8Respondent

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

Questions Relating to Bioremediation and Mining Poisoning

Federal Republic of Olmizab

(Applicant)
v.
Republic of Wacopia
(Respondent)

__________________________
August 2016
__________________________

Table of Contents
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................ iii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................................................ iv
SUMMARY OF FACTS .............................................................................................................................. v
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................. vi
ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 1
THE REPUBLIC OF WACOPIA IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ......... 1

I.

A. On the outset, there is no conclusive proof that the rise of mercury levels in the Delembe Coast
and the death of porpoises are imputable against Wacopia. ................................................................. 1
i.

Small-scale mining is not the only known source of mercury in the area. .................................... 1

ii. It was not sufficiently established that the death of the porpoises was caused by mercury coming
from small scale miners of Delembe Coast. .......................................................................................... 2
B. Republic of Wacopia has already substantially complied with its obligations under the provisions
of Basel Convention.................................................................................................................................. 2
i.

The limited capability of States in complying with their treaty obligations is taken into account

under Basel Convention, and as prescribed under the Principle of Common but Differentiated
Responsibility. ....................................................................................................................................... 2
ii. Wacopia has substantially complied with the requirements of Art 4 (2) of Basel Convention in
utmost good faith to the best of its capacity. ......................................................................................... 3
Republic of Wacopia is not liable under Minamata Convention ...................................................... 3

C.
i.

Republic of Wacopia has not consented to be bound under Minamata Convention ..................... 3

ii.

Minamata Convention has not yet satisfied the requirement under its Art 31 condition .............. 4

iii.
Even assuming that Wacopia is bound by the provisions of the Minamata Convention, it has
already substantially complied with its provisions. .............................................................................. 4
D.
II.

Republic of Wacopia is not liable under UNCLOS. ..................................................................... 5

THE BIOREMEDIATION PROJECT BY OLMIZAB IS IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
A.

Olmizab is obliged to conduct an EIA under Art. 14 of CBD .......................................................... 6

B.

Olmizab has violated the London Protocol ....................................................................................... 7

III.

REPUBLIC OF WACOPIA IS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF OLMIZAB ....................................................................................................... 8

A.

The claim for compensation by Olmizab does not have legal basis in International Law ................ 8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................................... 9

Page i of vi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
International Convention and Treaties

page

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of

2, 3

Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal

Convention on Biological Diversity

Convention on Preventing Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and

Other Matter London Convention and Protocol

Minamata Convention on Mercury

3, 4

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and

3, 6

Development
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

3, 4

Judicial and Arbitral Decisions

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vs. Albania

Nicaragua vs. United States of America

Trail Smelter Case, Canada v. U.S., VOLUME III pp. 1905-1982

ESSAYS, ARTICLES, AND JOURNALS

Mercury Supply Exceeding Demand, Practical Sourcebook on Mercury

Waste Storage and Disposal, United Nation Environment Programme,

page 11, 2015
Potential Sources of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury or Mercury

Compounds, Practical Sourcebook on Mercury Waste Storage and

Disposal, United Nation Environment Programme, page 14, 2015
Ocean urea Fertilization for carbon credits poses high ecological risks,
Marine pollution Bulletin 56:1049-1056, Glibert, M. P., Azanza, R.,
Buford, M., et al., 2008

Page ii of vi

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Federal Republic of Olmizab (Applicant) and the Republic of Wacopia
(Respondent) submit their dispute to this Honorable Court, pursuant to Art. 40 of the Statute of
the International Court of Justice. On June 19, 2016, Applicant and Respondent have submitted a
copy of the Special Agreement to the Registrar of the Court. See Special Agreement Between the
Federal Republic of Olmizab and the Republic of Wacopia for Submission to the International
Court of Justice of Differences Between Them Concerning Questions Relating to Bioremediation
and Mercury Poisoning, signed at Varna, Bulgaria, on 19 June 2016. The Registrar addressed
notification to the parties on June 25, 2016.

