Index of Authorities

Treaties And Conventions

Convention On Biological Diversity, Art. 14
Convention On Environmental Impact Assessment In A Transboundary

9
passim

Context, Feb. 25, 1991, Art.2 (3), 1989 U.N.T.S. 309, 30 I.L.M. 802 [Espoo];
Second Amendment Of Espoo Convention
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, art.206, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3
U.N. Charter
Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties, May 23, 1969, Art.31 (1) (A), 1155

3
9
10
1,3,4,9

U.N.T.S. 331 [Vclt].

U.N. Documents
Declaration On Principles Of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations

10

And Co-Operation Among States, Annex, 25 Unga Res.2625 (Xxv), U.N. Gaor,
Supp. (No.28), U.N. Doc.A/5217 (1970), At 121
Responsibility Of States For Internationally Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res. 56/83,

Annex, U.N. Doc. A/Res/58/83/Annex (2002), Art.4(2) [Articles On State

Responsibility]; Crawford, The International Law CommissionS Articles On
State Responsibility: Introduction, Text And Commentaries 94 (2002).
Books, Treatises, Digests And Restatements
Atapattu, Emerging Principles Of International Environmental Law 290 (2006).
Craik, The International Law Of Environmental Impact Assessment 135 (2008).
British Columbia Ministry Of Energy And Mines, Sonar Versus Seismic:

7
1
2

What Are The Differences? (2003) [Seismic Versus Sonar].

Crook, Oil Terms: A Dictionary Of Terms Used In Oil Exploration And

Development 57 (1975)
Gordon, Et Al., A Review Of The Effects Of Seismic Surveys On Marine

10

Mammals, 37 Marine Technology Society J. 16-34 (2004)

3, 4

Mcnair, The Law Of Treaties (1961)

Hathaway & Cusack, Refugee Rights Are Not Negotiable, 14 Geo. Immigr. L.J.

10

481, 510 (2000)

Jahn, Cook & Graham, Hydrocarbon Exploration And Production 19 (2008);
Hyne, Nontechnical Guide To Petroleum Geology, Exploration, Drilling And

2
2

Production 213 (2001)

Karen N. Scott, International Regulation Of Undersea Noise, 53 Intl & Comp. L.Q.

287 (2004)
Michael Stocker, Ocean Bioacoustics, Human-Generated Noise And Ocean Policy,

6, 8

10 J. Intl Wildlife L. & Poly 255 (2007)

Mank, Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties As Customary

10

International Law To Sue Under The Alien Tort Statute? 2007 Utah L. Rev.
Parente, Et Al., Diversity Of Cetaceans As Tool In Monitoring Environmental

Impacts Of Seismic Surveys, 7 Biota Neotrop 50 (2007).

Sinclair, The Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties (1973)
Thompson, A Multifaceted Approach To The Regulation Of Cyanide In Gold

3, 4
10

Mining, 29 Suffolk TransnatL L.Rev. 79, 90 (2005);

Tucker, Constitutional Codification Of An Environment Ethic, 52 Fla. L. Rev. 299,

305 (2000)
Weir, Short-Finned Pilot Whales: Respond To An Airgun Ramp-Up Procedure Off

10

Page 1 of VII

Gabon, 34 Aquatic Mammals 349 (2008);

Essays, Articles And Journals
Barlow & Gisiner, Mitigating, Monitoring And Assessing The Effects Of

Anthropogenic Sound On Beaked Whales, 7 J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 239

(2006)
Cassar, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment In International

Watercourse Management, 12 N.Y.U.

Miscellaneous
Trichechus Senegalensis (African Manatee, Seacow, West African Manatee)

<Http://Www.Iucnredlist.Org/Details/22104/0>

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Republic of Manatus (Applicant) and the Federal State of Senegalensis (Respondent)
submit their dispute to this Honorable Court, pursuant to Art. 40 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice. On June 16, 2015, Applicant and Respondent have submitted a
copy of the Special Agreement to the Registrar of the Court. See Special Agreement between the
Republic of Manatus and the Federal State of Senegalensis for Submission to the International
Court of Justice of Differences between Them Manatee and Marine Seismic Survey, signed at
Granada, Spain on June 16, 2015. The Registrar addressed notification to the parties on June 30,
2015.

Page 2 of VII

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I.

