1.

Replomuté has not violated international law with respect to the preparation of an EIA

Replomuté entered into an agreement with the DRI through the Lenoir Corporation
for oil exploration and transportation activities. Construction proceeded following an
EIA in compliance with the latter’s national laws. 1 Lenoir’s exploration activities are
conducted in a national park wholly within the DRI,2 for the sake of DRI’s
development, and conducted consistently with international law.

1.1) There is no breach of obligations arising out of CIL

Pursuant to the Uruguay Paper Mills3 and the Costa Rica4 cases, the
application of the precautionary principle has been acknowledged as
customary international law.5 To constitute a violation of this rule, not only a
physical relationship between the activity concerned and the damage caused
needs to be established,6 but the threshold of the harm caused which allows
claims to be brought also should reach the standard of “significant.”7
Precaution particularly applies when the consequences of nonaction could be
serious or irreversible. A State must consider the circumstances of a given
situation and decide whether scientific opinion is based upon credible
evidence and reliable scientific methodology.8
The principle requires a State to undertake an environmental impact
assessment where there lies a risk that the proposed industrial activity may
have a “significant adverse transboundary impact.”9

1
Moot Problem, Para 17
2
Id
3
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010
(hereinafter Pulp Mills case)
4
Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua).
(hereinafter Costa Rica case)
5
Id
6
O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice, at 336-368 (Brill Academic Publishers 1991); Xue
Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, at 4 (Cambridge U. Press 2003); Tim Stephens,
International Courts and Environmental Protection, at 134 (Cambridge U. Press 2009).
7
Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 150-151, UN Doc.
A/56/10 (2001) [56th ILC Report]; Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania); Merits, International
Court of Justice (ICJ), 9 April 1949. (hereinafter Corfu Channel Case)
8
Alexandre Kiss & Dinah Shelton, International Environmental Law, at 94 (2nd ed. Transnational Publishers
Inc. 2000) (hereinafter Kiss & Shelton)
9
J.H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, 96(2) A.J.I.L. 291, 293
(2002);
 Furthermore, this obligation does not demand a State to oversee activities for
which it could not have reasonably anticipate detrimental effects.10
Environmental agreements require states to act once there is a “likelihood of”
or a “reasonable concern for” harm.11
Developed across jurisprudence since the Trail Smelter12 arbitration, the
obligation arises following the fulfilment of four steps: (1) There must be
transboundary movement of harmful effects, (2) A manifest link between the
activity and the damage, (3) Of human causation, (4) The transboundary
damage being ‘significant adverse’.13 All tests must be fulfilled, absence of
any of the four steps would not give rise to obligations.14
In the present matter, the threshold of transboundary harm triggering the
obligations has not been met.
1.1.1) An EIA was carried out by the DRI
Transboundary damage can only occur when the harmful effects of a
particular activity are transferred from one state to the other.15 While all
pollution having harmful effects might give rise to environmental
damage, all of it will not result in state liability. 16 There are no agreed
international standards that establish a threshold for environmental
damage which triggers liability, with thresholds which might trigger
liability may varying from case to case according to local or regional
circumstances.17
The International Law Commission has recognized the threshold as
“significant” and emphasized that the harm must lead to a real

