TC 132

1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TC 132
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITY FOR GREEN HOUSE GAS

EMISSION

THE GOVERNMENT OF ISLAND

APPLICANT

v.

THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICANLAND

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT

1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 5

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................... 6

1) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDCTION

OVER THE CASE? ............................................................................................................... 6

2) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY

HARM BY NOT TAKING EFFECTIVE ACTION TO MITIGATE THE CLIMATE
CHANGE IN ITS OWN TERRITORY? ............................................................................... 6

3) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ISLAND? 6

SUMMARY OF FACTS.......................................................................................................... 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 10

1. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION

OVER THE CASE? ............................................................................................................. 10

(1.1) ICJ EXERCISES ITS CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO

ARTICLE 36(1) OF THE ICJ STATUTE ....................................................................... 10

(1.2) ICJ IS AUTHORISED TO INTERPRET AND APPLY TPSP UNDER

ARTICLE 36(1) IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE. ............................................................ 11

(1.3) CONSENT TO SUBMIT A DISPUTE UNDER TPSP WAS

UNEQUIVOCALLY GIVEN AND WAS VOLUNTARY. ........................................... 11

(1.4) AMERICANLAND IS REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. ................................................................................ 11

(1.5) ALL THE MATTERS IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE CAN BE CLASSIFIED

AS THE ISSUES EMANATING FROM THE TPSP. .................................................... 12

2. WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

BY NOT TAKING EFFECTIVE ACTION TO MITIGATE THE CLIMATE CHANGE IN
ITS OWN TERRITORY? .................................................................................................... 14

1
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(2.1) AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM BY

VIOLATING ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS. ............................................................... 14

(2.2) AMERICANLAND HAS VIOLATED ITS CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL

OBLIGATIONS. .............................................................................................................. 16

3) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ISLAND? .... 18

(3.1) THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT AND INJURY 18

(3.2) THERE IS ECONOMIC LOSS DUE TO WRONGFUL ACT .............................. 18

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 21

2
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS Pg.no

Statute of International Court Of Justice, (1946), 33 U.S.T.S 993 10,12,16
Charter of United Nations (1945), 1 U.N.T.S. 10,11,12
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
12,13
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397.
15

UN DOCUMENTS Pg.no
General Assembly Resolution, A/68/963/, Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction 10
of the International Court of Justice, pg.13.
ILC Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for 18,19,
Internationally Wrongful Acts, fifty-third session (2001). 20
United Nations, General Assembly, Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice: model clauses and templates, addressed to the 11
Secretary-General, A/68/963.
Basis of Court’s Jurisdiction, ICJ, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/en/basis-of-
jurisdiction. 11
Handbook On Accepting The Jurisdiction Of The International Court Of Justice,
Pg.13, ¶ 44 11
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Course on Dispute
Settlement in International Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property, New York: 11
United Nations, pg. 13
BROWNLIE'S PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
616 (6th Ed. 2003) 12
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-power impacts
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-ocean-and-marine-
resources.
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/8F351C53-2005-40F2-B574-
A9A5DFD2390B.Restricting%20Sovereignty_Nayantara%20Ravichandran_p91- 14
104.pdf.
PCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change 2021:
The physical science basis. Working Group, I contribution to the IPCC Sixth 14
Assessment Report. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; w.
ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6.14
https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-
netherlands/#. 14
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/the-polluter-pays-
principle_9789264044845-en. 17
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_IDA(2015)573876#. 17
Coal Power Impacts, Union of Concerned Scientists,
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-power-impacts. 18
Climate Change Impacts on Ocean and Marine Resources, U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency, https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-ocean-and- 19
marine-resources.

3
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

BOOKS Pg.no
Patricia Birnie et al., International Law & The Environment (3rd 14,17
ed., 2009), 214.

