Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

IN THE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE


AT THE PEACE PALACE THE HAGUE,
NETHERLANDS
A CASE CONCERNING
THE SISTERS OF THE SUN
THE FEDERATION OF THE CLANS OF ATAN
APPLICANT
v.
THE KINGDOM OF RAHAD
RESPONDENT
A MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

THE KINGDOM OF RAHAD

SEPTEMBER 12, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
........................................................................................................................ i Index of
Authorities .................................................................................................................. iii
Statement of Jurisdiction
......................................................................................................... xi Questions
Presented................................................................................................................ xii
Statement of
Facts................................................................................................................... xiii
Summary of Pleadings
......................................................................................................... xviii Pleadings
.................................................................................................................................... 1

I. RAHADS EXTRACTION OF WATER FROM THE AQUIFER DOES NOT


VIOLATE RAHADS INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS GOVERNING THE
PROPER USE OF SHARED
RESOURCES.. 1

A.UNILATERAL
DECLARATION.. 1

1. The declaration made by the Rahidi Minister of Water and Agriculture


does not constitute a unilateral declaration that gives rise to an
international
obligation
..... 1

2. Even if such declaration constitutes a unilateral declaration, the legal


obligation that arose was validly terminated by reason of rebus sic
stantibus..
.. 3

B. RAHADS EXTRACTION OF WATER FROM THE AQUIFER IS IN


ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TRANSBOUNDARY
AQUIFER AND DID NOT VIOLATE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL
LAW.....
.. 4

1. Rahad has utilized the waters of the aquifer equitably and


reasonably...
... 4

2. Rahad, by utilizing the aquifer, did not cause significant harm to Atania
as there is no proof to establish that the drying up of Atanias farmlands
was directly caused by extracting water from the
aquifer....
.. 6

3. Rahad is not bound by the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary


Aquifers
.... 7

C. Rahad responded to an emergency situation that needed to be acted


upon for
survival....
14

1. Sovereignty....

2. Rahads absolute right to water found within its


territory........

3. The extraction of water from the Aquifer was done in order to respond to
an emergency situation necessary for the survival of the people of
Rahad....

D. The Kingdom of Rahad is not bound by the Draft Articles on the Law of
Transboundary
Aquifers...
.. 15
Conclusion and Prayer for
Relief..... 18

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I.C.J. & P.C.I.J. CASES

New Zealand vs France, ICJ Rep 99 (1973), ICGJ 130 (ICJ


1973)............................................................
........ 7
Hungary v Slovakia, ICJ Rep 7
(1997)......................................................................................................
...... 13
United Kingdom v Iceland, ICJ Reports
(1973)....................................................................................
........ 8
ARTICLES

Internet sources

McCaffrey, Stephen C. The International Law Commission Adopts Draft Articles on


Transboundary Aquifers. 2009. Accessed: March 6, 2017.
<http://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=facultya
rticles>....... 9
The law of transboundary aquifers (Agenda item 85). 2008. Accessed: March 6, 2017.
<http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/66/TransAquifer.html>........................................................
...... 16
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARISING IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS.
November 11-29, 2002. <http://www.unhcr.org/en-
us/publications/operations/49d095742/committee-economic-social-cultural-rights-
general-comment-15-2002-
right.html>......................................................................................... 10
BOOKS AND TREATISES

Treaties
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(1969)................................................................................
. 8,12
The Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers
(2008)........................................................
9,12,13
Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourse
(1997).................................
...... 9
The Helenski Rules on the Uses of International Rivers
(1966)..............................................................
...... 9
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(1966)................................................
. 10,13
Book
H. Steinberger. Sovereignty. in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law. Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol 10. North Holland,
1987..
14

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

On 12 September 2017, the Federation of the Clans of the Atan and the Kingdom of
Rahad submit the recent dispute to the court, in accordance with Article 40(1) of the
Statute of the International Court of Justice. See the Special Agreement between the
Federation of the Clans of the Atan and the Kingdom of Rahad for submission to the
International Court of Justice on the differences between them concerning The Sisters of
the Sun.
SUMMARY OF PLEADING
QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Whether Rahads extraction of water from the Aquifer violates Rahads


international legal obligations governing the proper use of shares resources.
MAIN PLEADING

