INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

Team Code -

International Law Moot Court, 2023

Before

THE HON’BLE COURT

FILED UNDER ARTICLE___

Case No. ______/ 2023

Republic of Suryadesh………….PETITIONER

v.
Republic of Venetora……………...RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS DRAWN AND FILED BY THE

COUNSELS OF PETITIONER

1|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In February 2012, the Venetorian oil tanker Seraphine-Maris, guarded by two Venetorian
marines, was sailing in international waters near Malavara, Suryadesh. The marines allegedly
mistook the Suryadeshi fishing boat Ocean Voyager for pirates and fired shots, resulting in the
deaths of two Suryadeshi fishermen. A jurisdictional dispute arose between Suryadesh and
Venetora, with Suryadesh claiming the incident occurred within its exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), while Venetora argued it took place in international waters. Suryadesh detained the
tanker and arrested the marines, leading to legal battles and diplomatic negotiations. The
Suryadeshi Supreme Court ruled that the case should be heard in Suryadesh. Venetora initiated
international arbitration under UNCLOS, and the PCA tribunal ruled in 2020 that the marines
were immune from prosecution and Suryadesh violated their right to freedom of navigation.
The tribunal urged cooperation in investigating the incident. Both nations committed to abiding
by the ruling, but the implementation and cooperation faced challenges and delays due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and logistical issues. The joint investigation and determination of further
legal actions are still ongoing.

2|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether Suryadesh has jurisdiction over the Seraphine-Maris incident based
on the location of the incident and the applicable principles of international law?

The counsel for Suryadesh most humbly submits that Suryadesh has jurisdiction over the
Seraphine-Maris incident based on the location of the incident and the applicable principles of
international law like customary laws, national interest and under the concept of Exclusive
economic zone.

1.1 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Sovereign Rights: According to the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal states have sovereign rights and
jurisdiction over their EEZ, which extends up to 200 nautical miles from their baselines.
Counsel asserts that the incident occurred within Suryadesh’s EEZ, and therefore, it has the
right to exercise jurisdiction over activities in that zone, including incidents involving foreign
vessels.

1.2 Duty to Prevent and Suppress Piracy: UNCLOS, under Article 100 1, imposes a duty on
all states to cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy. The counsel
argues that the action of Suryadesh in detaining the Seraphine-Maris and arresting the
Venetorian marines were in line with its obligation to suppress piracy threats and maintain
maritime security within its jurisdiction.

1.3 Customary International Law and Due Process: The counsel relies on customary
international law principles that recognize a state's jurisdiction over crimes committed on board
foreign vessels within its territorial sea or its exclusive economic zone. These principles of
international law grant coastal states the authority to take appropriate measures to investigate
and prosecute crimes committed within their jurisdiction, subject to the requirements of due
process.

1 Article 100 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

3|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

The counsel would like to refer, the "Lotus" case (France v. Turkey, 1927) 2, which was also
before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), where it was held that a state is
entitled to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur within its territory or have an effect there.
Applying this principle to the present case, Suryadesh has its right to prosecute the accused.

Furthermore, the principle of aut dedere aut judicare (extradite or prosecute) can also be
invoked. This principle provides that if a state has jurisdiction over an offense, it has the duty
to either prosecute or extradite the alleged offenders. In this instance, as the incident occurred
within Suryadesh's EEZ, it is argued that Suryadesh has the right to prosecute the Venetorian
marines or to extradite them.

2
PCIJ Series A No 10, ICGJ 248 (PCIJ 1927), (1935) 2 Hudson, World Ct Rep 20, 7th September 1927.

4|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

ISSUE 2: Whether the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
governs the legal rights and responsibilities of Suryadesh and Venetora in the
Seraphine-Maris incident, particularly regarding the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
and freedom of navigation?

The counsel for Suryadesh most humbly submits that United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea (UNCLOS) governs the legal rights and responsibilities of Suryadesh and Venetora
in the Seraphine-Maris incident, particularly regarding the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and
freedom of navigation

2.1 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): According to UNCLOS, each coastal state has
sovereign rights over the exploration and exploitation of natural resources in its EEZ, which
extends up to 200 nautical miles from its baselines. In this case, Suryadesh claims that the
incident took place within its EEZ, and therefore, it falls under its jurisdiction.

Article 563 of UNCLOS states that in the EEZ, the coastal state has rights and responsibilities
for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources,
whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its
subsoil. This includes jurisdiction over marine scientific research, the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, and the prevention and control of marine pollution.