10
BOYLE & REDGWELL, INTERNATIONAL LAW & THE ENVIRONMENT 153 (2009).
11
Art. 4(3), Convention on the Ban of Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and
Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Jan. 29, 1991); Art. 2(5), Convention on the Protection and
Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Mar. 17, 1992); Art. 3(2), Convention on the
Protection of the Baltic Sea Area (Apr. 9, 1992); Art. 3(3), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(May 9, 1992).
12
Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.) 1938/1941, 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (hereinafter Trail Smelter case)
13
Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (1957). (hereinafter Lac Lanoux case)
14
Günther Handl, Transboundary Impacts, THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INT’L ENVIRONMENTAL L.
535 (Sep. 2012).
15
Rene Lefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability, in
DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 54 (1996); J.H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of
Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, 96(2) A.J.I.L. 291, 293 (2002).
16
Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed. Cambridge U. Press 2003, at 146-151
[hereinafter Sands]
17
Kiss & Shelton, supra note 8 , at 269; Trail Smelter case, supra note 12, at 1965 (1938/1941); Lac Lanoux
case, supra note 13.
 detrimental effect on matters such as human health, industry, property,
environment, or agriculture in other States. 18 The ICJ has held that
general international law requires states to undertake an EIA where
there is a risk that a proposed activity may have a significant adverse
impact on a ‘shared’ resource.19
In context of impact to the forests natural resource, while it is accepted
that oil extraction are inherently risky, empirical studies analysing the
impact of oil exploration and extraction lead to a reasonable inference
that any significant effects to the ecology would not go beyond local
communities. Any substantial alterations with regards to human
settlements, also do not reflect beyond the immediately local zone.20
The impact on natural resources, such as water remains limited to
within the confines of the immediate surroundings.21
Additionally, once the project eventually moves from its site, the
‘abandoned wells’ thus arising having been noted to be grounds of
relative prosperity for the indigenous fauna,22 which in the long term
should, to an extent, mitigate adverse effects to the animal populations.
Lastly, even if transboundary harm may exist, the inobservance on the
part of the accused State must be established.23 It is also pertinent to
note that the duty to consult the affected state arises only after there is
a reasonable inference of possibility of significant transboundary
negative implications. In the 1991 Convention on Environmental
Impact Assessment,24 the States parties are required to ‘‘notify any
Party which it considers ‘may’ be an affected Party.”25
18
Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 152, UN Doc. A/56/10
(2001) [56th ILC Report]
19
Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), pp. 34–6,
paras. 85–9.
20
Johnston, J. E., Lim, E., & Roh, H. (2019). Impact of upstream oil extraction and environmental public
health: A review of the evidence. Science of The Total Environment, 657, 187–199.
21
Tootle Mudumba, Benjamin Stimpson, Sophia Jingo, Robert A. Montgomery, The implications of global oil
exploration for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife, Environmental Challenges, Volume 11, 2023,
22
Fuda, R.K., Ryan, S.J., Cohen, J.B., Hartter, J. and Frair, J.L., 2018. Assessing the impacts of oil exploration
and restoration on mammals in Murchison Falls Conservation Area, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 56,
804-817; Davidsen, P. I., Sterman, J. D., & Richardson, G. P. (1990). A petroleum life cycle model for the United
States with endogenous technology, exploration, recovery, and demand. System Dynamics Review, 6(1), 66–93.
23
Supra note 10
24
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, February 25, 1991, 30 ILM
800 (1991) (hereinafter, Espoo)
25
Ibid., Article 3(1). For such projects, the party of origin must prepare an EIA. Appendix I to the Convention
lists 17 activities subject to the EIA requirement, including crude oil refineries.
 In the present matter, the DRI conducted an extensive EIA focused on
the impacts on nearby human populations, water usage and waste
management, and concluded the project to be sound. The EIA, made in
observance of the DRI’s national laws, 26 thus concluded the project to
not result in transboundary harm, failing the fourth criterion of the test,
thus not giving rise to CIL obligations.
1.1.2) Even if the EIA did not take factors raised into account,
Replomuté has still not violated obligations under
customary international law
It is conceded that the EIA conducted by the DRI did not consider the
impact on gorillas and their habitats. However, Replomuté has still not
acted in contravention of its CIL obligations.

a) There was no obligation to conduct an EIA in a transboundary

context in relation to the southern population of the Royal
Mountain Gorilla
Again, it is only those projects that may potentially cause a
‘‘significant environmental effect” that are subject to the requirements
of preparing an environmental impact analysis.27
As a general principle, environmental agreements require states to act
once there is a “likelihood of” or a “reasonable concern for” harm. 28
The Espoo Convention mandates an environmental impact assessment
procedure for listed activities that are “likely to cause significant
adverse transboundary impact.”29 Under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 30 obligation to conduct
EIA and duty to cooperate arises in the scenario where “States have

