Advice to the State of Bistro - Essay Example

Law: The of Astro Vs The of Bistro al Affiliation) Key words:United Nations Jurisdictions, International laws, environmental health assessments. Abstract It is a fact that most countries depend on oil. They will go to any length for the assurance that oil is going to be accessible to them at any means possible. Further studies of the history proves that several countries have prepared to fight one another in the sole purpose of defending the oil resources in the regions of dispute. Some countries have even decided to fight for borders containing this resource. In case of a dispute erupting in one of the oil reserves, the dire consequences have been devastating. More so, the ignorance to the environment when this conflicts occur have led to destruction of the environment to greater effect. In spite of all the effects, when there is no agreement on how to manage this reserve by the conflicting parties, the people and the environment suffer. One of the most dangerous thing to happen to the sea is oil spillage. Therefore by building a refinery at the coast, the aquatic life is endangered. In addition to that, the emissions from the factory are a heath hazard to the people around the refinery. To say the least, the most ignorant of all cases is when it is built at the coast and the border of two countries. This is due to the difference in laws of the two countries and the consequent conflicts that may loom. Advice to the State of Bistro The citizens of Bistro are hardworking, law abiding citizens that are earning their living mainly though agriculture. This culture has been passed from generation to generation and has been their source of livelihood for a very long time. Living along the coast region of Bistro, the state has every responsibility to protect them from both internal and external dangers. Building of the refinery along the coast border of Bistro and Astro has different experiences for the two states. To the State of Astro, it is a perfect economical resource. Furthermore, oil refinery will not only boost their economy but also their standards to the international community. They will employ people and also boost their per capita income. Many countries would like to have that opportunity of oil fields anywhere in their country but Astro is privileged. The economic advantage that they are going to have from now on is higher than ever before. Furthermore, the country has a very low population; almost half the size of Bistro. Though the economic impact of the oil is significant to the state of Astro, the other impacts must not also be ignored. There are environmental and health hazards combined with the fact that the oil refinery is going to be situated at a border of two countries. By polluting the sea, the State of Astra will be violating the United Nations Convention for Laws of the Sea. The law states that the waters should be protected by the countries dwelling near it as that is International Water (Shaw 2003 pg. 78). The hazards from the refinery will violate the conservation of fishing and conservation of living resources of the high seas. Even though both states did not participate in the 1991 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment, the citizens of Bistro at the border cannot be denied the chance to participate in the Environmental Impact assessment procedure. This is because, just as the other citizens of Astra, they are going to be affected in more than one way. There are other several laws of the United Nations that can be used to protect the citizens of Bistro at the coastal border (Crawford 2010 pg. 14). According to the International standards Chapter of the United Nations, Article 55 B: “With a view stability and the wellbeing necessary for friendly and peaceful relations among nations, based on the respect for equal rights and self –determination of citizens. The United nations promote solutions to the international economic, social and related problems.”(Crawford 2010 pg. 14). By failing to involve the Bistro government, Astro has failed the international law. It is important and also necessary for a country to inform the other of an event that will affect its people in one way or another. To understand this, the people of Bistro are citizens depending on agriculture and thus are bound to use water in every way. In line with that, the contamination by the oil refinery are going to leak in the water used by the people of the Bistro state. This is going to interfere not only with their culture but also the peaceful coexistence between the two bordered nations. Article 12:1 of the international standards states that “State parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of the physical and mental state(Crawford 2010 pg. 22).” By not considering the wellbeing of the people, there must be a covenant put in place by both states to ensure that the livelihood of the people on both borders is catered for. Since both states of Bistro and Astro have accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, they are bound by the international laws. Therefore any threat to the international laws have to be treated according to the international standards. The state of Astro has to involve the State of bistro in any form of activity or event likely to affect its citizens at any point. In connection to that, wherever they make a treaty or an agreement of any kind, they are bound by the International Court of justice (Shaw 2003 pg. 97). The state of Bistro therefore are free to file a case to the international Court of Justice and block Astro from erecting the refinery across anywhere near the border of their country without informing them. They are free to file a case blocking the development of the refinery near its border since the effects on people will be higher that imagined. Moreover, the state of Astro must first assure the people along the coast that the development of the refinery near the coast will not affect them in any way. My advice is that this country should seek international justice and make sure its citizens live in harmony. Question 2 a After ignoring the pleas of the state of Bistro, the development of the oil refinery has been completed. It was evident from many other countries like Nigeria, the oil refineries have had spillage in water and toxins to the land around it. Evidently, the plea of the citizens of Bistro in the past years against the refinery being built was not heard. During that time, had they been allowed to participate in the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure, they would have rose the various issues that might affect them. This wish was not granted to them and therefore the state of Astra is responsible to the conditions that have affected this agricultural community in along the coast (Keefe 2013 pg. 9). According to International law of State Responsibility, a country can be incriminated if its actions will have an effect on the