4Th Nuals Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2017: in The Permanent Court of Arbitration

TEAM CODE 12
4TH NUALS MARITIME LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017
IN THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION
(UNDER ARTICLE 287 AND ANNEXURE VII OF UNCLOS 1982)
REPUBLIC OF FUCHSIA V. REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH
ALONG WITH
REPUBLIC OF GERMANIUM V. REPUBLIC OF ADENIA
ALONG WITH
REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH V. REPUBLIC OF ADENIA
------MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS-----
4TH NUALS MARITIME LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

4th NUALS MARITIME LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................ iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................................... v
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... vi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................ vii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................................... 1
I. BISMUTH IS LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUSCHIA DUE TO THE
CAPSIZING OF MV ADONIS ................................................................................................................ 1
A. BISMUTH GOVERNMENT CAUSED TO BE LAID, CONNIVED OR HAD KNOWLEDGE
OF THE LAYING OF MINES. ............................................................................................................ 1
B. DUTY OF INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 2
C. BISMUTH FAILED TO FULFIL ITS INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILTY ......................... 3
D. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEA LANES IN THE AQUABA STRAIT IS IILEGAL .............. 3
II. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM
SALVAGE REMUNERATION. .............................................................................................................. 4
A. COAST GUARDS HAD A LEGAL DUTY ................................................................................ 4
B. PRINCIPLE OF ‘EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO’. .................................................... 5
III. THE MASTER AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO CAN NOT BE TRIED UNDER SUA
ACT OR FOR PIRACY............................................................................................................................ 5
A. THE ALLEGED ACT DOESN’T COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PIRACY IN
UNCLOS............................................................................................................................................... 5
B. DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION (IMO) DOESN’T
COVER THE ALLEGED ACT. ........................................................................................................... 7
C. MV MONTENEGRO IS IMMUNE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SUA CONVENTION. .... 8
D. ADENIA DOESN’T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ALLEGED ACT UNDER SUA
CONVENTION. ................................................................................................................................... 8
i
MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IV. WHAT IS THE FLAG STATUS OF MV PRIDE AND WAS THE RELAXATION OF
REGISTRATION NORMS BY ADENIA AND THE RIGHT OF VISIT EXERCISED BY COAST
GUARD BISMUTH ON MV PRIDE LEGALLY VALID? .................................................................... 9
A. THERE IS NO GENUINE LINK BETWEEN MV PRIDE AND REPUBLIC OF ADENIA
WHICH THUS MAKES THE NEW REGISTRATION NORMS INVALID: .................................... 9
B. MV PRIDE IS FLYING A FLAG OF CONVENIENCE (FOC) OF THE STATE ADENIA: .. 13
C. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH HAD THE AUTHORITY TO
SEARCH MV PRIDE: ........................................................................................................................ 14
PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. UNCLOS United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea
2. Pt. Point
3. Art. Article
4. ICJ International court of justice
5. UK United Kingdom
6. Rep Report
7. USA United States of America
8. edn Edition
9. Sec Section
10. Cir. Circuit
11. Co. Company
12. IMO International Maritime organization
13. SUA Suppression of Unlawful Activities
14. Para Paragraph
15. UN United Nations
16. UNGA United Nations German Assembly
17. UNYB United Nations Year book
18. ITLOS International Tribunal of Law of the Seas
19. ECJ European Court of Justice
20. ECR European Court Report
21. IMO International Maritime Organisation
i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
B.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v. United States [1983] 702 F.2d 333 (2d Cir.). ..................................... 4
Barcelona Traction Case [1970] ICJ Rep. 1. ................................................................................ 11
Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organisation (Advisory Opinion) [1960] ICJ Rep. 150 ........................................................... 11
Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania)(Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4. ................................................... 2
Hall v Herbert[1991] 46 CPC 2d 192 (BCCA). .............................................................................. 5
Hardy v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1964] 2 All ER 742 (CA). ......................................................... 5
Island of Palmas case (Netherland v USA)(1928) 2 RIAA 829. .................................................... 3
Militarv and Puramilitary Activities in und aguinst Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of
America). (Merits), Judgment. ICJ 1986 14................................................................................ 2
R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fish, Fisheries and Food ex p. Jaderow. Case 216/87, [1989] ECR
I-4509 ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Republic Of Bolivia V. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Limited [1909] 1 K.B.
785 ........................................................................................................................................... 6, 7
Robert Sizer v. Chiarello Bros.1929] 32 F.2d 333 (D.C.E.D.N.Y). ............................................... 4
The Blackwall [1869] 1 Wall. 77.................................................................................................... 4
The Nottebohm’s Case [1955] ICJ Rep. 4 .................................................................................... 11
Tice Towing Line v. James Williams Blue Line [1932] 57 F.2d 183 (2d Cir.). ............................. 4
United States v EX-USS Cabot/Dedalo[2002] 297 F.3d 378, 386 (5th Cir.) ................................ 5
STATUTES
Coast Guard Act, 1978 ......................................................................................................... ix, 4, 15