JUDICIAL AND ARBITRAL DECISIONS Pg.no

Nicaragua v. United States of America, Military and Paramilitary Activities
in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, I.C.J 14, June 27, 1986. 12
Cameron v. Nigeria, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria, 2002 I.C.J, ¶ 303 (Order of Oct.10). 12
Cambodia v. Thailand, Temple of Preah Vihear, Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, 1961 I.C.J. 17 (26 May, 1961). 12
United States - Restrictions on Import of Tuna (No 1), Mexico v United
States, GATT Panel Report, DS21/R, BISD/39S/155, (May 16, 2012).
Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, Judgment, 2007 I.C.J.
43 (Feb. 26).
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgment, 1997 I.C.J.
7 (Sept. 25). 20
Germany v. Poland, Factory at Chorzów, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9, Judgment
No. 8, (July 26,1927). 19
United States v. Canada, Trail Smelter Arbritation, 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938 &
1941) 14,19
Argentina v. Uruguay, Pulp Mills on The River Uruguay, Judgment, 2010
I.C.J. 14, para. 197 17
Urgenda foundation v state of Netherlands, HA ZA 13-1396, C/09/456689, 14
ECLI:NL: RBDHA:2015:7145, ILDC 2456 (NL 2015), 24th June 2015.
Netherland v. US, Island of Palmas Arbitration (1928) II RIAA 829, 839. 15

4
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Government
of Island submits this matter to the World Court. The parties entered into a treaty wherein the
Government of Americanland committed to providing aid and assistance to Island. However,
Americanland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty, constituting a breach of its
provisions.
The dispute revolves around the following key issues:
- The emission of greenhouse gases and their impact on marine life and climate change
- The protection and enforcement of the Treaty of Peace, Support, and Protection
- The interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

5
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The Island respectfully requests the Court to adjudge:

1) WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDCTION
OVER THE CASE?
2) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM BY
NOT TAKING EFFECTIVE ACTION TO MITIGATE THE CLIMATE CHANGE IN ITS
OWN TERRITORY?
3) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ISLAND?

6
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Americanland is a rich country with rich heritage of natural resource and Gross Domestic
Product of more than 26 trillion US Dollar. They established their first coal power plant in
1850 and it continues to operate even today. Americanland and over all development linked to
its powered fuel development. It is one of the largest Green House Gas emitters around the
world.
Island is small developing country population of 100000 people when their first coal power
plant was built, the government has very low GDP and it considered very low in the Human
Development Index. The country’s economy was largely dependent on fishing and tourism.
There is enough scientific evidence in 2024 to prove that climate change is happening. Climate
change is caused by Green House Gas emission. Global warming, Sea-Level rise, Heating of
Earth’s surface, and other related adverse effects of climate change, including severe disaster,
are rising worldwide. Many scientists claim that the Earth’s has reached its tipping point and
cannot bear the increasing GHG emission and adverse effect of climate change.
On 21st May 2024, the International Tribunal of law of the sea, Hamburg, delivered an advisory
opinion on the “Climate Change and International Law”, stating that GHG emissions are
pollutant causing harmful effects on the marine environment.
In April 2024, a large storm hit Island and caused large scale destruction, inundation, loss of
life and property in the country. After the storm, the Americanland Government promised to
support the Island through an EX-GRANTIA fund support of 10 million USD, under the
TREATY OF PEACE, SUPPORT, AND PROTECTION singed between Americanland
and Island. After promising the fund under bilateral treaty the government of Americanland
has yet to respond. On 22nd May 2024, the Government of island sent another note to
government of Americanland stating, they need urgent support, aid and also an additional
request for shelter within the territory of Americanland under the existing bilateral treaty
provision, to the people of Island suffering from humanitarian pressures.
After receiving this note the Government of Americanland responded on 10th June, 2024 stating
they are very sympathetic to humanitarian circumstances of Island. After The Government of
Americanland promised to aid, support and assist the Island they have been under immense
pressure due to extreme heat waves in their own country which cause lot of distress and loss of
life. Americanland currently bound by their own sovereign circumstances therefore not able to
provide any assistance to the Government of Island under these circumstances.

7
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

After receiving this note the Government of Island responded, that failure to provide assistance
would be violation of bilateral treaty signed between them if Government of Americanland
fails to provide assistance in next 60 days The Government of island will invoke the Treaty
Of Peace, Support and Protection signed between them and approach to The International
Court Of Justice for REARATION.
Due to repeated failure of Government of Americanland to respond The Government of Island
approached to World Court under the Treaty signed between them. Island claim that
Americanland has violated the Treaty Of Peace, Support And Protection and United Nation
Convention On Law of Sea.

8
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) Whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over the case?