WHETHER FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS VIOLATED

INTERNATIONAL LAW BY REFUSING TO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT

II.
III.

WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF SENECO VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW

WHETHER REPUBLIC OF MANATUS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW
SPECIFICALLY THE UNCLOS BY OVERSTEPPING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
SENEGALENSIS

Page 3 of VII

SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Federal State of Senegalensis and Republic of Manatus are coastal states along the
Feresan Sea that share a common territorial boundary and their territorial seas and exclusive
economic zones are adjacent to each other (R.1). The Federal State of Senegalensis is a newly
industrialized country with a population of approximately 25 million people and engaged in
exportation of oil and natural gas (R.3). The Republic of Manatus is a small, developing country
with a population of approximately 250,000 people and depends on tourism, agriculture and
artisan fishing. Manatus tropical waters are home to a great diversity of life especially the rare
and endearing manatees (R.2).
In December 2013, the Federal State of Senegalensis granted permission to SENECO to
begin exploration for hydrocarbon reserves with Senegalensis EEZ and is approximately 250
nautical miles from Manatus EEZ (R.18).
The marine seismic surveys undertaken entirely within Senegalensis exclusive economic
zone are not listed in Appendix I of the Espoo Convention and the said surveys are exploration
activities and not hydrocarbon production. On the second amendment of the said convention,
what hydrocarbon production meant is further classified as Extraction of petroleum and natural
gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 metric tons/day in the case
of petroleum and 500,000 cubic meters/day in the case of gas. To date, the surveys have not led
to the extraction of petroleum or natural gas. Senegalensis also reiterated that the primary source
Page 4 of VII

of revenue is the exportation of oil and natural gas which purpose is geared towards economic
growth and committed to serve and provide its people (R. 21 2, 3).
The Federal State of Senegalensis alleged that Manatus vessels transporting the tourists
have greater impact on marine mammals. Senegalensis decline to prepare an EIA for the reasons
of; first, the survey activities do not constitute hydrocarbon production, second, the surveys are
conducted by two vessels and are relatively modest in size, and lastly, SENECO has undertaken
mitigation measures prior in conducting the said surveys (R.23 2, 3).
On January 15, 2015, several manatees got stranded on the shoreline of Senegalensis. The
environmental authorities from Senegalensis Ministry of the Environment exerted effort to
rescue the manatees and transport them to deeper waters but eventually all fifteen manatees died
and the autopsy results were conclusive (R.25)
The Federal State of Senegelensis stated that there is no specific evidence that establishes
that SENECOs marine seismic surveys caused the strandings. To alleviate such concerns,
Senegalensis took additional steps requiring all survey vessels to have an on-board observer and
will not use the airguns upon spotting a manatee within 500 meters of the vessel. The activity in
question, conducted by SENECO, is the only way for the country to maintain its economic
stability (R.27 2, 3, 6).

Page 5 of VII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SENECO is not obligated to prepare an EIA under the Espoo Convention,
UNCLOS and CBD. SENECOs actions, being exploration activities, do not necessitate
the conduct of an EIA under Appendices I and III of the Espoo Convention.
Moreover, SENECOs actions employ mitigation measures thereby complying with the
obligation to prevent harm under international law.

Page 6 of VII

Page 7 of VII

ARGUMENTS
I.

FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS DID NOT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL

LAW BY REFUSING TO CONDUCT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT.
There is no need for an Environmental Impact Assessment because the marine
seismic survey conducted by SENECO does not fall into any category stated in Appendix
I of the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.
Senegalensis argues that marine seismic survey is just an exploration on possible natural
resources and not hydrocarbon production (R.20 3). Hydrocarbon production, on the
second amendment of Espoo Convention, is further classified as Extraction of petroleum
and natural gas for commercial purposes where the amount extracted exceeds 500 metric
tons/day in the case of petroleum and 500,000 cubic meters/day in the case of natural gas.
The said activity also did not constitute in the criteria stated in Appendix III of Espoo
Convention in terms of size, location and effect. 1 The size of the activity and the vessels
are modest and do not have adverse effect. The location of the said activity is
considerably far which is 250 nautical miles from the Manatus EEZ; hence minimize the
effect due to distance (R.18).
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 2, giving its ordinary
meaning based on the actual text of the agreement and measured against its object and
purpose, offshore hydrocarbon production should be interpreted simply as extraction
of petroleum, which pertains to the spudding of the well.3 As SENECOs activities have
not led to any extraction of petroleum, such cannot clearly be categorized as hydrocarbon
production.
A. THE

