735A

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE,
THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS
THE CASE CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
IN THE MALACHI GAP

STATE OF AMALEA
(APPLICANT)
v
REPUBLIC OF RITANIA
(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE APPLICANT


2014 Philip C Jessup
International Law Moot Court Competition

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS






















iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES






















iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to the Joint Notification and Compromis concluded on 17 September 2013 at
The Hague, The Netherlands, between the State of Amalea and the Republic of Ritania
(collectively the Parties), and in accordance with Article 40(1) of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice, the Parties hereby submit to this Court its claims concerning
Certain Activities within the Malachi Gap.

This Court is requested to decide the Case on the basis of the rules and principles of
international law, including any applicable treaties. In accordance with Article 36(1) of the
Courts Statute, the Parties shall accept any Judgment of the Court as final and binding upon
them and shall execute it in its entirety and in good faith.











v

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

The State of Amalea respectfully asks this Court:
1. Whether Ritanias acts and omissions with respect to the development of
Excelsior Island violated international law, and if so, whether Amalea is entitled
to seek compensation from Ritania for economic losses caused by the landslide.
2. Whether Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all
artifacts recovered from it and whether Ritanias deployment of patrol vessels to
the site of the Cargast violated international law.
3. Whether the Amalean Navys pursuit of Oscar de Luz into Ritanias EEZ, and his
subsequent arrest, were in compliance with international law
4. Whether Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for criminal actions
related to the Rosehill incident, and if so, whether it has obligation to return him
to Ritania.










vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Amalea, a developing and newly industrialized island State is separated from the
Republic of Ritania by the Strait of Malachi. The strait contains abundant fish and shellfish
stocks Amalean fishing vessels have historically plied almost every part of the strait, regularly
coming within less than 40 nautical miles of the Ritanian coast.
In 1958, both countries signed the four Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea.
Amalea and Ritania ratified all four Conventions. Amalea signed UNCLOS in June 1983, but
has never ratified it. And on June 13, 1984, the President of Amalea, by proclamation, asserted
his countrys claim to a 200 nautical mile EEZ.
Amalea developed and implemented sustainable fishing practices. In 1986, its legislature
enacted the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, intending to regulate any activities that posed risks
to fish stocks. However, Ritania objected to any potential interpretation of the Act as applying to
any part of the Strait of Malachi.
Amalea and Ritania became State Parties to the Malachi Gap treaty dated March 30,
which objective was to balance, and insofar as possible to promote, the interests of the States
Parties in respect of exploration, exploitation, and protection of this maritime area of great
importance to them both.
Amaleas fishing industry directly employed over 250,000 people and supplied the
domestic market, supplying 40% of the protein content of Amalean diet and responsible for
exports generating more than 5% of the countrys $45 Billion GDP. The Amalean people prized
the flesh of the Dorian wrasse for its historical and traditional value. The Amalean Ministry of
vii

Trade has reported that domestic and foreign sales of the fish generated some $160 Million
annually by 2000 and exporters have regularly projected higher returns over the next decades.
In late 2006, Ritanian billionaire Esmeralda Kali announced her intention to finance the
construction of Excelsior Island on the Sirius Plateau located just outside the Malachi gap. The
two billion cubic meters of sand and rock for the construction would be dredged entirely from
areas located within the Malachi Gap. Amaleas Foreign Minister summoned the Ritanian
Ambassador for a meeting, where he made clear that such a large-scale project cannot be
undertaken without the consent of Amalea and Ritania, in accordance with the letter and spirit of
the Treaty. Amalea maintained that Ritania could not permit the dredging without at least a full
EIA specifically covering all of its potential impacts. Amalea expressed particular concern
regarding the fate of the Dorian wrasse, given the proximity of its only known breeding ground
to the proposed dredging in the Sirius Plateau.
In early 2008, Excelsior Island and Gas Project Limited (EIGP) submitted an EIA for the
Project, which does not address the potential impacts of the dredging program on the waters of
the Malachi Gap or on the fish species. The Amalean Environmental Protection Agency
forwarded a report prepared by the International League for Sustainable Aquaculture (ILSA) to
the Ritanian Ambassador, which concluded that any major dredging activity in the Malachi Gap
could potentially prove catastrophic for native species and ecosystems such as a great possibility
of a landslide.
On December 10, 2009, as direct result of the dredging, an underwater landslide
occurred, caused by over-steepening of the slope in a geologically weak part of the Sirius
Plateau. Results of the program of an emergency monitoring program developed and
implemented by ILSA revealed that the landslide had an immediate and significant negative
viii

impact on the known Dorian wrasse population. Amalean fishing companies to the Ministry of
Fisheries by the end of 2010 and 2011 had fallen. By February 2012, ILSA declared the Dorian
wrasse to be an endangered species.
In January 2010, a Ritanian vessel conducting sonar mapping operations in the Malachi
Gap to the west of the Amalean Trench discovered the wreck of the Amalean schooner Cargast
approximately 80 nautical miles from the nearest point on the Amalean coast. Cargasts captain
was Baldric Verdigris, an Amalean explorer and cartographer, who carried a letter of marque
from the King of Amalea granting the ship to him for use to bring glory to the Kingdom of
Amalea.
Amalean Prime Minister Beesley made an announcement claiming the Cargast and all of
the cargo that might be on board as property of Amalea, to be held in trust for all humankind.
Milo Belleza, with whom Amalea has negotiated a salvage contract, reported that the hull
structure of the Cargast was at risk of catastrophic collapse.
On 13 February 2011, the Rosehill, an Amalean-registered cruise ship, departed from
Amalea and headed towards Ritania. Its passengers had obtained permission for the vessel to
navigate close to Excelsior Island. As the Rosehill approached Excelsior Island, the Daedalus, a
stolen Ritanian-flagged yacht under the control of Oscar de Luz, was speeding towards the
Island. The captain of the Rosehill, saw that his ship was on a collision course with the fast-
approaching Daedalus, and with the captains and the crews heroic efforts, they tried to
maneuver the Rosehill away in order to avoid an imminent collision, they were forced to veer
toward the Island and the ship struck the island with significant force and immediately the
Rosehills captain radioed the Amalean authorities about the incident. The impact tore large
holes in the hull of the Rosehill and caused fires that spread through parts of the ship and it
ix

