Team Code: IV-02

CLINICAL COURSE MOOT COURT ACTIVITY, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME TRIBUNAL

PETITION NUMBER _____________/2021

FILE UNDER ARTICLE 288 OF THE UNCLOS

IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE MATTER

AND

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF PISTACHIO………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

Versus

THE STATE OF ALMOND………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………… ..II-V

II. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………VI-VIII
III. STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION…………………………………………..VIII
IV. FACTS OF THE CASE………………………………………………………...IX-X
V. ISSUES RAISED ……………………………………………………………….. XI

1. IS THE HONOURABLE COURT AUTHORISED TO PROPOSE INTERIM MEASURES

TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT DISPUTE?

2. WHETHER IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE THE 'SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES'

UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF UNCLOS CAN BE INVOKED FOR THE DELIMITATION OF
THE MARITIME BOUNDARIES?

3. WHETHER STATE OF ALMOND HAS INTRUDED THE SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS OF

THE STATE OF PISTACHIO?

VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………… XII-XIII

VII. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………… XIV-XX
VIII. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………….. XXI

PAGE | I
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE NO.

1. New Zealand and Australia v. Japan (1999) 38 ILM 1624, 14

ICGJ 337 (ITLOS 1999)

2. Guniea v. Guniea-Bissau 25 ILM 251 [1986] 8

3. Nicargua v. Columbia [2012] ICJ Rep 624 18

4. Nicargua v. Honduras [2007] ICJ Rep 659. Case concerning 19

Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and
Hondurasin the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras),
2007 ICJ REP, para 1,

5. North Sea Continental Shelf [1969] ICJ Rep 3. The North 17

Sea Continental Shelf cases (German Federal
Republic/Denmark, and GermanFederal
Republic/Netherlands) 1969 ICJ REP, at p. 18,

6. Qatar v. Bahrain [2001] ICJ Rep 40. Case concerning the 17

Maritime Delimitation and the Territorial Questions
betweenQatar and Bahrain (Qatar/Bahrain) 2001 ICJ REP,
para 1, 1

7. U.K. v. France 18 ILM 397 [1979] Arbitration between the 18

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island and
TheFrench Republic on the Delimitation of the Continental
Shelf, Decision of the Court ofArbitration, 1977, RIAA, Vol.
XVIII, pp. 3 et seq.

PAGE | II
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

1. Lexis Nexis Legal

2. Manupatra Online Resource
3. SCC Online
4. Westlaw

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

1. UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, 10 December

1982
2. UN General Assembly, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of
Nature), 2020-21

UN DOCUMENTS

1. Charter of the United Nations, Preamble

2. Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of
the High Seas, 1958.
3. Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958.
4. Convention on the High Seas, 1958.
5. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, 1958
6. UNCLOS I, Official Records.
7. United Nations, Handbook on the Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries
(New York: DOALOS, 2000).
8. United Nations, The Law of the Sea: Definition of the Continental Shelf:
An examination of the UN Convention on the law of the Sea, (New York:
DOALOS, 1993).

PAGE | III
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

BOOKS

1. The International Law of the Sea : Book by Donald Rothwell and Tim
Stephens……………………………………………………………………………
………….14
2. Law of the Sea: UNCLOS as a Living Treaty, edited by Jill Barrett and
Richard
Barnes………………………………………………………………………
………...11
3. Churchill, R.R. & Lowe, A.V., The Law of the Sea, 3rd Ed. (Manchester:
Manchester University Press,
1999)………………………………………………………………17

4. The Law of the Sea in a Nutshell (Nutshell Series) [Sohn, Louis B.,
Gustafson,
Kristen]……………………………………………………………………
…………..8
5. Kolb, Robert, Case Law on Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Digest and
Commentaries, Introduction. (The Hague: Nijhoff,
2003)………………………...…10
6. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982: A
Commentary………………………………………………………………………
……...……14
7. Tanja, Gerard, The Legal Determination of International Maritime
Boundaries: The Progressive Development of Continental Shelf, EFZ and
EEZ Law (Deventer: Kluwer,
1990)……………………………………………………………………...
….7
8. Vicuna, Francisco O., The Exclusive Economic Zone: Regime and Legal
Nature under International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989)…………16

PAGE | IV
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

ARTICLES

1. Scovazzi, Tullio. The Evolution of International Law of the Sea: New

Issues, New Challenges. Collected Courses of The Hague Academy of
International Law 286. Leiden, The Netherlands, and Boston: Hague
Academy of International Law Brill, 2000.
2. Lando, MF. (2017). Judicial Uncertainties on Territorial Sea
Delimitation under Article 15 UNCLOS. 10.17863/CAM.9348.