ICJ has jurisdiction in the present dispute as ICJ has contentious jurisdiction. The jurisdiction
of the court comprises all cases, which the parties refer to it, and all matters specially provided
for in the Charter of United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Also due to TPSP
which is a bilateral treaty specifically concluded for peaceful settlement of jurisdiction, consent
to submit a dispute was explicit and free.
2) Whether the Americanland has caused transboundary harm by not taking effective
action to mitigate the climate change in its own territory?
Americanland has caused the transboundary harm because it took only certain basic measures
which were not effective and sufficient for the amount of the GHG emissions it produces and
releases. Furthermore, Americanland violated the TPSP treaty, the UNCLOS and the
customary International Obligations.
3) Whether the Americanland is liable to compensate the Island?
Americanland is liable to compensate the Island for the wrongful act. There is a direct nexus
between the wrongful act done by the Americanland and the injury caused to the Island.
Furthermore, due to the Americanland’s wrongful act there was a economic crisis in the Island.

9
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE?
ICJ asserts jurisdiction over the current dispute due to the following reasons (1.1) ICJ has
contentious jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute; (1.2) ICJ is authorised to
interpret and apply TPSP under Article 36(1) in the present dispute; (1.3) Consent to submit a
dispute under TPSP was unequivocally given and was voluntary ;(1.4)All the matters in the
present dispute can be classified as the issues emanating from the TPSP; (1.5)Americanland
cannot invoke Article 62 of the VCLT to evade ICJ’s jurisdiction and obligation under
International Law.
(1.1) ICJ EXERCISES ITS CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 36(1) OF THE ICJ STATUTE.
The jurisdiction of the court encompasses all the matters specifically outlined in the United
Nations Charter or in the existing treaties and conventions.1 The International Court of Justice
was established with the goal of maintaining international peace and security and resolving
international disputes or situations that could potentially lead to a breach of peace.2 Given that
both Island and Americanland are signatories to the UN Charter, they are fundamentally
obligated to resolve disputes amicably. Furthermore, as parties to the Treaty of Peace, Support
and Protection, as well as the UN and the ICJ Statute, their participation is forum contentious
is firmly established. Contentious Jurisdiction empowers the court to adjudicate, pursuant to
its governing statute and the principles of international law, legal disputes brought before it
that may imperil the preservation of international peace and security.3
All the states that are parties to the ICJ Statute have the right to access the court, 4 and every
member of the UN is automatically a party to the Court.5 The contentious jurisdiction or Forum
contentious, has been established by treaty specifically for this dispute. In the current case, the
ICJ’s jurisdiction is grounded in treaty obligations6, thereby confirming its authority to
adjudicate the dispute.

1
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 U.S.T.S. 993, June 26,1945, Art.36(1) [hereinafter ICJ
Statute].
2
Charter of United Nations [hereinafter UN Charter], 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, June26,1945, Art. 1 .
3
Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of Disputes, Charter of United Nations, Art.35.
4
Statute of the International Court of Justice art. 35(1).
5
U.N. Charter Art. 93(1).
6
U.N. General Assembly, Handbook on Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, U.N.
Doc. A/68/963, at 13 (2014).

10
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

(1.2) ICJ IS AUTHORISED TO INTERPRET AND APPLY TPSP UNDER

ARTICLE 36(1) IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE.
If the significant disagreements or serious disputes arise, either party has the right to take the
matter to the International Court of Justice.7 The TREATY OF PEACE, SUPPORT AND
PROTECTION is a bilateral agreement established specifically to peacefully resolve issues of
jurisdiction as outlined within the scope of this agreement.8 The ICJ is responsible for handling
simultaneous legal disputes that are brought before it. Both states agreed to include a
compromissory clause that grants the ICJ jurisdiction.9 This clause in the TPSP treaty applies
to the entire agreement, thereby allowing the court to have jurisdiction over any issues that
arise, whether directly or indirectly from the TPSP.

(1.3) CONSENT TO SUBMIT A DISPUTE UNDER TPSP WAS

UNEQUIVOCALLY GIVEN AND WAS VOLUNTARY.
The court’s jurisdiction in contentious cases is based on the consent of the states involved.10
States can choose to include a clause in bilateral treaties on any subject, giving the court
jurisdiction over disputes related to the interpretation or application of that treaty.11 By
including a compromissory clause, the states agree in advance to submit any disputes regarding
the treaty’s implementation and interpretation to the court.12 In this case, Americanland and
Island have a bilateral agreement, the TPSP and the court had jurisdiction at the time the
proceedings were initiated and will continue to have jurisdiction.13