lives of the citizens of the other country(Keefe 2013 pg. 34). In this case, the citizens of Bistro have been affected by the toxic materials that have been produced by the Astra State Oil Refinery. Not only has the fumes affected the agricultural production, it has also affected the fishing industry. Toxic materials dumped in the sea have had a negative impact on the lives of the people living in that area. In one of the many incidences, more than a half of the population have developed complications and illness as a result of the toxic fumes from the region. It is clear that the Environmental Impact assessment procedure that was carried out by the State of Astro was not thorough in any way. They presented a shoddy work to the state of Bistro and assured them of the safety of its people but that has not been the case. The people have been badly affected contrary to their agreement and the land has been polluted. It has been a breach to their personal health and their right to a healthy living. In this case, the state of Astra has a responsibility to remove all the toxic materials from the sea and also cleanse the land that they have polluted. The state of Bistro is liable to suing the state of Astra for breaching the agreement and causing harm to its citizen; economically, physically and also psychologically. It is contrary to the international law of State Responsibility for a country to cause harm to the citizens of another country be it physically or psychologically. In the same manner, when the state of Astro caused the land and the sea to be polluted, the committed a crime as in article 19 paragraph 2 of the State responsibility which states that; international crime may result from serious breach of the international obligation of essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the environment, such as those prohibiting massive pollution of the environment atmosphere or the seas. It is therefore right in every way if the state of Bistro are to file a case against the state of Bistro for the breach and for the injuries and effects caused to its own citizens due to their irresponsibility. It is the citizens at the coast have a right to be protected against environmental and health hazards and therefore going against that is a breach to their right. The evidence is clear that the people at the coast have been affected. When presenting the evidence, we consider the health reports that have indicate the sudden rise in complications, destruction of the livelihoods, pollution of ancestral lands and harm to the sea creatures. All this are crime evidences that can be presented to the international court for justice too prevail. Part 2 b The Astro State Oil refinery can be able to plead state immunity to any sort of challenges to the court by the State of Astro. This due to the fact that the company is a national company owned by the state. In any case, the United Nations Convention on Jurisdiction Immunities of State and Their properties entitles immunity to their state property. In this manner, since the oil refinery is affiliated to the company, they are entitled by the law to immunity (Yang 2012 pg. 7, 9). According to part 2 article 5 of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdiction Immunities of State and Their properties, the state has been given full immunity by refraining from exercising of proceeding before its court against another state and that assurance that its courts should determine on their own initiative that the immunity of the other state is respected(Yang 2012 pg. 33). Furthermore, the state cannot evoke immunity from jurisdiction in the proceedings before a court of another State in regards to a matter or case if expressly consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court with regard to the matter or case in this case the national oil refinery. In this manner, the court of Astro are entitled to conduct their own judgment of the matter without involving the consent of the court of Bistro. With this in mind, the Astro national oil Refinery is free to continue working until when its countries law deem it unfit to operate. It is only after the country’s court investigate the matter at hand from the State of Bistro can they pass any judgment in relation to the matter. This way they are entitled to conduct this exercise at their own pace and precession (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea2009 paragraph. 7). Since this is a state property and the revenue from it is much more than any of the rest of the properties own by the country, judgment by its court will most like most likely be bias. In this manner, the only way the state of Astro is going to act is if they decide to and not by the pressure on them by the other state. Part 2 of the Article also states that “A State shall not be considered to have consented to the exercise ofjurisdiction by a court of another State if it intervenes in a proceeding or takesany other step for the sole purpose of:invoking immunity; orasserting a right or interest in property at issue in the proceeding.” In line with this, the state is entitled to developing its own investigation and that they are free to conclude in any manner they deem fit. In this case, Bistro will have to wait for whatever length of time for the judgment as their people suffer(Crawford 2010 pg. 14). To avoid all this therefore, state of Bistro is supposed to file a case to the international court of justice so that they are able to assist them in the case. The international Court will have the sole right of ensuring that the rights of the citizens of Bistro are protected in any way possible(Provost 2002 pg. 17). Reference 1. Crawford, J. (2010). The law of international responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. (1961). Extraterritorial Application of the Antitrust Laws: A Conflict of Laws Approach. The International Executive,3(1), 23-24. 3. Hobson, M. (2010). Laws and Universality, Laws and History.International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotiquejuridique, 23(3), 265-281. 4. Keefe, R. (2013). The United Nations convention on jurisdictional immunities of States and their property: a commentary. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 5. Provost, R. (2002). State responsibility in international law. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate/Dartmouth. 6. Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law(5th ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 7. The Law of the sea: multilateral treaties relevant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.. (1985). New York: Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea :. 8. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (2009). New York: Nova Science Publishers. 9. Yang, X. (2012). State immunity in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. Wells, D. A. (2005). The United Nations states vs international laws. New York: Algora Pub. Read More