MARINE

SEISMIC

SURVEYS

UNDERTAKEN

WITHIN

SENEGALENSISS EEZ ARE ACTIVITIES NOT LISTED IN APPENDIX I

OF THE ESPOO CONVENTION.
1 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Feb. 25,

1991, art.2 (3), 1989 U.N.T.S. 309, 30 I.L.M. 802 [Espoo]; CRAIK, THE INTERNATIONAL
LAW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 135 (2008).
2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art.31 (1) (a), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331

[VCLT].
3 VCLT, art.31(1);

SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW 932-33 (2008); FITZMAURICE,

RESERVATIONS TO MULTILATERAL TREATIES 7-8, 13-14 (1953)

Page 1 of 12

1. The marine seismic surveys are exploration activities.

Marine seismic surveys are exploration activities conducted for the
purpose of determining petroleum traps to be drilled in search for hydrocarbons.4
In the exploration of petroleum traps, sound pulses are projected into the earths
crust and are used to create images of layers of sediment, rock and
hydrocarbons.5
These activities are conducted through the use of airgun arrays, which
shoot into several streams towed behind the vessel containing arrays of
hydrophones.6 At this stage, no drilling and extraction are yet conducted. In
contrast, offshore hydrocarbon production, listed under Appendix I 7, takes place
after the areas geological history is studied and the likelihood of hydrocarbons
being present is quantified.8
At this point, the spudding in or the operation of boring a hole in the
earths crust is conducted for the production of hydrocarbons.9 There is production
only when the first commercial quantities of hydrocarbons (first oil) (start)
flowing from the wellhead.10
Hydrocarbon explorations, such as SENECOs activities, are limited
at finding locations that are viable hydrocarbon sources. 11 Once an exploration is

4 JAHN, COOK & GRAHAM, HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

19 (2008); HYNE, NONTECHNICAL GUIDE TO PETROLEUM GEOLOGY,

EXPLORATION, DRILLING AND PRODUCTION 213 (2001)
5 BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES, SONAR VERSUS

SEISMIC: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? (2003) [SEISMIC VERSUS SONAR].

6 JAHN, COOK & GRAHAM, supra note 4, at 32.
7 Espoo, appendix I, 15
8 JAHN, COOK & GRAHAM, supra note 4, at 3; HYNE, supra note 4, at 213, 241
9 CROOK, OIL TERMS: A DICTIONARY OF TERMS USED IN OIL EXPLORATION AND

DEVELOPMENT 57 (1975); HYNE, supra note 4, at 241.

10JAHN COOK & GRAHAM, supra note 4, at 5.
11 Id. at 5.
Page 2 of 12

successful in finding hydrocarbons, considerable effort is still necessary in order

to accurately assess the potential of such finding.12
Consequently, extraction will only take place until after years of
careful assessment and discovery of the necessary volumes of hydrocarbons.
In this case, SENECO only began exploration for hydrocarbons in midDecember 2013 (R.18) and there is yet no extraction of hydrocarbons to date
(R.21).
2.

The

marine

seismic

surveys

do

not

constitute

hydrocarbon

production as clarified by the Second Amendment to Appendix I of the

Espoo Convention .
The Second Amendment explains offshore hydrocarbon production as
the extraction of petroleum and natural gas for commercial purposes where the
amount extracted exceeds 500 metric tons/day in the case of petroleum and
500,000 cubic meters/day in the case of gas. 13 Where no amount is extracted,
it cannot be considered as offshore hydrocarbon production under Appendix I. In
this case, SENECOs marine seismic surveys do not amount to offshore
hydrocarbon production as they have not led to the extraction of petroleum or
natural gas (R.20).
Although the Second Amendment is not yet in force, 14 Manatus is
bound by the clarification of what constitutes offshore hydrocarbon production
because it consented to be bound by this provision through its act of
ratification.15 Manatus act of ratifying the Second Amendment (R. 8), in
effect,16 placed certain limitations upon their freedom of action during the period,

12 Id.
13 Second Amendment to the Espoo Convention, June 4, 2004, appendix, 15.
14 Status of Treaties, Amendment to the Convention on Environmental Impact

Assessment in a Transboundary Context, available at

<http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx? src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-4c&chapter=27&lang=en> .
15 VCLT, arts. 11 & 39; Espoo, art.14(4); MCNAIR, THE LAW OF TREATIES 132

