MAIN ARGUMENT: Revels has no state responsibility over the conduct in Sargasso Sea.

SUB ARGUMENT: Revels and all states have freedom on the high seas under Article 87 of the
UNCLOS.
The Sargasso Sea as described in the Hamilton Declaration is the portion of the high
seas. Revels and all states have freedom of the high seas. The SEA Corporation is harvesting
Sargassum entirely on the high seas and has the right to do so. According to customary law,
high sea is known to be tella nullius and free for all. Moreover, under Article 87 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III entitled Freedom of the High Seas
listed rights referred to as freedom: (a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight; (c)
freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d) freedom to construct
artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part
VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f) freedom of
scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII. Although subjected to such limitations, in The
Republic Of The Philippines v The People’s Republic Of China, states that “the rights of other
States in the exclusive economic zone are detailed in Article 58 and are limited to “navigation
and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally
lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms. The rights of other States do not include
restricting a coastal State from exploiting the living resources of its own exclusive economic
zone”. In addition, there are also a host of other international groups, including the
International Whaling Commission that look after aspects of the seas, but there is no
principal treaty that would protect biodiversity or limit exploitation.

The Revels has acted in accordance with the mandates of the UNCLOS to conserve
living resources on the high seas and cooperate with other states. This is manifested by the
program launched to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to expand its use of renewable
energy, and meet its NDC commitments under the Paris Agreement. Revels is doing its part
to mitigate climate change and help conserve biodiversity.

It is shown that European eel is in such serious decline that the IUCN has declared it
critically endangered. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, “Over recent years, a large section of the eel’s habitat has been degraded and lost
due to the land reclamation, the construction of dams and reduction in water quality. In
combination with overfishing, this has led to a drastic decline in the number of eels in
European waters.” This may be attributed to the Alliguna who is a developed country, has
many rivers and dams, and whose economy is based largely on fishing and agriculture.

Alliguna and Revels are signatories to the Hamilton Declaration on Collaboration for
the Conservation of the Sargasso Sea. Both Hamilton Declaration provides “Monitor the
effects, including cumulative effects, of any anthropogenic activities in order to determine
whether such activities are likely to have impacts on the Sargasso Sea ecosystem and to assess
the appropriateness and effectiveness of any measures being adopted for the conservation of
the Sargasso Sea”. The mandate neither expressly nor impliedly prohibits the conduct of the
SEA Corporation in harvesting Sargassum. Such act of harvesting Sargassum is not an act of
anthropogenic activity, thus, it does not violate the mandate of the Hamilton Declaration. In
addition, if the harvesting of Sargassum ceases, will the eels be benefited and will no longer
be endangered? There are no such studies that shows so.

References:

 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III

 Hamilton Declaration
 "Science for Environment Policy": European Commission DG Environment News
Alert Service, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol
 The Republic Of The Philippines v The People’s Republic Of China PCA Case No. 2013-
19
 Federal States of Alliguna v. Republic of Revels