Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court.

My name is Camila Castro Mesa and I, along

with my co-counsel Manuela Londoño Echeverry represent the Federal State of Azarlus. I
will be addressing the deep sea mining issue for ten minutes and Ms. Echeverry will be
addressing the piracy issue for ten minutes as well. We respectfully ask to save three
minutes for the rebuttal.

First and foremost, we would like to affirm that the State of Rathearre has violated
international law. It is clear that their deep sea mining activities have disregarded articles 1,
3, 5, 7, 10 and 14 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which the latter has signed and
ratified.

The first article of this convention reiterates the importance of conserving and protecting our
environment, which is a common goal and an obligation among the State parties. That being
said, it is notable that Rathearre’s stance in this conflict has been evasive and indifferent.
Why don't we ask ourselves the following questions: Why are we in this Honorable Court in
the first place, despite our efforts as a nation to cooperate with Rathearre to find a solution to
the death of eleven sharks that were considered extinct? Why hasn’t Rathearre shown a hint
of worry or the will to collaborate in this matter that should concern every nation that has
ratified an environmental treaty such as the Paris Agreement and the Convention on
Biological Diversity?

This is alarming. Even in the hypothetical case in which Rathearre’s mining activities are not
the reason behind the deterioration of the ecosystem or the death of the sharks, Rathearre
should not be omissive to our exclaims and should comply with the fifth article of the
Convention on Biological Diversity that dictates that States have the obligation to cooperate
with one another. In other words, we don’t know for certain if the deep sea mining activities
carried out by the State of Rathearre are the exact cause of the irregularities that are
happening, however, we also don’t know for a fact that these activities are NOT the reason
behind the damages. When in doubt, the best alternative is to suspend the activities to
prevent and avoid an even worse repercussion for the ecosystem.

Either way, as a State we have been eager to dialogue about this issue, we have been open
to hearing another point of view and we have been willing to join efforts with the State of
Rathearre to find a solution to this problem. This should not be a legal battle between two
States. Instead, both States should join forces to battle the situation we are now facing,
especially since both parties have agreed to that when they signed and ratified the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the Paris Agreement. We would also like to add that
this lack of collaboration puts in question our sovereignty because we have repeatedly
manifested our intranquility and worry and Rathearre has repeatedly ignored us. We also
understand that the activities and the damages have taken place in international waters.
Nevertheless, Rathearre has to comply with the second principle of the Rio Declaration of
1992 that obliges States “to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not
cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction.” Also, we would like to emphasize that it is the State of Azarlus that is facing the
consequences due to the proximity of our territory with the America Free Zone, so we can
speak properly and with knowledge about what is happening, since we are experiencing the
repercussions first handedly.
Moreover, we would like to address that our concern as a State is not unjustified. We are
talking about a species that we have not seen for years, to the extent that we even thought it
was extinct. This is NOT a regular shark and this is essentially why the detriment that is
being perpetuated is especially worrisome to the State of Azarlus because who knows if this
phenomenon can repeat itself with more species. It is very likely that these sharks adapted
and were habiting depths unknown to humans. Who can guarantee that this is not also the
case for an infinite number of other species?

This brings us to the seventh article of the convention that concerns us, which indicates that
every country has the obligation to know the extent of the harm that their activities could
cause by doing the sufficient research and by making the most out of the tools and
technologies available. It is notorious that Rathearre has not done a proper investigation or
an efficient monitoring regarding their mining activities and its possible effects, especially
since a species that was considered extinct has reappeared.

Furthermore, in accordance with article 10 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, States

have the obligation to make all efforts to do as little damage as possible, an obligation which
again, Rathearre has not compelled. We would like to make clear that we understand that
Rathearre is trying to stand by the compromises they agreed to when they signed and
ratified the Paris Agreement. Nevertheless, in this particular scenario, we can find a clear
clash of principles. (According to article #) (...) for the fulfillment of an international obligation,
a State must not sacrifice other environmental principles or the welfare of another nation.
This means that the State of Rathearre cannot prioritize its own agenda or their
environmental commitments over the obligation that every nation has to protect the
environment and to cooperate with other States. We also understand that there is no full
proof that certifies the existence of a causal link between the shark deaths and Rathearre’s
mining activities. Nonetheless, the probability is latent, so until there is certainty as to the
cause of the deaths, the precautionary principle (article 15 of the Rio Declaration) should be
applied and the deep sea mining activities should be suspended. Once again, we are not by
any means saying that deep sea mining should be prohibited, however these activities have
to be done with full responsibility and that requires technical and scientific knowledge, in
accordance with the environmental impact assessment principle. In other words, Rathearre
has to use another extraction method that has scientific certainty and in the meantime and
since we do not know for certain what is causing the shark deaths, Rathearre must refrain
from carrying out its deep sea mining activities.

Now, the State of Azarlus would like to address that we acknowledge that we are invoking
the Law of the Sea Convention and we understand that Rathearre has not ratified it.
However, said country did sign it. This signature implies that the State of Rathearre was
willing to accept the object of the treaty, in accordance with the Vienna Convention of 1986.
Consequently, we would like to add that a State not ratifying a convention such as the Law
of Sea Convention does not mean or implies that said State has the faculty to incorporate or
promote practices contrary to international custom or the precedents that have been
advocated by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, it is vital to keep in mind that
international institutions do not have a hierarchy and it is fundamental that they attempt to
harmonize and generate hegemony in international law.
Now, it is fundamental that we also address that the State of Rathearre has invoked the Law
of the Sea Convention for the piracy issue. This not only demonstrates that Rathearre
recognizes and accepts the norms and obligations contained in said treaty, but also reaffirms
that the Law of the Sea Convention should be applied and taken into account for the entire
case. In other words, Rathearre cannot freely decide whether or not to recognize said
convention or when to adhere to it or not. The Law of the Sea Convention must be applied to
each and every charge or to none.

In conclusion, it is palpable that Rathearre´s mining activities in the America Free Zone have
violated international law because they have ignored our communications, hence failed to
cooperate and disregarded our sovereignty. In addition that, they have not done the proper
research regarding the possible damages, they have disrespected fundamental principles
such a the precautionary principle and the environmental impact assessment that have been
mentioned by the International Court of Justice in its its judicial precedents, converting these
principles into hard law and into a formal source of law, and finally they have failed to search
how the possible harms can be reduced and repaired.