(1961); SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 38 (1973)

16 MCNAIR, supra note 15, at 132.
Page 3 of 12

which precedes its entry into force. 17 Manatus is therefore bound by the
Second Amendment although it has not yet entered into force.
B. THE MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS DO NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACT BASED ON THE CRITERIA
PROVIDED IN APPENDIX III OF THE ESPOO CONVENTION.
To assist Senegalensis in determining whether the seismic surveys
are likely to cause significant adverse transboundary impact, it may consider
one or more of the general criteria under Appendix III, such as: (a) the
proposed activitys size relative to its type; (b) its location relative to an area of
special environmental sensitivity or importance; or (c) its effects are
particularly complex and potentially adverse, including those resulting to
serious effects on humans or valued species.18

In this case, Senegalensis is still not obligated to undertake an EIA

because

SENECOs activities do not cause any

significant adverse

transboundary impact following the Appendix III criteria (R.23).

1. As the seismic surveys are only conducted by two vessels relatively
modest

in size, they are not large enough to cause significant

transboundary impact.
Under Appendix III, one of the criteria in determining significant adverse
transboundary impact is the size activity.19 In this case, the marine seismic
surveys are conducted by two vessels, which are relatively modest in size
(R.23). Taking into account the type of vessel involved, the seismic surveys
cannot be considered a large activity, which may cause significant adverse
transboundary impact.
2. The marine seismic surveys are undertaken entirely within Senegalensis
EEZ.

17 VCLT, art.18; MCNAIR, supra note 15, at 199; SINCLAIR, supra note 16, at 39.
18 Espoo, appendix III, 1; SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 815 (2003).

19 Espoo, appendix III, 1(a).
Page 4 of 12

For a proposed activity to be considered as likely to cause a

significant adverse transboundary impact, it must be located in or close to
an area of special environmental sensitivity or importance and in locations
where the characteristics of proposed development would be likely to have
significant effects on the population.20
In this case, the marine seismic surveys are undertaken entirely21 within
Senegalensis EEZ (R.18). In fact, SENECO`s seismic surveys are conducted
far from the Manatus MPA or approximately 250 nautical miles away from
the Manatus EEZ (R.18)
.
3. There is no specific evidence that marine seismic surveys caused the
stranding of the manatees.
The

third

criterion

under

Appendix

III

is

the

existence

of

particularly complex and potentially adverse effects of the activity on humans

or on valued species or organisms.22
Whether a particular individual animal is affected will depend on many
variables such as: (a) frequency of the sound and decibel level; (b) distance
between the sound and the animal; (c) the hearing sensitivity and frequency range
of the animal; (d) and whether the sound is impulsive or continuous (R.15). The
effect on animals of a particular type of activity varies depending on the acoustic
characteristics of the environment and hearing sensitivity of the animal.23
Furthermore, the final opinion of the inquiry commission also failed
to establish a conclusive causation between SENECOs activities and the
stranding (R.27). The autopsy results on the manatees were also found to
be inconclusive (R.25).

Clearly, these cannot support Manatus claim that

SENECOs activities caused the stranding.

20 Espoo, appendix III, 1(b).
21 Karen N. Scott, International Regulation of Undersea Noise, 53 INTL & COMP. L.Q. 287

(2004)
22 Espoo, appendix III, 1(c).
23 Parente, et al., Diversity of Cetaceans as Tool in Monitoring Environmental Impacts of

Seismic Surveys, 7 BIOTA NEOTROP 50 (2007).

Page 5 of 12

Following the Appendix III general criteria of the Espoo Convention

that the marine seismic surveys are (a) conducted by only two vessels
relatively modest in size; (b) entirely within Senegalensis territory; and (c)
having no specific evidence that the seismic surveys caused the stranding of the
manatees, such seismic surveys are not likely to cause significant adverse
transboundary impact. Senegalensis is therefore not obligated to conduct an EIA.
C. THE MANATEES ARE NOT GREATLY AFFECTED BY ACOUSTICS.
Evidence that seismic survey has an undoubtful effect on manatees: Given
the dearth of what we know about the consequences of noise on marine animals, it
is unfortunate that we are being alerted after the fact by occurrences of
catastrophic mortality. Most commonly known stranding incidents are mass
strandings of marine mammals around NATO and US Navy operations. 24
There are studies stating that the mammals that were greatly affected by
acoustics such as seismic surveys are cetaceans and not the manatees. The IUCN
does not acknowledge and include the effect of noise pollution as a significant
threat to manatees.25
D. EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS FALL
UNDER APPENDIX III, SENGALENSIS HAS ALREADY COMPLIED
WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE ESPOO CONVENTION BY
UNDERTAKING MITIGATION MEASURES.
The Espoo Convention requires States to take all appropriate and
effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse
transboundary impact from proposed activities.26 As the main goal of the Espoo
Convention is the avoidance and mitigation of significant adverse transboundary

