You are on page 1of 2

Issue:

 The export of trash by Ridley violates its international obligations relating to the protection of migratory species
and the environment, including those under relevant conventions.
Respondent’s contentions:

 The species of sea turtles are not protected species in the protected area of Aldabra as there were no metal
tags that would indicate the same. In the absence of the same, the migratory patterns of these species could
not be determined.

 The species of Pawikans are migratory species, the plastic debris found in the autopsy of the animals could
have been from sources even beyond the WPS from where the MV Joy to the World have sunk. Thus, it
would be unfair to pin the blame solely on Ridley.
Defenses:

 Species of turtle is on the list of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild
Fauna and Flora.
Article two (2) of the abovementioned convention enumerates the Appendixes which covers species in
accordance with their degree of protection, namely:
1. Appendix I - shall include all species threatened with extinction.
2. Appendix II - all species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction and other
species which must be subject to regulation.
3. Appendix III - all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its
jurisdiction.
(TN: These include mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates)
Approximately 5,800 species of animals and 30,000 species of plants are protected by CITES. The
appendixes provided above are clear and unequivocal in terms of identifying and classifying these species. Accordingly,
fauna covers the following: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates.
Respondent’s argument that sea turtles are not protected species in the area of Aldabra is not meritorious.
It is undisputed that Article two (2) of the convention itself establishes the general duty of the parties to protect both fauna
and flora as indicated by the same.

 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora unquestionably
establishes international norms and standards which are binding between the parties.
In accordance with the first (1st) paragraph of the convention which states that:
“Recognizing that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an
irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the earth which must be protected for this and the generations
to come;”
This should be read in connection with the third (3rd) paragraph which subsequently provides that:
“Recognizing that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild
fauna and flora;”
The letter and spirit of the convention is unequivocal. The state parties have the responsibility to conform
to the stipulations embodied under the convention. In further establishing the obligation of the state parties, it is a
fundamental principle in both international and treaty law that the state parties should observe good faith or pacta sunt
servanda.
In the case at bar, the contention of the respondent is dramatically irrelevant, because at the outset Ridley
has the general responsibility to observe and adhere to the stipulation of the treaty.