began to sink. Before nightfall, 127 passengers and crew of the Rosehill had died, 89 of which
were Amalean nationals, and 150 others were injured.
Within minutes of the Rosehills distress call, the Amalean Coastal Protection Service
(ACPS) issued an alert describing the Rosehill collision as apparently caused by a yacht that had
hurriedly left the scene noting that the stolen yacht had been seen speeding away bearing west
northwest and the persons on board are suspected of human trafficking.As the Daedalus drew
within Amaleas coastline, it was picked up by the Icarus, an Amalean Navy Fast Response
Cutterand set out to intercept the Daedalus.When the Icarus was within visual range, Captain
Haddock issued ordered the Daedalus to stop. Instead, Luz turned the Daedalus and sped
towards Ritania. Haddock pursued the Daedalus. In an attempt to get the Icarus to veer away,
Luz suddenly steered the Daedalus straight towards the Icarus. Captain Haddock kept his vessel
on course and the ships collided. The Icarus suffered some damage, but the Daedalus began to
sink rapidly. Captain Haddocks crew captured Luz, and declared him under and brought him on
board the Icarus.
Amaleas Attorney General concluded that under the Amalea Penal code which
specifically includes offenses committed in the Malachi Gap, had jurisdiction to try Luz for
violations of Amalean criminal laws. He was charged with 127 counts of murder as well as other
various crimes. Ritania immediately filed a formal protest demanding for the return of
LuzAmalea declined to repatriate Luz, noting that Ritanian criminal law did not expressly
provide for prosecution of offenses committed outside the countrys territorial waters. Amalea
put him on trial and Luz was ultimately convicted of nearly all of the charges against him, and
this was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals in June 2012, and by Amaleas Supreme
Court in January 2013.
x

In February 2013, Amaleas Ministry of Fisheries published a report concluding that
projected commercial exploitation of the Dorian wrasse would have amounted to no less than
USD 250 million annually over the next five years. Being unable to fish the Dorian wrasse for
the foreseeable future, Amalea demanded reparations from Ritania for the loss of this revenue.
The parties decided to refer the matter involving the loss of the Dorian wrasse, along with
the unresolved disputes involving the Cargast and the Rosehill, to the International Court of
Justice. Amalea has agreed to place all objects removed from the Cargast, and any others that
might be brought to the surface during the pendency of this case by Milo Bellezza, in escrow
held by the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Canada, which takes no position on any of
the issues in dispute.













xi

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

I. Ritania violated the terms of the Malachi Gap Treaty in allowing the Excelsior Island and
Gas Power, Limited (EIGP) to conduct dredging within the Malachi Gap. Article 12 of
the said treaty states that neither party shall exercise its rights under the agreement to the
prejudice of the interests of the other. Since the dredging adversely affected the fate of
the Dorian Wrasse population to which Amalea was economically dependent, such an
activity constituted a breach of the Malachi Gap Treaty. Ritania also failed to perform its
obligation under customary international environmental law to conduct a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which would include the impact of the dredging
towards the fish population within the Malachi Gap. Having breached an international
obligation, Ritania committed an internationally wrongful act and therefore must take
responsibility by compensation as provided for in the Articles on the Responsibility of
States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
II. Amalea has a better right to the Cargast and all its contents under the law of finds and the
law on salvage, to the extent allowed by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of
Underwater Cultural Heritage. Under the same convention, the subsequent salvage by
Milo Belleza of the Cargast was also lawful and allowable by virtue of the exceptions
mentioned in the Conventions Article 4.
III. Amalea was entitled to pursue Oscar de Luz, invoking the right to hot pursuit under
Article 23 of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the High Seas. Since there was a valid
exercise by Amalea of the right of hot pursuit, the subsequent arrest of Oscar de Luz was
also clothed with validity since it was incidental to the lawful hot pursuit.
xii

IV. Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Ritanian citizen Oscar de Luz because the
territoriality principle applies to enable Amalea to exercise jurisdiction to try and convict
Oscar de Luz for all the victims aboard the Rosehill. Another principle at work, the
passive personality principle justifies the exercise of jurisdiction by Amalea over Oscar
de Luz. Ritania cannot avail of the flag-State jurisdiction over the Ritanian-flagged
Daedalus to justify their claim because Oscar de Luz was not the master thereof. Lastly,
Ritania cannot claim jurisdiction based on the existence of a safety zone around Excelsior
Island and Amalea has no obligation to return Oscar de Luz to Ritania because
extradition does not apply to the case at hand.














1

PLEADINGS

Submission 1 (Applicant)

RITANIAS ACTS AND OMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
EXCELSIOR ISLAND VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND AMALEA IS
THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SEEK COMPENSATION FROM RITANIA FOR ECONOMIC
LOSSES CAUSED BY THE LANDSLIDE.

I. Ritanias acts and omissions with respect to the development of Excelsior Island violated
international law.

A. Ritanias acts and omissions constituted breaches of its international
obligations.

1. Ritania violated the terms of the Malachi Gap Treaty in allowing the
Excelsior Island and Gas Power, Limited (EIGP) to conduct dredging
within the Malachi Gap.

The dredging of oceanic sand and rocks within the Malachi Gap area that would
adversely affect the fate of the Dorian wrasse
1
constitutes a breach of Article 12 the Malachi Gap
Treaty.
2
Despite a report published by the Amalean Environmental Protection Agency, prepared

1
Compromis 18 [hereinafter Comp.].
2
Comp. Appendix B, art. 12(d).
2

by the International League for Sustainable Aquaculture (ILSA)
3
and which was forwarded to
the Ritanian Ambassador,
4
Ritania has still proceeded with the dredging after the approval of its
EIA.
5
The report concluded that any major dredging activity in the Malachi Gap would likely
interfere with ongoing research and conservation efforts, and could potentially prove catastrophic
for native species and ecosystems. It also suggested that because of the presence of gas hydrates
at the foot of the Sirius Plateau, an underwater landslide could threaten particularly grave
damage.
6
Thus, dredging would prejudice Amaleas interest in the protection of fisheries which
is, consequently, in breach of the Malachi Gap Treaty.

2. Ritania failed its obligations under customary international environmental law
to conduct a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to include
the impact of the dredging to the fish population within the Malachi Gap.