Page iii of vi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether or not Republic of Wacopia violated International Law by failing to control

mercury poisoning in the Yakhouba Sea.
2. Whether or not the Federal States of Olmizab violated international law by failing to
conduct an environmental impact assessment prior to its bioremediation project.
3. Whether or not Republic of Wacopia is under legal obligation to compensate Federal
States of Olmizab.

Page iv of vi

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Federal Republic of Olmizab and the Republic of Wacopia are neighboring states
located in Pribia, a continent completely surrounded by the Yakhouba Sea in the Niantic Ocean
(R 1). Wacopia is a developing country, with a population of approximately 8 million people.
Around 45% of its population lives on less than $1.90 a day. Its terrain is mostly hilly and
generally unsuitable for agriculture. A considerable percentage of the population has traditionally
worked in neighbouring Olmizab as labourers in manufacturing and fishing companies. Olmizab
is a developed country, with an area of 900,000 square kilometres and a population of
approximately 70 million people (R 2).
In 2007, the Olmizab Government enacted a law banning foreign workers from working
in the country that caused unemployment to rise in Wacopia and its poverty index worsened (R
14). Jobless Wacopians resorted to small scale mining after Wacopian hikers accidentally
discovered the gold deposits in the hills of the Delembe Coast in the southern part of the country.
The coastline all of a sudden became littered with small-scale mines (R 15).
Under Wacopian law, mercury is considered as a pollutant, and as such, a permit must be
secured first before disposing it in waters (R 19). The Wacopian Bureau of Mines (WBM)
regulates all mining activities in Wacopia. However, it is severely undermanned due to lack of
resources (R 20).
The ODFO and other relevant departments of the Olmizab government in an emergency
meeting proposed an ocean urea fertilization project that it hoped would stimulate the growth of
phytoplankton blooms in the Yakhouba Sea for bioremediation, which would mitigate the impact
of the increased mercury content in the sea (R 26).
On January 7, 2015, the Government of Wacopia sent a diplomatic note to Olmizab
regarding the latters plans to conduct ocean urea fertilization, urging the latter to conduct an
Environmental Impact Assessment under article 14 of Convention on Biological Diversity (R
27) because of its possible negative effects to the environment. Despite this, on March 6, 2015,
the Olmizab legislature passed a law approving and fully funding the planned bioremediation
and sea fertilization project (R 29).
On August 28, 2015, twelve dead finless porpoises were found off the coast of Olmizab,
three kilometres from the Olmizab-Wacopia boundary (R 30). On September 8, 2015, the
Government of Olmizab absent any proof or evidence, stated that the Government of Wacopia is
negligent and lacks political will in controlling the dumping of mercury waste by the small-scale
miners in the Yakhouba Sea which leads to the death of the porpoises (R 31). On September
15, 2015, the Government of Wacopia repudiated this notion given that there is even a strong
possibility that the ocean urea fertilization project caused such consequences (R 32).
Additional negotiations between Olmizab and Wacopia failed to resolve the dispute.
Hence, this case (R 33).
Page v of vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. The Republic of Wacopia is not in violation of international law. On the outset, there is
no conclusive proof that the rise of mercury levels in the Delembe Coast and the death of
porpoises are imputable against Wacopia. It has also substantially complied with its
obligations under the provisions of Basel Convention, UNCLOS, and Minamata
Convention in utmost good faith and to the best of its capability. Notwithstanding the fact
that Wacopia has not consented to be bound under Minamata Convention and the same
has not yet satisfied the requirement under its Art 31 condition.
2. The bioremediation project by Olmizab is in violation of international law for failing to
conduct to conduct an EIA as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity and
precautionary principle.
3. Republic of Wacopia is under no legal obligation to compensate Olmizab since the same
does not have legal basis in International Law.

Page vi of vi

ARGUMENTS

I.