3. Rothwell, Donald, and Tim Stephens. The International Law of the Sea.
Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart, 2016.
4. Abe, Aké L., The concept of equidistance/relevant circumstances in the
development of the law of maritime delimitation (2009). World Maritime
University Dissertations. 78. http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/78
5. Anderson, David, Developments in Maritime Boundary Law and
practice, (2005) Vol. V International Maritime Boundaries (Dordrecht,
Nijhoff).
6. Rhee, Sang-Myon, Sea Boundary Delimitation between Sates before
World War II, (1982) 76 AJIL 560.

LEGAL DICTIONARIES

1. Garner, Bryan A, Black’s Law Dictionary, West (Thomson Reuters),

United States of America (9th ed. 2009).
2. Barron’s law dictionary , G53 2010
3. Oran’s dictionary of the law, by Daniel Oran ed.2008

PAGE | V
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. &: And

2. ¶: Paragraph

3. Art.: Article

4. CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity

5. CIL: customary international law

6. CMS: Convention on Migratory Species

7. Comm.: Commission

8. DOALOS: Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea

9. E.T.S.: European Treaty Series

10. EC: European Council

11. ECJ: European Court of Justice

12. Ed.: Edition

13. EEC: European Economic Council

14. EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

15. EU: European Union

16. Eur. J. Int‟l L.: European Journal of International Law

17. G.A. Res.: General Assembly Resolution

18. G.A.: General Assembly

19. GAOR: General Assembly Official Records

20. Hon’ble: Honourable

PAGE | VI
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

21. I.L.M: International Legal Materials

22. I.L.R.: International Legal Reporter

23. ILC: International Law Commission

24. ITCLOS: International Tribunal for the Law of Sea

25. IUCN: The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources

26. para: Paragraph

27. PCIJ: Permanent Court of International Justice

28. pp.: Pages

29. S.A: Special Agreement

30. Ss.: Sections

31. Stockholm Declaration: United Nations Conference on Human Environment

held at

32. Stockholm, 1972

33. TEIA: Transboundary Environment Impact Assessment

34. U.N. Doc.: United Nations Document

35. U.N. GAOR.: United Nations General Assembly Official Records

36. U.N.T.S.: United Nations Treaty Series

37. UN GAOR Supp.: United Nations General Assembly Official Record

38. UN: United Nations

39. UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

40. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme

41. UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

PAGE | VII
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

42. v.: Versus

43. VCLT: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

44. Vol.: Volume

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble International Maritime

Tribunal, the memorandum for the Petitioner in a petition filed by Petitioner
under Art. 2881 of the UNCLOS. The petitioner has also reached out to the
Tribunal under Article 290(5) of the Statue to prescribe provisional measures
requiring the parties not to aggravate the dispute and not to prejudice the
outcome of litigation.

The present memorial set forth the facts, issues raised, arguments advanced
in the present case.

1
Article 288:Jurisdiction
1. A court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
interpretation or application of this Convention which is submitted to it in accordance with this Part
2. A court or tribunal referred to in article 287 shall also have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
interpretation or application of an international agreement related to the purposes of this Convention,
which is submitted to it in accordance with the agreement.
3. The Sea-Bed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea established in
accordance with Annex VI, and any other chamber or arbitral tribunal referred to in Part XI, section 5,
shall have jurisdiction in any matter which is submitted to it in accordance therewith.
4. In the event of a dispute as to whether a court or tribunal has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by
decision of that court or tribunal.