As part of the Ritanian licensing process, EIGP was required to conduct an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) for the Excelsior Island project. However, the EIA did not address the
potential impacts of the dredging program on the waters of the Malachi Gap, or on fish species
living there.
7
Under the 1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, an EIA must contain the minimum requirements, one of which is a
description of the potential environmental impact of the proposed activity and its alternatives and

3
Comp. 25.
4
Id.
5
Comp. 27.

6
Comp. 25.
7
Comp. 23.
3

an estimation of its significance.
8
Since EIGP failed to comply with the minimum content
requirement in its EIA for not addressing the potential impacts of the dredging program on the
waters and the fish species of the Malachi Gap, Ritania failed its obligations under customary
international environmental law for approving such EIA and subsequently granting EIGP permit
to dredge.

II. Ritania has a duty to compensate Amalea for the economic losses it suffered due to the
landslide.

A. Compensation in international law is governed by The Articles on the
Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA).

The Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA)
was adopted by the International Law Commission at its 53
rd
session in 2001.
9
It contains the
underlying principle that an internationally wrongful act of a state entails international
responsibility.
10
An act or omission is internationally wrongful when it is attributable to the State
under international law and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
11
Such
internationally wrongful act is attributable to the State when it falls under the following
circumstances: (1) when it is committed by a state organ,
12
whether it exercises legislative,
executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the

8
See Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Appendix II (1991) [hereinafter
CEIATC].
9
UN LEGISLATIVE SERIES, Materials On The Responsibility Of States For Internationally Wrongful Acts vii,
3.
10
Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts art.1 [hereinafter ARSIWA].
11
Id. art. 2.
12
Id. art. 4(2).
4

State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of
the State;
13
(2) when it is committed by a person or entity, not a State organ, but which is
empowered by the law of that State to exercise elements of the governmental authority, provided
that such person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular instance;
14
(3) when it falls
under special cases where an organ of one State is placed at the disposal of another State and
empowered to exercise the governmental authority of that State;
15
(4) when it involves conducts
of organs or entities empowered to exercise governmental authority even if it was carried out
outside the authority of the organ or person concerned or contrary to instructions; (5) when such
conduct is carried out on the instructions of a State organ or under its direction or control;
16
(6)
when it constitutes conducts involving elements of governmental authority, carried out in the
absence of the official authorities;
17
(7) when it is a special case involving the conduct of and
insurrectional or other movement which subsequently becomes the new Government of the State
or succeeds in establishing a new State;
18
and finally (8) when such conduct is not attributable to
the State under one of the earlier articles but which is nonetheless adopted by the State, expressly
or by conduct, as its own.
19
An act or omission constitutes a breach of an international obligation
when such conduct attributable to the State is not in conformity with what is required of it by that
obligation, regardless of its origin or character.
20
Moreover, the characterization of a conduct
attributable to the State as internationally wrongful is independent from its characterization in the
internal law of the state concerned.
21


13
Id. art. 4 (1).
14
Id. art. 5.
15
Id. art. 6.
16
Id. art. 8,
17
Id. art. 9,
18
Id. art. 10.
19
Id. art. 11.
20
Id. art. 12.
21
Id. art. 3.
5


B. Having breached its international obligations, Ritania committed
internationally wrongful acts and therefore must take responsibility by
compensation.

1. The acts and omissions were attributable to Ritania.

The ARSIWA provides that the conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of
that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or
any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its
character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State. An organ
includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the
State.
22
Under Ritanian law, The Department of Resource Management, together with other
government agencies claiming a specific interest, reviews an EIA for a proposed marine
development project. The department also issues a license authorizing the developer to proceed if
all reviewing agencies are satisfied with the EIA and other information relating to the project.
23

In performing such independent regulatory role,
24
the Department of Resource Management is
undeniably acting as a state organ of Ritania. All of the Department of Resource Managements
acts and omissions are therefore attributable to the state of Ritania including the approval of an
incomplete EIA and the granting of the permit to dredge in the Malachi Gap area.


22
Id. art. 4.
23
Comp. 23.
24
Comp. 25.

6

2.Ritania is responsible to compensate Amalea for the economic loss it has
suffered as a result of the underwater landslide caused by the dredging
within the Malachi Gap area.

i. Ritania brought adverse transboundary impact to Amalea when
the underwater landslide caused an immediate and significant
decrease in the Dorian wrasse population.

After three months of dredging without incident, an underwater landslide was detected
which was, by all accounts, the direct result of the dredging. This has caused extremely high
water turbidity levels which persisted for several weeks and a dissociation of gas hydrates at the
foot of the Sirius Plateau, resulting in a higher concentration of several dissolved gases,
including carbon dioxide and methane, in shallow waters throughout the Sirius Plateau.
25
The
underwater landslide has brought an adverse transboundary impact
26
to Amalea for its immediate
and significant negative impact on the known Dorian wrasse population.
27
This had lead to the
decrease of the total catch of Dorian wrasse reported by the end of 2010 and 2011 which had
fallen to 25% and 15%, respectively, of the levels reported in 2000. Furthermore, in February
2012, ILSA has declared the Dorian wrasse to be an endangered species, and recommended that
commercial fishing be suspended indefinitely until its population was regenerated.
28



25
Comp. 28.
26
CEIATC art. 1(viii) (1991) (defining Transboundary impact as any impact, not exclusively of a global nature,
within an area under the jurisdiction of a Party caused by a proposed activity the physical origin of which is situated
wholly or in part within the area under the jurisdiction of another Party).
27
Comp. 29.
28
Comp. 30.
7

ii. Ritania is obligated to compensate the economic damage it has
caused Amalea as provided in Article 36 of ARSIWA.

ARSIWA provides that the State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under
an obligation to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made
good by restitution.
29
Such damage may be material or moral.
30
The damage caused by the
underwater landslide which is the decrease in the population of the Dorian wrasse cannot be
made by restitution due to its material impossibility.
31
Compensation also covers any financially
assessable damage including loss of profits insofar as it is established
32
thus, covering Amaleas
economic losses.

Submission 2 Applicant

AMALEA HAS EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE WRECK OF THE CARGAST AND ALL
ARTIFACTS RECOVERED FROM IT, AND RITANIAS DEPLOYMENT OF PATROL
VESSELS TO THE SITE OF THE CARGAST VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. Amalea has a better right to the Cargast and all its contents under the law of finds and the
law on salvage, to the extent allowed by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of
Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH Convention).


