Clarifications to the Case Concerning the Umarghela River

Note that three more questions (nrs. 56, 57, 58) have been added on 10/12/2010
 
1. How high is the average discharge of the river after the construction of the dam?
All that is known is that the flow, and thus the average discharge, was significantly reduced. See paragraph 12 of the Compromis.
 
2. Were the industries located up- or downstream of the dam?
See Map.
 
3. Does the waste dumped into the river by the industries in Larmastan contain toxic chemicals as referred to in para. 12 of the Compromis?
Yes.
 
4. Did Larmastan comply with the 1905 Treaty during and under the government of General Safire of 1964? Have there been any official statements and/or notifications in that regard?
Please see Clarifications 29, 33 and 52.
 
5. Did the construction of the Lulabeki-Dam affect the flow of the Umarghela river only after its inauguration?
No.
 
6. Has the 1905 treaty ever been deposited with the UN Secretary General?
It has been registered.
 
7. What were the dates of Marosland's letters of protest and of Larmastan's sole response - paragraph 14, Problem?
The exact dates are unknown.
 
8. On what dates did Marosland and Larmastan respectively sign the Watercourses Convention? Both signed in 1997.
See also Clarification 46.
 
9. Did Larmastan and Marosland enter into agreement about mutual legal assistance?
No.
 
10. What is the official status of the Filumarga and the Mangirizo in their countries?
Neither Larmastan nor Marosland have legislation specifying the status of their respective national tribes.
 
11. Was FALD registered as legal entity in the proper way?
Not if ‘proper way’ is supposed to mean ‘under the laws and regulations of Larmastan’.
 
12. Were either Larmastan or Marosland non-permanent members of the UNSC when resolution 2998 was passed?
No.
 
13. Is any medical evidence available as to the causes of the health problems suffered by the Filumarga and the Mangirizo?
Yes.
 
14. Does the dam produce electricity for just Larmastan or for Marosland too?
See Clarification 16.
 
15. Is the River Umarghela a central part of the religion of the F-Tribe, comparable to the Ganges in Hinduism?
Yes, to the extent that it also concerns a river and religious rites.
 
16. Does Larmastan export electricity from the Lulabeki Dam to neighbouring countries, especially to Marosland?
No.
 
17. Prior to the building of the Lulabeki Dam, has Larmastan and/or the World Bank Group conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in general or specifically for environmental issues and if so, what were the results?
See Clarification 43.
 
18. How does the absence of environmental legislation in Marosland reflect upon the general level of development of its entire legal system?
Marosland and Larmastan concur in considering that a statement on the ‘general level of development of [their respective] legal system[s]’ is beyond the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.
 
19. Does the destruction of the rice paddies lead to starvation in Marosland or adversely influence Marosland's export and/or trade?
Yes.
 
20. Did the World Bank group and/or the IMF effectively invest in the construction of the Dam and the broader industrialization of Larmastan?
See paragraph 10 of the Compromis. The Lulabeki-Dam can be considered important for the broader industrialization of Larmastan
 
21. What international anti-terrorist conventions have Larmastan and Marosland ratified? They are both parties only to the 1970 Unlawful Seizure Convention, the 1971 Civil Aviation Convention and the 1980 Nuclear Materials Convention.
22. Whether Larmastan and Marosland are the parties of International Convention on Liquidation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965?
No (assuming this refers to the CERD).
 
23. Whether Larmastan and Marosland are the parties of Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1978?
No.
 
24. Are Marosand's rice paddies subject to direct flood irrigation or is there a more complex irrigation system and/or water purification system?
See paragraph 5 of the Compromis, since that is the extent to which information is available.
 
25. Were the letters of protest on Marosland behalf sent to Larmastan before, during or after the building of the Lulabeki-dam?
See Clarification 41.
 
26. Do activities of Marosland affect the quality of the water of Umarghela (e.g through industrial activities, utilisation of manures etc)?
Yes, but which country in this world does not "affect” the quality of the water of its major rivers?
 
27. Did the Treaty on the River Umarghela contain provisions regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal?
No.
 
28. Were the religious rights of the Mangirizo injured by the conctruction of the Lulabeki-Dam like the rights of the Filumarga?
No, because they do not have the same religion.
 
29. Did Larmastan and Marosland make a statement regarding succession of states in respect of the Treaty on the River Umarghela when they became independent from the colonial rule?
Yes. They both issued a notification of succession on the 1905 Treaty. Marosland’s notification was duly signed by its first Minister of Foreign Affairs and sent to the government of Belragia in December 1954. Larmastan’s notification is disputed. It was issued in 1961 by John Crocoit, a cousin of General Safire. He held no official function in the army of General Safire. His action was motivated by a desire to please General Safire. Larmastan currently claims that the notification issued by Lt Crocoit cannot bind Larmastan. See Clarifications 33 and 52 for subsequent practice.
 
30. Did Larmastan after gaining independence make any declarations as to which colonial-period treaties it considers being in force or any notifications about the contrary?
No, except as stated in Clarification 29.
 