PAGE | VIII
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

STATEMENT OF FACTS

CIRCUMSTANCES OF PARTIES
The parties of the present dispute are neighbouring island states situates near
Atlantic Ocean. The states situated in a manner that they face each other.
Almond has a heavily indented coastline whereas Pistachio has a convex
coastline that faces the Atlantic Ocean. Both the coastlines are stretched along
for approximately 80 km. To avoid any disputes regarding the clashing of the
maritime boundaries and fishing zones of both the states, they had signed a
treaty under UNCLOS, 1982. Both the states are still signatories to the
UNCLOS.

SCIENTIFICALLY ADVANCED FISHING TECHNIQUES

The blue tuna is native to the Atlantic Ocean's seas and is classified as an
endangered species under international treaties, particularly UNCLOS. They
were economically vital to Almond and had only migrated inside the city limits,
but they became extinct as a result of overhunting and habitat damage.With the
use of these techniques a state could extend its fishing zones to deeper parts of
the sea, by operating the techniques from its coastline itself.
Pistachio had an abundance of blue tuna in its territorial seas, and more than
one-third of its total population relied on blue tuna fishing for daily living. The
fishing for blue tuna in Pistachio's deep seas was excellent. Sticking to the
migratory nature of the species and its dwindling numbers, an annual limitation
on fishing has been imposed so as to conserve the species.

PAGE | IX
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

UNILATERAL FISHING POLICY

Almond is a developing country and is heavily dependent on fishing in the sea.
On being approached by Pistachio to opt equidistant method, Almond refused to
comply with the same keeping with the fact that Almond’s coastline is
geographically irregular. Pistachio did not agitate against the refusal by the
Almond state on the equidistant principle and did admit that there is a presence
of special/relevant circumstances in the present case considering the coastline of
both the states.
Over the years, Almond began using advanced fishing techniques with the help
of which the state could fish into the deeper levels of the sea from their
respective coastline itself. Further, Almond unilaterally decided to extend its
fishing zone interfering the fishing zone of Pistachio. But the problem starts
from here. Due to over hunting by Almond, the blue tuna started getting extinct
in the Pistachio’s territorial water, as a result of the same the economy of the
State of Pistachio was greatly hit.

NEGOTIATIONS
The State of Pistachio notified Almond of its violation of international law and
requested removal of the fishing experiments and compensation. Almond
refused to be a part of any kind of accountability and rejected to withdraw its
project on the grounds that there has been fundamental change in the
circumstances and its economic dependency.

DISPUTE
Pistachio decided to negotiate with Almond but none of the negotiations
were able to give satisfactory conclusions. The former then decided to
institute proceedings against the latter to resolve the present dispute and
approached ITCLOS.

PAGE | X
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

ISSUES RAISED ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE [I].

IS THE HONERABLE COURT AUTHORISED TO PROPOSE INTERIM

MEASURES TO RESOLVE THE PRESENT DISPUTE?

ISSUE [II].

WHETHER IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE THE 'SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES' UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF UNCLOS CAN BE
INVOKED FOR THE DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME
BOUNDARIES?

ISSUE [III].

WHETHER STATE OF ALMOND HAS INTRUDED THE

SOVEREIGNTY RIGHTS OF THE STATE OF PISTACHIO?

PAGE | XI
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE:1 IS THE HONOURABLE COURT AUTHORISED TO

PROPOSE INTERIM MEASURES TO RESOLVE THE
PRESENT DISPUTE?

It is humbly submitted that the counsel files a Request for the

prescription of provisional measures under Article 290(1) of
UNCLOS, asking that State of Almond be ordered to suspend
immediately all fishing activities in the disputed maritime area. The
State of Pistachio also has all the sovereign rights to carry out marine
scientific research without any impediments or trammels.

ISSUE:2 WHETHER IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE THE 'SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES' UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF UNCLOS CAN
BE INVOKED FOR THE DELIMITATION OF THE
MARITIME BOUNDARIES?

It is humbly submitted that for the delimitation of maritime

boundaries, the equidistant method cannot be used in the current
dispute and the special circumstances under Article 15 of UNCLOS
are to be considered for the same. The International Court of Justice
(ICJ or the Court) defined special circumstances as ‘those
circumstances which might modify the result produced by an
unqualified application of the equidistance principle’, such as the
presence of islands or navigational channels in the area to be
delimited

PAGE | XII
MOOT MEMORIAL IV - 02

ISSUE:3 WHETHER ANNUAL LIMITATIONS ON CATCHING BLUE

TUNA SHOULD BE SET AND THE PARTIES SHOULD
REFRAIN FROM EXPERIMENTAL FISHING IN THE
RELEVANT MARITIME AREAS?