26
Moot Problem, para 17
27
Supra note 14
28
Art. 4(3), Convention on the Ban of Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and
Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Jan. 29, 1991); Art. 2(5), Convention on the Protection and
Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Mar. 17, 1992); Art. 3(2), Convention on the
Protection of the Baltic Sea Area (Apr. 9, 1992); Art. 3(3), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(May 9, 1992).
29
Espoo, supra note 24, Article 2(2)
30
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397
 reasonable grounds for believing that planned activities…. cause….
significant and harmful changes to…. environment”31
This approach is supported by the International Court of Justice’s
decision in the Corfu Channel Case, where the Court’s reinforced the
obligation ‘‘not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts
contrary to the rights of other states.”32
The use of the word ‘‘knowingly” in this case imposes a subjective
element into the determination of liability. A state cannot be required to
prevent harm of which it has no knowledge or which is not reasonably
foreseeable.33 This was reinforced in subsequent cases with the Court
observing that the obligation to conduct to an EIA in a transboundary
context arises only if the project is found to be likely to cause
significant adverse transboundary harm. 34
In the instant case, there arose no requirement to conduct an EIA in the
context of transboundary damage resulting from migration of the
southern population of the Royal Mountain Gorilla.
Under the precautionary principle, impetus lies on the countries to act
and to adopt decisions that are based upon ‘scientific findings or
methods,35 or ‘in the light of knowledge available at the time.’ 36 States
are expected to ensure use of best endeavours to ensure that States do
not cause transboundary pollution in areas beyond their jurisdiction. 37
The necessity to act arises where there is scientific evidence that
significant environmental damage is occurring, and that in the absence
of such evidence no action would be required.38
The southern population of the Gorilla ibirungai royali does not, as an
observable pattern, ‘migrate’ across the boundary between DRI and

31
Kiss & Shelton, supra note 8, at p. 94
32
Corfu Channel, supra note 7, at p.22
33
Supra note 10
34
Supra note 3
35
1946 International Whaling Convention, Art. V(2); 1972 Antarctic Seals Convention, Annex, para. 7(b); 1972
World Heritage Convention, Preamble; 1972 London Convention, Art. XV(2); 1979 Bonn Convention, Arts.
III(2) and XI(3) (action on the basis of ‘reliable evidence, including the best scientific evidence available’).
36
1960 Radiation Convention, Art. 3(1).
37
Art. 3(2)–(4) and (6). Annex II establishes Criteria for the Use of Best Environmental Practice and Best
Available Technology [sands]
38
Sands, supra note 16, at 218
 Aringuv.39 When deliberating over Range State obligations, the CMS
has observed that migration patterns cannot be determined based only
on some records of sightings.40
Merely because a few Gorillas from this sect of the population have
been occasionally spotted traversing into Aringuv’s territory cannot be
considered as basis for it to be considered as paradigm for the entire
population. Potential loss of habitat is known to induce migration
amongst species, however, since there lies no manifest threat of
transboundary harm, the precautionary principle is not activated,41 and
an EIA is not required as the best available data suggests no possibility
of significant adverse transboundary harm.

1.1.2.1) Replomuté complied with the duty to consult and

conducted itself in good faith
Part of the duty to cooperate with the affected state is the duty to
consult.42 Under customary international with regards to transboundary
damage, to extend to the acting State being under obligation to consult
with the affected State about the planned project. 43 If either the party of
the origin or an affected party determines a significant adverse
transboundary impact, the parties then consult, in ‘good faith’44 to
determine what measures should be taken to mitigate or eliminate the
adverse impact.45
The Court harmonised the principle of good faith with the duty to
cooperate to the effect that legal rights of the other state must be paid