THE REPUBLIC OF WACOPIA IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW

A. On the outset, there is no conclusive proof that the rise of mercury levels in the
Delembe Coast and the death of porpoises are imputable against Wacopia.

The dispute presented before this Honorable Court stemmed from the primordial issue of
alleged mercury poisoning in the Yakhouba Sea, and its potential harmful effects to the
environment. However, on the outset, the applicant failed to prove that the rise of mercury levels
in the Yakhouba Sea or the death of the porpoises is imputable against Wacopia.
Absent explicit agreements on rules on evidence, the rules which have been adopted and
applied in practice by international tribunals shall apply. In the Corfu Channel Case, as Britain
was the plaintiff asserting its claim, it was subjected to the burden of proof.1 Similarly, in the
Nicaragua Case, the court stated that ultimatelyit is the litigant seeking to establish a fact who
bears the burden of proving it.2 Therefore, despite the procedure and approach of the Court
being liberal, the basic burden of proof remains that a person who asserts a fact must prove it.

i.

Small-scale mining is not the only known source of mercury in the area.

Mercury is a naturally occurring element, it cannot be destroyed. Thus, excess mercury

wastes are need to be stored in an environmentally sound manner or be transformed to a form
that has a minimal mobility, and safely sequestered from the environment3.
Small-scale mining in Wacopia is not the only known source of mercury wastes in the
area. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) enumerates the potential sources of
wastes contaminated with mercury or mercury compounds, namely: artisanal and small scale
gold mining (ASGM), intentional use of mercury in industrial production (e.g. vinyl chloride
monomer), production processes with mercury impurities (e.g. pulp and paper), waste
deposition/landfilling and wastewater treatment, sites contaminated with mercury, primary and
secondary metal production (e.g. zinc), manufacture of mercury added products, crematoria and
cemeteries, primary mercury mining, treatment of mercury wastes, and extraction and use of

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vs. Albania, 25 March 1948
Nicaragua vs. United States of America, 27 June 1986
3
Mercury Supply Exceeding Demand, Practical Sourcebook on Mercury Waste Storage and
Disposal, United Nation Environment Programme, page 11, 2015
2

Page 1 of 9

fuels/energy sources (e.g. natural gas, coal)4. The existence of industrial plants and coal-fired
power plants in the state of Olmizab should also be considered to be potential contributors of
mercury wastes in the Yakhuoba Sea5.

ii.

It was not sufficiently established that the death of the porpoises was caused
by mercury coming from small scale miners of Delembe Coast.

The applicant alleged that the death of the twelve porpoises were caused by the continued
negligence and lack of political will on the part of the Republic of Wacopia 6. However, such
sweeping claims are bereft of any substantial proof. The circumstances surrounding the death of
the porpoises does not in any way establish that the same was caused by mercury wastes from
small-scale mining.
Porpoises are migratory species, other factors could have contributed to the death of these
marine creatures7. The government of Wacopia would not put into prejudice the health of these
marine species given that one of the main industries of the country is devoted to eco-tourism8.

B. Republic of Wacopia has already substantially complied with its obligations

under the provisions of Basel Convention.

The applicant alleged that Wacopia violated Art 4 (2c) of the Basel Convention which
states that Each Party shall take the appropriate measures to (c) Ensure that persons involved
in the management of hazardous wastes or other wastes within it take such steps as are necessary
to prevent pollution due to hazardous wastes and other wastes arising from such management
and, if such pollution occurs, to minimize the consequences thereof for human health and the
environment. Such obligation under the convention has been substantially complied with.

i.

The limited capability of States in complying with their treaty obligations is

taken into account under Basel Convention, and as prescribed under the
Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility.

