Leizl A.

Villapando LEGAL LOGIC AND TECHNIQUE May 22, 2019

THE 2019 PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION
IDENTIFICATION OF FALLACIES

1. Actions committed by Agistanus changed the natural condition of the river, depriving Behestoon
of its equitable and reasonable utilization of the resource.- False cause, there could be other causes
as to why the natural condition of the river changed.
2. Behestoon increasingly purchased the electricity it needed from Agistanus, generated from the
Namche Dam. Attempting to benefit also from Agistanus’ economic progress, Behestoon
established a number of freight processing depots, forwarding terminals near the mouth of Ozoonio
and a new port facility on Solonia Bay. During this period, Agistanus made all scheduled loan
payments on time.- Red Herring, the sentences are no longer coherent. Arguer leads the
listener/reader offtrack.
3. Positive and negative effects of the Namche Dam installation: Over the years, the project was
ranked as one of the five largest facilities of its kind in the world, and was capable of generating
enough domestic power. Also, Agistanus was producing enough food to create a budding export
market and processed its first shipments of rare earth minerals for sale on the world market.-
Suppresed evidence, there are other pieces of evidence that could be possible evidence of
Agistanus progress. Arguer ignores evidence that requires a different conclusion.

4. Despite this economic boom, neighboring Behestoon appeared to suffer a corresponding and
relative decline in its economic fortunes, much of which the governmental Ministries of Behestoon
attributed to the economic development in Agistanus. There seemed to be evidence of loss in
productivity among the riparian agricultural lands of Behestoon, reduced river fishing stocks,
periods of extreme eutrophication in the river, and increased costs in maintaining water treatment
facilities. Suppresed evidence, there are other pieces of evidence that could be possible evidence
of Beheeston’s suffering. Arguer ignores evidence that requires a different conclusion.

7. Equitable does not necessarily mean an equal portion of the resource or equal share of uses and
benefits. Equitable utilisation is governed by the principle of sovereign utilization of the
watercourse which stipulates that every riparian State has a right to the utilization of the
watercourse which is qualitatively equal to the rights of the co-riparians. Equivocation,
conclusions depends on a shift in meaning of a word or prhase such as “equal”, “equitable”.
9. However, this must not be mistaken for the right to an equal share of the uses and benefits; nor
does it imply that the water itself has to be divided into equal shares. What may be considered to
be perfectly reasonable by one State can be inequitable when looked at within the broader picture
of the whole and the various needs and interests of other States. Hence, reasonable uses are still
subject to an equitable allocation. Equivocation, conclusions depends on a shift in meaning of a
word or prhase such as “equal”, “equitable”.

10. Furthermore, equal division is a distinct concept from equitable utilization which primarily
rests on the foundation of shared sovereignty. Equitable utilization facilitates a balance of interest
among the states which concerns various needs and use of resources. Begging the question,
restating the conclusion as a premise, or reasoning in a circle.

11. Under the Principle 19 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, States shall provide prior and timely
notification and relevant information to potentially affected States on activities that may have a
significant adverse transboundary environmental effect and shall consult with those States at an
early stage and in good faith, which Agistanus has failed to do when the complaint of Behestoon’s
prime minister regarding the 33% decrease of water in the river’s flow and the growing concern
of increased levels of pesticide, herbicides, and nitrates and other chemicals present in the river
fell on deaf ears. False cause, the 33% decrease of water in the river could not be totally attributed
to the Agistanus failure.

14. It is a well-established practice, accepted as law, within the limits stipulated by international
law that every State is free to manage and utilize the natural resources within its jurisdiction and
to formulate and pursue its own environmental and developmental policies. However, this is not
an absolute right and is subject to restriction. States shall give due regard to the interests of other
States as well as those of present and future generations of humankind. Accident, a general rule
is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover i.e. State is free to manage and utilize the
natural resources within its jurisdiction when in fact States shall give due regard to the other
interests of other States.

16. The disparity of equipment and technology to construct the dam and mines compared to the
equipment used to contain the spill is indicative of misguidance, unpreparedness, and neglect
such that due diligence was not met. Agistanus’ approach in containing the toxic fumes in the
mines and the corrosive liquids in the river due to the absence of appropriate equipment and
technology are clear manifestations of failure to fulfil the standard of conduct expected of good
government. Slippery slope, the conclusion depended on an unlikely chain of reaction of causes
i.e. lack of good equipment should not eventually lead failure to fulfil the standard of conduct
expected of good government.

