W-08R

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

THE CASE CONCERNING

THE MANATEES AND MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS

REPUBLIC OF MANATUS
(APPLICANT)
versus
FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS
(RESPONDENT)

W-08R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
QUESTIONS PRESENTED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT.
I.

THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS IS NOT OBLIGED TO

CONDUCT AN EIA WITH REGARD TO SENECOS EXPLORATORY
ACTIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ)..
A. SENECOS MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYSWITHIN
SENEGALENSIS EEZ IS NOT INCLUDED IN APPENDIX I OF
THE ESPOO CONVENTION.
B. MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS DO NOT CAUSE
TRANSBOUNDARY IMPACT..
i. THERE IS NO CLEAR PROOF THAT THE MARINE SEISMIC
SURVEYS CAUSED THE STRANDING OF MANATEES
ii. SENECOS EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES ARE DONE ONLY IN
SENEGALENSIS EEZ
iii. SENECO HAS TAKEN THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONARY
MEASURES
iv. THE VESSEL USED FOR THE MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY IS
MODEST IN SIZE
C. THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS IS NOT OBLIGATED
TO CONDUCT AN EIA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CBD
AND UNCLOS
D. THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS HAS A SOVEREIGN
RIGHT OVER THE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED WITHIN ITS
EEZ

II.

SENECOS ACTIONS IN EXPLORING RESOURCES WITHIN THE

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF FEDERAL STATE OF
SENEGALENSIS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATES RIGHTS AND
OBLIGATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. .

W-08R
A. SENECOS MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY ACTIVITIES DO NOT
CAUSE TRANSBOUNDARY HARM
B. THE EXPLORATION ACTIVITIES OF SENECO DOES NOT
VIOLATE ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW OR AGREEMENT
C. THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS IS ONLY
SAFEGUARDING ITS ECONOMIC SURVIVAL WHICH IS AN
ESSENTIAL INTEREST

W-08R
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
Convention on Biological Diversity, Jun. 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 .................................. passim
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Feb. 25 1991, 30
I.L.M (1997)........................................................................................................................... passim
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Feb 12 1946, 161 U.N.T.S. 2124 ....5, 19
Statute of the International Court of Justice, T.S. No. 993 (1945) ............................................1, 15
U.N. Charter ...................................................................................................................................19
United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development, June 3-14, 1992, Rio
Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 151/26 (1992) ........................5, 22
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 5-16, 1972, Stockholm Declaration
on the Human Environment, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 48/14/Rev.1 (1973) ....................................5, 19
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397 ....... passim
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 .................. passim
World Summit on Sustainable Development, August 26-September 4, 2002 ...........................5, 15
INTERNATIONAL COURT AND TRIBUNAL DECISIONS
EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Report of Appellate Body,
Adjusted Basis 1997-4, WT/DS26/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998), 1998 WL 25520 (W.T.O.) 21
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project, (Hung. v. Slovk.) 1997 I.C.J. 7 (Judgment Order of
Sept. 25) ...................................................................................................................................23, 24
Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.) 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Judgment Order of Dec. 20) ..............................21, 23
Trail Smelter (U.S. v. Can.) 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1949) .....................................................................20
DOMESTIC LAW DECISIONS iii