29
ARSIWA art. 36 (1).
30
Id. art. 31 (2).
31
Id. art. 35.
32
ARSIWA art. 36 (2).
8

A. The UCH Convention which governs Amaleas conduct of the wreck.

Article 1(1)(a) defines underwater cultural heritage as being all traces of human
existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which have been partially or
totally under water, periodically or continuously, for at least 100 years,
33
including vessels and
their cargo or other contents, together with their archaeological and natural context.
34


The rich history surrounding the Cargast has much to do with the deeds of its captain,
Baldric Verdigris
35
and in the precious artifacts that it contained.
36
At the time the Cargast went
down, Verdigris held a letter of marque from the King of Amalea, who granted the ship to him
for use to bring glory to the Kingdom of Amalea.
37
Historians are unanimous in their
assumption that the cargo that went down with the Cargast contained a vast array of precious
stones, gold and other coinage, and bejeweled artifacts obtained not only during the Sack of
Helios of 4 March 1510 but also during the trading mission that preceded it; as well as, in
particular, the Sacred Helian Coronet, which was placed on the heads of Ritanian monarchs
during their coronation ceremonies, and which over the centuries has acquired mythical
importance in Ritanian iconography, and a stylized image of the Coronet occupies the center of
the flag of Ritania to the present day.
38


33
UCH Convention art. 1 1(a).
34
Id. 1 (a)(ii).
35
Comp. 31.
36
Comp. 33.
37
Id.
38
Comp. 33.
9

Verdigris died at sea on 10 March 1510, when the Cargast disappeared in the Strait of
Malachi during a storm.
39
Thus, taking into consideration their cultural and historical
significance as well as their more than 500 years of being lost underwater, Article 1(1)(a) of the
UCH Convention would classify the Cargast and all its contents as underwater cultural heritage.

Amalea is a State Party to the UCH Convention.
40
As such, the Convention governs the
conduct of Amalea with respect to any underwater cultural heritage found within its
jurisdiction.
41


B. Milo Bellezzas salvage of the Cargast was lawful and allowable under the UCH
Convention.

Amalea is a State Party to the 1989 International Convention on Salvage (Salvage
Convention).
42
The Salvage Convention sought to codify the traditional principles in the law of
salvage, including those embodied in the 1910 Brussels Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules of Law relating to Salvage at Sea, and update these principles in the light of
modern practice and jurisdiction principles as well as, in particular, to respond to growing
international concerns relating to the protection of the marine environment.
43



39
Id.
40
Comp. 52; See UCH Convention art. 1 2(a) (defining State Parties as States which have consented to be
bound by the Convention and for which the Convention is in force).
41
UCH Convention art. 2.
42
Comp. 52.
43
WILLIAM A. ONEILL, Foreword, TRAVAUX PREPARATOIRES OF THE CONVENTION ON SALVAGE
(1989).
10

A major breakthrough in the UCH Convention is the rejection of the law of salvage and
the law of finds in seizing underwater cultural heritage.
44
However, there is an exception
provided in Article 4 thereof which applies squarely to Milo Bellezzas retrieval of the Cargast.
Article 4 provides that any activity relating to underwater cultural heritage
45
shall not be subject
to the law of salvage and the law of finds, unless it:

1. is authorized by the competent authorities,
2. is in full conformity with this Convention, and
3. ensures that any recovery of the underwater cultural
heritage achieves its maximum protection.
46


Regarding the first element, competent authorities, according to the UCH Convention, are
those established by States Parties to establish, maintain and update an inventory of underwater
cultural heritage; the effective protection, conservation, presentation and management of
underwater cultural heritage; as well as research and education.
47
It is worthy to note that the
Compromis is bereft of any evidence on either the presence or absence of any such competent
authorities on the part of Amalea. What is clear, however, is that the State of Amalea itself
contracted with Milo Bellezza
48
to explore the wreck and recover the items therefrom.
49
The
Amalean Cultural Affairs Ministry would later on describe Bellezza as the salvor of the wreck
of the Cargast
50
acting as agent for and on behalf of the Republic of Amalea.
51


44
Markus Rau, The UNESO Convention on Underwater Culture Heritage and International Law of the Sea, 405.
45
UCH Convention art. 1 6.
46
Id. art. 4.
47
Id. art. 22 1.
48
Comp. 36.
49
Id.
50
Comp. 38.
11


Regarding the second element, Milo Bellezzas salvage of the Cargast were in full
compliance with the UCH Convention. The obligations that Amalea has under the Convention
may be summarized through objectives of the UCH Convention.
52
These include the duty to
cooperate in the protection of the underwater cultural heritage,
53
the obligation to preserve
underwater cultural heritage for the benefit of humanity,
54
the principle of in situ preservation as
the first option before allowing or engaging in activities directed at underwater cultural
heritage,
55
the prohibition of commercial exploitation of the underwater cultural heritage,
56
and
the duty to give proper respect to all human remains located in maritime waters.
57
None of these
objectives of the Convention were ever undermined in Milo Bellezzas salvage of the Cargast.

Regarding the third element, the recovery of the Cargast was necessary for its protection
and preservation. The hull structure of the Cargast was at risk of catastrophic collapse, and
Amalea immediately contracted with Milo Bellezza
58
to explore the wreck and recover the items
therefrom.
59


C. Amalea has a better right to the wreck under the law of finds.


51
Id.
52
Markus Rau, The UNESCO Convention on Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Law of the Sea, 404.
53
UCH Convention art. 2 2.
54
Id., 3.
55
Id., 5.
56
Id., 7.
57
Id., 9.
58
Comp. 36.
59
Comp. art. 36.
12

While the purpose of salvage law is to encourage the rescue of property in marine peril,
60

the object of the law of finds is the vesting of title after the reduction of abandoned property to
possession.
61
In order to apply the law on finds in the context of shipwrecks, three elements must
be present:

1. Intent to reduce property to possession;
2. Actual possession; and
3. Abandonment of the original owner.
62


Regarding the first element, Amaleas intent to reduce the property to possession is
evident in that Amalean Prime Minister Beesley responded to the discovery by claiming that the
Cargast and all of the cargo are the property of Amalea, to be held in trust for all humankind.
63

