Ghana v. Ivory Coast

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuwan Peiris
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Ivory Coast ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

The charm of maritime delimitation and its enigmatic lessons hardly surprise us, yet the reasoning behind them sometimes seems seductively elusive. On September 23, 2017, a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued its decision in Ghana v. Ivory Coast. The glamour of maritime delimitation is reason enough to note the judgment, but the case also addresses the equidistance principle for maritime delimitation, the standard for the acceptance of a tacit agreement, and international responsibility under Article 83 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The “ARA Libertad”

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 404-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Kraska
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Irreparable Harm ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
Sailing Ship

On December 15, 2012, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Tribunal or ITLOS) ordered Ghana to resupply and, upon payment of security, to refuel and release the Argentine naval frigate ARA Libertad, which was being held by authorities in the Ghanaian port of Tema. The Tribunal ordered release of the vessel in response to Argentina’s request for provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention or UNCLOS). The Tribunal accepted Argentina’s prima facie showing that the Libertad, a tall, three-masted sailing ship commissioned in the Argentine Navy being used as a training vessel for officer cadets, qualifies as a “warship” under Article 29 of UNCLOS, and was therefore entitled to immunity and release to avoid irreparable harm to Argentina pending the final outcome of the case (paras. 93–95).

Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels (Ukraine v. Russian Federation): Provisional Measures Order (ITLOS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 1147-1166
Author(s):  
Yurika Ishii
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Institutional Authority ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On May 25, 2019, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) issued a provisional measures order to the Russian Federation to release two Ukrainian warships, a naval auxiliary ship, and their servicemen. This case adds to the jurisprudence concerning the Tribunal's institutional authority to issue a provisional measures order under Article 290(5) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine versus Russia and Mixed Disputes concerning Military Activities

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-294
Author(s):  
Xinxiang Shi ◽  
Yen-Chiang Chang
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Military

Abstract This article discusses mixed disputes concerning military activities in light of the Order of Provisional Measures in Ukraine v Russia. It is argued that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) decision that Russia’s use of force against the Ukrainian warships was not military in nature would diminish the military activities exception under Article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The distinct status of warships means that use of force against them can hardly be taken as merely pertaining to law enforcement activities. Thus, the dispute should be more properly characterized as a mixed dispute, containing both a military element and a law enforcement element. In light of the jurisprudence of UNCLOS tribunals concerning mixed disputes, if the Annex VII Tribunal to be constituted intends to assume jurisdiction over the dispute, it would need to either isolate the law enforcement element from the military element, or define and apply the preponderance test applicable to mixed disputes concerning military activities.

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and its Disturbing Propensity to Legislate

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

AbstractCreated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to apply the rules in Article 76 on the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from States’ territorial sea baselines, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has on several occasions introduced new requirements for States not supported by Article 76, or impermissibly qualifying the rights Article 76 accords them. This article focuses on several such instances, one to the coastal State’s advantage (though temporally rather than spatially), another neutral (though requiring unnecessary work of States), but the remainder all tending to reduce the area of continental shelves. The net effect has been to deprive States of areas of legal continental shelf to which a reasonable interpretation of Article 76 entitles them, and in one case even of their right to have their submissions examined on their merits, even though, paradoxically, the well-meaning intention behind at least some of the Commission’s pronouncements was to avoid other controversies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document