W-08R
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Natl Sci. Found., 2002 WL 31548073
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2002) ...............................................................................................................14
NRDC v. Dept. of the Navy, 2002 WL 32095131 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2002) ...............................14
NRDC v. Evans, 279 F.Supp.2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ................................................................14
STATUTES
42 U.S.C. 4332 .............................................................................................................................14
LAW REVIEW ARTICLES
John F. Beggs, Combating Biospheric Degradation: International Environmental Impact
Assessment and the Transboundary Pollution Dilemma, 6 FORDHAM ENVTL. L.J. 379, 388
(1995) ...............................................................................................................................................8
Patricia W. Birnie, Small Cetaceans and the International Whaling Commission, 10 GEO. INTL.
L.REV. 1, 24 (1997)........................................................................................................................19
Alan E. Boyle, Marine Pollution Under the Law of the Sea Convention, 79 AM. J. INTL L. 347
(1985) .............................................................................................................................................16
Harm M. Dotinga and Alex Elferink, Acoustic Pollution in the Oceans: The Search for Legal
Standards, 31 OCEAN DEV. AND INTL LAW 154 (2000) .......................................................
passim
Pierre-Marie Dupoy, Soft law and the International Law of the Environment, 12 MICH. J. INT
L. L. 420, 422 (1991) ....................................................................................................................15
Daniel Inkelas, Security, Sound, and Cetaceans: Legal Challenges to Low Frequency Active
Sonar Under U.S. and International Environmental Law, 37 GEO. WASH. INTL L. REV. 207
(2005) .............................................................................................................................................16
Elena M. McCarthy, International regulation of Transboundary Pollutants: The Emerging
Challenge of Ocean Noise, 6 OCEAN & COASTAL L.J. 257 (2001) ..........................................11,
16
Karen N. Scott, International Regulation of Undersea Noise, 53 INTL & COMP. L. Q. 287
(2004) .......................................................................................................................................11, 16
Russell Unger, Brandishing the Precautionary Principle through the Alien Tort Claims Act, 9
N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 638, 647-669 (2001) ......................................................................................21
SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Jay Barlow and Robert Gisiner, Mitigating, Monitoring and Assessing the Effects of
Anthropogenic Sound on Beaked Whales, 7(3) J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 239 (2006) ......11,
22 iv
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Annex A JNCC Guidelines for Minimising the Risk of
Disturbance and Injury to Marine Mammals from Seimic Surveys, available at
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/Seismic Guidelines June 2009_ver01.pdf , (June 2009). ...............22
R.D. McCauley et al., Marine Seismic Surveys: A Study of Environmental Implications, 40
APPEA JOURNAL 692 (2000) ...................................................................................................10,
21
Gregory Parry and Anne Gason, The Effect of Seismic Surveys on Catch Rates of Rock Lobsters
in Western Victoria, Australia, 79 FISHERIES RESEARCH 272
(2006) ............................................10
Bill Streever et al., Managing Marine Mammal Issues: Corporate Policy, Stakeholder
Engagement, Applied Research, and Training, 2 SPE 111479 (2008) ....................................11, 14
MISCELLANEOUS
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ ..........8

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

W-08R
Convention on Biological Diversity, 31 I.L.M. 818 (1992).
10, 12, 13
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Feb. 25,
1991, 1989 U.N.T.S. 309, 30 I.L.M. 802.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12
Second Amendment to the Espoo Convention, June 4, 2004.
3
U.N. CHARTER.
9
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
3, 4, 11
Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3.
10, 12
U.N. DOCUMENTS
Addendum-Eighth Report on State Responsibility by Mr. Roberto Ago, Special Rapporteurthe Internationally Wrongful Act of the State, Source of International Responsibility(part I)
U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/318/Add.5-7 (1980).
21, 23
Agreed General Principles to Minimise the Risks of Adverse Impacts of Whalewatching on
Cetaceans (1996).
19
Consideration of Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities and
Allocation of Loss in the Case of Such Harm, G.A. Res. 62/68 U.N. Doc.A/RES/62/452 62nd
sess. Agenda item 84 (2008).
15
Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, annex, 25 UNGA Res.2625 (XXV), U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No.28),
U.N. Doc.A/5217 (1970), at 121.
9

W-08R
Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Fifty-Third Session (2001),
U.N. Doc.A/56/10.
15, 16
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, G.A. Res. 56/83, Annex, U.N.
Doc. A/RES/58/83/Annex (2002).
11, 21
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N. Doc.A/CONF.151/26 (1992).
20
Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, U.N.Doc.A/CONF.48/14/
Rev.1 (1973).
10, 15
JUDICIAL AND ARBITRAL DECISIONS
Respondents Preliminaries Page VI of XIV
Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), 1949 I.C.J. 4.
15
EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS48/AB/R, (1998).
18
Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. v. Iran, 12 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 335 (1985).
11
Gabkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7.
21, 22
International Technical Products Corp. v. Iran, 9 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 206.
11
Lac Lanoux (Fr. v. Spain), 12 R.I.A.A. 281 (1957).
16
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 226.
13