He even added that the wreck should be protected from those who have no right to it.
64

Subsequently, Amaleas Cultural Affairs Ministry also declared that Amalea remains in fact and
at law the owner of the wreck of the Cargast and its cargo.
65


Regarding the second element, Amalea obtained actual possession of the Cargast and its
cargo when it successfully salvaged the wreck and retrieved the artifacts, including the Sacred
Helian Coronet, through Milo Bellezza.
66


60
Justin S. DuClos, A Conceptual Wreck: Salvaging the Law of Finds, 38 n. 1 Journal of Maritime Law and
Commerce 26, January 2007.
61
Mark A. Wilder, Application of Salvage Law and the Law of Finds to Sunken Shipwreck Discoveries, 67 n. 1
Defense Counsel Journal 93.
62
R.M.S. Titanic, 435 F.3d at 532 n.3.
63
Comp. 34.
64
Id.
65
Comp. 38.
66
Id. 36.
13


Regarding the third element, the Cargast is deemed abandoned by virtue of its
commercial or merchant character and its loss having reached 500 years. The attribute
commercial means that the use of such vessels has to be aimed at obtaining profits, so that
even government ships, when operated for commercial purposes, are merchant vessels.
67

Contemporary records reveal that before Verdigris and his men laid siege to Helios, they were on
their way back to Amalea from a very successful trading mission to recently discovered overseas
territories.
68
Moreover, the crew of the Cargast were private individuals employed by Verdigris
using funds provided by private financial backers, who hoped to recover their investment
through shares of the foreign treasure they hoped he would bring back to Amalea.
69
This fact
shows that privateering through a letter of marque was business, in that capital was subscribed by
the nobility and the middle class as bakers, bankers, butchers, cheesemongers, coal merchants,
dyers, grocers and haberdashers invested in commerce-raiding activity.
70
Taken together, these
facts indicate the commercial nature of the purposes for which Verdigris and the crew of the
Cargast set sail.

Abandonment is presumed to exist 25 years after sinking and becomes absolute after 50
years, and the only exceptions to these rules are military vessels and aircraft, which are to remain
the property of the sovereign nation forever.
71
The Cargast has remained undiscovered without

67
Dieter Fleck, The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2013).
68
Comp. 33.
69
Comp. 32.
70
Gary Sturgess, Privateering and Letters of Marque, 5 n. 1 Journal of International Peace Operations 38, July-
August 2009.
71
Peter Hess, UNESCO-Legalized Plunder? (Nov. 22, 1998), http://www.imacdigest.com/unesco.html.
14

any published claims until only after the discovery in 2010.
72
Therefore, since the Cargast was a
commercial vessel and it was lost at sea for more than 500 years, it is deemed abandoned.

These three elements concur to vest Amalea with title of ownership under the law of
finds, the application of which does not contravene the UCH Convention in the facts at hand.

II. Ritanias deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast violated international
law.

A. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is applicable in
the case at bar.

The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when the treaty
provides for such consent to be expressed by means of ratification.
73
The UNCLOS is subject to
ratification by States.
74
In April 1983, Ritania signed and ratified the UNCLOS.
75
Thus, Ritania
is bound by the treaty.
76


B. The presence of a Ritanian navy vessel in Amaleas EEZ does not constitute innocent
passage.


72
Comp. 31.
73
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 14 1(a) [hereinafter VCLT].
74
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea art. 306 [hereinafter UNCLOS].
75
Comp. 10.
76
VCLT art. 11.
15

The regime of innocent passage, in accordance with Part II, section 3, shall apply in
straits used for international navigation between a part of the high seas or an exclusive economic
zone and the territorial sea of a foreign State.
77
The purpose of the Ritanian navy vessel in the
EEZ is an activity not having a direct bearing on passage,
78
in that in 40, the Ritanian navy
began to patrol the area of the wreck, which patrol continues up to this day. The purpose of the
patrol, as can be deduced from 35, is Ritania reserving its right to send naval patrol vessels to
the area to prevent the desecration of national heritage. Ultimately, an activity considered to
violate innocent passage in the territorial sea cannot be considered to be a peaceful activity in
the EEZ.
79


The key principle of the UNCLOS is that foreign war fleets have open access to the EEZ,
since in effect it is an integral part of the freedom of navigation and overflight.
80
Some coastal
states object to military activity in their EEZ by expressing concern for their national security
and their resource sovereignty.
81
The exercise of this right, however, is subject to some
restrictions in reference to that zone, such as the limitations of a political nature and those that
are derived from economic rights.
82



77
UNCLOS art. 19 1(b).
78
Id., 2(l).
79
JI GUOXING, THE LEGALITY OF THE IMPECCABLE INCIDENT CHINA SECURITY, 5 n. 2 Spring
2009 19, World Security Institute (2009).
80
JI GUOXING, Analysis from the East-West Center ,Asia Pacific Issues, ROUGH WATERS IN THE SOUTH
CHINA SEA: NAVIGATION ISSUES AND CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES 4.
81
Jing Geng, The Legality of Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS, Utrecht
Journal of International and European Law 25.
82
Analysis from the East-West Center | Asia Pacific Issues | Rough Waters in the South China Sea: Navigation
Issues and Confidence-Building Measures | Ji Guoxing | p. 4
16

State practice shows that some states, invoking Article 310,
83
made declarations on the
issue of military activities in the EEZ. For instance, Brazil, Bangladesh, Cape Verde, Malaysia,
India and Pakistan have all expressed concern over the ability of foreign military vessels to
engage in certain activities within the EEZ. In their declarations, these states require consent
before a foreign ship may conduct military activities.
84


C. Amalea possesses sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting,
conserving and managing the exclusive economic zone, as indicated in Article
56(1)(a) on the UNCLOS.

