The Jurisdictional Debate in the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-137
Author(s):  
Miguel García García-Revillo
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law

The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Comments on the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASSIMO LANDO
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Authentic Texts ◽  
State Consent ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Unclos

AbstractIn the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) was called upon to clarify the existence of its advisory jurisdiction as a full Tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). ITLOS unanimously upheld its advisory jurisdiction, yet its reasoning is not convincing. ITLOS’s interpretation of Article 21 of its Statute appears unpersuasive. The article discusses the interpretation of Article 21 ITLOS Statute pursuant to the rules on interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Arts. 31–33). First, the article addresses the article's textual reading, and criticizes the Tribunal's interpretation of the term ‘matters’. Second, the article considers the interpretation of Article 21 according to the subsequent practice of the parties, argued by some states but not addressed by ITLOS. Third, the travaux préparatoires of the UNCLOS are examined, with a view to understanding whether the drafters intended the Tribunal to have advisory jurisdiction. Fourth, the six authentic texts of UNCLOS are compared in order to highlight potential differences that may help understand the exact meaning of the provision. Fifth, the article discusses the relationship between advisory jurisdiction and state consent. The conclusion is that the basis for ITLOS's advisory jurisdiction under UNCLOS seems weak. Some general considerations conclude the article, together with a possible solution that takes stock of ITLOS's decision.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2015—Part i

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Protected Area ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Marine Protected Area ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
The Law

This is the latest in a series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under the un Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention, and covering developments in 2015. During the year the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea gave an advisory opinion concerning fisheries questions in the exclusive economic zone and made two orders of provisional measures. Annex vii arbitral tribunals delivered awards on the merits in the Chagos Marine Protected Area and Arctic Sunrise cases, and the tribunal in the Philippines v. China case gave an award on jurisdiction and admissibility. There were also a number of less significant developments during the year.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment: Taking Stock and Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 353-385
Author(s):  
SANDRINE W. DE HERDT ◽  
TAFSIR MALICK NDIAYE
Keyword(s):  
Potential Role ◽  
Biological Diversity ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
The Law ◽  
Deep Seabed Mining

AbstractThis article takes stock of the contribution of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to the development of international environmental law. It examines in this regard the jurisdiction of the tribunal and provides an overview of its environmental jurisprudence. It then assesses the potential role of ITLOS in relation to some marine environmental challenges ahead. In particular, it considers the possibility of a request for an advisory opinion on climate change, the settlement of disputes regarding deep seabed mining, and the potential role of the tribunal under a new legal instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Reflections on the Advisory Jurisdiction of itlos as a Full Court: The itlos Advisory Opinion of 2015

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshifumi Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
The Law

In its advisory opinion of 2 April 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (itlos) broke new ground in the itlos jurisprudence, by stating that the full Tribunal has an advisory jurisdiction. However, the legal basis of the advisory jurisdiction of itlos as a full court is not free from controversy. An issue also arises with regard to the admissibility of the request for an advisory opinion. Given that the itlos jurisprudence concerning advisory proceedings is still in its early stages, the advisory jurisdiction of itlos as a full court deserves serious consideration. Thus, this contribution will seek to examine the legal basis of the advisory jurisdiction of itlos as a full court and the admissibility of the request for an advisory opinion by focusing on the 2015 itlos advisory opinion.

‘Creeping’ Advisory Jurisdiction of International Courts and Tribunals? The case of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
TOM RUYS ◽  
ANEMOON SOETE
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unregulated Fishing

AbstractOn 2 April 2015, the full International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered its first advisory opinion in reply to a request of the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission regarding illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Unlike any other court or tribunal with advisory competence, including the Seabed Disputes Chamber, ITLOS’ advisory jurisdiction is not explicitly enshrined in its constituent instrument, but was rather asserted in the Tribunal’s, homemade, rules of procedure. In spite of strong objections from various states, ITLOS affirmed a broad advisory jurisdiction ratione materiae and personae, and found that there were no compelling reasons to exercise its discretionary power to dismiss the request. The request and the Tribunal's handling thereof raise interesting questions regarding the opportunities and risks inherent to, and the outer limits of, the advisory jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. This contribution takes a look at the advisory jurisdiction of the full Tribunal, having regard to the experiences of other international courts and tribunals.

Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) (ITLOS)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 890-926 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Gavouneli
Keyword(s):  
Fisheries Management ◽  
West African ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Iuu Fishing ◽  
The Law

On April 2, 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) rendered its first ever advisory opinion by the full Tribunal in response to a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), a regional fisheries organization comprised of seven West-African States. The Tribunal was asked to address four substantive questions relating to the obligations of the flag and coastal states regarding fisheries management and the ensuing responsibility of both states and competent organizations for illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. In doing so, it also had occasion to clarify whether ITLOS indeed has plenary advisory jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document