scope.3 The idea that all transboundary environmental harm should be

    presumptively unlawful is generally rejected:4To say that a state has no right to injure

    the environment of another seems quixotic in the face of the greater variety of transborder

    and environmental harms that occur every day.5Rather than an absolute prohibition, the

    1United Nations Charter, as amended June 26, 1945, 892 U.N.T.S. 119; United Nations Conference on the

    Human Environment, June 1-16, 1972, Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc.

    /CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (1973), Principle 21 [hereinafter Stockholm Declaration]; United Nations Conference

    on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development,U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 151/5/Rev. (1992), Principle 2 [hereinafter Rio Declaration]; Convention on

    Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79, Art. 27 [hereinafter CBD]; Declaration of the Right

    to Development (G.A.Res. 41/128) (Dec.4, 1986), Declaration on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural

    Resources Pe1803 (XVII) (Dec.14, 1962); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,

    May 9, 1992, 1771 U.N.T.S. 108 [hereinafter UNFCC]; United Nations Convention on the Law Sea,opened for signature Dec. 10, 1983, 1833 U.N.T.S. 331, Art.193 (entered into force Nov. 16, 1994)

    [hereinafter UNCLOS],2Id3 John H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, 31 A.JI.L.

    291, 293, citing UN Secretary General, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Application,

    UN Doc. E/CN.17/1997/8, para. 23.4Id.5Id. at 293, citing Oscar Schachter, The Emergence of International Environmental Law, 44 J. INTL AFF.

    457 (1991), 462- 63.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    19/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 2

    principle ofpact sunt servanda requires States to abide by customary international law in

    good faith.6

    Even the obligation that States must take precautionary action, in the absence of

    full scientific certainty as to the occurrence of a particular contingency, only requires

    States to take cost-effective measures for environmental protection.7Ratanka had put in

    place latest international safety standards for its factory, had taken due care in complying

    with its responsibilities under all environment related norms and principles, and had

    notified Anghore immediately after the chemical leakage. Therefore, Ratanka has not

    violated any obligation regarding transboundary harm.

    B. That the environmental disaster was a result of unseasonal rains and flash floods,

    i.e. force majeure, for which Ratanka cannot be made liable.

    Force majeure has long been accepted as precluding wrongfulness8 in

    international law. Article 23 of the ILC Articles

    9

    provides for the preclusion of the

    wrongfulness where the act was due to the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an

    unforeseen event beyond the control of the state, making it materially impossible in the

    circumstances to perform obligation. A situation of force majeure precluding

    wrongfulness only arises where three elements are met: (a) the act in question must be

    6William C.G. Burns,Potential Causes of Action for Climate Change Damages in International Fora: The

    Law of the Sea Convention. http://policy.miis.edu/programs/BurnsFT.pdf 7Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1 (1992), Principle15, United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change, opened for signature May 9, 1992, Article

    14(1), 31 ILM 849, Article 3(3)8Yearbook of the ILC, 1961, vol. II, p.46; Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States

    for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-Third Session,

    U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 81, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter ILC Commentary],at p.183.9 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of theInternational Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-third Session, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No.10, U.N. Doc. A/56/10 (2001), Art. 1

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    20/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 3

    brought about by an irresistible force or an unforeseen event, (b) which is beyond the

    control of the State concerned, and (c) which makes it materially impossible in the

    circumstances to perform the obligation.

    Ratankas failure to prevent the environmental damage was due not to negligence

    but to genuine inability to take action in the face of a sudden situation. It had acted with

    diligence and carefulness in maintaining its safety standards. Subsequently, unseasonal

    rains for over a month, and a massive flood hit the state, causing large scale damage and

    destruction. The magnitude of these rains and the flood could not have been anticipated

    by Ratanka. Ratanka cannot be held financially liable for harms in Anghore that resulted

    from an unforeseeable natural disaster.

    C. That Anghores own responsibility in causing the climatic changes in the region,

    which resulted in the present environmental disaster, undermines any claim it seeks

    to establish against Ratanka.

    According to the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), 'general

    principles of law recognized by civilized nations,' such as principles of equity are

    considered to be a subsidiary source of international law.10

    In theNorth Sea Continental

    Shelf cases, the ICJ described the concept of equity as being a direct emanation of the

    idea of justice and a general principle directly applicable as law which should be

    applied as part of international law to balance up the various considerations which it

    regards as relevant in order to produce an equitable result.11

    Considerations of equity

    demand that Anghore owns up its role in the natural disaster itself, which has resulted

    10Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945).11North Se Continental Shelf Case, (1982) ICJ Reports 18. Individual opinion of Judge Hudson in the

    Diversion of the Waters from the Meusecase, recognizing equity as a part of international law: (1937)

    PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 70, 76-7.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    21/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 4

    from the climatic change brought about by 200 years of incessant industrialization in