UN Convention on the High Seas, 1958 ....................................................................................... 10
CONFERENCE
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records, Vol. II ..................... ix
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
ii
Anna Van Zwanenberg, ‘Interference with Ships on the High Seas’ (1961) 10 The International
and Comparative Law Quarterly 789 ........................................................................................ 14
Brierly, The Law of Nations Andrew Clapham (ed) (5th ed, Oxford University Press 1955) 24114
Charles Cheney Hide, International Law (Vol I, Little, Brown And Company 1945) 244. ........ 14
Colombos, International Law of the Sea (4th ed., Longmans 1960) 274 ..................................... 14
G. H. Robinson ‘Admiralty Law of Salvage’ (1938) 2 Cornell Law Review. ............................... 4
Helmut Tuerk, ‘Combating Terrorism At Sea - The Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Against The
Safety Of Maritime Navigation’ (2008) 15 University of Miami International and Comparative
Law Review 338.......................................................................................................................... 9
J. Ashley Roach, Source, ‘Countering Piracy off Somalia: International Law and International
Institutions’ (2010) 104 The American Journal of International Law 397 ................................. 7
James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University
Press 2012) .................................................................................................................................. 3
M. H. Nordquist (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary
(Vol. III, Kluwer Law International 1995) 108 ......................................................................... 11
Moore, Digest of International Law (Vol. II, Washington Government Printing Office 1908) 97.
................................................................................................................................................... 14
Robin R. Churchill and Christopher Hadley, ‘The Meaning of the "Genuine Link" Requirement
in Relation to the Nationality of Ships’ (2000) A Study prepared for the International
Transport Workers’ Federation ........................................................................................... 10, 12
W.R. Kennedy Law of Civil Salvage (Kenneth C. McGuffie ed, 4th edn, 1958) ............................ 4
CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES
SUA Convention 1988 .................................................................................................................... 9

United Nations Convention on Law Of the Sea 1982............................................................. 2, 6, 7
WEBSITES
http://www.imo.org ..................................................................................................................... 6, 8
www.allbusiness.com ................................................................................................................... 13
iii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE APPLICANTS HAVE APPROACHED THIS HONOURABLE COURT UNDER

ARTICLE 287 AND ANNEXURE VII OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON
THE LAW OF THE SEA 1982.
iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENTOF FACTS
Aquaba strait lies between Republic of Adenia and Republic of Bismuth connecting Darian Sea
with the Bay of Mahia leading to the Pagian Sea. At ‘Point Pedre’, the strait is narrowest, having
width of 11 nm from the adjacent coast. Under the aegis of the AMRC, a deal had been brokered
between the two States whereby a mechanism for regulating the activities of both the States in
the Strait was put in place as it was a conflicting issue between them. A multilateral treaty in
1984 to respect and honour member states’ flag was also signed by all the countries along the
Mahia Rim.
Bismuth enacted arbitrary rule laying down various sea lanes for the vessels passing through
Aquaba and levied hefty charges from the ships using these sea lanes. They even harassed those
ships which used to skip the designated sea lane. After no respite, Adenia ensured safe and
secure passage to vessels in the strait till the ships reached Bay of Mahia. Adenia extended this
service further by setting new registration norms for foreign vessels.
On 12th March 2016, a vessel, MV ADONIS was hit by underwater mines, exiting the Strait,
skipping Point Pedre due to this the vessel drifted in the Bay of Mahia and sank in the Bay. Crew
of 13, all Fucshians died in the incident, but substantial cargo of the ship was salvaged by coast
guard of Bismuth. Fucshian navy vessel was instructed to immediately sweep the Strait. It was
found that the mines were laid recently along Point Pedre and were manufactured by
Germanium, a close ally of Bismuth. Concurrently, Bismuth also violated the terms of the
multilateral treaty by boarding and searching MV PRIDE, flying the flag of Adenia.
Since similar incidents were apprehended Adenia began to stop and search merchant vessels in
the Strait and during one such search materials used in manufacture of explosive naval mines
were found on board a merchant vessel MV MONTENEGRO, flying a flag of convenience of
Helios. As incriminating evidence were found against the vessel and its crew they were detained
in Adenia and trial commenced against them for piracy and the SUA Act.
Helios approached the ITLOS for release of the vessel & its crew, Fuchsia objected to it. After
completion of investigation within two weeks ITLOS directed release of the vessel on the
condition that Helios deposits 1 million pounds. All the parties were referred to PCA.
v
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. IS BISMUTH LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUCHSIA

DUE TO THE CAPSIZING OF MV ADONIS?
******
II. IS THE COAST GUARD OF BISMUTH ENTITLED TO CLAIM SALVAGE

REMUNERATION?
******
III. CAN THE CAPTAIN AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO BE TRIED UNDER

SUA OR FOR PIRACY?
******
IV. WHAT IS THE FLAG STATUS OF MV PRIDE AND WAS THE RELAXATION
OF REGISTRATION NORMS BY ADENIA AND THE RIGHT OF VISIT
EXERCISED BY COAST GUARD BISMUTH ON MV PRIDE LEGALLY
VALID?
******
vi
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. BISMUTH IS LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUSCHIA

DUE TO THE CAPSIZING OF MV ADONIS
Bismuth government had knowledge of the laying of mines in the Strait of Aquaba since the
mines were found around Pt. Pedre which falls in the territorial waters of Bismuth. Since it falls
in its territorial waters it is not possible that a mine laying activity goes unnoticed. The Republic
of Germanium and Bismuth are close allies and mines retrieved were manufactured in
Germanium. Bismuth owed a duty of information which it failed to perform. The government of
Republic of Bismuth failed to notify the existence of mines in the territorial waters of Aquaba
strait required by the Art. 41 of UNCLOS. Bismuth failed to fulfill its international
responsibility. The republic of Bismuth has committed a breach of International law and thus is
liable for the sinking of MV Adonis and is bound to compensate for the loss of the ship and the
nationals of Republic of Fuchsia. The designation of sea lanes and the charging the ships
exorbitantly by the Republic of Bismuth passing through the Aquaba strait was completely
unjustified and illegal.
II. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH ARE NOT ENTITLED TO