I. RAHADS EXTRACTION OF WATER FROM THE AQUIFER DOES NOT VIOLATE


RAHADS INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS GOVERNING THE PROPER
USE OF SHARED RESOURCES.
A. UNILATERAL DECLARATION

1. The declaration made by the Rahidi Minister of Water and Agriculture does not
constitute a unilateral declaration that gives rise to an international obligation.
The United Nations Guiding Principles applicable to unilateral declarations of
States provides in principle number four that: A unilateral declaration binds the State
internationally only if it is made by an authority vested with the power to do so. By virtue
of their functions, heads of State, heads of Government and ministers for foreign affairs
are competent to formulate such declarations. Thus, it can be said that the statement
made by the Rahidi Minister of Water and Agriculture on the first UN World Water Day in
March 22, 1993, wherein she promised that Rahad will make every reasonable effort to
preserve and protect the shared freshwater resources of the Nomad Coast and to
ensure its equitable use can, taken as is can give basis to the claim that such
declaration created legal obligations for Rahad which cannot be revoked arbitrarily.
However, number seven of the same guiding principles states that: A unilateral
declaration entails obligations for the formulating State only if it is stated in clear and
specific terms. In the case of doubt as to the scope of the obligations resulting from such
a declaration, such obligations must be interpreted in a restrictive manner. In interpreting
the content of such obligations, weight shall be given first and foremost to the text of the
declaration, together with the context and the circumstances in which it was formulated.
The statement made by the Rahidi minister is couched in general terms. The
obligation to preserve and protect a resource is a natural one. In this case, since sixty
five percent of the aquifer is located in Rahad, it can be said that the obligation to protect
and preserve the aquifer will redound to the benefit of Rahad. Furthermore, nothing in
what he said expressly states the obligations with which Rahad seeks to bind itself as
there was no mention of any specifics that would address the terms and scope of the
obligation. The statement made can thus be regarded as a generic statement made in
the interest of diplomacy.
The context and circumstances attending the declaration should also be
considered in determining of Rahads intent to be bound. It can be gleaned from the
facts of the case that such declaration was made prior to Rahads knowledge that the
recharge rate of the aquifer is negligible. Absent this knowledge, the Rahidi Minister of
Water and Agriculture would not have known the gravity of the water supply problem.
It has been a long standing principle in international law that an oral declaration
made by a minister of a state shall be interpreted in a restrictive manner and as such, it
will give rise to an international obligation only when there is a clear intent to be bound;
the terms and scope of the obligations are clear and specific; and that the context and
circumstances existing upon such declaration amounts to an unequivocal intent to be
bound. All these elements are absent in this case and therefore it can be concluded that
the declaration made by the Rahidi Minister of Water and agriculture does not constitute
a unilateral declaration that gives rise to an obligation under international law.

Furthermore, in the Nuclear Test Case (New Zealand vs France, [1973] ICJ Rep
99 (Official Citation), ICGJ 130 (ICJ 1973), the International Court ruled that:

It is well recognized that declarations made by way of unilateral


acts, concerning legal or factual situations, may have the effect of
creating legal obligations. Nothing in the nature of a quid pro quo, nor any
subsequent acceptance, nor even any reaction from other States is
required for such declaration to take effect. Neither is the question of form
decisive. The intention of being bound is to be ascertained by an
interpretation of the act. The binding character of the undertaking
results from the terms of the act and is based on good faith
interested States are entitled to require that the obligation be
respected.

x x x x x x

Thus the Court faces a situation in which the objective of


the Applicant has in effect been accomplished, inasmuch as the Court
finds that France has undertaken the obligation to hold no further nuclear
tests in the atmosphere in the South Pacific. The Applicant has sought
an assurance from France that the tests would cease and France, on
its own initiative, has made a series of statements to the effect that
they will cease. The Court concludes that France has assumed an
obligation as to conduct, concerning the effective cessation of the tests,
and the fact that the Applicant has not exercised its right to discontinue
the proceedings does not prevent the Court from making its own
independent finding on the subject. As a court of law, it is called upon to
resolve existing disputes between States: these disputes must continue to
exist at the time when the Court makes its decision. In the present case,
the dispute having disappeared, the claim no longer has any object and
there is nothing on which to give judgment. (emphasis ours)