The allocation of rights in the EEZ, as set out in Article 56(1)(a) of the UNCLOS forms
part of customary international law.
85
Under the said article, Amalea possesses sovereign rights
with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. Thus,
Amalea has such rights over the wreck, which was located approximately 80 nautical miles from
the nearest point of its coast.
86



Submission 3 Applicant


83
UNCLOS art. 309 does not preclude a State, when signing, ratifying or acceding to this Convention, from making
declarations or statements, however phrased or named, with a view, inter alia, to the harmonization of its laws and
regulations with the provisions of this Convention, provided that such declarations or statements do not purport to
exclude or to modify the legal effect of the provisions of this Convention in their application to that State.
84
Jing Geng, The Legality of Foreign Military Activities in the Exclusive Economic Zone under UNCLOS, Utrecht
Journal of International and European Law 25.
85
Gerd Winter, Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis 4.
86
Comp. 31
17

THE AMALEAN NAVYS PURSUIT OF OSCAR DE LUZ INTO RITANIAS EEZ, AND
HIS SUBSEQUENT ARREST, WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

I. AMALEA WAS ENTITLED TO PURSUE OSCAR DE LUZ, INVOKING THE RIGHT TO HOT
PURSUIT UNDER ARTICLE 23 OF THE 1958 GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE HIGH
SEAS (HIGH SEAS CONVENTION).
A. The High Seas Convention governs the exercise of the Right to Hot Pursuit
and not the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS).
1. Amalea is not a party to the UNCLOS.
Article 306 of the UNCLOS itself specifically provides that this Convention is subject to
ratification by States.
87
This is an example of a convention requiring simple signature,
88
where a
signing State does not undertake positive legal obligations under the treaty pending ratification.
89

This is made more explicit under Article 14 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(VCLT). While both Amalea and Ritania had signed the UNCLOS,
90
only Ritania ratified it as of
the time of the case at hand.
91
Consequently, Amalea cannot yet be considered a state party to the
UNCLOS.
92

2. Amalea and Ritania are both parties to the 1958 Geneva

87
UNCLOS. art. 306 1(b)(c)(d)(e); art. 305, 1(f).
88
Olivier Corten & Pierre Klein, Commentary, The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, 218 (2011).
(Signature is referred to as simple when subject to ratification, acceptance or approval.)
89
UN Treaty Handbook, 5 (2012). See also Vienna Convention, art. 18 (1969) (indicating States intention to take
steps to express its consent to be bound by the treaty at a later date).
90
Comp. 10, 11.
91
Comp. 11.
92
VCLT art. 2(b)(g).
18

Conventions on the Law of the Sea (1958 Geneva Conventions).
93

Article 311 of the UNCLOS provides that this Convention shall prevail, as between States
Parties, over the 1958 Geneva Conventions.
94
This was added to clearly signify the intention of
the Third Conference on the Law of Sea to supersede the 1958 Geneva Conventions with the
UNCLOS.
95

In such a situation Article 30 of the VCLT, regarding the application of successive treaties
relating to the same subject matter, is applicable. In paragraph 4(b) thereof, it provides that as
between a State party to both treaties and a State party to only one of the treaties, the treaty to
which both States are parties governs their mutual rights and obligations.
96
As discussed
previously, while both Amalea and Ritania are parties to the 1958 Geneva Conventions, only
Ritania is a party to the 1982 UNCLOS.
97
Hence, the 1958 Geneva Conventions, as the treaty to
which both states are parties, govern the rights and obligations between Amalea and Ritania
insofar as the Law of the Sea is concerned.
B. The laws and regulations of Amalea were violated, entitling it to hot
pursuit and arrest.
When a foreign vessel within the territory of a coastal State commits any violation of the
laws and regulations of that coastal State, such vessel may be immediately pursued into the open
seas beyond territorial limits and subsequently taken.
98
This concept of hot pursuit, as defined by
Article 23 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, remained unchanged with the entry

93
Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea (1958) (comprising four Conventions: The Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone; The Convention on the High Seas; The Convention on Fishing and
Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas; and The Convention on the Continental Shelf) [hereinafter
GCLS].
94
UNCLOS art. 311.
95
Myron Nordquist, Commentary, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, 235 (1989).
96
VCLT, art. 30(4)(b).
97
Comp. 10, 11.
98
Allen, Doctrine of Hot Pursuit 1 (citing The King v. the Ship North, 37 S. C. R. 385 (1905-06)).
19

of the UNCLOS in Article 111 thereof, and even has the force of custom, enforceable against
states which have neither signed nor ratified any of the Conventions on the Law of the Sea.
99

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in the M/V Saiga (No.2) Case,
recognized that, first, there must exist some domestic law that is applicable to the ship-violator
100

(the Daedalus), and second, the application of that law must be compatible with International
Law.
101
The Tribunal noted that the existing international rule in relation to the circumstances
was the UNCLOS.
102
However, since Amalea is not a party to the UNCLOS and that both the
states of Amalea and Ritania are parties to the 1958 Geneva Conventions, the latter will govern
as have been previously discussed.


C. The arrest of Oscar de Luz was valid, being incidental to a lawful exercise
of hot pursuit.
There can be no valid arrest following hot pursuit if the exercise of such pursuit is not in
accordance with the elements as codified in the UNCLOS, which elements were first contained
in the High Seas Convention.
103

To be lawful, the pursuit must conform to the following elements:
1. The competent authorities of the coastal State have good reason
to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of
that State; provided that if the foreign ship is within a contiguous

99
Nicholas M. Poulantzas, The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law xxviii.
100
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea, Judgment, 1 July
1999, 122.
101
Id., 126.
102
Id., 127.
103
Saiga Case, para. 150. International judgment
20

zone, as defined in Article 24 of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, the pursuit may only be
undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the
protection of which the zone was established;

2. Such pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one of
its boats is within the internal waters, the archipelagic waters,
the territorial sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing State;
and

3. The pursuit may only be continued outside the territorial sea or
the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted.
104


Regarding the first element, the Amalean Navy was informed by the Amalean Coastal
Protection Service (ACPS) by issuing an alert describing the Rosehill collision as apparently
caused by a yacht that had hurriedly left the scene, and that the yacht had been seen speeding
away bearing west northwest, creating a danger for other vessels.
105
Moreover, the ACPS alert
Captain Haddock of the Icarus received said, Ritanian flagged yacht Daedalus last seen fleeing
Excelsior Island towards Amalea. Yacht is stolen and persons on board are suspected of human
trafficking.
106
The sinking of the Rosehill as well as the suspicions of human trafficking
constitute valid grounds for the Amalean Navy to believe that the Daedalus had violated the laws
and regulations of Amalea, as well as the rights for the protection of which the zone was

104
UNCLOS art. 111.
105
Comp. 44.
106
Comp. clarifications 44.
21

established.
Regarding the second element, the pursuit was commenced when the Daedalus was within
23 nautical miles from Amaleas coastline, well within the contiguous zone of Amalea.
107

Regarding the third element, the Daedalus was only able to reach the uncontested
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Ritania before it sank, and Luz was subsequently arrested.
Up to that point, the pursuit remained uninterrupted.
108




Submission 4 Applicant

AMALEA HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY AND CONVICT LUZ FOR CRIMINAL ACTIONS
RELATED TO THE ROSEHILL INCIDENT, AND HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RETURN
HIM TO RITANIA.

I. Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Ritanian citizen Oscar de Luz.

A. The territoriality principle applies to enable Amalea to exercise jurisdiction to try and
convict Oscar de Luz for all the victims aboard the Rosehill.


107
Comp. 45.
108
Interruption meaning.
22

All crimes committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a state may come before the
municipal courts and the accused if convicted may be sentenced, even where the offenders are
foreign citizens.
109


The territorial principle covers crimes committed not only upon the land territory of the
state but also on the high seas where the state is the flag state of the vessel.
110
This principle was
recognized as early as 1927 in the Lotus case, where the PCIJ ruled that a ship on the high seas is
assimilated to the territory of the State the flag of which it flies, for, just as in its own territory,
that State exercises its authority upon it, and no other State may do so.
111
The territorial concept
even encompasses not only crimes committed wholly on the territory of a state but also crimes in
which only part of the offense has occurred in the state.
112


Applying the above rules the Rosehill, as an Amalean-registered vessel on the high
seas,
113
is deemed assimilated into the territory of Amalea. Moreover, the deaths and injuries to
the passengers, which are necessarily part of the offenses charged
114
against Luz, all occurred

109
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 653 (citing Holmes v. Bangladesh Binani Corporation [1989] 1 AC 1112,
1137; 87 ILR, pp. 365, 3801, per Lord Grifths and Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) [2000] 1
AC 147, 188; 119 ILR, p. 139).
110
Id., 656.
111
Lotus, page 25
112
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, citing the Lotus case, PCIJ, Series A, No. 10, 1927, pp. 23, 30; 4 AD, pp.
153, 159, and Judge Moore, ibid., p. 73; the Harvard Research Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to
Crime, 29 AJIL, 1935, Supp., p. 480 (article 3), and Akehurst, Jurisdiction, pp. 1523. See Lord Wilberforce, DPP
v. Doot [1973] AC 807, 817; 57 ILR, pp. 117, 119 and R v. Berry [1984] 3 All ER 1008. See also Strassheim v.
Dailey 221 US 280 (1911); US v. Columba-Colella 604 F.2d 356 and US v. Perez-Herrera 610 F.2d 289.
113
Comp. 41.
114
Comp. 47.
23

while they were aboard the Rosehill.
115
Such facts substantiate the applicability of the territorial
principle to grant Amalea proper jurisdiction to try and convict Oscar de Luz. This principle also
justifies Amaleas act of charging Luz for all 127 who died in the incident, including those who
belonged to different nationalities.
116


B. The passive personality principle justifies the exercise of jurisdiction by Amalea over
Oscar de Luz.

A state may claim jurisdiction to try an individual for offences committed abroad which
have affected or will affect nationals of the state.
117
Known as the passive personality principle,
it creates jurisdiction when a national of a State is the victim of a crime.
118
This doctrine has
been by States to protect their citizens abroad.
119
While the application of this principle still lacks
uniformity among states that practice it,
120
the validity of the passive personality principle is no

115
Comp. 43.
116
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 653, citing Holmes v. Bangladesh Binani Corporation [1989] 1 AC 1112,
1137; 87 ILR, pp. 365, 3801, per Lord Grifths and Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Ex parte Pinochet (No. 3) [2000] 1
AC 147, 188; 119 ILR, p. 139.
117
Id. 664.
118
Gavouneli, Functional Jurisdiction in the Law of the Sea.
119
John G. McCarthy, The Passive Personality Principle and Its Use in Combating International Terrorism,
Fordham International Law Journal, 300 (1989).
120
John McCarthys examples. There are at least seven observed methods of applying the passive personality
principle: 1) The principle can be applied broadly to cover all crimes, as in the case of the 1975 amended French
Penal Code. 2) The principles use can be limited to specifically enumerated crimes, which is true of the United
States Hostage Taking Act and Antiterrorism Act. 3) The principle may be exercised over crimes with a certain
minimum degree of punishment, as used by the Italians in their penal code which excludes crimes for which the
minimum penalty is less than one year of incarceration. 4) Some countries use the principle only when the chief
executive such as the king or president, or their representative, commences its assertion, as provided in the penal
codes of Norway, Finland, Italy and Sweden. 5) The principle may only be allowed when the accused is found in the
territory of the country seeking to exercise jurisdiction, as in the case of the Italian penal code. 6) Some countries
apply the principle when the country with territoriality jurisdiction does not prosecute, such as the Republic of
Korea with its Korean Criminal Code. 7) The principle can be invoked when the crime is also punished in the
country where it occurred, as is required under the Finnish penal code as well as in the laws of Greece, Norway and
Sweden.
24

longer in question among scholars.
121
This has been accepted by all states and the international
community as being consistent with international law.
122


The Rosehill, an Amalean-registered cruise ship carrying 556 passengers, 70% of whom
were Amaleans, with 215 crew members from various nationalities, was navigating close to
Excelsior Island in response to customers requests and after the ships owners had obtained
permission therefor.
123
However, upon approaching the Island, the Daedalus, a stolen Ritanian-
flagged yacht under the control of Oscar de Luz, a Ritanian citizen, was speeding towards the
Island and was on a collision course with the Rosehill.
124
This forced the captain of the Rosehill
to veer toward Excelsior Island and to accelerate in order to avoid what seemed an imminent
collision, causing the ship to strike the Island with significant force.
125


The impact caused ruptures to three oxy-fuel tanks on the Island, in turn leading to a
series of explosions that tore large holes in the hull of the Rosehill and caused fires that spread
through parts of the ship, which began to sink.
126
Before nightfall, 127 passengers and crew of
the Rosehill died from explosions, burns, smoke inhalation, and drowning, with 150 others
injured.
127
89 of the dead were Amalean nationals.
128
Applying the passive personality principle,
Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz on account of the Amalean deaths which are
attributable to his conduct of the Daedalus.