CLAIM SALVAGE REMUNERATION:
Coast guards are not entitled to remuneration because they had a legal duty. One of the
conditions of the salvage award is that the person rendering the service must be under no legal
obligation to render it. The coast guard vessels of the Republic of Bismuth were bound by part
III of the Coast Guard Actof 1978, sec 14(2)(f) which allows the coast guards of Bismuth to
adopt measures for safety of life and property at sea. The coast guard vessels were therefore
performing their legal duty by saving the cargo. Coast guards of Bismuth cannot claim salvage
rights because it was a part of their statutory duty. And also according to the principal of ‘EX
TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO’since Bismuth is responsible for the damages caused to
MV ADONIS, it has no right to claim salvage.
vii
III. THE CAPTAIN AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO CANNOT BE TRIED

UNDER SUA OR FOR PIRACY
According to definition of piracy under United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (1982),
the act committed by the master and crew of the ship MV Montenegro doesn’t constitute piracy,
for an act to be an act of piracy all the conditions enshrined in article 101 of UNCLOS should be
fulfilled, the act committed by the master and crew of the ship MV Montenegro doesn’t fulfill all
those conditions and hence their act doesn’t fall under purview of Piracy as defined in UNCLOS.
Also, the master and crew of the ship cannot be tried under SUA Act as Republic of Adenia
cannot establish its jurisdiction over the act according to the article 3 of the said convention.
IV. MV PRIDE IS FLYING A FLAG OF CONVENEINCE OF ADENIA AND THE

RIGHT OF VISIT EXERCISED BY THE COAST GUARD OF BISMUTH WAS
VALID:
Art. 5(1) of the UN Convention on the High Seas, 1958 conveys that there must exist a “genuine link”
between a ship and the State which has purported to confer its nationality upon that ship. Taking the term
“genuine link” at face value and in its ordinary sense, it appears to mean that there must be a link or
connection between a ship and the State purporting to grant its nationality to that ship, and that that link
must be genuine or real, as opposed to sham, artificial, casual or tenuous. Art. 91 of UNCLOS, 1982,
means that a flag State under whose laws a ship is registered must be able to effectively exercise its
jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical, and social matters over ships flying its flag. Also in
Art. 94(1) of the UNCLOS, 1982 a flag state's general obligation to exercise jurisdiction "over ships
flying its flag" thus appears to encompass an obligation to exercise jurisdiction with respect to the master,
officers, and crew of those ship. Art. 110 of UNCLOS, 1982 gives the power of right of visit. This right is
given to a warship which can be exercised on any foreign vessel on the high seas. Also Art. 22 of the UN
Convention on the High Seas, 1958 gives the same right to a warship on the high seas.
1.Check the font size of this paragraph
2. You have mentioned only the related law in the summary of this issue. Write a line or two connecting
the law to the facts of the case. This paragraph doesn’t aptly summarize your argument.
viii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. BISMUTH IS LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUSCHIA

DUE TO THE CAPSIZING OF MV ADONIS
A. BISMUTH GOVERNMENT CAUSED TO BE LAID, CONNIVED OR HAD

KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAYING OF MINES.
1. Bismuth government caused to be laid connived or had knowledge of the laying of mines
in the Strait of Aquaba since the mines were found around Pt. Pedre which falls in the
territorial waters of Bismuth. As According to article 7 of UNCLOS1 a straight baseline
can be drawn from low tide elevation if there is a lighthouse or similar installations
constructed. Bismuth had a lighthouse constructed on point padre and therefore Pt. Pedre
falls in the territorial waters of Republic of Bismuth.
2. Since it falls in its territorial waters it cannot be possible that a mine laying activity goes
unnoticed. The area is part of an international highway and it was in the knowledge of the
Bismuth Government that it was being used as such by the shipping of other States. The
Bismuth coast guards kept a close watch on the waters of the Strait which is how they
harassed the ships skipping point Pedre. The strait was being used since decades and until
12th march 2016 shipping of all kinds used the strait without encountering any mines.
And also the mines recovered were laid recently. The mine laying operation must have
required a certain amount of time. Therefore it is not possible that the activity going on
did not catch the attention of the Bismuth coast guards. The vessel MV Adonis was hit by
the mines while skipping Point Pedre and it was in the territorial waters of Bismuth.
3. Another factor which should be taken in consideration is that the live mines which were
retrieved in the channel were manufactured in Republic of Germanium and the bond of
alliance between Bismuth and Germanium.
4. A State is not entitled to lay, or knowingly to permit the existence of, an unnotified
minefield constituting a danger to shipping of other States. This was held in
1
United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea, 1982 ( UNCLOS 1982).
1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Nicarguacase2 – “Laying of mines in any waters without notification to affected States

was held to be a breach of international law.”
B. DUTY OF INFORMATION
5. The government of Republic of Bismuth failed to notify the existence of mines in the
territorial waters of Aquaba strait required by the Art. 41 of UNCLOS which is in
accordance with general principles of international law.
6. The duty of information was first established in the Corfu Channel Case3in 1949. In the
judgement of the case, the ICJ in an advisory opinion held that the coastal state was under
an obligation to inform ships of any danger to navigation within its territorial waters if it
had knowledge thereof. The duty has been subsequently absorbed in UNCLOS. In the
Corfu Case, which has similar facts, Albanian govt. was held responsible for the incident
on the ground that it must have known about the mines, and had been negligent in not
warning ships about the dangers in the international highway and in not taking measures
after the disaster to discover and punish those who laid the mines. The court said that,
the Albanian obligations are based, not on Hague Convention of 1907,which is applicable
in time of war, but on certain general and well- recognised principles, namely :
elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting peace than in war; the
principle of the freedom of maritime communication; and every State’s obligation not to
allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states
7. In Corfu channel case Great Britain was permitted to rely on inferences and
circumstances in proving Albanian knowledge which would not have been adequate to
prove Albania or Yugoslavia Guilty of a wrongful act or of complicity. 4 It was because
the court said that “the fact of this exclusive territorial control exercised by a state within
its frontiers has a bearing upon the methods of proof available to establish the knowledge
of that state as to such events. By reason of this exclusive control, the other State, the
victim of a breach of international law, is often unable to furnish direct proof of facts
2
Militarv and Puramilitary Activities in und aguinst Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). (Merits),
Judgment. ICJ 1986 14.
3
Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4.
4
Ibid.
2
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
giving rise to responsibility. Such a state should be allowed a more liberal recourse to
inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence.”
C. BISMUTH FAILED TO FULFIL ITS INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILTY

8. Even if Bismuth did not connive to lay underwater mines, it cannot be absolved of its
liability. It was a responsibility of Bismuth to make sure that the international highway
was fit for all shipping purposes.Justice Moore in Lotus Case, stated that “It is well
settled that a state is Bound to use due diligence to prevent the commission within its
dominions of criminal acts against another nation or its people.”5 Similar opinion was
expressed by M. Max Huber, in the Palmas case6 “Territorial sovereignty, this right has
as corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other states.
9. Bismuth failed to inform the ships about the danger in their territorial waters and thus
Bismuth is Internationally responsible for the act as stated by Brownlie, “An act or
omission which produces a result which is on its face a breach of a legal obligation gives
rise to responsibility in international law, whether the obligation rests on treaty, custom
or some other basis.7 The republic of Bismuth has committed a breach of international
law and thus is liable for the sinking of MV Adonis and is bound to compensate for the
loss of the ship and the nationals of Republic of Fuchsia.
D. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEA LANES IN THE AQUABA STRAIT IS IILEGAL

10. The designation of sea lanes and the charging the ships exorbitantly by the Republic of
Bismuth passing through the Aquaba strait was completely unjustified and illegal.
According to article 41(1) of UNCLOS. In conformity with this Part, States bordering
straits may designate sea lanes and prescribe traffic separation schemes for navigation in
straits where necessary to promote the safe passage of ships. But according to of article
41(4) of UNCLOS such sea lanes and traffic separation schemes which should be agreed
by the states bordering the strait after which the state may designate or prescribe them.
And since Adenia opposes the laying of sea lanes designation of sea lanes is illegal.
5
Ibid.
6
Island of Palmas case (Netherland v USA) (1928) 2 RIAA 829.
7
James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (8thedn, Oxford University Press 2012) 436.
3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
II. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH ARE NOT ENTITLED TO

CLAIM SALVAGE REMUNERATION.
A. COAST GUARDS HAD A LEGAL DUTY

11. In the expanded definition of Mr. Justice Clifford in The Blackwall8: "Salvage is the
compensation allowed to persons by whose assistance a ship or her cargo has been saved,
in whole or in part, fromimpending peril on the sea, or in recovering such property from
actual loss, as in cases of shipwreck, derelict, or recapture. One of the conditions of the
salvage award is that the person rendering the service must be under no legal obligation
to render it. He must, that is, be a "volunteer"9.
12. The salvage idea thus involves a service to marine property which is at risk or in peril and
it is stressed that the service must be by those who are under no legal obligation to render
it. The service must be done "voluntarily" concerns the particular persons who may be
entitled to salvage. Those who are under obligation to serve are disentitled10. This
principle was also held in Tice Towing Line v. James McWilliams Blue Lin11and Robert
Sizer v. Chiarello Bros.12In order for the services to be considered voluntary, they must
be rendered in the absence of any legal duty or obligation was held in B.V. Bureau
Wijsmuller v. United States.13
13. In the present case also the coast guard vessels were under a legal obligation to save the
cargo. The coast guard vessels of the Republic of Bismuth were bound by part III of the
Coast Guard Act of 1978, sec 14 (2)(f) which allows the coast guards of Bismuth to adopt
measures for safety of life and property at sea. The coast guard vessels were therefore
performing their legal duty by saving the cargo. Since they were under a legal obligation
and were not acting voluntarily they are not entitled to salvage remuneration. Coast
guards of Bismuth cannot claim salvage rights because it was a part of their statutory
8
The Blackwall [1869] 1 Wall. 77.
9
G. H. Robinson ‘Admiralty Law of Salvage’ (1938) 2 Cornell Law Review.
10
W.R. Kennedy Law of Civil Salvage (Kenneth C. McGuffieed, 4thedn, 1958).
11
Tice Towing Line v. James Williams Blue Line [1932] 57 F.2d 183 (2d Cir.).
12
[1929] 32 F.2d 333 (D.C.E.D.N.Y).
13
B.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v. United States [1983] 702 F.2d 333 (2d Cir.).
4
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
duty and “The Coast Guard may also assert salvage claims, but only where its actions are
outside of its statutory authority14” has been said by the court.
B. PRINCIPLE OF ‘EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO’.

14. Ex turpicausâ non oritur action, this old and well known legal maxim is founded on good
sense, and expresses a clear and well recognized legal principle. In Hardy15, Justice
Diplock wrote that the ex turpi rule means:"... the courts will not enforce a right which
would otherwise be enforceable if the right arises out of an act committed by the person
asserting the right (or by someone who is regarded in law as his successor) which is
regarded by the court as sufficiently anti-social to justify the court's refusing to enforce
that right." In Hall v Herbert16, Justice Gibbs of the British Columbia Court of Appeal
added "It is available wherever the conduct of the plaintiff giving rise to the claim is so
tainted with criminality or culpable immorality that as a matter of public policy the court
will not assist the plaintiff to recover.” In The Charlotte17 it was said that, it is of course,
not sufficient that the property be merely a maritime object. It must be also a maritime
object which is in fact in peril; and a peril not brought about by the salver’s fault Using
this principle Republic of Bismuth is not entitled to salvage remuneration because
Bismuth either caused, connived or had knowledge of the underwater mines in the its
territorial waters. And since Bismuth is responsible for the damages caused to MV
ADONIS, it has no right to claim salvage.
III. THE MASTER AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO CAN NOT BE TRIED