The Nuclear Test Case does not fall squarely on the case of Atan and Rahad. In said
case, the International Court ruled on the predicate that the Office of the President of
France communicated to New Zealand that all nuclear tests are completed. Said
President was clear and categorical in referring to the act of complained of. Here,
Rahad had no intent to be bound by its declaration on the speech made by Rahadi
Minister of Water and Agriculture on the First UN World Water Day dated March 22,
1993 because there is nothing in the statement of the Minister which directly refers the
sharing of the Greater Inata Aquifer between the two states. The speech was couched in
general terms and could not have included that the Aquifer. To conclude, there was no
unilateral declaration to speak of in the first place.

2. Even if such declaration constitutes a unilateral declaration, the legal obligation


that arose was validly terminated by reason of rebus sic stantibus.
Article sixty-two of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties codifies
the common law principle of rebus sic stantibus which provides that a fundamental
change in circumstances may be invoked as a ground in terminating or withdrawing from
a treaty when the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the
consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty and the effect of the change is radically
to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.
Assuming that the unilateral declaration made in 1993 by the Rahidi Minister of
Water and Agriculture gave rise to an international obligation, such obligation was validly
terminated by the fundamental change of circumstance as what happened when in
2000, Rahad received the follow-up report made by a team of hydrologists from Alberta,
Canada saying that the recharge rate of the Aquifer is negligible and any water
extracted from it would not be replenished for many generations. The unilateral
declaration made 17 years prior by the Rahidi Minister of Water and Agriculture was in
reference to the use of the aquifer. Thus, it is clear that the subject matter of such
obligation, if it exists, is the use of the water found in the aquifer. The obligation it bound
itself to undertake was made in consideration that Rahad thought that it had access to
an abundant water supply which it could afford to share as it was the smaller country
and had a bigger share of the aquifers water supply there being no knowledge on its
part that it would take years to replenish the water extracted.
In the case of Fisheries Jurisdiction United Kingdom v Iceland (ICJ Reports 1973),
the International Court of Justice ruled that: International law admits that a fundamental
change in the circumstances which determined the parties to accept a treaty, if it has
resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the obligations imposed by it, may,
under certain conditions, afford the party affected a ground for invoking the termination
or suspension of the treaty. The Court emphasized the fact that the changes must have
increased the burden of the obligations to be executed to the extent of rendering
performance something essentially different from the original intention.
The 2000 report made by the Canadian hydrologist changed the circumstances
that constituted an essential basin of the consent by Rahad to be bound by its unilateral
declaration. The information that it received about the recharge rate of the aquifer gives
Rahad the reason to validly terminate the treated in order to protect its own interest. The
continued sharing of its water supply to Atania, a bigger country with more water
consumption is prejudicial to Rahads ability to provide water to its people for the years
to come.

B. RAHADS EXTRACTION OF WATER FROM THE AQUIFER IS IN ACCORDANCE


WITH THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TRANSBOUNDARY AQUIFER AND DID NOT
VIOLATE CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW OR TREATY.

1. Rahad has utilized the waters of the aquifer equitably and reasonably.

Assuming that The Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Articles are
binding on Rahad as customary law or as a treaty, Rahad would not be violating its part
under its principles.

Article 3 of The Draft articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers provides:

Each aquifer State has sovereignty over the portion of a transboundary aquifer
or aquifer system located within its territory. It shall exercise its sovereignty in
accordance with international law and the present articles. 1
However, if the subject matter being regulated is something that moves from one
state to another, from underground to surface in the hydrologic cycle, such as in the
case of an aquifer, the notion that states have sovereignty over it is not absolute.
Considering the language of Article 3 and the commentary on the draft, the Commission
seems to refer to the subject matter as a part of an aquifer "located" within a state's
territory. According to the commentary, "In essence, each aquifer State has sovereignty
over the transboundary aquifer or aquifer system to the extent located within its territory."
An aquifer rock can be "located" within a state. The term "located," which is used in the
sense of "situated," does not accurately describe something moving, such as water
flowing through an aquifer. A substance moving from one state to another is not
something that accords with normal conceptions of what falls under a state's
sovereignty: its territory, including its territorial sea. 1