It is humbly submitted An annual limitation on catching blue tuna should be

set and the parties should refrain from experimental fishing in the relevant
maritime areas because

a) involves obligations under UNCLOS and customary international law

b) Blue tuna populations have declined severely from overfishing and illegal
fishing over the past few decades owing to economic interests of many states.

c) By unilaterally designing and undertaking an experimental fishing

programme, State of Almond has failed to comply with obligations under
articles 64 and 116 to 119, 300 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, to
which it is a signatory.

PAGE | XIII
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD PRESCRIBE PROVISIONAL

MEASURES REQUIRING THE PARTIES NOT TO AGGRAVATE
THE DISPUTE AND NOT TO PREJUDICE THE OUTCOME OF
THE LITIGATION?

i. It is respectfully requested that the counsel file a Request for the

Prescription of Provisional Measures under UNCLOS Article 290(1),
requesting that the State of Almond be ordered to cease all fishing
operations in the disputed marine region immediately. Pistachio also has
complete sovereign authority to do maritime scientific research without
hindrances or trammels.

ii. In the case of New Zealand and Australia vs. Japan, Australia and New
Zealand also asked the Tribunal to issue interim measures requiring Japan
to cease unilateral experimental fishing and the parties to ensure that no
action was taken that would aggravate, prolong, or make the dispute more
difficult to resolve.2

iii. They pleaded with the Tribunal to compel Japan to end its unilateral
programme and limit its catch for any given fishing year to the
Commission's latest agreed-upon national allocation (subject to a decrease
for the quantity of tuna taken by Japan during its fishing programme in
1998–1999).3

2
Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan) (Provisional Measures), Order of August
27, 1999 (hereafter: Provisional Measures Order). Text reproduced in ILM, Vol. 38 (1999), pp.1624–1655.
3
Provisional Measures Order, supra note 4, para. 31–32.

Page 14
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

iv. According to the petitioners' counsel, the underlying disagreement

necessitates temporary remedies to be imposed on the respondents under
UNCLOS Article 290(1). The following are the reasons behind this:

 The parties had previously agreed to limit their operations to their national
designated region for each particular fishing year, demanding that the
Tribunal compel the State of Almond to end its unilateral programme.

 The rights of the State of Pistachio may be jeopardised under the UNCLOS
due to the State of Almond's complete lack of cooperation in tuna
conservation and management, so jeopardising the rights of another State. As
a result, it is only fair and appropriate to temporarily infuse the State of
Almond's arbitrary actions in order to maintain the interest in justice and a
judgement based on facts.

v. In light of this, the counsel filed a Request for the Prescription of

Provisional Measures under UNCLOS Article 290(1), requesting that the
State of Almond be ordered to cease all fishing operations in the disputed
maritime region immediately.

vi. According to the counsel, respondent's advanced fishing techniques

infringed on its exclusive, sovereign right to conduct marine scientific
research under UNCLOS Article 246(5), as well as its associated right to
access, possess, and control all confidential information relating to
territorial sea/continental shelf exploration.

vii. It is in the interests of justice for the Tribunal to acknowledge that the
alleged fishing resulted in a ‘permanent physical alteration' of the area in
question, namely the loss of aquatic life in the territory of both islands,
which no amount of money could compensate for.

Page 15
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

viii. If the Tribunal does not order the complete shutdown of State of Almond's
fishing exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area, it must
require State of Almond to "take all necessary steps" to ensure that
information obtained from its fishing activities is not used against State of
Pistachio, and that no "new fishing" occurs in the disputed area. Because
the State of Pistachio not only has all the sovereign rights to do marine
scientific research without any obstacles or trammels, as has been rightfully
stated by this distinguished institution on several occasions in the past.

