TEAM: 2R

THE 2013 BENILDE INTERNATIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT CHALLENGE

CASE CONCERNING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE

FOGGIA GAP

STATE OF CATANIA

(APPLICANT)

VS

REPUBLIC OF MESSINA

(RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

THE PEACE, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTSi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIESiv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONviii
QUESTIONS PRESENTEDix
STATEMENT OF FACTSx
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGSxv
PLEADINGS1

I. MESSINA’S CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMU ISLAND PROJECT

COMPLIED IN ALL RESPECTS WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE TERMS OF THE FOGGIA GAP TREATY,
AND MESSINA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE CATANIA FOR ANY
LOSS OR DAMAGE ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY THE 2009 LANDSLIDE…………
………………………………………………………………………………………..1
A. Messina’s conduct with regards to the construction of ADMU Island Project
complied in all respects with its obligations under International Law.
……………………………………………………………………………………… .1
1. UNCLOS validates the territory of Messina and ensure its jurisdiction to the
territorial waters inclusive in the EEZ.
………………………………………………………………………………..…1
2. The Declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment also
supports Messina’s stand over the island.
……………………………………………………………………………….…..2
B. The ADMU Island Project complied with all the conditions of the Foggia Gap
Treaty ……………………………………………………………………………….3
1. Provisions of the Foggia Gap Treaty, Article 12, provided and established
……………………………………………………………………………………3
2. The Foggia Gap Treaty that let the Catania to protect vital fisheries resources
within……………………………………………………………………………..5
C. Messina has no obligation to compensate Catania for any loss or damage
allegedly caused by the 2009 landslide ……………………………………………5

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page i of xvii

 1. UNCLOS supports the regulation of drilling on the continental shelf.
………………………………………………………………………………..…5
2. The failure of Catania to follow the provisions in Settling disputes in
…………………………………………………………………………………..6
II. THE CATANIAN NAVY’S PURSUIT OF JUNO INTO MESSINA’S EEZ AND
HIS SUBSEQUENT ARREST WERE ILLEGAL………………………………...7
A. The hot pursuit of Archer into Messina’s EEZ was illegal. …………………..8
1. The Archer was just exercising its right of transit passage through the Strait ……8
2. Archer had not violated any rights for the protection of which the contiguous ….
......................................................................................................................................9
3. The conduct of hot pursuit was illegal because the mode through which the …
……………………………………………………………………………………….10
B. The subsequent arrest of Juno was illegal under international law………….
1. The arrest was illegal if the reason for the arrest is the ADMU Island- Blue ……
………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Arrest is illegal if the reason for the arrest is the ADMU Island- Blue Eagle ……
………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Arrest is illegal because Archer had not done any violation of Catania’s law ……
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Arrest is illegal even if the reason for the arrest is the failure of the Archer to ……
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. If the reason of the arrest was due to the perception that Juno was a pirate, the ..
…………………………………………………………………………………………
C. Catania defeats the objects and purpose of UNCLOS provisions on hot
pursuit and arrest.
1. Catania as a signatory of UNCLOS shall refrain from acts that would
defeat …..
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Some provisions of the UNCLOS were customary international laws that are ….
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 III. CATANIA WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TRY JUNO IN
CONNECTION WITH THE BLUE EAGLE COLLISION, AND MUST
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page ii of xvii
RETURN HIM TO MESSINA IMMEDIATELY. ………………………………
A. The National Court’s jurisdiction is limited to its territorial boundaries and
EEZ. ……………………………………………………………………………..
1. UNCLOS justifies Messinan jurisdiction in the case of Juno. ……………
2. Catania has no right for the jurisdiction of case. ………………………
3. In the event of any collision on the sea that involves other nationals, the ……
…………………………………………………………………………………….
B. The alleged cases against Juno were not fully done by the accused for the
wrong facts that the Captain of Blue Eagle had sent to the Catanian
Government and the case should be further investigated.
1. Messina complied all the standards and safety measures in the establishment ..
…………………………………………………………………………………….
C. The Government of Catania violated the legal principles provided by
international law together with the rights of Juno under the Human Rights
Law.
1. Catania’s Katipunan, a Navy Fast Response Cutter was in no full authority ….
.…………………………………………………………………………………..
D. The Government of Messina requests the Court that Juno should be
returned to its country to be investigated and the trial and proceedings of the
cased should be terminated.
1. Juno, as a Messinan national, should be subjected and further be investigated..
..........................................................................................................................
2. Catania’s actions should be considered as an omission in failure to respect….
..........................................................................................................................

PRAYERS.........................................................................................................................................

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page iii of xvii

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

Bibliographical Information Page No.

Convention on the High Seas, 1958, 450 UNTS 11

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea,

1972 G.A. Res. A.1004(25)

Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958, 516 UNTS 205

Foggia Gap Treaty, 1992

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171

United Nations Convention on Laws of Seas, 1982, 1983 U.N.T.S. 397 1, 3, 4, 5, 7,

8,

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENT

Bibliographical Information Page No.

Declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972,

U.N. Doc. A/Conf.48/14/Rev. 1(1973)

Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, 2001, U.N.G.A.

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page iv of xvii

A/56/10

United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their

Property, 2004, U.N. Doc A/RES/59/38

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, U.N. Doc A/810, G.A. Res.

217A(III)

MUNICIPAL STATUTES

Bibliographical Information Page No.

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Treaties and International Law

European Court of Justice Cases

 Bibliographical Information Page No.

Bata v Bata [1948] W.N. 366

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick, [2002] 210 C.L.R.

The Place of Tort, King v. Lewis, [2005] E.M.L.R. 4

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page v of xvii

BOOKS, DIGEST, TREATISE

Bibliographical Information Page No.