Basel Convention imposes obligations not without due regard to limitations of the State
parties. It takes into account social, technological and economic aspects. This is echoed in the
4

Potential Sources of Wastes Contaminated with Mercury or Mercury Compounds, Practical

Sourcebook on Mercury Waste Storage and Disposal, United Nation Environment Programme,
page 14, 2015
5
Record, paragraph 25
6
Record, Paragraph 32
7
Ibid. 5
8
Ibid. 4
Page 2 of 9

conventions preamble which states that it is Taking into account also the limited capabilities of
the developing countries to manage hazardous wastes and other wastes9 Wacopia is a
developing country, with a population of approximately 8 million people. Around 45% of its
population lives on less than $1.90 a day.10
Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration recognizes that states have common but differentiated
responsibilities and it is required that they cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to protect
the environment.11 The principle recognizes the historical differences in the contributions of
developed and developing countries to global environmental problems and the differences in
their respective economic and technical capacity to tackle these problems.

ii.

Wacopia has substantially complied with the requirements of Art 4 (2) of

Basel Convention in utmost good faith to the best of its capacity.

Substantial Compliance as defined is compliance with the essential requirements,

whether of a contract or of a statute. The principle says that if a good faith attempt is made to
perform the requirements of the statute or agreement even if it does not precisely meet the terms
of the agreement or statutory requirements, the performance will still be considered complete if
the essential purpose is accomplished. Under Wacopian law, mercury is already declared as a
pollutant, and as such, a permit must be secured first before disposing it in waters12. Periodic
monitoring activities is already being performed by Wacopia Bureau of Mines, and the Clean
Water Act, which provides in part to adopt water quality standards for their rivers, streams,
lakes, and wetlands13. These standards identify acceptable pollution levels in water for many
pollutants, including mercury. Taken together with Arguments I-B i and ii, there is substantial
compliance to the requirements set forth under Article 4(2) of the Basel Convention.

C. Republic of Wacopia is not liable under Minamata Convention

i.

Republic of Wacopia has not consented to be bound under Minamata

Convention

Republic Wacopia is a signatory to the Minamata Convention, however, the state did not
ratify it.14 Under Art. 12 of the Vienna Convention, consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is
expressed by the signature of its representative only when the treaty provides that signature shall
have that effect or that it is established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature
should have that effect. On the otherhand, under Art. 14 of the same convention states that
9

Ibid.
Record, paragraph 3
11
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, Principle 7, 1992
12
Record, paragraph 19
13
Clarification, A9
14
Record, paragraph 11
10

Page 3 of 9

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, it is otherwise established that the
negotiating States were agreed that ratification should be required, or that the representative of
the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification.
Art. 30 of the Minamata Convention States that This Convention shall be subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval by States and by regional economic integration
organizations. Art. 31 of the same also provides that This Convention shall enter into force
on the ninetieth day after the date of deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance,
approval or accession. Clearly, consent to be bound under Minamata Convention is through
ratification and not by a mere signature.
Basically, signing a treaty does not ipso facto make a state a party to a treaty nor does it
bind the state but at most, indicates a mere intention to be bound. It does not in any way create
any positive legal obligations under the treaty upon signature. And as stated in Art. 2(1)(b) of the
Vienna Convention that: There are technically four ways to become a Party to this Convention:
ratification, acceptance, approval and accession. Neither of these has been granted by the State of
Wacopia.

ii.

Minamata Convention has not yet satisfied the requirement under its Art 31
condition

Under Article 31, Minamata Convention shall enter into force on the ninetieth day after
the date of deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. As
of August 9, 2016, out of the 128 signatory states under of the Convention, only 29 are legally
bound Parties by means of ratification15.
The legal implications of this situation is discussed under Article 18 of the Vienna
Convention, which states that signatories are obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the
object and purpose of the Convention. A treaty does not enter into force when it is adopted.
Typically, the provisions of the treaty determine the date on which the treaty enters into force,
often at a specified time following its ratification or accession by a fixed number of States.
Wacopia is not legally bound by the provisions of Minamata Convention16.
iii.

Even assuming that Wacopia is bound by the provisions of the Minamata

Convention, it has already substantially complied with its provisions.