II. WHETHER IN THE UNDERLYING DISPUTE THE 'SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES' UNDER ARTICLE 15 OF UNCLOS CAN BE
INVOKED FOR THE DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME
BOUNDARIES?

i. The factual scenario of the present dispute shows that there is a geographical
disadvantage to both the parties in terms of their respective maritime
boundaries. Almond’s coastline is heavily indented and on the other hand
Pistachio’s coastline is convex. In such circumstances imposing the
equidistant principle would not serve the best of its purpose.

ii. On behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that the two-stage approach to

determining maritime limits should not be used in the current dispute before
the Tribunal because it is not in the best interests of both the petitioners and
the respondents.

iii. The International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) defined special
circumstances as ‘those circumstances which might modify the result
produced by an unqualified application of the equidistance principle’, such

Page 16
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

as the presence of islands or navigational channels in the area to be

delimited. 4

iv. A.74 provides ‘delimitation shall be effected by agreement on the basis of

international law … in order to achieve an equitable solution’, the latter
seems clearer as it provides for a more specific delimitation rule. 5 Apart
from this, A. 83, unlike the A.73 provides for clearer and certain rules for
delimitation.

v. Article 15 UNCLOS entails that, lacking agreement between two states on

the delimitation of their territorial seas, the boundary shall be the
equidistance line, unless historic title or special circumstances require a
boundary at variance with equidistance. 6

vi. The ICJ declared Article 15 to be part of customary international law in the
case of Qatar v. Bahrain. 7Although previous decisions maintained the
primacy of equidistance and the corrective function of special
circumstances, subsequent case law foresees a more central role for special
circumstances, downplaying the primacy of equidistance.

vii. Article 15 UNCLOS was part of the relevant legislation in the 2007 ICJ case
between Nicaragua and Honduras. It was found that the parties had not

4
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v Norway) (Judgment) [1993] ICJ
Rep 38, para 55.
5
The territorial sea covers the maritime areas up to 12 nautical miles from the baselines, while the continental shelf
and the EEZ cover the maritime areas under national jurisdiction beyond 12 nautical miles from the baselines. See
Arts 3, 57 and 76 UNCLOS. Normally the baselines are located along the low-water line, but in exceptional cases
they could be drawn as straight lines connecting points on the coast. See Articles 5 and 7 UNCLOS.
6
Although under Art 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention ‘equidistance’ and ‘median’ respectively refer to the
situation of adjacent and opposite coasts, the ICJ held that they are equivalent expressions. See North Sea
Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands) (Judgment)
[1969] ICJ Rep 3, para 57.
7
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Merits) [2001] ICJ
Rep 40, para 176

Page 17
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

agreed on the border. Following that, the Court recognized the two-stage
process utilised in Qatar v Bahrain. 8

viii. Similarly, it was observed in the leading case of Bangladesh and Myanmar
(2012), that the ICJ had agreed to apply equidistant principle only after the
court was not convinced with the presence of ‘special circumstances’ in that
very case. Later on, it was found that the court had taken lead from the
Nicaragua and Honduras dispute though not plainly.

ix. In the year 2014,in the arbitration between Bangladesh and India,
international tribunal established a territorial sea boundary pursuant to
Article 15 UNCLOS. The former pleaded before the tribunal to draw the
boundary as the bisector of the lines approximating the general direction of
the parties’ coasts, since, owing to coastal instability in the Bay of Bengal, it
would have been impossible to select suitable base points to construct an
equidistance line.9 Since, the factt which could not be overlooked was that
the land boundary terminus was not equidistant between the parties’ coasts.
The tribunal thus considered special circumstances twice, both before and
after drawing a provisional equidistance line.10

8
ibid, para 268.
9
Similarly to Nicaragua in Nicaragua v Honduras, Bangladesh contended that ‘the unique geographic facts of this
case, including both the instability of the Parties’ coastlines and the concave configuration of the Bay’s north coast,
mean that the equidistance method cannot be used for any part of the maritime delimitation, including in the
territorial sea’. See Memorial of Bangladesh, paras 1.30 and 5.2, <http://www.wx4all.net/pca/bd-
in/Bangladesh's%20Memorial%20Vol%20I.pdf>.
10
The erratic modus operandi in Bangladesh v India marks a difference with respect to the previous cases, in
which the tribunal concerned either used special circumstances as a corrective for the equidistance line
(Eritrea/Yemen and Qatar v Bahrain), or considered special circumstances only before drawing the
Equidistance line (Nicaragua v Honduras and Bangladesh/Myanmar). The literature on Bangladesh v India has not
criticised the method used in territorial sea delimitation. See D Anderson, ‘Bay of BengalMaritime Boundary:
Bangladesh v India’ (2015) 109 AJIL 153; M Kaldunski, ‘A Commentary on Maritime Boundary Arbitration
between Bangladesh and India Concerning the Bay of Bengal’ (2015) 28 Leiden Journal of International Law 807-
10;