31. If Belragia still exists, did it ever claim defect of consent in relation to 1905 Treaty?
This is unknown.
 
32. Did Marosland proclaim succession to the 1905 Treaty – in declaration or some other express way?
Yes, see Clarification 29.
 
33. Could you please clarify/specify how did Marosland and Larmastan deal with the river during the period between 1954 and 1985, respectively after Marosland gained its independence and while Larmastan was still in the process of regulating its internal affairs? Larmastan’s government was too busy gaining independence (and later too busy maintaining its dictatorial regime) to bother about the river and Marosland had no complaints. No serious issue arose in relation to the river in that period. See also Clarification 52 and 29.
 
34. Is Umarghela river the only source available for Larmastan or they can rely on other sources?
Please refer to the Compromis.
 
35. Could you please specify what actions did FALD undertake against the Corporations in Larmastan ("FALD initially turned its anger towards the corporations")
Yes, that would be possible, but not quite relevant.
 
36. Does Larmastan’s claim that "the 1905 Treaty is no longer applicable” (para. 19) mean that Larmastan does not contest the validity of the treaty at its inception?
This will depend on the structure of the legal argument…
 
37. Are any of the heavy industries referred to in para. 9 owned by natural or legal persons retaining Marosland nationality?
No.
 
38. Did Larmastan conduct an environmental impact assessment prior to the construction of the Lulabeki-Dam?
Yes, but the results have not been made public.
 
39. Has the 1905 Treaty on the River Umarghela been acted according to and have there been any objections to it prior to the construction of the Dam?
See Clarification 33 and 52.
 
40. Has either Larmastan or Marosland made any devolution agreements, original accessions or unilateral declarations of willingness to be bound by any treaties made by their respective colonial powers?
See Clarification 29. Other than the one mentioned there, they have not issued any such agreements or declarations, see also Clarification 30.
 
41. Regarding paragraph 14 of the Case, at what point in the construction process of the Dam did Marosland become aware and when did it first protest?
It is not exactly known when Marosland became aware of the project, but as soon as it did, it protested against it.
 
42. With reference to paragraph 16 of the Case, were Marosland invited to participate in any meetings with the Security Council before or after the issuance of Resolution 2998 (2009)? No.
 
43. The case notes that the Security Council discussed Larmastan's request "quickly". What was the timeline involved?
The exact time-line is not available, due to the secrecy surrounding the inner workings of the Security Council.
 
44. Has the same government been in power in Larmastan since the new constitution of the country was enacted?
See paragraph 8 of the Compromis.
 
45. What is the precise average discharge, in terms of m3/s, of the Umarghela River after the inauguration of the Lulabeki-Dam?
See Clarification 1.
 
46. Did the construction of the Lulabeki-Dam commence before or after Larmastan signed the UN Watercourse Convention?
The UN Watercourses Convention was signed by Larmastan in 1997. The first plans and preparatory works preceded that date by a number of years, but the putting in place of the parts of the construction that would actually influence the flow of the Umarghela River occurred after the signing the Convention.
 
47. What were the terms of the bilateral investment treaties concluded by Larmastan?
The BITs contained provisions on protection of foreign investment and rules on expropriation of property.
 
48. What form of pressure was asserted by Imperalia on Belragia?
See paragraph 4 of the Compromis.
 
49. When and how much water was utilised by Lamarstan post-independence?
This question cannot be answered other than by the details provided in the Compromis.
 
50. To what extent was agriculture destroyed due to the pollution?
See paragraph 14 of the Compromis.
 
51. After its inauguration in 2000, during which months did Larmastan operate the Lulabeki-Dam?
The Lulabeki-Dam constitutes a permanent construction in the Umaghela River.
 
52. Has Lamarstan, after gaining independence, ever invoked any of the 1905 Treaty provisions and/or taken any actions under the 1905 Treaty?
No, because no situation has occurred that would have given rise to an issue related to the 1905 Treaty. See also the answer to clarification 29 and 33.
53. Has the World Bank, despite its support to the Lulabeki-Dam construction, expressed any doubts or objections with regard to the construction or operation of that Dam?
Yes, upon granting the loan, it has asked Larmastan to give consideration to the environment.
 
54. Have Mangirizo’s religious rites and cultural practices also been restricted by the reduction of the Umarghela’s river stream flow?
See paragraph 5 of the Compromis.
 
55. By what means have Imperalia coerced Belragia to ratify the 1905 treaty?
See Clarification 48.
 
56. If a bilateral extradition treaty between Marosland and Larmastan exists, what are the principles contained within it?
No.

57. Are there alternative fresh water resources available to Marosland?
Please refer to the Compromis, this is the extent to which this information is available

58. Are there any other relevant Human Rights treaties to which Larmastan and Marosland are parties to?
Please refer to the Compromis and the Clarifications. No other treaties are applicable (and, by the way, what would you do if the answer were 'yes'?).
 
END
 


DIRECT LINKS:

Calendar of EventsPost-Conflict JusticeGrotius PhD TrackAdvanced LLM Summer ProgrammesLeiden Law SchoolSystematic Sexual Violence and Victims' RightsVisiting (PhD) Researchers