UNDER SUA ACT OR FOR PIRACY
A. THE ALLEGED ACT DOESN’T COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PIRACY

IN UNCLOS.
15. It is humbly submitted that, UNCLOS provides that any act of inciting or of intentionally
facilitating an act described in subparagraph 101(a) or 101(b), which in turn define what
constitutes the act of piracy. For an act to constitute piracy under the aegis of article
14
United States v EX-USS Cabot/Dedalo[2002] 297 F.3d 378, 386 (5th Cir.).
15
Hardy v Motor Insurers' Bureau [1964] 2 All ER 742 (CA).
16
Hall v Herbert [1991] 46 CPC 2d 192 (BCCA).
17
The Charlotte [1848] 3W. Rob. 68, 71.
5
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
101(a) of UNCLOS certain conditions must be fulfilled. There must be (A) ‘an illegal act
of violence or detention, or an act of depredation’,18 (B) ‘committed for private ends’,
i.e., the act must not be backed by any state authority19 (C) ‘by the crew or passengers of
a private ship or aircraft’,20 (D) directed against another ship or aircraft or against persons
and properties on board such ship or aircraft’,21 (E) on the high seas or an area outside the
jurisdiction of any state22. The same conditions are required by article 15 of the high seas
convention to constitute piracy and also by International Maritime Organisation,23
entitled with responsibility of safe navigation of ships, and also by many other world and
regional organisations.
16. In Republic Of Bolivia V. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Limited24, the
court of appeal in England while deliberating on what constitutes piracy said the act of
piracy is committed for private ends not for the public one. In present case, the ship MV
MONTENEGRO, is owned by a state owned corporate entity of the state Germanium,
hence making it a state owned ship and not a ‘private’ one. Therefore the alleged act was
done on behalf of state not on ‘private ends’.
17. The definition also requires that the act must be committed by the crew or passengers of a
‘private’ ship or aircraft, here as established from the facts that the ship was owned by a
government owned corporate entity, hence rendering the ship as ‘state owned’ not a
‘private’ one.
Also the acts which, if committed by a warship or government ship, will be considered as
committed by a ‘private ship’ under article 102 of UNCLOS, only covers act of ‘mutiny’
by the crew of the alleged ship, which leads to control of ship by the rebel crew. In
present case, as can be established from the facts and circumstances, it can’t be said that
18
UNCLOS 1982, Article 101(a).
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
UNCLOS 1982, Article 101(a)(i).
22
Ibid.
23
‘Piracy and armed robbery against ships’ available at: <http://www.imo.org>
24
[1909] 1 K.B. 785.
6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
the crew and master of the ship mutinied and took control of the ship; therefore the ship
was not private according to article 102 of UNCLOS.
18. The act of carrying the explosives ‘of the type’ that were used in manufacturing of mines
that led to depredation of MV ADONIS, it wasn’t established that it was the same
material that was used in manufacturing, it was just the ‘type’ that was used in
manufacturing those mines, it can be termed as sheer coincidence that the ship was
carrying the same explosives as used in mines. Thus, the act wasn’t directed towards any
other ship or aircraft as required by article 101(a) of UNCLOS.
19. The alleged act was committed in the territorial waters of the state Bismuth hence, it
wasn’t committed outside the jurisdiction of any state or even on the high seas, hence
the act doesn’t fulfill the requirement under the definition that the act must be
committed on the high seas or outside the jurisdiction of any state mentioned in article
101(a)(i) of UNCLOS. The customary and conventional international law of piracy
provides that piracy as such can occur only on the high seas and not in areas subject to
state sovereignty. In the long period when international law distinguished only between
the waters of the high seas, on the one hand, and the territorial sea and internal waters of
a state, on the other, the law of piracy applied only to the former.25 In Republic of
Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co.,26 an act of seizing of the goods on
the ship was not held as an act of Pirate because it was taken place on the river Acre,
which is not a high sea. Therefore, an alleged act may not be rendered as an act of
Piracy under definition of piracy in UNCLOS.
B. DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION (IMO)

DOESN’T COVER THE ALLEGED ACT.
IMO’s Resolution A.1025(26) on IMO's Code of Practice for the Investigation of the Crimes of
Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, determines that armed robbery against ships consists
of boarding or attempting to board any ship with the apparent intent to commit theft or any other
crime and with the apparent intent or capability to use force in the furtherance of that act.”, in the
25
J. Ashley Roach, ‘Countering Piracy off Somalia: International Law and International Institutions’ (2010) 104 The
American Journal of International Law 397.
26
Republic of Bolivia v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [1909] 1 KB 785.
7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
present case there was no boarding or attempt to board any ship, nor there was any intent to
commit theft or any other crime. So the alleged act doesn’t come under the definition of ‘piracy’
of IMO.27
C. MV MONTENEGRO IS IMMUNE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SUA

CONVENTION.
20. Article 2 of the SUA convention provides that nothing in the convention will affect the
immunities of warships and ‘other government ships’, in present case, as previously
established the said ship i.e., MV MONTENEGRO is owned by government owned
corporate entity of Republic of Germanium, which makes it a government owned ship28
therefore it is immune from the provisions of the SUA convention, Therefore, can’t be
tried under SUA convention.
D. ADENIA DOESN’T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ALLEGED ACT

