I.

THE REPUBLIC OF AURELIA HAS STANDING TO SUBMIT CLAIMS SET OUT IN

SUBPARAGRAPHS (C) AND (D) BELOW AGAINST THE FEDERATION OF RAVALANCIA.

Aurelia has standing to submit claims against Ravalancia as [A] it has standing based on erga

omnes partes obligations under the Basel Convention, which Ravalancia violated through its

failure to prevent illegal e-waste exports; or [B] it has standing to invoke erga omnes

obligations, as the transboundary environmental harm and public health crisis in Aurelia

engage a collective international interest and establish Ravalancia’s responsibility.

A. Aurelia has standing based on Erga Omnes Partes obligations violated by

Ravalancia

Standing has been accepted based on erga omnes partes obligations established on the basis

of the relevant obligations under the Convention against the subject matter. 1 In this regard,

Aurelia has standing based on Erga Omnes Partes obligations violated by Ravalancia

contained in Articles 4 and 9 of the Basel Convention.2

1. Aurelia has standing based on Basel Convention

Standing can be granted about obligations under a treaty entitles only a State having a special

connection with the case to bring a claim to the Court 3. This entitles any State party to claim

the Erga Omnes Partes obligations violated by another contracting State.4

States have standing to bring claims based on obligations owed to all Contracting States

where they have a special interest 5 such as in the Basel Convention. All states including the

‘injured state’ can invoke the responsibility of the offending State if the obligation owed to it
1
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) (Judgment) [2012]
[‘Belgium v Senegal’] ICJ Rep 450 [70].
2
Articles 4 and 9 of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal, 22 March 1989, UNTS 1673 UNTS 57.
3
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (Second Phase) [1970]
[‘Barcelona Traction’] ICJ Rep 32 [33]-[34].
4
Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic) (Provisional Measures) [2023] ICJ Rep 14
[50]-[51];
5
Ibid no.1 (FIX IT)
was breached individually.6 An injured State must be particularly affected by the breach,

distinguishing it from other obligated States.7

The environmental harm at the Diagloss site and public health crisis suffered only by Aurelia

shows that the State has been specifically affected by the breach. LLT knew that many

exported units were destined for dismantling rather than repair. 8 Hence, Aurelia can invoke

the responsibility of Ravalancia for violating its Erga Omnes Partes obligations.9

Furthermore, it has been seen that an interest in the fulfilment of obligations Erga Omnes

Partes is sufficient to establish the judicial standing of the applicant State when instituting

ICJ proceedings.10

2. As a Contracting State to the Basel Convention, Aurelia has standing to bring the

claim for breaches of the obligation Erga Omnes Partes.

A multilateral treaty, such as the Basel Convention may create multilateral obligations or

bilateral obligations.11 Since Article 4 uses the term ‘other parties’ and Article 9 requires

cooperation between multiple states, Articles 4 and 9 impose multilateral obligations and

hence, the obligations extend towards Aurelia. Obligations Erga Omnes Partes may be

invoked through the institution of proceedings before the Court 12, regardless of whether a

special interest can be demonstrated or not.13

6
UN ILC, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, vol. II (Part Two) UN Doc.
A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.1 (Part 2), at Arts 48, 126.
7
Draft article on ILC ARSIWA
8
Prop reference
9
ILC, ‘Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act adopted by the ILC at its 53rd
Session, annexed to G.A. Res. 56/83’ (12 December 2001) UN Doc A/RES/56/83 [‘ARSIWA’], Art 48(1)(a);
The Gambia v. Myanmar [108]; Belgium v Senegal [69].
10
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime Genocide (The Gambia v
Myanmar) (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of 22 July 2022, 3 para 112.
11
ILC, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Act with commentaries, adopted by the
ILC at its 53rd Session., UN Doc A/56/10 (2001) [‘ARSIWA commentaries’], [117]-[119]; Crawford, Chance,
Order, Change (n 1) 186. See also Longobardo, ‘The Standing of Indirectly Injured States’ (n 13) 4–6.
12
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v
Myanmar) (Preliminary Objections) Judgment of 22 July 2022, 3 to para 108.
13
Brian McGarry, “A rush to judgment? The wobbly bridge from judicial standing to intervention in ICJ
proceedings”, QIL, Zoom-in, vol. 100 (2023).
Alternatively, if a special interest is required to be demonstrated, it is an established fact that

Aurelia has suffered some form of damage, namely harm to human health and environment.