24 Michael Stocker, Ocean Bioacoustics, Human-Generated Noise and Ocean Policy, 10 J.

INTL WILDLIFE L. & POLY 255 (2007)

25 Trichechus senegalensis (African Manatee, Seacow, West African Manatee)

<http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22104/0>
26 Espoo, art.2(2).
Page 6 of 12

impacts,27 employing mitigation measures ensures that such impacts will not
arise.28
In this case, SENECO employs the ramp-up procedure in conducting its
seismic surveys (R.23). The ramp-up procedure is the most widely used
mitigation measure in marine seismic surveys. 29 This standard procedure,
which is used within the geophysical industry operating offshore, mitigates
the potential impacts of seismic airgun sound on marine mammals.30
It uses a gradual build-up of airgun sound level over time usually 2040 minutes, to warn marine mammals, allowing them to depart from the
vicinity of an airgun source before full operating level is projected.31
Here, every survey activity conducted by SENECO begins with the firing
of a single airgun, the smallest airgun in terms of energy output and
volume (R.23). Additional airguns are gradually activated over a period of 2040 minutes until the desired operating level of the airgun array is reached (R.23).
To ensure that no harm is caused to the whales, SENECO has taken the additional
step of requiring that all survey vessels have an on-board observer and the airguns
may not be used when a manatee is spotted within 500 meters of the vessel
(R.23).
By using the ramp-up procedure and other precautionary measures,
SENECO has been acting with due diligence in ensuring that no significant
27 Cassar, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in International Watercourse

Management, 12 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 169 (2003)

28 ATAPATTU, EMERGING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

290 (2006).
29 Barlow & Gisiner, Mitigating, Monitoring and Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound

on Beaked Whales, 7 J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 239 (2006); INTERNATIONAL

WHALING COMMISSION, ANNEX K: REPORT OF THE STANDING WORKING
GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, 58TH MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION 73 (2006).
30 Weir, Short-Finned Pilot Whales: Respond to an Airgun Ramp-up Procedure off Gabon, 34

AQUATIC MAMMALS 349 (2008); Gordon, et al., A Review of the Effects of Seismic
Surveys on Marine Mammals, 37 MARINE TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY J. 16-34 (2004)
31 Weir, supra note 30, at 349.
Page 7 of 12

adverse transboundary impact is caused. Accordingly, SENECO has satisfied the

provisions of the Espoo Convention.
Even if assuming that the seismic survey has an adverse effect to the
manatees, the ramp up method ensures that the animals are aware and can act
accordingly to the activities of Senegal. Moreover, the seismic survey cannot be
considered as a transboundary issue since the movement of the species as a
reaction thereto is drives them away from the survey site and not from Manatus.
II.

SENECOS ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL

LAW.
A.

THE ACTS OF SENECO ARE NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO

SENEGALENSIS.
The acts of a person or entity are attributable to the State only where the
internal law of the State grants such person or entity the status of an organ, or
where it empowers such person or entity to exercise elements of governmental
authority. The presumption is that acts of a State-owned corporation are not
attributable to the State.32
Here, the fact that SENECO is state-owned does not show that it is under
the direction and control of Senegalensis. Neither is it a State organ, nor does it
exercise elements of governmental authority. Therefore, the acts of SENECO
cannot be attributed to Senegalensis.
Studies show that bioacoustics pollution affects whales and dolphins.
Moreover these effects are mostly caused by military operations. There are
limited studies that have conclusive proof that bioacoustics affect manatees.33
B.

EVEN

ASSUMING

THAT

SENECOS

ACTIONS

ARE

ATTRIBUTABLE TO SENEGALENSIS, THEY DO NOT VIOLATE

TREATY AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAWS.
Under treaty law, Sengalensis is not obligated to prepare an EIA. Pursuant
to pacta sunt servanda,34 Senegalensis complied with all its international
32Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res. 56/83, Annex, U.N.

