Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL BY HRISHIKESH JAISWAL, NLIU BHOPAL, AMITY INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT
Typology: Thesis
Limited-time offer
Uploaded on 03/27/2021
4.8
(4)6 documents
1 / 40
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
Index of Authorities.............................................................................................................................................. Statement of Jurisdiction...................................................................................................................................... Statement of Facts...............................................................................................................................................X Questions Presented..........................................................................................................................................XI Summary of pleadings.......................................................................................................................................X PLEADINGS....................................................................................................................................................... 1 I. Dosanda has interfered with Askia’s Sovereign Rights over non-living and living resources and has interfered with traditional fishing activities of Askia’s fisherman at the sparky islands................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Dosanda has interfered with Askia’s sovereign rights over the resources at the Sparky Islands.............................................................................................................................................................. 1
C. Dosanda cannot claim sovereignty in absence of its maritime claim over seabed, subsoil and relevant waters.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Prayer for Relief.................................................................................................................................................. 3
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case,(U.K. v. Norway) ICJ Reports, 1951.................................. 20 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) case, ICJ Reports, 1993................................................................... 17 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports, para. 64,(1985)............................................................................................. 36 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984........................................................................ 34 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001................................................................. 17 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany. Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969,................................. 17 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016............................................................................................. 35 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 ...................................................................................................................................... 21 OTHER CASES Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012............................................................................................................ 17 Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg v. CLT, 91 ILR, 281................................................................ 23 Rann of Kutch Arbitration (India v. Pakistan) 17 R.I.A.A. 553( 1968 );................................ 22 South China Sea Arbitration, Philippines v China, Award, PCA Case No 2013-19, I.C.G.J PAGE | V M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT I NDEX OF A UTHORITIES
D. W. Bowett, The Legal Regime of Islands in International Law , p. 34, (1979)................... 36 Don Mcrae & Gordon Munro, On Canadian Oceans Policy: National Strategies and The New Law of The Sea p_._ 223, (2012)...................................................................................... 38 F. Dupuy and P. Dupuy, A Legal Analysis of China’s Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea , American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No. 1 (Jan. 2013),.............. 27 Guo Yuan, On Historic Rights under the Law of the Sea , 2008 CHINA Oceans L. REV. 216 (2008)................................................................................................................................... 22 J.M Van Dyke and R.A. Brooks, Uninhabited Islands: Their Impact on the Ownership of the Oceans’ Resources ,12, Ocean Development and International Law, No. 3-4, p. 288, (1983)................................................................................................................................... 35 James Kraska, ‘ Military Activities on the Continental Shelf,’ Lawfare (22 August 2016....... 26 James W. Houck & Nicole M. Anderson, The United States, China, and Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea, 13 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 441, 448 (2014). .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Jonathan I. Charney, Rocks that Cannot Sustain Human Habitation, The American Journal of International Law , 93 Cambridge University Press,4, Oct., 1999, p. 863-878. (Oct., 1999) .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Jose Luis Jesus, “ Rocks, New-born Islands, Sea Level Rise, and Maritime Space” in Negotiating for Peace (Jochen A. Frowein, et. al., eds., p. 587-592, (2003)....................... 36 Kent E. Carpenter, Ph.D., Eastern South China Sea Environmental Disturbances and Irresponsible Fishing Practices and their Effects on Coral Reefs and Fisheries , Second Carpenter Report, p. 24 (22 Mar. 2014)............................................................................... 18 Robert Beckman, China, UNCLOS and the South China Sea , ASILTBC para 17 (2011)...... 21 Robert Kolb, “ The Interpretation of Article 121, Paragraph 3 of the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea: Rocks Which Cannot Sustain Human Habitation or Economic Life of Their Own ”, 40,French Yearbook of International Law, p. 903, 906, (1994)................................................................................................................................... 35 PAGE | VII M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT I NDEX OF A UTHORITIES