W-08R
LG&E Capital Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID (W.Bank) Case No.ARB/02/1, 2006
WL2985837 (2006).
22
MOX Plant, Order No. 3 (Ir. v. U.K.) Perm. Ct. Arb., 42 I.L.M. 1187 (2003).
13
SEDCO, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Co., 15 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 23 (1987).
11
Trail Smelter Arbitration (U.S. v. Can.), 3 R.I.A.A. 1905 (1938/1941).
14, 16
BOOKS, TREATISES, DIGESTS AND RESTATEMENTS
ATAPATTU, EMERGING PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
(2006).
8
BIRNIE & BOYLE, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT (2002).
18, 20
BOYLE & CHINKIN, THE MAKING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (2007).
19
BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES, SONAR VERSUS
SEISMIC: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES? (2003).
1
BROWNLIE, PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW (2003).
9, 18
CRAIK, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(2008).
1, 19
CRAWFORD, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSIONS ARTICLES ON STATE
RESPONSIBILITY: INTRODUCTION, TEXT AND COMMENTARIES (2002).
11
CROOK, OIL TERMS: A DICTIONARY OF TERMS USED IN OIL EXPLORATION AND

W-08R
2
Respondents Preliminaries Page VII of XIV
DEVELOPMENT (1975).
DAMROSCH, ET AL., INTERNATIONAL LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS (2001).
18
FITZMAURICE, RESERVATIONS TO MULTILATERAL TREATIES (1953).
3
GALES , ET AL., MARINE MAMMALS: FISHERIES, TOURISM AND MANAGEMENT
ISSUES (2003).
17
HIGHAM & LUCK, MARINE WILDLIFE AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT (2008).
17
HYNE, NONTECHNICAL GUIDE TO PETROLEUM GEOLOGY, EXPLORATION,
DRILLING AND PRODUCTION (2001).
1,2,3
INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION, ANNEX K: REPORT OF THE
STANDING WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, 58TH MEETING
OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION (2006).
8
JAHN, COOK & GRAHAM, HYDROCARBON EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION
(2008).
1,2,3
LOUKA, INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: FAIRNESS, EFFECTIVENESS,
AND WORLD ORDER (2006).
18
MCNAIR, THE LAW OF TREATIES (1961).
4
SANDS, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (2003).
4,9,10,19

W-08R
SHAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW (2008).
10,3
SINCLAIR, THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (1973).
4
ESSAYS, ARTICLES AND JOURNALS
Ahlund, Major Obstacles to Building the Rule of Law in a Post-Conflict Environment, 39
NEW ENG. L. REV. 39 (2004).
21
Barlow & Gisiner, Mitigating, Monitoring and Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound
on Beaked Whales, 7 J. CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 239 (2006).
8
Boyle, Soft Law in International Law-Making, reprinted in INTERNATIONAL LAW (2006).
19
Cameron & Abouchar, The Status of the Precautionary Principle in International Law, in THE
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE AND INTERNATIONAL
18, 19
Respondents Preliminaries Page VIII of XIV
LAW: CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION (1996).
Cassar, Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment in International Watercourse
Management, 12 N.Y.U. ENVTL. L.J. 169 (2003).
8
Clermont, 2003 Legislative Review, 10 ANIMAL L. 363 (2004).
15
Cox, et al., Understanding the Impacts of Anthropogenic Sound on Beaked Whales, 7 J.
CETACEAN RES. MANAGE. 177 (2006).
6, 7, 14
Cray & Drutman, Corporations and the Public Purpose: Restoring the Balance, 4 SEATTLE
J. SOC. JUST. 305 (2005).
21