Doc. A/RES/58/83/Annex (2002), art.4(2) [Articles on State Responsibility]; CRAWFORD,

THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSIONS ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY:
INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES 94 (2002).
33 Michael Stocker, INTL WILDLIFE L. & POLY 255 (2007)
Page 8 of 12

obligations in good faith a. SENECOs exploration activities do not belong to

the activities listed under Appendices I and III of the Espoo Convention.
Appendix I of the Espoo Convention requires the preparation and
submission of an EIA for offshore hydrocarbon production.35 As previously
discussed, SENECOs activities cannot be considered as offshore hydrocarbon
production but only as hydrocarbon exploration. The provisions of the UNCLOS36
and the CBD relating to the undertaking of an EIA are merely directory.
Article 206 of the UNCLOS provides that when States have
reasonable grounds to believe that planned activities may cause substantial
pollution or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment, they
shall, as far as practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the
marine environment.37 Meanwhile, Article 14 of the CBD provides that each
Contracting Party shall as far as possible and as appropriate, introduce
environmental impact assessment on its proposed projects that are likely to
have significant adverse effects on biological diversity.38
Both of the foregoing provisions are not adequate instructions to
States, and therefore cannot be an enforceable basis of an international
obligation.39 First, the provisions include the terms, as far as possible, as
appropriate, and as far as practicable, which universally suggest discretion by
the States concerned.40 Second, the abovementioned provisions fail to identify
which State should be responsible for assessing the impacts if an activity falls
under the concurrent jurisdiction of several States. Third, the provisions do not
specify the factors to be considered in evaluating the impacts of proposed
34 VCLT, art.26
35 Espoo, appendix I, 15
36 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, art.206, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
37 UNCLOS, art.206.
38 Convention on Biological Diversity, art. 14
39 Tucker, Constitutional Codification of an Environment Ethic, 52 FLA. L. REV. 299, 305

(2000).
40 Thompson, a Multifaceted Approach to the Regulation of Cyanide in Gold Mining, 29

SUFFOLK TRANSNATL L.REV. 79, 90 (2005); Hathaway & Cusack, Refugee Rights are not
Negotiable, 14 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 481, 510 (2000).
Page 9 of 12

activities. Finally, they are silent as to the applicable international standards for
conducting environmental impact assessments.41
Under treaty and custom, SENECOs actions did not cause transboundary
harm. The Principle against Transboundary Harm is binding on Senegalensis
under treaty and customary laws. In this case, SENECOs actions are consistent
with the Principle.
III.

REPUBLIC OF MANATUS VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL LAW

SPECIFICALLY THE UNCLOS BY OVERSTEPPING THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
SENEGALENSIS
State may not interfere with the internal affairs of another State to preserve
the independence and equality of States. 42 The exploration activities of SENECO
are conducted entirely within Senegalensis exclusive economic zone and are
therefore completely within Senegalensis internal affairs. As aforementioned,
there is no legal or circumstantial basis for the cessation of the seismic surveys
conducted by SENECO. The basis herein is 1) Under treaty law, Senegalensis is
not obligated to prepare an EIA, 2) there is no transboundary harm caused by the
survey, 3) there is no clear correlation between seismic surveys and harmful
effects on manatees, and 4) Senegal did not violate the Precautionary Principle as
evident in the employed mitigating measures. Therefore, there is no legal basis on
the demand of Manatus to stop the seismic survey thus rendering it as
overstepping of Manatus on the internal affairs of Senegalensis.

41 Mank, Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International

Law to Sue under the Alien Tort Statute? 2007 UTAH L. REV. 1085, 1156 (2007); Tanaka,
Lessons from the Protracted MOX Plant dispute: A Proposed Protocol on Marine
Environmental Impact Assessment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 25
MICH. J. INTL L. 337, 382 (2004).
42 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-

operation among States, annex, 25 UNGA Res.2625 (XXV), U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No.28), U.N.
Doc.A/5217 (1970), at 121 ; U.N. CHARTER, art.2(7).
Page 10 of 12

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Respondent, Republic of Senegalensis, respectfully requests that the I.C.J. Adjudge and
declare that:
1. SENECOs actions within Senegalensis EEZ do not require the preparation of
an EIA; and
2. SENECOs actions are consistent with International Law.
Respectfully submitted,
AGENTS OF RESPONDENT

Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12