Tullio Treves, Coastal States’ rights in the maritime areas under UNCLOS (2015) .............. 21 Z. Gao and B.B. Jia, The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications , 107, AJIL 99 (2013)....................................................................................... 21 TREATIES AND CONVENTION Convention on the Continental Shelf, 499 U.N.T.S. 312 (29 Apr. 1958)................................ 33 North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany. Netherlands), Judgment, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka, I.C.J. Reports 1969........................................................................................................................ 17 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1833 U.N.T.S. 397. (1982)........................................ 16 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2 Para 3, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI .............................................................................................................................................. 21 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 26 (23 May 1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 332...... 21 U.N. DOCUMENTS International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission Covering the Work of its Eighth Session, U.N. Doc. A/3159 (4 July 1956)............................................. 17 Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays, Rep. of the Int’l Law Comm’n, 14th sess, Apr. 24–June29,1962,U.N.Doc.A/CN.4/143(1962),........................................... 22 U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, 185th Meeting, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.62/PV.185 ( Jan. 1983)............................................................................................................................. 21 United Nations, Historic Bays: Memorandum by the Secretariat of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/CONF.13/1.............................................................................................................. 33 United Nations, Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, Including Historic Bays, U.N. Doc A/CN.4/143.......................................................................................................................... 33 MISCELLANEOUS Clipperton Island (France V. Mexico), Cumulative Digest. Vol. 2 (42 & 43), p. 96– 97, (1932)................................................................................................................................... 33 PAGE | VIII M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT I NDEX OF A UTHORITIES
The Republic of Askia (“Askia/Applicant”) and the Republic of Dosanda (“Dosanda/Respondent”) appear before the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 40(1) of its Statute through submission of a Special Agreement for resolution of all the differences concerning legal basis of maritime rights and entitlement in South Dosanda Sea. This Court has jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 36(1) of its Statute. The parties concluded this special agreement and Compromis in The Hague, The Netherlands and jointly notified this Court of their special agreement on 10 August 2020. PAGE | X M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT S TATEMENT OF J URISDICTION
Askia, is an archipelagic country in South East Asia, it is known for variety of natural resources and globally significant biodiversity, Askia’s economy is transforming from one based upon agriculture to an economy with more emphasis upon services and manufacturing. However, large parts of the coastal populations of Askia, mainly rely on fishing for their livelihood and fishing. Dosanda is a country in East Asia, It is world’s most populous country with large and rapid growing Economy. SPARKY ISLANDS Sparky Islands are composed of islands, islets and cays and reefs, sometimes grouped in submerged old atolls. Coral reefs being the predominant structures of these islands. The islands contain less than 2 km2 of naturally occurring land area, spread over an area of more than 100,000 km^2. It contains almost no significant arable land, have no indigenous inhabitants, and very few islands have permanent drinkable water supply. LOCATION OF SPARKY ISLANDS The sparky islands lie in the southern part of the south Dosanda Sea and off the coasts of the Askia. The distance between southern tip of Dosanda and northern tip of Askia is around 1842 nautical miles. The minimum distance of the island from the coast of Askia is 180 nautical miles and from the coast of Dosanda is 700 nautical miles. ACTIVITIES BY DOSANDA ON SPARKY ISLANDS The first installment was done in 1991 when Dosanda installed a small military structure on Piery ross Reef in Sparky Islands. Later, in 2012, Dosanda’s state owned National Offshore Oil Company (NOOC) deployed a Deepwater oil rig, into waters within the EEZ of Askia. which led to a protest that turned into a deadly skirmish between Askia’s and Dosanda’s Navy. LAND RECLAMATION ACTIVITIES AND CONSTRUCTION OF ARTIFICAL STRUCTURES In 2013, it was reported land reclamation activities by Dosanda has been detected on various low tide elevations on the high seas in South Dosanda Sea. Between 2016-2018, Dosanda PAGE | XI M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT S TATEMENT OF F ACTS
International Court of Justice under special agreement. PAGE | XIII M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT S TATEMENT OF F ACTS
M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT Q UESTIONS P RESENTED
M EMORIAL for R ESPONDENT S UMMARY OF A RGUMENTS
Dosanda, through its activities in the South Dosanda Sea, has interfered with [ A ] Askia’s sovereign rights over resources at the Sparky Islands, as well as [ B ] the traditional fishing rights of Askian fishermen. Furthermore, [ C ] Dosanda’s claim to historic rights is incompatible with international law. A. DOSANDA HAS INTERFERED WITH ASKIA’S SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OVER THE RESOURCES AT THE SPARKY ISLANDS. Dosanda has interfered with Askia’s sovereign rights over non-living and living resources as [ 1 ] Askia has sovereign rights over the resources at Sparky Islands, [ 2 ] there is no overlap of entitlements, [ 3 ] Dosanda is interfering with Askia’s sovereign rights fisheries and corals reefs resources in its EEZ and [ 4 ] Dosanda has deployed oil rig in Askia’s EEZ without its permission.