Furthermore, it should also be noted that Wacopia has enacted laws to mitigate waste
mercury from being released to the environment, which should be considered as substantial
15

List of Signatories and Future Parties, Minamata Convention on Mercury, UNEP,

www.mercuryconvention.org/Countries/tabid/3428/Default.aspx
16
Vienna Convention, Article 18
Page 4 of 9

compliance to the requirements put forth in Basel and Minamata, especially considering the
nations lack of resources.
Parties to the Minamata Convention are each obliged to adhere to its obligations, which
include in Article 13 a requirement for each Party to provide, within its capabilities, resources in
respect of those national activities that are intended to implement the Convention, in accordance
with its national policies, priorities, plans and programmes. In reiteration of Argument I-B (ii), in
good faith and as much as its limited resources as a developing state would permit it to do so,
Respondent Wacopia has exerted utmost effort in order to substantially comply with the
Minamata Convention17.

D. Republic of Wacopia is not liable under UNCLOS.

Wacopia did not violate any provision under the United Nation Convention on the Law of
the Sea. Article 193 of the UNCLOS provides that, States have the sovereign right to exploit
their natural resources pursuant to their environmental policies and in accordance with their duty
to protect and preserve the marine environment.18 The sovereign right of Wacopia to exploit the
natural resources within its territory shall uphold. Wacopia have already complied with its duty
under the Basel Convention and the Minamata Convention according to its capabilities through
promulgation of laws and programs to mitigate mercury pollution.
Article 194, paragraph 1 of the UNCLOS provides that, States shall take, individually or
jointly as appropriate, all measures consistent with this Convention that are necessary to prevent,
reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for this purpose
the best practicable means at their disposal and in accordance with their capabilities, and they
shall endeavour to harmonize their policies in this connection19. Under the international law,
demand of compliance of duty to protect environmental rights is based on the maximum
available resources of the state.

17

Becoming a Party to the Minamata Convention on Mercury, UNEP,

http://www.mercuryconvention.org/Implementationsupport/Resourcematerials/tabid/5137/Defaul
t.aspx
18
UNCLOS, Article 193
19
UNCLOS, Article 194
Page 5 of 9

II.

THE BIOREMEDIATION PROJECT BY OLMIZAB IS IN VIOLATION OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW

More than mercury poisoning and claim for compensation, the case at bar also concerns
about Bioremediation20. The effects of ocean urea fertilization is largely unknown, even its
capability to offset carbon is widely debated upon.21 Despite this fact, and Republic of
Wacopias repeated objection, Olmizab pushed through without conducting an environmental
impact assessment as required by Convention on Biological Diversity. This ploy to offset carbon
emissions under Olmizabs responsibility in Kyoto Protocol is a clear violation of international
law.
A. Olmizab is obliged to conduct an EIA under Art. 14 of CBD

Article 14 (1) (a) of the Convention on Biological Diversity states that each Contracting
Party, as far as possible and as appropriate shall introduce appropriate procedures requiring
environmental impact assessment of its proposed projects that are likely to have significant
adverse effects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizing such effects and,
where appropriate, allow for public participation in such procedures.22
CBD echoes precautionary principle under international law, which requires that, if there
is a strong suspicion that a certain activity may have environmentally harmful consequences, it is
better to control that activity now rather than to wait for incontrovertible scientific evidence. This
principle is expressed in the Rio Declaration, which stipulates that, where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for
postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.23
Ocean fertilization is an action to deliberately increase planktonic production in the open
ocean. CBD decided in 2008 that no further ocean fertilization activities for whatever purpose
should be carried out in non-coastal waters until there was stronger scientific justification. CBD
requested Parties, and urged other governments, to ensure that ocean fertilization activities do
not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities24.
Olmizab failed to provide the required justification and more so did not comply with the
necessary EIA prior to undertaking this potentially dangerous ocean urea fertilization project.