39
Moot Problem, para 9
40
16th Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council on Range State Classification, UNEP/CMS/ ScC16/24, ¶5 (June
30, 2010).
41
Supra note 10
42
Sands, supra note 16, at p.160; Lac Lanoux case, supra note 13, at 128; Pulp Mills case, supra note 3, at 115;
Treaty Concerning the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks, Hungary and
Czechoslovakia, 16 September 1977, 1109 U.N.T.S. 235. (Hereinafter Gabcikovo)
43
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, at 173 (Cambridge U. Press 2003)
44
Cameron Hutchinson, The Duty to Negotiate International Environmental Disputes in Good Faith, 2 MCGILL
INT'l J. Sust. DEV. L. & POL'y 117 (2006).
45
Gabcikovo, supra note 42, per Weeramantry J. at 117-18. See also A.E. Boyle, "The Gabcikovo-Nagymaros
Case: New Law in Old Bottles" (1997) 8 YB. Int'l Env. L. 13 at 19: In the aftermath of Gabcikovo, the balance
between development and protection of watercourses is no longer only of concern to the states in dispute but
also the international community's interest in sustainable development must be taken into account.
 due regard.46 Good faith dictates an obligation to not proceed with the
consultations as “mere formalities,” but attempt to genuinely gauge the
rights of the engaging State.47
The extent of the obligations arising were clarified as follows. The
requirement of consultation does not give a veto power to an affected
state regarding an activity planned by a state of origin,48 but comments
of affected states are considered in the planning of a project. 49 In Lac
Lanoux, the tribunal concluded that France had the duty to notify and
to consult with Spain regarding works planned on Lake Lanoux but
that such consultations did not give Spain the right to veto France’s
decisions.50
Replomuté’s international law obligations in this context can be
summarized as thus – there lies a duty on Replomuté to proceed with
consultations with Aringuv and take note of its objections over adverse
transboundary implications of the planned oil extraction &
transportation project in the DRI, duties which have been fulfilled.
Upon receipt of a diplomatic note from the Embassy of Aringuv, 51 the
government of Replomuté took cognizance of the concerns raised, and
provided assurance that Aringuv’s rights as a sovereign state would not
be affected through its own diplomatic note. 52 Further objections and
concerns raised were also appeased,53 and Replomuté kept channels of

46
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), 1974 I.C.J.
Rep. 3 at 33 (hereinafter Fisheries Jurisdiction case)
47
United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (1998), WTO Doc.
WT/DS58/AB/R (Appellate Body Report) (hereinafter Shrimp-Turtle); Adopted by the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, 3-14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONE 151/26/ (vol. 1) (hereinafter
Rio Declaration);
48
L Boisson de Chazournes, K.Sangbana ‘Principle 19: Notification and Consultation on Activities with
Transboundary Impact’ in JE Viñuales (ed) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: A
Commentary (OUP Oxford 2015) 493–507.
49
Principle 12, invoked by the Appellate Body to justify the obligation to negotiate in the circumstances of this
case at Shrimp-Turtle (supra note 47, at para. 168), provides, in part: "Unilateral actions to deal with
environmental challenges outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided. Environmental
measures addressing transboundary or global environmental problems should, as far as possible, be based on
international consensus" (Rio Declaration, ibid.). Moreover, the Appellate Body readily refers to such
authoritative international environmental legal instruments that were either 'soft' in form, or not binding on the
parties, e.g. the Migratogy Species Convention (supra note 29) and the Convention on Biological Diversiy
(supra note 29), in establishing the legitimacy of cooperative action.
50
Lac Lanoux case, supra note 13, at 119.
51
Moot Problem, para 27
52
Moot Problem, para 28.
53
Moot Problem, para 30.
 communication open throughout the duration of the consultations.
When contentions reached a deadlock, Replomuté participated in
negotiations hosted by the government of Uganda, then further agreed
for the submission of the matter to this hon’ble Court.
Throughout the duration of the consultations, Replomuté has
channelled the principle of good neighbourliness by heeding the
concerns raised by Aringuv, and actively partaken in diplomatic
dialogue and negotiations to address all and any issues raised. Hence, it
is evident from the conduct of Replomuté has not violated its
international obligations and discharged its duty to cooperate
satisfactorily.
Hence, Replomuté has abided by its duty preventing transboundary harm, and carried
out an EIA where a risk of such damage was perceived. It has observed the principles
of cooperation, and precaution, and not acted in contravention of its obligations under
Customary International Law.

