Opinion.. Habib Al-Mulla writes about “Iran’s legal responsibility” for polluting the beaches of the Emirates if it is proven that it carried out the attack on an oil tanker

This article is written by Emirati lawyer and writer, Dr. Habib Al Mulla, Managing Partner, Habib Al Mulla & Partners. The opinions expressed below express the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ofoq News Network. A fire broke out in the oil tanker "Gem No.2" after it was hit by a projectile.

The attack caused an oil leak, the effects of which spread to the shores of the Emirate of Umm Al Quwain, which closed its beaches, and all the beaches of the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah were closed as a precaution. The authorities have not yet announced the identity of the tanker or the cause of the leak.

If it is proven that Iran carried out the attack, what is its responsibility and the resulting pollution according to international law? Iran is responsible if it is proven that the attack was carried out by its armed forces or the Revolutionary Guard, as they are state agencies, and their action is attributed to it in accordance with Article 4 of the International Law Commission. The same applies if the attack was carried out by a group based on its instructions or under its control based on reasonable evidence.

War does not make targeting a commercial tanker legitimate. Merchant ships are protected unless they become military targets.

Even if it were, the rules of proportionality and precaution would still apply to avoid expected environmental damage. In all cases, responsibility is based on the illegality of the use of force itself.

If the unlawful attack is proven, the UAE has the right to demand that Iran compensate for the damage that befell its coasts, even if the tanker was foreign. This includes containment, cleanup, environmental rehabilitation costs, and economic losses.

It is not necessary that Iran specifically intended to pollute the beaches, but rather it is sufficient to prove that the claimed damages resulted from its illegal action. It is also necessary to distinguish between two legal systems. Proving that pollution resulted from acts of war may exempt the tanker owner from liability under the 1992 Civil Liability Convention, but it does not absolve the state that committed the unlawful attack from its international responsibility.

The war exception limits the scope of the compensation system, and does not erase the consequences of the act that caused the damage. But the practical obstacle lies in the issue of jurisdiction.

Iran's acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice does not include this type of dispute. Nor is the occurrence of damage or the establishment of liability alone sufficient for the court to have jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the UAE and Iran have not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, so its mechanisms cannot be relied upon to consider the dispute. However, the absence of jurisdiction may restrict litigation, but it does not negate the obligation to compensate.

What the UAE can do now is move to prepare an integrated evidentiary file that includes the fingerprint of the oil, the path of its spread, evidence of the attack and its source, cleanup costs, and environmental and economic losses. Then direct an official claim to Iran if evidence assigns responsibility to it, raise the issue before the Security Council, and seek to include compensation within a funded international mechanism or a settlement that includes implementation guarantees.

The experience of the Compensation Committee after the invasion of Kuwait confirms the importance of combining damage assessment with an actual source to pay for it. The effects of bombing a tanker do not end with the destruction of its hull, as its cost may reach another country’s coasts, its environment, and the livelihoods of its residents.

The difficulty of prosecuting Iran should not be a reason to exempt it from responsibility, or the speed of the UAE’s move to contain pollution should not become a reason for it to bear the bill. What the UAE spends today on protecting its coasts, and the evidence and damage it documents, will determine what can be recovered tomorrow.

Cleaning the sea is an urgent duty, but obligating the official to pay for it is a right that must not be lost as the oil slick recedes.