Applicant Amalea Speech

PRELIMINARIES
Mister/Madam President, YE, good morning. My name is Bismarck Ignatius

Manzon, second agent for Applicant, Amalea. May it please the Court.
The first agent, Miss Janeca Naboya, discussed the first submission regarding
the State of Amaleas claim for reparation for economic losses caused by
negligence attributable to the Republic of Ritania, as well as the as the
second submission regarding Amaleas exclusive ownership of the wreck of
the Cargast and all artifacts recovered from it.
I, in turn, will discuss the third submission on the propriety of Applicants
pursuit and arrest of Oscar de Luz, and the fourth issue as to the validity of
the jurisdiction of Amalea in prosecuting de Luz for the criminal offense/s he
had committed in relation to the sinking of the Rosehill.
Unless there are preliminary observations, I shall proceed to the third
submission.
For our:
THIRD SUBMISSION
Applicant contends that:
THE AMALEAN NAVYS PURSUIT OF OSCAR DE LUZ INTO

RITANIAS EEZ, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT ARREST, WERE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.
A.)
Right of Hot Pursuit (Article 111, UNCLOS)
Governing Law/ Convention/ Treaty

Article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the
Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives the party states the Right
of Hot Pursuit
Right of Hot Pursuit Defined
The doctrine of maritime hot pursuit recognizes the right of a
coastal state to pursue onto the high seas a foreign vessel
that violated its laws while within its waters (Craig H. Allen,
Doctrine of Hot Pursuit: A Functional Interpretation
Adaptable to Emerging Maritime Law Enforcement
Technologies and Practices, 1989)
Discussion
I.) That there is a foreign vessel physically or constructively
within waters where hot pursuit may be commenced;
The pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one

of its boats is within:
o A.) The internal waters of the pursuing State,
o B.) The archipelagic waters of the pursuing State,
o C.) The territorial sea of the pursuing State or
o D.) The exclusive economic zone OR on the continental
shelf, (Par. 2)
o E.) The contiguous zone of the pursuing State, and
Contiguous Zone Defined
The contiguous zone may not extend
beyond 24 nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured (Par. 2, Art. 33,
UNCLOS)
In Relation to the Case:
o The Daedalus was within 23 nautical miles of Amaleas
coastline when it was picked up on radar by the Icarus and
the subsequent order to stop was given
Well within the 24 nautical mile limit set by Art. 33 of
the UNCLOS
o
II.)
That the competent authorities of the pursuing
State have good reason to believe that the foreign ship
has violated the laws and regulations of the State;
If the foreign ship is within a contiguous zone the pursuit may
only be undertaken if there has been a violation of the rights
for the protection of which the zone was established
o In the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the
control necessary (Par. 1, Art. 33, UNCLOS):
A.) To prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within
its territory or territorial sea;
B.) punish infringement of the above laws and
regulations committed within its territory or territorial
sea.
In Relation to the Case
o The Daedalus Violated Custom Laws of Amalea
The Daedalus was a stolen Ritanian-flagged yacht
under the control of Oscar de Luz, a Ritanian citizen,
was speeding towards the Island. (Par. 42,
Compromis)
o The Daedalus Violated Immigration Laws of Amalea
Also carrying a crew of 10 with an undetermined
number of others on board (Par. 42, Compromis)
o The Rosehills captain immediately radioed the Amalean

authorities about the incident (Par. 42, Compromis)
Within minutes of the Rosehills distress call, the
Amalean Coastal Protection Service (ACPS) issued an
alert describing the Rosehill collision as apparently
caused by a yacht that had hurriedly left the scene.
(Par 44, Compromis)
The alert noted that the yacht had been seen speeding
away bearing west northwest, creating a danger for
other vessels. (Par 44, Compromis)
III.)
That the pursuing vessel is a vessel authorized to
exercise such pursuit;
The right of hot pursuit may be exercised only by (Par. 5, Art
111, UNCLOS)):
o A.) Warships
o B.) Military aircraft, or
o C.) Other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable
as being on government service and authorized to that
effect
In Relation to the Case
o The pursuing vessel, the Icarus, is an Amalean Navy Fast
Response Cutter (Par. 45, Compromis)
IV.)
That the pursuit was commenced after a visual or
auditory signal to stop was given at a distance which
enables it to be seen or heard by the foreign ship(4, 2nd
Sentence); AND
When the Icarus was within visual range, the captain issued
an order over several different radio frequencies commonly
used by vessels in the Strait of Malachi, ordering the Daedalus
to stop (Par. 45, Compromis)
V.)That the pursuit of the foreign vessel has not been
interrupted, nor has it entered the territorial sea of its
own State or of a third State
The pursuit may only be continued outside the territorial sea
or the contiguous zone if the pursuit has not been interrupted
The right of hot pursuit ceases as soon as the ship pursued
enters the territorial sea of its own State or of a third State
(Par. 3, Art. 111, UNCLOS)
As for our
FOURTH SUBMISSION
Applicant contends that:
AMALEA HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY AND CONVICT LUZ FOR