(1.4) AMERICANLAND IS REQUIRED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
According to Article 2, para. 3 of the UN Charter,’ all member states must settle their
international disputes peacefully, without endangering the international peace and security or
justice.14Americanland’s unfulfilled obligations towards Island contradicts the core objectives

7
Treaty of Peace, Support and Protection [hereinafter TPSP], Art.9
8
Ibid.
9
United Nations, General Assembly, Handbook on accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice: model clauses and templates, addressed to the Secretary-General, A/68/963 (July 24, 2014), available
from http://undocs.org/A/68/963.
10
Basis of Court’s Jurisdiction, ICJ, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/en/basis-of-jurisdiction#1
11
Handbook on Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice 13, ¶ 44 (2014), U.N. Doc.
A/68/963.
12
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Course on Dispute Settlement in International Trade,
Investment and Intellectual Property 13 (New York: United Nations, 2014).
13
See supra note at 7
14
U.N. Charter, Art. 2(3).

11
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

of the United Nations, i.e., to maintain international peace and security and to develop friendly
relation among nations.15 The principle of the Estoppel, which is a fundamental tenet of
International Law16, dictates that a state may be bound by its actions, declarations, or similar
conduct that clearly and consistently indicates its acceptance of a particular position.17 In the
present dispute, Estoppel will arise because both the states had unequivocally agreed to resolve
their dispute through a bilateral treaty.18 This situation is not on where estoppel or acceptance
emerges from the inaction or silence.19
Furthermore, a state’s consent to be bound by treaty is initially indicated when the treaty is
signed upon20 and is confirmed upon the ratification.21 Once, this consent is confirmed, the
treaty becomes effective unless the treaty specifies otherwise.22 Every treaty that is in force is
legally binding on the parties involved, and they are required to fulfil its terms in good faith.23
Additionally, neither party has formally withdrawn from or terminated the treaty with mutual
consent.24 Therefore, the treaty remains valid and continues to govern the current dispute.

(1.5) ALL THE MATTERS IN THE PRESENT DISPUTE CAN BE CLASSIFIED

AS THE ISSUES EMANATING FROM THE TPSP.
The subject matter, or ratione materiae, of the current dispute is covered by the TPSP because
the factual and legal questions involved are defined by this foundational document. However,
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction over all matters explicitly stipulated in
treaties that are in force at the time proceedings commence. So, the ICJ has the Jurisdiction
because the treaty was not terminated when the dispute arises between Americanland and
Island.25 Article 62, a state needs to meet the following conditions to terminate or withdraw
from a treaty due to the unforeseen “fundamental changes of circumstances”: (a) the changed
circumstances were “essential” for the decision to enter into the treaty, and (b) the changes of
circumstances “radically” transform the obligations under the treaty so that further

15
U.N. Charter, Arts. 1(1), 1(2).
16
J. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 616 (6th ed. 2003).
17
Nicaragua v. United States of America, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar.
v. U.S.), Merits, I.C.J 14, June 27, 1986.
18
Cameron v. Nigeria, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, 2002 I.C.J, ¶ 303 (Order
of Oct.10).
19
Cambodia v. Thailand, Temple of Preah Vihear,Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1961 I.C.J. 17 (26 May,
1961).
20
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 33, May 23, 1969, Art.12 [hereinafter VCLT].
21
Ibid at Art.14
22
Ibid Art.27(3)
23
Ibid at Art.26
24
Ibid at Art.54
25
ICJ Statute, Art.36(1)

12
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

implementation of the treaty becomes unduly burdensome. But, in the present dispute the
Americanland cannot take the defence of fundamental change because the world was facing
the climate change over a long period of time. Americanland should have predicted that climate
change make affect its own territory also. Article 62(2)(b) specifically states that a party cannot
benefit from its own wrongdoing. A party cannot invoke a fundamental change in
circumstances if that change has resulted from its own actions or omissions.26 In this case,
however, a fundamental change in circumstances cannot be used as a basis for terminating the
treaty because the Americanland is itself responsible for the change in circumstances i.e.,
Heatwaves as it one of the largest Greenhouse emitters around the world.27

26
VCLT, The Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus, Art.62
27
Moot Preposition ¶ I.

13
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

2. WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM

BY NOT TAKING EFFECTIVE ACTION TO MITIGATE THE CLIMATE
CHANGE IN ITS OWN TERRITORY?