But this does not mean that aquifer states do not have any right to the usage and
consumption of the transboundary aquifer that flows within its territory. The 1997
Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses represent,
which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, provides a legal
framework for inter-State cooperation on international watercourses. Although it is not
yet in force, this Conventions core principles, e.g. equitable and reasonable utilization
and the no-harm rule are already part of international customary law. These principles
are also recognized by The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International
Rivers. 2

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________

1. (source: http://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1274&context=facultyarticles)
2. (source: 1997 Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourse, and The Helenski Rules on the Uses of International Rivers)

Basically, the principles in relation to transboundary waters, including aquifers,


are that, both Rahad and Atan have the right to utilize and consume the aquifer,
provided that they do so equitably and reasonably, and provided further, that their usage
and consumption thereof do not, in any way, cause significant harm to each other.

Article 5 of The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers
laid down some of the factors to be considered in the determination of reasonable and
equitable share. Stated somewhat more generally, the factor-analysis approach seeks
primarily to determine, among others, whether any of the uses is essential to human life,
and is socially and economically valuable.

The right to water has been consistently addressed by the Committee on


Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They claimed that
water is required for a range of different purposes, besides personal and domestic uses,
to realize many of the Covenant rights. For instance, water is necessary to produce food
(right to adequate food), and ensure environmental hygiene (right to health). Water is
essential for securing livelihoods (right to gain a living by work), and enjoying certain
cultural practices (right to take part in cultural life). Nevertheless, priority in the allocation
of water must be given to the right to water for personal and domestic uses. Priority
should also be given to the water resources required to prevent starvation and disease. 3
Consequently, the use of Rahad of the aquifer was done for sustenance and out
of dire necessity. The statement made by Queen Teresa on February 2, 2003
manifested the dilemma that Rahad was facing; drought conditions returned to the
region, with record-low rainfall recorded throughout the Nomad Coast. The Kingdom of
Rahad lacked water to sustain the farmers, who in turn, grew their food and provide
sustenance for the people therein. This dilemma left the Queen with no choice but to
utilize the water from the aquifer to ensure that the needs of the Rahadi people could be
met. As a developing nation that suffers the effects of extreme drought and climate
changes, Rahad had the right and indeed the obligation to seek out ways of using that
resource to sustain its people. Otherwise, the crisis would lead to their starvation and
eventually, death. Hence, the Queen made use of the aquifer reasonably for it was done
in the interest of public health, security, and welfare.
Further, there was no proof that the utilization of Rahad of the aquifer was not
equitable. The term equitable does not equate to equality; rather, equitable means
fairness. In this case, Rahads use of the aquifer is considered fair because as between
the two countries, Rahad is poorer. In 2016, Rahads GDP was only $11 Billion, whereas
Atanias was $80 Billion. Hence, Atania has more means to outsource water to provide
and sustain the needs of their people.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________

3.http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/publications/operations/49d095742/committee-economic-social-cultural-rights-general-comment-15-2002-
right.html
2. Rahad, by utilizing the aquifer, did not cause significant harm to Atania as there
is no proof to establish that the drying up of Atanias farmlands was directly
caused by extracting water from the aquifer.

The obligation not to cause significant harm is derived from the theory of limited
territorial sovereignty. The theory of limited territorial sovereignty stipulates that all
watercourse States have an equal right to the utilization of a shared watercourse, but
they must also respect the sovereignty of other States to equal rights of use. The duty
not to cause significant harm is a due diligence obligation of prevention, rather than an
absolute prohibition on transboundary harm. 4

There was no proof that Rahads utilization of the aquifer exceeded what is
allowed of them to use. Under the UN Watersources Convention, the obligation not to
cause significant harm is derived from the theory of limited territorial sovereignty.

The theory of limited territorial sovereignty stipulates that:

All watercourse States have an equal right to the utilization of a


shared watercourse, but they must also respect the sovereignty of other
States to equal rights of use.

