Amalea is seeking compensation for its economic losses.

The losses
stemmed from the landslide that occurred at the Excelsior Island. The State
asserts that Ritania violated international law.
Amaleas fishing industry supplies the domestic market and is also
responsible for exports generating more than 5% of the countrys USD 45
billion GDP. The industry directly employs over 250, 000 people (Compromis,
para.3).
Amalea has consistently maintained that Ritania had no right to engage in or
to allow dredging within the Malachi Gap (Compromis, para. 24). The
environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Excelsior Island project did
not address the potential impacts of the dredging program on the fish
species living there (Compromis, para.23).
A significant underwater landslide as a direct result of the dredging occurred
in 10 December 2009. It resulted in a higher concentration of several
dissolved gases in shallow waters throughout the Sirius Plateau (Compromis,
para. 28). Following the landslide, an emergency monitoring program was
inistituted by Amalean authorities. The program was developed and
implemented by the International League for Sustainable Aquaculture
(ILSA). Early results released in February 2010 revealed that the landslide
had an immediate and significant negative impact on the known Dorian
wrasse population (Compromis, para. 29).
The total catch of Dorian wrasse reported by the end of 2010 and 2011 had
fallen to 25% and 15%, respectively of the levels reported in 2000. By
February 2012, ILSA declared the Dorian wrasse to be an endangered
species. At the same time, it noted that there was doubt whether the
number of Dorian wrasse in the Sirius Plateau would return to pre-landslide
levels before the end of the century (Compromis, para. 30).
Amaleas Ministry of Fisheries reported that the projected exploration of the
Dorian wrasse would have amounted to no less than USD 250 million over
the next 5 years. Being unable to fish such specie for the foreseeable future,
Amalea is now demanding for reparations for this loss (Compromis, para.
50).
Ritania violated the principle of Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (Use
your property as not to injure another). This principle has been embodied as

Principle 2 in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle

2 provides that:
States have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies and
the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Although the Rio Declaration is a non-binding international instrument, it is
an authoritative statement of principles for the further development of
international law in the field of sustainable development. It was adopted by
consensus in the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development
which
was
participated
by
176
states
and
50
intergovernmental organizations.
This principle has also been codified in Article 194 (2) of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, a binding treaty which was open to
ratification in 1982. Ritania has signed and ratified the UNCLOS in April
1983. Amalea, on the other hand, has signed it in June 1983, but has never
ratified it (Compromis, paras. 10-11). Article 194 (2) provides:
States shall take all measures necessary to ensure that activities
under their jurisdiction or control are so conducted as not to cause
damage by pollution to other States and their environment, and that
pollution arising from incidents or activities under their jurisdiction or
control does not spread beyond the areas where they exercise
sovereign rights in accordance with this Convention.
The case of the Lake Lanoux Arbitration of 1957 expounded sic utere as a
principle of customary international law. The dispute in this case arose out of
an attempt by France to divert water from Lake Lanoux, a body of water
entirely within French territory, situated near the Franco-Spanish border. Te
appointed tribunal determined that the treaties, together with customary
international law principles, mandared that one state has a duty to notify
other states when its actions may impede their environmental enjoyment.
Additionally, the tribunal determined that, when planning to take action, one
state must take into account the consideration of the other state. Here, the
tribunal determined that France had indeed complied with its obligations and
thus had violated neither the treaties nor any international principles of law.

The principle was once again applied in an international environmental

dispute between Canada and the United States in the Gut Dam arbitration of
1968. The arbitration came about after Canada constructed a dam which
spanned the international boundary of the St. Lawrence River. The two
countries had entered into an agreement, prior to the construction of the
dam, which contained a provision essentially codifying the sic utere principle.
The provision imposed responsibility and liability on the Canadian
government for any injury to the interests of the United States caused by
the Canadian-made dam. Thus, the appointed tribunal determined that
Canada was liable for the damage caused to property in the United States.

The State violated the principle of Sustainable Development. The World

Commission on Environment and Development in its 1987 report, Our
Common Future (Brundtland Report), defines it as development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. This principle is relevant to Principle 3
of the Rio Declaration which states:
The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet
developmental and environmental needs of present and future
generations.
In the case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (ICJ Reports,
1997, pp. 7, 78, para.140), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared
that there is a need to reconcile economic development with the protection
of the environment. This need is aptly expressed in the concept of
sustainable development.
In the Trail Smelter Case (United States vs. Canada), the Arbitral Tribunal
affirmed the principle that:
No state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such
a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another
or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious
consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing
evidence (3 RIAA 1907, 1941).
In this case, considerable damage to land in the territory of the State
of Washington in the United States was caused by fumes of sulphur dioxide.

The fumes emitted daily from the smelting of lead and zinc over the years by
a Canadian company located in trail in the Canadian side were carried down
the Columbia River Valley and across into the United States.
The Tribunal held that the Dominion of Canada is responsible in
international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter...So long as the present
conditions in the Columbia River Valley prevail, the Trail Smelter shall be
required to refrain from causing any damage through fumes in the State of
Washington.

Ritania declares that it has no obligation to compensate Amalea. It asserts

that it has complied with its obligations under international law.
The Excelsior Island Gas & Power (EIGP) submitted an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) for the Excelsior Island project in early 2008. This was
done as part of the Ritanian licensing process requiring the EIGP to conduct
said assessment for the project (Compromis, para.23).
The EIGP was granted a permit to construct Excelsior Island on 1 August
2009. This was given after it received approval of its EIA from the Ritanian
government and has put in place all of the other logistical pieces needed to
commence the project (Compromis, para. 27).
Amalean fishing vessels have historically plied almost every part of the
Strait, regularly coming within less than 40 nautical miles of the Ritanian
coast (Compromis, para. 3).
The breeding ground of the Dorian wrasse occupies less than 50 square
kilometres within the shallow waters of the Sirius Plateau. This is an area of
the continental crust in the Malachi Gap approximately 40 nautical miles
from the Ritanian coast. The Sirius Plateau is geomorphologically and
geologically related to the Ritanian landmass, where the waters are on
average less than 20 meters deep (Compromis, para. 19).
The right of Ritania to establishing the Excelsior Island is rooted in Article 60
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The law
provides that the coastal State has the exclusive right to construct, authorize
and regulate the construction, operation and use of artificial islands,
installations and structures within its exclusive economic zone.
Ritania has signed and ratified the UNCLOS in April 1983. Amalea, on the
other hand, has signed it in June 1983, but has never ratified it (Compromis,
paras. 10-11).
Amalea has violated the principle of Sustainable Development with regard to
fishing within the territory of Ritania. The World Commission on Environment
and Development in its 1987 report, Our Common Future (Brundtland
Report), defines it as development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs. This principle is relevant to Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration which
states:

The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet

developmental and environmental needs of present and future
generations.
In the case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (ICJ Reports,
1997, pp. 7, 78, para.140), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared
that there is a need to reconcile economic development with the protection
of the environment. This need is aptly expressed in the concept of
sustainable development.
In the Trail Smelter Case (United States vs. Canada), the Arbitral Tribunal
affirmed the principle that:
No state has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such
a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another
or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious
consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing
evidence (3 RIAA 1907, 1941).
In this case, considerable damage to land in the territory of the State
of Washington in the United States was caused by fumes of sulphur dioxide.
The fumes emitted daily from the smelting of lead and zinc over the years by
a Canadian company located in trail in the Canadian side were carried down
the Columbia River Valley and across into the United States.
The Tribunal held that the Dominion of Canada is responsible in
international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter...So long as the present
conditions in the Columbia River Valley prevail, the Trail Smelter shall be
required to refrain from causing any damage through fumes in the State of
Washington.