CRIMINAL ACTIONS RELATED TO THE ROSEHILL INCIDENT,
AND HAS NO OBLIGATION TO RETURN HIM TO RITANIA.
A.)
Jurisdiction is Well Within Amalea
Passive Personality Jurisdiction

Concept
o GR: Penal law are territorial
o EXPN: Refers to the exercise of jurisdiction over a crime
committed outside the territory of the state based only
upon the nationality of the victim
May be exercised by forum courts only when:
I.) There is a domestic law which vests such
jurisdiction; AND
Pertinent Law
1995 Amalean Penal Code
Amaleas Penal Code has specifically
included offenses committed in Amaleas
uncontested EEZ and the Malachi Gap
Offense happened within the Malachi
Gap
Does NOT contravene the doctrine of Pacta
Sunt Servanda
Neither Party shall exercise its rights
hereunder in a manner which unduly
inhibits the exercise of the rights of
the other Party and nothing in this
Treaty shall be interpreted to render
the Malachi Gap or any portion
thereof the sovereign territory of
either Party (Par. C, Art 112, 1992
Malachi Gap Treaty)
II.) When the accused is brought to the forum
court, to enable the court to acuire jurisdiction
over his person
Offense was directed against an Amalean registered vessel
and Amalean nationals
o 89 of the 127 passengers that died from the explosions,
burns, smoke inhalation, or drowning were Amalean
nationals
No Extradition Treaty
Conflicts of Laws
o Application
No treaty/ governing rules = conflict of laws on

jurisdiction applies
o In case of conflict between PIL and municipal law,
municipal law shall prevail
Under the court processes of Amalea, it had properly acquired
jurisdiction over Luz
B.)
Mala Captus, Bene Detentus (Badly Captured,
Well Detained)
Concept
A legal principle that permits the trial of an imroperly seized
defendant
o Commonly used in US legal practice
KER v ILLINOIS, 119 U.S. 436 (1886)
A messenger forcibly kidnapped the
defendant from Peru and brought him back
to the United States, even though he had
been sent to Peru with a valid warrant and
instructions to obtain the defendant with the
cooperation of the local authorities.
Addressing Ker's due process challenge,
the Supreme Court of the United States held
that "such forcible abduction is no sufficient
reason why the party should not answer
when brought within the jurisdiction of the
court which has the right to try him for such
an offence, and presents no valid objection
to his trial in such court."
FRISBIE v COLLINS, 342 U.S. 519 (1952)
A case in which the defendant was tried
in Michigan after being abducted by
Michigan authorities in Chicago. Applying its
decision in Ker, the Supreme Court upheld
the conviction over challenges based on due
process and federal kidnapping laws
UNITED STATES v ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, 504
U.S. 655 (1992).
lvarez Machan was a Mexican citizen who
was abducted and brought to the United
States at the direction of the Drug
Enforcement Administration. The Court
rejected the argument that such abductions
undermine the usefulness of extradition
treaties, and it refused to read general
principles of international law weighing
against such abductions into the Mexican

extradition treaty.
The doctrine was established due to the irregularities as pertaining
to the seizure of the defendants concerned in each case due to the
fact that said seizures were not in accordance to extradition treaties
EXISTING between the states involved
In the case between Amalea and Ritania, NO extradition or
mutual legal assistance treaty exists between the two states,
therefore, there is no irregularity as to the capture of Luz since
there is no standard or agreement to be followed
Estoppel (Recognized Principle of Customary International Law
Luz Voluntary Submitted to the Jurisdiction of Amalea
o Luz raised the case through appeal process of the state
Amalea put Luz on trial and was ultimately
convicted of nearly all of the charges against him
His convictions were affirmed by the Court of
Criminal Appeals in June 2012, and by Amaleas
Supreme Court in January 2013
o By resorting to such judicial remedies, Luz voluntary
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the state
Thereby curing any defect in the manner or
propriety of his capture
If YE have no further questions, I shall now cede the podium to the
respondent.

Applicant Amalea Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applicant Amalea Speech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applicant Amalea Speech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRELIMINARIES

Mister/Madam President, YE, good morning. My name is Bismarck Ignatius

THE AMALEAN NAVYS PURSUIT OF OSCAR DE LUZ INTO

Right of Hot Pursuit (Article 111, UNCLOS)

Governing Law/ Convention/ Treaty

The pursuit must be commenced when the foreign ship or one

o The Rosehills captain immediately radioed the Amalean

AMALEA HAD JURISDICTION TO TRY AND CONVICT LUZ FOR

Jurisdiction is Well Within Amalea

Passive Personality Jurisdiction

No treaty/ governing rules = conflict of laws on

against such abductions into the Mexican

You might also like