scholarly journals Dispute Settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: Problems of Fragmentation and Jurisdiction

1997 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan E. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Seabed Mining

The entry into force of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), on 16 November 1994, is probably the most important development in the settlement of international disputes since the adoption of the UN Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Not only does the Convention create a new international court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”), it also makes extensive provision for compulsory dispute-settlement procedures involving States, the International Seabed Authority (“ISBA”), seabed mining contractors and, potentially, a range of other entities. Implementation of the Convention has spawned a number of inter-State disputes to add to the cases already before the International Court. The initiation of the ITLOS not only opens up new possibilities for settling these disputes but it also has implications for the future role of the International Court and ad hoc arbitration in the law of the sea and more generally. It contributes to the proliferation of international tribunals and adds to the potential for fragmentation both of the substantive law and of the procedures available for settling disputes. Judges Oda and Guillaume have argued that the ITLOS is a futile institution, that the UNCLOS negotiators were misguided in depriving the International Court of its central role in ocean disputes and that creation of a specialised tribunal may destroy the unity of international law. The law of the sea, both judges argue, is an essential part of international law and any dispute concerning the application and interpretation of that law should be seen as subject to settlement by the International Court.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and Provisional Measures: Settled Issues and Pending Problems

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fish Stocks ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement System

AbstractThis presentation describes the system of provisional measures by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea under Article 290 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. By pointing towards the binding legal nature of provisional measures and the introduction of a duty to report on compliance efforts, he begins his article stressing the system's efficiency. The author then comments on the various prerequisites while drawing comparisons with the prescription of provisional measures by the International Court of Justice. He finally turns towards the problems of the application of Article 290 by focusing on the requirement of a specific demand by a State party for a provisional measure. While admitting the Tribunal's authorization to issue provisional measures with a view to the marine environment and the increasing influence of the precautionary principle in public international law, he also advises against the temptations to exceed the limits of provisional measures in international law. The interplay with other treaties which refer to the Convention's dispute settlement system (especially the Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) even adds to this danger in the author's eyes. He closes with an appeal for due process, prudence and impartiality.

scholarly journals Theoretical and Practical Significance of the Issue of Maritime Delimitation in the Law of the Sea

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Lakićević-Đuranović
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

This paper aims to show the significance of maritime delimitation in the Law of the Sea, as well as the contribution of international jurisprudence to the creation of the rules of maritime delimitation. The decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the awards of arbitration tribunals are especially significant in the part of the Law of the Sea dealing with maritime delimitation. Based on the analysis of the principle of equity and the method of equidistance, the jurisprudence of the courts is shown to have established precedents and to have an irreplaceable role in the development of the international Law of the Sea, particularly in the segment of maritime delimitations.

Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Timor Leste ◽  
The Pacific Ocean ◽  
The Caribbean ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the latest in a series of annual surveys in this Journal reviewing dispute settlement in the law of the sea, both under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and outside the framework of the Convention. It covers developments during 2018. The most significant developments during the year were the judgment of the International Court of Justice in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, delimiting the maritime boundaries between the two States’ overlapping maritime zones in both the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean; the report of the Conciliation Commission concerning maritime boundary arrangements between Timor-Leste and Australia; and the findings of a dispute settlement body of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization.

Dispute Settlement Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2007

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law

AbstractThis is the fourth of a projected series of annual surveys reviewing dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2007 was the busiest year for dispute settlement in the law of the sea for some time. The main developments under Part XV of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea were the award of the arbitral tribunal in the Guyana/Suriname Case and two prompt-release-of-vessel judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Outside the framework of the Convention, the International Court of Justice gave judgments in two maritime boundary cases—one on the merits (Nicaragua v. Honduras) and the other on jurisdiction (Nicaragua v. Colombia).

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary “by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.” The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

scholarly journals Dispute Settlement in the Law of the Sea: Survey for 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Abstract 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. The main developments during 2012 were the delivery of judgments by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case and by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua/Colombia case, both concerned with maritime boundary delimitation; and the institution of Annex VII arbitration by Argentina against Ghana relating to the arrest of a State-owned vessel and the subsequent order of provisional measures by the ITLOS. These and other developments are reviewed in detail below.

Sir Hersch Lauterpacht’s Concept of the Task of the International Judge

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Deep Understanding ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Highly Qualified ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Law

When the late Sir Hersch Lauterpacht became a member of the International Court of Justice in February, 1955 (a position he was to fill effectively for barely five years, until the fall of 1959), he went to The Hague with some thirty years of devoted study and practice of international law behind him. As teacher and student of international law, as a most highly qualified publicist (in the words of Article 38(1) (d) of the Statute of the Court) of recognized universal authority, he had devoted himself both to the law in general and in particular to the problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, whether by the Permanent Court of International Justice and its present-day successor, the International Court of Justice, or by ad hoc arbitration tribunals. Indeed, his writings as a whole display a rare preoccupation with the entire philosophy and the practical problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, together with a deep understanding of its limitations and a satisfying freedom both from putting forward extravagant claims in its behalf and from purely theoretical speculations.

3 Contentious Cases before ITLOS and the Seabed Disputes Chamber

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
State Enterprises

This chapter examines what constitutes a dispute under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) concurs with the International Court of Justice that a dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests, or the positive opposition of the claim of one party by the other, which need not necessarily be stated expressis verbis, and that, in the determination of the existence of a dispute, the position or the attitude of a party can be established by inference, whatever the professed view of that party. When there is a dispute between the parties at the time of the institution of proceedings, the dispute must be one over which ITLOS has jurisdiction. To determine whether a dispute between the disputing parties in a particular case concerns the interpretation or application of UNCLOS, ITLOS must establish a link between the facts advanced by the applicant and the provisions of UNCLOS referred to by it and show that such provisions can sustain the claims submitted by the applicant. In contentious cases, the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall be open to States Parties to UNCLOS, the International Seabed Authority, the Enterprise, State enterprises, and State-sponsored natural legal persons carrying out activities in the Area.

4 Advisory Opinions by ITLOS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Seabed Authority ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter focuses on advisory opinions by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Like the International Court of Justice, ITLOS may render and has rendered advisory opinions on legal questions within its areas of competence. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) expressly provides for the advisory jurisdiction of the Seabed Disputes Chamber of ITLOS, but not the full bench of ITLOS itself. According to Article 191 of UNCLOS, the Seabed Disputes Chamber shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council of the International Seabed Authority on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities, and such opinions shall be given as a matter of urgency. The full bench of ITLOS has held that the substantive legal basis of the full-bench ITLOS’ advisory jurisdiction is Article 21 of its Statute stipulating that ITLOS’ jurisdiction comprises all disputes and all applications submitted to it in accordance with UNCLOS and all matters specifically provided for in any other agreement which confers jurisdiction on ITLOS. The ITLOS Rules elaborate the procedure in this respect.

The International Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea-Some Reflections

1996 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Law ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract"On the whole, the World Court has a distinguished record of achievement-even if that record is not as extensive or exemplary as one might wish. It is one of the principal tasks of the student and practitioner of international law, and, for that matter, of people the world over who are concerned with promoting a more peaceful and less lawless world, to give their critical but constructive support to the strengthening of the institutions of international adjudication, and especially the only universal such institution, the International Court of Justice." S.M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law-Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (1994)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document