A. Morrison, Places of Refuge for Ships in Distress: Problems and Methods of

Resolution

C. H. Allen, Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A functional Interpretation Adaptable to

Emerging Maritime Law Enforcement Technologies and Practices (1989)

D. Rothwell, Maritime Policy and International Law (2011)

Eugene Kontorovich, Piracy and International Law (Jerusalem Center for Public

Affairs, 2009)
I. Brownlie, Basic Documents in International Law (6th edn, Oxford University

Press 2008) 71

L. Bernard, Whose Side Is It On? – The Boundaries Dispute in the North Malacca

Strait (2011)

Malcolm Shaw, International Law (5th edn, Cambridge University Press 2003)

492

N.M. Poulantzas, The Right of Hot Pursuit in International Law

R. Beckman, and D. Butte, Introduction to International Law

Ruth Hayward, Conflict of Laws (4th edn,Gavendish Publishing Limited 2006)

S. Groves, Accession to the U.N Convention on the Law of the Sea Is Unnecessary

to Secure U.S. Navigational Rights and Freedoms (The Heritage Foundation

Respondent’s 2011)
Preliminaries Page vi of xvii

T. Treves, Piracy, Law of the Sea, and Use of Force: Developments off the Coast

of Somalia, vol 20 (European Journal of International Law 2009) 402

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page vii of xvii

The Republic of Messina and the State of Catania have agreed to submit this dispute to the

International Court of Justice pursuant to article 40(1) of the Statute of the International Court of

Justice (‘the Statute’) and in accordance with the Compromis notified to the Court on 16

September 2013. Pursuant to article 36(1) of the Statute, the Court has jurisdiction to decide all

matters referred to it for decision. Both parties shall accept the Court’s decision as final and

execute it in good faith.

 QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page viii of xvii

I.

Whether Messina’s conduct with respect to the ADMU Island project complied in all respects

with its obligations under international law and the terms of the Foggia Gap Treaty, and

Messina has no obligation to compensate Catania for any loss or damage allegedly

caused by the 2009 landslide.

II.
 Whether the Catanian Navy’s pursuit of Juno into Messina’s EEZ, and his subsequent arrest,

were illegal.

III.

Whether Catania was without jurisdiction to try Juno in connection with the Blue Eagle collision,

and must return him to Messina immediately.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page ix of xvii

Background

The Republic of Messina is a developed – industrial peninsular state. The Strait of Foggia is a

channel which connects the Parma Sea and the Modena Ocean. The Strait of Foggia is also the

channel that separate Messina from Catania, a newly developing industrial island state. The

Strait of Foggia ranges from 217 nautical miles to 386 nautical miles. It contains several oceanic

ridges and plateaus. It also contains abundant fish and shellfish rocks. Messina in the 1940s, on

the other hand, discovered significant reserves of petroleum and natural gas beneath the seabed

in the Strait of Foggia. The Messina and Catania is a member – State of the United Nations.
Control and Regulations

Since 1964, Catania and Messina has engaged various negotiations for the control and regulation

of the resources outside of their territorial waters. On 19 September 1956, Messina proclaimed

the rights to the natural resources in the subsoil and seabed in their continental shelf. This also

includes the extent of the continental shelf to another State’s shore shall be determined with

equitable principles.

United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea

In 1958, Messina and Catania signed the four Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea.

Messina and Catania ratified all four conventions on February 1961 and September 1962,

respectively. Messina and Catania both participated the Third United Nations Conference on the

Law of the Sea from 1973 to 1982. On April 1983, Messina signed and ratified the 1982

Convention on the Law of the Sea and claimed the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone

(EEZ) on the same year. On June 1983, Catania signed UNCLOS and never ratified it. However,
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page x of xvii
the President of Catania made a proclamation asserting the country’s claim to a 200 nautical mile

EEZ.

Foggian Gap Treaty

Between 1988 and 1992, Messina and Catania engaged in extensive negotiations about the

demarcation of their EEZ claims in the Strait of Foggia which resulted to the Foggian Gap treaty.

The Foggian Gap treaty was hailed as an historical achievement which allowed Catania to

protect vital fisheries resources within the Strait of Foggia while allowing Messina to develop

subsea resources such as the Padua gas field. The treaty also provides “a key shared objective’ of

the parties “to balance, and insofar as possible to promote the interest of the State Parties in
respect of exploration, exploitation, and protection of this maritime area of great importance to

both of them.”

Parma wrasse in Bari Plateau and ADMU Island Establishment

The people of Catania have prized the flesh of the Parma wrasse known to breed only in a small

area of the Strait of Foggia. The breeding of the Parma wrasse lies on a less than 50 square

kilometres within the shallow waters of the Bari Plateau. In 2006, Messinan billionaire MVP

announced her intention to finance the construction of ADMU Island on the Bari Plateau. The

plan is to make an artificial island that will be made of oceanic sand and rock dredging outside

the Foggia Gap. This island will facilitate the production of a liquefied natural gas from the

Padua Field. Knowing the proposal, Catanian Foreign Minister summoned the Messinan

Ambassador clearly stating that the project should be undertaken with the consent of both States

under the Foggian Gap Treaty. But the Messinan Ambassador replied that the Island will be

outside the Gap making Catania’s consent not applicable and it will be under Messina’s law and

Respondent’s
obligations. As part of Messina’s licensing process, AIGP conducted anPreliminaries
environmentalPage xi of xvii
impact

assessment (EIA) for the ADMU Island project. The Catanian government resisted and sought an

order in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, the ICJ concluded with eight votes to

seven rejected the request of Catania but mentioned that the applicant can have another fresh

request if it’s unbearable.

The Incident

On 10 December 2009, after three months of dredging without incident, sonar buoys detected an

underwater landslide. The said landslide was a direct result of the dredging, which had caused an

over-steepening of the slope in a geologically weak part of the Bari Plateau. Although the
landslide did not cause a tsunami, extremely high water turbidity levels persisted for several

weeks. It also caused a dissociation of gas hydrates, resulting in a higher concentration of several

dissolved gases, including carbon dioxide and methane. Catanian authorities then instituted an

emergency monitoring program developed and implemented by ILSA. Catania’s Foreign

Minister contacted her counterpart in Messina to advise him of this development, stating that

Catania would hold Messina responsible for economic losses caused by harm to the fishing

stocks.