UNDER SUA CONVENTION.
21. It is humbly submitted that, Adenia doesn’t have jurisdiction over the act as article 6 of
the convention provides that the states can establish jurisdiction over the ships under
article 3 only when the act is committed
a) On or against the ship flying the flag of country at the time of commission of
offence,29
b) On the territory of the state30 and
c) By the national of that state.31
22. The alleged act, said to be committed by the ship MV MONTENEGRO which is flying
the flag of the Republic of Helios, and against the ship MV ADONIS, which was flying
the flag of Republic of Fuchsia, therefore it is evident that in the present case the act
was neither committed by ship flying the flag of Republic of Adenia nor against the
ship flying flag of the Republic of Bismuth. Therefore the act doesn’t fulfill the
27
Supra n 23.
28
Memorial for Petitioners, Para 16.
29
SUA Convention 1988, Article 6(a).
30
SUA Convention 1988, Article 6(1)(b).
31
SUA Convention 1988, Article 6(1)(c).
8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
condition of article 6(a) of SUA convention, 1988. The said act was not committed in
the territorial waters of Adenia, as it can be established from the facts. Also, the
nationality of the masters and crew can’t be established from the given set of facts,
therefore it can’t be said that the master and crew were nationals of Republic Adenia,
and therefore Adenia doesn’t have jurisdiction over the master and crew of the MV
MONTENEGRO.
23. As it is established that the present facts and circumstances doesn’t fulfill any criteria of
article 6 of the SUA convention to establish jurisdiction of Republic of Adenia over the
alleged act by master and crew of the ship MV MONTENEGRO. Therefore, the master
and crew of MV MONTENEGRO can’t be tried under SUA convention.
24. Furthermore, a State Party may establish jurisdiction over any such offense, when: it is
committed by a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or during its
commission a national of that State is seized, threatened, injured or killed; or it is
committed in an attempt to compel that State to do or abstain from doing any act. 32 This
is also not the case in the present case, as there are no facts stating that the crew were
residing in Adenia, therefore this provision will also not apply to captain and crew of
the MV MONTENEGRO.
IV. WHAT IS THE FLAG STATUS OF MV PRIDE AND WAS THE RELAXATION
OF REGISTRATION NORMS BY ADENIA AND THE RIGHT OF VISIT
EXERCISED BY COAST GUARD BISMUTH ON MV PRIDE LEGALLY
VALID?
A. THERE IS NO GENUINE LINK BETWEEN MV PRIDE AND REPUBLIC OF

ADENIA WHICH THUS MAKES THE NEW REGISTRATION NORMS
INVALID:
25. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that Art. 5(1) of the UN Convention on
the High Seas, 1958 conveys that there must exist a “genuine link” between a ship and
32
Helmut Tuerk, ‘Combating Terrorism At Sea - The Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Against The Safety Of
Maritime Navigation’ (2008) 15 University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review 338, 351.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
the State which has purported to confer its nationality upon that ship.33 Taking the term
“genuine link” at face value and in its ordinary sense, it appears to mean that there must
be a link or connection between a ship and the State purporting to grant its nationality to
that ship, and that that link must be genuine or real, as opposed to sham, artificial, casual
or tenuous.34
26. Art. 6 of the UN Convention on the High Seas, 1958 implies that a change of flag (i.e. a
change of nationality) is not to be undertaken lightly or casually, but only where there is a
real transfer of ownership of the ship, suggesting that the new ship owner must have
some real connection with the new State of nationality, i.e. that there is some real
connection with the new registry.35 Taking this point into consideration the change of
registry of MV PRIDE from Republic of Fucshia to Republic of Adenia is invalid as it
did not suggest any transfer of ownership of the ship.
27. It is further submitted that Art. 91 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982
uses the words “genuine link, it conveys that it is an essential element and mere registry
doesn’t confers nationality to a ship, and ask for more than that i.e.,
28. George K. Walker's revised definition of "Genuine link" provides that "Genuine link" in
the Art. 91 of UNCLOS, 1982, means that a flag State under whose laws a ship is
registered must be able to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in
administrative, technical, and social matters over ships flying its flag. Also in Art. 94(1)
of the UNCLOS, 1982 a flag state's general obligation to exercise jurisdiction "over
ships flying its flag" thus appears to encompass an obligation to exercise jurisdiction with
respect to the master, officers, and crew of those ships36
29. It is further submitted that the International Law Commission, which dealt with the law
of the sea at its sessions held between 1950 and 1956, At its 1951 session the Special
33
Robin R. Churchill and Christopher Hadley, ‘The Meaning of the "Genuine Link" Requirement in Relation to the
Nationality of Ships’ (2000) A Study prepared for the International Transport Workers’ Federation 69,12.
Available at
<http://seafarersrights.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/INTERNATIONAL_ARTICLE_GENUINE-LINK-
REQUIREMENT-IN-NATIONALITY-OF-SHIPS_2000_ENG.pdf>.
34
Ibid 12.
35
Supra n 33, 13.
36
Supra n 49, 37.
10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Rapporteur on the Law of the Sea, Mr. François, emphasised that if there was no real
connection between the flag State and the crew and ownership of the vessel, it would be
difficult for the flag State to regulate the vessel properly.37 The Commission, at that point
of time, also endeavoured to make it clear that the grant of its flag to a ship by a state
cannot be a mere administrative formality, it doesn’t accompany any guarantee that the
ship possesses a real link with its new State. The jurisdiction of the State over ships, and
the control it should exercise in conformity with article 34 of these articles, can only be
effective where there exists in fact a relationship between the State and ship other than
mere registration or the mere grant of a certificate of registry.38
30. Also, The leading commentary on the UNCLOS, 1982 points out that paragraph 1 of
Article 94 has been taken from Article 5 of the 1958 Convention39 where it was originally
adopted “for the purpose of strengthening the concept of ‘genuine link’ with regard to the
nationality of a ship,” and goes on to say that the article “gives further indication of the
link between the flag State and ships flying its flag” and that the “inability of the flag
State to exercise its jurisdiction and control with respect to a ship flying its flag may have
implications as to whether a genuine link exists between the flag State and that ship.”40
31. In The Nottebohm’s Case41, the ICJ the held that it was up to each State to lay down
rules governing the grant of its nationality but a state cannot claim that the rules it has
thus laid down are entitled to recognition by another state unless it has acted in
conformity with this general aim of making the legal bond of nationality.42
32. In The IMCO Case43 A number of States which intervened in the case referred in some
detail to the “genuine link” requirement, In the Barcelona Traction Case44 Judge Jessup
37
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1951, Vol. II, 75-76.
38
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1956, Vol. II, 279.
39
High Seas Convention, 1958.
40
M. H. Nordquist (ed.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary (Vol. III, Kluwer
Law International 1995) 108, 144 and 150.
41
[1955] ICJ Rep. 4.
42
Ibid 23.
43
Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative
Organisation(Advisory Opinion) [1960] ICJ Rep. 150.
44
[1970] ICJ Rep. 1.
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
in his separate opinion argued that the concept of genuine link was common to the
nationality of people, ships and companies, and that in each of these cases other States
were not bound to recognise the grant of nationality where no genuine link existed.45
33. The ECJ took a similar view in the case of R v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fish, Fisheries
and Food ex p. Jaderow.46Advocate General Mischo in his opinion came very close to
saying that a flag of convenience State whose only connection with a vessel is the fact
that the company owning that vessel has a registered office in its territory does not have a
genuine link with that vessel.47
34. Author N. Singh suggests that a genuine link will be constituted where one or more of the
following factors exist: (a) beneficial ownership of the ship by nationals of the flag State
(b) manning of the ship by officers and crew having the nationality of the flag State(c)
and (d) the enactment of appropriate legislation by the flag State to control the operation,
management and running of its ships.48 Non-recognition is still possible where there is no
genuine link, although the burden of proof that the link is not genuine rests on the non-
recognising State.49
35. The contentions of learned authors, as enumerated in above paragraphs, is strengthened
by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who in his report on “Oceans and the Law of
the Sea” has written that in view of the obligations of flag States under Art. 94 and 217 of
UNCLOS, 1982 the requirement of a genuine link in Art. 91, while not defined, do imply
that the link must be such as to enable the flag State to exercise effective control over the
45
Ibid 80.
46
Case 216/87, [1989] ECR I-4509.
47
Ibid 50,51.
48
N. Singh, ‘International Law Problems of Merchant Shipping’ (1962) 107 Recueil des Cours 55, 64. As cited in
Robin R. Churchill and Christopher Hadley, ‘The Meaning of the "Genuine Link" Requirement in Relation to the
Nationality of Ships’ (2000) A Study prepared for the International Transport Workers’ Federation 69,12.
Available at
< http://seafarersrights.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/INTERNATIONAL_ARTICLE_GENUINE-LINK-
REQUIREMENT-IN-NATIONALITY-OF-SHIPS_2000_ENG.pdf>.
49
Supra n 49, page 37.
12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ship and to meet its obligations under UNCLOS.50
B. MV PRIDE IS FLYING A FLAG OF CONVENIENCE (FOC) OF THE STATE

