The Malvinas Islands Ex-Combatants Center of La Plata (CECIM) and the Civil Association of Lawyers and Environmental Professionals (AAdeAA) have filed a PREVENTIVE ACTION FOR COLLECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE against Rockhopper Exploration and Navitas Petroleum Development and Production Limited , who, operating with illegitimate concessions acquired from the British colonial government that usurps the Malvinas Islands from Argentina, are preparing to exploit the nation's hydrocarbon resources in the seabed of the sovereign continental shelf.

Data:

File FCR 13706/2026

FEDERAL COURT OF RIO GRANDE, TIERRA DEL FUEGO, ANTARCTICA AND SOUTH ATLANTIC ISLANDS

COVER PAGE: “CENTER OF EX-COMBATANTS OF THE MALVINAS ISLANDS LA PLATA (CECIM) AND ANOTHER VS. ROCKHOPPER EXPLORATION AND ANOTHER ON CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL – VARIOUS

The core concept of the presentation is “sovereign environmental protection”

Two collective and indivisible legal rights— the environment and sovereignty —are encompassed within the same area. The damage has a single cause—hydrocarbon exploitation carried out without the intervention of Argentine authorities—and a dual impact: on the ecosystem and on Argentina's sovereign capacity to decide, control, prevent, and oversee what happens within its territory .

In this presentation, sovereignty ceases to be a mere slogan and acquires a concrete legal function. It is the premise that allows us to argue that these companies are not carrying out a foreign activity in another country's territory, but rather an unauthorized activity in Argentine territory, subject to Argentine public policy regulations.

Specifically, we have asked the Judge to apply Argentine law to two private legal entities (first transitional provision of the National Constitution). To do so, the lawsuit argues that it is sufficient to verify that the area in question is part of the Argentine continental shelf, that the law requires prior evaluation and authorization, and that these Argentine authorizations do not exist.

RESOLUTION 31/49 OF 1976

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/49 urges Argentina and the United Kingdom to refrain from unilaterally altering the situation while the sovereignty dispute remains unresolved. The complaint argues that installing permanent oil infrastructure and massively exploiting natural resources for decades constitutes precisely a unilateral alteration of that situation.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENT

Furthermore, there is a specific environmental risk that triggers the duty of prevention.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies did not initiate the Environmental Impact Assessment process in Argentina and, therefore, do not possess an Argentine Environmental Suitability Certificate. This is crucial because the action contained in the lawsuit is preventative: there is no need to wait for a spill to occur before taking action.

The document focuses on prevention and precaution. The logic is simple: when the damage could be serious and irreversible, the law must intervene before the damage occurs, not after.

NUMBERS WORTH REMEMBERING

“León Marino” is equivalent to “Vaca Muerta 2.0.” It’s oil for Argentinians, by Argentinians.” The project, according to the documentation included in the presentation, envisions 23 wells: 16 oil production wells, 6 water injection wells, and one gas injection well. The system would be structured around a floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) unit with an approximate capacity to process 120,000 barrels of oil and 140 million cubic feet of gas per day.

The lawsuit estimates approximately 9 million tons of CO₂ emissions during development and over 100 million tons from burning the extracted oil. It also identifies risks to marine mammals and birds, the ocean floor, the introduction of invasive species, and oil spills.

Furthermore, it raises a particularly powerful geographical element: the Malvinas Current flows predominantly north, so a significant spill could project contaminants far beyond the immediate area of the project, towards other productive and environmentally sensitive sectors of the Argentine Sea.

WHAT WAS ASKED OF THE FEDERAL JUDGE OF RIO GRANDE, DR. MARIEL BORRUTO

As a precautionary measure, without prior notice, a non-innovation measure was requested to stop the start or continuation of the works: drilling, seabed movements, oil pipelines, anchoring infrastructure and other work related to "Sea Lion" and the adjacent wells.

But the injunction has a second, very interesting dimension: tracing the money. It seeks to prevent new financing agreements, disbursements, payments, transfers, contributions, guarantees, or other actions intended to ensure the project's continuation. It also requests that any eventual court decision be communicated to agencies and markets such as the Financial Conduct Authority, the London Stock Exchange, the Israel Securities Authority, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, and the New York Stock Exchange , and that companies be required to identify who is financing, insuring, or financially involved in the project.

An effective environmental and sovereign safeguard cannot focus solely on the drilling rig. It must also consider the financial flow that keeps it operating.

WHY RIO GRANDE?

Jurisdiction, in accordance with sovereignty, is built on several layers. There is federal environmental law due to the potential interjurisdictional impact; federal maritime jurisdiction; a clear constitutional and international dimension linked to the Malvina Islands; and, territorially, the claim is based on Laws 23,775, 26,552, and 24,400, which integrate the Malvina Islands and their maritime spaces into Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and the South Atlantic Islands, and establish the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Río Grande.

Going to Río Grande is exercising Argentine jurisdiction. It is sovereignty.