Rahad and Atania have equal rights over the aquifer, and they have the
corresponding obligation to respect the sovereignty of one another to the equal rights of
use. Rahads use of the aquifer could not have possibly exceeded their allowable use
thereof for the reason that the population of Rahad is relatively small as compared to
Atania. According to the February 2014 census, its population was only 3.5 million. On
the other hand, as of 1 January 2015, Atania had a population of over 22 million. Hence,
Rahads consumption and utilization of the water from the aquifer is far less than that of
Atanias.
Moreover, there was no proof that the harm caused to Atania by Rahads
utilization of the aquifer was significant. The type of harm is qualified by the term
significant, which is defined by the UN Watercourses Convention, as the real
impairment of a use, established by objective evidence. For harm to be qualified as
significant it must not be trivial in nature but it need not rise to the level of being
substantial; this is to be determined on a case by case basis. The significant threshold
excludes mere inconveniences or minor disturbances that States are expected to
tolerate, in conformity with the principle of good neighborliness. The harm includes harm
to human health or safety.

There was no showing that the extraction and utilization of the aquifer by Rahad
caused significant harm to Atania. In fact, even before Rahads extraction of the aquifer,
the entire Nomad Coast had already been experiencing sustained drought conditions in
each year from 1983 to 1988 as a result of record low rainfall. Also, in 2003, it was
reported that there had been a 1.6-degree Celsius average temperature increase
throughout the Nomad Coast during the
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____
___________
4. (source: UN watersources convention)
period 1970 to 2000. Thus, the drying up of the wells, springs, and small streams as
contended by the Atanian farmers could not be attributable to the mere extraction of the
aquifer. Further, there was no proof that, by the mere extraction, significant harm was
caused to the people of Atania.

3. Rahad is not bound by the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers.

The Draft Articles on the law of Transboundary Aquifers is not binding on the
Kingdom of Rahad because it is neither a customary law or a treaty.

For customary law to be developed and applied, there must be the concurrence
of two elements. The material factor and the psychological factor. The material factor is
the initial factor which is the determination of the existence of a custom. A custom in turn
is characterized by duration, consistency, and generality. Here, there is no custom to
speak of yet because the sharing of Greater Inata Aquifer has not yet started. The
discovery of the Aquifer was only in 1990 and the Kingdom of Rahad was the first to
explore and used it in accordance with its needs. Furthermore, Rahad was the only state
to use it according to its needs to this date using the Savali Pipeline which was
completed on February 20, 2006. The fact that the people of the Nomad coast share the
same history dating 3 millenniums ago did not make reference to the sharing to any
bodies of water, including the groundwaters. The custom of sharing the Greater Inata
Aquifer therefore has not yet existed. With one element down, there is no need to
elucidate on the psychological factor. Hence, there is no customary law on the sharing
of Transboundary Aquifers.

There is also no treaty to speak of because there was no agreement that was
signed by the parties upon the parties in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties. There was no agreement on the sharing of Transboundary Aquifers
which the Kingdom of Rahad can be compelled under the doctrine of pacta sunt
servanda. At most, the Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers is merely
adopted by the International Law Commission in 2008 and yet to be taken as an Agenda
to be adopted by the UN General Assembly. Even if the UN General Assembly adopts
5
it in a resolution with a required vote subsequently in a resolution, such resolution will be
merely recommendatory.

Consequently, the case of Gabikovo-Nagymaros Project ( Hungary v Slovakia,


ICJ Rep 7 (Official Citation) [1997]), finds no application in this case. The case between
Czechoslovakia and Hungary was predicated upon a treaty "concerning the construction
and operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks" signed on September 16,
1997. Their sharing of the Danube River and its regulation such as building of dams and
hydroelectric power plant was based on a treaty which took effect on June
30,1978. Although the case involves sharing of a transboundary body of water, there
was no treaty which could be enforced by Atan against Rahad.
______________________________________________________________________
______
5. (source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/66/TransAquifer.html).
C. RAHAD EXERCISES ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY OVER NATURAL RESOURCES
FOUND WITHIN ITS TERRITORY.