The Blue Eagle and the Archer

On February 13, 2011, the Blue Eagle, a Catanian-registered cruise ship carrying 556 passengers

was headed towards Messina. ADMU Island was to be the Blue Eagle’s first port of call on its

regular voyage around the region. As the Blue Eagle approached ADMU Island, the Archer, a

Messinan-flagged yacht under the control of Juno, a Messina citizen, was speeding towards the

Island. Blue eagle veered and accelerated. The impact was huge that it ruptures three oxy-fuel

Respondent’s
storages which created various explosions. It killed 5 Messinan Preliminaries
workers and Page
sunk the Blue xii of xvii
Eagle.

Before nightfall, 127 passengers and crew died, and 150 others were injured. 89 of the dead were

Catanian nationals. As the Archer drew within about 23 nautical miles of Catania’s coastline, the

Katipunan, a Catanian Navy Fast Response Cutter, under the command of Captain Pido Jaren,

picked it up on radar. Pido pursuit the archer range and ordered it to stop. However, Juno stirred

to the east unto the Messina’s EEZ. Juno made a tuned and without a change of course, the Navy

and Archer collided. With a high impact, the archer sunk while the Katipunan suffered only

minor damages. Juno and his crew were arrested but the crew was released as they docked into

the port.
Filing of Cases

Catania’s Attorney General concluded that under Catania’s Penal Code, which has specifically

included offenses committed in Catania’s uncontested EEZ and the Foggia Gap, her country’s

courts had jurisdiction to try Juno for violations of Catania’s criminal laws, and he was charged

with 127 counts of murder, as well as reckless endangerment, negligent operation of a seagoing

vessel, and various property crimes. Messina filed a formal protest to the Catanian Embassy and

claimed that Juno’s arrest and prosecution is against international law. Since Juno is a Messinan,

they have the jurisdiction over him in the alleged offenses and must be extradited back to

Messina for investigation. However, Catania declined and continued to press charges and placed

him into trial and was found guilty. Juno, now, is in life sentence medium-security prison in

Catania and not be able to parole until 2032.

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page xiii of xvii

International Court of Justice

Being unable to fish the Parma wrasse for the foreseeable future, Catania demanded reparations

from Messina for the loss of this revenue. After several months of unsuccessful negotiations, the

parties decided to refer the matter involving the loss of the Parma wrasse, along with the

unresolved disputes involving the Blue Eagle, to the International Court of Justice, and for this

purpose have agreed to the terms of this Special Agreement.

 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page xiv of xvii

Pleading I

Messina’s conduct with respect to the ADMU Island project complied in all respects with

its obligations under international law and the terms of the Foggia Gap Treaty, and Messina has

no obligation to compensate Catania for any loss or damage allegedly caused by the 2009

landslide for four reasons:

First, UNCLOS and EZZ provisions support the fact that Messina has its full compliance

in international law regards with the establishment of ADMU Island.

 Secondly, the UN Conference on Human Environment also supports the right of Messina

in the establishment of ADMU Island and having an environmental assessment impact on its

own.

Thirdly, the Article 12 provisions of the Foggia Gap Treaty provide specific rights of

Catania and those of Messina in which the government of Messina observed in the establishment

of the artificialisland.

Fourthly, Messina, as evidently proven complied in all its obligations in international

law, has no obligation to compensate Catania for the allegedly 2009 landslide as provided by

UNCLOS and Catania’s negligence in following rules for such compensation.

Messina obeyed the international rules and will not compensate Catania.

Pleading II
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page xv of xvii
Catania’s pursuit of Juno in Messina EEZ and his subsequent arrest were illegal for four

reasons:

First, the hot pursuit of Archer into Messina’s EEZ was illegal because of the nature and

purpose of the pursuit. Archer was just enjoying its right of transit passage continuously and

expeditiously within Catania’s contiguous zone and had not undertaken any acts against the

normal transit. Also it had not violated any rights for the protection of which the contiguous zone

was established as required by UNCLOS for a hot pursuit to commence in the contiguous zone.
The signal that had been used prior to the hot pursuit was also unlawful. These reasons make the

hot pursuit illegal.

Secondly, the arrest of Juno was illegal if the reason of the arrest was due to the event of

collision of Blue Eagles and ADMU Island that happened in Messina’s EEZ. Catania has no

criminal jurisdiction over the incident as it happened in Messina’s EEZ and its Penal Code only

included offenses happened within its uncontested EEZ and Foggia Gap.

Thirdly, the arrest was illegal because Juno was not a pirate.

Fourthly, Catania’s defeated UNCLOS provisions on hot pursuit and arrest

Catania’s pursuit and arrest of Juno were both illegal.

Pleading III
Respondent’s Preliminaries Page xvi of xvii
Catania was without jurisdiction to try Juno in connection with the Blue Eagle collision, and

must return him to Messina immediately for

First, Catania has no jurisdiction for the place where the Blue-Eagle Collision happened and

should cooperate with Messinan Government for the investigation of the incident as delivered by

UNCLOS and Convention on High Seas.

Secondly, the failure of the captain of the Blue Eagle in following the rules provided the

COLREG should be also considered as the establishment of ADMU Island did comply for
setting the safety zones around the island.

Thirdly, the arrest and trial of Juno without the consent of the Messinan Government was a

violation to Juno’s rights as provided by the International Human Rights Law.

Fourthly, as the violations of Catania under international law were undoubtedly proven, as

Juno a Messinan citizen, he should be returned to Messina immediately in no need for any

extradition rules.

Catania has no Jurisdiction over Juno and must return him to Messina.

Respondent’s Preliminaries Page xvii of xvii

 PLEADINGS

I. MESSINA’S CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO THE ADMU ISLAND PROJECT COMPLIED IN

ALL RESPECTS WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

THE TERMS OF THE FOGGIA GAP TREATY, AND MESSINA HAS NO

OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE CATANIA FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE

ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY THE 2009 LANDSLIDE.