Transboundary harm refers to the harm caused in the jurisdiction of another State by activities
carried out within the jurisdiction of one State. Thus, the sovereignty of States over their natural
resources may be restricted in cases where it infringes the territorial sovereignty of another
State to cause significant harm.28 Americanland has caused the transboundary harm by not
taking effective action to mitigate the climate change in its own territory. Americanland.
American land established their first coal power plant in 1850 which continues to operate even
today.29 The coal powered fuel plant is one of the largest Greenhouse gas emitters around the
world.30 Furthermore, the greenhouse gas emissions led to climate change, which in turn caused
a storm to hit the Island. Greenhouse gases from human activities are the most significant driver
of observed climate change.31 Decisions including Trail Smelter and Pulp Mills demonstrate
that States are responsible for protecting other States against harmful acts by private
corporations within their jurisdiction.32 A State cannot avoid the duties of prevention and
mitigation by surrendering the wrongful activity into private hands.33
In the case of Urgenda foundation v state of Netherlands,34 The court concluded that the state
has a duty to take climate change mitigation measures due to the “severity of the consequences
of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring.”
(2.1) AMERICANLAND HAS CAUSED TRANSBOUNDARY HARM BY
VIOLATING ITS TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
(2.1.1) Violation Of Treaty Of Peace, Support And Protection.
Treaty was signed between American and Island.35Objective of the Treaty was to facilitate
adequate and effective response to climate disasters, and reduce the risk of climate disaster

28
http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/8F351C53-2005-40F2-B574
A9A5DFD2390B.Restricting%20Sovereignty_Nayantara%20Ravichandran_p91-104.pdf.
29
Page 02, ¶ I, Moot proposition.
30
Ibid.
31
PCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis.
Working Group, I contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press. www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6.
32
US v. Canada, Trail Smelter Arbitration, (1938 & 1941) III RIAA 1905; Argentina v. Uruguay, Pulp Mills on
The River Uruguay, Judgment, 2010 I.C.J. 14, para. 197.
33
Patricia Birnie et al., International Law & The Environment (3rd ed., 2009), 214.
34
Urgenda foundation v state of Netherlands, HA ZA 13-1396, C/09/456689,ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145, ILDC
2456 (NL 2015), 24th June 2015; https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-
the-netherlands/# .
35
TPSP, Art. 1.

14
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

arising due to continue emission from the top emitters of the globe, so as to meet the essential
needs of the person concerned, with full respect for their rights.36
After storm hit in the Island, Americanland initially promised an ex-gratia fund of USD 10
million, but later cited internal issues (heatwaves) for failing to provide aid and assistance to
the Island.
Island claims that Americanland's failure to provide this aid constitutes a violation of the treaty.
Americanland is required to give "expeditious consideration" to the assistance request, which
appears unmet due to Americanland's delay and subsequent refusal. Island has a valid claim
that Americanland violated the treaty by failing to meet its obligations.
(2.1.2) Violation of United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea.
Americanland has violated the UNCLOS by not taking measures to control its Greenhouse gas
emission. Americanland is one of the largest Greenhouse gas emitters in the world. These
emissions affected the marine environment of the Island which was the one of the most
important sources of livelihood for the people of Island.
State has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment of the
Island.37According to this The Government of Americanland obliged to protect and preserve
the marine environment. No State can do any act which can cause harm to other state’s marine
environment. Americanland had the obligation to take effective actions and make policies
38
which can prevent and control the pollution in order to protect the marine environment of
the Island. But, Americanland failed to take effective measures and continues to operate its
coal powered fuel which is the largest Green House Gas emitter. Countries should emphasize
on the significance of international cooperation in the conservation and management of marine
living resources,39 recognizing the interconnectedness of marine ecosystems and the shared
responsibility of states to protect these resources. By working together and implementing
effective conservation measures, countries can help maintain the health of marine ecosystems
and ensure the sustainable utilization of marine living resources for the benefit of present and
future generations. Americanland was responsible for the establishment of the International
Seabed Authority (ISA) as an organization responsible for the regulation and control of
activities in the Area, 40 which refers to the seabed and ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction.
The ISA aims to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from potential

36
TPSP, Art.2.
37
Convention on the Law of the Sea [hereinafter UNCLOS], Dec. 10, 1982,1833 U.N.T.S. 397, Art.192.
38
UNCLOS, Art.194.
39
UNCLOS, Art.195.
40
UNCLOS, Art.204.