1.2) There has been no breach of obligations arising out of UNFCCC

Art. 4.1(f) of the UNFCCC54 calls for using EIAs to minimise adverse
anthropogenic impacts on the global climate.55
However, the proviso to Article 4 provides Parties shall take “into account
their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and
regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances,”56 while the
Preamble “recognizes that standards applied by some countries may be
inappropriate and of unwarranted economic and social cost to… developing
countries.”57
From the Kyoto Protocol and through to the present Paris Agreement on
combating climate change, the UNFCCC also acknowledges the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR), in recognition of the
inherent flaw in mandating similar goals of sustainable development amongst

54
 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, May 9, 1992, S. Treaty Doc No. 102-38, 1771
U.N.T.S. 107 (hereinafter UNFCCC)
55
 The second review of the adequacy of Art. 4(2)(a) and (b) was ‘held in abeyance’ at COP 16: UNFCCC,
Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun ́n from 29 November to 10
December 2010. Part One: Proceedings (2010), 16.
56
UNFCCC, supra note 54, Article 4.
57
UNFCCC, supra note 54, Preamble.
 countries at different stages of development, and consequently possessing
different resources and capacities.58 The UNFCCC takes heed of the
developing countries’ right to adopt national policies to catch up with their
developed counterparts and realise their aspirations for sustainable
development.59
Under the UNFCCC framework, no party has any “binding top-down
obligation” to cut its carbon emissions by a certain amount to meet the overall
emission-reduction goal. Parties are required to do this through their own
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs),60 while Developed countries,
more effectively placed to regulate its policies to achieve sustainable
development, are obligated to provide the necessary financial support,
capacity-building, and technology-transfer to developing countries in order to
help them meet their nationally determined objectives.61
In this context, DRI is a low-income country despite tremendous reserves of
natural resources, including oil due to historical hindrances. 62 As emphasized
above, DRI is entitled to pursue economic and social development, one
channel towards that goal being the oil extraction activity with Lenior.
At the same time, it recognizes the clear and present danger presented by
climate change, and accordingly set an NDC of 20% reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions, 18.5% of which is expected to be availed from external
sources63 for them to continue low-emission development.
Replomuté has not only assisted DRI in achieving that objective, but also
furthered its own non-binding obligation under the UNFCCC by financing a
$10 million friendship fund pledged towards the development of DRI.64
Hence, there has been no breach of obligations arising out of Article 4.1(f)
UNFCCC.
58
Pauw, P. Mbeva, K. & van Asselt, H. (2019). Subtle differentiation of countries’ responsibilities under the Paris
Agreement. Palgrave Commun 5, 86 (2019)
59
Report Of The United Nations Conference On Environment And Development (1992) – A/CONF.151/26 (Vol.1)
60
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015,
T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104, at p.1. (hereinafter Paris Agreement)
61
Ismail, Y. (2022). COP27: A step towards bringing overdue justice to the most vulnerable; Hirst, D. (2020). The
history of global climate change negotiations, House of Commons Library.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ the-history-of-global-climate-change-negotiations/; Report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
62
Moot Problem, para 1
63
Moot Problem, para 16
64
Moot Problem, para 23
 1. EIA requirements under the Revised African Convention on the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources do not arise in the instant case

1.1 The relationship between African states who are party to the Revised African Convention
on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, known as Maputo Convention will
be governed by Article XXXIV (1) of the Maputo Convention65, which clearly states
‘Parties which are bound by this Convention, only this Convention shall apply’, as DRI is
not a party to the Maputo convention, and Replomute is not a party to either Algiers
convention or Maputo Convention, therefore, they will not be bound it.

1.2 DRI, Replomute and Aringuv are parties to the VCLT, Article 14 (a) of VCLT states that
the 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.

