Mr/Madam President, Your Excellencies, May it please the court.

My name is Ishrita Bagchi and I will continue the Respondent’s submission on the second issue before this
court. This submission pertains to the legality of the response measures taken by Arctos to Ranvicora’s
reintroduction of grey bears.

Your excellencies, since 7th February 2018, livestock, and horses were killed by the grey bears that wandered
onto Arctos. Apple orchards and beehives were also damaged; and most significantly, the endemic Trouwborst
terns’ nests and eggs were damaged, disturbing the breeding of this endemic species. Despite informing
Ranvicora and seeking that action be taken to remove the grey bears, no action was taken’ prompting Arctos’
action in setting out the carcasses. Subsequent to this, two children who came into contact with a grey bear
wandering near their farm were severely injured and one died. In light of the inaction by Ranvicora, Arctos had
no choice but to issue the emergency regulation.

It is our submission today that these actions taken by Arctos did not violate international law. We will establish
this by making four submissions, first, that Arctos did not violate its treaty obligations; second, that it did not
cause transboundary harm to Ranvicora, in fact acting to mitigate the loss caused by Ranvicora; and third, that
its actions are precluded from being considered internationally wrongful by the doctrine of necessity.

Y.E., coming to the first submission; which is that Arctos has not violated its treaty obligations. This submission
consists of three distinct parts, first, that there is no violation of the CBD; second, that Arctos did not violate the
CMS; and third, that it did not violate the Bern Convention. Y.E., as my co-agent has submitted, grey bears are
an invasive alien species in Arctos. Therefore, not only did Arctos not violate the CBD, it acted in accordance
with the duty in Article 8(h) to eradicate alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats, or species. Grey bears
have been causing immense damage in Arctos, in particular, to Trouwborst terns- which are a species found
only in Arctos. Further, as there has never been a large carnivore in Arctos, there could be significant negative
impacts on the biodiversity in Arctos. Y.E.s eradication is considered an acceptable, in fact, necessary response
under the CBD to invasive alien species, and hence, the emergency regulation and poisonings were consistent
with international law.

Second, Y.E., as Arctos is not a range state for grey bears under the CMS, it did not have any obligation to
protect them. This is because the wording of Article VI of the CMS clearly leaves it to the parties to declare
themselves range states; and Appendix I species are to be protected in their range states. In any case, Y.E.s the
killing of the grey bears is allowed under Article III(5) of the CMS which allows ‘taking’ for exceptional
circumstances; which have been interpreted to include situations where predators have attacked humans and
native animals.

Third, Y.E.s Arctos has not violated its obligations under the Bern Convention as it has not violated the
population level conservation goal mandated by the Convention, and in any case, its actions are allowed
exceptions under Article 9. Y.E.s, it is necessary to assess the economic feasibility of the recovery of a large
carnivore population. Given the damage caused to livelihoods in Arctos- therefore, the population level
necessary to be maintained would be low. It is also important to note, Y.E.s that the Bern Convention envisages
that population management be carried out at a transboundary level and it would be manifestly absurd to argue
that lethal killings are not allowed at all in areas where there are small migratory populations. State practice also
shows that countries have resorted to removal of dangerous individuals from larger bear populations in similar
circumstances. Thus, the removal of six bears in a breeding population of bears does not violate the population
level conservation goal.

In any case, Article 9 allows derogations from enacting protective legislation and killing using means prohibited
in Appendix IV, for the protection of flora and fauna, and to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock and
property. It also allows exception to be made for public safety. Y.E.s, the grey bears have caused damage to
orchards, farms, and also gravely endangered the safety of the citizens of Arctos, injuring one child and killing
another. One of the conditions under Article 9 is that the derogation must not be detrimental to the survival of
the population; and the broader population is also considered for this purpose. Further, under the Habitats
Directive, an implementing legislation in the EU- derogations are granted for species that don’t have favourable
conservation status as long as the status of species is not worsened. The removal of about six individuals does
not amount to a threat to the survival of the species as a whole.

Coming to the second submission, Y.E.s; Arctos has not caused transboundary harm to Ranvicora. Y.E.s the
essentials for an action to result in transboundary harm is a physical relationship between the activity and the
damage, human causation, a threshold of severity, and transboundary movement of harmful effects. In this case,
Y.E.s, the killing of grey bears in Ranvicora did not result in any transboundary movement of harmful effects.
While the act here could be the setting out of poisoned carcasses or issuance of the emergency regulation, the
effect was the death of the grey bears; which also happened in Arctos. Thus, there was no transboundary effect
on Ranvicora.

In fact, States are obligated to take measure to mitigate the effect of the damage caused and prevent harm from
reaching its full potential; and such measures are consistent with the precautionary principle. Y.E.s the actions
taken by Ranvicora were necessary to prevent further harm to biodiversity in Arctos, especially Trouwborst
terns from the invasive grey bears.

Lastly, Y.E.s Arctos’ actions are precluded from being considered internationally wrongful by the doctrine of
necessity. Necessity has been recognized by the ICJ as CIL; and has been codified by the ILC. To take the
defence of necessity it must be the only way for a State to safeguard an essential interest against grave and
imminent peril that does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State towards whom an obligation
exists. Bears who are excessively habituated to human beings and approach human settlements are considered
dangerous; and large predators are also known to severely endanger seabirds such as terns leading to extinction
risks. Thus, Y.E., there is no question that the dangers faced were grave and imminent. This was the only way
that Arctos could have protected its interests as factors like the availability of wild prey are outside the control
of the government of Arctos and short-term measures such as guard dogs are known to be ineffective. Thus, this
was the only way to protect the livelihood and safety of their citizens as well as the endemic tern. Y.E.s, it is
also required that the interest that is sacrificed must be less important that the interest sought to be protected.
There exists significant amounts of state practice to suggest that In cases where a species is invasive, and may
lead to widespread extinction of a native species, controlling it may be considered even when it is endangered in
its native environment. Similarly, the need to control the detrimental impact of grey bears, being an IAS;
outweighs the more general interest in their conservation.

With that, YE, I come to an end of my submissions, our prayer has been placed on record. I thank you Your
Excellencies for your time and indulgence. May it please the Court.