Considering that the incident occurred within Suryadesh's claimed EEZ, it is reasonable to
argue that Suryadesh has the jurisdiction to regulate and enforce its laws within that area. The
alleged actions of the Venetorian marines on the Seraphine-Maris would fall within the ambit
of Suryadeshi jurisdiction as it pertains to the protection and preservation of the marine
environment and the prevention of unlawful activities within its EEZ.

2.2 Freedom of Navigation: UNCLOS also recognizes the principle of freedom of navigation
and the rights and freedoms of all states to navigate and engage in other maritime activities in
accordance with international law. However, this principle is not absolute and is subject to
certain limitations and restrictions imposed by international law.

3 Article 56 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

5|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

Article 874 of UNCLOS affirms the freedom of navigation for all states, both coastal and flag
states. It guarantees the freedom of ships, including warships, to sail on the high seas. However,
it also recognizes that these freedoms should be exercised with due regard to the rights and
interests of other states in their EEZs.

In this case, Venetora argued that the incident occurred in international waters beyond any
state's territorial jurisdiction. However, UNCLOS clarifies that the concept of international
waters refers to the high seas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, where no state exercises
sovereignty. It does not extend to an EEZ, where coastal states retain certain sovereign rights
and jurisdiction.

Therefore, considering the provisions of UNCLOS, it is argued that Suryadesh has the legal
right to regulate and enforce its laws within its claimed EEZ. The incident involving the
Seraphine-Maris falls within the jurisdiction of Suryadesh as it occurred within its EEZ, and
the rights of Venetora under the principle of freedom of navigation should be exercised with
due regard to the rights and interests of Suryadesh as the coastal state.

4 Article 87 of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

6|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

ISSUE 3: Whether the Venetorian marines involved in the incident entitled to immunity
from prosecution under the principle of exclusive flag-state jurisdiction? Can they be
tried in Suryadesh under its domestic laws, considering that the incident resulted in the
deaths of Suryadeshi nationals?

The counsel for Suryadesh most humbly submits that Venetorian marines involved in the
incident are not entitled to immunity from prosecution under the principle of exclusive flag-
state jurisdiction and moreover they be tried in Suryadesh under its domestic laws, considering
that the incident resulted in the deaths of Suryadeshi nationals.

3.1 Principle of Exclusive Flag-State Jurisdiction: The principle of exclusive flag-state

jurisdiction asserts that a state has the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction over its vessels
on the high seas. Venetora contends that the Venetorian marines should be tried in their home
country under this principle. However, in this case, the incident occurred in international waters
off the coast of Suryadesh, and the victims were Suryadeshi nationals. Therefore, the counssel
argues that the principle of exclusive flag-state jurisdiction does not apply in this situation.

3.2 Jurisdiction based on Territorial Sovereignty and Nationality: The counsel asserts
Suryadesh jurisdiction over the case by invoking the principles of territorial sovereignty and
nationality. As the incident took place within Suryadesh's exclusive economic zone (EEZ),
Suryadesh has jurisdiction over activities occurring in its EEZ, including crimes committed by
foreign nationals. The nationality of the victims is also a significant factor in determining
jurisdiction. Since the victims were Suryadeshi nationals, Suryadesh has a legitimate interest
in ensuring justice for its citizens.

3.3 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Precedent: The counsel would like to refer to the
cases where International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed similar cases involving the
jurisdiction of coastal states over crimes committed on foreign vessels. In the "M/V Saiga (No.
2)" case (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea)5, the ICJ held that a coastal state has the
right to exercise jurisdiction when a foreign vessel engages in illegal activities within its EEZ.
This case supports Suryadesh's argument for jurisdiction over the Seraphine-Maris incident, as
the incident occurred within Suryadesh's EEZ.

5
ICGJ 334 (ITLOS 1997), (1998) 37 ILM 360, 4th December 1997.

7|Page
 INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT, 2023

3.4 Obligations under International Human Rights Law: The counsel argues that it has an
obligation to protect the human rights of its citizens, which includes the right to life. When
such rights are violated, states are responsible for ensuring justice and holding the perpetrators
accountable. In this case, the deaths of Suryadeshi nationals demand that Suryadesh exercise
its jurisdiction and prosecute the marines responsible to provide justice for the victims' families.

In conclusion, counsel submits jurisdiction over the Venetorian marines involved in the
Seraphine-Maris incident. Based on the principles of territorial sovereignty, nationality,
customary international law, ICJ precedent, and obligations under international human rights
law, Suryadesh can assert its authority to prosecute the marines for their actions, which resulted
in the deaths of Suryadeshi nationals.

8|Page