    Anghore. In the context of climate change, developed countries have historically

    contributed the most to the climate change problem and have the greater technological

    and economic capacity to address the problem,12

    whereas developing countries have not

    significantly contributed to climate change and are more vulnerable to its impacts

    because they lack the resources to address the problem. Thus, in arguendo, even if

    Ratanka is held responsible for the river pollution due to a natural disaster, the principle

    of common but differentiated responsibilities13

    will require that Anghore shoulder any

    costs of remediation. The rationale behind this is that because countries have contributed

    unequally to the global degradation of the atmosphere in the past, their response to the

    problem in the future must also be varied.14

    In Subrata Roy Chowdhury's words:

    'contribution for amelioration must also be commensurate with different levels of

    financial resources and technologies that the developed countries command. '15

    D. That Caristhan has no direct or indirect role in the damage caused and cannot be

    held internationally liable for the same.

    D1. That The disaster cannot be spelled out as a consequence of Caristhans aid to

    Ratanka.

    Caristhan did not provide technology or technical assistance to Ratanka in case of

    the Monron Factory. Simply because Caristhan was able to develop a counter to break

    down the spill in time to save its environment from damage, does not in any way serve as

    12PATRICIA BIRNIE &ALAN BOYLE,INTERNATIONAL LAW &THE ENVIRONMENT101 (2nded. 2002).13An equity principle, expressed in Rio Declaration, Principle 7.14Subrata Roy Chowdhury, Common but differentiated State Responsibility in International Environmental

    Law: From Stockholm (1972) to Rio (1992), in SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

    322, 333-34 (Konrad Ginther et al. eds., 1995).15Id. at 334.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    22/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 5

    an indication that it had provided technical assistance to Monron factory. A mere

    inference on Anghores part cannot be used as the basis to impute international liability

    on Caristhan. Further, even in face of severe rains and massive flood, the oil drilling

    units that had been set up by Caristhan withstood the effect and did not suffer destruction.

    This is a clear evidence of the quality and standard of technology used by Caristhan.

    Monron factory had not received technical assistance from Caristhan, and suffered severe

    damage due to the natural disaster.

    D2. That Imputing liability on Caristhan is inconsistent with the principles of

    international liability

    According to Article 2 of the ILC16

    Draft articles, there are two elements to be

    satisfied in order to establish the existence of an internationally wrongful act of the State.

    First, the conduct in question must be attributable to the State under international law and

    secondly, for responsibility to attach to the act of the State, the conduct must constitute a

    breach of an international legal obligation in force for that State at that time.17

    In the

    instant case, as it is mentioned above that the disaster cannot be spelled out as a

    consequence of Caristhans aid to Ratanka. Caristhan did not provide any assistance to

    Ratanak in setting up of monron factory and therefore, this environmental damage cannot

    be attributed to Caristhan. Moreover, Caristhan did not act in any way contrary to its

    international obligations. Hence, Caristhan has no direct or indirect role in the damage

    caused and cannot be held internationally liable for the same.

    16 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the

    International Law Commission, Fifty-Third Session, U.N. G.A.O.R., 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc.A/56/10 (2001), [hereinafter ILC Draft Articles], at p. 1.17 Phosphates in Morocco, Preliminary Objections, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74, p. 10., ILC

    commentary, supra note 8 at p. 12

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    23/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 6

    II. That Ratanka and Caristhan Are Not Responsible for the Violation of Anghores

    Territorial Sovereignty

    A. That Caristhan Is Not Responsible For Violation Of Anghores Territorial-

    Sovereignty As There Was The Situation Of Necessity

    A.1 Defence of necessity under customary international law

    The Caroline incident18

    of 1837, though frequently referred to as an instance of

    customary right to self-defence19

    , actually involved the plea of necessity20

    . The standard

    of necessity is that, it should be instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means

    and no moment of deliberation.21

    This prerequisite of necessity,22

    which is a part of

    customary international law,23

    dictates that military force can be used in necessity only

    when there are no alternative means of redress.24

    In the Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project

    case of 1997, the International Court of Justice clearly expressed that the defence of

    necessity was in fact recognised by customary international law25

    and that it was a ground

    available to States in order to evade international responsibility for wrongful acts.