1. Sovereignty

Under current international law, sovereignty is defined, in the sense of


contemporary public international law, to that which denotes the basic international legal
status of a state that is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental,
executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign state or to foreign law other than
public international law. 6

2. Rahads absolute right to water found within its territory.

The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable,


physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate
amount of safe water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk
of water-related disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and
domestic hygienic requirements 7

The right to water imposes the special obligation of States parties to provide
those who do not have sufficient means with the necessary water and water facilities,
which in this case is Rahad, and at the same time make sure to prevent any
discrimination on internationally prohibited grounds in the provision of water and water
services. It further provides that States parties should give special attention to individuals
and groups who have traditionally faced difficulties including women, children, minority
groups, indigenous peoples, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons,
migrant workers, prisoners and detainees. It is evident that in this case Rahad is a
minority in the whole Nomad Coast. 8

Atania is a newly-industrializing state located in the eastern two-thirds of the


Nomad Coast with a population of just over 22 million. Rahad, on the other hand,
occupies only one third of the western part of the Nomad Coast with a population of
population was 3.5 million. Rahad occupies a lesser portion (one-third) of the Nomad
Coast as compared to Atania (two-third). Hence, Rahad should not be deprived of its
need to extract water from the aquifer there being a great and urgent need to do so.
______________________________________________________________________
______
6.[H Steinberger, Sovereignty, in Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Encyclopedia for Public International Law, vol 10 (North
Holland, 1987) 414].
7. (The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARISING IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS General Comment No. 15 (2002)
8. (The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ARISING IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS General Comment No. 15 (2002)

3. The extraction of water from the Aquifer was done in order to respond to an
emergency situation necessary for the survival of the people of Rahad.

An emergency situation refers to that which results suddenly from natural causes
or from human conduct, that affects a transboundary aquifer or aquifer system and
poses an imminent threat of causing serious harm to aquifer States or other States.
Article 17: Emergency situations on the Law on Boundary Aquifers provides procedures
which a state may do when emergency situations arise, such that:

(a) without delay and by the most expeditious means available, notify other
potentially affected States and competent international organizations of the
emergency; and

(b) in cooperation with potentially affected States and, where appropriate,


competent international organizations, immediately take all practicable measures
necessitated by the circumstances to prevent, mitigate and eliminate any harmful
effect of the emergency.

Rahad suffered the effects of extreme drought and climate changes. The
sustained draught conditions which the Nomad Coast was experiencing is a situation
resulted by a natural cause, hence, an emergency. Such crisis affects all the people of
Rahad there being no enough water to sustain the farmers who grow food and provide
for sustenance. To respond to such unwanted circumstance, Queen Teresa, who
described the Aquifer as a fundamental natural resource of the country, took the
necessary measures to ensure that the needs of the Rahadi people could be met and
that the right to survival will be attained. She correctly declared that Rahad has the right
and the obligation to seek out ways of using that resource to sustain Rahadi people.
The Law on Boundary Aquifers further states that emergency poses a threat to
vital human needs, aquifer States, may take measures that are strictly necessary to
meet such needs. Furthermore, States shall provide scientific, technical, logistical and
other cooperation to other States experiencing an emergency. Cooperation may include
coordination of international emergency actions and communications, making available
emergency response personnel, emergency response equipment and supplies, scientific
and technical expertise and humanitarian assistance.

Rahad in its step of extracting water from the Greater Inata Aquifer was not
without formal steps. As a requirement in taking measures during emergency situations,
Queen Teresa had a formal direction to the Inata Logistic and Scientific Association
(ILSA), a Rahadi government-funded scientific organization, to study the feasibility and
long-term effects of directly tapping the Aquifer to meet Rahads domestic need for
water. The ILSA released its report on January 17, 2003 stating that, in light of
projected consumption, growth and development, completely ending Rahads reliance
on imported water and re-establishing self-sufficiency would require an alternative
supply of approximately 1.2 cubic kilometers of water per year. Extraction of water from
the Aquifer at this rate would deplete its total extractable fresh water reserve in
approximately 30 years. Moreover, on 2 February 2003, Queen Teresa made a
televised appearance to the nation, setting out her plans to address the increasingly
serious water crisis in Rahad. She conveyed the urgent need to address the dilemma
there being no obvious solution to this problem that is economically viable and practically
possible. None, that is, except one-- extracting water from the Greater Inata Aquifer.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, The Kingdom of Rahad requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Declare that the unilateral declaration made by the Rahidi Minister of Water and
Agriculture did not give rise to an international obligation, but in the event that the
Court finds otherwise, such obligation was validly terminated by reason of rebus
sic stantibus.
2. Declare that Rahads extraction of water from the Aquifer is a valid exercise of its
territorial sovereignty and does not constitute a violation of any customary
international law or treaty.