This satiates the requirement of having an interest in the claim or the entity needing to suffer

some sort of damage.14 This furthermore shows that there is clear interest on part of the

Applicant side and hence, standing is to be granted. 15 Therefore, Aurelia does have standing

to bring the claims contained in subparagraphs (c) and (d) before this Court.

B. Alternatively, Aurelia has the standing to bring the claim for breaches of the

obligations Erga Omnes

1. The obligation to prevent transboundary environmental harm and public health

damage is Erga Omnes under International Law

Obligations Erga Omnes are owed to the international community as a whole and all States

have a interest in the protection of the rights involved. 16 As these obligations are Erga Omnes,

all states possess a legal interest in their enforcement. 17 Environment protection is

‘undertaken in the common superior interest of humankind’, 18 and is thus inherently

collective in nature. Such obligations require States to ensure that the activities within their

jurisdiction and control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national

jurisdiction’ and is firmly ‘part of the corpus of international law’. 19 All States have the

obligation to protect and preserve the environment 20, which constitutes erga omnes.21 The

14
(Longobardo, ‘The Standing of Indirectly Injured States’ (n 13) 11). (FIX IT)
15
S.S. Wimbledon (U.K. v. Germ.), 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1 (June 28) (TO BE FIXED)
16
Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (Second
Phase) [1970] [‘Barcelona Traction’] ICJ Rep 32 [33]-[34].
17
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion)
[2004] [‘The Wall’] ICJ Rep 194 [155]; East Timor (Portugal v Australia) (Judgment) [1995] ICJ Rep 90 [29].
18
Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) (Judgment) (Separate Opinion of
Judge Cançado Trindade) [2010] ICJ Rep. 14, at para. 173 (‘Pulp Mills’).
19
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at para. 29
(‘Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion’).
20
Environmental Obligations of States Arising from Duty to Protect Human Rights. International Law Reports.
2021;193:182-316. doi:10.1017/ilr.2021.9.
21
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Environmental Law Is an Obligation Erga Omnes:
Emerging Inter-American Advisory Opinion (June 2018).
treaties recognized under same regard included the Basel Convention which is a treaty

providing obligations in the same regard22 leading to the constitution opinio juris.

The standard of obligation for preventing transboundary harm is linked to ‘a risk of causing

significant transboundary harm’23. This in turn, requires ‘real’ and measurable ‘detrimental

effects’ on inter alia the ‘health, industry, property, environment or agriculture’ of the injured

State.24 Another obligation aligns with the Trail Smelter formulation of the obligation which

barred activities which would cause harm ‘to the territory of another’ State. 25 A general

obligation exists requires States to take preventative measures to ensure that the activities that

take place in their States do not cause harm to the environment of other States and to

common spaces.26

It can be proved that the acts in question, legally, are imputable to the actions of a State if; [a]

it was fully aware of their obligations under the conventions in force to take appropriate steps

to protect the other signatories [b] was fully aware of the need of urgent action on their part,

yet lapsed [c]it had the means at their disposa1 to perform their obligation [d] it completely

failed to comply with these obligations.27

The obligation is breached when the requisite level of harm occurs and requires a causal link

between the harm alleged and an activity taking place in the territory of the offending State. 28

The damages suffered by Aurelia ranged from water contamination to public health hazards

the cause of which has been identified as the Diagloss site. 29 With over 80% of the tested

samples linking to Kvaros and chemical signatures consistent with Sortlax products, the

22
Supra
23
UN ILC, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, at commentary to Draft Art. 1, 149.
24

25
Trail Smelter, at 1965.
26
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, at para. 29.
27
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, United States v Iran, Judgment, ICJ GL No 64, [1980]
ICJ Rep 3, ICGJ 124 (ICJ 1980), 24th May 1980, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ].
28
Brunnée, Procedure and Substance in International Environmental Law, at 63–64 and 108–109.
29
Prop
casual link has been achieved by the similarity of chemical signatures being consistent with

the Kvaros-based manufacturers.30

Herein, Ravalancia was aware of their obligations under the convention, was fully aware of

need for prevention and later punishment, yet lapsed and failed to comply with the

obligations. Aurelia has suffered damage with regards to health and environment in particular

and hence satisfies the mentioned threshold and is a specially injured state, as will be

established in the fourth issue.

Hence, Aurelia has the standing to bring the claim for breaches of the obligations Erga

Omnes under Customary International Law.

30
Prop