The building of the artificial island1 within the EEZ of Messina is legal under UNCLOS;

moreover, the island is located outside the Foggia Gap which is not in the jurisdiction of the

Foggia Gap Treaty2. The Environmental Impact Assessment3 which was required to ADMU

Island Gas & Power Limited was provided in good faith and is legal under the Messinan Law.

With all the legal measures are conducted, thus, the Messina is not liable to any damage caused

by the 2009 landslide.

A. Messina’s conduct with regards to the construction of ADMU Island Project

complied in all respects with its obligations under International Law.

The construction of ADMU Island project which is an artificial Island was inside the EEZ

(Exclusive Economic Zone) of Messina therefore:

1. UNCLOS validates the territory of Messina and ensure its jurisdiction to the

territorial waters inclusive in the EEZ. – applicability of the convention to both states.

1
2
3

Respondent’s Memorial Page 1 of 23

 a. Article 56 of the Convention, the exclusive economic zone, the coastal States has

sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the

natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the

seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and

exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.

Jurisdiction of the State as provided in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to

the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures; marine scientific

research; and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

b. Article 58 stated that, In exercising their rights and performing their duties under

this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and

duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal

State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in

so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

c. Articles 60 reiterate the laws on artificial islands, installations and structures in

the exclusive economic zone. In the EEZ, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to

construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of artificial islands;

installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic

purposes, installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the

coastal State in the zone. Also, the coastal State shall have exclusive jurisdiction over such

artificial islands, installations and structures, including jurisdiction with regard to customs, fiscal,

health, safety and immigration laws and regulations.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 2 of 23

 2. The Declaration of United Nations Conference on the Human Environment also

support Messina’s stand over the island.

The convention delivers that the capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable

resources must be maintained and, wherever practicable, restored or improved.

The discovery of petroleum and natural gas of the Messinan geologists gives Messina

the rights to exploit the resources beneath the seabed in the Strait of Foggia. Principle 5 approves

that the non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to guard

against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from such employment

are shared by all mankind. The purpose of building the ADMU Island is to produce natural gas, a

non-renewable resource which Principle 5 states that it must be employed.

B. The ADMU Island Project complied with all the conditions of the Foggia Gap

Treaty considering the fact that the said project was build outside the Foggia Gap.

The treaty serves as an authentication that ADMU Island Project did not violate the

agreements that both the Messina and Catania have signed and ratified.

1. Provisions of the Foggia Gap Treaty, Article 12, provided and established the rights

and obligations of Catania and Messina in the Foggia Gap.

a. The second subparagraph of the treaty validates that the Second Party [Messina]

may explore, exploit, and protect the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil.

The Treaty that was ratified by both parties do explain that Messina has the right to

use any resources found inside its seabed and subsoil this means that Catania’s jurisdiction is no

longer effective in this matter. The Treaty that was ratified by both parties do explain that

Messina has the right to use any resources found inside its seabed and subsoil this means that

Catania’s jurisdiction is no longer effective in this matter.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 3 of 23

 b. The third subparagraph of the treaty confirms that neither Party shall exercise its

rights hereunder in a manner which unduly inhibits the exercise of the rights of the other Party

and nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted to render the Foggian Gap or any portion thereof

the sovereign territory of either Party.

The dredging was done inside the continental shelf of the Strait of Foggia but was

absolutely inside the jurisdiction of Messina. According to article 77 of UNCLOS, provided the rights of the

coastal State over the continental shelf which comprises the fact that the coastal State exercises

over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its

natural resources. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 are exclusive in the sense that if the

coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may

undertake these activities without the express consent of the coastal State. 3. The rights of the

coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on

any express proclamation. 4. The natural resources referred to in this Part consist of the mineral

and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with living organisms

belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the harvestable stage, either

are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in constant physical contact

with the seabed or the subsoil. Article 81, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to

authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes.

c. The last subparagraph of the treaty stated that the Parties shall cooperate with

each other in relation to the exercise of their respective rights giving due regard to each Party’s

unique interests in the Foggian Gap, including, but not limited to, in the case of Catania the

protection of fisheries, and in the case of Messina its desire to develop resources lying beneath

the water.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 4 of 23

 The paragraph explains that the States have the rights to exercise their respective right

just like what the Messina did, it also stated that Catania’s protection of fisheries which is

unfortunately located inside the jurisdiction of Messina cannot limit Messina’s right in exploiting

and exploring its living and non-living resources.

2. The Foggia Gap Treaty that let the Catania to protect vital fisheries resources within

the Strait of Foggia and allowing also Messina to develop subsea resources such as

the Padua gas field was agreed by the two states.

The Treaty has provided “a key shared objective” of the two parties which was “to

balance, and insofar as possible to promote, the interests of the States Parties in respect of

exploration, exploitation, and protection of this maritime area of great importance to them both.”

The construction of ADMU Island Project did comply with the shared objective

agreed by the two states. It stated that the only in the Strait of Foggia that Catania’s law was

applied, but the ADMU project was built on Messina’s exclusive economic zone. Messina was

not obligated to submit the project’s environmental impact assessment to Catania since it was out

of its jurisdiction. Also, Catania’s historic claim or rights over the sea of Strait of Foggia was

already dismissed since the moment they signed and ratified to the Foggia Gap Treaty.

C. Messina has no obligation to compensate Catania for any loss or damage allegedly

caused by the 2009 landslide.

Messina has no obligation to compensate since it has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt

that the landslide was indeed caused by dredging nor has it been proven that the landslide itself

caused harm to the parma wrasse. And according to UNCLOS Messina did not break any

international laws.

1. UNCLOS supports the regulation of drilling on the continental shelf.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 5 of 23

 a. Article 81 of the convention gives the approval that the coastal State shall have

the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the continental shelf for all purposes.

b. As such the succeeding article of the convention states that the coastal State shall

make payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of the non-living resources

of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of

the territorial sea is measured.

c. The breeding ground of the parma wrasse is within the 200 nautical miles allotted

for exploitation without compensation under Articles 764, 775, 816, and stated in Article 827 of

the UNCLOS.

d. As proved by argument c, Messina is not liable for any damages against the

parma wrasse since it is still within the 200 nautical mile limit provided by UNCLOS.