Notification Questions Relating to Bioremediation and Mercury Poisoning (Federal Republic

of Olmizab/Republic of Wacopia) has been entered as 2016 General List No 102., International
Court of Justice, 25 June 2016
21
Record, paragraph 27
22
Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 14, paragraph 1a
23
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, Principle 15, 1992
24
Ocean urea Fertilization for carbon credits poses high ecological risks, Marine pollution
Bulletin 56:1049-1056, Glibert, M. P., Azanza, R., Buford, M., et al., 2008
20

Page 6 of 9

B. Olmizab has violated the London Protocol

General Obligations of Article 3 Paragraph 1 of the London Protocol provides that,

Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from
dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when
there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are
likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation
between inputs and their effects25.
Under the London Convention and Protocol by its Resolution LC-LP 1 (2008), requests
Parties and urges other Governments, in accordance with the precautionary approach, to ensure
that ocean fertilization activities do not take place until there is an adequate scientific basis on
which to justify such activities.26 In the Resolution LC-LP 2 (2010) of the London Convention
and Protocol, the Parties who will conduct an ocean fertilization project should follow the
assessment framework provided in the resolution which explicitly provides for Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA).27 It is clear that Olmizab violated the resolutions of the London
Convention and Protocol on Ocean Fertilization.

25

London Protocol, Article 3, paragraph 1

Resolution LC-LP, 2008
27
Resolution LC-LP, 2010
26

Page 7 of 9

III.

REPUBLIC OF WACOPIA IS UNDER NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO

COMPENSATE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF OLMIZAB

A. The claim for compensation by Olmizab does not have legal basis in
International Law
A state is obliged to pay compensation or to make amends for the resulting damage of
which a state is held accountable for. Once any obligation is breached, regardless the legal basis
it is from whether a treaty of a norm in customary international law, the state is liable for to
ensure the non-repetition or non-recurrence of the act or environmental damage.
However environmental law does not admit injuria sine damno or there is an
infringement of an absolute right without any actual loss or damage. There must be a clear and
convincing evidence of physical damage to the environment or to a person or property on which
a right of action could be based. In this case, there is no right of action, hence no liability,
without actual damage. It has been pointed out that the State of Olmizab failed to establish a
clear and convincing evidence that small-scale mining in Wacopia is the cause of mercury
poisoning in Yakhouba Sea or to the death of the porpoises that were found at the coast of
Olmizab.
Damage and compensation in cases of international environmental law. The first
concerns about fault liability, where it must be proven that the perpetrator acted with intent or
that he/she acted negligently or without due care. Strict liability on the otherhand does not need
fault to be established, the decisive factor is that the damage was caused by the defendants
conduct. And the third is absolute liability, where the rationale stems from the actors profits
from potentially harmful or inherently dangerous activities28. Though widely encompassing, the
applicant failed to establish any legal basis for the compensation it is praying for.
In the Trail Smelter Case, the tribunal declared that:...under principles of international
law, as well as the law of the United States, no state has the right to use or permit the use of its
territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the
properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is
established by clear and convincing evidence...29
As has been pointed out in the argument I-A, there is no clear and convincing evidence
that the injury. Furthermore, no fault or breach of obligation under International Law is
attributable to Republic of Wacopia as has been pointed out in arguments I-B-ii, I-C-iii and I-D.

28

Training Manual for Environmental Law, UNEP

Training Manual For Environmental Law, UNEP, Trail Smelter Case, Canada v. U.S.,
VOLUME III pp. 1905-1982
29

Page 8 of 9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, Republic of Wacopia respectfully prays that this Court:
1. Declare the Republic of Wacopia is not in violation of international law and had
substantially complied with its obligations under the provisions of Basel Convention,
UNCLOS, and Minamata Convention.
2. Declare the bioremediation project by Olmizab is in violation of international law for
failing to conduct to conduct an EIA as required by the Convention on Biological
Diversity and precautionary principle.
3. Declare Republic of Wacopia is under no legal obligation to compensate Olmizab.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

AGENTS OF RESPONDENT

Page 9 of 9