APPLICANT

SUMMATION OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE ACTIVITIES OF SEA CORPORATION IS ATTRIBUTABLE

TO REPUBLIC OF REVELS

THE ACTS OF SEA CORPORATION

ARE THE ACTS OF REPUBLIC OF
REVELS

Customary international law as reflected by Article 5 of the

2001 Draft Articles in Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts1 attributes to a State the conduct of a person or entity
which is not a de jure organ but which is empowered by the law of
that State to exercise elements of governmental authority provided
that person or entity is acting in that capacity in the particular
instance.

Republic of Revels cannot distance itself from the acts of SEA

Corporation because the totality of evidence proves otherwise. Revels
is necessarily intertwined with the private corporation when it
subsidized and funded the Sargassum initiative.2 To bolster this, SEA
Corporation would not have been able to start its harvest in the
absence of such funding.3

REPUBLIC OF REVELS IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF
SEA CORPORATION.

Governmental authority emanates from SEA Corporation’s

vessel Columbus registry4 under the Republic of Revels. This attaches

1 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10),
chp.IV.E.1, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ddb8f804.html [accessed
15 November 2018].
2 Paragraph 14, “Annex A”
3 Q & A number 18, Clarifications to the Record.
4 Paragraph 13, “Annex A”.
responsibility on the Republic of Revels because “a ship which bears a
nation’s flag is to be treated as a part of the territory of that nation; a
ship is a kind of floating island”5 and UNCLOS establishes the rules
for flag states to prevent marine pollution by stipulating that “states
shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and
control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels flying
their flag or of their registry.”6 Flag states are therefore responsible
for the vessels flying their flags whether within its own or other
jurisdictional zones or on the high seas.

REPUBLIC OF REVELS IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS OWN
OMISSIONS

The Republic of Revels cannot hide in the guise of SEA Corporation as

a private entity altogether as environmental cases confirmed its
positive obligations and duties regarding the protection of the right to
a healthy environment by imposing States to take all “necessary
measures”7 relating to activities of the private sector. In one instance,
it was pronounced that “Article 8 (of the Vienna Convention) may
apply in environmental cases whether the pollution is directly caused
by the State or whether State responsibility arises from the failure to
regulate private industry properly.”8

II. THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE HAS

JURISDICTION ON THE BASIS OF CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.

REVELS INTENDED TO CONFER

JURISDICTION ON THE ICJ.

5 Q. v. Anderson, LR 1 ICCR, cited in Ibid, pp. 150-151.

6 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Law of the Sea, Article 211, 10 December
1982
7 Tatar v. Romania (Request n° 67021/01), ECHR decision of 27 January 2009, § 88.
8 Hatton and others v. United Kingdom, ECHR decision of 8th July 2003, op. cit., §

119, and also § 98.

 To decide whether it has jurisdiction in this case, the Court
must evaluate “whether the force of the arguments militating in
favour of jurisdiction is preponderant, and . . . ‘ascertain whether an
intention on the part of the Parties exists to confer jurisdiction upon
it’”9
In addition, jurisdiction confers - regardless of any post-filing
declarations negating it - in this Court when “one of the Governments
concerned points out that the attitude adopted by the other conflicts
with its own views.”10
Republic of Revels, by its collective act of being a contracting
party to multiple treaties and conventions which vest jurisdiction on
the ICJ is inescapable. Its intention to be subject to this Court’s
jurisdiction is clear and indubitable.

It has been declared that there is frequently a parallelism of

treaties, both in their substantive context and in their provisions for
settlement of disputes thereunder. The current range of international
legal obligations benefits from a process of accretion and
accumulation; in the practice of States, the conclusion of an
implementing convention does not necessarily vacate the obligations
imposed by the framework convention upon the parties to the
implementing convention.11

Therefore, the intention of the reserving State may be deduced

not only from the text of the relevant clause, but also from the context
in which the clause is to be read, and an examination of evidence
regarding circumstances of its preparation and the purposes intended
to be served.12

Republic of Revels continues to strongly assert that they are one

with the world in protecting the environment by working its part to
9 Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and
Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 76, para. 16, quoting Factory at
Chorzó w, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 32; see also
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1998, pp. 450-451, para. 38).
10 German Interest in Upper Silesia Case, 1925. PCIJ (ser. 4) No. 6, at 14.
11 Southern Bluefin Tuna Arbitration (Australia and New Zealand v. Japan) 4 August

2000 (Arbitral Tribunal)

12 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) Judgment of 4 December 1998.
expand the use of renewable energy and meet its NDC commitments
under the Paris Agreement13.

THE CONVENTION ON
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IS THE
TREATY THAT CAN RESOLVE THE
PRESENT DISPUTE.

The crux of the jurisdictional question is whether the force of

arguments militating in favor of jurisdiction is preponderant, and,
ascertain whether an intention on the part of the parties exists to
confer jurisdiction upon it.14 The subject dispute was defined in the
Fisheries Jurisdiction case as “essential from the point of view of legal
security and the good administration of justice.”

The Applicant State respectfully but strongly asserts that the

subject dispute is the violation of the duty not to cause
Transboundary Harm and the breach of the precautionary principle.
Both subject disputes were stated in the Application wherein the issue
was characterized to be in violation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.

Applicability of Convention on
Biological Diversity

Biological diversity means variability among living organisms

from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other
aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are
part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of
ecosystems. 15 European eel (Anguilla Anguilla) is a facultatively

13 Paragraph 23, “Annex A”.

14 Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jursidiction
and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 76, para. 16, quoting Factory
at Chorzow, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 8,1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 32;
Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada)Jurisdiction of the Court,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998,pp.450-451, para. 38.
15 Article 2, Convention on Biological Diversity
catadromous migratory specie which migrates to the Sargasso Sea to
spawn.16

The mandate of the Convention is the conservation of biological

diversity. The acts of the Respondent state to launch its latest biofuels
initiative and began harvesting Sargassum from the Sargasso Sea to
use for biofuel production17 is the culpable act that the Applicant State
seeks for relief.

Finally, the submission of both parties to the jurisdiction of the

ICJ only concludes that this was the intent of both parties and cannot
be countenance in any manner.

16 Paragraph 2, Annex “A”

17 Paragraph 13, Annex “A”