    26

    18 Letters from U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster to British Minister Mr. Fox, 29 BRITISH AND

    FOREIGN STATE PAPERS 1129(1840-41).19YORAM DINSTEIN,WAR,AGGRESSION,AND SELF-DEFENCE 184 (1988).20

    Report of the ILC (1980), UN Doc. A/35/10, 93, para. 24.21Supra note 17,Caroline incident, at p. 1137-38, ILC, Draft Articles, supra note 15.22MALCOLMN.SHAW,INTERNATIONAL LAW 1031(5th ed., 2003).23Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), 1986 I.C.J. 14 176;

    Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J.65, 4.24Dinstein, supra note 2, at p. 191.25Andreas Laursen, The Use of Force and (the State of) Necessity, 37 VAND.J.TRANSNATL L. 485 2004,

    491.26 Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project case (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J 7, 40, para. 51; P. Okowa,

    Defences in the Jurispru-dence of International Tribunals, in G.S.GOODWIN-GILL AND S.TALMON,THE

    REALITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW;ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF IAN BROWNLIE 401 (Oxford University Press,

    1999); Hungary relied on a state of ecological necessity, Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project case, para 40, andreferred to the case of Pacific Fur Seals Arbitration, (1893) in J.B.MOORE,HISTORY AND DIGEST OF THE

    INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN APARTYI, 826 (Washington,

    DC, 1898).

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    24/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 7

    Moreover, the ICJ set out the elements of the plea of necessity as, it must have

    been occasioned by an "essential interest" of the State which is the author of the act

    conflicting with one of its international obligations; that interest must have been

    threatened by a "grave and imminent peril"; the act being challenged must have been the

    "only means" of safeguarding that interest; that act must not have "seriously impair[ed]

    an essential interest" of the State towards which the obligation existed; and the State

    which is the author of that act must not have "contributed to the occurrence of the state of

    necessity". Those conditions reflect customary international law.27

    A.2 Defence of necessity under Conventional International law

    This customary principle of defence of necessity has been embodied in Article

    2528

    of the ILCs draft articles on state responsibility. As per this article a five point

    criteria needs to be satisfied in order to plea the defence of necessity.

    A.2.1 Essential InterestThe First condition is that necessity may only be invoked to safeguard an essential

    interest which is to be identified29

    . But there is no fixed catalogue listing the essential

    27 Laursen , Supra note 24 at p. 501; Caroline Foster, Necessity and Precaution in International Law:

    Responding to Oblique Forms of Urgency, 23NZULR 265(2008),266.28 1. Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in

    conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act:

    a. is the only means for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril;

    andb. does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation

    exists, or of the international community as a whole.2. In any case, necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if:

    a. The international obligation in question excludes the possibility of invoking necessity; or

    b. The State has contributed to the situation of necessity.29Supra note 19 at para. 32; JAMES CRAWFORD,THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION'S ARTICLES ON

    STATE RESPONSIBILITY: INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARY 183 (2002); J. J. A. Salmon, Faut-ilcodifier ltat de ncessit en droit international, in J.MAKARCZYK,(ED.),ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF JUDGE

    MANFRED LACHS 250(Martinus Nij-hoff, 1984).

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    25/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 8

    interests a State may refer to.30

    It is a well established view that the criterion of essential

    interest need not concern the very existence of the State;31

    and clearly, in principle, it is

    not limited to matters of life and death, but also extends to the adequate functioning of the

    State.32

    This defence has been invoked to protect a wide variety of interests33

    , including

    safeguarding the environment34

    and ecological interests.35

    The extent to which a given

    interest is 'essential' depends on all the circumstances, and cannot be prejudged."36

    In the

    instant case, the economy of the Republic of Caristhan is dependent on Mithali River37

    and due to the chemical spill; the water is undrinkable and unusable for any human or

    industrial activity

    38

    . The essential interest of Caristhan is to protect its people and its

    economy from an environmental disaster which has seriously damaged its environment

    and ecology39

    . Therefore, it was necessary to take such an action out of necessity in order

    to safeguard its essential interest.

    A.2.2 Grave and Imminent Peril

    30Okowa, Supra note 25; Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project case, 1997 I.C.J., 7, para. 53; Report of the ILC

    (1980), UN Doc. A/35/10, para. 32.31R. Boed, State of Necessity as Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct, 3 YALE HUM.RTS &

    DEVELOPMENT L.J. 15 & 26 (2000); Gabkovo-Nagymaros , para. 53.32R. Ago, The Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility, Eighth

    Report on State Responsibility, Addendum (1980), ILC, 32nd

    sess., UN Doc. A/CN.4/318/Add.5, 8, para. 2.Report of the ILC (1980), UN Doc. A/35/10, para. 32.33ILC Commentary, supra note 8 at p. 14534Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 241, 242, U 2935 Gabkovo-Nagymaros, 1997 I.C.J. 7.; Publicist Ago in his report also gives examples of the sort of

    interests that would satisfy article 33 [now 25], including a State's "political or economic survival, thecontinued functioning of its essential services, the survival of a sector of its population, and the

    preservation of the environment of its territory or a part thereof, See Addendum to the Eighth Report onState Responsibility, by Mr. Roberto Ago, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/318/ADD.5-7, reprinted in 1980 Y.B. INT'L

    L. COMM'N vol. II, pt. 1, 13, 16, para. 7, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1980/Add.l (Part 1) [hereinafter Ago

    Report] para 236

    Crawford, supra note 28 at p. 183.37Compromis, 4.38Compromis, 12.39Compromis, 16.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    26/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 9

