1.

WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF ENDURAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO

PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE CHRISTLAND KINGDOM FOR THE
DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE DISASTER?
The Respondents claim that the Christland Kingdom is under no obligation to compensate
the other state for the disaster which occurred due to the actions of Enduras. Instead, it is the
obligation of the state of Enduras to pay for the same.
1. Christland is not under any obligation to compensate Enduras for Great
Opportunity Disaster:
As has already been dealt with in issue 1 and issue 2, the counsel claims that the disaster
which occurred cannot be attributed to the actions of Syndicate Company. The Co. fulfilled
all its obligations and no actions were done by the co. which could be called as
internationally wrongful act or any act done in violation of any treaty law or customary law
or violative of the rights of the petitioners.
There has been no causal link between the actions of Christland and the disaster which
resulted in such unrest. As already established by the counsel that it was not Christland who
was attributable to the disaster but Enduras and thus any right which has been violated of
Enduras has been done on its own account and thus Christland cannot be called to
compensate for the same.
2. Enduras is under obligation to compensate Christland for the Great Opportunity
Disaster:
This obligation emanates from two sources:
(i)

Obligation under the Articles of State Responsibility:

Article 31 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of states on Intentional Wrongful
Act states that:
The responsible State is under an obligation to make full reparation for the
injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.
In Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project case1 the court held that:

1 Gabcikovo- Nagymaros Project Case (Republic of Hungary v Slovak Republic) [1997] ICJ Rep 7.

-MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS-

It is a well-established rule of international law that an injured

State is entitled to obtain compensation from the State which
has committed an internationally wrongful act for the damage
caused by it.
The basic principle with regard to reparation, or the remedying of a breach of an
international obligation for which the state concerned is responsible was laid down in
the Chorzow Factory case,2 where the Permanent Court of International Justice
emphasised that,
The essential principle contained in the actual notion of an illegal act is that
reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal
act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if
that act had not been committed.
This principle was reaffirmed in a number of cases, including the Genocide
Convention (Bosnia v Serbia) case,3 and by the International Tribunal for the Law
of the Sea in M/V Saiga (No 2)4.
Article 34 of the ASR, provides that full reparation for the injury caused by the
internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation and
satisfaction, either singly or in combination.5
Article 36 provides for compensation by the state responsible.

2 Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzw( Germany v Poland) 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17.
3 Bosnia v Serbia (n 44).
4 M/V Saiga (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea) 120 ILR 143.
5 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Worngful Acts, with Commentaries (n 7)
95.

-MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS-

1. The State responsible for an internationally wrongful act is under an obligation

to compensate for the damage caused thereby, insofar as such damage is not made
good by restitution.
2. The compensation shall cover any financially assessable damage including loss
of profits insofar as it is established.

(ii)

Obligation as per the General Practice of Law: The Polluter Pays Principle
The polluter pays principle states that whoever is responsible for damage to the
environment should bear the costs associated with it. It simply requires that the
costs of pollution be borne by those who cause it.
This principle has been recognized expressly by the European Union in Treaty of
Functioning of European Union.6
Principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, which has been signed by a large number of
states, states that:
"National

authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of

environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of
pollution
Even the Preamble of International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness,
Response and Cooperation regards polluter pays Principle as the general
practice of International Law.
Additionally large number of global and regional agreements like the OSPAR
convention7, Kyoto Protocol, Antigua Convention8 and so on, have recognized the
principle and it can be given a status of general practice recognised by civilised
nations.
6 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (n 17) art 191(2).
7 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Worngful Acts (n 25) art 2(2)(b).
8 ibid art 5(6)(b).

-MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS-

SCOPE OF DAMAGES:The question arises under what heads, can a state claim compensation?
According to Article 36 of the ASR, a state can claim compensation for all the
Financially assessable damages which have occurred due to the fault of latter.
Financially assessable damage would be any damage which is capable of being evaluated
in financial terms.9 Financially assessable damage includes both:
a) damage suffered by the State itself (to its property or personnel or in respect of
expenditures reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate damage flowing from an
internationally wrongful act); as well as
b) damage suffered by Nationals, whether persons or companies, on whose behalf the
State is claiming within the framework of diplomatic protection.10
In this regards the petitioners state is under an obligation to provide for following damages:

1) Damage to Research Station :As has been clearly provided in the facts that the research station of the Respondent
state, named, Polaris was damaged.. The route to these stations was also hindered by
the spill and the laboratory facilities were rendered obsolete and incapable of being
used in future. Polaris was the permanent station established by Christland in CAT.
The purpose of Arkadus was to conduct research, survey, exploration and also
provided for technical support like weather forecast to expeditions, bases, vessels and
air carriers,11. Additionally, Polaris has basic laboratory facilities for conducting
scientific experiments on Antarctic wildlife and a sophisticated laboratory for

9 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Worngful Acts, with Commentaries (n 7)
99.
10 ibid
11 Compromis, Para 3.

-MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS-

conducting advanced experiments on mineral explorations in Antarctica and hence it

held an important position in the Antarctic regime of Enduras.
2) Economic loss :The counsel argues that it has been clear in the facts that the purpose of the Fairway
Enclave Project was for the research purposes in order to find out about the future
prospects of oil exploration in Antarctica.
(i)

For these purposes, Atlantis rig was leased by Christland at rate of $450000 per
day and Christland paid the same amount as contractor fees. Apart from these
investments, Christland had made arrangements for the research purposes and
huge amount of money was directed by the Christland Kingdom for the
purposes of this project. Because of Enduras actions, all these investments

(ii)

were turned futile and resulted in the huge losses for the respondents.
700000 gallons of oil was destroyed due to the accident which was ultimately
to be used for the research purposes. Wastage of such huge amount of oil can
be attributed to Panocean actions and thus Enduras would be liable for the
same.

Hence, the counsel for respondents humbly submits that it is the obligation of Enduras to pay for
the compensation for the loss of Christland owing to the state responsibility and general principle
of international law.

-MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENTS-