Statement of Jurisdiction

The State of Leonia ( Leonia), as applicant and the state of Vulpinia ( Vulpinia) as respondent
are the parties to this case submitted to the International Court of Justice ( ICJ) for disposition. In
accordance with Article 36 paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the
state of Leonia and the state of Vulpinia submitted the following dispute to the Court in
accordance with a special agreement. There being no other procedural impediment. The issues
being raised is hereby submitted and is now ripe for adjudication.

Questions Presented:

I
Should the state of Vulpinia be made liable for the loss of the newly discovered starfish
specie found in the Stella Marie Ice Shelf?

II

Is the use of the Stella Maris Ice Shelf, as a dump site for the use of the State of Vulpinia in
accordance with International law?
Summary of Pleadings

First Pleading

The facts and circumstances stated above has indicated that the state of Leonia does not have
legal standing before the International Court of Justice to pray for compensation over the damage
caused by the hazardous materials dumped by Dr. Detritus and his company it is due to the
reason that the Stella Marie ice shelf is incapable of being subjected to ownership by any state by
virtue of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 to which it is also a signatory.

Furthermore, being considered as “Terra Nullius” the Stella Maris Ice Shelf is owned by all
countries regardless if it is a signatory of the Antarctic treaty or not. Hence, by operation of law
and by applying general principles accepted by the international community. The state of
Vulpinia has a share over the ice shelf involved. Moreover, the state of Leonia has failed to
observe the procedural guidelines under the treaty before any case can filed Therefore, the state
of Leonia cannot insist that it has sole jurisdiction over the Stella Mari.

Second Pleading

The state of Leonia is estopped from claiming compensation from the state of Vulpinia by reason
of estoppel because through its agents Lieutenant Rubenetti and the whole Leonian government
participated during the disposal operations conducted by Dr. Detritus’ team. Hence, he who
comes to court must come in clean hands and it is evident from the foregoing that both the
applicant and the respondent are equally responsible for the damage caused in the Stella Maris
ecosystem.
 I. The state of Leonia has no legal Standing over the Stella Maris Ice shelf by reason
that it is “Terra Nullius” and it has failed to observe to guidelines provided under the
Antarctic Treaty of 1959.

The state of Leonia is barred from recovering compensable damages against the state of
Vulpinia by reason that the Stella Maris ice shelf is “Terra Nullius” or in other words it is
uninhabited and no state has ever exercised jurisdiction over it and pursuant to jurisprudence
decided by this honorable court in the Island of Palmas case, only those who exercised acts of
sovereignty and occupation are considered to have exclusive dominion over the lands in
question. United States v Netherlands, Award, (1928) II RIAA 829, ICGJ 392 (PCA 1928),
4th April 1928, Permanent Court of Arbitration [PCA]

In the case at bar, it is evident from the foregoing facts that the discovery of the Stella Maris was
only brought on April 9, 1987 by Professor Hardin and made known to the public through a
newspaper headline. Hence, before 1987 both parties are strangers to the Stella Maris ice shelf
and have no definitive claim over it. Therefore, if both parties are stranger s to the ice shelf, how
come the state of Leonia could acquire the prescribed juridical personality to sue the state of
Vulpinia for the damage caused over the Stella Maris shelf considering that it is not part of its
territory.

Furthermore, to reinforce this premise Article IV of the Antarctic treaty provides that no exercise
of sovereignty or new claim can be done on all parts of the polar continent whether they are
discovered or not and clearly filing a case founded on a cause of action for parts of the said land
is a manifestation that the state of Leonia imposes an act of sovereignty over the Stella Maris.
Article IV, Antarctic Treaty of 1959

In addition, since the ice shelf in question is agreed upon by the parties as “Terra Nullius” and
with the treaty of Antarctic treaty in force. It also means that the Stella Maris can be enjoyed by
any state as part of the common heritage of mankind and even if the assuming arguendo that the
dumping of the waste materials over the said ice shelf is contrary to customary international law.
The state of Leonia on its own cannot file a case against the State of Vulpinia for under Article
XI of the same treaty before any legal procedure can be undertaken the controlling members
pursuant to such article must be first consulted in this case the State of Leonia has failed to
observe such requirement. Thereby, strips it of any legal standing to sue solely for the damage
caused to the Stella Maris Starfishes. Article XI, Antarctic Treaty of 1959

I. Leonia is estopped from praying compensation over the degradation of the Stella
Maris ecosystem since through its authorized agents it participated in the disposal of
the hazardous waste together with the agents of Vulpinia.

The state of Leonia is barred by estoppel to sue the state of Vulpinia because it also participated
in the retrieval operations together with Dr. Detritus. Its evident from the foregoing facts that the
two governments remained in constant contact with one another from planning to the actual
undertaking of the disposal participated by Lieutenant Rubenelli of the Leonian Navy. Hence,
the doctrine on State of responsibility has also set in. Hungary v Slovakia, Judgment, Merits,
ICJ GL No 92, [1997] The Leonian government cannot deny this fact and it cannot stand to be
benefited from a wrong doing that it too is a participant.

Furthermore, as a participant in the disposal operation the doctrine on “ Pari Delicto” would also
apply as from the exchanges between the ministers of the two nations and the acts of those who
participated it can included that the act of actually discharging the waste materials around the
Stella Maris ice shelf. E. Sabbath The International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 8,
No. 4 (Oct., 1959) Moreover, as the term “ Pari Delicto” the state of Vulpinia cannot deny its
liability in the incident for the acts of their agents would also constitute state responsibility for it
was their acquiescence to the proposal of Dr. Detritus that led to the faithful decision.

In addition, the term compensable damages is defined in international law as the breach of
obligation of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation Germany v Poland,
Judgment, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment No 13, (1928) PCIJ Series A No 17
while under Philippine jurisdiction damages is defined as a sum of money levied upon anybody
by mandate of law as pecuniary compensation for the satisfaction of an injury done or a wrong
sustained either for a breach of contract or a tortious act. In the case at bar, it could be
established that there is neither an existing contract between the two states with regard to the
proper disposal of the waste materials dumped by the state of Vulpinia nor it can be considered
as tortious act by the respondent considering that the state of Leonia cannot exercise powers of
administration or ownership in the Stella Maris ice shelf. Oscar Ventanilla vs Gregorio
Centeno G.R. No. L-14333 January 28, 1961