1.3 Article 34 of the VCLT states that neither obligations nor rights are created for a third
state without its content.

2. EIA requirements under the ESPOO Convention

2.1 Aringuv has not ratified the ESPOO convention, no international reciprocity exists
between Replomute and Aringuv with respect to the ESPOO Convention.

2.2 The Espoo Convention describes environmental impact assessment as ‘a procedure for
evaluating the likely impact of a proposed activity on the environment.’66 EIA is a tool
that aids in decision-making, but it does not determine whether or how to control a
project. The results of an EIA do not always have to show that there will be no risk to the

65
J. Manyitabot Takang, From Algiers to Maputo: The Role of the African Convention on the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources in the Harmonization of Conservation Policy in Africa, 17 J. INT'l WILDLIFE L. &
POL'y 165 (2014).
66
1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Article 1(vi). See
generally Wathern (ed) EIA: Theory and Practice (London, 1988); Glasson, Therivel, Chadwick, Introduction to
EIA (2nd ed, London, 2005)
 environment. It is sufficient if it follows the correct procedures and includes the necessary
information regarding the project's anticipated effects. 67

2.3 To be considered as transboundary harm, four elements need to be proved, (1) the
physical connection between the damage and the activity; (2) human causation; (3) the
severity threshold at which legal action is necessary; and (4) the transboundary migration
due to the negative consequences. These aspects should be looked as a whole, if one
component is missing, then transboundary harm does not take place. 68 Likewise, the
transboundary harm duty does not apply when the harm cannot be defined as
“significant”, there must have detrimental effects arising from this harm. In addition,
these effects must be liable to be measured by accurate and objective standards.

Cases

67
Alan Boyle, Developments in International Law of EIA and their Relation to the Espoo Convention, UNECE,
Review of European Communityand International Enviornmnetal Law, Volume 20 Issue 3, Pg 227-231