17. The president of Agistanus coldly met the situation by belying the issues and instead treated
it as a minor incident when in truth, there is a threat to a massive damage in the environment
affecting both states, which implies a denial of state obligation. Appeal to force, arguer
threatens the listener

18. We present the idea that the principle of prevention of transboundary harm does not conflict
with the requirement of equitable utilization. A state which fails to do its best to control
avoidable harm to other states cannot easily maintain that it is acting equitably or reasonably,
whichever principle prevails. Neither does an obligation to do its best to minimize unnecessary
or avoidable harm to other states impede the reasonable and equitable development of a
watercourse or the use of its waters in whatever way a state chooses. Accident, a general rule is
applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover i.e. the obligation to best minimize the
unnecessary or avoidable harm to other states

19. The increasing emphasis on the duty of States to take preventive measures to protect the
environment was strongly advocated by the International Court of Justice. The Court points out
that the principle of prevention, as a customary rule, where “every State’s obligation not to allow
knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.” Appeal to
people, the arguer incites an appeal to our desire for security and protection.

20. In this sense, Agistanus turned a blind eye with its obligation of adopting precautionary
approach before the project was concluded as they embraced a proposal without ensuring of a
project remediation measures in place in case of accident. Suppressed evidence,arguer ignores
important evidence that requires a different conclusion i.e. Agistanus turning blind eye with its
obligations

21. Environmental impact assessment were not complied despite the clear threats to the
environment posed by mines and the effects of closing the by-pass to the water flow. The effect
of closing the by-pass after the completion of the dam was never taken into consideration such
that the effect of extreme eutrophication was not prevented. Suppressed evidence, arguer
ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion i.e. Agistanus turning blind eye
with its obligations

22. Agistanus manifestly neglected their intergenerational responsibility in protecting the

environment by launching several projects that may severely damage the environment without
the necessary studies, skills and equipment. Their lack of foresight on matters that may cause
damage to the watercourse is a neglect of present and future responsibilities. Appeal to the
people, arguer incites a mob mentality for the desire for security and protection.

23. A type of situation calling for consultation arises when the activities of one state are likely to
affect the environment or the rights and interests of another state. Thus, a state may be obliged to
enter into consultations when, for example, pollution caused by the activities of one party to an
agreement is likely to affect adversely the interests of another party to that agreement; or when
there is a question of the ‘permissibility of environmentally harmful activities which entail or
may entail considerable nuisance’ in another party; or where a party is ‘actually affected by or
exposed to’ a significant risk of pollution. Appeal to the people, arguer incites an appeal for
the desire for security and protection.

24. States are under an obligation to inform and consult these other countries well in advance. In
the event of a transboundary environmental disaster such as a tanker accident, nuclear explosion
or toxic discharge or even less acute environmental problems, States are under an obligation to
warn other States and cooperate to contain and solve these problems. Appeal to the people,
arguer incites an appeal for the desire for security and protection.

25. General principles of international law imposing liability on actors for their illegal acts, or
for the adverse consequences of their lawful activities, are relatively well developed at a general
level, and are now reflected in the Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the ILC in 2001.
In relation to environmental damage, however, the liability rules are still evolving and in need of
further development. Accident, a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to
cover.

26. A basic underlying principle of State Responsibility recognized that states are accountable
for breaches of international law, be it from a treaty or customary international law. Such
responsibility is based on the existence of an internationally wrongful act attributable to the State
whether by positive action or by sheer omission. Accident, a general rule is applied to a specific
case it was not intended to cover.

28. Acts and omissions of the President of Agistanus, are attributable as the acts of the State,
hence, an international wrongful act of Agistanus.- Composition, an attribute is incorrectly
transferred from the parts to the whole, i.e. an act of the President is not always a
manifestations or acts of the State

29. There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when an act of that State is not in
conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.-
Composition, an attribute is incorrectly transferred from the parts to the whole i.e. the origin or
character is not always a reflection of the act of the State

31. Agistanus’ act of building a dam in Ozoonio River in order to derive benefits from it is
within its sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and
developmental policies. However, under international law, it has the corresponding obligation to
ensure that such activities within its jurisdiction do not cause damage to the environment of
others States. Composition, an attribute was considered transferred from the parts to the whole.

