MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

TEAM CODE: 00

BEFORE
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
HELD IN THE HAGUE (2022)

IN THE MATTER OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO DEEP-SEA MINING AND

STATE RESPONSIBILITY:

THE FEDERAL STATES OF AZARLUS APPLICANT

AND

THE REPUBLIC OF RATHEARRE RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page | 0
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether Rathearre's mining activities in the AFZ violate international law?

1) Rathearre’s mining activities in the AFZ doesn’t violate any international law because
international law imposes no obligation upon Rathearre to refrain from mining the deep
seabed under international waters, [A]. The seabed mining provisions found in Part XI of
the UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement have not ripened into customary international law,
[B]. Rathearre’s mining activities conforms to the customary international law doctrine of
freedom of the high seas and the duty of states to protect the natural environment, [C].
Nevertheless, Rathearre’s mining activities are done for the benefit of humankind and it
also comes under the right of marine scientific research as permitted under UNCLOS,
[D].

A. Rathearre has no obligation in international law to refrain from mining the

deep-sea bed under international waters.

2) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which both Azarlus and Rathearre are
parties,1 says that a treaty may obligate a non-party only if it "expressly accepts that
obligation in writing."2 It also says that “ratification”, “acceptance”, “approval” and
“accession” mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes
on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty.3
3) In the present case, Rathearre has only signed but not ratified the terms of the UNCLOS 4
and it has neither signed nor ratified the 1994 Agreement on Implementing Part XI. 5 So,
as a non-party, Rathearre cannot be bound by the terms of either Part XI of the UNCLOS
or the 1994 Agreement on Implementing Part XI, without its consent.

1
Case record ¶ 4.
2
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 art 35.
3
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331 art 2 (b).
4
Case record ¶ 8.
5
Case record ¶10.

Page | 1
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

B. The seabed mining provisions found in Part XI of the UNCLOS and the 1994
Agreement have not ripened into customary international law.

4) The opinio juris and consistent practice of a substantial number of states evidence
customary international law.6 International agreements may lead to the creation of
customary law only when they are intended for general adherence and become widely
accepted.7 The party claiming a customary international norm bears the burden of proving
its existence."8 Today, the UNCLOS has 158 signatories,9 while the Agreement relating to
the implementation of Part XI of the UNCLOS with its substantially altered provisions,
has only 79.10
5) In the present case, Azarlus asserts that Rathearre and the Verte Mining Corporation do
not have the right under international law to conduct prospecting, exploration, or
exploitation of mineral resources on the seabed or ocean floor beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.11 And it also says that Proceeding with the proposed prospecting and
exploration activities, without ISA authorization, would defeat a central object and
purpose of UNCLOS.12
6) As Rathearre is not bound by the terms of UNCLOS and the 1994 Agreement on
Implementing Part XI, it doesn’t have any duty to get the authorization of ISA and it will
have the right under international law to conduct prospecting, exploration, or exploitation
of mineral resources on the seabed or ocean floor beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. Additionally, it cannot be said that either the UNCLOS deep seabed mining
provisions or the Agreement on Implementing Part XI, have crystallized into any
customary international law which binds on Rathearre.

6
The Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.), 1951 I.C.J. 116, 191 (Dec. 18), SIR GERALD FITZMAURICE, THE LAW
AND PROCEDURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 17-18 (1986).
7
John B. Houck, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised): Issues and
Resolutions, 20 INT'L L. 1361 (1986)
8
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (Sept. 7)
9
United nation treaty collection <https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?
src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXI 6&chapter=21&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=_en> accessed on 1st September 2022.
10
United Nation Treaty Collection <https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXI-
6-a&chapter=21&clang=_en#2> accessed on 1st September 2022.
11
Case record ¶ 12.
12
Ibid.

Page | 2
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

C. Rathearre’s mining activities conforms to the customary international law

doctrine of freedom of the high seas and the duty of states to protect the natural
environment.

7) The freedom to use the high seas, the air space above them, and the seabed may only be
limited or modified by a general consensus amongst states. 13 In the absence of a
universally recognized seabed mining regime, the doctrine of freedom of the high seas
remains controlling.14 Deep seabed mining is permitted as long as the state conducting
such activity gives reasonable regard for the rights of others engaged in similar
activities,15 and adequately complies with its customary law duty to protect the
environment.16
8) On January 2019, Verte Mining announced its intention to conduct prospecting and
exploration in the abyssal plain of the AFZ. 17 Rathearrean Minister of Energy also
announced that an environmental impact assessment had been conducted, finding that the
harvesting of nodules was not likely to have a significant impact on the marine
environment.18
9) In the present case, no state or individual has suggested to Rathearre that this project will
interfere with their similar operation. Rathearre also complied with its duty to safeguard
the environment by conducting an exhaustive environmental impact assessment, which
has vouched for the project's safety.19
10) Since, Rathearre has satisfied all requirements of freedom of the high sea’s doctrine, the
Rathearre’s mining activities in the AFZ is permitted by customary international law.