1. Askia has sovereign rights over the resources at Sparky islands. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [Hereinafter, “UNCLOS”] is the international agreement governing all the activites in international maritime zones.^1 UNCLOS entitles coastal states to a 200 nautical mile, EEZ from its baseline in the South Dosanda Sea,^2 This entitlement confers states with exclusive rights over all the resources found therein.^3 Additionally, UNCLOS also entitles states to have exclusive rights^4 to exploit the resources found in the Continental Shelf. These rights are inherent^5 to the coastal state, and exist ipso facto and ab initio by virtue of its sovereignty over the land. 6 (^1) James W. Houck & Nicole M. Anderson, The United States, China, and Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea , 13 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 441, 448 (2014). (^2) UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, art.56, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. (1982). [Hereinafter, UNCLOS]. (^3) UNCLOS, Art. 56(1)(a). (^4) UNCLOS, Art. 77(2). (^5) UNCLOS, Art. 77(3). (^6) North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany. Netherlands), Judgment, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka, I.C.J. Reports 1969, para. 19 (Feb 1969). PAGE | 17 M EMORIAL for APPLICANT
islands has led to an increase in Dosanda’s fishing in the surrounding waters, which is putting pressure on fisheries in those areas.^16 Destructive practices of dynamite and cyanide fishing,^17 mainly by Dosanda in the region, are resulting in irreversible damage to aquatic habitats and ecosystems.^18 Moreover, about 70% of Askia’s reefs in the South Dosanda Sea are in a dilapidated and crumbling condition due to excessive and detrimental forms of fishing by Dosanda’s fisherman.^19 From 2016 to 2018, Dosanda has indulged in building artificial islands and military structures on various parts in the South Dosanda Sea.^20 The Sparky Islands are predominantly^21 composed of coral reefs^22 and the island-building process inevitably destroys the reefs^23 which have taken thousands of years to form.^24 Since, Askia has the sovereign right of exploitation in this region, Dosanda has unlawfully interfered with Askia’s sovereignty by carrying out the aforementioned activities in the South Dosanda Sea.
4. Dosanda has deployed oil rig in Askia’s EEZ without its permission. As it has been mentioned above,^25 other states have limited rights in the coastal state’s Continental Shelf and EEZ. However, these do not include extraction of oil or deployment of oil rig, Further, there is a need for prior authorization from the coastal state to undertake any exploitation activities on its Continental Shelf and EEZ.^26 In 2012, Dosanda’s state-owned National Offshore Oil Company (NOOC) deployed a deep- water oil rig into waters within the exclusive economic zone of Askia,^27 which is against the (^16) Compromis, ¶ 13. (^17) Jos S. Pet1& Lida Pet-Soe, Note on cyanide fishing in Indonesia , SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #
liberties provided by the UNCLOS.^28 Moreover, there was no express permission taken by Dosanda in this regard.^29 Therefore, Dosanda has violated Askia’s sovereign rights by deploying the oil rigs in the EEZ of Askia. B. DOSANDA’S HAS INTERFERED WITH THE TRADITIONAL FISHING RIGHTS OF ASKIAN FISHERMEN. In addition to unlawfully infringing the exclusive sovereign rights appertaining to the Askia under UNCLOS, Dosanda has also violated UNCLOS and Customary International Law [Hereinafter “CIL”] by depriving Askian fishermen of their traditional livelihood at Sparky Islands. Dosanda has interfered with the fishing rights of Askian fishermen [1] in its EEZ, [2] High Seas and [3] Archipelagic Waters at Sparky Islands.
1. Askia has exclusive fishing rights in its EEZ In the EEZ, states other than the coastal state can have access to the fisheries^30 only when the coastal state does not have the full capability to exploit its resources,^31 provided, the parties have entered into an express agreement to this effect.^32 In the present case, a part of the Sparky Islands falls within the EEZ of Askia, thereby conferring sovereign right of exploitation on Askia.^33 Large parts of the coastal populations of Askia, mainly rely on fishing for their livelihood and fishing has long constituted an important part of the Askian Economy. 34 Moreover, Askia and Dosanda have not entered into any agreement which confers fishing rights over Dosanda. Therefore, Dosanda’s act of conducting fishing activities in the Sparky Islands invades the traditional fishing rights of Askian fisherman within Askia’s EEZ. 2. Dosanda has deprived the Askian fishermen of their fishing rights in the High Seas. High Seas are those parts of the sea that are not within any other country’s jurisdiction^35 and open to all states.^36 The principle of freedom of High Seas is a renowned principle of international law,^37 and no one state can restrain any other state from exercising such (^28) UNCLOS, Art.78. (^29) Compromis, ¶ 13. (^30) UNCLOS, Art. 62. (^31) UNCLOS, Art. 62. (^32) PCIJ Series A/13, No. 42, 1931. At 116. (^33) Compromis, ¶ 7. (^34) Compromis, ¶ 6. (^35) UNCLOS, Art. 86. (^36) UNCLOS, Art.87(1), Shaw, supra note 11, at 609. (^37) Arif Ahmed, International Law of the Sea: An Overlook and Case Study , 21 (Beijing Law Review, 2017) PAGE | 20 M EMORIAL for APPLICANT
