Savali Pipeline Case Study

1730 Words 7 Pages
Atania and Rahad have always shared arid lands susceptible to prolonged droughts, their people depending on the Greater Inata Aquifer (“Aquifer”) for survival. Despite this, in 2006, Rahad launched the Savali Pipeline (“SP”) project that is neither (A) equitable and reasonable, nor (B) sustainable. Moreover, (C) it caused significant harm to Atania.
A. RAHAD’S WATER EXTRACTION IS INEQUITABLE AND UNREASONABLE
Rahad’s project breaches Rahad’s customary obligation to utilize the Aquifer equitably and reasonably, since it is (1) disproportionate, and (2) unnecessary. (3) Moreover, no humanitarian emergency exists to justify over-extraction.
1. Rahad’s SP is disproportionate
Rahad’s Aquifer use is inequitable, as it is unbalanced under all relevant
…show more content…
C. RAHAD’S AQUIFER USE CAUSED SIGNIFICANT HARM IN ATANIA’S TERRITORY
Rahad violated its customary obligation not to cause significant harm by its Aquifer use, as (1) the SP caused (2) significant harm in Atania, and (3) was launched in violation of Rahad’s procedural obligations.
1. The causal link between the SP and drying of Atanian lands
None other than Rahad’s project caused harm in Atania according to international experts, who reported the region’s water table degradation, which, in turn, caused the degradation of lands. Contrary to the Certain Activities case, where Costa Rica adduced no evidence of sediment disposal on the right bank of the Colorado River, Atania provided compelling expert findings on harm, thereby discharging the clear and convincing evidence standard applicable in case of environmental harm.
Moreover, the 1970-2000 temperature increase could not be the main cause of the degradation. According to scientific findings, a 1.6 degree increase can cause only 10% of agricultural losses, while our case involves damage to 20% of farmlands with a risk of losing another 30% in 10 years.
Thus, the SP is the sole reason of harm in Atania.
2. Significance of

Related Documents