    The second condition to be satisfied is that the essential interest is to be

    threatened by a grave and imminent peril. This condition is highly fact-specific.40

    The

    international court of justice declared that the concept of imminence goes far beyond the

    concept of possibility41

    . A peril must be imminent in the sense of proximate; however, a

    peril that appears only in the long term may still be imminent at the point in time when it

    is established that the realisation of that peril is certain and inevitable, albeit far away.42

    The ICJ also stated that the mere apprehension of peril would not suffice; danger must

    not be merely contingent.43

    Regardless, it is required that the invoking State can establish,

    based on the evidence available at the time, that the threat will at some point inevitably be

    realised.44

    The "peril has to be objectively established and not merely apprehended as

    possible."45

    In the instant case, there is no doubt that the danger was grave. It is also not

    doubtful that the peril was imminent. A warning was issued that the water of the

    contaminated Mithali River continued to move downstream and it could enter Caristhan

    within a month46

    . It was an established fact which was going to realize inevitably.

    Therefore, it was right on the part of Caristhan to conduct such actions out of necessity.

    A.2.3 Only Means to Safeguard InterestThirdly, the course of action taken must be the only way available to safeguard

    the essential interest. The plea is excluded if there are other (otherwise lawful) means

    40Boed, supra note 31 at p. 28.41Gabkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7.42Gabkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7., at 41-2, para. 54; Boed, Supra note 30 at p.28; Daniel Dobos, The Necessity Of Precaution: The Future Of Ecological Necessity And The

    precautionary Principle, 13 FORDHAM ENVTL.L.J. 375 (2002), 381.43Gabkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 41-5, paras. 54-6, Crawford, Supra note, 29

    at 183-4; See further the Neptune case, where it was said that (in French translation) la ncessit ne doit

    pas tre imaginaire elle doit tre relle et pressant, see quote in Salmon, Supra note 28 at p. 253.44Crawford, Supra note 12 at p. 184; see Gabkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 43-5, para. 56.45ILC Commentary, supra note 8 at p. 202.46Compromis, 15.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    27/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 10

    available, even if they may be more costly or less convenient.47

    In the instant case,

    Caristhan had exhausted other diplomatic options of safeguarding its essential interest. It

    acted swiftly in requesting Anghore to provide all support in containing the spread of the

    spill but Anghore responded by saying that it would provide all assistance but insisted

    that Caristhan accept responsibility. There was a full possibility of losing precious time in

    these back and forth of statements between the two nations.48

    As Professor Schacter put

    it, "in a case involving imminent danger., it would be unreasonable to maintain the

    continued pursuit of peaceful measures.49

    Moreover, the time factor in such operations is

    of extreme importance: speed of action is essential if the operation is to be successful and

    lives preserved. As has been pointed out, "a failure of peaceful attempts to bring about a

    solution, leading to a delay in the rescue operation, might actually jeopardize it."50

    The

    only means to safeguard Caristhans essential interest was to carry out the test and since

    Aghore was not assisting caristhan in containing the spill51

    , the only option left was to

    conduct this operation out of.

    A.2.4 Balancing of InterestFourthly, it is required that the action does not seriously impair an essential

    interest of another State.52

    This requirement involves the balancing of the competing

    interests of two States: on the one hand, the interest in the name of which the defending

    State invokes necessity and, on the other, the harm done to the interest of the State

    47Crawford, supra note 29at p. 184; Shaw, supra note 22 at p. 712; Salmon, supra note 29 at p. 245.48Supra note 45.49O. Schacter, The Right of States to Use Armed Force,82MICH.L.R. 1620 (1984), 1631.50J. Weiler,Armed Intervention in a Dichotomized World: The Case of Grenada,in A.CASSESE (ED.),THE

    CURRENT REGULATION OF THE USE OF FORCE247, 250-51 (1986).51Supra note 45.52Shaw, supra note 22 at p. 712; Crawford, supra note 29 at p. 184. This was confirmed in Gabkovo-

    Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7, at 46, para. 58.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    28/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 11

    claiming a breach of international law.53

    . In the instant case, as already pointed out, the

    essential interest of Caristhan was to safeguard its ecology, environment and peoples and

    the same has been recognized as essential interest by the ICJ. On the other hand Anghore

    is evoking its essential interest of territorial sovereignty. But it is submitted that the lasting

    benefits of an intervention designed to save lives and environment outweigh temporary

    impairment of a state's territorial integrity.54

    Moreover, territorial sovereignty is not to be

    considered an 'essential' interest in every case, nor can it only be 'seriously' impaired. In

    its commentary on Article 25, the International Law Commission55

    stressed that 'the

    interest relied on must outweigh all other considerations, not merely from the point of

    view of the acting State but on a reasonable assessment of the competing interests.56

    On a

    reasonable assessment Caristhans essential interest clearly outweighied the interest of

    Anghore as it is definite that the spill was about to enter Caristhan and Anghore was not

    assisting Caristhan in containing the spill.