ADENIA:
36. It is humbly submitted that MV PRIDE is flying a FOC51 of the Republic of Adenia as
the State uses the norm of open registries.
37. The open registries, pejoratively known as FOC, thus generally present the following
attributes52 that are (a) Allowing ownership and/or control of their flag ships by non-
citizens,(b) Permitting access to and unrestricted transfer of ship registration, (c)
Permitting manning of their flag ships by non-nationals, (d) Having neither the power nor
the administrative machinery to effectively impose any government or international
regulations or to control the shipping companies. In the present case Republic of Adenia
follows all these three requirements to prove that they follow the norms of open registries
which is invalid.
38. Some of the open registries, tired of being targeted in international fora as FOCs, have re-
branded and upgraded their flags to meet international standards. Hence this has led to
the creation of what can be termed as quasi FOCs or hybrid registers. Another serious
accusation made against FOCs has been the use of such flags for contraband and other
illegal activities.53
39. The counsel humbly submits that by using such registration norms Republic of Adenia is
promoting contraband and illegal activities in international domain hence, such
registration norms must be held invalid. Furthermore, developing States have argued for
the eradication of open registries, claiming that this would help in diverting the
registration of ships under their flags as they were also competitive labour supplying
countries.
50
UN Document A/54/429, 184.
51
Flag of Convenience.
52
‘Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Shipping, chaired by Lord Rochdale’ (London, May 1970) available at
<www.allbusiness.com/operations/shipping/416713-1.html>.
53
‘Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Shipping, chaired by Lord Rochdale’ (London, May 1970) available at
<www.allbusiness.com/operations/shipping/416713-1.html>.
13
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
C. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH HAD THE AUTHORITY