15
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

harmful impacts of activities such as deep-sea mining. Americanland was duty-bound to take
measures to prevent, but Americanland neglected to take necessary precaution that they were
supposed to take. Therefore, Americanland has violated the United Nation Convention On
Laws Of Seas.
(2.2) AMERICANLAND HAS VIOLATED ITS CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL
OBLIGATIONS.
“Customary international law are international obligations arising from established or usual
international practices, which are less formal customary expectations of behaviour often
unwritten as opposed to formal written treaties or conventions”.41
Statute of the International Court of Justice, has recognized International Custom as evidence
of general practice accepted as law. Thus, general practice demonstrates custom, and not vice
versa. In order to prove the existence of customary rule, it is necessary to show that there exists
a 'general practice' which conforms to the rule and which is accepted as law.42
Americanland had obligation under customary international law to prevent significant
transboundary harm and to mitigate climate change's effects. The International Tribunal of the
Law of the Sea advisory opinion also recognized GHG emissions as pollutants with irreversible
harm.
Americanland’s failed to follow the principle of Customary International Law in regard to
Environment protection and prevention of transboundary harm. Therefore, violated Customary
International Obligations.
(2.2.1) Americanland has caused the transboundary harm.
The duty of states to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause
damage to the environment of other states is a rule of customary international law. While states
have the right to sovereignty over natural resources, there is a corollary responsibility to prevent
transboundary environmental harm.43 Americanland coal powered fuel plant was the main
cause of GHG emitter which causes climate change and resulted in storm in the Island.
Therefore, there is transboundary harm by Americanland.
(2.2.2) Americanland failed to exercise due diligence
Due diligence obliges states to prevent significant harm from their activities that may affect
other states. It is the obligation to take preventive measures to avoid transboundary harm is one

42
ICJ Statute, Art.38; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law# .
43
Netherland v. US, Island of Palmas Arbitration (1928) II RIAA 829, 839.

16
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

of due diligence and is “a customary rule.44 Due diligence entails “a certain level of vigilance
in their enforcement and the exercise of administrative control,” as well as an evolving standard
of technology and regulation.45 Due diligence aim to consider environmental and social impact.
In the case, pulp mills 46 the court concluded that countries must know how their actions affect
the environment and make sure they don't harm neighbouring countries. This shows that
countries have a responsibility to protect the environment and prevent harm to others, and they
must take steps to do so." Americanland did not take necessary measures to prevent
transboundary harm results in failure to exercise due diligence.
(2.2.3) Americanland failed to follow Polluter Pays principle
Polluter pays principle is enacted to make the party responsible for producing pollution
responsible for paying for the damage done to the natural environment. This principle has also
been used to put the costs of pollution prevention on the polluter.47 Americanland unable to
provide aid and assistance to the island for the wrongful act therefore, Americanland fails to
follow polluter pays principle.
(2.2.4) Americanland failed to comply with the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when
scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes
are high.48

44
Argentina v. Uruguay, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. (2010).
45
Patricia Birnie et al., International Law & The Environment (3rd ed., 2009), 214.
46
Argentina v Uruguay, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, Order, Provisional Measures, ICJ GL No 135, [2006]
ICJ Rep 113, (2006) 45 ILM 1025, ICGJ 2 (ICJ 2006), 13th July 2006, United Nations [UN]; International Court
of Justice [ICJ].
47
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/the-polluter-pays-principle_9789264044845-en.
48
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_IDA(2015)573876#.

17
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3) WHETHER THE AMERICANLAND IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE ISLAND?

