II International Tribunal For The Law Of The Sea The Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v. Japan; Australia v. Japan): Order For Provisional Measures Of 27 August 1999

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 979-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Churchill
Keyword(s):  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law

Under Part XV of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention which cannot be settled by the consensual means set out in section 1 of that Part, may be referred by any party to the dispute for compulsory settlement under section 2. There are four possible fora for such settlement—the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereafter ITLOS), an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII. If the parties to a dispute have made a declaration under Article 287 (which is optional) specifying their choice of forum, and their choices coincide, that body will be the forum for the settlement of the dispute. If their choices do not coincide or if not all parties have made a declaration, the forum for settlement will be an Annex VII arbitral tribunal.1

The Other Australia/Japan Living Marine Resources Dispute

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-91
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Marine Resources ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
United Nations Convention

In 2000 an arbitral tribunal formed under Annexviito the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea denied its own jurisdiction to hear the case brought against Japan by Australia and New Zealand over Japan’s unilateral experimental fishing programme for southern bluefin tuna. Despite the criticism the tribunal’s reasoning attracted, it was widely supposed that the applicants would have failed on the merits because of the reluctance of international courts and tribunals to delve into scientific matters, as would have been necessary with the dispute’s underlying cause being the parties’ scientific disagreements regarding both the tuna stock itself and the nature and risks of the programme. In 2014, however, the International Court of Justice showed no such reticence in deciding in Australia’s favour the case against Japan’s scientific whaling, based partly on flaws it identified in the design of that experiment. Reviewing the evolution in the tuna experiment’s design, the propositions it was designed to (dis)prove and the use to which Japan proposed to put that proof, this paper suggests that similar factors were at play in both disputes and that a similar outcome of the tuna case, though not inevitable, would have been amply justified.

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).

Regulatory Coherence

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-88
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Legitimate Authority ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Regulatory Standards ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Part II comprises two chapters, Chapter Three and Chapter Four. These chapters together investigate the decisions and advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Annex VII tribunals, as well as other Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) cases. The courts and tribunals studied in these chapters make use of a broad range of interpretive methodologies in identifying emerging global regulatory standards, including reliance on the inbuilt logic of the regulatory schemes they are applying. The standards articulated make relatively minimal demands on domestic legal systems compared with more demanding standards that could have been developed. In this respect the standards appear to enhance traditional procedural justifications for international law’s claim to legitimate authority. Chapter Three focuses on tests for ‘regulatory coherence’.

Maritime Dispute

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 379-386
Author(s):  
Abhimanyu George Jain
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

On January 27, 2014, the International Court of Justice (Court) rendered its judgment in a dispute between Peru and Chile concerning the maritime boundary between them. The Court held that a partial maritime boundary already existed between the parties, and it proceeded to analyze both its nature and its extent on the basis of agreements between the parties, their practice, and other evidence. For the remainder of the boundary extending up to 200 nautical miles, the Court applied the rule of equitable delimitation found in Article 74 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan) Cases

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Kwiatkowska
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Bluefin Tuna ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Southern Bluefin Tuna ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe Southern Bluefin Tuna cases before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea resulted from disagreement between Australia, New Zealand and Japan related to the carrying out by Japan of an experimental fishing programme within the framework of the Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The cases were the first instance of incidental proceedings on provisional measures under Article 290(5) of the LOS Convention and Article 25 of the ITLOS Statute, according to which ITLOS may prescribe provisional measures "if it considers that prima facie the tribunal which is to be constituted would have jurisdiction and that the urgency of the situation so requires". The article considers the parties' arguments for and against the use of provisional measures, considers the provisional measures ordered by ITLOS and the reasons therefor by comparison to the practice of the ICJs, and finally considers the establishment of an Arbitral Tribunal to hear the merits of the substantive case.

The Procedure Before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; The Rules of the Tribunal and Related Documents

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tullio Treves
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

The Rules of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, adopted in October 1997 (together with the Resolution on Internal Judicial Practice and the Guidelines Concerning the Preparation and Presentation of Cases Before the Tribunal) follows the model of the Rules of the International Court of Justice with rather relevant differences. Some of these differences depend on the need of more expeditious and less expensive proceedings: in particular, the provisions introducing time limits and those in the Resolution on Internal Judicial Practice which eliminate in most cases the requirement of Notes by each judge. Others depend on the specific characteristics of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. These include the provisions on intervention, on preliminary objections and proceedings, on provisional measures, on prompt release of vessels and crews, and on activities in the international seabed Area. In this category can also be included the provisions on the participation in proceedings by international organizations and natural and juridical persons.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document