2. The failure of Catania to follow the provisions in Settling disputes in accordance to

the rules given by Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities

neglects their right for compensations.

a. The convention, on Article 19 reiterated methods on how to settle disputes in

which it stipulated that any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the present
4 The coastal State shall delineate the outer limits of its continental shelf, where that shelf
extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured, by straight lines not exceeding 60 nautical miles in length, connecting fixed
points, defined by coordinates of latitude and longitude.
5 The coastal State exercises over the continental shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. The natural resources referred to in this Part
consist of the mineral and other non-living resources of the seabed and subsoil together with
living organisms belonging to sedentary species, that is to say, organisms which, at the
harvestable stage, either are immobile on or under the seabed or are unable to move except in
constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil.
6 The coastal State shall have the exclusive right to authorize and regulate drilling on the
continental shelf for all purposes.
7 The coastal State shall make payments or contributions in kind in respect of the exploitation of
the non-living resources of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 6 of 23

articles shall be settled expeditiously through peaceful means of settlement chosen by mutual

agreement of the parties to the dispute, including negotiations, mediation, conciliation,

arbitration or judicial settlement.

b. Failing an agreement on the means for the peaceful settlement of the dispute

within a period of six months, the parties to the dispute shall, at the request of any of them, have

recourse to the establishment of an impartial fact-finding commission.

c. The Fact-finding Commission shall be composed of one member nominated by

each party to the dispute and, in addition, a member not having the nationality of any of the

parties to the dispute chosen by the nominated members who shall serve as Chairperson.

II. THE CATANIAN NAVY’S PURSUIT OF JUNO INTO MESSINA’S EEZ AND HIS

SUBSEQUENT ARREST WERE ILLEGAL

Under United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea, “hot pursuit of a foreign ship

may be undertaken when the competent authorities of the coastal State have a good reason to

believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State. " It is a principle

designed to ensure that a vessel which has infringed the rules or laws of a coastal state will not

be able to escape the punishment by fleeing to the high seas.8 In this case, the hot pursuit was

undertaken by the Captain Pido Jaren, Captain of the Navy vessel Katipunan of Catania and the

one being in hot pursuit was Archer, a Messinan-flagged yacht. Juno, the one who controlled the

Archer; its crews and its passengers were subsequently arrested. However, the crews and the

passengers were released when the Katipunan reached a port in Catania.

A. The hot pursuit of Archer into Messina’s EEZ was illegal.

8 Shaw, Malcolm.International Law Fifth Edition.2006 Respondent’s Memorial Page 7 of 23

 Hot pursuit took place when Archer was detected by Catanian radar within Catania’s

contiguous zone and ordered it to stop over several radio frequencies. However, Juno, the one in

control of the Archer didn’t stop and instead turned Archer towards Messina. The hot pursuit

commenced there and into Messina’s EEZ. Having a hot pursuit into another coastal state’s EEZ

is not illegal under international law.9 However in the case of Archer, it becomes illegal because

of the nature and the purpose of the hot pursuit.

1. The Archer was just exercising its right of transit passage through the Strait of Foggia

It was stated in Article 37 (1) that ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage

through straits used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive

economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. Since the Strait

of Foggia is an international Strait10, Archer, during the time that it was navigating the Strait

within Catania’s Exclusive Economic Zone, was just exercising its right of transit passage

continuously and expeditiously before it was ordered to stop. It was continuous and expeditious

because Archer had done not any acts within Catania’s EEZ against the normal mode of transit

such as lingering, stopping or carrying out maneuvers which are forbidden when the right of

transit is being exercised prior to Jaren’s order for it to stop.11 Moreover, the right of transit

cannot be suspended12 and Captain Jaren’s order for the Archer to stop is an act of suspension

thereby violating this principle. Thus, Katipunan should have not suspended the passage and

should have not undergone pursuit of Archer since Archer was just exercising its right of transit

passage continuously and expeditiously before the order of Captain Jaren,

9 A pursuit only ceases when the ship being pursued entered its State’s territorial water of its
own State or a third state, UNCLOS Article 111 Section 3
10 Strait of Foggia is an international strait since it connects Parma Sea to the North and the
Modena Ocean to the South and within it is a major international sea lane that transverses some
of its deeper areas. Respondent’s Memorial Page 8 of 23
11 Nandan and Anderson (1989, p. 181)
12 UNCLOS Article 44
 2. Archer had not violated any rights for the protection of which the contiguous zone

was established.

Even though Catania has a good reason to believe that the Archer had violated the

laws and regulations of the State, the pursuit of the Archer is still illegal because during the time

that Archer was detected, it was within the contiguous zone of Catania. And in accordance to

Article 111 Sec. 1 of UNCLOS, if the foreign ship is within the contiguous zone, the pursuit may

only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights for the protection of which the zone

was established. And since Archer had not undertaken any violation of the rights within which

the zone was established, then the pursuit should not have been undertaken by the Catanian

Navy. And since the Archer had not violated any laws within Catania’s water, the doctrine of

maritime hot pursuit is illegal in this case.13

3. The conduct of hot pursuit was illegal because the mode through which the signal was

given through was unlawful.

Before competent authority of the Coastal State commence its hot pursuit, the

enforcing craft should signal first the offending vessel so the offending vessel should be able to

know that they have been detected, identified, and ordered to heave to for boarding. This order

should be done within the waters of the enforcing state and variety of signals shall have been

used so that no doubt may arise on the nature and purpose of the pursuit. 14 And in the case of

Captain Pido Jaren, the Captain of the Katipunan, he gave his signal for the Archer to stop

through radio. And radio has been decided to be unlawful in pursuing a craft after its lawfulness

was questioned during The Hague and Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea. 15 Thereby, the

hot pursuit was unlawful. Respondent’s Memorial Page 9 of 23

13 Doctrine of Maritime Hot Pursuit

14 The right of Hot Pursuit in International Law by Nicholas M Poulantzas p. 207
15 Ibid. p. 204
 B. The subsequent arrest of Juno was illegal under international law

Juno, the crews and passengers of Archer were arrested into Messina’s uncontested EEZ

after the Archer and the Katipunan collided which resulted to Archer’s sinking. They were

brought on board the Katipunan and by the time that Katipunan reached the port, all were

released except Juno.