Page 18
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

III. ALMOND EXTENDED ITS FISHING ZONE INTRUDING

PISTACHIO’S FISHING ZONE. WHETHER THIS ACT IS LEGAL
UNDER A.15, UNCLOS?

i. UNCLOS Article 15 states that if two neighbouring states cannot agree on a

territorial sea boundary, neither can "extend its territorial sea beyond the
median line, every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two
States is measured." Nonetheless, the equidistance line border does not apply
‘where it is required to delimit the territorial waters of the two States in a
manner that is at variance therewith due to historic title or other unique
circumstances'. Special circumstances and historic title, according to the
provision's language, are exceptions to the general norm of equidistance. 11

ii. The Exclusive Economic Zone stretches from the baseline to 200 nautical
miles (or an international maritime boundary with another state). A coastal
state's EEZ includes the following:

 Have sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing

natural resources (living and non-living) in the water column, seabed and
subsoil. This includes energy production.

 Can establish and use artificial islands, installations, structures, and undertake
scientific research and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment.

 Has other rights and duties provided by international law. 12

11
Nicaragua v Honduras (n 33) para 4 (Separate Opinion Ranjeva); Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v
Colombia) (Merits) [2012] ICJ Rep 624, para 4 (Declaration Keith).
12
https://www.imarest.org/all-docman-documents/courses/hyrdography/1077-module-2-
transcript/file#:~:text=The%20first%20example%20shows%20an%20indented%20coastline.&text=This%20has%2
0the%20effect%20of,borders%20of%20the%20coastal%20state.

Page 19
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

iii. A coastal State has the only right to exploit or protect any resources
discovered in the water, on the sea floor, or underneath the subsoil of the sea
bottom in this zone. These resources include both living and non-living
resources, such as fish and oil and natural gas.13States also have exclusive
rights to use waves, currents, and wind to generate energy off the coast.

iv. The counsel for the appellants has less regards for the fishing experiments
and techniques of the respondents as long as they would be in their specific
EEZs.14 Article 56 also authorises states to create and utilise artificial
islands, installations, and buildings, undertake marine scientific research,
and employ Maritime Protected Areas to conserve and conserve the marine
environment.15 Article 58 declares that the Convention's high seas rights
articles 88 to 115 apply to the EEZ "insofar as they are not incompatible
with this Part [V]."16

13
Article 56, UNCLOS
14
Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 6th Ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003)
15
Article 56, UNCLOS
16
Article 58, UNCLOS; (Articles 58-115 include the duty to render assistance (Article 98), actions taken to counter
the slave trade (Article 99) and repress piracy (Articles 100-107), suppression of narcotics trafficking (Article 108),
suppression of unauthorized broadcasting (Article 109), the exercise of the peacetime right of approach and visit
(Article 110), and the right to hot pursuit (Article 111)).

Page 20
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

PRAYER

Wherefore, In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court: that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. The State of Almond has breached international law with its scientific fishing
activity and must now comply with the Tribunal's provisional regulations.

2. If the Tribunal does not order the complete shutdown of State of Almond's
fishing exploration and exploitation operations in the disputed area, it must
require State of Almond to "take all necessary steps" to ensure that information
obtained from its fishing activities is not used against State of Pistachio, and
that no "new fishing" occurs in the disputed area.

3. It is humbly submitted that an annual limitation on catching blue tuna should be

set and the parties should refrain from experimental fishing in the relevant
maritime areas.

AND TO PASS ANY SUCH ORDER, DISCRETION & JUDGEMENT AS THIS

HON‟BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

PLACE: SD/-

DATE: COUNSEL for the

PETITIONERS

Page 21
MOOT MEMORIAL IV-02

Page 22