33. Preliminary testing of the river suggested increased levels of pesticides, herbicides,
nitrates, and other agricultural chemicals. They feared that the chemicals could lead to health
concerns, potential agricultural problems, and damage to the many sensitive aquatic species in
Solonia Bay and Bandeke Estuary. Slippery Slope, conclusions depends on an unlikely chains
of reactions

34. Under the principles of State Responsibility, Agistanus does not have any liability in
favor of Behestoon for their conduct in relation to the development of the Ozoonio River,
and corollarily, there is no entitlement for restitution. It is clear that Agistanus did not
commit internationally wrongful acts, applying the case of Phosphates in Morocco. First, it was
not the state itself, nor an organ or agent which committed the alleged violations. There was
no clear showing that the IRADB was under its representation, thus there is no possible
imputability of such acts.- Composition, an attribute was considered transferred from the parts
to the whole i.e. that the acts of IRADB is under representation of the States
35. Water is needed in all aspects of life. Freshwater resources serve as an essential
component of the Earth's hydrosphere and an indispensable part of all terrestrial ecosystems.
The general objective is to make certain that adequate supplies of water of good quality
are maintained for the entire population of this planet, while preserving the hydrological,
biological and chemical functions of ecosystems, adapting human activities within the
capacity limits of nature and combating vectors of water-related diseases. Innovative
technologies, including the improvement of indigenous technologies, are needed to fully utilize
limited water resources and to safeguard those resources against pollution. Begging the
question, reasoning is in circle with regard to water and water resources

36. It is generally recognized that the notion or principle of due diligence introduces a certain
degree of flexibility in the operation of a system of international responsibility. Carlebach posits
that the State has fulfilled its duty - that is the sense of "due diligence" - when it has used the
means available to it to prevent an offence under international law; if the offence is committed
nevertheless, the State incurs no responsibility. It is a question, therefore, of the precise
definition and delimitation of the obligation in international law to take certain measures;
nowhere is it said that these measures must be positive acts; an abstention may also be an act of
State. Composition, an attribute was considered transferred from the parts to the whole i.e.
State incurs no responsibility

37. The release of water from the dam would result to flooding in the low-lying area of
Behestoon. Moreover, the fact that Agistanus is engaged in the development of its agricultural
land, the release of water would wash down to Behestoon the agricultural chemicals used
by Agistanus, making the problem of toxicity in the river worse and more damaging
instead of being resolved.- Slippery Slope, the conclusion depended on an unlikely chain of
reaction of causes i.e. in consideration of development of Agustinus agricultural land to unlikely
chains of reactions resulting to flooding

38. IRADB’s internationally wrongful act, its omission is traceable to the conduct of its
agents: “the conduct of an organ or agent of an international organization in the performance
of functions of that organ or agent shall be considered an act of that organization under
international law, whatever position the organ or agent holds in respect of the
organization.- Composition, an attribute was considered transferred from the parts to the whole
i.e. IRADB’s intentional wrongful act, traceable to the conduct of its agents

39. Furthering this assumption, Behestoon is also, in any case, responsible for the pollution of
the Ozoonio River, as the longer portion of the river traverses within their territory, and area of
responsibility, and also, even before the dam, it was already a depository of their treated and
untreated industrial and domestic waste, making them liable under Article 9 of the Basel
Convention.- Suppressed Evidence, there could be other pieces of evidence that that’s the
cause of the pollution of the Ozoonio River

40. The conduct of the technical team or team of experts as agents of IRADB shows manifest
fraud and willful omission of informing Agistanus of possible risks and potential hazards. With
the attitude of IRADB’s technical team of experts before and after the catastrophe, a conclusion
can be drawn that the loan application would have not been accomplished had Agistanus
been informed of the potential hazards and that this would have not been accomplished
without the knowledge of IRADB. Missing the point, arguer draws a conclusion different from
the one supported by the premises i.e from manifest fraud and willful omission of informing
Agistanus of possible risks and potential hazards a conclusion can be drawn that the loan
application would have not been accomplished had Agistanus been informed of the potential
hazards