1. The arrest was illegal if the reason for the arrest is the ADMU Island- Blue Eagle

incident since Catania has no criminal jurisdiction over the incident

a. As according to Catania’s Penal Code, the country’s courts had jurisdiction for

specifically included offenses committed in Catania’s uncontested EEZ and the Foggia Gap.

Catania’s Attorney General claimed that under the Code, Catania had the jurisdiction to try Juno

for violations of Catania’s criminal laws, thus Juno was charged with 127 counts of murder,

reckless endangerment, negligent operation of a seagoing vessel and various property crimes.

However, it should be noted that the offenses done by Juno, as the one under the control of

Archer, happened not within the uncontested EEZ of Catania neither within the Foggia Gap since

ADMU Island is outside it. It clearly happened within the uncontested EEZ of Messina, thus, it is

not within the jurisdiction of Catania to pursuit or arrest Juno based on the ADMU Island- Blue

Eagle incident.

Moreover, since the collision happened within Messina’s EEZ, thus it is unlawful for

Catania to arrest the Archer, Juno in particular, in relation to the Blue Eagle- ADMU Island

incident. As stated in Article 27(5) of UNCLOS that the Coastal State may not take any steps on

board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrestRespondent’s

any person or Memorial
to conductPage
any 10 of 23

investigation in connection with any crime committed before the ship entered the territorial sea

providing the ship is not entering or has not entered the internal water of the Coastal State. In the
case of Archer, it had not entered and was not entering Catania’s internal waters, thus, the arrest

was illegal.

Furthermore, the principles of jurisdiction governing the high seas apply to the

Exclusive Economic Zone.16 17

Under the law of the sea, “in the event of collision or any other

incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving 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.”18 Thus, since the incident happened within Messina’s EEZ and since the principles of

jurisdiction in the high seas apply to the EEZ, then Catania had no jurisdiction over the incident

and therefore its hot pursuit and arrest of Archer were illegal.19

b. Messina has the criminal jurisdiction to the incident between ADMU Island and

the Blue Eagle because Archer was Messinan flagged-yacht. Since the nationality of Archer is

Messina, then Messina has the rights to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control over the

administrative, technical and social matter of Archer.20

2. Arrest is illegal if the reason for the arrest is the ADMU Island- Blue Eagle incident

since the Blue Eagle also had responsibility over the incident

After the Archer and Katipunan collided at high speed, the Katipunan which suffered

some minor damage immediately captured Juno and board him in the ship. This arrest of Juno is

Respondent’s Memorial Page 11 of 23

16 Beckman, R. and Butte, D. Introduction to International Law retrieved at
http://www.ilsa.org/jessup/intlawintro.pdf
17 Bernard, L. (2011) retrieved at
http://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/LeonardoBernard-The-Boundaries-Dispute-
in-the-North-Malacca-Strait-Paper-for-Yogyakarta-2011.pdf
18 UNCLOS Article 97 Sec 1
19 UNCLOS Article 97 Sec 3
20 UNCLOS Article 94 Section 1
illegal under International Law because according to the International Regulations for Preventing

Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) , under the rules of the road number 8, any action taken to avoid

collision, shall if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with

due regard to the observance of good seamanship. The Blue Eagle, as a passenger vessel, should

be the one to avoid collision and the responsibilities will be taken by the Blue eagle solely. In

addition, the rule of the road number 18, a power-driven vessel underway shall keep out of the

way of a sailing vessel. The avoidance taken by the Blue Eagle to avoid the Archer is possible

considering that the Blue eagle is a passenger vessel which has the capabilities to maneuver and

avoid collision while the Archer, a yacht, is not a power-driven vessel.

3. Arrest is illegal because Archer had not done any violation of Catania’s law within its

exclusive economic zone

Archer was just exercising its transit passage and had not done any violations of

Catania’s rules and laws within Catania’s territorial water and exclusive economic zone. Thus

the arrest based on this was unlawful.21

4. Arrest is illegal even if the reason for the arrest is the failure of the Archer to stop on

Captain Pido Jaren’s signal to stop.

As stated in the first sub-argument, the method of signal used is a ground for the

unlawfulness of the hot pursuit since signal through radio is not permitted. Thus Juno’s failure to
Respondent’s
stop could not be used against it for its arrest since the signal used Memorial
for Juno to stop Page 12 of 23
was unlawful.

5. If the reason of the arrest was due to the perception that Juno was a pirate, the arrest

was questionable because Juno was not a pirate

21 Refer to Sub-argument 1 (1)

 Under Article 15 of the High Seas Convention and Article 101 of the 1982 Convention on

Law of the Sea, piracy is defined as “(a) illegal acts of violence, detention or depredation

committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or private aircraft and

directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft or against another person or

property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place

outside the jurisdiction of any state; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a

ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of

inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).”

a. The reason of arrest because of piracy against Juno was questionable. First is

because Juno had not committed any illegal acts of violence, detention or depredation for private

ends, on the high seas, against another ship or against another person or property in a place

outside the jurisdiction of any state. The Blue Eagle and ADMU incident was caused by the

negligent operation of Archer, and somehow the Blue Eagle,22 and not by the intent on the side of

Juno to actually make Blue Eagle collide with the ADMU Island for private ends. Juno had not

actually done any acts of piracy on the high seas against another ship, persons or property on

board the ship. The provision about piracy on the high seas under UNCLOS only applies to two

ships, the aggressor and the victim ship. For instance, the violent taking of control of the ship by

its crew or passenger is not regarded as piracy. Such was the case on the Portuguese Ship Santa

Maria in 1961 and on the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro in 1985, the two ships were hijacked

by passengers and yet it was not considered as piracy.23 Second, the international law of piracy

only applies on the “high seas” (Kontorovich, 2009). And since Strait of Foggia is a strait that

ranges from 217 nautical miles to 386 nautical miles, then the concept of “high seas” was not

22 See Sub-argument 2 (2)

23 Treves, Tullo (2009). Piracy, Law of the Sea, and Use of Force: Developments off the Coast
of Somalia. European Journal of International Law Vol. 20 no. 2 pp. 401-402
applicable thereby making the international law of piracy not as well applicable on this case. And

therefore, the arrest based on this basis was illegal.