W-08R
Cunningham, Do Brothers Divide Shares Forever? Obstacles to the Effective Use of
International Law in Euphrates River Basin Water Issues, 21 U. PA. J. INTL ECON. L. 131
(2000).
15
Fernandez, et al., Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked
Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals, 42 VET. PATHOL 446
(2005).
6
Gordon, et al., A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals, 37
MARINE TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY J. 16 (2004).
8
Handl, Environmental Security and Global Change: The Challenge of International Law, in
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW (1994).
19
Hathaway & Cusick, Refugee Rights are not Negotiable, 14 GEO. IMMIGR. L.J. 481 (2000).
13
Klein, et al., Modernizing Water Law: The Example of Florida, 61 FLA. L. REV. 403 (2009).
16
Mank, Can Plaintiffs Use Multinational Environmental Treaties as Customary International
Law to Sue under the Alien Tort Statute?, 2007 UTAH L. REV. 1085 (2007).
13
Parente, et al., Diversity of Cetaceans as Tool in Monitoring Environmental Impacts of
Seismic Surveys, 7 BIOTA NEOTROP 50 (2007).
6
Streever, et al., Managing Marine Mammal Issues: Corporate Policy, Stakeholder
Engagement, Applied Research, and Training, 2 SPE 111479 (2008).
6, 17
Tanaka, Lessons from the Protracted MOX Plant dispute: A Proposed Protocol
13
Respondents Preliminaries Page IX of XIV

W-08R
on Marine Environmental Impact Assessment to the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, 25 MICH. J. INTL L. 337 (2004).
Thompson, A Multifaceted Approach to the Regulation of Cyanide in Gold Mining, 29
SUFFOLK TRANSNATL L. REV. 79 (2005).
13
Tinker, State Responsibility and the Precautionary Principle, in THE PRECAUTIONARY
PRINCIPLE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE CHALLENGE OF IMPLEMENTATION
(1996).
18, 19
Tucker, Constitutional Codification of an Environment Ethic, 52 FLA. L. REV. 299 (2000).
12
Weir, Short-Finned Pilot Whales: Respond to an Airgun Ramp-up Procedure off Gabon, 34
AQUATIC MAMMALS 349 (2008).
8
Zhu, Chinese Practice in Public International Law, 6 CHINESE J. INTL L. 711 (2007).
9
MISCELLANEOUS
Status of Treaties, Amendment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, available at <http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?
src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-4-c&chapter=27&lang=en> (last accessed Nov. 18, 2009).

W-08R
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

W-08R
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

WHETHER OR NOT SENECOS MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY

ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF THE
FEDERAL SATE OF SENEGALENSIS REQUIRE A PREPARATION OF EIA.

2.

WHETHER OR NOT SENECOS MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY

ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF THE
FEDERAL SATE OF SENEGALENSIS VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW.

W-08R
STATEMENTS OF FACTS
The Republic of Manatus and Federal State of Senegalensis coastal states sharing a
common territorial boundary and their exclusive economic zomes are adjacent to each other
(R.1).
The Republic of Manatus has approximately 250,000 people (R.2). Tourism,
agriculture and artisan fishing are their main economic activities (R.2). Tourism is the largest
source of hard currency hosting more than 100,000 international visitors in 2014 (R.2). The
republic is known for its beaches and coral reefs and for being a home to diverse animals
(R.2).Manatus designated their MPA wherein they only allow sport and subsistence fishing
and extraction of mineral is prohibited (R.4).
The Federal State of Senegalensis, on the other hand,has a population of
approximately 25 million people. (R.3). Being newly industrialized, it is banking on
exportation of oil and natural gas a its main source of revenue. (R.3).Federal State of
Senegalensis therefore allowed SENECO to conduct marine seismic surveys to explore its
EEZ in December 2013(R.18).