    A.2.5 Contribution to the State of NecessityPursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2(b)

    57, necessity may not be invoked by a State

    as a ground for precluding wrongfulness if the State has contributed to the situation of ne-

    cessity or provoked, either deliberately or by negligence, the situation to come about.58

    The

    contribution to the situation of necessity must be sufficiently substantial and not merely

    53R. Boed, State of Necessity as Justification for Internationally Wrongful Conduct, 3 YALE HUM.RTS &

    DEVELOPMENT L.J. 18 (2000).54R. Falk, The United States and the Doctrine of Nonintervention in the Internal Affairs of IndependentStates, 5HOW.L.J.163 (1959), 167.55Supra note 16.56 Ole Spiermann, Humanitarian Intervention as a Necessity and the Threat or Use of Jus Cogens, 71

    NORDIC JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW523 (2002), 525. In the Gabkovo-Nagymaros case the Court

    affirmed the need to take into account any countervailing interest of the other State concerned: Gabkovo-

    Nagymaros (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7at p. 46, para. 5857ILC State responsibility Article, supra note 16.58 ILC State responsibility Article, supra note 16, Article 25(2)(b); Salmon, supra note 28, at p. 262.,

    Gabcikovo-Nagymarcos Project ((Hungary v. Slovakia.), 1997 I.C.J 7, at 46.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    29/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 12

    incidental or peripheral.59

    As has already been proved, Caristhan was not responsible

    directly or indirectly in the Monron Factory chemical breach. Therefore, the actions of

    caristhan clearly established the need to act in the defence of necessity and thus preclude

    wrongfulness of Caristhan.

    B. That the Use of Military Bases By Caristhn In Rantankan Territory Does Not

    Cast Any Responsibility On Ratanka

    B.1 That the act of Caristhans Military is not attributable to Ratanka

    According to Article 2 of the ILC60

    Draft articles, there are two elements to be

    identified in order to establish the existence of an internationally wrongful act of the State

    i.e., first, the conduct in question must be attributable to the State under international law

    and secondly, for responsibility to attach to the act of the State, the conduct must

    constitute a breach of an international legal obligation in force for that State at that time.61

    According to Oppenheim, Armed forces are organs of the state which maintains

    them, being created to maintain the independence, authority and safety of the state. They

    have that status even when on foreign territory, provided that they are there in the service

    of their state, and not for some private purpose62

    . Caristhans Military was definitely in

    the service of its country and therefore, its actions to maintain safety of its country makes

    it caristhans organ only. Therefore, The Caristhans Military force cannot be attributed

    to Ratanka, and hence, it is not responsible for the military actions of Caristhan.

    59 ILC Commentary, supra note 8 at p. 205, Ian Brownlie & C.J. Apperley, Kosovo Crisis Inquiry:

    Memorandum on the International Law Aspects, 49 INT'L &COMP.L.Q. 878 (2000), 90360ILC Draft Articles, supra note 16 at p. 1.61 Phosphates in Morocco, Preliminary Objections, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74, p. 10., ILC

    commentary, supra note 8 at p. 1262

    OPPENHEIM'S INTERNATIONAL LAW1155 (Sir Robert Jennings & Sir Arthur Watts eds., 9thed. 2003).

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    30/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 13

    Moreover according to article 863

    of the ILC article on state responsibility, for an

    act to be attributable on a state, that state must have control over it. The ICJ stated in the

    Namibia case64

    that,"Physical control of a territory and not sovereignty or legitimacy of

    title, is the basis of state liability for acts affecting other states65

    . Further, according to

    many jurists66

    , the overriding principle in this field is that, any force operating on a

    foreign soil is in no way subject to the territorial sovereign and exercises an exclusive

    right of jurisdiction over its members.67

    Therefore, the use of military base in Ratanka

    also does not cast any responsibility on Ratanka as it does not have any control over that

    military base and its activities.

    III. That the Anesians are not Ratankaians but refugees and need to be protected by

    Anghore

    A. That the Anesians are not Ratankaians

    It is stated that Anesians are not Ratankians as the treaty68

    purporting to establish

    the sovereignty of Anesians on Ratanka is vitiated by the application of the Doctrine of

    Desuetude. In international law, the long standing and consistent practice by parties to

    63ILC Draft Articles, supra note 16 at p. 3.641971 I.C.J. Rep. 16, p.54.65Adrian A. Barham, The Establishment And Conduct Of Extra-Territorial Military Bases In Peacetime-

    Some International Law Considerations, 31 B. L. J. 7 (1999), 15.66ALINE CHALUFOUR,LE STATUT JURISDIQUE DES FORCE ALLIES PENDANT LA GUERRE1927 (1914-1918);

    LAWRENCE,PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW107 (6thed.); Bathurst,Jurisdiction over friendly armedforces, the American Law, 23 B. Y. B. I. L., 339.67WHEATON ELEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW95 & 99; WESTLAKE,INTERNATIONAL LAW265 (edition

    1919); HALL,INTERNATIONAL LAW7thEdition, Sec. 56; King, Jurisdiction over friendly armed forces, 36

    AJIL, 539; King,Further Developments concerning jurisdiction over friendly armed forces, 40 AJIL 257;Schwelb, the Jurisdiction Over the Members of the Allied Forces in ret Britaint, Cezch Year Book of

    International Law, 1942, p. 147.68Compromis, 7.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    31/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 14

    a treaty inconsistent with the treaty can have the effect of terminating the treaty69

    . This is

    the crux of the Doctrine of desuetude. In Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz70

    , the

    Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia postulated a methodology for determining

    whether a rule or instrument of law had fallen into desuetude. The main criteria were

    that (a) there must be open, notorious, and pervasive violation for a long period; and

    (b) there must be a conspicuous policy of non-enforcement71

    .

    The Anesians have never claimed any citizenship72

    . This act of not claiming any

    citizenship is clearly inconsistent with the treaty which envisages the Anesians to be

    under Ratankan sovereignty. Hence, it can be validly deduced that the act of the Anesians

    not to stake a claim on citizenship rights even two hundred years73

    after the signing of the

    treaty is ample proof of open, notorious and pervasive violation for a long period.

    Further, there has been difficulty in determining Citizenship of the Anesians74

    . Legal

    experts view that there is doubt as to whose citizens they really are75

    . It can be stated that

    there is indetermination with regard to the citizenship of Anesians both in Ratanka and

    Anghore even after a treaty placing the Anesians under Ratankan Sovereignty, which is a

    clear pointer towards the non-enforcement of that treaty. This indetermination continues

    even after 200 years of the signing of the treaty, amply proving the presence of a

    69Justice Jitendra N. Bhatt, Dynamics and Dimensions of Doctrine of Desuetude, (2004) 4 SCC (Jour) 21;

    I.BROWNLIE,PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 614-15 (3rded., 1979); G.SCHWARZENBERGER,AMANUAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 21 (6thed., 1976); A.VAMVOUKOS,TERMINATION OF TREATIES IN

    INTERNATIONAL LAW266-67, 276, 302-03 (1985); A.MCNAIR,THE LAW OF TREATIES 508,516-18 (1961);M.VILLIGER,CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND TREATIESat 213-14 (1985).70416 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1992).71Ibid at p. 726.72Compromis, 7.73Ibid.74Ibid.75ibid.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    32/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 15

    conspicuous policy of non-enforcement. Hence, the treaty has fallen into desuetude

    and as such stands nullified. Therefore, Anesians are not Ratankians.

    B. That the Anesians are Refugees and therefore, they are entitled to refugee

    protection in Anghore.

    B.1 That the Anseians are Refugess

    It is stated that as per Conclusion No 2276

    of the Executive Committee (EXCOM)

    of the UNHCR's77

    program, States are obligated to protect asylum seekers in large scale

    influxes78

    . The EXCOM Conclusion No 22 basically mandates that for the purposes of

    the application of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention every person migrated by large

    scale influx shall be conferred with the refugee status79

    . A similar situation is present

    here as more than 1,00,000 lakh Anesians have crossed into Anghore80

    . Therefore, these

    Anesians shall be treated as Refugees.

    B.2 That the Anseians should be provided protection

    According to Article 33 of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of

    Refugee 1951, which concerns the principle of Non-refoulement, a receiving State cannot

    76 Standing Committee, Progress Report on Informal Consultations on the Provision of International

    Protection to All Who Need It, UN Doc. EC/47/SC/CRP.27, 30 May 1997 at Section II, Paras. 4-5 (called

    Standing Committee 1997).77 The EXCOM is a distinct body of the UN and its Conclusions have interpretive value for the 1951

    Refugee Convention, Elihu Lauterpacht and Daniel Bethlehem, The Scope and Content of the Principle ofNon-Refoulemmt Opinion, in ERIKA FELLER, VOLKER TURK AND FRANCES NICHOLSON (EDS.), Refugee

    Protection in International Law 28-29 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).78Conclusion No. 22 (XXXII), 1 981, GOODWIN-GILL,THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 480-483 (2nd

    Edition, 1996).79Tom Clark,Rights Based Refuge, the Potential of the 1951 Convention and the Need for Authoritative

    Interpretation, 16 INTL J.REFUGEE L. 584 (2004), 589.80Compromis, 13.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    33/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 16

    expel refugees out of its territory.81

    . So, according to the law enunciated in Conclusion

    no.22 of the EXCOM Anesians are atleast protected from being returned back.