D. Rathearre’s mining activities are done for the benefit of humankind and it also
comes under the right of marine scientific research as permitted under UNCLOS.

11) The proposed mining activities of the Verte Mining Corporation will be done for the
benefit of humankind [a], as they will be conducted with a view to reducing greenhouse
13
North Sea Continental Shelf (Ger. v. Den; Ger. v. Neth.), 1969 I.C.J. 3, 103
14
E.D. Brown, Freedom of the High Seas Versus the Common Heritage of Mankind: Fundamental Principles in
Conflict, 20 SAN DIEGO L. REv. 521 (1983).
15
Ibid.
16
The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hun. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 41 (Sept. 25).
17
Case record ¶ 19.
18
Case record ¶ 22.
19
Ibid.

Page | 3
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

gas emissions to mitigate the threat of climate change. 20 and, the mining activities comes
under the marine scientific research as permitted under UNCLOS [b].

a) Mining activities of the Verte Mining Corporation will be done for the benefit of
humankind.

12) The seabed and ocean floor and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
(hereinafter referred to as "the Area"). as well as resources of the Area. are the common
heritage of mankind, 21
acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of
humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect,
promote and consider their respective obligations on human kind. 22 A growing number of
policy analysts and practitioners maintain that Mineral deposits on the sea floor could
help meet green technology’s demands while avoiding the geopolitical dilemmas and
environmental damages of exploiting land-based resources.23
13) Rathearre is a Party to the Paris Agreement, 24 it submitted its Second NDC in December
2018, which pledged to reduce emissions to 20-25% below 2005 levels by 2030. It said
much of the reduction would be the result of phasing out gasoline-powered motor
vehicles and promoting the use of electric motor vehicles. 25 The transportation sector in
Rathearre accounts for approximately 30% of its annual greenhouse gas emissions. 26
Verte Mining Corporation was established in conjunction with submitting Rathearre
Second NDC.27
14) In the present case, the proposed activities of the Verte Mining Corporation will be done
for the benefit of humankind, as they will be conducted with a view to reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the threat of climate change. The minerals obtained
from polymetallic nodules are critical for meeting the pledges made in their Second

20
Case record ¶ 21.
21
Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 2. New York, 28 July 1994.
22
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015, T.I.A.S.
No. 16-1104.
23
David Michel, Deep Seabed Mining and the Green Energy Transition (New Security Beat, 31st May 2022)
<https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2022/05/deep-seabed-mining-green-energy-transition/> accessed on 1st
September 2022.
24
Case record ¶ 15.
25
Case record ¶ 17.
26
Ibid.
27
Case record ¶ 18.

Page | 4
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. 28 The greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation sector in Rathearre will reduce which will ultimately
benefit humankind.

b) The mining activities comes under the right of marine scientific research as
permitted under UNCLOS.

15) Marine scientific research shall be conducted exclusively for peaceful purposes, 29 the
convention does not contain a definition of marine scientific research, “for the purpose of
this Convention, ‘marine scientific research’ means any study or related experimental
work designed to increase mankind’s knowledge of the marine environment” 30 By 1977,
an Informal Composite Negotiating Text had been agreed upon but it did not include a
definition of “marine scientific research”.31 Freedom of scientific research is expressly
referred to in the Convention as a freedom of the high seas.32
16) In the present case, Verte Mining announced that it intends to conduct prospecting and
exploration in the abyssal plain of the Azarlus Fracture Zone (AFZ), it is expected to have
large concentrations of polymetallic nodules because of the intrusion of Antarctic bottom
water and its close proximity to hydrothermal activity. 33 The proposed activities of the
Verte Mining Corporation are done for the benefit of humankind, as they will be
conducted with a view to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the threat of
climate change.34
17) The proposed activities of the Verte Mining Corporation are conducted exclusively for
the peaceful purposes as they are conducted with a view of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to mitigate the threat of climate change. These activities are also for increasing
mankind’s knowledge of the marine environment, as they are done for polymetallic
nodules which will be critical in meeting the pledges made in Rathearre Second

28
Case record ¶ 21.
29
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 art 240.
30
Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. III (United Nations
publication, Sales No. E.75.V.5), Trinidad and Tobago: draft arts. on marine scientific research draft Part III, art.
48.
31
Official Records of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. VIII (United Nations
publication, Sales No. E.78.V.4), art. 239.
32
UNCLOS art 87.
33
Case record ¶ 20.
34
Case record ¶ 21.

Page | 5
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement.35 So, the mining
activities will under the marine scientific research as permitted under UNCLOS.

35
Ibid.

Page | 6
MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT [PRAYER]

PRAYER

RESPONDENT respectfully requests the Hon’ble court, on the basis of prior and foregoing
written submissions to FIND and DECLARE that:

a) The Rathearre's mining activities in the AFZ are not in the violation of international
law.

Or any other order that the Tribunal may deem fit in light of justice, equity and good
conscience. All of which is humbly prayed.

Dated: 3rd September, 2022 S/d

Place: THE HAGUE Counsels for Respondent

Page | I