TABLE OF CONTENTS

________________________________________________________________

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....2

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..3

3. LIST OF CASES....3

4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..4

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS.5

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...6

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..7-10

8. PRAYER..11

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. Honble - Honourable

2. v. - Versus

3. Art. - Article

4. No. - Number

5. P.C.I.J - Permanent Court of International Justice

6. e.g. - Example

7. UNCLOS - United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea

8. Acc. - According

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
___________________________________________________________________________

I. CONVENTIONS

1. High Seas Convention, 1958

2. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982

II. BOOKS

1. S.K.VERMA, AN INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC INYTERNATIONAL LAW, 2ND

EDITION.

2. LIST OF CASES

1. France v. Turkey Permanent Court of Intl Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927)

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
___________________________________________________________________________

The agent on behalf of China, in the present matter, has approached the Honble International
Court of Justice under Art. 36(1)1 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice.

1
Article 36 (1) The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters
specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 STATEMENT OF FACTS
___________________________________________________________________________

1. S. S. Cactus, a Russian ship collided with El Dorado, a Chinese ship in an area

that is situated in common borderline of the continental shelf of these countries.
Consequrntly, both these ships suffered irreparable damage with some of crews
hurt in both ships.

2. Due to cyclonic atmosphere, both these ships were prompted to drive in high
speed and come out of the turbulent zone and thereby came closer to one another.
After collision, both these ships recovered the shock and returned toward their
respective ports.

3. While returning, however, S. S. Cactus succumbed to the damage out of

collision while El Dorado succeeded to return to China.

4. Thereafter, Russia raised allegation against China and demanded urgent

surrender of all crews of El Dorado before the Russian court and face criminal
proceeding. China did not agree to such proposal.

5. Consequently, both China and Russia filed a case before the International Court
of Justice. In their written statement, both of them alleged gross violation of
jurisdiction of their respective states by other under international law.

6. Both of them claimed damages in the form of reparation for recov ery of loss
suffered by them. Both of them pleaded complete innocense in their part.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 ISSUES RAISED
___________________________________________________________________________

I. WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF JURISDICTION ON PART

OF RUSSIA IN INTERNATIONAL LAW?

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
___________________________________________________________________________

II. WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF JURISDICTION ON PART

OF RUSSIA IN INTERNATIONAL LAW?

It is most humbly submitted that there is a clear violation on the part of Russia in International
law. Art. 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention lays down that in the event of collision or of
any incident of navigation on the high seas, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be
instituted against the persons responsible, except before the judicial or administrative
authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
___________________________________________________________________________

I. WHETHER THERE IS ANY VIOLATION OF JURISDICTION ON PART

OF RUSSIA IN INTERNATIONAL LAW?

It is humbly contented before this Honble Court that there is a clear violation of jurisdiction
on the part of Russia in the eyes of International laws.

JURISDICTION IN COLLISION CASES

It is not uncommon for vessels to collide. The Lotus case2, decided by the Permanent Court of
International Justice in 1927, addressed the issue of jurisdictional competence when a flag
states vessel wrongfully collides with another states vessel on the high seas. The Lotus case
raised broader issues concerning the concept of jurisdiction and the jurisprudential basis for
determining the legality of a states actions under international law.

The Case of the S.S. "Lotus" (France v. Turkey)

In that case, a collision had occurred on the high seas between the French Steamer Lotus and
the Turkish steamer Boz-Kourt, resulting in the loss of Boz-Kourt and the death of eight
Turkish sailors and passengers. On the arrival of the Lotus at Constantinople, joint criminal
proceedings were instituted against the captain of the Turkish steamer and M.Demons, officer
of the watch on board the Lotus, and both were sentenced to imprisonment. The French
Government protested and the case was submitted to the Permanent Court of International
Justice. Before the Court, the French Government argued that the Turkish action was contrary
to the principles of international law and its treaty obligations under Art. 15 of the Convention
of Lausanne of July 24, 1923. It contended that Turkey had no jurisdiction over an act
committed on the high seas by a foreigner on board a foreign vessel, and it is the flag State (in
this case , France) who had the exclusive jurisdiction on board a foreign vessel. The Court held
that Turkey had not acted contrary to the principles of international law because the offence
committed on board the Lotus had produced its effects on the Turkish vessel and consequently,

2
Permanent Court of Intl Justice, P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 (1927)

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

in a place assimilated to Turkish territory in which the application of Turkish criminal law
cannot be challenged, even in regard to offences committed there by foreigners. There is no
rule of international law, prohibiting a State from exercising jurisdiction over a foreigner in
respect of an offence committed outside its territory.

The Court concluded that, except for warships, there is no rule of international law which
reserves exclusively to the flag State the right to exercise jurisdiction in collision cases.3

DISSENT
The Burden of Proof should be on the state seeking to show that it has jurisdiction. International
Law does not permit everything that is not explicitly forbidden.

However, Art. 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention lays down that in the event of collision
or of any incident of navigation on the high seas, no penal or disciplinary proceedings
may be instituted against the persons responsible, except before the judicial or
administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a
national.

This provision overrules the principles of the Lotus case.

HIGH SEAS CONVENTION, 1958

Article 6

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly
provided for in international treaties or in these articles, shall be subject to its exclusive
jurisdiction on the high seas. A ship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port
of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry.

2. A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to
convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State,
and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality.

Article 11

1. In the event of a collision or of any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the
high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person

3
The decision in the Lotus case aroused a lot of scepticism among a number of bodies, e.g., International
Maritime Committee, and Montevideo Conference. The decision was stated to lead to double prosecution of the
masters of the ships.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such
persons except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the
State of which such person is a national.

2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a masters certificate or a certificate of
competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process, to pronounce the
withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued
them.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by

any authorities other than those of the flag State.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (UNCLOS)

Article 92- Status of ships

1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly
provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive
jurisdiction on the high seas. A ship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port
of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry.

2. A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to
convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State,
and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality.

Article 97- Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation

1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high
seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in
the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such
person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the
State of which such person is a national.

2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master's certificate or a certificate of
competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process, to pronounce the
withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued
them.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by
any authorities other than those of the flag State.

As from the above discussion it is clear that the conventions of 1958 and 1982 gives that no
penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against the persons responsible. It is clear
from the facts that Russia raised allegation against China and demanded urgent surrender of all
crews of El Dorado before the Russian court. And from the above conventions it is clear that
Russia cannot do so because only the penal or disciplinary proceedings can be done before the
judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person
is a national.

Only the authorities of the flag State can order arrest or detention of the ship. NO other State
can do so even as a measure of investigation. Therefore, Russia is wrong on the part of its
demand to surrender of Chinese ship in Russian court.

Acc. to Art. 97 (1) of the 1982 Convention, In the event of a collision or any other incident of
navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility
of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary
proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative
authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.

Therefore, Russia cannot demand of surrender of Chinese ship, El Dorado in Russian court.

Hence, from the above contention, it is clear that Russia has a clear violation in jurisdiction in
International law.

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.

 PRAYER
___________________________________________________________________________

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to declare that:

There is a clear violation of jurisdiction on the part of Russia under International Law.

The compensation for the reparation should be allowed to China.

And/or

Pass any other order which it deems fit in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most respectfully submitted.

On 22nd day of September, 2016

Agent on behalf of China

|MEMO RI AL ON BEHALF O F CHI NA.