    Various Regional Conventions82

    have endeavoured to widen the definition of a

    refugee. From the above conventions, there is clear evidence of the Practice of civilized

    states, which confer the status of refugee not only on the grounds provided in the 1951

    Convention but also on grounds viz: circumstances which have seriously disturbed

    public order. Ratanka was already reeling under a Humanitarians crisis before it was hit

    by massive flash floods83

    , which was the imminent cause for the migration of Anesians

    into Anghore. Thus, the humanitarian crisis coupled with massive flash floods, which

    destroyed vast property and killed many people can be considered as the

    circumstances/events which have seriously disturbed public order and which led to the

    flight of the Anseians. Hence, the Anseians should be considered as refugees. The norm

    of Non-refoulement is part of customary international law, thus binding on all States

    811. No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to thefrontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion,

    nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. 2. The benefit of the present

    provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as

    a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgementof a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.82The Organization of African States Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugees Problems

    in Africa 1969 (OAU Convention)82extends the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Convention to every

    person who was compelled to leave his country of origin on account of external aggression .......or events

    seriously disturbing public order.; The 1984 Cartenga Declaration on Refugees82which was adopted at acolloquim held in co-operation with UNHCR82agreed to extend the definition of refugee. In this the Latin

    States agreed to include those who have fled their country because their lives, safety or freedom have beenthreatened by generalized violence......or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public

    order82 in the definition of a refugee already provided in the 1951 Convention.; The 1966 Bangkok

    principles Concerning Treatment of Refugees82also endeavoured to widen the scope of the definition, The

    above enunciations provide evidence of the Practice of civilized states, which confer the status of refugeenot only on the grounds provided in the 1951 Convention but also on grounds viz: circumstances which

    have seriously disturbed public order.83Compromis, 11.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    34/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 17

    whether or not they are party to the 1951 Convention.84

    Anseians being refugees, are

    protected under the customary international law principle of Non-refoulement.

    C. That under Human Rights Norms, Anghore is obligated to provide protection to

    Ansieans

    In the Human Rights Law Regime, it is obligatory on states to protect the person

    present in its territory if there is a real chance of a violation of his fundamental rights on

    return to his state of Origin85

    . The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    (ICCPR)86

    has been interpreted in case law by the UN Human Rights Committee

    (HRC)87

    as protecting a non-citizen from forcible return when it is predictable that

    aspects of the right to life would be violated88

    . There has been considerable damage in

    Ratanka which has severely crippled the lifeline and livelihood of the Anesians. Hence,

    any action which may return the Anesians back to Ratanka from Anghore would violate

    their right to livelihood and consequently their right to life. As per the case law of the

    human rights treaty bodies, the State which exposes a person to a foreseeable real risk of

    the violation of a fundamental right by expulsion is itself held to have violated the

    84Although questions remained as to the customary nature of the norm of non-refoukment during the Cold

    War era, it is clear that since the end of the Soviet era, the norm quickly attained a customary nature. Forpractice before 1989, see GUNNEL STENBERG,NORT-EXPULSION ANDNON-REFOULEMENT, 288 (1989); for

    practice after 1989, see G.S.GOODWIN-GILL,THE REFUGEE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 166-167 (2nd ed.,

    1996).85 Tom Clark, Rights Based Refuge: The Potential Of The 1951 Convention And The Need For

    Authoritative Interpretation, 16 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFUGEE LAW, 584-608, 590.86Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A

    (XXI) of 16 December 1966. Entry into force on 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49.87The Human Rights Committee is a United Nations body of 18 experts that meets three times a year to

    consider the five-yearly reports submitted by UN member states on their compliance with the International

    Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/index.htm,

    .88 Ng v. Canada, Communication No. 469/1991, Views 7 Jan. 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/

    469/1991; Judge v. Canada, Communication No. 829/1998, Views 20 Oct. 2003, UN Doc. CCPR/

    C/78/D/829/1998.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    35/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 18

    person's right. Since Anseians are not Ratankians, there is no question of any

    responsibility on the part of Ratanka to take them back.

    D. In Arguendo, even if Anseains are Ratankians, then also Anghore cannot expel

    them from its Territory

    Even if Anesieans are Ratankaians, then also Ratanka doesnt have the responsibility to

    take them back. Customary international law89

    imposes a duty on States to admit their

    nationals, being the corollary of the right of States to expel foreign nationals90

    . In the

    instant case as the Anesians are refugees, the right of Anghore to expel these foreign

    nationals stands vitiated. Thus, the duty of Ratanka, which is the corollary of Anghores

    right, also gets vitiated. Hence, Ratanka has no duty to take the Anseians back.

    E. That Ratanka and Caristhan are under no obligation to pay compensation to

    Anghore for the cost incurred by it on the welfare of Anseians.