TO SEARCH MV PRIDE:
40. It is humbly submitted that the Coast Guard of Republic of Bismuth had the authority to
board and search MV PRIDE. This is because Art. 110 of UNCLOS, 1982 gives the
power of right of visit. This right is given to a warship which can be exercised on any
foreign vessel on the high seas. Also Art. 22 of the UN Convention on the High Seas,
1958 gives the same right to a warship on the high seas.
41. This same right of visit was exercised by the Coast Guard of Republic of Bismuth as they
under suspicion that some kind of illegal activity was happening on MV PRIDE and
hence acted just for security reasons. Also Art.22 has a wider effect if ships are flying a
FOC and an approach in such a circumstance is justified.54
42. The right of visit and search gives a warship power to search the ship thoroughly and, if
necessary, detain her in a convenient port for this purpose. This can be ascertained by the
West Breeze incident. Some British writers and some American writers suggest that
warships are entitled to exercise a right of visit and search in self-defence on the high
seas.55 The most extreme statement is made by Pitt-Cobbett when he says "the right of
self-defence, as recognised by the law of nations, will confer on a State, in a case where
its safety is threatened, a self-protective jurisdiction which will entitle it to visit and
arrest a vessel on the high seas and to send her in for adjudication”.
43. In a case in 187356 a British ship the Deerhound was captured on the high off the French
coast by a Spanish warship. The ship was attempted to convey arms for the use of the
Spanish insurgents. The British Government refused to make a claim on behalf of the
owners. The British Government did so because the Spanish warship had the right of visit
the ship in suspecting circumstances and the suspicion was proved right in this case.
44. It is further submitted that in the present case it was Coast Guard of the Republic of
54
Anna Van Zwanenberg, ‘Interference with Ships on the High Seas’ (1961) 10 The International and Comparative
Law Quarterly 789.
55
Brierly, The Law of Nations Andrew Clapham (ed) (5th ed, Oxford University Press 1955) 241-242; Colombos,
International Law of the Sea (4th ed., Longmans 1960) 274-275; Charles Cheney Hide, International Law (Vol I,
Little, Brown And Company 1945) 244.
56
Moore, Digest of International Law (Vol. II, Washington Government Printing Office 1908) 97.
14
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Bismuth who exercised the right of visit and they were authorised to do so. This is
because according to Art. 29 of the UNCLOS, 1982 certain requirements are laid down
for a ship to be called a warship. These requirements are: (a) the ship must belong to the
armed forces of a state (b) the ship must be in command of an officer duly commissioned
by government of a state; both these requirements are fulfilled by sec. 4 and sec. 5 of the
Coast Guard Act, 1978 which governs the Coast Guard of Republic of Bismuth. Give a
concluding statement here as to the implications of your argument of the ship being a
warship. This seems incomplete
15
PRAYER
PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES

CITED, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE HON’BLE
COURTTO [alignment—justify]
1. Adjudge Bismuth Liable for the loss occasioned to Fuchsia due to capsizing of MV
ADONIS
2. Declare that Coast Guard of Bismuth are not entitled to claim salvage remuneration
3. Declare that Captain and Crew of MV MONTENEGRO cannot be charged under SUA
or for piracy.
4. Declare that MV PRIDE was flying a Flag of Convenience and the new registration
norms of Adenia are illegal.
5. Adjudge the right of visit exercised by the coast guard of Bismuth valid.
ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST
OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT FACTION SHALL BE DUTY

BOUND FOREVER.
Sd/-
(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)
16

4Th Nuals Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2017: in The Permanent Court of Arbitration

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

4Th Nuals Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2017: in The Permanent Court of Arbitration

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TEAM CODE 12

4TH NUALS MARITIME LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

IN THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

(UNDER ARTICLE 287 AND ANNEXURE VII OF UNCLOS 1982)

REPUBLIC OF FUCHSIA V. REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH

REPUBLIC OF GERMANIUM V. REPUBLIC OF ADENIA

REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH V. REPUBLIC OF ADENIA

------MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS-----

4TH NUALS MARITIME LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ i

1. UNCLOS United Nation Convention on Law of the Sea

4. ICJ International court of justice

7. USA United States of America

10. Cir. Circuit

11. Co. Company

12. IMO International Maritime organization

13. SUA Suppression of Unlawful Activities

14. Para Paragraph

15. UN United Nations

16. UNGA United Nations German Assembly

17. UNYB United Nations Year book

18. ITLOS International Tribunal of Law of the Seas

19. ECJ European Court of Justice

20. ECR European Court Report

21. IMO International Maritime Organisation

Coast Guard Act, 1978 ......................................................................................................... ix, 4, 15

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES

SUA Convention 1988 .................................................................................................................... 9

THE APPLICANTS HAVE APPROACHED THIS HONOURABLE COURT UNDER

I. IS BISMUTH LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUCHSIA

II. IS THE COAST GUARD OF BISMUTH ENTITLED TO CLAIM SALVAGE

III. CAN THE CAPTAIN AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO BE TRIED UNDER

I. BISMUTH IS LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUSCHIA

II. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH ARE NOT ENTITLED TO

III. THE CAPTAIN AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO CANNOT BE TRIED

IV. MV PRIDE IS FLYING A FLAG OF CONVENEINCE OF ADENIA AND THE

1.Check the font size of this paragraph

I. BISMUTH IS LIABLE IN LAW FOR THE LOSS OCCASIONED TO FUSCHIA

A. BISMUTH GOVERNMENT CAUSED TO BE LAID, CONNIVED OR HAD

Nicarguacase2 – “Laying of mines in any waters without notification to affected States

C. BISMUTH FAILED TO FULFIL ITS INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILTY

D. THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEA LANES IN THE AQUABA STRAIT IS IILEGAL

II. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH ARE NOT ENTITLED TO

A. COAST GUARDS HAD A LEGAL DUTY

B. PRINCIPLE OF ‘EX TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO’.

III. THE MASTER AND CREW OF MV MONTENEGRO CAN NOT BE TRIED

A. THE ALLEGED ACT DOESN’T COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PIRACY

B. DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION (IMO)

C. MV MONTENEGRO IS IMMUNE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SUA

D. ADENIA DOESN’T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ALLEGED ACT

A. THERE IS NO GENUINE LINK BETWEEN MV PRIDE AND REPUBLIC OF

ship and to meet its obligations under UNCLOS.50

B. MV PRIDE IS FLYING A FLAG OF CONVENIENCE (FOC) OF THE STATE

C. THE COAST GUARD OF REPUBLIC OF BISMUTH HAD THE AUTHORITY

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST

OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT FACTION SHALL BE DUTY

(COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS)

Вам также может понравиться