C. Catania defeats the objects and purpose of UNCLOS provisions on hot pursuit and

arrest

Catania defeats the object and purpose of UNCLOS provisions particularly, its provisions

on hot pursuit and arrest.

1. Catania as a signatory of UNCLOS shall refrain from acts that would defeat the

object and the purpose of the treaty

Even though Catania had not ratified the UNCLOS, Catania has the obligation to

refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty since it

signed the Treaty.

Hot pursuit of the Archer and the arrest of Juno were acts that defeat the purpose of

UNCLOS’ Article 111 Section 1 and Section 2 since Archer had not violated any rights of which

the zone had been established and since Archer had not done any violations in Catania’s

Exclusive Economic Zone.

2. Some provisions of the UNCLOS were customary international laws that are why

even if Catania is not bound by the UNCLOS since it did not ratify it, it is bound by

these customary international laws.

The 1958 Conventions on the Law of the Sea codified existing laws of the
Respondent’s sea suchPage
Memorial as 14 of 23

innocent passage on strait, 24

freedom of navigation,25 States’ jurisdiction on its flagged-ships,26

and the rule that Coastal State could not take any steps on board a foreign ship to arrest to

24

1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone Article 16 Section 4
 conduct an investigation with any crime committed before it entered the States’ territorial sea. 27

The following provisions were included in the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the

Contiguous Zone and the Convention on the High Seas. The Convention on the Law of the High

Seas even stated in its preamble to be “generally declaratory of established principles of

international law.”28 Thus, these provisions are customary rules and therefore Catania is bound

to follow it.

Even the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea reflects actual practices of the

States in the Sea making it a customary international law. 29 30 31

III. CATANIA WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO TRY JUNO IN CONNECTION WITH THE

BLUE EAGLE COLLISION, AND MUST RETURN HIM TO MESSINA

IMMEDIATELY.

Jurisdictions of States were limited on its own boundaries inclusive of its Exclusive Economic

Zone as the furthest part of the territorial waters of states. The limitations in the territorial waters

of states should be in accordance to an international treaty or customary law or in specific cases

25 1958 Convention on the High Seas Article 3

Respondent’s Memorial Page 15 of 23
26 1958 Convention on the High Seas 5 Sec 1
27 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone Article 19 Sec 5
28 Shaw, M. (2003). International Law Fifth Edition p. 492
29 Rothwell, D. (2011). Maritime Piracy and International Law.
30 Treaties and International Law. (2012, April 26). Retrieved from New Zealand Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Trade
31 Groves, S. (2011). Accession to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea Is Unnecessary to
Secure U.S. Navigational Rights and Freedoms. The Heritage Foundation.
where two states shared the EEZ, it is done through the bilateral agreement between the two

states and every provision of such rules should be respected.

A. The National Court’s jurisdiction is limited to its territorial boundaries and EEZ.

The allegations of accounts that the government of Catania has filed against Juno which include

the 127 counts of murder, reckless endangerment, and negligent operation of seagoing vessel and

property crimes should be dismissed by the Catanian Court for the Blue Eagle accident that

resulted to damages and loss of lives happened within the boundaries and uncontested Exclusive

Economic Zone of Messina.

1. UNCLOS justifies Messinan jurisdiction in the case of Juno

In accordance to international law – UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) Article 27 Section 532, any acts of an individual that favors or against other nationals,

if it happens within the territorial land or waters of the State in which the accused is a national, it

should be resolved or the filing of a case should be done in the State in which the accused is a

national.

2. Catania has no right for the jurisdiction of case

Since the jurisdiction of Catania is only extended on its territorial waters and EEZ,

the Catanian Government has no full legal right on the jurisdiction of the case.

a. The “tort principle”33 implies that the jurisdiction of any cases within the

territorial land or waters of a State, inclusive of its EEZ should beRespondent’s Memorial
under that State. For any Page
case 16 of 23

proceedings, the main and primary factor that should be considered is on where the event

happened or took place. This principle was used and bound all States in Europe in which the

32 The UNLCOS Article 27 Section 5. The Law of the Sea, Basic Documents in International
Law. Edited by Brownlie. P. 115
European Court of Justice (ECJ) has applied on its decision the cases of

b. The Convention on High Seas, in which the two concerned parties ratified, states

on its provision on Article 11 Sec. 1 that in the event of a collision or of any other incident of

navigation concerning a ship on the high seas34, 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 persons except before the judicial or administrative

authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national. Thus, proven

by these paragraphs, Juno as a Messinan citizen should neither be investigated nor detained

under the Catania’s penal code 35and jurisdiction.

3. In the event of any collision on the sea that involves other nationals, the State where

the involved nationals are nationals must have consensus with the State where the

event happens.

B. The alleged cases against Juno were not fully done by the accused for the wrong

facts that the Captain of Blue Eagle had sent to the Catanian Government and the
Respondent’s Memorial Page 17 of 23
case should be further investigated.

33

34 Refers to the part where Juno was arrested in the case. Compromis
35 Article 97 of UNCLOS ( Penal jurisdiction or any other incident of navigation). The Law of
the Sea. Basic Documents in International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie. Pp. 139
 The Government of Messina considers the fact that Juno was the initial cause of the

collision of Blue Eagles to the ADMU Island. However, without the proper means of the

intention of the accused, we the Catanian government could not easily arrest Juno. Also, the

negligence of the captain of the Blue Eagle to its obligations under international law resulted to

the huge damaged to property and loss of lives in which the Catanian government believed done

by the accused.