121
John G. McCarthy, The Passive Personality Principle and Its Use in Combating International Terrorism,
Fordham International Law Journal, 318 (1989).
122
MALCOLM SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 652 (6
th
ed. 2008).
123
Comp. 41.
124
Comp. 42.
125
Id.
126
Comp. 43.
127
Comp. 42.
128
Id.
25


It is worthy to note that Amaleas exercise of the passive personality principle reflects the
longtime practice of the same principle by the Republic of Korea: the Korean Criminal Code
utilizes the passive personality principle when the state with territoriality jurisdiction does not try
the crime, protecting the offender from double jeopardy.
129
Amalea proceeded with the trial,
noting that Ritanian criminal law did not expressly provide for prosecution of offenses
committed outside the countrys territorial waters, and therefore Luz might never be required to
answer for his crimes.
130


C. Ritania cannot avail of flag-State jurisdiction over the Ritanian-flagged Daedalus to
justify their claim as Oscar de Luz was not the master thereof.

The basic rule regarding jurisdiction over ships on the high seas
131
is that the flag state
alone may exercise such jurisdiction over the ship.
132
However, this basic principle is subject to
exceptions regarding other vessels, one of which is in the event of a collision or of any other
incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas.
133
Article 11 of the High Seas
Convention, which modified the previous decision of the predecessor of the ICJ, the Permanent
Court of International Justice (PCIJ), in the Lotus case,
134
declares that penal or disciplinary
proceedings may only be taken against the master or other persons in the service of the ship by
the authorities of either the flag state or the state of which the particular person is a national, and

129
John G. McCarthy, The Passive Personality Principle and Its Use in Combating International Terrorism,
Fordham International Law Journal, 317 (1989) (citing Korean Criminal Code, art. 6 (1983)).
130
Comp. 49.
131
High Seas Convention art. 1 (defining the term high seas).
132
1958 Convention art 6; 1982 Convention art. 92.
133
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 614, (6
th
ed. 2008).
134
1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 at 25; 4 AD at 153.
26

that no arrest or detention of the ship, even for investigation purposes, can be ordered by other
than the authorities of the flag state.
135


Had Luz been the master of the Daedalus, this rule would operate to give Ritania exclusive
jurisdiction over Luz as regards the incident, given that the ship was flying a Ritanian flag.
However, this rule cannot apply in the case at hand as Luz was not the master of the Daedalus
nor was he in the service of the same ship. The master in maritime law is a natural person hired
by contract who lives on a vessel and manages it and its related matter while the vessel is
navigating and carrying goods or performing services for freights or hire, the person appointed
and retained commander of a vessel in commercial service and licensed by competent national
authority.
136
Oscar de Luz was not such a master of the Daedalus nor can his control of it be
construed as in the service of the ship since the facts clearly stipulate that the ship was stolen,
and that Luz did not possess any license or evidence from competent authorities appointing him
as master of the Daedalus.
137


D. Ritania cannot claim jurisdiction based on the existence of a safety zone around
Excelsior Island.


135
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 618 (2008) (citing High Seas Convention art. 11) This was reaffirmed in
Article 97 of the 1982 UNCLOS. See also 1952 Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal
Jurisdiction in matters of Collision; Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence against the Safety
of Maritime Navigation.
136
Cartner & Fiske Leiter, The International Law of the Shipmaster 3 (2009).
137
Comp. 42.
27

Article 60 of the UNCLOS allows coastal States to construct and authorize the
construction of artificial islands
138
such as Excelsior Island. Paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof gives the
coastal State the right to establish reasonable safety zones of a maximum of 500 meters around
such artificial islands.
139
Paragraph 2 of the same Article even grants coastal States exclusive
jurisdiction over such artificial islands with regard to customs, fiscal, health, safety and
immigration laws and regulations.
140


However, it is of no moment that the incident occurred within 500 meters of Excelsior
Island since the rights and obligations between Amalea and Ritania as to the Law of the Sea is
governed by the 1958 Conventions and not the 1982 UNCLOS, as previously discussed. The
1958 Geneva Conventions do not provide for such safety zones.

Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the UNCLOS is applicable in this case, there is
nothing in the Compromis that would indicate that Ritania established a safety zone and such
establishment cannot be presumed given that Article 60(5) requires due notice to be given of the
extent of safety zones.
141


II. Amalea has no obligation to return Oscar de Luz to Ritania.

A. Extradition does not apply in this case.


138
UNCLOS, art. 60.
139
Id., 4, 5.
140
Id., 2.
141
UNCLOS art. 60 5.
28

The practice of extradition enables one state to hand over suspected or convicted
criminals who have fled their own country back to their state of origin and citizenship, and is
based on bilateral treaty law, as there does not exist a similar obligation upon states in customary
law.
142
Given that there is no extradition or mutual legal assistance treaty existing between
Amalea and Ritania,
143
the former state cannot be obliged to extradite Luz to the latter state.
















142
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 686. Citing See e.g. the Joint Declaration of Judges Evensen, Tarassov,
Guillaume and Aguilar Mauds-ley, the Lockerbie case, ICJ Reports, 1992, pp. 3, 24; 94 ILR, pp. 478, 507 and the
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Bedjaoui, ICJ Reports, 1992, p. 38; 94 ILR, p. 521.
143
Comp. 52.
29

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The State of Amalea respectfully requests that this Court adjudge and declare that:
1. Ritanias acts and omissions with respect to the development of Excelsior Island
violated international law, therefore, Amalea is entitled to seek compensation from
Ritania for economic losses caused by the landslide.
2. Amalea has exclusive ownership of the wreck of the Cargast and all artifacts
recovered from it and Ritanias deployment of patrol vessels to the site of the Cargast
violated international law.
3. Amalean Navys pursuit of Oscar de Luz into Ritanias EEZ, and his subsequent
arrest, were in compliance with international law.
4. Amalea had jurisdiction to try and convict Luz for criminal actions related to the
Rosehill incident, and that it has no obligation to return him to Ritania.