scholarly journals International Judicial Performance and the Law of the Sea

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 399-403
Author(s):  
Theresa Squatrito
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Performance Criteria ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Unclos ◽  
Judicial Performance

In “Judicialization of the Sea: Bargaining under the UNCLOS Regime,” Sara McLaughlin Mitchell and Andrew P. Owsiak examine the extent to which legalization and judicialization of the law of the sea has changed how states manage conflicts. They argue that legalization and judicialization have diminished maritime conflict because disputing parties are able to predict how a court would rule and, therefore, they will be more likely to bargain out-of-court to achieve more favorable outcomes. Their analysis suggests that how adjudicators perform as dispute resolution bodies is basically irrelevant. Drawing on the literature on the performance of international courts, this essay identifies numerous ways that the contribution of international courts to the resolution of disputes is contingent on key performance criteria, including legal clarification and compliance. When international courts perform at their best, judicialization enhances the impact of legalization. If performance is a contingent feature of international adjudication, then the generalizability of Mitchell and Owsiak's argument might be limited by the extent to which adjudicators achieve certain key performance criteria.

scholarly journals Explaining State Adjudication Choices: Limits on Focusing on Visible Processes

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 384-388
Author(s):  
Áslaug Ásgeirsdóttir
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
International Courts ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Law

In “Judicialization of the Sea: Bargaining in the Shadow of UNCLOS,” Sara Mitchell and Andrew Owsiak make an important contribution to the literature that considers if and how international courts influence the behavior of states beyond the process of adjudication. Their analysis shows that states that declare an Article 287 choice for dispute resolution when signing the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) are more likely to solve their conflicts in peaceful ways, compared to signatories who do not, suggesting this relationship is not epiphenomenal. Their finding provides us with yet another piece of the puzzle in understanding how legalization and judicialization shape the behavior of states. We still, however, have much to learn about how states interact with legalization and adjudication. This essay argues that while the article's statistical analysis adds to the evidence that judicialization influences state behavior, the uniqueness of UNCLOS makes it doubtful that we can replicate this finding for other international courts and tribunals. In addition, while the statistical analysis suggests that states that make Article 287 declarations behave differently in the face of maritime conflict, we do not really know why states made the choice to declare a preference for adjudication. Finally, given that states strongly prefer negotiations to using UNCLOS formal adjudication mechanisms, we need to understand better the path to adjudication or arbitration.

scholarly journals Causal Inference, International Law, And Maritime Disputes

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 389-393
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Appel
Keyword(s):  
Causal Inference ◽  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Maritime Disputes ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Sara Mitchell and Andrew Owsiak's examination of the impact of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and Article 287 declarations on the peaceful resolution of maritime disputes significantly advances the literature on the relationship between international law/international courts and maritime issues. To their credit, the authors employ a wide range of empirical tests in the article to provide readers with confidence in the empirical results. Nonetheless, there are some important limitations in their approach. Drawing on insights from the causal inference literature, I argue that Mitchell and Owsiak's empirical analyses suffer from two biases that both (1) raise concerns about the causal relationships identified in the article, and (2) suggest some important scope conditions in its empirical findings. I investigate the biases and propose suggestions for legal scholarship to produce more credible results.

scholarly journals TINJAUAN YURIDIS PENENGGELAMAN KAPAL ASING MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 45 TAHUN 2009 TENTANG PERIKANAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Septin Puspoayu ◽  
Bunga Nurani ◽  
Esti Wulan Trityas ◽  
Maulida Indah Sari ◽  
Mayang Chandra Gita Siti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Marine Resources ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Illegal Fishing ◽  
Fishing Vessels ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Amendment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 with Law No. 17 the Year 1985 makes Indonesia have the right to utilize, conservation, and manage fish resources in Indonesia's exclusive economic zone and the high seas. Such rights are exercised under applicable international terms or standards. Therefore, legislation was made related to the sinking of illegal fishing vessels in Indonesian territorial waters through Law No. 45 of 2009 on Fisheries. Indonesia's high wealth of marine resources does not run following all layers' expectations after illegal fishing. However, the juridical consequences of applying the law have several impacts, namely the impact of sinking foreign vessels on relations with foreign countries and negative-positive effects in the marine environment due to the sinking of foreign vessels illegal fishing actors.

‘Due Regard’ Obligations under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: The Laying of Cables and Activities in the Area

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Cable Laying ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Way

Abstract This article examines in detail the obligations of ‘due regard’ found in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). It considers the way these are reflected in the International Seabed Authority (ISA) current Prospecting and Exploration Regulations, and then looks at the way that ‘due regard’ obligations have been considered by international courts and tribunals and by scholars. It then considers the specific ‘due regard’ issues raised by cable laying, and the modalities for settlement of disputes that may arise from such activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document