1. Messina complied all the standards and safety measures in the establishment of

ADMU Island

The Government of Messina fully comply to the requirements in establishing an

artificial island as there is provided safety zones regarding navigation in the vicinity of the island

as pertain to the EEZ36. Regards with the safety precautions of the ships, they (Blue Eagles) do

oblige to follow the rules in the Convention on the International Regulations in Preventing

Collisions at the Sea37 which stated on its Rule 1938 that ships passing around an island, artificial

islands or installations should consider the given safety zones aligned by the Coastal State to

avoid collision. Consequently, the Captain of the Blue Eagle had failed to do. With this above

statements, it is the Captain of the Blue Eagle whom in full compliance should be investigated

and Juno must be returned and further investigated for his role in the accident in Messinan Court.

36 As according to the EEZ provision of UNCLOS, Article 60 that refers to Artificial islands,
installations and structures in the exclusive economic zone. The Law of the Sea. Basic
Documents in International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie. Pp. 125

Respondent’s Memorial Page 18 of 23

37 Also known as COLREG (Adopted as a convention on 1972 by International Maritime
Organization). International Maritime Organization from

38 COLREG Section III covers the conduct of vessels in restricted visibility (Rule 19); from
http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx
 C. The Government of Catania violated the legal principles provided by international

law together with the rights of Juno under the Human Rights Law39.

Catania, not Messina, is the one who violated international law principles as provided by

Convention on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zone and UN Convention on Jurisdictional

Immunities of States and their Properties and also, do not perform its obligation under the

Human Rights Law.

1. Catania’s Katipunan, a Navy Fast Response Cutter was in no full authority to the

immediate arrest and detention of Juno and Archers’ crew in respect to international

law.

a. Article 19 Section 1 of the Convention on Territorial Seas and Contiguous Zone

provides that the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a

foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any

investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage.

b. On the same Convention, Article 20 Section 140 and 241, it is clearly defined that

any coastal State shall not stop or divert a foreign ship and may not levy execution against it for

the exercise of civil jurisdiction and proceedings in any person boarding the ship. Therefore, it is

evidently proven that Messina fulfilled its full obligations under international law and it has the

legal responsibility42 to ensure the protection of human rights of Juno for his illegal arrest by the

Catanian authorities.
Respondent’s Memorial Page 19 of 23

39 The Human Rights Law. from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/hr_law.shtml

40 The Territorial Seas and Contiguos Zone. The Law of the Sea. Basic Documents in
International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie. Pp. 71
 c. Catania violated international law for continuing the trial without the consent of

Messina, in which the accused is a national and for not performing its obligations in good faith as

a signatory43 to the UNCLOS.

d. The international rules guided by the UN Convention on Jurisdictional

Immunities of States and Their Properties says that any coastal state could not invoke its

immunity before the court of another State unless there’s an agreement signed and agreed upon

by both States.

e. Therefore, with the proper evidences could be presented by Catania, they are

obliged to follow the binding rules of what refers to the paragraph as mentioned above.

Moreover, considering the fact that Catania’s arrest of Juno was unlawful and arbitrary, Juno and

the Government of Messina shall have an enforceable right to compensation 44 as provided by the

Article 9 Sec. 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in which all states

recognized and have obligations.

D. The Government of Messina requests the Court that Juno should be returned to its

country to be investigated and the trial and proceedings of the cased should be

terminated.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 20 of 23

41 The Territorial Seas and Contiguos Zone. The Law of the Sea. Basic Documents in
International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie. Pp. 71

42 The State Responsibility. Basic Documents in International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie.
Pp.300 and State Responsibility. International law. Malcolm Shaw

43 The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Consent to bound by a treaty expressed by
signature. Basic Documents in International Law. Edited by Ian Brownie. Pp.274
 The Catanian territorial waters were limited by the Foggia Gap treaty that established the

delineation of the EEZ of the two states. Catania being one of the parties should respect the

provisions and perform its obligations under the treaty.

1. Juno, as a Messinan national, should be subjected and further be investigated to the

laws of Messina.

a. Catania’s legal basis of using its penal code in the case was a violation to

international law as provided by the above arguments. Also, considering the fact that Catania

failed to get consent to the government of Messina regarding to the case of Juno in which the

agreement could be the only accepted rule to invoke one’s State immunity to the Court of

another State. In which, Juno must be returned to Messina for the conduct of investigation.

b. The government of Messina considers the fact that there is no extradition treaty

signed by the two parties. However, since the alleged offenses by the Catanian government

against Juno all happened in the Messinan territory and the proceedings were illegal, Messina

has a right to take over its national.

2. As such, Catania’s actions should be considered as an omission in failure to

respect the territorial integrity and extension of sovereignty of Messina on its territorial waters
Respondent’s Memorial Page 21 of 23
which include the uncontested EEZ as provided by International law and the Foggia Gap

Treaty45 in which two parties agreed.

44 Article 9 section 5 of the ICCPR states that anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest
or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

45 The Foggia Gap Treaty, Catania and Messina as based on its Exclusive Economic Zones, as
refer to the Appendix 1- map given on the Compromis. pp. 31
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent respectfully requests this Honourable Court to find,

adjudge and declare that: Respondent’s Memorial Page 22 of 23

(a) Messina’s conduct with respect to the ADMU Island project complied in all respects with

its obligations under international law and the terms of the Foggia Gap Treaty, and

Messina has no obligation to compensate Catania for any loss or damage allegedly

caused by the 2009 landslide.

(b) The Catanian Navy’s pursuit of Juno into Messina’s EEZ, and his subsequent arrest, were

illegal.
(c) Catania was without jurisdiction to try Juno in connection with the Blue Eagle collision,

and must return him to Messina immediately.

Respondent’s Memorial Page 23 of 23