Amalea’s probable arguments:
- Ritania violated the Malachi Gap Treaty both in practice and spirit
- EIGP’s EIA is invalid because it did not address fishing impact
- Ritania did not cooperate with Amalea with respect to Amalea’s right to protect the fishing industry and water environment.
- Amalea is due compensation from Ritania because EIGP’s dredging caused the landslide which resulted in an 85% reduction in dorian wrasse catch volume in 2011.
It is also interesting to consider that Amalea is asserting the population of the Dorian Wrasse is down because the catch is down. Amalea needs to demonstrate that the population is down, first, and, if demonstrated that the population is down, connect it to the landslide and THEN estimate damages via discounting future economic losses into their net present value.
Amalea will also likely claim the no-harm rule of non-state adjacent territory.
Principle of sustainable development
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html#appendix2
APPENDIX II
CONTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION
Information to be included in the environmental impact assessment documentation shall, as a minimum, contain, in accordance with Article 4:
(a) A description of the proposed activity and its purpose;
(b) A description, where appropriate, of reasonable alternatives (for example, locational or technological) to the proposed activity and also the no-action alternative;
(c) A description of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed activity and its alternatives;
(d) A description of the potential environmental impact of the proposed activity and its alternatives and an estimation of its significance;
(e) A description of mitigation measures to keep adverse environmental impact to a minimum;
(f) An explicit indication of predictive methods and underlying assumptions as well as the relevant environmental data used;
(g) An identification of gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered in compiling the required information;
(h) Where appropriate, an outline for monitoring and management programmes and any plans for post-project analysis; and
(i) A non-technical summary including a visual presentation as appropriate (maps, graphs, etc.).
http://www.unece.org/env/eia/about/eia_text.html#article5
Article 5
CONSULTATIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENTATION
The Party of origin shall, after completion of the environmental impact assessment documentation, without undue delay enter into consultations with the affected Party concerning, inter alia, the potential transboundary impact of the proposed activity and measures to reduce or eliminate its impact. Consultations may relate to:
(a) Possible alternatives to the proposed activity, including the no-action alternative and possible measures to mitigate significant adverse transboundary impact and to monitor the effects of such measures at the expense of the Party of origin;
(b) Other forms of possible mutual assistance in reducing any significant adverse transboundary impact of the proposed activity; and
(c) Any other appropriate matters relating to the proposed activity.
The Parties shall agree, at the commencement of such consultations, on a reasonable time-frame for the duration of the consultation period. Any such consultations may be conducted through an appropriate joint body, where one exists.