68
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003),
Volume 14, Issue 1, pages 840-844
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April
2010 (hereinafter Pulp Mills case).....................................................................................................1
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua.........................................................................................................................3
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland....................................................................7
Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (1957).......................................................2
Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.) 1938/1941, 3 R.I.A.A. 1905....................................................2
Other Authorities
1991 Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Article 1(vi). See
generally Wathern (ed) EIA: Theory and Practice (London, 1988); Glasson, Therivel, Chadwick,
Introduction to EIA (2nd ed, London, 2005)....................................................................................10
Alan Boyle, Developments in International Law of EIA and their Relation to the Espoo Convention,
UNECE, Review of European Communityand International Enviornmnetal Law, Volume 20 Issue 3,
Pg 227-231.......................................................................................................................................11
Alexandre Kiss & Dinah Shelton, International Environmental Law, at 94 (2nd ed. Transnational
Publishers Inc. 2000) (hereinafter Kiss & Shelton)...........................................................................1
BOYLE & REDGWELL, INTERNATIONAL LAW & THE ENVIRONMENT 153 (2009)...............2
Cameron Hutchinson, The Duty to Negotiate International Environmental Disputes in Good Faith, 2
MCGILL INT'l J. Sust. DEV. L. & POL'y 117 (2006).......................................................................6
Fuda, R.K., Ryan, S.J., Cohen, J.B., Hartter, J. and Frair, J.L., 2018. Assessing the impacts of oil
exploration and restoration on mammals in Murchison Falls Conservation Area, Uganda. African
Journal of Ecology, 56, 804-817; Davidsen, P. I., Sterman, J. D., & Richardson, G. P. (1990). A
petroleum life cycle model for the United States with endogenous technology, exploration, recovery,
and demand. System Dynamics Review.............................................................................................3
Gabcikovo, supra note 42, per Weeramantry J. at 117-18. See also A.E. Boyle, "The Gabcikovo-
Nagymaros Case: New Law in Old Bottles" (1997) 8 YB. Int'l Env. L. 13 at 19: In the aftermath of
Gabcikovo, the balance between development and protection of watercourses is no longer only of
concern to the states in dispute but also the international community's interest in sustainable
development must be taken into account...........................................................................................6
Günther Handl, Transboundary Impacts, THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INT’L
ENVIRONMENTAL L. 535 (Sep. 2012)..........................................................................................2
Ismail, Y. (2022). COP27: A step towards bringing overdue justice to the most vulnerable; Hirst, D.
(2020). The history of global climate change negotiations, House of Commons Library.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ the-history-of-global-climate-change-negotiations/; Report
of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, available at:
https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf..........9
J. Manyitabot Takang, From Algiers to Maputo: The Role of the African Convention on the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in the Harmonization of Conservation Policy in
Africa, 17 J. INT'l WILDLIFE L. & POL'y 165 (2014)............................................................................10
J.H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, 96(2) A.J.I.L.
291, 293 (2002).................................................................................................................................2
J.H. Knox, The Myth and Reality of Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment, 96(2) A.J.I.L.
291, 293 (2002);................................................................................................................................1
Johnston, J. E., Lim, E., & Roh, H. (2019). Impact of upstream oil extraction and environmental
public health: A review of the evidence. Science of The Total Environment, 657, 187–.....................3
L Boisson de Chazournes, K.Sangbana ‘Principle 19: Notification and Consultation on Activities with
Transboundary Impact’ in JE Viñuales (ed) The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:
A Commentary (OUP Oxford 2015) 493–507...................................................................................7
O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice, at 336-368 (Brill Academic Publishers 1991);
...........................................................................................................................................................1
O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice, at 336-368 (Brill Academic Publishers 1991);
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, at 4 (Cambridge U. Press 2003.......1, 11
Pauw, P. Mbeva, K. & van Asselt, H. (2019). Subtle differentiation of countries’ responsibilities under
the Paris Agreement. Palgrave Commun 5, 86 (2019).......................................................................9
Philippe Sands, Principles of International Environmental Law, 2nd ed. Cambridge U. Press 2003, at
146-151 [hereinafter Sands]..............................................................................................................2
Rene Lefeber, Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability, in
DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW 54 (1996)............................................................2
Report of the International Law Commission, UN GAOR....................................................................3
Report Of The United Nations Conference On Environment And Development (1992) –
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol.1)......................................................................................................................9
The second review of the adequacy of Art. 4(2)(a) and (b) was ‘held in abeyance’ at COP 16: UNFCCC,
Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancun n ́ from 29
November to 10 December 2010. Part One: Proceedings (2010), 16................................................8
Tim Stephens, International Courts and Environmental Protectio.........................................................1
Tootle Mudumba, Benjamin Stimpson, Sophia Jingo, Robert A. Montgomery, The implications of
global oil exploration for the conservation of terrestrial wildlife, Environmental Challenges,
Volume 11, 2023................................................................................................................................3
United Kingdom v. Albania....................................................................................................................1
United States-Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (1998), WTO Doc.
WT/DS58/AB/R (Appellate Body Report) (hereinafter Shrimp-Turtle); Adopted by the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, 3-14 June 1992, UN Doc. A/CONE 151/26/
(vol. 1) (hereinafter Rio Declaration);...............................................................................................7
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law...................................................................1
Xue Hanqin, Transboundary Damage in International Law, at 173 (Cambridge U. Press 2003)...........6
Treatises
1946 International Whaling Convention................................................................................................5
Antarctic Seals Convention...................................................................................................................5
Bonn Convention...................................................................................................................................5
Convention on the Ban of Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and
Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa..........................................................................2, 4
Convention on the Law of the Sea.........................................................................................................5
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes........4
Convention on the Protection of the Baltic Sea Area.............................................................................4
Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015,
T.I.A.S. No. 16-1104, at p.1. (hereinafter Paris Agreement...............................................................9
Radiation Convention............................................................................................................................5
Treaty Concerning the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia............................................................................................................6
UNFCCC...............................................................................................................................................8
World Heritage Convention...................................................................................................................5