The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act must make full reparation for the
injury caused thereby. Americanland must compensate Island for economic losses as States
responsible for an internationally wrongful act must also compensate injured States for any
financially assessable damage when there is a direct and certain causal nexus between the
wrongful act and the injury. Such compensation shall fill the damage gap when restitution is
insufficient.49
(3.1) THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN WRONGFUL ACT AND INJURY
In the present case, there is direct nexus between the wrongful act done by the Americanland
and the injury caused to the Island. Americanland’s development is mainly through its coal-
powered fuel. It is also one the largest Greenhouse gas emitters in the world. Due to the
Greenhouse gas emissions, there was a drastic climate change which led to the occurrence of
the Storm in the Island.
Climate change is driven by greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions) like carbon dioxide,
methane, and chlorofluorocarbons. These emissions are leading to global warming, rising sea
levels, the heating of the Earth's surface, and other harmful consequences of climate change,
including severe disasters that are becoming more frequent around the world. Many scientists
argue that the Earth has reached a critical point and can no longer sustain the growing levels of
GHG emissions and the worsening impacts of climate change.
Climate change is coal’s most serious, long-term, global impact. Chemically, coal is mostly
carbon, which, when burned, reacts with oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide, a heat-
trapping gas. When released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide works like a blanket, warming
the earth above normal limits. Consequences of global warming include drought, sea level rise,
flooding, extreme weather, and species loss. The severity of those impacts is tied directly to
the amount of carbon dioxide we release, including from coal plants. In the United States, coal
accounts for roughly one-quarter of all energy-related carbon emissions.50
Thus, Americanland’s wrongful act directly caused the injury to the Island.
(3.2) THERE IS ECONOMIC LOSS DUE TO WRONGFUL ACT
In the instant case, Americanland is responsible for the economic loss of the Island as there is
direct nexus between the wrongful act of the Americanland and the injury caused to the Island.
Increasing emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels

49
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Art. 31,
[2001] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 26, U.N. Doc. A/56/10.
50
Coal Power Impacts, Union of Concerned Scientists, https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-power-impacts

18
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

are causing changes in the ocean. These changes can alter which species of marine life thrive
best in the areas.51 Due the Greenhouse emissions from the Americanland, the marine
environment of the Island was affected. Fishing was the only source of livelihood of the people
living in the Island. Fishing contributed a major part of the Island’s economy. Thus, due to the
loss of marine environment, Island faced a huge economic loss.
Americanland is liable to compensate Island because Americanland failed to fulfil the promise
and breached the treaty of peace, support and protection and United Nation Convention on the
law of the Sea signed between Americanland and Island. Americanland is liable to compensate
the Americanland as there is direct nexus between the wrongful act of the Americanland and
the injury caused to the Island. Also, due to the wrongful act of the Americanland, there was
economic loss in the Island. Also, Americanland is liable for full reparation for the injury
caused by internationally wrongful act which can take form of restitution, compensation, and
satisfaction, either singly or in combination, in accordance with the provision of chapter52.

In the Germany Poland case, Germany brought up the case in PCIJ arguing that the action of
Poland constituted a violation of international law and the treaty. The court ordered Poland to
pay the compensation of the losses. In this case PCIJ dealt with two forms of reparation,
restitution and compensation, in certain cases satisfaction may be another form. The factory at
Chorzow case is landmark decision in international law, establishing important precedents
regarding state responsibility, the protection of foreign investment, and the principle of
compensation for expropriation.53
In Trail Smelter case was landmark international legal dispute that arose in 1930s concerning
environmental damages caused by smelter located in trail, British Columbia, Canada, the case
was significant for its implication in transboundary pollution. Decision issued in 1941, the
tribunal ruled that Canada was liable for the damaged caused by the emission. The case
established principle of that state have an obligation to prevent environment harm that crosses
their border , which has been influential in international environmental law Canada was ordered
to pay compensation . So, whenever the dispute or breach of treaty arose between the state
there will be obligation on state to reparation.54 Americanland is under obligation to
compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made good by

51
Climate Change Impacts on Ocean and Marine Resources, U.S. Envtl. Prot.
Agency,https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-ocean-and-marine-resources
52
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Art. 34.
53
Germany v. Poland, Factory at Chorzów, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 9, Judgment No. 8, (July 26,1927)
54
United States v. Canada, Trail Smelter Arbritation, 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938 & 1941).

19
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

restitution. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss of
profits insofar as it is established.55
In the case of Gabˇcíkovo -Nagymaros Project case, ICJ declare that “It is a well-established
rule of international law that an injured State is entitled to obtain compensation from the State
which has committed an internationally wrongful act for the damage caused by it’’.
In addition to ICJ, international tribunals dealing with issues of compensation include the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.56

55
Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, Art. 36, [2001]
2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 26, U.N. Doc. A/56/10.
56
Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project, Hungary v Slovakia, Order, [1997] ICJ Rep 3, ICGJ 65 (ICJ 1997), 5th
February 1997, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ].

20
 1ST SGTU INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Appellant, the Government of Island, respectfully request this Honorable court to adjudge
and declare:
1. Respondent breach treaty of peace, support and protection;
2. Respondent did violation of international environmental law;
3. Respondent did violation of UNCLOS;
4. Respondent is liable for compensation.

21