    Since, it has been conclusively proved in the above arguments that Aneseians are

    not Ratankaians but refugees entitling protection in Anghore. Therefore, Ratanka has no

    obligation to pay compensation to Anghore rather it is the international obligation of

    Anghore to provide care and protection to Anseians. So, the financial costs that are

    incurred by the Republic of Anghore in course of such protection, has to be borne by it

    and not by ratanka or any third country.

    89Francois, Grandlijnen van het Volkenrecht, 1967, p 233; VAN PANHUYS,THE ROLE OFNATIONALITY IN

    INTERNATIONAL LAW(1959), 55-56; R.PLENDER, INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION LAW(1998) p. 133; L.B.

    SOHN AND T.BUERGENTHAL (EDS.),THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ACROSS BORDERS2 (1992).90 G.S. Goodwin-Gill, Voluntary Repatriation-Legal and Policy Issues, in G. LOESCHER & L.MONAHAN, EDS., REFUGEES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 259 (1989); G.S. GOODWIN-GILL,

    INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS BETWEEN STATES201-1, 136-7; Plender, ibid at

    133-4.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    36/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 19

    Since, Anesians had never belonged to Caristhan so question of compensating

    Anghore just does not arise. The dispute with regard to the nationality of Anesians has

    always been confined to Anghore and Ratanka.

    In Arguendo, if technological assistance has indeed been provided by Caristhan to

    the chemical facility, then also a fallout like a refugee situation is something that could

    not have been foreseeable. The guiding principle in tortuous liability is that damage

    caused by an act is too remote if a reasonable man would not have foreseen them91

    and as

    such any damage caused by such an act will not qualify for compensation. The migration

    of Anesians as a consequence of such a spill is too remote to have been foreseen by any

    reasonable man. Thus, it needs to be understood that when Caristhan provided technology

    to Ratanka the only foreseeable damage that Caristhan could have imagined incase of a

    failure of technology is a chemical spill. The remoteness of the damage, abdicates

    Caristhan of any liability.

    IV. That Caristhan Has Not Violated its Comity Obligations Under International

    Law

    A. Comity is not a rule of law

    There has been no violation of International Comity obligations by the Republic

    of Caristhan. There is a lack of agreement amongst nations as to whether comity is at all a

    rule of law92

    . Comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and

    expediency and its obligation is not imperative.93

    91Rigby v. Hewitt, (1850) 5 Ex. 240, p. 243; Greenland v. Chaplin, (1850) 5 Ex. 243, p. 248.92Joel R. Paul, Comity in International Law, 32 HARV. INTL L. J. 14 (1991).93Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485, 488-489.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    37/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- 20

    In the instant case, the allegation made by the Anghore that Caristhan has violated

    the international comity obligations by not providing assistance cannot be sustained, as

    comity as a rule of international law is not stable. Existence of comity as a doctrine of

    international law being in doubt, there is no way there can be an obligation to adhere to

    the same.

    B. In Arguendo, even if comity is a rule of law, then also Caristhan has not violated

    its comity obligations

    Even if the existence of international comity obligations as a rule of international law is

    established, then also Caristhan has not violated its comity obligations but rather it is

    Anghore which has violated its international comity obligations.

    In the instant case, when Ratanka realized and notified Anghore about the spill,

    there was nothing at all that could be done about it.94

    On the other hand, when chemicals

    were about to enter Caristhan, assistance was asked from Anghore so that Caristhn could

    protect its people and its economy from an environmental disaster. But, Anghore

    responded by saying that it would provide all assistance on the condition that Caristhan

    accepted responsibility for the spill95

    . When Caristhan was faced with the grave and

    imminent threat of an environmental disaster, instead of cooperating, Anghore was

    adamant on getting Caristhan to accept responsibility for the same. This sort of high-

    handedness and armed twisting tactics employed with a country faced with such a grave

    and imminent threat hits at the core of the principle of comity obligation that is

    international cooperation. Hence, it can be concluded that it is Anghore and not Caristhan

    which has violated its comity obligations.

    94Compromis, 15.95Compromis, 12.

  • 5/24/2018 Respondent 2009 - d m harish memorial moot

    38/38

    THE 2009D.M.HARISHMEMORIAL GOVERNMENTLAW COLLEGEINTERNATIONALMOOT COURT COMPETITION

    --------------------------------------Memorial for the Respondents----------------------------------- xv

    CONCLUSION

    Wherefore in light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, this

    Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that-

    I. Ratanka and Caristhan bear no responsibility whatsoever for theenvironmental damage, and hence, cannot be held liable to pay any

    compensation.

    II. Ratanka and Caristhan are not responsible for the violation of AnghoresTerritorial Sovereignty

    III. The Anesians are not Ratankaians but refugees and need to be protected byAnghore

    IV. Caristhan has not violated its Comity obligations under International Law

    All of which is respectfully submitted

    ___________________________________

    ___________________________________

    Agents for the Respondents.