IF Asked About Equity
Madam President, Your Excellencies,
The claimant’s argument that the principle of equity grants Ambrosia a right to
extend its EEZ to include the Triton Shoal lacks both legal and factual support.
Equity, as applied in international law, seeks to balance competing interests within
the framework of established legal rules, not to override them. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides a clear and consistent legal
framework for delimiting maritime zones, and equity cannot be invoked to
contravene these provisions.
In addition, Rovinia submits that equity does not favor Ambrosia in this
matter. The Triton Shoal lies on the high seas, an area designated for shared access
and use by all States under Article 87 of UNCLOS. Rovinia, whose economy
depends significantly on fishing, derives 40% of its GDP from the sustainable
harvesting of marine resources, including the yellowfin tuna stocks found near the
Shoal. Allowing Ambrosia to unilaterally claim exclusive rights to this area would
disproportionately harm Rovinia and the livelihoods of millions of its citizens.
furthermore, it is worth noting that the meaning of the word equity does not
mandate equal outcomes but rather fairness in the application of legal principles.
Ambrosia’s reliance on a fixed-baseline approach to assert jurisdiction over the
Triton Shoal is not only inconsistent with UNCLOS but also unfair to Rovinia, If
the Court were to accept Ambrosia’s argument, it would set a dangerous precedent
that supports unilateral legislative measures to claim maritime areas under the
principle of equity, Removing the predictability and stability of international
maritime law.