W-08R
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Federal State of Senegalensis is not obliged to conduct an eia with regard to
senecos exploratory actions within the Federal State of Senegalensis exclusive economic
zone (EEZ).
Senecos actions in exploring resources within the exclusive economic zone of the
Federal State of Senegalensis are consistent with the states rights and obligation under
international law.

W-08R
ARGUMENTS
I.

THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS IS NOT OBLIGED TO CONDUCT

AN EIA WITH REGARD TO SENECOS EXPLORATORY ACTIONS WITHIN
THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE
(EEZ)
The Federal State of Senegalensis and the Republic of Manatus are parties to the
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (Espoo Convention), United Nations
Convention on the Law and CBD. There are no provisions in these three treaties that
require the Federal State of Senegalensis to prepare an Environmental Impact
Assessment.
In the Espoo Convention, The Party of origin shall ensure that in accordance with
the provisions of this Convention an environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior
to a decision to authorize or undertake a proposed activity listed in Appendix I that is
likely to cause a significant adverse transboundary impact. SENECOs actions do not
constitute both.
A. SENECOS MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYSWITHIN SENEGALENSIS
EEZ IS NOT INCLUDED IN APPENDIX I OF THE ESPOO
CONVENTION
The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary
Context (Espoo Convention) requires that an EIA must be prepared prior to a decision
to authorize or undertake a proposed activity if such activity is listed in Appendix I of
the said treaty.
1.

Marine Seismic Surveys are merely exploration activities.

Seismic surveys are a safe and proven technology that helps make offshore
energy development safer and more efficient. Seismic surveying is an essential part of
exploring for oil and natural gas. In offshore areas, seismic surveys are conducted by
slow-moving ships that tow various types of equipment. Seismic surveys gather
information on the subsurface by producing sound waves near the surface that travel
downward and are reflected off the different layers of rock. The reflected sound waves
travel back to the surface where the information is recorded by sensitive instruments.
The information is then processed into an image of the subsurface, which
geoscientists use to determine if conditions are favourable for deposits of oil and
natural gas. No hydrocarbon extraction is conducted yet.
2.

It is clarified in the second amendment to Appendix I of the espoo

Convention that marine seismic surveys cannot be considered as
offshore hydrocarbon production.

W-08R
Even though Senegalensis has not ratified the second amendment yet the fact
that Manatus has ratified it bounds them to interpret hydrocarbon production as
stated in the amendment. Moreover, the Vienna Convention provides that a treaty
shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given
to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

B. MARINE SEISMIC SURVEYS DO NOT CAUSE TRANSBOUNDARY

IMPACT
1.

There is no clear proof that the marine seismic surveys caused the
stranding of manatees

Although it has been hypothesized that seismic activities may lead to strandings, no
correlation has been found. Regarding manatees, there is no report of seismic survey impacts
on this group of marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995), but the movements of boats in
extremely shallow waters, characteristic of OBC seismic surveys, is a possible source of
collision risk for these slow-moving animals (Gerstein 2002). Animal strandings can occur
for a number of reasons, e.g., sickness, disorientation, natural mortality, extreme weather
conditions or injury, but no correlation has been found with seismic surveys.

2.

SENECOs exploration activities are done only within

Senegalensis eez
3.
SENECO has taken the necessary precautionary measures
4.
The vessel used for the marine seismic survey is modest in size
C. THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
CONDUCT AN EIA UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CBD AND
UNCLOS
D. THE FEDERAL STATE OF SENEGALENSIS HAS A SOVEREIGN RIGHT
OVER THE AACTIVITIES CONDUCTED WITHIN ITS EEZ

W-08R

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Federal State of Senegalensis hereby respectfully request the Honorable

International Court of Justice to declare that:
3.

SENECOs marine seismic survey activities within the exclusive economic

zone of the Federal Sate of Senegalensis do not require a preparation of EIA and;

4.

SENECOs marine seismic survey activities within the exclusive economic

zone of the Federal Sate of Senegalensis is consistent with the International Law.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________________
AGENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS